The LEGO Disconnect on Gender

lego-friends-box

By Crystal Smith

As most readers may know, there has been a huge uproar over LEGO’s newest product line, LEGO Friends. (Google it. You can’t miss it.) Regular readers [at The Achilles Effect] might also know that LEGO has been one of my favorite targets for a while now.

Like the people protesting the LEGO Friends line, I have had my site visitors tell me, in defense of the company, that: LEGO is a business; they need to make money; they are only making what sells; and it’s not their responsibility to tackle weighty issues like gender stereotypes. Fair arguments perhaps, but I would like to invite those individuals to read the Company Information section of LEGO’s website, then consider whether or not LEGO owes children a more balanced and thoughtful representation of gender.

Let me provide a few examples of what the company claims, juxtaposed with images from some of its marketing. Emphasis in bold text is mine. All images are from the LEGO website.

Caring and Learning

Learning is about opportunities to experiment, improvise and discoverexpanding our thinking and doing (hands-on, minds-on), helping us see and appreciate multiple perspectives. (From The LEGO Brand.)

Hmm. Expanding kids’ thinking by telling them that pink and purple are for girls…

…or violent toys are for boys…

LEGO Ninjago Kai

…or that the difficult work of saving the world is a job for “gentlemen…”

…or “boys” with big guns?

Caring is about the desire to make a positive difference in the lives of children, for our partners, colleagues and the world we find ourselves in, and considering their perspective in everything we do. (From The LEGO Brand.)

“Caring,” shown through positive, life-affirming imagery like this?

Video clip from LEGO's Heroica series

Or this…

LEGO Skrall

The Skrall are described as: “…arrogant, vicious, brutal,  fear nothing and care about even less. They are incredibly skilled fighters, both with and without weapons. What they may lack in technique they make up for with sheer bludgeoning power and strength.”

Or the Heroica character…

Heroica

…whose character description reads: “SURGE, there’s been a breakout at the Hero Factory and we need your help recapturing them! We can’t leave anything to chance, so we’ve equipped you with a high-power electricity shooter, plasma gun and super-thick armour. Slap those cuffs on them and give them the shock of their lives!” Yikes!

Perspective

The word “perspective” is used twice in the passages from the LEGO Corporate pages that I cited above. For example, from the excerpt on “caring,” it says that the company considers the “perspective” of children, colleagues and partners in everything they do. And how do the images below affect a child’s perspective on gender?

Intergalactic Girl

(Note that she is a girl, not an astronaut or spacewoman, while her male counterpart, below, is a spaceman.)

Spaceman

The LEGO Friends, below, are hanging out…

Screenshot from LEGO's website

… in contrast to the Alien Conquest soldiers, below, who are all male and ready to save the world.

LEGO Alien Conquest Video screenshot

Or how about the LEGO cheerleader, described in her bio as waving her pom-poms wildly whenever she talks, “which is pretty much all the time.”

LEGO cheerleader

Or, finally, one of my personal favorites…

LEGO’s Not Walking the Walk

All large companies are guilty of spinning public perception vis-a-vis their degree of corporate responsibility, but these words and  images show the incredible disconnect between LEGO’s purported values and their actions. And they are marketing to children, let’s not forget.

How do corporate brand priorities like “caring” and “learning” mesh with violent, bludgeoning toys for boys and a pinkified world for girls, or the near-complete absence of girls from the playsets aimed at boys?

And what are boys learning about their place in the world through the messages sent by LEGO marketing? Aggression is a highly valued trait for boys. Girls don’t rescue, they get rescued. Boys can’t play with pink things, play houses, or restaurants–those are the domains of females. (Watch Feminist Frequency‘s first video on this. They raise some amusing questions about what the men of LEGO City do when they feel tired or hungry, since there are no houses or restaurants in their town.)

I know that LEGO is not the only toy maker to trade on gender stereotypes but they are pretty intent on making themselves seem like a compassionate company with children’s best interests at heart. (By way of contrast, I checked the Mattel site–another toy maker known for its less-than-progressive views on gender. Their Corporate Responsibility page says nothing about “caring,” “learning,” or the value of a child’s play experience. Its focus is more on safe play and ethical sourcing. Their code of conduct talks only about achieving success and employee integrity.)

So LEGO, to use a cliché, if you are going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk. And sexist, violent, stereotyped imagery is not the way to do it.

* * *

As an aside, I thought I’d add this bit from the LEGO site:

As corporate citizens in the local communities in which we operate, we acknowledge that we have a responsibility that goes beyond the value chain of our products. We truly appreciate our close stakeholder relationships, which influence our strategic decisions and give us valuable knowledge about the impact of our actions. (From Stakeholder Engagement)

We’ll see about that. To date, there has been no response to SPARK Summit‘s 50,000-name petition about LEGO Friends.

* * *

Originally posted on The Achilles Effect on February 1, 2012. Cross-posted with permission.

Related Content:

The Pink and Blue Guise of Gender Roles

PinkStinks: Challenging Girly Stereotypes

What Do You Get When a Boy Dresses Like a Girl? Acceptance!

 

Post to Twitter

What’s Up with the Super Skinny Demonic Pregnancy in “Breaking Dawn”?

kristen-stewart-bella-pregnant-breaking-dawn

By Sayantani DasGupta

If you have been, say, living in outer space, in some kind of a no-media cult, or simply in possession of particularly discriminating taste, and have not seen the Twilight films, or read Stephanie Meyer’s books, then, before you read this post, I respectfully send you to these superlative examples of feline scholarship otherwise known as the LOL cat reviews of the Twilight films.

For the rest of the population, read on.

A gender studies professor and a religious studies scholar went into a darkened movie theater earlier this fall and saw a film about pseudo-Mormon vampire families, oral demonic C-sections, and baby-werewolf imprinting. No, that’s not a joke, although by the time the film ended, my religious studies professor friend and I kind of wished it was, too. (Now, if you know about Twilight but haven’t seen Breaking Dawn (part 1), or have seen it, but blocked it out with a self-inflicted lobotomy – excellent choice btw, I respectfully send you to this naughty but oh-so-clevah summary of the movie at g4tv.)

Now, plenty has been written about the Mormon influences in the Twilight books, including the juxtaposition of the ‘white and delightsome’ sparkly vampire Cullen family with the indigenous “savage werewolves in need of vampire colonization.” (At the very least, that Jacob kid needs someone to buy him a shirt, already.) And there’s been an equal amount written about Bella as swooning anti-feminist heroine, whose ‘choices’ are more often than not the ‘choice’ to be passive and, um, whiney. (As the LOL cats would say, “Uh-oh. my only raison for to lives, gones. *Mope so sad. I jes stare out windo for thfree monz.”)

Now that Breaking Dawn (parte uno) has finally brought the clumsy but deliciously ensangrinated human Bella (that’s like, something European for ‘beautiful’, did you know that?) and breathtakingly glowy vampire dude Edward (a 107-year-old un-dead guy as your high school biology lab partner, no that’s not creepy at all) to the altar, nuptial bed, and super-disturbing at-home baby delivery table, there has been some wonderful feminist analyses of the essentially anti-choice ‘choice’ rhetoric peppered through the film.

After Bella gets pregnant (‘natch) like the second she says, “I do,” she embraces the “choice” to give birth to her demon spawn – despite Edward, Alice, and every other thinking person in the audience’s urgings to have an abortion. In fact, she employs grumpy blonde Cullen sister Rosalie to serve as a sort of anti-abortion protester cum bodyguard – protecting Bella’s rapidly swelling body from the (sensible) pro-choice machinations of, um, everybody else. Despite looking like she’s a hunger striker with a strapped on baby bump that she stole from the dressing room of “A Pea in the Pod,” Bella is determined to play the dutiful mother-to-be who “loves” her fetal monstrosity far more than herself (even when that love involves delicately sipping human blood through a non-environmentally friendly Styrofoam cup + straw).

Now, the grotesque pregnancy and birth scenes in Breaking Dawn are consistent with recent cultural obsessions with horrible images of pregnancy and birth on television.  Bella’s bun is also consistent with historical notions of “monstrous pregnancies” caused by overworkings of the maternal imagination, as well as the “pregnancy/birth pornography” indulged in by many recent dramas about historical figures. In the words of Bitch Magazine blogger Katherine Don:

Nothing instills a fear of pregnancy more than watching childbirth scenes that take place during the Medieval period… or the Renaissance… or during the Enlightenment… or any time, really, before the twentieth century. Screaming mistresses/courtesans/queens/princesses lay flushed in their canopied doily beds as frantic women flutter about the room, dipping cloths in hot water…

Don’t get me wrong—I’m not downplaying the potential dangers of childbirth. But exaggerating, fetishizing and sexualizing these dangers for entertainment purposes amounts, in my opinion, to some form of pornographication.

But I knew all this before I went to the movie theater. And yet, although I might have come for the reproductive politics, I ended up staying for the messed up body image shizz. As the “Ryan Gosling Reads YA… and sometimes cries” meme would say, it was super messed up to watch a young girl wake up from her wedding night covered in bruises – and then watch her be okay with it. But that too I knew going in, as I knew that there would be a homebirth scene from hell in which Edward actually BITES OUT the baby from bloody Bella’s belly (that scene was so gross, yo, I totally earned that alliteration.)

Yet, what I found most disturbing of all – among many, many other disturbing things including Jacob falling in love with Bella’s newborn baby Renesmee  (yeah, really, both the wacky name and the falling in love with an infant bit)– was the visual image of Bella as anorexic pregnant waif queen. As Alex Cranz at FemPop notes, skeenay Kristin Stewart could have given Christian Bale a run for his money with her degree of emaciated-ness and poking out bones in this film. I knew, from reading the books, that Bella’s ravenous half-vampire fetus devours her from the inside out, yet, the image of a young actress looking that haggard on screen was downright shocking (and I’m sure triggering for those in the audience suffering from disordered eating). For a minute I actually got confused, and thought that maybe I was watching a film version of Laurie Halsie Anderson’s novel about anorexia, Wintergirls (Kristin Stewart acts in the film version of Anderson’s Speak.)

Feminist scholar/rock star Judith Butler has asserted that gender is performance, not an innate state of being but a set of repeated, stylized acts. With that in mind, we can also assert that pregnancy is a type of ‘performance.’ We only have to think of different ways that pregnancy is publicly enacted in different cultures, or think of the different ways that pregnancy has been presented historically (hidden utterly, infantilized – remember those maternity dresses with the big goofy bows? – and most recently, made Hollywood sexy) to realize that pregnancy is not solely a biological condition of being, but fundamentally socioculturally constructed.

Yet, although the ‘belly bump’ has become a greatly desired accountremont for celebrities in the last few decades, this has not relieved these women from adhering to and promoting unrealistic and unattainable body standards. Indeed, the ‘celebrification’ of pregnancy has in fact brought the gestating body further under the exacting gaze of feminine body image expectations. Actress and model mothers are regularly photographed with bellies that seem practically glued on, raving about the diet and exercise regimen they will embark on to regain their ‘pre-baby bikini bodies’ as soon as possible. Recently, Mariah Carey famously hid her “rancid” pregnant body from her husband – even in the bathtub – and quickly became the newest Jenny Craig spokesperson after delivering. And it’s not just pregnant celebrities in on the head trip. We’ve all read about adult women who have had their teenage bouts with anorexia re-triggered by the inevitable (and healthy) weight gain and body changes of pregnancy. Sensationally called “pregorexia’ – such women are unable to reconcile the disordered body image expectations of our society with the necessities of pregnancy, and starve, exercise, and otherwise abuse their pregnant bodies to the detriment of their own and their fetus’ health.

Kristin Stewart’s performance of pregnancy is inevitably also a performance of “pregorexia” – adding one more image of extreme thinness to our cultural stockpile of such images. Demon-baby or no, ultrathin pregnant bodies are culturally unhealthy, images that devour us all from the inside out.

Other Pregnancy Related Posts on Adios Barbie:

Newest Diet Fad Offers False Positive

The Skinny on Pregnancy Weight Gain

 

Post to Twitter

Ironing Out The Wrinkles of Wanting Plastic Surgery

wrinkles

by Sharon Haywood

“You look different but I’m not sure what it is,” I prod my Argentine friend Marcela.

“Botox,” she says with a smile.

“Now I know why your eyes look bigger.”

“Oh really? Great!”

“Where did they inject it?”

“I had my eyes and forehead done. Looks good, no?” she says running her fingers along her taut skin. “Yeah, it does,” I respond hating to admit it out loud. I can’t believe I’m actually considering Botox.

I spend the rest of lunch doing my best not to stare at the smooth skin between Marcela’s sculpted eyebrows, around the corners of her eyes, and across her forehead. It makes me think of the lines on my face; I’m almost ten years her junior and have more creases than she does. I want to think it doesn’t matter but as I approach my fortieth birthday and live in the image-conscious city of Buenos Aires, I find myself hyper-aware of my changing face and body, ultimately comparing myself to women like Marcela.

I marvel at how great she looks. Her five-foot frame is flawless. She regularly runs marathons. She never skips a session at the gym. She’s the mother of three grown children. She also has breast implants. Prior to her surgery, I questioned why she wanted them.

“But you have a gorgeous figure and your breasts are perfectly proportionate for your body.”

“I don’t think so. I think I would look so much better with larger breasts.” I stifle myself from disagreeing again and shift the focus.

“Isn’t getting surgeries a little addictive, kind of like getting tattoos?” I tread lightly.

“No, no, no,” she says shaking her head. “This is definitely the only one, no more after this. I just know that with a bigger bust would feel that much better about myself. Actually, I’m doing it more for how I feel inside than how I look on the outside.”

Marcela is the prototype for the ideal woman in Buenos Aires: Petite, slim, large breasts, and equally as important, a firm, plump, and curvy ass. To make sure I don’t forget what this ideal woman looks like billboards and storefronts offer a steady stream of half-naked women, arching and pouting, showing the world who, or rather what, a woman is. Magazine stands, often referred as meat markets by my boyfriend, are identifiable from at least half a block by their uniform color of flesh. Window-shopping allows me to compare the various trends in lingerie via posters of more almost-naked, skinny-legged, flat-stomached, and big-busted women. Still, other window displays prompt me to mull over the effectiveness of a pair of padded panties proudly exhibited on a half-torso, claiming to be push-up underwear. And of course, I don’t even have to leave my apartment to see what standards Argentine women are told to live up to. I just flick on one of the local channels. Be it a talk show, a comedy, a game show, or a soap opera there’s bound to be tits and ass occupying much of the screen.

The combination of being bombarded by apparent female physical perfection and receiving early condolences for The Big Four-Oh has led me to the mirror. My breasts have never been perky but that doesn’t stop me from pulling up the skin above them toward my shoulders contemplating how much life would change with my boobs at attention. I check out my side profile and perform a similar lifting of my backside, wondering if there’s such a thing as a butt lift. I notice that I am developing the exact same wrinkles as my 88-year-old grandmother. Examination in the magnifying mirror tells me I’ve got lines that can only be erased by modern medicine. Flattening out the crease between my eyebrows, I face up to the fact that vitamin E cream just doesn’t cut it anymore.

“What would you think if I got Botox?” I ask my boyfriend Facundo.

“What?!”

“I’m not seriously considering it, I’m just thinking about it.”

“Leave your wrinkles alone, stay natural. They’re part of you. Don’t get Botox. I love you as you are. So should you.”

As much as I want my partner’s declaration of love to be enough, it isn’t. I know it needs to come from me. I can’t help but think how I reject the idea of being a size zero. It’s been years since I’ve owned a scale. Clothes that don’t fit me anymore promptly get donated. I’m proud to say I don’t diet. Why am I even considering this? I search for clarity and investigate where some of my other female friends stand. One, a 41-year-old American flight attendant, comes to Buenos Aires every few months, not only to visit me but also to get her Botox topped up. Another, a 35-year-old Brit living in Dubai, tells me that Botox is a must and adds that if I want any information about getting a lip enhancement to come to her. The attached photo confirms she’s looks fabulous. Yet another, a 36-year-old Canadian, says she’ll start Botox treatments when she turns 40. All three tell me about other friends and friends of friends who rave about the work they’ve had done. It can’t hurt to make an appointment – just to get more information. I decide to ask Marcela where she goes for Botox injections.

The next time we meet she tells me she went under the knife again – definitely her last time.

“What did you get done?” I ask. She lifts her skirt to reveal blood-soaked bandages wrapped around her upper thigh.

“Oh my God! What happened?”

“I went for liposuction to get rid of the flab in my inner thigh but instead I got this.” She pulls the bandage off revealing severe burns. “The doctor did tell me it was one of the risks.” I don’t ask where she gets her Botox injections.

Soon after our meeting, I receive a call from an old friend that I had lost contact with. Two years ago, doctors removed his cancerous thyroid gland. Although he is healthy today, he struggles with another issue.

“I don’t feel like a whole person anymore.”

“But you’re still the same person, that hasn’t changed.”

“I know but I just feel less.”

“Rick, it’s only physical. As long as your body functions properly that’s all you need to worry about. Really, when you think about it our bodies are just containers that carry us around.”  I feel like a hypocrite. Why does my container need Botox?

For days after our conversation, I’m stumped as to why I think I need to paralyze my facial muscles in the name of “beauty.” I take a closer look at the women around me. Gabriela gave herself a perpetual pout for her thirtieth birthday making it a challenge to maintain eye contact with her. Fifty-something Silvia has two distinct, lumpy scars on either side of her mouth from botched collagen injections. Marisa, 42, got the three-for-one special: boobs, liposuction, and tummy tuck. She couldn’t lift her two-year-old daughter for over a month. I resolve to make peace with my sagging breasts and deepening wrinkles.

A few weeks later my boyfriend and I attend a party. Late in the evening, we stand close to each other but talking to different people. The 22-year old I’m chatting with asks me my age.

“You’re 39?” her eyes spread wide.

“Yes, 39,” I smile politely.

“You definitely look younger than your age but your face is … is … muy marcada.”

“My face is very marked?” I laugh back.

Facundo leans in, “I like her wrinkles.”

I’m learning to like them too.

Originally published January, 2009.

Related Content:

You’re So Perfect…Except For Your Boobs

Plastic Wrap – Turning Against Cosmetic Surgery

Sweet Revenge?

Hollywood Now Seeks Authenticity

Is a ‘Bo-Tax’ Unfair to Women Who Want Their Looks to Compete?

Terrifying Trend: Models and Mini-Liposuction

Huffington Post: Former Miss Argentina Dies From Cosmetic Butt Surgery

Using Cosmetic Surgery Stop Bullying?

Post to Twitter

Disfigurement: Isolating ‘Imperfect’ Bodies

Shirin Juwaley

Shirin Juwaley of Palash Foundation, an organisation dedicated to the rehabilitation of people with disfigurement, explains how disfigurement affects the lives of women.

Originally published at Women’s Web. Cross-posted with permission.

By Shirin Juwaley

Having a facial disfigurement, according to me, is an advantage! It has sieved out the people in my life as only the significant remain. In the 13 years of surviving an acid attack by my ex-husband, I have come across all sorts of attitudes and behaviours towards a deviant face.

Justifying and accepting discrimination

I often wonder why most people cringe, repel, flinch, stare, avert their gaze and feel awkward in their interactions with people with disfigurement. To cite a few examples, Deepa.S*, 25, decided to burn up as she was fed up of living a life not meeting her expectations. This wife and mother of a one year old survived and suffers extreme contractures. Her chin and neck are fused with scarring all over her body. Let’s face it; her physical symmetry has gone askew. This mother prefers to isolate herself in a dingy house with no electricity and water, as fetching food would mean the neighbours cringing and fearfully closing their doors. This means Deepa is willing to go thirsty and hungry rather than step out in a community that is obviously uncomfortable with her physical appearances.

In a country [India] where leprosy is still considered a curse from God, where social discrimination is based on colour, where girls of marriageable age are encouraged to go through great lengths to be visually acceptable, fearing the visually deviant holds no surprise. What is interesting though, is that Deepa herself conforms to these ideas of beauty and finds the reaction of her neighbours justifiable. Many women in the lower socio-economic class resort to burning as an answer to their troubles not realising that this will only add to their woes if they survive. Since fire is considered to be engulfing and easily accessible to women, 80% of burn cases are women and children.

Shanti.K*, 30, was burnt by her in-laws as she was childless three years into her marriage. She survived with her skin on her face and body badly twisted and stretched leaving her looking deviant. She wears a scarf around her facial disfigurement and hides her scars with clothes covering her fully so that ‘others’ are comfortable around her. She runs into a fit of anger if a man passes the comment “Who will be with someone like you? (Teray jaisee kay saath kaun rahega?)” as it affirms that she is not beautiful and hence not acceptable. She has few friends and does not like to socialize, which is much against the carefree person she was before getting burnt. Marriage or even relationships according to her are both impossible and not even a distant dream.

The perfect, unattainable body

Both Deepa and Shanti are accepting of their discrimination as they don’t know otherwise. The social indoctrination around physical appearances, especially for a woman, starts as soon as she is born. The messages floating around are so strong, be it in the stories we are told, the movies we watch, the clothes we wear, religious significance, customs to be adhered, compliments/comments we receive, comparisons made with siblings and cousins – the list is probably endless, shape our thinking. The visual impact of media has pushed 98% of the ‘normal’ population to ape the 2% population of ‘perfect’ bodies displayed in glossy magazines and hoardings.

For Anamika.M*, who was born congenitally disfigured, growing up with no legs was traumatic. Children around her played and ran while she stood in one place, helpless. She was considered as a ‘kaccha limbu’/invalid and rejected for not being ‘normal’. The trauma of growing up was magnified, as fitting in became the only goal. Anamika made concentrated efforts to look pretty to compensate for her feet.

There are thousands of people with disfigurement living in Mumbai alone but the probability of meeting these thousands is reduced to one in a month. I wonder, why is the ratio so abnormally imbalanced? The answers over the years have evolved into more questions.

The paramount importance given to ideals of physical appearances, mostly for women, has secluded a certain section of society that does not fit into the mould of beauty or ‘normalcy’.

Deviant looking bodies (disfigurement) have been enshrouded with myth, religious beliefs and fear causing disruption in attitudes and behaviour. Disfigurement is defined as an altered physical appearance which can be congenital, due to accidents, burn injuries, surgical intervention, skin deformities, illnesses or any other reason. Hence disfigurement, though not a physical liability, creates a disabling impact due to social prejudices and apathy by society, particularly for a woman, as she is overburdened with expectations of being a perfect (socially acceptable) daughter, a wife and mother.

We at Palash Foundation deal with these core issues of accepting differences. Our core programme addresses social reintegration and livelihoods for people with disfigurement. We currently work along with the social work department of LTMG (Sion) and Kasturba Hospital in Mumbai with burn survivors and their caretakers and simultaneously conduct sensitisation and awareness talks to different groups of people on disfigurement. To know more visit www.palashfoundation.org

*Names changed on request to protect privacy. 

About The Author: Shirin Juwaley, 37, is an acid attack survivor. She is the Founder, Director of Palash Foundation, an organisation that strives to create an inclusive world where the rights of people with disfigurement are respected and protected. She has worked extensively on different projects in the social sector for the last 9 years.


Post to Twitter

PETA and Porn: Exploit Women, Not Animals

PETA ad featuring Pamela Anderson that was banned by the city of Montreal in 2010 for being sexist.

PETA ad featuring Pamela Anderson that was banned by the city of Montreal in 2010 for being sexist.

By Ashley-Michelle Papon

Just in time for the chill of the holidays, the marketing wizards at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have come up with a new way to keep converts to animal welfarism warm. Within the next month, PETA will capitalize on their previously raunchy skin campaigns with a companion porn site. The porn site, PETA.XXX, will showcase plenty of celebrities willing to bare all, but according to Lindsay Rajt, PETA’s associate director of campaigns, the site will also feature displays of what PETA considers animal abuse. “We’re hoping to reach a whole new audience of people, some of whom will be shocked by graphic images that maybe they didn’t anticipate seeing when they went to the PETA triple-X site,” Rajt said.

From billboards preying on insecurities about swimsuit season as a method of somehow saving whales to advertisements suggesting your real concern during airport body scans should be how hot your vegetarian body looks, the idea that PETA could still manage to shock anyone is worthy of a laugh. Or two. Though the artwork from ad to ad differs, the message is overwhelmingly the same: learn to respect the welfare of animals, while disrespecting that of people.

In other words, a porn site featuring juxtapositions of animal abuse images isn’t a new low; it’s exactly the type of half-baked tasteless trafficking that we should be expecting from PETA. As a countless number of galleries–including this one by Time magazine–highlight, PETA’s co-founder Ingrid Newkirk long ago made the conscientious choice that the best way to sell her message would be through exploiting women, and she does it because it works, sticking to her philosophy that PETA is obligated to serve as “press sluts” to bring attention to their cause.

And stick to it, she does. Newkirk is, after all, the same woman who famously wrote to Yasser Arafat, urging him to keep animals out of conflicts with Israel after a donkey died during a suicide bombing. No such request for the then-prime minister to condemn “honor killings” such as bride burning and female infanticide, which accounted for a full two-thirds of all killings within Palestine territories at the time, reflecting PETA’s less charitable view of women’s expendability in general.

Not to mention PETA’s emphasis that a woman’s value is strictly in how her body looks. Fat-phobia has been PETA’s old trusty in the arsenal long before the “Save the Whales” campaign. Ideally, PETA shouldn’t care what a body looks like, provided that the body is simply sustained by a vegetarian diet and vegan living. In actuality, they know that if there is anything our patriarchal society reviles more than women in general, it’s women of size, and preying on those cultural prejudices has been a source of great media attention, which normalizes the violence visited on those same bodies.

Of course, this cavalier dismissal of violence against humans (specifically, women) is the real problem with PETA’s approach to activism. In 2002, PETA filmed a would-be Super Bowl commercial, which depicted a group of hooligans beating a woman to death with a baseball bat to the caption of, “What if you were killed for your coat?” Though the commercial was banned from airing, just last year PETA turned up the heat (and the fake blood) to launch their “Meat is Murder” basics, placing humans in life-sized deli counter meat packages and cellophane. The gag might have been somewhat educational, if the models hadn’t looked as though they’d just come out of Jeffrey Dahmer’s freezer.

That joke might seem to be in bad taste (no pun intended) until you consider that the serial killer’s cannibalism has been the fodder of more than one advertisement and celebrity-targeted criticism. No, seriously. But Dahmer’s crimes aren’t the only ones that PETA finds acceptable to dovetail into their agenda. In 2008, PETA created an ad identical to their 1991 Dahmer special in response to the Manitoba Greyhound bus beheading, asking people to imagine the terror of victim Tim McLean and use it as motivation to “leave violence off of their dinner plates.”

However, the argument here isn’t that the decision to launch a porn website is continuing PETA’s legacy of playing up violence to make a point. Although feminists often disagree as to how empowering or violent pornography inherently is, what makes this particular venture par for the course is PETA’s decision to include images of animal torture. It’s a veritable buffet of -isms for the organization, with the unintended consequence of eroticizing the torture of animals.

Part of what makes PETA’s performance so frustrating is that they should know better. Their website contains a lengthy explanation about the correlation between people who abuse animals and violent behavior towards other human beings, suggesting that on some level, somebody in that organization should understand the intersectionality of subjugation for women and the animal kingdom.

More to the point, promoting misogyny—often, violent—with the end result of animal liberation makes about as much sense as using racism to end class politics. You’ll capture some headlines, but you’ll probably alienate more people than you galvanize, especially since people likely to be more sympathetic to animal causes tend to also be against the idea of exploiting women.

It goes without saying that there are plenty of reasons to care about the treatment of animals in this country and elsewhere. Any enlightened, progressive individual has to acknowledge that our experience is largely shaped by what we consume, and that includes consuming the animal community. But responsibility goes both ways, especially when we’re talking about oppression of marginalized classes like animals. For real change to happen, PETA has got to stop objectifying women to nothing more than literal pieces of meat.

* * *

Read other Adios Barbie content related to the eroticized violence of women:

A Monster Success! (reports on our successful petition against the official release of Kanye West’s misogynistic “Monster” video)

Deconstructing Kanye’s “Monster”


Post to Twitter

All-American Muslim: A New Show Unveils Muslim Life in the Midwest

t1larg.allamericanmuslim.courtesy

By Ophira Edut

Hey, non-Arab America, guess what? There are Muslims living in the U.S.A. and some of ‘em are just like us. At least, that’s what TLC’s new reality show All-American Muslim is attempting to portray.

It’s groundbreaking…and it isn’t.

As a Detroit native who grew up a few miles outside of the show’s Dearborn, Michigan setting—a city with the largest Arab population in the United States—I was especially excited to see my hometown make it into reality-land. Simplified or not, it’s high time the media showed a three-dimensional portrait of Arab-Americans, and I’ve set my DVR.

The cameras follow five Muslim families as they navigate between custom and assimilation, and deal with everyday issues like love, family, work and generation gaps. There’s a single Lebanese mom who calls herself a “hillbilly at heart,” marrying an Irish Catholic man who’s converting to Islam. A young mother-to-be, already married at 24, is proud that her husband will break from tradition to be a hands-on dad. There are cops, football coaches, and a sassy blond businesswoman who dresses in short, tight dresses and heels. Some women are veiled (or partly veiled), others are glammed up with blond highlights and heavy makeup. Most of them speak in a flat Midwestern dialect, others with a trace of the Arabic cadence. Hookahs are puffed, prayer rugs unrolled, and daily Muslim life goes on amidst Americana.

While the show has (of course) been criticized by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, I believe it’s a good start. (See one Muslim-American man’s food for thought here.) Obviously, it portrays only a small swath of Muslim life in America: the cast is Midwestern and most, if not all, are Lebanese. The mix of old-school and modern values helps humanize a group that’s been scapegoated more than ever in the last decade since 9/11.

Is it a representation of Muslims worldwide? Well, no. Arabs are only 20% of the total Muslim population. Some of the most concentrated Muslim areas are in Asia and southeast Asia (Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia) and Africa (Senegal, Somalia, Djibouti)—not in the Arab countries. Certainly, a TLC reality program can’t represent the entire spectrum of a religion that boasts over a billion members.

This small cast is not “typical Muslim” any more than Snooki and The Situation are ambassadors for Italian Americans. (What TLC left out is that many of Detroit’s Arab residents are also Christian, notably the Chaldeans from Baghdad and some Lebanese folk.) The show will have stereotypes, conversations that make people uncomfortable, all the pathologies of humanity on display. And if you want to get radical for a sec, a subtext does seems to be a message to whitey that the Muslim next door is just like you. But if it’s gotten people (and the media) talking about Arab-Americans without using the terms “terrorist” and “9/11,” it counts as progress in my book.

I grew up in Detroit during the 1970s and ‘80s, and I witnessed the area’s Arab-American assimilation process as a child. It was a similar path to the one taken by Jews (including my own grandparents, who escaped the Holocaust), and other immigrant groups that have fled to the United States.

In grade school during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Arab kids joined my classes mid-year, some not speaking a word of English. Their multi-generational families piled into homes and their families set up businesses, most visibly “party stores,” print shops, banquet halls, restaurants, and groceries. A slow creep of signs written in both English and Arabic peppered the neighborhood, and the kids started to assimilate, joining Girl Scout troops and sports teams and other extracurricular activities. Still, the process was slow, as many of their families still maintained customs from back home.

Over the years, like many other immigrants, some of our Arab neighbors became part of the nouveau-riche out in the sprawling suburbs, adopting Western beauty ideals and consumerism. Others took the educational track, studying business, medicine, law. Now, a whole first-generation group has grown up in America. Only their parents and grandparents remember the struggles of the old country, though they have faced a different kind of discrimination here. As a group of boys on a Dearborn football team explain on All-American Muslim, their high school is 95% Muslim. When they play rival teams, they’re jeered with Arab slurs. But, they insist, it only makes them work harder.

My father is an Israeli immigrant whose family hails from Jaffa, a city south of Tel Aviv with a mixed Jewish and Arab population. When he moved to Detroit three months before I was born, there were very few Israelis, and that’s remained the case. So, the closest thing to home in some ways has been Detroit’s thriving Arab culture. For 30 years, he’s bought his pita, olives, and Turkish coffee at the Arab-owned stores. Access to my own Middle Eastern heritage came from the comfort of pronouncing hummous with a throaty “ch,” and feeling a geographic and cultural kinship of sorts with my Arab classmates. In a school with few other Jewish kids, my ethnic features were often called out, notably my nose, and when people couldn’t figure out where my name or non-WASPy looks came from, they sometimes assumed I was Arab.

Because I grew up with my own version of cultural dissonance, and witnessed how invisible many cultures were in the media, my activism has centered around representation. In 1992, I co-founded a multicultural women’s magazine called HUES (Hear Us Emerging Sisters). The mission was much like that of All-American Muslim: to be a space where underrepresented groups could tell their own stories and be known.

One of HUES’ most popular articles was called “Veiled,” written by one of the hippest chicks you’ll ever meet—Muslim or not—Maysan Haydar. Maysan is from Michigan, too, and she sports both a tongue piercing and a veil. Back in high school, she would mix a full-body hijab (covering) with silver rollerblades and cheerfully skate through the halls. She’s now married to a Christian man, and, much like the TLC cast, has blazed her own trail while practicing “Islam a la carte.” How very American indeed.

But speaking of veiled, Arab and Muslim culture HAS been shrouded in stereotypes and secrecy here, partly because it hasn’t been revealed in pop culture until now. As troublesome and trashy as reality shows can be, they’re still telling the narratives of our times, giving us a voyeuristic glimpse into lives we wouldn’t otherwise see.

The All-American Muslim series is well-done, in my opinion, and also reveals the multitude of decisions that a bicultural American must make. We get a glimpse of women making choices that aren’t traditionally Western (much like in TLC’s controversial show “Sister Wives”); yet, these choices are shot through with American influence. Some women opt to cover their heads with scarves, but express their style with fashionable and colorful fabrics. Others mix full-length hijab coverings with sexy, strappy heels. The Lebanese-meets-Irish-Catholic wedding features a river dance AND a belly dance, veiled vows followed by a white dress reception, a flashy banquet hall that doesn’t serve alcohol. It’s fascinating to see how people walk the line, which elements of their customs they choose to keep.

These very choices, I believe, are what makes the show “all-American.” The notion of personal freedom is what America, in theory, is all about. And this freedom has left an indelible mark on even the most traditional cast members of All-American Muslim. In one poignant scene, the Irish Catholic mom, a little rattled by her son’s upcoming conversion to Islam, is matter-of-fact. She says she knows that society has to evolve—and that as much as we long for things to stay the same, they don’t.

It’s a truth that All-American Muslim challenges us to embrace. Hopefully, this will just be the beginning of fun, down-to-earth and realistic portrayals of a population that’s long overdue for a serious media makeover. Some of them have only been here for a while. But some have been here all along, as American as the rest of us.

If you’re Muslim, Muslim-American, or watching the show, tell us what you think! Keep the dialogue going, because that’s what it’s all about.

Related Content:

The Hijab: Can it Promote a Healthy Self-Image?

Post to Twitter

Beauty and the Double Standard of Aging

womenface

By Lisa Wade, PhD

Cross-posted from Sociological Images

Today I had the pleasure of reading a 1978 essay by Susan Sontag titled The Double Standard of Aging.  I was struck by how plainly and convincingly she described the role of attractiveness in men’s and women’s lives:

[For women, o]nly one standard of female beauty is sanctioned: the girl.

The great advantage men have is that our culture allows two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man. The beauty of a boy resembles the beauty of a girl. In both sexes it is a fragile kind of beauty and flourishes naturally only in the early part of the life-cycle. Happily, men are able to accept themselves under another standard of good looks — heavier, rougher, more thickly built. A man does not grieve when he loses the smooth, unlined, hairless skin of a boy. For he has only exchanged one form of attractiveness for another: the darker skin of a man’s face, roughened by daily shaving, showing the marks of emotion and the normal lines of age.

There is no equivalent of this second standard for women. The single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on having clear skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a defeat.  No wonder that no boy minds becoming a man, while even the passage from girlhood to early womanhood is experienced by many women as their downfall, for all women are trained to continue wanting to look like girls.

These words reminded me of an idea for a post submitted by Tom Hudson.  Tom was searching for faces to help him draw and was struck by the differences in the results for “woman face” and “man face”:



 The wide variety of men’s faces, compared to the overwhelming homogeneity of the women’s faces, nicely illustrates Sontag’s point. Women’s faces are important and valorized for only one thing: girlish beauty. Men’s faces, on the other hand, are notable for being interesting, weird, wizened, humorous, and more.

On another note, the invisible but near total dominance of whiteness is worth acknowledging.

Post to Twitter

Novel as Mirror: Teen Literature and Body Image

deenie

By Sayantani DasGupta

The first young adult (YA) novel I ever read that had to do with body image was Judy Blume’s Deenie (1973). In it, 13-year-old Wilmadeen “Deenie” is the “pretty one” of the family, the one whose mother dreams will be a model someday. When Deenie is diagnosed with scoliosis and required to wear a back brace, she struggles with self-image and self-acceptance—worrying that her crush won’t find her attractive, that she will be an object of social ridicule at school, and that she won’t ever get to be a model. Instead, Deenie negotiates a new sense of self, new relationships with her parents and sister, new friendships, and contemplates a career as an orthopedist, realizing that perhaps she never wanted to be a model after all.

For its explicit mentions of masturbation and menstruation, Deenie is one of the most frequently challenged and banned books of all time. But its real radicalism is as an early example of how teen literature can tackle critical issues including body image and body self-acceptance. In other novels, including Blubber (1974) and Are You There, God? It’s Me, Margaret (1970), Blume similarly tells young women’s coming of age stories, and of the accompanying social and environmental pressures therein. (However, in Blume’s Forever (1975), a novel about the first sexual experience, her portrayal of the ultra-thin protagonist is left unexamined, which is soundly critiqued by Beth Younger in her book Learning Curves: Body Image and Female Sexuality in Young Adult Literature.)

Also published in the same era, Paula Danzinger’s The Cat Ate My Gymsuit (1974) similarly addressed issues of self-image, this time through the point of view of 13-year-old Marcy Lewis, a self-described “baby blimp with wire frame glasses and mousy brown hair.” However, Marcy is more than simply “fat” and her personal growth is vis-à-vis more than just body self-acceptance. As Marcy evolves, she ends up being an activist for change in the small community of her school.

An entire group of current-day YA literature tackles issues of body image, similarly generating controversy. For example, author Laurie Halsie Anderson’s novel Wintergirls (2009), which is written from the point of view of a young woman with severely disordered eating, has caused great uproar among parents and educators. Even the New York Times took up the issue, asking if such a novel—which explicitly discusses extreme exercise, binging, purging, and caloric intake control—is potentially triggering young women already vulnerable to eating disorders? Can such novels be (mis)used as instruction manuals, yet another source of “thinspiration” for a community of young women already prowling pro-ana and other similar websites?

The NYT blog quotes Jack Martin, assistant director of young adult programs at the New York Public Library as saying, “[Laurie Halsie Anderson] does actually reference a lot of the chat rooms that anorexic girls use. It’s researched pretty thoroughly. Wintergirls is a powerful read. It’s so haunting. It’s so horrific I don’t think anybody would pick this book up and consider it a manual.” Yet, Jezebel, an online magazine that offers “Celebrity, sex, and fashion…without airbrushing” suggests,

“Read without discussion or supervision, Wintergirls could indeed be triggering. But read as part of a conversation—or, perhaps, read by parents and other family members—the book could help make some teens’ worlds a little less dark.”

Teen novels are becoming increasingly responsive to readers’ calls to reflect back to them their own lives and their own experiences. There is a growing canon of LGBTQ YA novels, YA novels featuring protagonists of color, YA novels discussing undocumented immigration, dating violence, mental illness, and physical disability. In portraying issues of body image, body harm, and body self-acceptance young adult literature must walk the tightrope between triggering and accurate reflection of teen reality, between articulating problems and contributing to teen girls’ bodies being seen as problems.

Ultimately, each of these books opens conversations, and creates potential safe spaces for dialogue, discussion, self-discovery, and activism.

Other YA books exploring issues of body image include:

Firegirl (2006) by Tony Abbott: What happens to an overweight seventh grade boy when he meets a new classmate with severe burns all over her body?

The Skin I’m In (2007) by Sharon G. Flake: Tall, skinny and dark skinned, 13-year-old Maleeka Madison must discover how to love the body others find to be such a problem.

Big Fat Manifesto (2007) by Susan Vaught: High School senior Jamie is trying to change the world while fighting (not quietly!) for her rights as a very fat girl.

The Fold (2008) by An Na: Should Joyce take her plastic-surgery-loving aunt’s offer to ‘fix’ her eyes so they appear ‘less Asian’?

Zitface (2011) by Emily House: Thirteen-year-old wanna-be actress Olivia’s life seems to fall apart when one pimple turns into a full blown case of acne. Can she find a way back to herself even when everyone calls her ‘Zitface?’

What are your favorite YA novels that address issues of body image and body self-acceptance?

Post to Twitter

Transgender History Makers

LGBT_8.5x11PromoPage

By Sharon Haywood

For transgender individuals, not disclosing their transgender status, also known as “living stealth,” has been the norm. Too many transgender folks have lived in fear of ridicule, discrimination, and rejection leading many to live a lie. But today, change is upon us; history is being made. October is LGBT History Month, 31 days that celebrate the successes of 31 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender icons, making now an ideal time to shine a light on transgender trailblazers who have excelled professionally while living openly. Of the icons featured this month, three are transgender: Kye Allums, Victoria Kolakowski, and Amanda Simpson. It’s brave change makers such as these that are propelling North American society toward greater acceptance.

* * *

Kye Allums launched LGBT History Month as “the first openly transgender athlete to play NCAA Division I college basketball.” In November 2010 as a 21-year-old sophomore, Allums made history on the women’s basketball team at George Washington University (GWU) for coming out as a transgender male. Having received a basketball scholarship from GWU and not wanting to jeopardize it, his original plan was to wait to reveal his true gender when his eligibility expired the following season, but Allums explained to USA Today that, “… it just got too tough not to be me. I heard people call me a girl and say ‘she’ and refer to me as something that I wasn’t.”

Apart from his fortitude and courage in staying true to himself, Allum’s story also stands out because of the outpouring of support and acceptance by his teammates, coach, and school officials. GWU’s official statement, which refers to the star shooting guard as Mr. Allum, includes his heartfelt sentiments about the university:

“GW has been supportive during this transition. This means a lot. I didn’t choose to be born in this body and feel the way I do. I decided to transition, that is change my name and pronouns because it bothered me to hide who I am, and I am trying to help myself and others to be who they are… My teammates have embraced me as the big brother of the team. They have been my family, and I love them all.”

Due to several concussions, Allums will not be playing his senior year, a choice GWU respects. At present, he is uncertain whether he will continue his transition by pursuing gender reassignment surgery or by taking male hormones. In the meantime, Allums has been telling his story at various speaking engagements with the goal of spreading the message that “it’s possible to be out and to be comfortable with yourself and still be successful.”

* * *

The second transgender icon featured during LGBT History Month is Victoria Kolakowski, the first openly transgender person to be elected to a U.S. Superior Court. Before graduating with a law degree from Louisiana State University in the late 1980s she underwent gender reassignment surgery from male to female and legally changed her name, which resulted in the Louisiana State Bar Association denying her application to write the bar exam. She challenged the decision and the Louisiana State Court ruled unanimously in her favor allowing her to begin her career as an attorney.

She went on to attract attention for her professional successes as a member on the Oakland Budget Advisory Committee and as an administrative law judge. Subsequently, she received well-deserved accolades including the honor of being named Woman of the Year in 1994 by the East Bay Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, and then in 1995 she received the Outstanding Woman of Berkeley Award. In 2002, she co-chaired the Transgender Law Center, an organization dedicated to protecting the civil rights of transgender individuals.

Before winning her campaign to preside over the Alameda County Superior Court in California in 2010, Kolakowski explained to Change.org how her role as an out trial judge could help break barriers for the LGBT community:

“I see the possibility of my presence in the court as a sort of ongoing sensitivity training. Just like people become more comfortable with us as gay and lesbian people when more of us come out (I am a lesbian as well), having an out, visible transgender judge will demonstrate to the judges, attorneys, staff and police who interact with the courts every day that we can be capable professionals, like everyone else.”

 * * *

The final transgender icon featured during LGBT History Month is Amanda Simpson, the first openly transgender female presidential appointee. (In 2008, Diego Sanchez was the first transgender male presidential appointee.) Before President Obama appointed her to Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology in the U.S. Defense Department, her resume was beyond impressive.

She boasts degrees in physics, business administration, and engineering (she’s essentially a rocket scientist) as well as being a certified flight instructor and airline transport pilot. For almost three decades, she worked at Raytheon Missile Systems in roles that ranged from manager of flight operations to Deputy Director of Advanced Technology Development. While still employed there in 2000, she transitioned from male to female. Then in 2005, Simpson was instrumental in having gender identity and expression incorporated into the company’s non-discrimination policies.

Additionally, Simpson has supported the LGBT community by sitting on the boards of organizations like the Tucson Corporate LGBT Coalition, Out and Equal Workplace Advocates, and the National Center for Transgender Equality. When asked what her experience has been as the first transgender female presidential appointee she didn’t mince words:

“Being the first sucks. I’d rather not be the first but someone has to be first, or among the first. I think I’m experienced and very well qualified to deal with anything that might show up because I’ve broken barriers at lots of other places.” And she certainly doesn’t shy away from the possibility of breaking a few more:

“As one of the first transgender presidential appointees to the federal government, I hope that I will soon be one of hundreds, and that this appointment opens future opportunities for many others.”

With increased mainstream media exposure of transgender role models, such as herself and leaders like Allum and Kolakowski, there is little doubt that opportunities will be plenty.

Related Content:

Body image and Transgender Folks

Transgender Beauty in India

NOW’s Love Your Body Campaign And NOH8 Join Forces To Promote Acceptance For All

Gay/Trans dance crew, Vogue Evolution, brings it to ‘America’s best dance crew’

Gays on TV: Despite Growth, Real Portrayals More Urgent Than Ever

Post to Twitter

Unintentionally Eating the Other (The Fashion of Racial Drag)

Crystal Renn's other forays into racial drag, also published in Vogue Japan (June 2011)

by minh-ha t. pham

[The other week], Crystal Renn, the [former plus-size] model who recently appeared in a Vogue Japan spread with her eyes taped in ways that were suggestive of an old theater makeup trick meant to make white actors look “Asian,” offered an explanation and defense of the cosmetic practice. Tape, it should be noted, is only one of many tools in the arsenal of this particular form of racial drag, also known as yellowfacing – a practice that is literally older than America. Contrary to popular headlines suggesting that “yellowface is the new blackface,” there is nothing new or novel about yellowfacing. One of the earliest incidences of yellowfacing in the U.S. occurred in 1767 when Arthur Murphy presented his play The Orphan of China in Philadelphia.

What interests me about this moment of racial drag or “transformation,” as Renn’s called it, are the reactions to it and her own explanation of the decision to tape her eyes. In last week’s published conversation with Jezebel editor Jenna Sauers, Renn insists that she “wasn’t trying To ‘look Asian’ in that eye tape shoot”. And I wanted to believe her. I have great respect for Sauers. Her writing has always displayed a great deal of thoughtfulness and acuity and she’s been a generous supporter of Threadbared for a long time. For all these reasons, I approached Sauers’ conversation with Renn as a generous reader, willing to be convinced. After all, Sauers initially assumed Renn was yellowfacing too. If she could be surprised with Renn’s explanation, I thought I might be too.

Here’s how Renn explains the eye-taping:

  • In a way you become something else.
  • No, it tends to be when there’s more makeup and drama. And the point is transformation.
  • To transform is the greatest part of my work. It’s the thing that makes me the happiest. And to be able to try to do as many looks as I can and to show as many faces as I can, it’s exciting to me . . . I’ve had moles painted on my face. I’ve had freckles painted on.
  • I become something else.
  • We didn’t even think about [race] on the shoot. I’m the one who suggested it, and it didn’t even cross my mind. It’s something that I regularly ask makeup artists, you know, if it will bring something more to the character. Offer a different face.
  • As the model, as somebody who thrives on the transformation, I am beyond thrilled to do stories where they change my gender, where they take me and make me something completely different.

What is so striking about Renn’s explanation is its ambiguity. She never says what look she was going for – just that she intended to become “something else.” This intangible “something” that has more “drama”, more “character” , and is so “exciting” is, for Renn, not racially specific. It is instead a generalized exotica, an experience of vague sensuousness. But do racist acts require intentionality? And what are the implications of Renn’s deracialization of a practice that was so clearly racist to so many people?

“Eating the Other”

Renn’s understanding of this “transformation” is reflective of a broader cultural logic in the mainstream fashion industry that has historically viewed and engaged with racial difference as a depoliticized and dehistoricized aesthetic. Racial difference, evacuated of its history and politics, becomes a set of design elements and sartorial flourishes (a kente pattern here, a frog closure there, a Native headdress on the weekend – why not?) that are absent of meaning and context. Fashion’s depoliticization of ethnicity and race rely on and reproduce what Nirmal Puwar calls “the amnesia of celebration.”

The problem is that the violent racist abuse meted out to Asian women who have worn these items has no place in the recent donning of these items. . . “Do you remember when you thought we were ugly and disgusting when we wore these items?”

The amnesia of celebration forgets (willfully or not) the historical and ongoing violence that women of color bear wearing the very same garments on their bodies while looking like they do – rather than like Renn does (or Madonna, Gwen Stefani, and the list goes on). The eye shape Renn creates using tape is one that has given rise to schoolyard taunts, sexual harassment, mockery in real as well as fake Asian languages, nearly a century of immigration exclusion, employment discrimination, fetishization, and much more for Asian women who were born with these eyes. Not what you’d call an “exciting” experience. That Renn is able to feel “transformed” through and by this cosmetic trick of racial drag – one she equates with other tricks like fake moles and freckles – underscores the capacity of white bodies to play with race without bearing its burdens, without having to even acknowledge the existence of these burdens. Thus, the transformation Renn experiences and achieves is conditioned by her whiteness and the privileges that accrue to her racially unmarked body. At the same time, her transformation is possible only because of her proximation and consumption of otherness. The function of Otherness – even one that is unacknowledged by her – is reduced to the servicing of white women’s transformation.

This desire for transformation through the Other is not unique to fashion; it is connected to a much longer history of what Black feminist scholar bell hooks (always in lower case) calls “imperialist nostalgia”: the longing of whites to inhabit, if only for a time, the world of the Other. Bodily transcendence through sartorial and cosmetic play is enacted by the consumption of otherness – a “courageous consumption,” in hooks’ words – because it is about “conquering the fear [of racial difference] and acknowledging power. It is by eating the Other,” hooks explains, “that one asserts power and privilege.”

But Renn wasn’t “even think[ing] about [race] on the shoot . . . it didn’t even cross [her] mind.”

Here, I want to return to my earlier question: do racist acts require intentionality? The obvious answer is no. A well-intentioned compliment about how well I speak English or a clumsy flirtation that begins with a deep bow like I’m the Dalai Lama (both have happened to me) are meant to be friendly gestures that close the gap of racial difference. (“Don’t worry – I’m culturally sensitive.”) Yet, these examples are clearly born of racist ideologies about what “real” Americans look like and what are “real” Asian cultural practices. Racism is so deeply entrenched and pervasive in many societies (the U.S. context is not exempt but neither is it exceptional) that everyday racism, the kind of racism that is experienced in civic life (through social relationships, media, interpersonal workplace dynamics, etc.) is often unintentional. On the other hand, what is always intentional is anti-racism. The struggle against racism resists the pervasive ideologies and practices that explicitly and invisibly structure our daily lives (albeit in very different ways that are stratified by race, gender, class, and sexuality). Anti-racism requires intentionality because it’s an act of conscience.

But I think Renn’s (mis)understanding about eye-taping and intentionality is suggestive of something more than unconscious racism. I think that Renn’s explanation exemplifies how race is understood in this “post-racial” historical moment. What does racial discourse sound like in the age of post-racism? Well, I think it sounds like Renn’s explanation. This isn’t to single out Renn for indictment; instead, my point is to suggest that Renn’s explanation is an example of a post-racial narrative in which race is simultaneously articulated through and disavowed by discourses of class, culture, patriotism, national security, talent, and, in the case of fashion, creative license. Renn’s transformation is conditioned by its proximation to racial otherness and yet the language of creative license (Renn says: “To transform is the greatest part of my work.”) denies race as a driving and organizing factor in this transformation, it denies both her racial privilege as well as the eye-taping technique as a common cultural practice of racism. This kind of post-racial consumption of race in which the historical violence of racial difference makes no difference at all denies the ongoing reality of racism in the age of postracism. It is conditioned by the many privileges of whiteness (first and foremost among these privileges, a racially unmarked body). Recall Puwar’s incisive observation – which I’ve quoted numerous times on Threadbared – “It is precisely because white female bodies occupy the universal empty point which remains racially unmarked that they can play with the assigned particularity of ethnicized female bodies.”

Crystal Renn's other forays into racial drag, also published in Vogue Japan (June 2011)

We see the discourse of postracism also in Renn’s assertion that she is “not 100% morally okay with [blackface shoots] — I would feel that I’m taking a job from one of them. I would feel that I’m taking a job from a black girl who deserved it.” Renn’s sensitivity towards the need for more diversity in the modeling industry is not surprising. She has been a vocal proponent of size diversity among models (for a time, she was one of the most successful plus-size models) and has spoken openly about her own struggles with eating disorders and the pressures that come with the constant scrutiny of young women’s bodies in the media.

Her statement that she would never engage in a blackface shoot does two things: First, it elides the issue at hand (yellowfacing) for what seems to be for Renn a more real and authentic act of racism, blackfacing. In so doing, her statement suggests that anti-black racism is the only authentic form of racism worth talking or caring about. Second, it suggests that practices of yellowfacing and blackfacing (like, redfacing and brownfacing) take modeling jobs away from nonwhite models. This logic assumes that these acts of racial drag are meant to represent an actual racial body. Let me be clear: yellowfacing is not a practice of racial substitution, of a white model in place of an Asian model. Photographers, magazines, and designers know Asian models exist and know how to hire them. But they don’t hire them for these jobs because yellowfacing does not intend for audiences to believe that the body in view is actually Asian.

I’ve become really impatient with responses to racist practices of racial drag that involve comments like: “Why didn’t they just hire a Black/Asian/Latina/Native model?” (Yes, I believe there are anti-racist kinds of racial drag.) This question glosses over the actual operations of yellowfacing, blackfacing, etc. which is not about Asianness or Blackness but about Whiteness. It is about consuming Otherness, it’s about making racial difference commodifiable and palatable through whiteness, it’s about reproducing and securing white privilege. To quote hooks again, “eating the other” – hooks’ term for the consumption of difference – offers:

A new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling. Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream while culture.

__________________________________

NB: It’s unclear to me who is actually to blame for Renn’s eye-taping. She’s insisted that it was solely her idea but editor-in-chief of Vogue Japan Anna Dello Russo has also taken credit for the idea. I asked Ashley Mears, a former model and now sociology professor at Boston University whose book about the political economies of the modeling industry called Pricing Beauty is due out this month from the University of California Press if Renn might be falling on her sword for Dello Russo. According to Mears, it’s plausible that Renn had some creative input. As she explained, “models tend to have very little input in the terms of their work or in how their images are crafted or manipulated. However, at the higher levels of the industry where Renn is working, in which stylists and models work with each other repeatedly on high-end productions, there is a greater degree of collaboration with models, especially if she takes initiative to be involved.”

Cross-posted with permission; Originally posted at Threadbared

Post to Twitter