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

A Batch To Match The Snatch

In the “not terribly new news, but icky nontheless” file, a post from Broadsheet about a new specialty product for pubic grooming:

Hey, did you know that in addition to trimming, shaving, waxing, sugaring, laser hair removal, electrolysis and going au naturel, personal grooming options now include a specialized dye for pubic hair? Well, they do! As several alert Broadsheet readers informed us on Wednesday, fledgling cosmetics company Betty Beauty recently came out with a special, extra-sensitive dye “for the hair down there,” available in shades ranging from “Auburn” to “Fun.”

In our porn-influenced, improvement-obsessed culture, it was probably only a matter of time until someone thought to cash in with specialty muff dye. Probably some people are dyeing their nether regions already; the Beauty Betty site claims it’s common in Italy. And the product itself isn’t really any more or less problematic than other beauty aids. Like navel piercing or the Brazilian wax, pubic dye can be seen as a reminder of our culture’s unrealistic, objectifying standards for female appearance, or as an opportunity to be creative with one’s personal canvas. Still, being presented with yet another way to enhance oneself can feel like the last straw; one of our tipsters lamented, “Now we have to DYE our pubic hair?” What will they think of next, special decals for inside the vaginal canal?

I suppose Page Rockwell has never heard of colorists mixing up “a batch to match the snatch” for their clients to take home, so that really nobody but your hairdresser knows for sure. Marilyn Monroe, according to her maid, used to peroxide her pubic hair and then spend the day with an icepack on her ladybits. Though this is the first time I’ve heard of a dye that’s all extra-sensitive and made for the express purpose of matching the carpet to the drapes.

TMI time: I once gave pubic-hair dyeing a whirl. But I figured I’d do something a little more out there than just matching my hair color. So I bought some Jolen bleach and a jar of Manic Panic in a lovely shade of purple. And . . . wound up with a purple pubic mound and slightly tinted blond hair.

That stuff stains.

Thoughts?

Barbie’s Too Wholesome To Be a Dyke

So sayeth Mattel, apparently. According to the Jornal de Sao Paulo newspaper (unfortunately, no link — like I can read Portugese, anyhow), a Brazilian artist, Karin Schwarz, is being threatened with suit by Mattel for artwork that portrays Barbie as a lesbian.

Mattel has given the artist 24 hours to close down the exhibiton or they say they will take legal action.

But Ms Schwarz says she will not back down: “Barbie is exploited by Mattel. She wears a bikini, she shows off her belly, has big breasts, and even has a boyfriend,” she said.

The exhibition, entitled Amazing Girls, is on show at a bar in the city of Curitiba.

A Mattel spokesperson said: “Barbie is a very proper lady and she is not happy about being portraited as something that she isn’t.

“We are going to sue and we hope that this teaches people a lesson. Also, Barbie is 46 years old, she should be respected!”

Psst… Barbie’s made of plastic. She doesn’t really have emotions.

It’s not terribly surprising that Mattel would sue — probably more for the copyright/trademark infringement than for the lesbian content — given that they’ve made a whole lot of money from the Barbie name and image.

But the lesbian stuff has got to be making some eyes twitch at Mattel. They certainly didn’t like it when Todd Haynes created Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story using Barbies as actors to tell the story of Karen Carpenter’s slide into anorexia. Haynes did a wonderful job of making the film sympathetic and complex yet subversive, and the device he chose to illustrate the effects of anorexia — scraping away at the Karen doll’s face and arms — was slightly terrifying. In the end, it wasn’t Mattel who stopped the release of the film, it was Richard Carpenter (click here to download the film and see why), but Mattel couldn’t have been happy to have their product — which has been so associated with eating disorders in young girls because of the unattainable ideal the doll represents — used to demonstrate the ravages of anorexia.

Thanks to Itanshi for the tip.

Wherein Ann Althouse Shoots Any Credibility She Had Left

From the “chicks just can’t win” files: Jessica from Feministing has the honor of being invited to meet with President Clinton, along with several other bloggers. Said bloggers pose for a photo with Bill. It’s fairly clear that the photo is arranged by height, with the shorter people in the front. Jessica, one of the shorter people there, is in the front row. She stands, back straight, with her hands at her sides like everyone else. She moves slightly over so that she’s not blocking the former President.

But clearly, it’s all about the tits.

Jessica: I’m not judging you by your looks. (Don’t flatter yourself.) I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don’t know why people who care about feminism don’t have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don’t assume you’re the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog….

Note that Jessica is posed in pretty much the exact same way (mirror-imaged) as the woman standing next to her. That woman, though, is wearing a black top, so you can’t see the outline of her breasts as well.

Note that Jessica is also wearing a simple grey sweater, with a high neck and cap sleeves. And long pants. And yet Althouse is criticizing her for her “behavior” — which apparently comes down to how she was standing in the photo.

I saw the photo yesterday. I did not notice that Jessica was “posing;” I did not notice her breasts; I didn’t think twice about the arrangement of the photo. Different perspectives, I guess.

Ann’s commenters also jump on Jessica, referring to her as an “intern” — har har — and debating her fuckability. Ann then accuses Jessica of not being a “real” feminist (compared, apparently, to… Ann…), and tells her that she’s misappropriated the word feminism and has done nothing for the movement.

Really, Ann, fuck you. You’re out of line, and this is incredibly shitty.

Perhaps this isn’t the kind of evidence that Ann is looking for, but here’s what Jessica’s done for my feminism: She inspired me to start blogging in the first place. She broadened my perspective as to what even constitutues a feminist issue. She’s shown me that determined women can take their passion and turn it into a career. She has helped to mobilize an entire generation of younger feminists. She’s taken risks, and has been willing to lend her wisdom to the development of our movement. She’s been remarkably successful at a very young age. She’s been a key part of creating online feminist communities, and creating real-life activism and action out of those communities. Her writing has made me think. It’s taught me more than entire women’s studies courses I took. It’s demonstrated that young women are active, intelligent, assertive and engaging. She’s made me proud to identify as a feminist. And she’s one of my feminist heros.

I know she’s inspired many more than just me. And talking about her breasts all the live-long day won’t change the fact that she is an amazing, brilliant, good human being who I’m sure will shape the world in more positive ways than Ann Althouse could ever aspire to.

What Jessica did wrong was show up at a political event in a female body. End of story. Ann, you should be ashamed.

And Jessica, as always, you should be incredibly proud of everything you’ve accomplished.

Like a Virgin

For all the fetishization of virginity among social conservatives — the pledges, the purity rings, the purity balls — there’s little recognition that this is something only young girls and young women are supposed to be concerned about. Nobody really gets excited about adult women keeping their virginity — possibly because social conservatives expect women to marry young.

But there are a significant number of adult women who are still virgins into their 20s and 30s, and not all of them are trying to hang onto their virginity. In fact, many of them would really, really like to lose it, but as they get older, they find that more and more, they’re viewed as freaks who have something wrong with them, who might get too attached or who might invest too much in the experience:

Read More…Read More…

That Pig Picture Was No Fluke

We’ve seen the kind of woman that Hollywood and Details magazine deems “fat” and worthy of being represented by the image of a pig’s ass wearing heels — such noted porkers as Kristin Davis, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Rachel Weisz and a Butterfield 8-era Elizabeth Taylor.

Now, apparently Katie Couric is getting the oinker treatment by her new network — the official photo attached to the story in the network’s magazine announcing her move into the anchor chair at CBS Evening News has been doctored so that she appears to be 20 pounds lighter than she really is.

n the magazine, which is distributed at CBS stations and on American Airlines flights, Couric appears on the front dressed in a dark business suit and flashing her pearly whites.

But on an inside page, the touched-up – or rather, slimmed-downed – photo shows Couric in a striped designer dress suit standing in front of the CBS eye logo.

The original photo, which shows Couric looking more bosomy and thicker in the shoulders, waist and cheeks, was snapped in May.

Apparently, the woman pictured below is so enormous that the network that will be putting her on camera, live, every weeknight beginning Sept. 5, felt the need to airbrush out her ass because God forbid anyone see that she could crush the anchor’s chair under the weight of her massive, flabby ass:

An “overzealous” photo editor has been blamed for the airbrushing, but you can’t tell me that network standards and cultural standards and the standards that drove the Details crowd to declare this woman to be piglike didn’t have anything to do with it. Nor can I quite credit the idea that nobody at the network had editorial control over the magazine. The news division may very well have had nothing to do with it, but they’re only one part of a network that contributes to the screwed-up body images of this culture through its entertainment programming.

“The freaking pig in the freaking heels.”

That’s what Rebecca Traister found herself sputtering when she went looking through Details’ website for an article about men who are frustrated with their stay-at-home wives and found this photo:

The story it illustrates?

“Why Fat Is Back In Hollywood.”

Yes, Details chose to illustrate a story about how Hollywood is moving away from the human lollipop look for actresses in favor of such lardasses as Kristin Davis and Gretchen Mol . . . with a photo of a pig. In heels.

That right there tells you all you need to know about how fucked up body image is here in America.

Read Rebecca’s whole piece.