A hempless Leighton Meester: Comfortable?

I was perusing the September issue of Teen Vogue and came across an article about hair, featuring Leighton Meester, one of the stars of Gossip Girl. The piece seemed inoffensive…until the second sentence:

“But ask [Meester] about her own high school days, and she readily admits she wasn’t exactly an upper-East side sophisticate. ‘I had glasses, unplucked eyebrows, and I wore hemp necklaces!’ she confesses. ‘It’s only recently that I’ve gotten comfortable in my own skin.’”

Does this make anyone else a little bit mad?

What was the most aggravating to me was that the author implied strongly that Meester dressed like that BECAUSE she had no self-confidence. She wore glasses, hemp necklaces, and didn’t pluck her eyebrows because she wasn’t confident. Apparently, everyone who wears glasses hasn’t “gotten comfortable in [their] own skin” yet… such as totally amazing women like Tina Fey or Lisa Loeb? Also conversely to her statement, people who are particularly confident might wear hemp necklaces because it’s an unpopular style, as opposed to less self-assured people being afraid to take a fashion risk. And the eyebrows… it’s a person’s choice, to pluck or not to pluck. There are people out there blessed with natural, no-pluck-needed eyebrows. Maybe Meester is one of the lucky few.

You can be as unconfident as anything and wear the hottest, most popular clothes, contacts, pluck (or even wax!) your eyebrows, and wear, uh, un-hemp necklaces and you STILL won’t be comfortable in your own skin. Or, you can wear all of those things and feel great about yourself!

I rarely look through Teen Vogue, but I know girls who revere it as a Bible of sorts. Will they stop wearing their glasses because Leighton Meester thinks that it makes them seem unconfident? I really hope not.

Is that cover DARK AND MENACING? WELL THEN KEEP IT FROM THE CHILDREN!

Crank and Glass, both written by Ellen Hopkins, follow Kristina Snow, a high achieving 17 year old, as she nose dives into a meth addiction, with details on her subsequent rape, unwanted pregnancy and eventual jail time. Now, with just that one line description to go on, I can kind of see what the administrators at the high school over in Humble, Texas were thinking when they were presented with the opportunity to have the mastermind behind the series speak to their students. Who wants their kids exposed to what it’s really like to do drugs? So, they uninvited Ellen Hopkins to their “Teen Lit Fest.” Their thought process, as “concerned parents” sort of makes sense…until you actually read the books.

Both of these books were based on the author’s own experience of watching her daughter battle her own meth addiction, and the close proximity to and honesty about addiction are apparent in the text. Hopkins paints a portrait of a girl – lost and miserable – and even personifies the “monster” that is her addiction, a bona fide villain that haunts her. Not to mention that all of this is done in gorgeous free verse poetry.

These books display the truth about addiction: the honest and raw facts. No teen could possibly read this series and think to themselves, “Must. Become. Burn Out. Immediately. SOUNDS LIKE SO MUCH FUN!” Instead they think, “Wouldn’t it suck if my life became all about feeding a monster that lives in my brain and torments me constantly, not to mention opening myself up to the increased possibility of dangerous situations because of  my lack of judgment? I’m glad I read this book that in fact dispels the glamorization of drug use.”

Or something along those lines.

It’s not just that these parents, by trying to censor Hopkins’ work, are doing their children a disservice by shielding them from an experience that would almost definitely turn them off of drugs. It’s that the idea that teens must be shielded from reality – that they will make BETTER decisions if the truth is hidden from them –  is getting so very, very old.

It’s the same old song and dance that goes along with abstinence only sex education. I can just imagine politicians (probably convening ironically in a strip club, but then again, I have an active imagination) denouncing the general sin that is teens having sex and deciding, “Well we’ll just keep it from them by telling them to wait instead of giving them the nitty gritty about it. That’ll work.” Except for that it doesn’t.

But comprehensive sex education does. You know, the route of giving teens the facts and telling them what they can do to make the best out of a realistic situation. The same should go for teaching us about drug abuse. Give us the facts. We can handle it and we’ll be so much better off for it. Amazingly, teens aren’t about to pick up  an addiction at the mere mention of drugs.

If you talk honestly, we’ll listen. We don’t need clowns or comparisons of our bodies to sucked lollipops and we don’t need you hiding the world of drugs from us. We just need the truth, support and education. With that, we’re golden.

Alison Iraheta

When Allison Iraheta was on American Idol, I really liked her, and was upset when she got voted off. One of my friends fell totally in love with her. “You gotta hear her single, ‘Friday I’ll Be Over U,’ it rocks,” she kept hocking me. I finally looked it up on YouTube and was unimpressed. When my friend kept insisting that I had to listen to the whole album, I got it from the library.

Since this isn’t an album critique, I won’t go into detail about how Allison sold her soul to the Music Industry Devil by singing teenybopper songs when she has more of a Janis Joplin appeal. What I will go into detail about is the plain old anti-woman offensiveness on the album. The songs “Friday I’ll Be Over U” and “Don’t Waste the Pretty” are being touted as girl-power anthems, and I admit that they do contain weak positive messages. The offender on the album overshadows any positivity, though: “Beat Me Up.”

“Beat Me Up” was PAINFUL to listen to. My Allison-obsessed friend did warn me about it. “There’s this really weird song at the end called ‘Beat Me Up’ that I don’t even know what it’s about,” she said.

I don’t know, but to me, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out the topic. The title itself screams “I support domestic violence!” It’s not like a hidden message or anything. “You like to keep me on a chain…You beat me up…You hit me up…You always make me do those things…You get your fix out of causing me pain…” To me, it’s pretty obvious that she’s singing about a boyfriend who abuses her, physically and sexually.

When I first heard the song and the first verse ended, I expected the song to begin going on a “Never Again” by Nickelback track, where she “pulls the trigger as fast as she can” on her abusive husband at the end of the song, but no. “Beat Me Up” says, “I’ll never let you go…I still love you cuz you heat me up…I come running cuz you fix me up…Oh baby just beat me up…I really don’t care what they say about me / Cuz he gives me everything I want.”

Music Choice, a series of music channels on television, has an oldies channel that my family watches, and they often play a song called “Johnny Get Angry” by Joanie Sommers. In summary, it’s a watered-down sixties version of “Beat Me Up.” I hate that Music Choice plays it and have complained to them about it in the past (file a complaint to help me get it banned from the channel here), but I can excuse it, as the song was recorded in 1962. That was before The Feminine Mystique was published and before people even heard the term “women’s rights.” But in this day and age, for Allison Iraheta to release a song that promotes domestic violence?

I looked into the song and found an interview of Allison Iraheta online. “It’s a pretty rad song. This chick likes being mistreated by her guy. A lot of girls out there, they like that! And it’s kind of sad, but y’know, that’s just the way she is. Not that I’m like that because I’d beat the hell out of whoever the hell mistreats me! I put myself in another girl’s shoes, so it’s a pretty cool song,” she said. While she at least said that she would never personally take abuse from a guy, I sincerely doubt any of the thousands of 10 – 16-year-olds who listened to “Beat Me Up” are going to read that interview.

According to the American Bar Association, 25% of women were raped or assaulted by a current or former spouse, living partner, or boyfriend. 1.3 million women a year are sexually assaulted by their partners, and 33% of female murder victims are killed by their partners. Approximately 85% of spouse and dating abuse victims are female. These are TERRIFYING statistics. Many cases of domestic abuse aren’t ever reported, making a lot of these statistics much too low. In books like Burned by Ellen Hopkins, no one in the family ever divulges their father’s abuse. “It’s embarrass[ing]. You can’t show your face in public without feeling like you’ve done something wrong. Something you need to be punished for. Not only that, but…you’ve been bad,” one of the abuse victims says in Burned.

So, Allison Iraheta, is that what you’re supporting?

Talia also blogs for Star of Davida

January Jones / Betty Draper - not allowed to work out?

A few weeks ago various entertainment blogs and news sites were running a series of stories about Mad Men‘s Producer Matthew Weiner. Feminist bloggers and health writers soon joined the conversation. Now Mad Men is no bastion of feminist drama and critical theory, but these bloggers were veritably showering praise on Weiner. Why? Because, reportedly, he doesn’t allow his actresses to exercise and encourages them to eat plenty in order to look “soft and voluptuous” like “healthy women.”

F-A-I-L.

I’m going to make this as coherent a criticism as possible, but Weiner’s comments and the subsequent feedback from bloggers anger me as symptoms of much broader problematic conversations. So I’ll break the issues down systematically:

The idea of fattening up or slimming down for a role is nothing new in the acting world. But to imply that gaining weight to ensure continued acting success is somehow amenable to healthy living as well is ludicrous. These actresses have been asked to gain weight because doing so will allow them to better embody the aesthetic that predominated in the mid-20th century, one which favored hourglass shapes (the word “ample” comes to mind) over androgynous or boyish figures. Keep in mind that this was a body ideal of that era, not a standard everyone met by any means.

Furthermore, it is unclear to me what Weiner and these actresses mean by “healthy women.” Are we to understand that women whose figures do not fill out a 1960s girdle are ill? That women with curvy bodies cannot have eating disorders or exercise fixations? That women who rest up and do not engage in any activity–because of their obviously delicate constitutions–are somehow better off? This has all the tinges of old school sexism, 1960s style, appropriately enough. I say call a spade a spade, and say the actresses in Mad Men are being told to gain weight in order to appear like June Cleavers (albeit sexier ones), not that they are models for natural health.

Which brings me to my next point: the strong show of support for Weiner among women’s and feminist blogs. I can understand why–don’t get me wrong. I don’t have to rehash how the thin aesthetic endangers womens’ health. Sometimes, anyone who breaks away from such rhetoric seems a godsend. But why should it be the case that the feminist reponse to media filled with women who are unnaturally thin due to compromised physical and mental well-being should be a call for women to embrace being overweight to the extent that they are at increased risk of chronic disease? What happened to moderation?

Yes, moderation. Where we eat healthy, plant-based diets. Where we make ourselves tired (but not crazy or dead) through regular exercise. Where we enjoy peaceful time to ourselves and joyous time with those around us as a balance to busy lives.

I don’t mean to imply that everyone should start policing every lifestyle decision they make. I don’t think we should start analyzing each morsel, each epushup, each unchiseled ab. Instead, I simply feel that we should be careful not to conflate dialog on body image with medical advice. Greta Christina, on her atheist/feminist/sex blog, discussed this subject back in March. She wrote about some of the internalized backlash she felt as a feminist trying to lose weight, and the particular difficulties in negotiating this position without feeling she had to defend herself against fat-positive advocates. She offers steps for those looking to pursue weight loss in an image-obsessed society from an anti-establishment perspective. Similar guidelines would apply to weight gain or any other type of body transformation:

(a) Doing an honest, non-denialist, reality-based assessment of the costs and benefits of weight loss (including, and especially, the health costs and benefits);
and (b) Pursuing weight loss in a reality-based way if you think it would be right for you.

Simple but not simplistic, and worthwhile considerations, I think.

I have often found it uncomfortable and difficult to bring up this critique of feminist-grounded “fat acceptance” movements. Mine is not an easy view to articulate without fear of being misrepresented. Yet, I think this very questioning within the feminist arena, moving beyond the hackneyed “love your body” to a “love your body and seek ways to honor it, feel more vibrant, and pursue healthy longevity” is well worth our while. After all, do not fit and thriving bodies in themselves make it possible for us to be better feminists and activists?

Janani also writes for Who’s On Third Wave where this article was originally posted.

cat power

Cat Power is the stage name of American singer/songwriter Chan Marshall (born Charlyn Marie Marshall on January 21, 1972). She is known for her minimalist style, sparse guitar and piano playing, and breathy vocals.

Chan Marshall was born in Atlanta, Georgia. Marshall’s father, Charlie, is a blues musician and itinerant pianist. Her childhood involved much upheaval, with Marshall living throughout the Southern United States (Greensboro, North Carolina; Bartlett, Tennessee; and Georgia and South Carolina), back and forth between parents and her grandmother. In interviews she has openly discussed her childhood and stated that the constant traveling prepared her for the touring life of a professional musician.

After dropping out of high school, she started performing under the name Cat Power while in Atlanta, backed by musicians Glen Thrasher, Marc Moore, and others. She took the Cat Power name after a Caterpillar ad that read: “Cat Diesel Power”. While in Atlanta, Marshall played her first live shows as support to her friends’ bands, including Magic Bone and Opal Foxx Quartet.

In 2007, Marshall contributed songs to the soundtrack of Ethan Hawke’s new movie The Hottest State, recording with Jesse Harris and Terry Manning, and the Academy Award-winning Juno. In early 2008, she collaborated with Beck and producer Danger Mouse on the album Modern Guilt. She contributed backing vocals to two tracks, “Orphans” and “Walls”. The album was released in July of that year.

Cat Power’s song “Half of You”, from the album You Are Free, was featured on the HBO show True Blood in an episode 6 love scene, and “Fool”, from the same album, was featured in episode 4 of the third series of UK teen drama Skins. Cat Power’s song “The Greatest,” from her album The Greatest, was featured in the 2009 film 17 Again.

via wikipedia

Sea of Love

Wonderwall (cover)

Cat Power on iTunes:

Lilith, the burn of dirt and grass on your back when he pushed you down.  Lilith of the earth, legs shoulders breasts breathing clay, and they called your name bitch demon monster whore. The next one was weak, was male-fleshed, was Eve was Mary was mother-virgin was learning as you did that opinions are not a girl thing.

Lilith, you spoke the only truth ever spoken in a language so long forgotten that we are just inventing it. Hail Lilith, full of fight and fire. Blessed art thou among women and blessed are your daughters sisters lovers friends. Pray for the sinners who batter rape starve silence your sisters lovers daughters and call their names how they called yours. Lead us to scream to be heard to challenge to change. Lead us into temptation to fight cry talk sing love on earth as it was not in heaven.

Amen.

Crystal Renn: a role model or a blip on the skinny radar?

I’m not happy with the way I look. I may tell you that I am, but I’m not. I constantly worry if I’m too fat to wear certain clothes, too fat to be desirable, too fat to be beautiful. Who should I turn to for support? My friends? My family?

They feel exactly the same way. All of them, every single person I know says the same thing, that thinness is interchangeable with beauty, that skinny=good and “fat” = bad.

Some teenage girls live in a world where nobody, and I mean nobody, can offer support if they’re worried about their body.

Blame the media. Blame my friends. Blame the media for influencing my friends.

I don’t care who you blame because, I don’t see a way to change it anymore. It doesn’t seem to matter how many “real women” get held up as role models for good body image. Crystal Renn? Fat. Christina Hendricks? Yeah, right. My friends think she’s fat too. I found it a struggle to even think of famous women with “real bodies” that are considered role models. When did skinny become code for pretty, perfect, desirable? Flicking through a fashion magazine, I hear my friends cry, “She’s so skinny!”, as if that was something to aspire to, an ideal kind of body, and not an unrealistic image that’s been doctored to fit a certain look- super thin, poreless, smooth, perfect, beautiful people. There are no too-prominent collarbones or sunken, hollow cheeks, there’s no sallow skin or jarringly obvious ribcages. It’s all been brushed over with the magic wand of photoshop, hiding the reality of being THAT skinny. The media doesn’t want to admit that being thin doesn’t always equal being pretty. The world doesn’t want to admit that someone can be “fat” and pretty.

And honestly? I want to be happy with my weight. I want to love my body.

It’s harder than it sounds. So much harder.

We get bombarded daily with reminders that we’re not good enough, not slim enough, that our skin isn’t smooth enough, our hair isn’t shiny enough, our faces aren’t pretty enough. It’s everywhere. Advertising. Television. Magazines. Clothes stores. Friends. Family. Acquaintances.

Why can’t people just…stop?

Why have we all been brainwashed into idolizing the bodies of models?

Let people love their bodies. Everyone’s unique.

Fat is good.

Skinny is good.

Whatever shape or size you are, you should be accepted by society.

It’s a cliché, saying that.

I just wish it could actually happen.

Hannah writes her own style blog with her friend Naomi, Style Hawkers

Chelsea Baker

I remember one day in 5th grade during P.E. class, a particularly douchey male classmate of mine turned to me completely unsolicited and said, “Boys are better than girls at sports, you know.” Now, if this had happened today, you better believe I would have smacked the dodgeball or whiffle ball or whatever sports accessory I may have been holding at the time into his righteous face (just kidding, violence is bad). But I was ten, and even though his statement didn’t seem true to me I just let him get away with it. I mean I personally fail miserably at sports, but that’s due to complete indifference and laziness, neither of which I attribute to my gender or even physical ability. And now that I think about it, this kid wasn’t exactly an athletic prodigy himself. But maybe if I Chelsea Baker had been around then to look up to I would have rolled my eyes and told him off.

13-year-old Chelsea Baker was recently recognized by the National Baseball Hall of Fame for pitching two perfect games – something that is apparently a very notable accomplishment in the realm of baseball. And she did it playing against boys in Little League. Not only is this awesome for the obvious reason that it’s making America question our perceptions of gender norms, especially when it comes to girls and physical ability, but I think it’s great that she felt assertive enough to play with the boys in the first place. While Chelsea is clearly incredibly talented, who knows how many girls out there who love baseball, or other sports for that matter, feel held back from joining the boys (and beating them) because of their gender?

Chelsea with her teammates

Playing sports has actually been proven to be incredibly beneficial for girls on many levels, including promoting higher self esteem, lower prevalence of sexual risk-taking behavior, and camaraderie and teamwork amongst girls. As Chelsea Baker herself said, “When I strike them (boys) out with the knuckleball, sometimes they’ll throw their helmets and start crying. It’s just really funny to watch.” How’s that for self-esteem? Plus, those boys seem like they need to be taught that they’re on equal grounds with girls: being defeated by one shouldn’t be any less honorable than being defeated by a guy.

So, Chelsea, the FBomb salutes you for being a fantastic role model and showing America that girls CAN play sports.

Hear Chelsea tell her story below in a (slightly condescending on the part of the correspondent) CNN interview:

"The Woman" - Mad Men era femininity reflected by the era's fashion

As the season changes, so do fashion trends; Elle, Vogue and many other magazines have shifted focus from bikinis to boots. This brought a thought to my mind about something that is supposedly back in style: “The Woman.”

“The Woman” is a trend that was conjured up on the runways of Louis Vuitton and Prada in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Obviously, other designers made clothing for women; however it was those two that were somehow considered to have captured the stereotypical essence of femininity. Both collections displayed subdued hues, midi-length, some sort of hourglass shape and frills. Prada seems to send the message that some ruffles on my boobs will do the trick of enhancing not only my bust but also my view of what it is to be a woman. Louis Vuitton just pushes all that you have (in the chest area) upwards and puts it on display whilst pairing those kind of tops with flared out skirts albeit, sometimes, in leather which makes it more interesting. Another thing that annoys me? The claim by magazines, that have bitten, chewed, and spit out the designer message ‘curves are back’. Trouble is, they’re masquerading under this slogan because what they really want to say is ‘it’s okay to have boobs this season’. Designers should dictate fashion and not body shapes.

We all know that the times are hard with the economic downturn and design houses also suffer so they’re reverting to old tricks to try and showcase collections that connote better times. However the 50’s and 60’s had troubles of their own so are the designers really just following the trend set up by Mad Men? I have never seen the show but references in fashion magazines have allowed me to conjure up a pretty solid image of the aesthetic that the show sells: glamour, sex and glorified sexism in the location of an office in the 60’s.

I just want to know why in the A/w10 we’re still regressing to the past when looking for something feminine. I don’t think what that aesthetic of Mad Men presents is practical because times have moved on and I just can’t see myself wearing a dress where my boobs are decorated and pushed up with a bit of my midriff also exposed. Maybe I can’t comment on ‘The Woman’ trend because I’m still a girl but my intuition tells me that these collections were produced as a dress up for those looking to emulate some sort of past glamour. I just don’t appreciate being told what it means to be a woman (girl) and how one should dress especially if its evocative of an era where a woman had to dress a particular way due to a lack of choice.

Isabel Marant's 2011 collection

Out of all the looks I’ve seen, Isabel Marant’s was the one that actually seemed to represent the modern woman a lot better or at least fits it more with the idea of your own identity. As I flipped between the images, I had this innate inner sense of ‘this is what the woman of today looks like’. I realise that all women look differently and still it felt like every piece had a purpose. Marant’s designs made me think of someone feminine yet strong. The looks just feel so easy going with great styling. There’s no forced sexiness or attempt at modesty that’s evident in corset-like garments or cleverly placed ruffles. Marant made clothes for women with comfort in mind without taking away style. I never thought that exposure of the ankle via cropped jeans could be so cool.

I want to live in Isabel Marant’s world. I want to be the woman that can choose to either wear a skirt or a dress or a pair of jeans without compromising my feminine side. I want to look effortless and pulled together. I want clothes that represent choice and don’t force stale ideas of sexuality upon me. As I said before, maybe at seventeen I am too young to understand ‘The Woman’ but I know which woman I would like to be.