Japanese Women now free to enjoy mouth meat.

this is the (partially obscured) face of equality

By Ana

Good news! Those muffled moans you've been listening to all month are actually the sound of Japanese women taking an appreciative bite of out of their hamburgers... from behind a chastity muzzle. (So you can stop glaring at your neighbor every morning the elevator. Sorry, Mrs. Papadopoulos.)

According to Huffingtonpost, who probably won't mind that I borrowed one of their images,  this revolutionary East Asian dining accessory, is referred to as  the "Liberation Wrapper."  (Which, as it turns out, doesn't mean "condom," aaand might also explain why the Trinidadian guy at the gas station looked so confused.)

Instead its a type of napkin used to "cover a woman's face, thus "freeing" her to devour a burger without fear of exposing one of her germiest cavities to the world. (I assume they eat their beef raw too? ...Is something a racist or Alec Baldwin might say.)

According to Mr. Huffington, this creepy convention, brought on by the "trend known as “ochobo” --AKA having a "small and modest mouth" -- has caught on to the point where it's considered rude for women to flap their beaks in public. So when Japanese restaurant chain owners noticed a gender discrepancy in the sales of their large Classic Burger, they chalked it up to their female customers' adherence to cultural norms... Hence a need for the Liberation Wrapper. It all makes sense!

hey girl, why you covering up those fine lips?

And I thought I was oppressed for being a government sponsored infant carrier.

Am I pretty?

by Anči

Most of you are probably aware of the disturbing new You Tube trend, summed up by the phrase "Am I pretty or ugly?"

Just your average after-school activity

If you haven't heard of it, you can probably imagine what it involves. Basically it's an exercise in public humiliation, among(st) adolescent girls who... regularly  1) stare into a camera, and 2) ask the notoriously Noble-Hearted-You-Tube-Commenters to tell them whether they're pretty or ugly.  (I'm suddenly much less of ashamed of spending so much of my pubescent free-time interviewing celebrity-me in front of a mirror. "Did I feel a lot of pressure after being named one of  People's Most Beautiful? No, not really. I don't really focus on those things. Although it's always nice to be included.")
 If you've ever been on Youtube, you can probably imagine what the majority of the responses are like: (To those of you who wrote down "Dick pics captioned with an angry, misspelled request for fellatio," I'd say... That's a really specific answer.  And where are you writing that down?)

As expected, Bust reported  that "70 percent of the comments came from men. Not only were they highly derogatory in nature, but "most of them were definitely over 18.""

It was also pointed out that "The comments from females... were almost exclusively provided by the under-18 crowd," which paints a really creepy picture if you ask me.

Just the fact fact that the two primary contributors to this "trend," are underage girls, and grown men should tell you exactly which group benefits from the sexualization of young girls. And more importantly, which group it hurts the most.


Thoughts?

On Kate Middleton

By Anči
 

Since bringing up Kate Middleton in my post on weddings I’ve wanted to further unpack the duchess's role as Global ambassador to upper class white women:

Because let’s face is: Kate Middleton is more than just a princess or a celebrity--  she’s also the living manifestation of flawless womanhood. (A position only recently dominated by Santa Angelina Jolie.)  

Look at her. The woman literally has no bad angles.

Like Jolie, Kate has bravely accepted the mantle of envied, unattainable perfection;  and in doing so, has invoked an age-old contract with the people : Essentially this covenant grants Her Highness unchallenged status and admiration, in exchange for her unwavering commitment to maintaining a glamorous facade, fit for public consumption. 

True to her pact, our Kate has managed to do this in a number of ways--Most notably, by never ever appearing in public without her trademark, professionally blown-out hair.  (an unrealistic and impractical demand for us common folk, who regularly go to sleep with a wet ponytail, and a nasal strip.) She also projects the consistently classy,  confident image required of any inaugurated Alpha Female.  And just like her flawless foremothers  Kate is a star, of the rare variety, able to  effortlessly produce a credible (and winsome!) smile on demand.  And  In a typically mystical fashion, she has never been seen with a frown on her face, or other such unacceptably humanizing expression. Add to that a sexy royal pregnancy, and you've got superwoman.

I was too lazy to spend time looking for a brunette version.

Speaking of her pregnancy, you might recall that during that gestating time, Kate's image was  frequently  positioned next to her equally-knocked-up celeb-peer,  Kim Kardashian. (Unlike perfect Kate, Kim proved woefully incapable of cultivating a concave baby bump-- a defect for which the reality star was thoroughly shamed.)

Kate on the other hand, only reinforced her place as the mythical shepherd of unattainably slender motherhood—by consistently "outperforming" her supposed "celeb-rivals" in the media-manufactured baby-weight battle of the ages: Check it out:

 Since entering the spotlight, Kate Middleton has been primarily lauded for her looks :  the ideal girl with  shiny hair, a tight body, and glamorous wardrobe. More importantly, She's  the woman who captured the heart of the future King of England--  a supposedly impressive feat (?) reserved only for the most Angelina-like of dames. Surely then, it was acceptable to expect unmatched perfection from her. Anything less would be insulting, right?

No one can look this cute all the time!

Wait no. Apparently they can.

I want to hate her but,...she's just too adorable!

Despite fairing so well initially,  as  ambassador of white womanhood, and Chief Guardian of the Eternal Feminine Mystery. (Which, I hear is preserved inside a golden tampon, inserted by Queen Elizabeth herself,) some cracks have started to appear, on Kate's royal semblance.
The most recent glitches in her cylon veneer, literally sprouted out of her head, (in the form of unsightly grey hairs)  rendering the princess, alarmingly and visibly human. Check it out:

the face of decay

As expected, the people did not take kindly to the Royal acquisition of silvere: with  criticism escalating to widespread outrage. (I'm not exaggerating. Google it.)


 The chief objection from the hair-police,  seemed to lie in Middleton's refusal to acquiesce to the terms of the aforementioned Unattainable-Perfection-Pact. With the the majority of commentators expressing some of version of "Isn't it her job to impress us all the time? How she dare step out in public looking like that, bollocks wanker Dumbledore?" (I failed British 101)
Along with complaints about her hair, there were also a surge of ageist potshots directed at her "sagging" "baggy" skin, and under-eye circles.

It was the  familiar, brutal  takedown of a famous beauty's appearance, and it wasn't surprising.
 Any woman who teases perfection, is eventually punished, when she fails to follow through. And no one ever "follows through" because even beauties are people, and nobody's perfect.

 This is not to suggest that Kate has fallen from grace-- she still commands the attention and envy of billions of people,  but like any woman in power, she'll also continue experiencing a backlash of body shaming, and contempt rarely directed at men in similar positions.

Thoughts?


To follow this blog on facebook, go here

Law firm instructs women to act like men

by Anči

According to this article, a New York legal firm  has begun circulating a memo to its female employs about how to behave appropriately. (so you know it's not gonna be offensive at all.)

Okay, maybe i've spent too much time watching Mad Men, but between male and female professionals, which group do you think is more in need of a memo about appropriateness?

honk honk

You'd think that if a company was going to invest time coaching its workers in etiquette, it wouldn't  be for the sole "benefit" of  women.. (Because clearly we are the problem.) And you'd also think, such an "educational" campaign might make some mention of workplace harassment, or at the very least, include a plea to its employees about not stealing yogurts from the communal fridge. (The senior partners need their Activia.)

But no, the only message here was: ladies, stop acting feminine. 

 According to Bust article: "Women are advised to wear heals and not rock back on them, to lower the podium to make themselves appear taller... Women should also curb their high voices: “Say ‘uh-huh’ and match that pitch to see how low you can go [...] Your voice is higher than you hear."

 Get that? We should all fight our biology, because it's no good. The fact that women are generally shorter than men, and have higher voices is a flaw that needs to be remedied. (How height and vocal register get in the way of practicing law, is beyond me.)

 Other ridiculous "suggestions" include "Don’t dress like a mortician: if wearing a black suit, wear something bright" (Gee, wonder if the men are also being expected to jazz up their suits with pink ruffles.)

AND
"Lose the quirky mannerisms that are so charming to those who do know you." (Because only women's mannerisms are "quirky," while men's mannerisms are known as "regular old body language")

AND most offensively, the helpful hint to "think Lauren Bacall, not Marilyn Monroe." (Because no instruction booklet would be complete, without some reference to the "virgin/whore" dichotomy. It's one or the other, got that ladies?)

I understand there is a need for consistency and dignity in the workforce, but this memo seems to suggest that men are inherently dignified, while women (who are naturally children) need to curb themselves in order to be taken seriously.

Thoughts?

On Self-Pleasure and Scottish Royalty

By Anči

Anyone close to me knows that I am a sucker for two things: geeky men of color and soapy period dramas.
Regarding the former, (which I'm hoping means "the first thing I said") I have no complaints. (hi honey!)  But regarding the latter, I've always felt there was something missing.

That is until I discovered CW's "historical" drama (a series called "Reign")  about Mary Queen of Scots.
Now I use the term "historical" loosely, since the show is technically about a non-existent love triangle between Queen Mary, Prince Frances and his made-up brother Bash. (it figures the only hot dude would be the figment of a hungry writer's imagination.)

check out those fashion-forward 16th century lovebirds.

Then there's the small matter that Queen Mary looked more like this:

hubba hubba

and less like this:

pretty sure the real Queen of Scots would have been executed for wearing this outfit. Oh wait*

But whatever, it's TV right? And this post isn't meant to be a review of the show (which by the way, gets 10 stars!!!!)

 The reason I wanted to bring the show up, (other then to plug it. Cause it needs to stick around for six seasons and a movie,*)  is because of an alleged controversy regarding a hastily censored moment in the first episode
 Turns out the offending shot was of a lady in waiting getting sexual pleasure in some other way than the traditional penis-in-her-vagina method.
 Yes that's right, Miss abigail was fondling her own garden.**

The scene was then recut to simply suggest that the renaissance babe had started lowering her hand... just as the King of France appears and romantically creepily offers to "help her out." (Hey, that's how my grandparents met too!)

because it's somehow less upsetting to see a middle aged man hijack a young woman's solo-session, than it is to see the same woman happily finger-banging herself in peace.

Everytime you wank it, a monarch loses his wings.

This isn't the first or last time a film or TV show has refused to air dramatizations of women getting off without the aid of a penile implant.
In fact, it just happened recently to actress Evan Rachel Wood in her upcoming movie Charlie Countryman:

Says the article: "According to Wood, the Motion Picture Association of America  forced [the] director to cut images of Shia le Beouf's character performing oral sex on Wood's character in order to secure an R-rating ...as opposed to an NC-17 rating, which can tank the commercial viability of a film."

Really? Simulated cunnilingus is too graphic for Hollywood?

Now think about the number times you've seen a woman kneeling in front a guy in an R-rated movie. Then think of all the times you've seen a guy on top, or behind of, a woman in an R-rated movie. Then remember all the  times you've seen a male character sexually assault or rape a female character in an R-rated movie.  So ...why exactly does the harmless image of a dude performing oral sex on a woman automatically render a film NC-17?

I'll tell you why. Because in that case, it's the woman who's on the receiving end of pleasure. AND she's also getting it without the assistance of man-meat.. Which no doubt freaks a lot of male studio execs out. (sorry guys, your dongs aren't that special. and penis-envy isn't real!)

thoughts?



* Spoiler alert: she really did get executed.

*copywrite dan harmon

** I know the character's name is  Kenna. 'Abigail' can also means lady in waiting. (Shows how many bodice-rippers you've read, Myrtle.)

So I started watching "Girls"

By Anči

I know I'm a little late to the party here-- I only started watching "Girls" this past month.  (But that's because I take my show commitment's seriously, and I needed to finish processing Mad Men.)

Anyway we're not going to attempt an analyses or review here, because pretty much any observation I've made has already been unpacked on multiple blogs: the lack of people of color,  the amount of privilege written into the show, the quiet dignity of Lena Dunham's butt....

I do want however, to talk a bit about the reviews of the show--- some have been valid, but plenty have been startlingly unfair: The most infuriating charge being, that the characters on the show are immature, privileged and self-involved. Funny, you could say the exact same about Mad Men's Don Draper-- who is selfish, self-centered, wealthy, and on top of that an abusive alcoholic, raging misogynist, and pathological liar.
But unlike Dunham's alter ego Hannah Horvath, Draper also happens to be  charismatic, smooth and alpha-male enough to be forgiven for his shockingly shitty behavior. When Hannah acts self-involved (at the age of 24, compared to Draper's 40) we enjoy calling her out on it.  It's fun to snark on entitled bitches, isn't it? Especially if they also happen to be "fat."

This is what a real self-involved bitch looks like.

Draper on the other hand,  manipulates and berates everyone in his life in order to get his way...while maintaining his  identity as dapper, misunderstood, moody  and  "tortured" [boo hoo, I faked my entire identity, banged everyone's wife,  and now my life is really hard.]

Now I challenge you to find a single review that dreamily refers to Hannah as a "misunderstood tortured soul." Ten extra points for  additional  gushing adjectives like "mysterious." (You may not believe me, but Hannah Horvath is about exactly as mysterious as Don Draper: Why is she such a delicious mess of contradictions? It's a mystery.)

I'm not saying Hannah is a wonderful person. (Although frankly I like her, and I'd want to be friends with her. ) but the amount of backlash her character's been getting is starting to feel suspiciously gender-specific.  Because for all her flaws, the sheer amount of contempt and anger directed at this 24 year old white girl cannot possibly be justified. 

"I have my own show, a Golden Globe, and a book deal. What do you have, besides a prescription for Viagra??"

The biggest indicators of this misogynist girl-hate, were the ragey reactions to Hannah's fling with a character played by Patrick Wilson. In fact, Slate devoted an entire article to the episode... wherein two dudes expressed their mutual disgust and horror at the notion of a hot guy like Patrick Wilson wanting someone like Hannah Horvath. (a witty, adorable, sexually adventurous 24 year old? Blech!)

So time to unpack:

The article kicks off with the first injured reviewer whining: "Really, the whole thing left me baffled and uncomfortable. Why are these people having sex, when they are so clearly mismatched—in style, in looks..."

(Um, is this your first time watching TV? Are you really, that uncomfortable seeing a "mismatched" couple having sex? Did you react the same way when Mad Men's Roger married his 20 year old secretary - under much, much creepier circumstances?)

First reviewer then goes on to wonder: "Why is he kissing her and begging her to stay over?"
 (Oh I don't know, maybe because he's horny, he's attracted to her, and she seems to be willing?)

Second dude chimes in with a  version of "yeah, bro,"  stating: "Presumably there are things that Hannah would not, in any world that resembled our own, get. Such as Patrick Wilson, for instance."
(First of all beta boy, she's not banging Patrick Wilson,  she's banging his character Joshua, whom we know nothing about. And who are you to decide who Hannah can or can't get? Maybe she couldn't get you, (such a big loss for her, I know.) But I'm pretty sure you don't speak for every person in the world.)

Then we're back to First dude, who  procedes to call our Hannah out for being "Sexually ungenerous" (because, when a girl like that gets the opportunity to sleep with a hot guy, she needs to act gratefully  subservient, right?) His bases for this assessment is the awesome moment wherein Hannah tells Joshua "“no, make me come."(in response to his instructing her to "make [him] come" first. ) So its ungenerous when Hannah throws his original command back in his face? What if she had gone with it, would that have made Patrick Wilson's character sexually ungenerous? Also haven't these "reviewers" ever heard of sexual teasing, and power play? Lighten up, bros!

My favorite moment in this exchange comes next, when first dude brands Hannah "Defiantly ungraceful." aaaand queue the gaydar.
Okay, maybe its unfair to speculate about this guy's sexuality-- but if he can only get hot for a graceful black swan, then maybe.... he's not really into the ladies? All I'm saying is that If he had ever slept with a girl  he'd know that we don't spend our time waltzing around like flowers. We have belly fat that folds over when we sit, and sometimes we go days without putting on a shirt. (You're welcome.)


Questions?

Nice guys need NOT apply! (or call. or text.)

 By Anči

If you want to turn off a feminist (or  really, any woman)  try becoming a dude who whines about friend-zones. You know the type: frustrated, insecure, and prone to sporting a GIANT chip on his shoulder (which he's dutifully purchased at an Apple store..) The kind of guy who likes to moan:  "It's not faaaair! I was nice to her, and she didn't have sex with me. Therefore: I should stop being nice to all women!" (a logical conclusion if ever there was one!)

If you want an example of this phenomenon, consider that in a recent (feminist) online discussion I joined, a misguided male commenter decided to pop up, and offer his two unsolicited cents on the subject of nice guys and pick up artists (PUA)  stating:

"So.... lets look at it this way. [A] nice guy who treats women well and takes his time is friend zoned. [while the] guy who acts like a funny jerk and pushes sex gets laid? As much as people hate PUA stuff... it exists continiously [sic] because women fall for it. I gurantee [sic] that half of the PUAs that exist... exist because they were tired of being friendzoned."

You mean nice guys like you, who are soooo nice they feel entitled to reward-sex? Because that is straight-up altruism, right there, buddy! And of course you're right : the only alternative to being a pathetic nice guy, is to act like a pushy jerk. There are literally no other available options to choose from.  (For more options, click here.)

If you're reading this blog, chances are you gave birth to me, (hi mom!)  or that I paid you to. (hi, honey!)  Also likely, is that you share my view that guys like this are a joke...   Sadly though,  at the core of this 'joke'  is a very real cultural expectation on women to 'put out' when all the 'official' requirements of 'courtship' have been met. (according to the guy. Never mind the woman's requirements, because... fuck us, right?)

In fact, I once (briefly) dated a guy who operated along those lines--  And he was perfectly nice for a while:  he opened doors for me, (although I was significantly stronger than him...)  took me out to dinner,  (which I thanked him for,)  left me sweet messages,  and then.... started saying he loved me, and was crazy about me.  (A sentiment I did not return.) This eventually progressed to him driving to my parents' house in the middle of the night,  to drop off  love letters, and baked goods--   at which point,  I had already been avoiding him for a few months. (Verbally ending things was not an option for me, once his erratic tendencies had become apparent,  and I no longer knew what behavior he was capable off.)

After months of no contact from my end,  this guy started leaving me charming voice mails to the tune of  "fuck you, bitch! You broke my heart, and now you won't talk to me?"  (No sir, I won't. And I bet it has something to do with how nice you are. ) The messages became increasingly violent, and  threatening,  until I was finally forced to respond with a pithy: "Stop harassing me, or I will take legal action." (Fun fact: I still have all his messages saved, in case he ever does try to contact me again.  )

All this went down several years ago, and still it remains my number--one association with the term 'nice guy,'   Obviously, I am not unique in this perspective-- as almost every woman I've talked to, has at some point been harassed by a nice guy of her own.    [seriously dudes, come up with a new strategy... maybe take up knitting! Because who doesn't love a whimsical sweater?]


I imagine that the  man who left the initial whiny comment, might scoff  "so you'd rather date a jerk instead?"  (I've actually gotten similar reactions before.) And to him and his ilk I'd counter:  "How is the story I just shared NOT a clear-cut description of a jerk, you entitled sociopath??"
Get it now readers? Jerks and nice guys are part of the same creepy continuum, and if you don't agree with me you too might be a sociopath! :)

Now, this is not to disparage the 'good guys' who are monumentally different from the nice guys. (In that  the good guys are pleasant, caring people who don't expect sex in return for decency.) Good guys make great friends as well as  great boyfriends and/or lovers (if that's what you're into.) Being a good guy, doesn't guarantee anyone sex, but it does guarantee not being labeled a creep... which is so rare these days, it almost passes for a virtue...

What are your thoughts?

Unworthy, and unbeautiful: How I navigate feminism and femininity

 By Anči

As a feminist well versed in the oppressive lies of ‘the beauty myth,’ it’s a challenge to reconcile my hostility toward this particularly damaging social construct, with my enthusiastic participation in its many rituals. Yes it’s true:  I’m a feminist  who performs beauty.

And that’s what beauty is: a performance.  More than that, though it’s an investment… which in my case, means shelling out big bucks on skin products, laser hair removal treatments, (my nickname in 8^th grade was “unibrow,”) and of course makeup!

For the most part, I enjoy the process—  It feels gratifying and even luxurious to spend time painting and  adorning myself . I like the way mascara makes my eyes pop; and for special events, I might also bring out the eyeliner,  or some  blush. (Because how else would everyone know how seriously I take their Office Christmas Party? )

Putting myself together always brings on that familiar, satisfied relief that accompanies any patriarchy-approved transformation.  Every woman is familiar with the affirmation that ensues the moment we snap our makeup mirrors shut.  It says ‘Now I am presentable. Now I am deserving of respect.’

This is obviously a deeply problematic assessment to make—one that equates worth and humanity with looks. It’s also an attitude we’ve been taught since childhood. I recall being told many times as girl, that putting effort into my appearance is what  tells the world that I respect myself.  (Up until then, I hadn’t realized that my sacred self-respect boiled down to whether or not I had plucked my eyebrows that day.)

Of course, attempting to gauge the opinion a person has of herself, based on how polished she looks, is ridiculous. (And petty. And judgemental. ) After all, I am at my most confident when  I’m  writing , and believe me when I tell you I am neither plucked, nor matching right now.

So how can I keep  participating  in the global deception that is “beauty,” when I am so painfully aware of its effects on women?

The answer is complicated.

 For  many women, complying with beauty standards is a question of social survival.  In a world where being ‘unattractive ‘ translates into being invisible, beauty performance  can serve as a weapon against the isolation, dismissal and contempt reserved for the unbeautiful. If you don’t believe me, consider this: In July, when I got a flat tire, and emerged from my car in heels and a dress, I was instantly surrounded by concerned, helpful men, eager to change my tire, and give me rides. Then consider the number of times you’ve walked past a homeless person, in even graver need of assistance.  The difference is simple: In the first case, my appearance conveyed enough status to warrant care, and  attention, while in  the homeless man’s case, his appearance undermined him, rendering him invisible, and undeserving of empathy.

Beauty  performance is more often an act of survival,  than it is an indicator of selfishness. Often times, it is simply a gesture of appeasement--  a way to placate the male gaze, and reassure a male dominated society of peaceful compliance.  ‘See? We’re playing along. Your precious power structure is still intact.’

Of course, nobody applies makeup with the conscious intent of exhibiting status, or placating patriarchy.  Most of the time makeup feels like girly fun— for me it’s a tool for self expression,  a way to be creative!  I’m certainly not  trying to imply that women who perform beauty are weak, pitiful creatures.  We are complex, human beings, reacting to, and evolving with our environment.

I want to make it clear that the intent of this post was never to shame feminine women , but rather to deconstruct the significance of their actions.  If feminism has taught us anything, it’s that the personal is political, and that whether or not we mean to be sending a message, every single one of our actions reflects and establishes our norms and values.

What does beauty mean to you?