Hi, I'm Rhi.
I'm operating this blog for my Women's Studies class at BU.
Click on each entry's box to read more. :)

This popped up on my roommate’s homepage, and as soon as she started watching it, she called me over because she knew it would enrage me. It did.

So many inaccurate and offensive stereotypes are perpetuated in this, from the very beginning.

At :07, the host refers to working out as “something we don’t like to do, but we have to do.” That’s rather presumptive, isn’t it?

At :26, she first uses the phrase “sexy couple’s workout.” What does that even mean? Working out isn’t designed to be sexy, it’s designed to make you sweat. If you’re trying to seduce someone while at the gym, you’re probably doing something wrong (and you’re there for the wrong reasons).

(What a lovely innuendo, “get it in,” at :36)

At :50, the trainer instructs the couple to do a workout in which the man does a plie squat while his female companion does high knees up to his hands. Even if we give the trainer the benefit of the doubt that the two exercises are equivocal, I can’t ignore the fact that the woman (and thus, the woman’s breasts) are jumping up and down right at this man’s eye level. We watch her performing this jumping for at least 5 seconds, while there are literally barely 2 seconds of the roles reversed.

At 1:20— is it really necessary to grab someone’s ass to do a successful push-up?

The wall sit at 1:50 is horrifying. It gives the man another opportunity to stare at the woman, this time her butt, while he sits against a wall. The dialogue is the worst part, where the trainer says “this is going to be hard,” the woman asks her partner “am I too heavy?,” her partner replies (in a condescending tone) “of course not,” and the host says “That’s the right answer!”

What the heck did that exchange accomplish, besides perpetuating the idea that women are always concerned about whether men think they’re “too heavy” and men must reply to a non-question-compliment-fishing-exercise with a non-answer?

There’s a moment at 2:00 where the host glares at the camera and says “we’re never too heavy,” which seems to be moving in the right direction… and then the discussion of “chicken skin” flabby arms and the implication that if women aren’t concerned about tightening their arm muscles, there’s something wrong with them happens and she negates whatever she may have just accomplished.

At 2:40, now the boyfriend or whoever is getting a nice vagina and boob angle of his girlfriend. Can’t they just do sit-ups like normal people?!

I also love the product placement of the coca-cola vending machine.

So much about this makes me uncomfortable. It implies that the only way working out can be enjoyable or entertaining is if it’s sexualized; and not sexualized in an equal way, but in a way that emphasizes the objectification of women. Ughhh.

I hate when people post shit like this. Aha. Get over it.
Okay, it isn’t acceptable in this day and age but at one point in time it was and we have learned from that. Let it be.

This was a response to my earlier post about Mickey Rooney, and with all due respect, I must disagree.

There is a long list of things that were once seen as acceptable and now aren’t, including decapitation, slavery, and public flogging.

I hold that we haven’t learned from it. As long as Asians are seen in the media as inherently predatory (seen in The Mentalist, a show I happen to love) or as the “model minority” or in any of the other number of ways MANAA lists, we have not learned from it.

Or, if we have learned from it, what we’re doing is even worse; we’re blatantly disregarding any sense of right/wrong and doing something we know is wrong.

And, for people who do realize how offensive portrayals of stereotypes are, do “let it be” is just as if not more morally reprehensible. In the words of Elie Wiesel, “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

This picture is from the musical number “Cell Block Tango,” from the musical “Chicago.” It’s interesting, because it’s set in the 1920’s, and the women in the scene are all convicted felons. They perform a Fosse-esque number about why they’re in prison, and how it wasn’t their fault because the men they assaulted/poisoned/murdered “had it coming.” I think it’s an interesting artifact, because none of the women (save the innocent Ukranian, and maybe Roxie) are helpless. And yet, their strength isn’t enough to convey them as threatening; they’re also eroticized. Even if the provocative Fosse choreography was set aside, their clothing- leather, bondage, corsets, fishnets- turns them into a fetish. To be fair, it is progressive (especially for its time) in the idea that women have the option of escaping from abusive relationships; however, the notion that they must objectify themselves in order to do it is problematic.

This picture is from the musical number “Cell Block Tango,” from the musical “Chicago.” It’s interesting, because it’s set in the 1920’s, and the women in the scene are all convicted felons. They perform a Fosse-esque number about why they’re in prison, and how it wasn’t their fault because the men they assaulted/poisoned/murdered “had it coming.”

I think it’s an interesting artifact, because none of the women (save the innocent Ukranian, and maybe Roxie) are helpless. And yet, their strength isn’t enough to convey them as threatening; they’re also eroticized. Even if the provocative Fosse choreography was set aside, their clothing- leather, bondage, corsets, fishnets- turns them into a fetish.

To be fair, it is progressive (especially for its time) in the idea that women have the option of escaping from abusive relationships; however, the notion that they must objectify themselves in order to do it is problematic.

(Source: just--christina)

American Apparel: A Tangent

I’m going to post two images of American Apparel, and then I am going to discuss them. I am going to try my hardest not to use profanity, since this is an academic blog and all.

So, there they are. In the first, a nearly-naked man is wearing a speedo, making a sheepish face into the camera, and looking a little goofy. In the second, a woman holds a cat and then looks like she’s undressing. But isn’t she pretty? And look at all the bright colors behind her!

I abhor American Apparel. While a lot of clothing companies have policies that range from questionable to openly disgusting (remember the Abercrombie & Fitch thongs-for-toddlers debacle?), I choose to wage my battle against American Apparel.

My qualms with the company, in no particular order (please note, this is not a comprehensive list):

I’m going to mainly focus on the last bullet point. For one company, American Apparel manages to be several types of offensive. I’ve seen ads that are racist, ads that are sexist, ads that objectify, ads that evoke child pornography, and ads that make no sense. And I do my best to avoid these ads.

About racism: A few years ago, American Apparel had a line of “tribal print” clothing. This was one of the few times that the company used black models. Funny how that works.

Because it makes me feel ill (and I don’t want to add more fuel to the fire by googling the company any more than I already have), I’m not including any other American Apparel ads, but a lot of them portray extremely skinny, young-looking young men and women in minimal clothing. The photo quality is grainy, the color scheme is minimal, and the facial expression on the model often looks terrifying. Looking at these types of ads— that simultaneously sexualize and infanticize— make me actually feel sick.

On top of that, the above ads provide picture-perfect examples of the tendencies Goffman wrote about and Sut Jhally discussed in Dreamworlds 3 to portray men in upright, dominant, vertical positions and women in submissive, canted postures.

Even though the man is practically naked, he looks at the camera straight-on. His feet are planted firmly, his hands are at his sides, and if anything, he looks bemused.

The woman, on the other hand, hides behind a cat. While she is looking at the camera, she holds her hands in ways that contort her body. Her head is cocked to the side, and she is demonstrating the “bashful knee-bend.” All of these things, like Goffman/Jhally said, put her off-kilter and into a position of submission. Beyond that, she is clearly sexualized.

The alarming thing is, these aren’t even the most alarming ads.

Modern Family was attacked today in class, and it made me uncomfortable, and defensive.

I watch Modern Family. I love watching Modern Family. I consider myself culturally sensitive, and I’ve never really felt offended by the show. I’m not sure if it’s because I wasn’t paying attention, or I was overlooking some glaringly obvious things, or because the stereotyping that occurs doesn’t marginalize I group I identify with so I’m less sensitive to it, or if it’s something else entirely.

When I stop and think about it, of course there are some problems with Modern Family. Gloria is stereotypically and offensively depicted as the eroticized, fiery, broken-english-speaking Columbian sex object; Hayley’s stupidity infantilizes her; Claire is portrayed as being a neurotic control freak because of the steps she takes to manage her family; Luke and Phil embody the “boys will be boys” stereotype; Alex is constantly told she’s never going to have friends or boyfriends because she’s smart; and Mitchell and Cameron do a lot of “stereotypically gay” things.

However, I think it’s unfair to write the show off entirely.

My cousins, God love them, are some of the most racist, homophobic people I’ve ever met, but they watch- and love- Modern Family. And I’ve noticed a marked change in their demeanor toward gay couples since watching Modern Family. By seeing the idea that gay people are normal people enacted on TV, it’s made it easier for them to get one step closer toward combating their prejudices.

We also talked about- and attacked- Glee, another show that plays to stereotypes (of homosexuals, of minorities, of men and women). Once again, there are plenty of things wrong with this show, from the way Santana was forced out of the closet to the fact that Kurt is never dressed like a normal human being to the fact that Mercedes is dating the only black football player on the team… I could go on.

And yet, once again, I think the show has done some beautiful things. Like Modern Family, merely by depicting gay characters, it begins to perpetuate the notion that being gay is normal and okay. I’m not saying that there isn’t room for improvement, because there certainly is, but I think these shows should be applauded for including gay characters who also have “normal” lives— families, aspirations, dayjobs, etcetera.

(via sehler)

Okay, so clearly, this is not okay. Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of an Asian man in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is horrific, and essentially the same thing as blackface. It plays to stereotypes, and there’s really no excuse. If the screenplay (and original novella upon which the movie was based) included an Asian character, it should have included an Asian actor. This should always be the case— every effort should be made to ensure that a character of color is played by an actor of color. That being said, is it unforgivable if resources prevent this from happening? That obviously isn’t the case with Breakfast at Tiffany’s— it’s not as though there were no Asians in Hollywood—, but there might be some situations where it is. For instance, in high school theatre departments. If a script calls for a minority that is, perhaps, not represented in the school, or if no one of that minority auditions, is it morally reprehensible for an actor of another race to play them? It makes me ponder the early days of acting, when all parts were played by men. In gender-segregated schools, actors cross-dress all the time. Why is it that this is “more okay” than pretending to be a different race? If a young woman who is Caucasian in an all-girls Catholic school plays an Asian man in a play, is that worse than Mickey Rooney in Tiffany’s? Probably not. I guess that, like most things, it depends on intention.

Okay, so clearly, this is not okay. Mickey Rooney’s portrayal of an Asian man in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” is horrific, and essentially the same thing as blackface. It plays to stereotypes, and there’s really no excuse.

If the screenplay (and original novella upon which the movie was based) included an Asian character, it should have included an Asian actor. This should always be the case— every effort should be made to ensure that a character of color is played by an actor of color.

That being said, is it unforgivable if resources prevent this from happening? That obviously isn’t the case with Breakfast at Tiffany’s— it’s not as though there were no Asians in Hollywood—, but there might be some situations where it is. For instance, in high school theatre departments. If a script calls for a minority that is, perhaps, not represented in the school, or if no one of that minority auditions, is it morally reprehensible for an actor of another race to play them?

It makes me ponder the early days of acting, when all parts were played by men. In gender-segregated schools, actors cross-dress all the time. Why is it that this is “more okay” than pretending to be a different race?

If a young woman who is Caucasian in an all-girls Catholic school plays an Asian man in a play, is that worse than Mickey Rooney in Tiffany’s? Probably not. I guess that, like most things, it depends on intention.

I feel like one of the biggest obstacles to feminism is people feeling threatened by what they perceive feminism as trying to accomplish. Which is absurd. I have never once heard a feminist say “I hate men and am trying my hardest to get society to see them as lesser beings,” and yet, this myth continues to be perpetuated. I think that people with privilege (men/heterosexuals/Caucasians/conservatives/what have you) are often very afraid of the notion that their position of power is liminial. Which is understandable, from a survival of the fittest kind of idea; if you have power, of course you want to keep it. And to a point, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if your power is at the expense of someone else’s fundamental rights, that’s not right. Or fair, or okay. When I say things like “I think there should be more women/minorities/homosexuals/etc. in office,” that doesn’t mean I’m implying that WASP men should be booted from politics entirely. I saw a quote today: “(Conservatives) really are sensitive about the idea that they are racist. And not all of them, of course, are. But then they do like nine racist things every week. And this is what I wanna say to them: stuff like (Arizona governor Jan Brewer) saying you’re threatened (by President Obama); Newt Gingrich calling Obama the ‘food stamps president’ because he took office in a recession when people were needing more food stamps — it’s like calling George Bush the ‘planes crashing into buildings president.’”(Bill Maher, Real Time) I think that a lot of times, people get tripped up in semantics. They’re unsure of what it really means to be a “feminist,” or “queer,” or “open-minded.” But I think that if you stripped movements of their labels, and laid bare the basic tenets- everyone should have equal rights- 99% of people would agree.

I feel like one of the biggest obstacles to feminism is people feeling threatened by what they perceive feminism as trying to accomplish. Which is absurd. I have never once heard a feminist say “I hate men and am trying my hardest to get society to see them as lesser beings,” and yet, this myth continues to be perpetuated.

I think that people with privilege (men/heterosexuals/Caucasians/conservatives/what have you) are often very afraid of the notion that their position of power is liminial. Which is understandable, from a survival of the fittest kind of idea; if you have power, of course you want to keep it. And to a point, there’s nothing wrong with that.

But if your power is at the expense of someone else’s fundamental rights, that’s not right. Or fair, or okay. When I say things like “I think there should be more women/minorities/homosexuals/etc. in office,” that doesn’t mean I’m implying that WASP men should be booted from politics entirely.

I saw a quote today:

“(Conservatives) really are sensitive about the idea that they are racist. And not all of them, of course, are. But then they do like nine racist things every week. And this is what I wanna say to them: stuff like (Arizona governor Jan Brewer) saying you’re threatened (by President Obama); Newt Gingrich calling Obama the ‘food stamps president’ because he took office in a recession when people were needing more food stamps — it’s like calling George Bush the ‘planes crashing into buildings president.’”
(Bill Maher, Real Time)

I think that a lot of times, people get tripped up in semantics. They’re unsure of what it really means to be a “feminist,” or “queer,” or “open-minded.” But I think that if you stripped movements of their labels, and laid bare the basic tenets- everyone should have equal rights- 99% of people would agree.

Over at the Huffington Post, there’s a story about Shailene Woodley’s “nude” posing for Vs. Magazine. I could say a lot about the depiction of women in magazines. Does the magazine industry have a long history of degrading women? Yes. Is showing a lot of skin degrading? Maybe. But does it really matter? Is Woodley’s naked back and raccoon makeup really any worse than the clown makeup Glamour slathered onto Amanda Seyfried’s face/body this month? I’m not sure. I tend to take a sex-positive stance, toward the idea that if consenting adults want to put themselves into “compromising” positions, let them. Obviously that position is far from perfect, but this magazine cover bothers me so much less than the way HuffPo discussed it. Does using the phrase “TOPLESS” in your headline make audiences click? Of course. But was it really accurate? Only sort-of. To be honest, Woodley could easily have been wearing a halter top in the shot. I dunno. I just get so frustrated when people hint at slut-shaming when young women show their bodies. Do I find it a little weird that Selena Gomez’s boobs are hanging out on the cover of Cosmo this month? Sure. But I think it’s weirder that she’s in Cosmo in the first place. But that doesn’t mean I think any less of her. Is it fair for someone to look down upon me more in the summer, when I wear “more revealing” clothing, than in the winter, when I’m wearing a parka? I don’t think so.

Over at the Huffington Post, there’s a story about Shailene Woodley’s “nude” posing for Vs. Magazine.

I could say a lot about the depiction of women in magazines. Does the magazine industry have a long history of degrading women? Yes. Is showing a lot of skin degrading? Maybe.

But does it really matter? Is Woodley’s naked back and raccoon makeup really any worse than the clown makeup Glamour slathered onto Amanda Seyfried’s face/body this month? I’m not sure.

I tend to take a sex-positive stance, toward the idea that if consenting adults want to put themselves into “compromising” positions, let them. Obviously that position is far from perfect, but this magazine cover bothers me so much less than the way HuffPo discussed it. Does using the phrase “TOPLESS” in your headline make audiences click? Of course. But was it really accurate? Only sort-of. To be honest, Woodley could easily have been wearing a halter top in the shot.

I dunno. I just get so frustrated when people hint at slut-shaming when young women show their bodies. Do I find it a little weird that Selena Gomez’s boobs are hanging out on the cover of Cosmo this month? Sure. But I think it’s weirder that she’s in Cosmo in the first place. But that doesn’t mean I think any less of her. Is it fair for someone to look down upon me more in the summer, when I wear “more revealing” clothing, than in the winter, when I’m wearing a parka? I don’t think so.

Fun Facts?

I learned something new in my Sociology class today:

Apparently, there are men’s bathroom politics.

This goes beyond the “Tearoom trade” that Humphreys wrote about in the 1950’s; apparently, there are “right” and “wrong” stalls to use? Apparently there is a game in which you play as a male character and try to avoid using the “wrong” stall?

So what I want to know is— is this true? Does this happen? Is there some sort of unspoken (or spoken?) code of bathroom etiquette?

AND— what happens if you deviate?

Do tell.

Connotations of the word “curvy”

The word “curvy” came up in class today, & it made me stop and think about my feelings toward the word. I self-identify as curvy, but I haven’t always. Until I was sixteen, I associated “curvy” with “fat,” saw it as an euphemism for large. So when a male friend called my 16-year-old self “curvy,” I was deeply offended, until it was explained so eloquently (ha):

“Curvy is win.”

At that point, it became a term of empowerment. The fact that it took a man validating it is obviously an issue, but it doesn’t end there.

My little sister is very thin and very beautiful, but gets incredibly offended when people say things along the line of “real women have curves.”

I think there must be a way for one group to empower itself without degrading someone else… I just don’t know what that way is.

I think that ‘overweight’ is more offensive than ‘fat.’ Over WHAT weight?

A student in my WS class said this today, and it made me think.

For the most part, I don’t use the word “fat,” and certainly not to describe people. I’m not sure where I picked up the idea that it’s offensive (possibly from my mom), but I’ve always been told it’s not polite. I’ve been encouraged to, and thus have, favored euphemisms instead— “bigger,” “overweight,” “husky,” “big-boned,” etcetera.

But my fellow student was totally right. Bigger than what? Over what weight? What’s normal-boned then?

I guess that theoretically, there is an “average” body type. But it is very different from the “average” body type that’s portrayed in the media. According to an article at WebMD, the average woman wears a 12-14 pant size, while the average celebrity is sporting a 2-4. Clearly, that’s not representative.

That being said, I still feel wrong and judgmental referring to anyone as “fat.” It feels cruel, coming from someone who doesn’t self-identify as a “large” person, and I feel that “fat,” like “queer,” is the type of reclaimed word that may not go over well if someone outside of the community uses it.

So is there a neutral way to describe people? Perhaps we can just leave body size out of the equation, and focus on hair or eye color. And if size is relevant, what if actual clothing sizes were used?

That brings up the problem of pant sizing (which is far from universal across different brands/countries), but that’s another matter entirely.

I think the best way for me to respond to this gem of a commercial is with questions.

  1. What, exactly, is “spreadable cheese?”
  2. Why is any of what I just watched necessary to sell cheese?
  3. Why did the (attractive/white/skinny) female character need to be suspicious/jealous of the blonde woman that sold her significant other spreadable cheese?
  4. Is the possible progress made by having the man (as opposed to the woman) do the grocery shopping negated by the A) implied cluelessness of the guy B) the perpetuation of the women-as-exclusively-socialites stereotype?
  5. Why is everything so wrong with the media?

Science Uncovers Genes Governing Male and Female Behaviors

“new research is showing that, in fact, there are very specific genes that regulate male or female behaviors, and they can be turned on and off at will—which could drastically alter the way we think about what drives us to be who we are.”

This is interesting, because as of late I’ve started paying a lot more attention to the sociological approach to sex/gender, and this may (?) undermine some of that thinking.

The whole “gender” thing is always complicated and confusing, because it does not necessarily align with biological sex— which is what I think this new research is more concerned with— but with our understanding of certain traits that influence gender (i.e. aggressiveness or cooperation), which are totally gendered and stereotyped.

This is a bit rambly, because I don’t really have any concrete analyses or judgements to make. I find it interesting, and I’d like to hear more.

tuhl:

I love this. It shows, very plainly, the “evolution of the ’definition’ of beauty.” Puts more truth in the phrase, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” doesn’t it?


 This says everything. And I think the answer is something along the lines of “when we bought into the idea that we were being sold.”

(via yellowmidnight)

I decided this week that I’m cutting the word “Slut” out of my vocabulary. It was pointed out to me that by using it, even if I’m not directing it at someone in a judgmental way (for instance, if I’m joking with a friend), I’m still perpetuating the idea that it’s okay to use that type of language, and I am in fact being an active participant in rape culture. And that’s definitely not okay.

I decided this week that I’m cutting the word “Slut” out of my vocabulary. It was pointed out to me that by using it, even if I’m not directing it at someone in a judgmental way (for instance, if I’m joking with a friend), I’m still perpetuating the idea that it’s okay to use that type of language, and I am in fact being an active participant in rape culture.

And that’s definitely not okay.

(Source: allunknowing, via yellowmidnight)

Likes