In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Now with pro-pixel fauxtanical hydro-jargon microbead extract

Do you ever feel like your skin has that unpleasant skin texture? Are you worried that your waist isn’t narrower than your head? Do you look at photos of yourself and think, “Oh, no, I look like myself!”? Have no fear–you stop looking like a human being and start looking like the walking incarnation of an unrealistic, unattainable beauty standard with Fotoshop by Adobe.

“This commercial isn’t real,” says faux-ad creator Jesse Rosten, “and neither are society’s standards of beauty.” (For the record, the whole “eat healthy and exercise” thing ain’t a slam-dunk either, Rosten. But your overall point is sound.)

[Transcript after the jump.]

Objectification, Your Honor

This is a guest post by Jessica Mack
Last week, there was a new and interesting twist to the Leveson Inquiry – the ongoing public trial of the British Press following last year’s phone hacking scandal. A handful of women’s rights and rape prevention groups in the UK are insisting that the media’s portrayal of women – namely its accomplice in sexism, objectification, rape culture, and misogyny – be investigated as part of its general scumminess.

Photoshop-by-numbers

Though we generally notice the more egregious offenses, when a magazine cover barely resembles the celebrity it’s supposed to portray, we’re so jaded that we let it fly, much as we accept that a Picasso is going to kind of look just about person-esque.

Now scientists at Dartmouth can identify precisely how cubist a cover photo has become on a scale of 1 to 5.

The manliest manly-man soda known to man

Have you ever hit “pause” on your romantic comedy, set your Diet Dr. Pepper down on the coffee table (cautiously, so as not to smudge your nail polish), and said to your vacuous, tittering girlfriends, “This diet drink isn’t doing it for me. I think I need a Dr. Pepper TEN”? And then a guy on a four-wheeler busts through the wall and slaps the Dr. Pepper TEN can out of your hand, because that drink is for men? Probably not, because the very can containing a Dr. Pepper TEN is so overtly manly that your hand would tremble too much to pick it up. It’s a man’s drink. For men. Who are manly. And not women.

And what does this magical elixir of manliness have in it? Battery acid, certainly. Bear sweat. Live scorpions. Just a hint of teargas.

Alternately: Ten calories.


Hey, that’s ten manly calories. (Transcript below the jump.)

So yeah, the ad is over-the-top macho and misogynistic, such that analysis will have to follow in a future post because a) the ad is so very self-aware, and b) I wouldn’t freaking know where to start. But here’s one place: This is your manly super-dude beverage, Dr. Pepper TEN, now with ten calories. As opposed to your girly-girl Diet Dr. Pepper, which has no calories. Same formula, same “23 flavors.” Just… ten calories. Instead of no calories. And a gunmetal-gray can. So the difference between romantic-comedy wussy girl drinks and mountain-man alligator-wrassler drinks is… ten calories.

Which I guess explains all the chest hair I’ve been growing. Thanks a ton, regular, 150-calorie Dr. Pepper.

Also: The competitors in the Dr. Pepper Tuition Throw at today’s SEC championship game? Two women. What’s next, the 2011 Aflac Pedicure-off? Good lord.

Read More…Read More…

Fat acceptance, circa 1957

Hell yeah, she can look just as pretty as her less generously proportioned friends.

1957 ad for Chubbette clothing with the headline, "Your chubby lass can be the belle of her class"
Chubbette - clothes for the chunky lass in your life

She can also be as happy as a hit with a rollicking beat, and she can have a tummy and still look yummy. And those dresses are really cute. But, um, Chubbette? What, was “Fatshionista” already taken?

And yes, they are “fashions to make girls 6 to 16 look slimmer,” rather than “fashions to make girls feel cute,” but it could be worse. She could be Tracy Harper, bless her flower-clutching heart.

Meet American Apparel’s New Plus-Sized Models

UPDATE: Duh, read Nancy’s blog. She’s mocking American Apparel and the whole contest. So now I can 100% say: Nice work! I am behind it, ranch dressing cumshots and all.
___________________________________________
Nancy Upton crouching in a blue checkered bra with a cherry pie between her legs.

American Apparel is having a plus-sized model contest. The current front-runner is named Nancy, she is a size 12, and she is pretty hot. Good on American Apparel, sort of, for not just using skinny hipsters to model their clothes — fat girls are hipsters too! But it’s American Apparel, so of course a lot of the big-girl photos have that same Terry Richardson / borderline-kiddie-porn-in-grandparents’-basement aesthetic that I waver between hating because it’s gross and hating because it’s so played out. (It’s worth noting, of course, that these photos are self-submitted and not actually taken by American Apparel).

But here’s the thing with Nancy’s photos: They aren’t that same “Oops you caught me being sexy in a lace ankle-length body suit all by myself! I’m so surprised!” thing (alternately: “Oh hello, here is my butt, I hope you like it because I am going to injure my lower back standing like this all of the time“). Nancy’s not just pushing out her good bits; she’s eating or otherwise hanging out with food in all of the photos. And like, really eating — chocolate sauce dripping down her face, laying in a bathtub of ranch dressing, etc. Which on one hand is kind of subversive and awesome — fat chicks are not really supposed to even be visible, let alone take serious pleasure in eating food. It’s cute when a teeny-tiny actress tucks into a giant burger, but it’s not so acceptable for someone whose body might be featured, headless, on the nightly news to illustrate the American Obesity Crisis. And it’s awesome that her website tagline is “I can’t stop eating” — there’s so much pressure to be a Good Fatty who exercises and eats healthily and doesn’t over-eat like all of the Bad Fatties that it’s refreshing to see a fat girl being like, “Yup, I like food, ok.” So first reaction is, “Fat girl eating in a sexy ad? Yes please!”

Oh but then.

Read More…Read More…

Bebe launches “workwear”, assumes “celebutante” is actual job

Bebe, the clothing store best known for selling skin-tight minidresses and shirts with word bebe (strictly in all lower case) in rhinestones across the bust has decided to branch out into something they’re calling workwear.

I freely concede that since I wear one of these every day, I might be less familiar with trends in work attire than others. It could also be that I just don’t understand how many professions call for five-inch gladiator platforms, fuchsia leggings, a pink, black, and yellow plaid lace up corset, and a black leather shrug. (I also love how the leggings look like they belong on an aerobics instructor.)

The real problem, though is that the biggest question is just left hanging: whose job lets them dress up like Cyndi Lauper?

Also, fingerless black leather gloves? With bows AND rhinestones? Teh Sexay, for sure.

Welcome to the Dollhouse: Men and Beauty Products

Back when pretty much the only men wearing makeup were either rock lords or Boy George, I privately came up with the guideline that if any particular piece of grooming was something women generally performed while men generally didn’t, I could safely consider it “beauty work.” Nail polish and leg-shaving? Beauty work. Nail-trimming and hair-combing? Grooming. It wasn’t perfect, but it was a useful guide in helping me determine what parts of my morning routine I might want to examine with a particularly feminist—and mascaraed—eye.

That rule has begun to crumble. Americans spent $4.8 billion on men’s grooming products in 2009, doubling the figure from 1997, according to market research firm Euromonitor. Skin care—not including shaving materials—is one of the faster-growing segments of the market, growing 500% over the same period. It’s unclear how much of the market is color products (you know, makeup), but the appearance of little-known but stable men’s cosmetics companies like 4V00, KenMen, The Men Pen, and Menaji suggests that the presence is niche but growing. Since examining the beauty myth and questioning beauty work has been such an essential part of feminism, these numbers raise the question: What is the increase in men’s grooming products saying about how our culture views men?

The flashier subset of these products—color cosmetics—has received some feminist attention. Both Naomi Wolf of The Beauty Myth fame and Feministe’s own Jill Filipovic were quoted in this Style List piece on the high-fashion trend of men exploring feminine appearance, complete with an arresting photo of a bewigged, stilettoed Marc Jacobs on the cover of Industrie. Both Wolf and Filipovic astutely indicate that the shift may signal a loosening of gender roles: “I love it, it is all good,” said Wolf. “It’s all about play…and play is almost always good for gender politics.” Filipovic adds, “I think gender-bending in fashion is great, and I hope it’s more than a flash-in-the-pan trend.”

Yet however much I’d like to sign on with these two writers and thinkers whose work I’ve admired for years, I’m resistant. I’m wary of men’s beauty products being heralded as a means of gender subversion for two major reasons: 1) I don’t think that men’s cosmetics use in the aggregate is actually any sort of statement on or attempt at gender play; rather, it’s a repackaging and reinforcement of conventional masculinity, and 2) warmly welcoming (well, re-welcoming, as we’ll see) men into the arena where they’ll be judged for their appearance efforts is a victory for nobody—except the companies doing the product shill.

Let’s look at the first concern: It’s not like the men mentioned in this article are your run-of-the-mill dudes; they’re specific people with a specific cultural capital. (Which is what I think Wolf and Filipovic were responding to, incidentally, not some larger movement.) Men might be buying more lotion than they did a decade ago, but outside of the occasional attempt at zit-covering through tinted Clearasil, I’ve seen very few men wearing color cosmetics who were not a part of a subculture with a history of gender play. Outside that realm, the men who are wearing bona fide makeup, for the most part, seem to be the type described in this New York Times article: the dude’s dude who just wants to do something about those undereye circles, not someone who’s eager to swipe a girlfriend’s lipstick case unless it’s haze week on fraternity row.

“Men use cosmetic products in order to cover up or correct imperfections, not to enhance beauty,” said Marek Hewryk, founder of men’s cosmetics line 4V00. Sound familiar, ladies? The idea of correcting yourself instead of enhancing? Male cosmetic behavior seems more like the pursuit of “relief from self-dissatisfaction” that drives makeup use among women rather than a space that encourages a gender-role shakeup. Outside of that handful of men who are publicly experimenting with gender play—which I do think is good for all of us—the uptick in men’s cosmetics doesn’t signify any more of a cultural shift than David Bowie’s lightning bolts did on the cover of Aladdin Sane.

Subcultures can worm their way into the mainstream, of course, but the direction I see men’s products taking is less along the lines of subversive gender play and more along the lines of products that promise a hypermasculinity (think Axe or the unfortunately named FaceLube), or a sort of updated version of the “metrosexual” epitomized by Hugh Laurie’s endorsement of L’Oréal.

The ads themselves have yet to be released, but the popular video showing the prep for the ad’s photo shoot reveals what L’Oréal is aiming for by choosing the rangy Englishman as its new spokesperson (joining Gerard Butler, who certainly falls under the hypermasculine category). He appears both stymied and lackadaisically controlling while he answers questions from an offscreen interviewer as a young woman gives him a manicure. “That’s an interesting question to pose—’because you’re worth it,’” he says about the company’s tagline. “We’re all of us struggling with the idea that we’re worth something. What are we worth?” he says. Which, I mean, yay! Talking about self-worth! Rock on, Dr. House! But in actuality, the message teeters on mockery: The quirky, chirpy background music lends the entire video a winking edge of self-ridicule. When he’s joking with the manicurist, it seems in sync; when he starts talking about self-worth one has to wonder if L’Oréal is cleverly mocking the ways we’ve come to associate cosmetics use with self-worth, even as it benefits from that association through its slogan. “Because you’re worth it” has a different meaning when directed to women—for whom the self-care of beauty work is frequently dwarfed by the insecurities it invites—than when directed to men, for whom the slogan may seem a reinforcement of identity, not a glib self-esteem boost. The entire campaign relies upon a jocular take on masculinity. Without the understanding that men don’t “really” need this stuff, the ad falls flat.

We often joke about how men showing their “feminine side” signals a security in their masculine role—which it does. But that masculinity is often also assured by class privilege. Hugh Laurie and Gerard Butler can use stuff originally developed for the ladies because they’ve transcended the working-class world where heteronormativity is, well, normative; they can still demand respect even with a manicure. Your average construction worker, or even IT guy, doesn’t have that luxury. It’s also not a coincidence that both are British while the campaigns are aimed at Americans. The “gay or British?” line shows that Americans tend to see British men as being able to occupy a slightly feminized space, even as we recognize their masculinity, making them perfect candidates for telling men to start exfoliating already. L’Oréal is selling a distinctive space to men who might be worried about their class status: They’re not “metrosexualized” (Hugh Laurie?), but neither are they working-class heroes. And if numbers are any indication, the company’s reliance upon masculine tropes is a thriving success: L’Oréal posted a 5% sales increase in the first half of 2011.

Still, I don’t want to discount the possibility that this shift might enable men to explore the joys of a full palette. L’Oréal’s vaguely cynical ads aside, if Joe Six-Pack can be induced to paint his fingernails and experience the pleasures of self-ornamentation, everyone wins, right?

Well—not exactly. In the past, men have experienced a degree of personal liberalization and freedom through the eradication of—not the promotion of—the peacocking self-display of the aristocracy. With what fashion historians call “the great masculine renunciation” of the 19th century, Western men’s self-presentation changed dramatically. In a relatively short period, men went from sporting lacy cuffs, rouged cheeks, and high-heeled shoes to the sober suits and hairstyles that weren’t seriously challenged until the 1960s (and that haven’t really changed much even today). The great masculine renunciation was an effort to display democratic ideals: By having men across classes adopt simpler, humbler clothes that could be mimicked more easily than lace collars by poor men, populist leaders could physically demonstrate their brotherhood-of-man ideals.

Whether or not the great masculine renunciation achieved its goal is questionable (witness the 20th-century development of terms like white-collar and blue-collar, which indicate that we’d merely learned different ways to judge men’s class via appearance). But what it did do was take a giant step toward eradicating the 19th-century equivalent of the beauty myth for men. At its best, the movement liberated men from the shackles of aristocratic peacocking so that their energies could be better spent in the rapidly developing business world, where their efforts, not their lineage, were rewarded. Today we’re quick to see a plethora of appearance choices as a sign of individual freedom—and, to be sure, it can be. But it’s also far from a neutral freedom, and it’s a freedom that comes with a cost. By reducing the amount of appearance options available to men, the great masculine renunciation also reduced both the burden of choice and the judgments one faces when one’s efforts fall short of the ideal.

Regardless of the success of the renunciation, it’s not hard to see how men flashing their cash on their bodies serves as a handy class marker; indeed, it’s the very backbone of conspicuous consumption. And it’s happening already in the playground of men’s cosmetics: The men publicly modeling the “individual freedom” of makeup—while supposedly subverting beauty and gender ideals—already enjoy a certain class privilege. While James Franco has an easygoing rebellion that wouldn’t get him kicked out of the he-man bars on my block in Queens, his conceptual-artist persona grants him access to a cultural cachet that’s barred to the median man. (Certainly not all makeup-wearing men enjoy such privilege, as many a tale from a transgender person will reveal, but the kind of man who is posited as a potential challenge to gender ideals by being both the typical “man’s man” and a makeup wearer does have a relative amount of privilege.)

Of course, it wasn’t just men who were affected by the great masculine renunciation. When men stripped down from lace cuffs to business suits, the household responsibility for conspicuous consumption fell to women. The showiness of the original “trophy wives” inflated in direct proportion to the newly conservative dress style of their husbands, whose somber clothes let the world know they were serious men of import, not one of those dandy fops who trounced about in fashionable wares—leave that to the ladies, thanks. It’s easy, then, to view the return of men’s bodily conspicuous consumption as the end of an era in which women were consigned to this particular consumerist ghetto—welcome to the dollhouse, boys. But much as we’d like to think that re-opening the doors of playful, showy fashions to men could serve as a liberation for them—and, eventually, for women—we may wish to be hesitant to rush into it with open arms. The benefits of relaxed gender roles indicated by men’s cosmetics could easily be trumped by the expansion of beauty work’s traditional role of signaling one’s social status. The more we expand the beauty toolkit of men, the more they too will be judged on their compliance to both class markers and the beauty standard. We’re all working to see how women can be relieved of the added burden of beauty labor—the “third shift,” if you will—but getting men to play along isn’t the answer.

The Beauty Myth gave voice to the unease so many women feel about that situation—but at its heart it wasn’t about women at all. It was about power. And this is why I’m hesitant to herald men spending more time, effort, and energy on their appearance as any sort of victory for women or men, even as I think that rigid gender roles—boys wear blue, girls wear makeup—isn’t a comfortable place for anyone. For the very idea of the beauty myth was that restrictions placed upon women’s appearance became only more stringent (while, at the same time, appealing to the newly liberated woman’s idea of “choice”) in reaction to women’s growing power. I can’t help but wonder what this means for men in a time when we’re still recoiling from a recession in which men disproportionately suffered job losses, and in which the changes prompted in large part by feminism are allowing men a different public and private role. It’s a positive change, just as feminism itself was clearly positive for women—yet the backlash of the beauty myth solidified to counter women’s gains.

As a group, men’s power is hardly shrinking, but it is shifting—and if entertainment like Breaking Bad, Mad Men, and the Apatow canon are any indication, that dynamic is being examined in ways it hasn’t been before. As our mothers may know even better than us, one way our culture harnesses anxiety-inducing questions of gender identity is to offer us easy, packaged solutions that simultaneously affirm and undermine the questions we’re asking ourselves. If “hope in a jar” doesn’t cut it for women, we can’t repackage it to men and just claim that hope is for the best.

Cru cut

See also: 2 Live Cru, Grand Cru, J.Cru, Late-’90s Hip-Hop Group Cru

More from the world of marketing: We won’t have the Campus Crusade for Christ to kick around anymore.

Don’t get excited–they’re still going to be around, loving you whilst hating your sin, helping you pray it away, and harassing students who are just trying to get to the student center before Chick-fil-A stops selling breakfast biscuits. But now, they’re going to be doing it all cool-like. Their t-shirts will have all-new logos, and those students standing in that biscuitless line at Chick-fil-A will be growling, “Goddammit, Cru…

“The Campus Crusade for Christ in the U.S. is changing its name to Cru. The new name will be adopted in early 2012. The U.S. ministry hopes the new name will overcome existing barriers and perceptions inherent in the original name.”

From an article in Christianity Today:

“It’s become a flash word for a lot of people. It harkens back to other periods of time and has a negative connotation for lots of people in the world, especially in the Middle East,” said Steven Sellers, the CCCI vice president and U.S. national director who is leading the name change project.

With the name Crusade, Sellers said people might conjure images of people being forced into something.

“We think the name of Jesus and his love is the most attractive thing on the planet, and to do anything to make it seem forced or that we’re trying to cram it down anyone’s throat is just not necessary,” Seller said.

1. If the name of Jesus really is the most attractive thing on the planet, removing it entirely from the name of your group seems a bold marketing move.

2. “‘Cru’? What the hell is ‘Cru’?” “It’s short for ‘crusade.’ It’s Campus Crusade for Christ.” “Why call it ‘Cru,’ then?” “Well, it turns out people are put off by the word ‘crusade,’ so–dammit!”

3. Where could anyone get the idea that people would be forced into something?

Read More…Read More…

Hail to the no.

Summer’s Eve has a new ad campaign out, and it’s epic. Sensational. It’s the 300 of feminine-hygiene product TV commercials. No more walks on the beach. Screw some flowy, white linen trousers. You are strong. You are powerful. You are the most powerful thing on earth, actually.

… What’s that? Oh, wait, sorry, no, that’s just your hoo-ha. Sorry about that.

(Transcript after the jump)

Read More…Read More…