I don’t think I knew, outside the realm of those beauty pageants for little girls, that 8-year-olds wore mascara. Not only does this phenomenon exist, according to a NYT article, but
From 2007 to 2009, the percentage of girls ages 8 to 12 who regularly use mascara and eyeliner nearly doubled — to 18 percent from 10 percent for mascara, and to 15 percent from 9 percent for eyeliner. The percentage of them using lipstick also rose, to 15 percent from 10 percent.
We’re* prepping them earlier and earlier, with the assistance of the beauty industry, for conforming to notions of “beauty” and “femininity,” for life as the objects of the heterosexual male gaze. From the article:
"There’s relentless marketing pressure on young girls to look older,” Ms. [Stacy] Malkan said. “Not just from magazines and TV ads, but from shows like ‘90210.’ Those kids are supposed to be in 10th and 11th grade, but they look 25.”
Indeed, the aisles of Sephora and CVS are lined with cosmetics aimed at Miley Cyrus fans. Fashion runways teem with heavily made-up girls of 14. Neutrogena offers a line of acne-clearing makeup featured on the “Neutrogena Teen” section of its Web site. Even Dylan’s Candy Bar, the upscale candy store whose Upper East Side flagship has become a tourist attraction, has a “beauty” line that includes cupcake body lotion and strawberry licorice “lip saver.” (“Lips should always be candy-luscious and sweet to kiss!” reads the Web site.)
Others have documented this ongoing sexualization of young girls. In speaking of her book, Girl Culture, Lauren Greenfield notes the “the exhibitionist nature of modern femininity.” Diane Levin and Jean Kilbourne explore the role of gendered and sexualized marketing on young girls in So Sexy, So Soon. They tell a story of 7- and 8-year-old girls who feel they must be sexy so boys will like them and are upset that their parents won’t buy them sexy clothes. Levin and Kilbourne describe the messages transmitted over and over to young girls
In today’s cultural environment, products that channel children into narrowly focused content and activities threaten to consume every aspect of their lives. For young girls, this usually means focusing on buying fashion items, looking pretty, and acting sexy. From newfangled Barbies and sexy Bratz dolls to “old-fashioned” princess fairy tales, young girls… learn to value a certain aesthetic and a certain behavior—be pretty, be coy, and… be saved in the end by the handsome prince. [T]hese gender stereotypes and sexualized messages are everywhere. **
They are everywhere and apparently they are effective.
The author of the NYT article says that some young girls might be “sophisticated enough to make… their own beauty decisions.” He points to an 11-year old who denied trying to emulate anyone by wearing makeup; “I try to make myself look like me,” she said.
That immediately reminded me of a scene from Good Hair when Chris Rock tries to go into a hair supply store and sell “black” hair to the store owner who stocks primarily Indian hair. Black women, the store owner tells him, don’t want “black” hair, because they want to look more “natural.” You can see that scene beginning around the 2:09 second mark in the trailer below.
All of that leads me to wonder why looking “natural” is never equivalent to being "natural" (i.e. without artifice) for women. Instead, “natural” is constructed as the outcome of subjecting our bodies, head to toe, to various processes.
As girls began these processes at younger and younger ages, what will be the effect on their physical and mental well-being? _______________________ *The article says that 2/3 of the girls surveyed reported getting makeup and makeup techniques from a “family member or adult family friend.”
**Diane Levin and Jean Kilbourne, So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids (New York: Ballantine Books, 2009), 30; 32-33.
Or maybe the mommy/non-mommy wars, as for some people, motherhood seems to be the only reference for women's identity.
So, Luisita Lopez Torregrosa wrote an article entitled "Childless by Choice," in which she discusses her decision not to have children or get married, how she enjoys her life, and how she's felt distance grow between her married, "child-filled" friends and herself. In other words, she's describing her life. I didn't like the blanket statement here:
Take women with children, especially with young children. They get together -- at the park, at the grocery, at play dates – and can talk about nothing else but their beautiful, brilliant, amazing children.
When I did manage to get with my girlfriends when my kid was small, the last thing we wanted to talk about was the kids. We wanted mixed drinks and a break. I didn't like the generalization, but I don't doubt for a minute that might be her experience and again, she's describing her life.
Which should be just fine, right?
Apparently, that's not controversial enough. The AOL lede/link to the story is "Woman's Column May Anger Moms."* Because all moms decide other women's lives must be read through and judged by moms' experiences and because we get blazingly angry that all women don't make the same choices.
Or something. _______________________ *Sorry, y'all, wanted to provide a screen capture, but my en-virus laptop is not cooperating. As of right now you can go here, and click to page 5 of 9 in the little lead stories box to see the link.
From the "Patriarchy Is Bad for Men, Too" Files...
[Click images to embiggen.]
This Jota Art Jewelry campaign [via Copyranter] attempts to sell diamonds to (straight) women—or, the (straight) men who buy diamonds for (straight) women—by reflecting the stereotypical "bad behaviors" of (straight) men in the stone (leaving the seat up; toothpaste mess), accompanied by the single word "Forgiveness."
Arguably, the ad is directed as much at (straight) men, conveying to them they should buy diamonds to beg forgiveness, as it is at (straight) women, conveying to them they should expect diamonds in exchange for forgiveness. In either case, the ad basically suggests that (straight) men don't have to be respectful, if they can afford diamonds. And (straight) women shouldn't expect respect, when they can just settle for diamonds.
In spite of her health-conscious eating habits from a young age, Edelstein still experienced a shock when she hit puberty later in her teen years. "When I was 19, I went from a size zero to a size 10 in six months," Edelstein told Prevention. "My boobs and my butt grew 3 and a half sizes. Suddenly, I was this voluptuous woman, and I had no idea what to do with my body. I hated it. Eating was so much fun until then. (Now) you sort of have to learn how not to eat potato chips."
To counter her drastically-changing body, the actress has always been active, and has been "doing Mysore [mahy-sawr] style Ashtanga yoga for 14 years. I like it because it's a self-practice-everyone's doing the practice they've learned. The teacher only gives you another pose because you're ready for it."
The idea that you have to counter a body that might be making natural changes blows me away.
Beaks at Ain't It Cool News callsAnchorman "the most quoted comedy of the last decade." Really? The only lines I can remember from that film off the top of my head are: "I love lamp" and "Great Odin's raven," neither of which I'd call mainstays in the pop culture lexicon.
I would argue the most quoted film in recent memory is The Big Lebowski (the Dude really does abide), but that predates the last decade.
I'm having a hard time coming up with last-decade contenders, though. Over at LG&M, where R-Far posted this, a commenter mentioned Napoleon Dynamite, which has gotta be up there. "Whatever I want to do today—gosh!"
What naughties film(s) do you nominate for most quoted/quotable, Shakers?
As an aspiring exotic animal behaviorist, I spend a LOT of time working for free. Internships and volunteering have turned out to be a great way of getting experience and networking, and my favorite place for that so far has been at Oceans of Fun (oceansoffun.org), a seal and sea lion training program at the Milwaukee Zoo.
On April 8, I had the privilege of watching one of the California sea lions at our facility give birth to her fifth pup. She was born tail first, which meant that only her hind flippers were visible for quite some time—and she was wiggling them in her effort to be born! She was approximately 14 pounds when she was born, and is growing like a weed. I just wanted to share some pictures of her with you guys. (The third pic is a newborn pic, as you'll be able to see by the umbilical cord, and the rest are older.)
[For the Facebook people, Oceans of Fun is there too and is posting pics of her pretty regularly.]
Senate Democrats officially unveiled a proposal to reform America's immigration system on Thursday, looking past the fact that no Republican has offered support for the effort and President Obama a day earlier played down the chances of legislation passing this year.
OMG the Democrats are defying the Republicans! And President Bipartisan! IT'S LIKE THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THEY ARE ANYMORE!
Seeking to woo Republicans, the 26-page framework, which has not yet been written into a formal bill, emphasizes first taking steps to limit illegal immigration before offering new rights for those here illegally. But the REPAIR (Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform) proposal, as Democrats dubbed it, also would create a pathway to legal status for an estimated 10.8 million people who are already in the country illegally, an idea opposed by many conservatives.
You know what would be a great story for the WaPo to do…? Interviewing prominent rightwingers to see if they think the Democratic Party should change its name. Or possibly disband altogether. Because every day, I wonder: What do conservatives think of the Democrats and their policies? If only someone would write an article telling me whether conservatives tend to oppose or support Democratic initiatives.
Anyway...
Under the proposal, illegal immigrants currently in the United States would be eligible for legal status in eight years, as long as they learned English, had not committed a crime and paid their taxes. The federal government would increase funding for border security and require all American workers get a new version of their Social Security card that would include a biometric identifier to protect against the creation of counterfeits.
I love the smell of conditional amnesty in the morning!
I remain unconvinced that someone should have to learn English to live in the US, and I don't see why it should take eight years to attain legal status (when other countries, such as Brazil, have successful amnesty programs that don't require such rigmarole), but I'm definitely in support of an amnesty program of some description, and this frankly sounds better than I would have expected. I'll withhold final judgment until the actual bill is written, though…
Meanwhile, in totally depressing news, Gallup has found that of the three-quarters of Americans who have heard about Arizona's new immigration law, more support it than oppose it, 51%-39%.
The great thing about series finales is: They have to fit the show. So, the M*A*S*H series finale is so specific to M*A*S*H, and the Newhart finale is so specific to Newhart. Other shows could not get away with—Matthew Fox can't wake up at the end of Lost and basically be in his Party of Five Charlie Salinger self [grins] and say, "I just had this dream about an island!" 'cause we're not Newhart, you know?
So, what we're trying to do is to end Lost in a way that feels Lostian, and fair, and will generate a tremendous amount of theorizing, which the show in and of itself has always done. We're gonna be as definitive as we can be, and say, "This is our ending," but there's no way to end the show where the fans aren't gonna say, "What did they mean by this?!" Which is why we're not going to explain it. [laughs]
Anyone who knows anything about me knows this: I HATE ANIMAL REACTION SHOTS IN MOVIES. (That is definitely what I'm most famous for, right?) So the COMING SOON movie Furry Vengeance, starring Brendan Fraser (sad), is basically my worst nightmare:
[Paraphrase below.]
I know this is a kids' movie, but this is the kind of movie I hated even when I was a kid. The kind of movie where nothing makes sense, and a bunch of stupid things happen that would never happen ever. I loved (and love still) movies about animals, but not anthropomorphized animals who are smarter than the main human protagonist.
The ten-year-old me would argue: Either it is a real movie with real people and animals doing generally realistic things, or it is a fantasy movie, in which case I do want a fantastical and imaginative metaphorical story, and I do not want some boring-ass, uncoded, moralistic tale about urban sprawl which is a real problem that deserves better than Brendan Fraser getting covered in poop in an upturned port-o-potty.
If someone had given me a copy of this movie when I was a kid, I would have beat it into a thousand pieces with my copy of The Black Stallion. Is what I'm saying.
I'm sorry, Children of Today. You deserve better.
Paraphrase: Evil businesspeople played by Ken Jeong (an Asian man) and Angela Kinsey (a white woman) are plotting on an airplane to turn the beautiful green hills of Rocky Springs into a shopping mall "with a forest theme." Cut to a squirrel out of fucking nowhere, screaming. Brendan Fraser (white man) is dubious, but apparently stupid, so he goes home and tells his family this is a great environmental project. His son and wife (Brooke Shields) react like you would to someone with a case of the stupids who's trying to convince you that deforestation to build a forest-themed mall is a good idea.
The raccoon peering in the window, and the mouse watching through a telescope also believe he is a real dingaling, and they would know, since they are obviously very smart and speak English.
And they must read English, too, otherwise it wouldn't make any sense that they know how to build elaborate Rube Goldberg machines out of twigs and stones. "MIley Cyrus!" screams Brendan Fraser, as a giant boulder launches into the path of his SUV, because he apparently doesn't understand that is the name of a person, not a curse word used by human adults.
Oh, how the mouse laughs and laughs when the SUV comes to a screeching halt, only for the airbag to deploy and make Brendan Fraser spill hot coffee in his own face! Brendon Fraser should have remembered that old adage: Mess with nature, you get hot coffee in your face—and water in your crotch! Which is what happens next when he tries to turn a sprinkler onto the raccoon. He should have heeded that old chestnut: A raccoon will not soon be wet when there are sight gags involving crotch disruption to be had!
That's a real saying, I'm sure.
Zaniness ensues as the raccoon unplugs Fraser's treadmill, sending him flying into his flat-screen teevee! And then the raccoon conspires to keep Fraser awake at night—with noises! And skunks—ha ha I don't even have to TELL you what they do, do I? STINKOLA! HA HA HA! Then the raccoon sabotages his milk when he's eating breakfast outside like people totally do! And then it hotwires his car, which raccoons are known for almost as much as eating garbage.
Brendan Fraser, suddenly smart, suspects the animals are in cahoots and plotting against him. Birds poop near him and on that horrible businesslady. Otters and other woodland creatures ruin things! A bear pushes Fraser over in a port-o-potty! Which somehow ends up in a tree! Like you would totally expect using your ability to predict things.
Brendan Fraser says to a raccoon, near some other raccoons, "You have a family. All this time, you were protecting them." That looks like the ending. Good, now no one has to see this movie.
"I don't do politics; I do the news."—Fox News Channel founder and president Roger Ailes, during a speech earlier this week at the Ritz-Carlton Naples Golf Resort for the Ave Maria School of Law's "Conversations With" speaker series, which has already featured such other totes non-political luminaries as Edwin Meese and Andrew Card.
See Deeky's archive of all previous Conniving & Sinister strips here.
[In which Liss reimagines the long-running comic "Frank & Ernest," about two old straight white guys "telling it like it is," as a fat feminist white woman and a biracial queerbait telling it like it actually is from their perspectives. Hilarity ensues.]
Shaker Peggy Sue emails: "This public art installation just went up in DC and holy SHIT are these women beautiful. And outside! And glittery! In the middle of the street! And holy crap, FAT! :) I work in the area and can see this joyous shit every single day. Woooo! (And of course, ignore the comments.) P.S. HOLY SHIT I LOVE THESE STATUES LIKE WHOA."
Renee emailed me the link to this article, "A Case for Those Extra 10 Pounds," with the amusing summary: "Apparently it's okay to be a little bit fat but the 'real fatties' are still going to die."
"Be fat—but not too fat!"
*headdesk*
File Alongside: "Don't be too tall—or too short!" And "Be pretty—but not too pretty!" And "Be smart—but not too smart!" And "Be sexually available to men—but don't be a slut!" And "Hey, white girls, get tan—and hey, brown girls, bleach your skin!" And "Hey, black girl, don't 'act so black'—but make sure you still 'act black' enough or else we'll accuse you of 'acting white'!" And "Don't try to be like a man in the workplace—but definitely don't behave like a woman!" And "Don't be too feminine or you won't be taken seriously—but don't be too butch or you will be mocked or ignored!" And "Hey, trans girls, you'd better try to pass—but don't reinforce the gender binary!" And "Have kids—but not too many!" And "Care about your appearance—but don't focus too much on your looks, or we'll accuse you of being shallow!" And…
The Washington Times proves the increasing irrelevance of print media, killing a few thousand trees to print hateful bigotry and make the astonishing claim, in the Land of the Free and Home of the Theoretically All-Created-Equal, that discrimination based on gender identity is A Good Thing.
A hate-filled rag, which I wouldn't use to stuff menstrual pads for monkeys, written by contemptuous and contemptible hacks.
Tip of the CaitieCap to Shaker the_pixie_mouse.
Edit: Shaker catvoncat provides us with a link to an antidote to this vitriolic scumwave: I am a transsexual. Well said, Mr. Kehrli (and my apologies for the misgendering, too).
Welcome to Shakesville, a progressive feminist blog about politics, culture, social justice, cute things, and all that is in between. Please note that the commenting policy and the Feminism 101 section, conveniently linked at the top of the page, are required reading before commenting.
