Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Princesses must be perky in every way, or, why “Babe” is just a pig in a cartoon

Barbies by jzlomek - morgueFile http://www.morguefile.com/archive/display/797509
Just a few more princesses to throw on the pile of
interchangeable, disposable women
(Photo by jzlomek, morgueFile)



I know I might be coming into this ho-down a little late, but, hey, I have a life outside of being an outrage feminist.  But this is something that just needs to be said, especially because of a column by Peggy Drexler on CNN.   Drexler defended the recent Disney make-over of the princess from Brave.

First confession – I’ve never seen Brave. My son wasn’t interested, and see the first line – I just don’t always have the time I want or need.  But I do plan on seeing it because it is interesting to me that they have a princess that actually is a strong female character for a change. 

Second confession – when I first read Drexler’s piece, I almost agreed with her. I thought, “yeah, why can’t strong women be sexy, too?” 

And then it hit me – because we’re not saying that she’s sexy *because* she’s strong.  We’re saying that she must be both strong and sexy, and to be missing one or the other will somehow make her less. 

Because when the co-director and writer of the film steps up and says that the changehas made her a “blatantly sexist marketing move based on money,” maybe we should stop and listen.  This is the woman who created the character, and she feels that something has gone wrong here. 

So while it’s great that people like Drexler can state that “babes can be worthwhile role models, too, and no less so than women whose looks are most rough and tumble,” she’s missing the point that what Disney has said is that those “rough and tumble” women have to be babes.  That they won’t sell if they’re rough and tumble.  That they’re not good enough to be released into the world at large. 

Drexler may argue that we need to accept the labels placed on us – that pink is okay, that pretty is good – but that’s only true sometimes.  And Disney makes it every time when they come out with their heroines.  They don’t show that pink and powerful is okay – they strip out the powerful and make it pink because that’s what they think sells.  And, sadly enough, it does.

I’d like to see Disney come out with a real heroine in one of their cartoons and then not change her when it comes to sales.  Let’s see how America really reacts.  Because I have to say, in getting ready to research this piece, I went looking for a number I had heard long ago about how the daughter in Disney’s Invincible was underweight (according to the drawing they had done of her).  Instead, I came across a blog of awoman with an eating disorder…

Maybe if we were more accepting of these “non-babes” that Drexler wants us to embrace we wouldn’t see this going on so often.  Maybe that photo from 2011 in the line-up wouldn’t exist.  Maybe we need to wake the fuck up and realize that telling people that they must be everything means that, in the end, they are nothing by their own standards, and that maybe, just maybe, we’re part of the cause.

Friday, April 26, 2013

The Rape of the Unconscious

Image "Sleeping Girl" taken from morgueFile by Xenia
I wanted to write about the rape of unconscious (or semi-conscious) women.  Because I just don’t get it.

The most recent news story on it hits close to home – UH (University of Houston), nice and local-ish, like near where I live.  And in this news story (which, by the way, has the awesomeness of the title “UH student raped by friend” cause, you know, that’s what friends are for…), this guy basically strips a completely drunk girl, has sex with her, and then videos her naked body.  The girl’s roommate comes across the scene and makes the guy stop and leave.

Things are admitted to, and when the guys talks to the police, he says that, “she mumbled something and appeared to grin. He then said he had sex with her, but agreed that it was a one-way encounter because she never responded or reciprocated.”

And that, my friends, is why I’m confused and don’t get it.  Why the fuck do you want to have sex with someone who doesn’t know you’re having sex with them?  Seriously, how do you brag about that?  “Damn, dude, she didn’t even know I was in her!”  Doesn’t sound too impressive to me!  Why not just have consensual sex at that point?  Cause, guess what, she probably won’t notice you then either if you can only get it up for the nearly dead!

Which, I suppose, is even worse because the rape of the unconscious always reminds me (ickily) of necrophilia.  What’s the old saying – hole and a heartbeat, heartbeat optional?  Because in cases like these, that’s pretty much what it is.  There’s no response.  All you have is something warm that you can manipulate.  For that, buying a fucking sex doll. 

Now, I’m not an idiot.  I do understand the large “appeal” for the rapist is the power, and I can understand that there is power of a form in doing something when no one can stop you or say no.  When you know something about a person that they don’t know – you know what you did to them.  You have memories of their body that they do.  And that, for the rapist, is probably what makes it so great.  Probably why they take videos to help them remember what they’ve done.

And that is also why this is so much like necrophilia and so completely unfathomable by a healthy, normal human being.  I don’t want to make judgment calls about what rape is worse and if rape can be worse or better (really, what kind of sliding scale to hell in a hand basket is that??), but I just think that this is such a truly disturbing trend that we all need to sit back and think about what we can do to start teaching the guys who do this that they need severe psychological counseling…and some time in jail.

Tuesday, March 26, 2013

What the fuck, Ford Motors?



Image by inatashko @ morgueFile.comApparently Ford Motors was really into their good old motto (Found On Road Dead) a bit too much lately, as shown in their latest ad campaign in India.  Their ad for the Figo, not available in the US, was released into the wild tubes of the Internet and is, well, wildly inappropriate.

The image that is meant to help sell the car is about its ability to hold women captive while transporting them for what we assume would be rape and murder.  Seriously.  The ad pictures a man in the front seat who looks like he’s wearing some spooky knock-off of a Nixon mask if you look quickly and three women in the trunk.  Yes, the trunk.  Not the back seat.  And why the trunk and not the back seat?

Because the women in the ad are all bound and gagged and looking quite unhappy about it.  One looks like she’s in a schoolgirl outfit, another is in a fake police women outfit (like Officer Love from the Halloween shop), and the other is just in a low-cut dress. 

Now let’s make it worse.  The tag line was “Leave your worries behind with the Figo’s extra-large boot.”  (For those not in the know, the “boot” is the trunk in British/UK English). 

Admittedly, they never ran the ad.  But that it was even a consideration should be enough.  Yes, they apologized.  But they still thought of it.  They still released it to the web. 

I won’t break their copyright and include the ad, but you can go and see it at Auto Guide:

And you can see their “apology” over at the Wall Street Journal:

So, really, what the fuck, Ford?  Did you just have the biggest brain fart in the world?  Or do you need to get tied up and gagged in the back of one of your own cars?