When Did My Tampon Become a Fortune Cookie?

Fortune Cookie Tampons

By Sayantani DasGupta

Apparently, when I wasn’t looking, some corporate geniuses decided that tampons should come packaged with perky self-help style advice. I can see the business meeting now: “Hey, I know what a menstruating girl or woman might need at ‘that time of the month’ alongside product absorbency! How about some inspiration!”

And so, this morning’s plastic tampon wrapper (I know, I know, I should be using a non-plastic brand, or a diva cup but go with me here) nearly shouted at me with the rah-rah force of a pom-pom wielding cheerleader:

“Don’t Stress!” “Play to Win!” and, worst of all, “You’re a take-charge kind of girl!” it shrieked.

I don’t know about you, but I’m willing to take pseudo-Eastern sounding mysticism from the tag of my tea bag, but I draw the line at inspiring tampon covers.

So, I guess my real question is this: When did girl power go amok?

I just came back from the National Women’s Studies Association conference, where there were lots of interesting panels on girl’s movements and girlhood related politics. Some panel names were:

  • Hey Shorty! Young Women of Color Take Research Out of the Academy
  • The Sexualization of Girls Across Time, Space and Cultural Mediums
  • Today, Not Someday When We’re Grown: How Girls ‘Do’ Activism
  • Representing Girlhood and Girls of Color, From Hip-Hop to Health

Awesome, right? (I wish I could have attended them all!)

Girl’s activism is a real and formidable force in the U.S. and around the world. But in broader culture, “girl power” has become heavily usurped–a snazzy marketing ploy by corporate forces who want to appeal to women and girl’s pocketbooks, not our politics. I know there’s been a lot of attention to steering women and girls away from passive “pink” marketing like books from Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers Schemes to Cinderella Ate My Daughter: Dispatches from the Front Lines of New Girlie-Girl Culture. But what about the taking over of “girl power” for marketing ends?

Consider the controversial Gardasil “One Less” commercials, featuring seemingly empowered, soccer playing girls also choosing to get vaccinated against HPV. (So… all girls who are empowered will get the HPV vaccine? Or alternately, get the HPV vaccine and become empowered?) Or, how about the Dove Clinical Protection deodorant ads in which a young woman cuts her own bangs with nail scissors (ooh, rebellious!) before deciding she will “Carpe Diem” today. Or, even the “Be Unstoppable” ads for Playtex Sports Tampons, which seem to shout (at least in my head), “Wear our tampons! Become a champion surfer!”

As opposed to the “F” word (feminism), which involves real-live grown-up women with real-live grown-up political agendas, “girl power” somehow goes down easier in mainstream culture. Girl’s activism becomes somehow read as feminism “lite.” Girls–even bang-cutting, soccer-playing, surfing girls–are cute and perky, right? Not bra-burning, hair-on-legs, speaking-their-minds or, erm, any other formulation of ADULT women?

I find that attitude pretty problematic–both for what it says about girls and girls’ activism, and for how it separates girls’ and women’s political actions and our common goals. (Not to mention how problematic it is to wake up one unsuspecting morning and find my tampon calling me, an adult woman with growing children of my own, a girl.) 

So marketers, lay off using girl power to support sales of your products. We don’t need your deodorant to be rebellious, or your tampons to help us win the big game. We just need them to do what they’re supposed to, and the rest we’ll manage on our own, thank you very much.

Girls’ activism, like women’s activism, is feminist activism, people. Girls’ bodies are not cutesy marketing tools, or a way to get girls and women to buy more junk we don’t need.

How about you keep your plucky advice on tea bags and in fortune cookies, and out of our bodies?

 

 

Post to Twitter

Mirror-Less Schooling: A Positive Initiative?

Girl Applies Makeup

By Sharon Haywood

Last month, a UK high school attracted media attention when its administration chose to remove all mirrors from its bathrooms. Shelley College in Huddersfield, West Yorkshire put the policy in place only a few weeks into the new school year to enforce the no-makeup rule for students between the ages of 14 and 16. The radical move also aims to minimize the social time students spend in the bathroom, an initiative that has been met with parental support. I know my parents would have stood behind mirror-less schooling.

When I was 16, I spent an awful lot of time looking at myself. My hair and makeup demanded time. (Think Madonna’s Big Teased hair, circa early 1980s coupled with an obsession with the color purple—painted heavy-handedly on my eyelids and lips.) I went to a Catholic high school so a uniform was a must, leaving hair and makeup as the primary vehicles to visually explore and express my sense of style, my sense of me. The importance of how I looked was magnified as I was also suffering from an eating disorder. When reading about Shelley College’s decision, I couldn’t help but wonder if I had lived without mirrors during school hours, would it have affected the way I viewed myself? Would it have created an alternative culture among my schoolmates where accomplishments overshadowed looks? Would I have valued my intelligence, my sensitivity, and my gifts over my appearance instead of the other way around? Potentially.

When this story broke last month, Margaret Hartmann of Jezebel straddled both sides of the argument:

“Teenagers have enough trouble accepting their looks and it seems a bit cruel to take away something that could make them feel a bit more comfortable…. On the other hand, maybe it’s a good time for girls to learn that they look fine even when their faces aren’t coated in makeup, or as 14-year-old student Rebecca Mannifield put it, ‘nobody is no prettier or uglier, we all just look normal.’”

Jessica Wakeman at The Frisky took a firm stand by stating she could support the makeup ban but she thought removing bathroom mirrors was “harsh.” Here at Adios Barbie we couldn’t think of a more appropriate person to weigh in on the issue than Kjerstin Gruys, the PhD student who has vowed to live mirror-free for a full year.

We featured her story and the first 100 days of her self-imposed experiment this past July. Since then she successfully navigated the adventure of getting married without peeking at her reflection (with the exception of one fantastic photo she has allowed herself to see and share with readers). Gruys supports mirror-less schooling and I agree with her. Like myself, she also suffered from an eating disorder while in high school. Neither one of us believe a mirror-free secondary education would cure an eating disorder but we both recognize the potential preventative and positive effects it could trigger.

Here is Gruys’ straight-shooting stance in her own words:

Day 181: Why Taking Mirrors Out of Schools is FABULOUS!

By Kjerstin Gruys

1) Removing mirrors sends a clear message to girls that their bodies should be used for doing things (hugs! sports! thinking!), not just for being looked at. When is the last time somebody told YOU this message so blatantly?  Did anybody tell you this as a young teen? Okay, how about this: when was the last time you saw any form of popular media share this message, in any way or form? Bottom line: this school is trying to fight the good fight. They (and we!) are up against a powerful toxic cultural environment. Yes, I realize that removing mirrors doesn’t get rid of this larger environment, but every little bit helps. Let’s be supportive of positive change.

2) Some people have suggested that this ban prevents creative expression. I call bullshit. I agree wholeheartedly that makeup and fashion can be a form of self-expression. I enjoy these things in my own life, though not without angst and expense. That said, let’s not forget that there’s a powerful beauty industry that wants us to believe that we’re “expressing ourselves” when we buy their products and then apply them exactly as directed by magazines. This industry benefits even more when we decide we can’t be “ourselves” without these products. Here’s a crazy idea: without makeup, without mirrors, and because of the strict dress code, these poor, poor girls will be forced to express themselves through things like: creative writing, drama class, music class, journaling, or by (gasp!) just being themselves.  

3) Finally: vanity makes us dumber. Don’t believe me? Check out the research for yourself. Numerous psychological studies find that worrying about appearance (called “self-objectifying” in the literature) leads to poorer performance on all sorts of mental tasks, from math tests to word recall, and even something wacky-cool called the Stroop Test. Given this, if removing mirrors helps reduce the mental energy that students had been putting toward their looks, that mental energy can now be put toward helping them be more successful learners. Since giving up mirrors, I can’t claim to have become any smarter, per say, but I’m definitely better able to focus.  

In closing, I admit that I am biased about this topic. But… I’m not biased because I’m avoiding mirrors; I’m biased because I had an eating disorder when I was in high school. I’d never suggest that getting rid of mirrors could ever cure a full-blown eating disorder. But, creating a daily environment in which young women are valued for their minds and spirits instead of their looks just might help prevent one.  

Every little bit helps.

Cross-posted with permission.

Related Content:

100 Days Without Mirrors

Post to Twitter

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Playboy, Porn, and Pole Dancing

TBD-NEWS-20-5-8-PLAYBOY2.jpg

By Sheena Vasani

“Would you rather have brains or beauty?”

“Beauty,” replies the Miss University London beauty pageant contestant adding because if she weren’t beautiful “nobody would want to listen to her anyway.”

Should we assume this quote came from newspaper archives, maybe from the 50s? Unfortunately not. The Guardian included this quote as part of a story reporting on the growing trend of UK university beauty pageants in December 2008.

Take a closer look and a disturbing pattern emerges.

The Guardian reported in 2006 that one of the UK’s leading retail groups WH Smith, reported its Playboy stationery line as one of its best-selling of all time. Ironically, its popularity lay not with boys, but adolescent girls. And while the BBC reports that WH Smith has since withdrawn these products, shops like Wet Seal in America still sell clothes promoting the Playboy bunny brand to teenage girls. Numerous large retail stores in both the UK and US sell inappropriate sexy clothing for children that many parents actually buy. Reports indicate the female public figure many American teenage girls look up to is Paris Hilton, well-known for her sex tape and rich father. And then I discovered that Brown University offers pole-dancing competitions, as does Cambridge University.

That’s right, folks. Forty years after feminism’s second wave burst onto the scene, 40 years after female activists burned bras, and 40 years AFTER Gloria Steinem went undercover as a Playboy Bunny to expose the misogyny involved in that world, women have gone from being viewed as sexual objects to – you guessed it! – still being perceived as sexual objects, whose only real accomplishment and source of power lies in their lust-provoking abilities.

Now, don’t get me wrong. The second wave was about empowering women, destroying the ideology running rampant stating a woman’s sole purpose was to sexually please men. In many, many respects, it succeeded. Women received more opportunities to shine than their mothers, particularly in the workplace. According to the U.S. Department of Labor data from 2009, women held “49.8 percent of all jobs, their highest proportion in history.”

But if a beauty pageant contestant from one of the best university systems in the world admits her looks are more important than her brain, if young girls feel the pressure to look sexy that they purchase the likes of pole dancing kits, what is this saying about female liberation and gender equality?

Sadly, some women are also encouraging such choices, celebrating it as “post-feminism.” As Christie Hefner, Playboy CEO and daughter to Playboy founder Hugh Hefner explains, “the post-women’s movement generation has just a more grown up, comfortable, natural attitude about sex and sexiness that is more in line with where guys were a couple of generations before.”[i]

So, the oppression of females through sexual means by men back then was not so much a human rights violation as it was actually a portrayal of male enlightenment, and now that we slow and insecure females understand this we are reverting back to objectifying ourselves?

I’m all for sexual expression and liberation, and if participating in pornography or pole dancing satisfies you, then fair enough. But the fact is many women involved in pornography describe their experiences as unfulfilling, as the famous memoirs of Traci Lords and Jenna Jameson show. Yes, Jameson might be quick to promote the pornography industry, but one has to wonder why she also says if she ever had a daughter, “she would lock her in the house before she’d let her get involved in the sex industry”?[ii]

Not to mention, many women are drawn to the adult entertainment industry out of financial or emotional problems, often resulting from sexual abuse. Both Traci Lords and Jameson’s personal stories speak of childhoods or teenage years filled with trauma. As Mary Anne Layden, Ph.D., and Director for Women’s Psychological Health in Philadelphia states:

“Most strippers, as with other women who work in the sex industry, are adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Research indicates the number is between 60%-80%. …Often as adults they reenact their childhood trauma by working as strippers, Playboy models, and prostitutes. The men who, now as customers, physically and visually invade the adult women’s bodies, reenact the role of the perpetrator. These women work in the sex industry because it feels like home.”

And what about the women who don’t work in the sex industry but want to associate themselves with Playboy and pole dancing? I don’t buy that this is genuine sexual liberation. It’s still about pleasing men.

Perhaps this happened because we grew overwhelmed with the impossibly hard to reach standards of beauty laid out for us by the images of airbrushed, artificially altered beauties? Perhaps we fell for the underlying message of ads flaunting such photos, that we are simply sex objects, who are only to be seen? Or maybe we just became tired of pointing out the objectification of women only to be dismissed, called prudes? Instead, we convinced ourselves life would just be “easier” if we repressed our anger and lived in denial? After all, who wants to be perceived as insecure and undesirable, especially to men? Whatever the reason, in an ironic move to feel “empowered” and wanted, instead of beating our oppressors, we are sadly joining them.

Next time you fantasize about being a Playboy bunny, feel pressured to visit a strip club even though you’re heterosexual, or to take up pole-dancing classes, remember the words of Susan Brownmiller, one of the most involved members of the real women’s liberation movement in the 70s: “You think you’re being brave, you think you’re being sexy, you think you’re transcending feminism. But that’s bullshit.”[iii]

Women of the West the battle still wages. Let’s join forces and get our acts together, lest we run the risk of selling out.

 

 


[i] Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005) 39.

[ii] Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005) 183.

[iii] Levy, Ariel. Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005) 82.

 

Post to Twitter

Walt Disney and Me (Black and Disabled)

Cinderella

By Cynthia Barram

I have an incredible love-hate relationship with Mr. Disney. The first time my dad wheeled me and my chair into a theater we watched The Little Mermaid. The lyrics from Ariel’s “Part of Your World,” pierced me. She equated so much of being human and happy with walking. But before Ariel, no one had articulated my secret childhood longing to dance, to move. And Iin could move so much easier in the water. I could swim, walk, jump, and hold my breath until adults made fools of themselves trying to save me from a pool. Ariel convinced me that a secret society of mermaids waited beneath every puddle for my orphan soul to rejoin them. Years later, I realized that Disney’s portrayal of Ariel as wearing only a bra for the first half of her movie, and as silent, lovingly clueless, and unrelentingly sexy for the second half was a serious problem from a feminist perspective. But honestly, if I woke up one morning with white skin, a petite build, an able body, and red hair I would train my voice to hilt, move to Los Angeles, force Disneyland to hire me, and sing that song with more conviction than anyone who had never been in a wheelchair ever could.

Cinderella presented me with other problems. I fell in love with her because of her ability to “buck up” under difficult circumstances. Mimicking her came in handy on days when Dad was irate, Mom was clueless, and my two sisters were evil. I would have swapped her housework for my surgeries in a heartbeat. Secretly I hoped that, like her, I could have mice and a fairy-godmother that would not rest until they had given me the means to accomplish all I dreamt of. I believed that at some point, the trauma I had suffered as a child, my scars, would vanish and give way to new life. Not exactly.

Cerebral palsy, though not unlovable, can be a clumsy thing. I would never acquire Cinderella’s ability to move and behave with absolute grace in every situation. And the other side of the mirror would never show me Cindy’s pretty blue eyes, blonde hair, hourglass figure, or perfect toeless Barbie doll feet. Never mind that my biological mother actually had blue eyes and blonde hair. My coffee with cream skin, midnight eyes, and black-cat no-I-will-not-get-into-braids-until-I-am-properly-stroked hair that I inherited from my biological father were having none of it. Cinderella indeed!

Mom would smile at me through her wily green-eyes as she attempted to ameliorate some of this tragedy every summer:

“You’re getting tan faster than me. Stop it!” she would scold me in her play voice.

“You’re not going to beat me,” I would retort, “Give up.”

“Never!” she would howl before we both busted a gut. But Cinderella’s white-is-good-and-pure mentality still etched itself into my adopted brain.

One Christmas I asked my mother, “Black people don’t go to heaven, do they mamma?”

In utter shock, Mom asked me where I heard such a thing. I told her, “Well, I have never seen a Black angel. They all have blond hair and blue eyes.” She sent my father to Atlanta promptly and he returned with a framed picture of a Black angel and the same of a Black Jesus. Every couple of Christmases thereafter relatives would bring Black Marys, Black fairies, a music box where a Black girl held a bright red present, and even my first Black baby doll—a chubby, smiling little girl who I promptly named Natasha. Yet, these toys were often the first to end up horribly mutilated. I wasn’t killing them on purpose, but I would subject them to my inherent clumsiness a lot faster than my more fragile, white toys.

I spent a lot of time at the library in third grade investigating Cinderella. I found out that she had red hair, brown hair, and black hair. I found out that she was a lovely Black woman (also named Natasha) who grew up in Africa, and had “counterparts” all over the globe. I found out that other princess stories like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Beauty and the Beast were similarly archetypal and had heroines from France, Italy, China, Egypt, Appalachia, everywhere. But all this cultural education did not stop me from making remarks like, “Oh my God! I have never seen so many Black people in all my life! They are everywhere!” When my father took me to see an Andrae Crouch concert, he told me, “You’re Black, now hush!” It was the only discussion Dad and I had about my race. That blue-eyed Cinderella was still the woman to conquer.

And things got worse. I used to watch Dumbo on Disney channel looking for the black crows. They are still my favorite part of the movie. In their defense (and mine) I never thought they were vicious—just jovial, excellent at wordplay, and a little sarcastic. I mean, let’s face it. They taught Dumbo how to fly, and stuck by him to keep him out of trouble at the end of the movie. Without them, Dumbo and his smart talking little mouse would be nothing. I took a Jazz, Pop, and Rock music class during my freshman year of college, and learned the origins of the blues and scat that made me love those animated crows. I also learned that associating any Black person with a crow, with Jim Crow in fact, was a horrible and hideous thing to do. Jim Crow was the name of a so-called code of conduct, which basically gave Whites pseudo-legal license to persecute and murder Blacks. No wonder Dumbo isn’t shown on public television anymore! And yet, may God help me, I still miss those crows. It’s not every day that a person meets friends who can laugh playfully at themselves and at you, and who have no qualms when it comes to teaching the down-and-out of how to fly.

My most shameful, and yet somehow most beloved Disney movie was Peter Pan. My favorite parts of this movie were the scenes with the “Indians”. As much as the chief terrified me when he promised to “burn ‘em at stake” if they could not rescue his daughter Tiger Lily, I loved watching the dignified way the young princess completely ignored Captain Hook as he screamed empty threats of death in her face to try and make her give up Peter Pan. I couldn’t believe her bravery and faith. She never cried out not even when she was about to drown. She knew that Pan would come for her and he did. And, when she was returned to the tribe, the same chief who had been ready to barbecue the Lost Boys earlier, invited everyone to a dance party to celebrate. It was very gracious of him I thought, and in the end he also turned out to have a sense of humor, which made him not nearly as scary. So, I made a note in my then very elastic seven-year-old brain: These red men are friendly and fun-loving people who throw better parties and can boogie down better than anyone you have ever seen. In sixth grade, a Native American dance troop performed at my school.  They did tricks with hoops and used feathers to make eagle shadows that swooped and soared across the gym floor. I was impressed, but not the least bit surprised.

Disney chose to draw the Indians in Peter Pan as bad caricatures—men as overly skinny, women as fat and toothless. What’s more, the word squaw is used three times in that movie. As a child, I asked my father what it meant and he told me it was the Indian way of saying girl. Similarly, my sisters and I used to play Indians after or during the movie. We had fake war cries and all, and those games are one of the only times I remember us running around with absolute abandon, and reveling in our ability to make noise. When my cousin’s kids met my family and I in South Dakota last year for a family reunion I remember remarking more than once, “Geez, they are like wild Indians,” as her home-schooled children whooped and hollered and stretched their bare limbs racing toward the swimming pool like their lives depended on it. They were free, yes. They were elated, yes. But did that make them “wild Indians” necessarily? Where had I learned to talk like that? My earliest and most overt teacher had been that old Peter Pan movie.

And so the queer play goes on in my head: Images of red men, black crows, and blonde Cinderellas swirl, their racist-sexist-classist messages intermingling with the pain and perfume of my childhood. What if Tiger Lilly had been able to speak? Would Dumbo be so different if the crows had been animated as cats? If Cinderella was just a little bit clumsy and perhaps had acne, would her film be ruined? And would it kill the Little Mermaid if Ariel at some point, kind of enjoyed her thinly-veiled wheelchairedness? Yet, I can never truly bring myself to hate Mr. Disney. Granted, should I have children I will not let my kids watch his dusty, old films—they lead to confusion. But part of me will always laugh at the crows in Dumbo. I’ll laugh at my fond memories of playing with my sisters. I’ll laugh because Mr. Disney introduced me to the concept of play and humor. I will laugh until somebody comes up with stories that are more engaging and entertaining, without being so off color.

* * *

Today’s contributor, Cynthia Barram is 26, an avid concert goer, an activist, and an English major. She lives with a cat who thinks she is both rich and human. Cynthia treats her wheelchair like a race car or a Queen’s throne depending on the day, and her second home is the bus station.

Disney-Related Content on Adios Barbie:

Tangled: Going Beyond the Disney Mold

Disney’s First Black Princess Makes Us Wonder

Are Your Roots Bad for Business?

Finally! The Truth About “Happily Ever After” Revealed

 

Post to Twitter

“Hey Shorty!” A Tall Lesson On Sexual Harassment

HeyShortyCover-210x300

By Carmen Rios at the SPARK Summit

“When I advocate for our most vulnerable girls and women at the intersection of gender, race, class, and sexual oppression, I’m advocating for myself and my family.” These were the words that welcomed me to the newly released book, “Hey Shorty!: A Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment and Violence in Schools and on the Streets.”

They seemed to say, “You are in the right place.”

“Hey Shorty! chronicles a group of young women of color who successfully organize to increase safety for girls, women, and LGBTQ individuals living in New York City. The project was spearheaded by the Girls for Gender Equity, a Brooklyn-based grassroots organization, and written by Joanna N. Smith, Mandy Van Deven, and Meghan Huppuch.

The authors spoke to numerous girls in the New York City public schools and it became apparent that one of the largest obstacles to success was sexual harassment. And when they found that the student leaders were ready, interested, and willing to devote time toward combating sexual harassment in their schools and communities, it was as if someone had whispered, “You are in the right place.” So, they pushed forward.

GGE formed a NYC-wide student group called “Sisters of Strength” that relied on a unique model: They put students in charge of creating a direction for the group, determining its activities, and distributing information on and executing its projects with an intense focus to not only improve girls’ lives, but also using their experiences as a driving force. GGE staff and interns served as a source of institutional support for their vision, but let the girls take the lead. The girls led an outburst of strength and a handful of effective actions that led to change.

And the reason it happened is because those girls wanted to see change, and when they saw it in themselves they said, “You are the right place.”

Achieving change in New York City public schools was not an easy task– especially since GGE’s focus was on change resulting from Title IX enforcement. And it was nowhere to be found: Title IX requires schools to create and distribute policies on sexual harassment and make sure staff is in place to properly handle reports, but the first time GGE reached out to the Title IX Coordinator for the first district they tackled, they found that she wasn’t even aware it was in her job description–and she didn’t know what Title IX was! This meant they needed to raise awareness and increase support for their vision. They needed to start eradicating sexual harassment in their classrooms, instead of in their Principal’s offices. And GGE was in the right place.

For anyone organizing on campuses or in their own communities, “Hey Shorty!” is your place to start. This is where you can make changes because you can be the change-maker in your community. Making change where you are. That’s something you always have the capacity, the knowledge, and the connection to do. If you’re looking around your school, in your city, or your church and you see something you want to change, this is your place. This is your time.

And when that time comes, and you’re in the right place, you will find that “Hey, Shorty!” is an invaluable piece of work. Within each short story lies a lesson or a reminder of how valuable it is to listen to members of your community when you’re organizing, and give a voice to the underrepresented, the silenced, and the quiet members, too. “Hey, Shorty!” will lift you up when you hit obstacles and show you that there really is always a will and a way. It will lend insight into how to circumnavigate your campus and how to rally your troops.

This summer, the authors and teen activists will begin Hey Shorty! On The Road North American tour to encourage young people to advocate an end to gender-based violence in their schools and communities. You can also donate, buy a signed copy of the book, or ask for an in-person visit at your school or organization by visiting http://www.indiegogo.com/heyshortyontheroad.

The most valuable lesson you will get out of reading “Hey, Shorty!” is that feeling when you close it, and you think about the work of Sisters of Strength, and your own work, and you will say, “I am in the right place.”

* * *

Originally posted at SPARK Summit. Cross-posted with permission.

 

Related content:

WTF?: Video Games Now Simulate Rape

Standing With Sluts

 

 

Post to Twitter

Mom, do my legs look fat in these “skinny jeans”?

photo from CityPages.com
photo from CityPages.com

photo from CityPages.com

By Valerie Kusler

It’s no secret that “skinny jeans” have dominated the women’s denim market for the past year or two. But a new trend of marketing skinny jeans to kids has caused quite a stir and concern. Many are wondering whether the trend is bad for kids’, especially girls’, who already have delicate body image. Will this trend cause impressionable youngsters to pick up messages about what their bodies should look like, more than they already do? Or is it just a harmless fashion trend?

I have a strong, though admittedly biased, opinion on the subject. First of all, as a kid, I hated jeans. I know, abnormal. I just felt that they were so restricting, so I preferred leggings, skirts, dresses, skorts, you name it — anything but jeans. Thankfully, I grew out of that, and today I probably have around 15 pairs in my closet (and that’s after a few rounds of Goodwill trips.) How many of them are skinny jeans? None.

Skinny jeans are just not made for my body type. Every store carries my size of jeans, but apparently NO store carries my size in skinny jeans. Any pair that I find that comes close to fitting right gives me that nostalgic itch to break free. Even though I have a fairly slender/athletic build, skinny jeans have always made me feel self-conscious about my body and my legs. Give me a pair of bootcuts or flares, and I’m fine.

I know I’m not alone in this, and I hate the idea that young girls (and boys) might see “skinny jeans” and think that if their body type doesn’t fit in them, it must mean they’re not “skinny” enough. Then there’s the other thing that comes to mind when they hear the term skinny jeans: Countless mom’s saying, “I’ll feel so much better once I can fit into my skinny jeans!”

Sure, it’s just semantics, but kids pick up on that stuff — I certainly remember doing so.

What do you think? Check out more on this topic here.

Post to Twitter

Call for PG Rating of Aussie Tween Magazines

Total Girl Cover, March 2010

“Scrutiny urged for tween magazines” by Jill Pengelley at The Advertiser on May 24, 2010

Total Girl Cover, March 2010

Total Girl Cover, March 2010

THE YWCA of Adelaide is calling for a PG rating for “tween girls” magazines, which it says are teaching six-year-olds to be sexually provocative.

Total Girl, Disney Girl and Barbie Magazine are the publications that concern the YWCA.

The association conducted a survey last month which found 75 per cent of respondents support PG ratings for tween magazines.

YWCA of Adelaide chief executive Anne Bunning said 26 per cent of six-year-olds and almost 50 per cent of 11-year-olds read at least one of the most popular magazines each month.

Read the full story here

Post to Twitter

Barbie’s Plummeting Neckline Causes Uproar

-1

“‘Busty Barbie’ in Mattel’s new Back to Basics Barbie collection is too revealing for some parents” by Tracy Miller at the NY Daily News

 

Barbie has always been known for her curves – but a new doll from Mattel is upping the ante, much to some parents’ consternation.

The Barbie “Back to Basics” collection is a new line of Barbie dolls dressed in stylish cocktail attire: Little black dresses, off-the-shoulder frocks and tiny strapless numbers. But one doll in the line is grabbing all the attention: No. 10, who’s quickly earned the nickname “Busty Barbie.”

Read the full story at the NY Daily News

Related Content:

The False Mirror: On Diversity, Bizarre Barbies, and Body Image Activism

Dolls: It Matters if You’re Black or White

I’m Saving My Cheers Over New “Authentic” Black Barbie Line

Move Over Barbie, Now There’s Something Meatier

Barbie’s Ankles Too Fat for Louboutin’s Stylelist Fashion Blog

A Picture Worth a Thousand Words

Joan Holloway Barbie Proves Plastic is Less Fantastic

Post to Twitter

The Beauty Myth: Worth Fighting Against?

TooSkinny-1024x4805-300x140

TooSkinny-1024x4805-300x140

By Guest Contributor Melanie Klein of Feminist Fatale

In light of Britney Spears’ recent unaltered photos, a recent guest post at Jezebel proclaimed feminism’s battle with the beauty myth as bourgeois and not worth the fight. Author, Helen Razer, claims that the efforts to expose the gruesome reality behind the beauty myth is a tiresome and unworthy battle that detracts focus from issues of  “real gender equality.”

I recall an era when feminism’s purview was not limited to banging on about the need for more fat chicks in glossy magazines. While others fight for the right to force-feed Kate Moss, I continue antique fretting over equal pay, domestic violence and federal representation. At 40, I am old and clearly out of step with a movement that demands Size 14 representation.

She continues:

Yes. This just in: heat is hot, water is wet and teenagers are obsessed with their appearance. As such, let’s spend money on developing an industry code of conduct so that we can all enjoy the spectacle of more cottage cheese on Britney’s thighs.

Is it as simple as “teenagers are obsessed with their appearance?” I don’t think so. While the obsession with beauty has long been considered a narcissistic rite of passage among teens, beauty and body image issues are not limited to this demographic. Research shows that eating disorders and the preoccupation with beauty is found younger and younger girls as well as increasingly older women. Disordered eating, eating disorders and an overall obsession with the physical form is not limited to teens as part of a passing trend.

Not only are the consequences of the beauty myth not limited to a specific age group, it is not limited to rich (“bourgeois”), white girls. In fact, the Eurocentric beauty ideal is exported the globe over via the mass media and continues to erase our physical diversity. The global reach of these manufactured and altered images result in more and more  individuals conforming to homogeneous definitions of beauty.

As Brumberg traces in The Body Project: An Intimate History of Young Girls, physical beauty has become the sole measure of the worth of girls and women. This reduction of value and self-identification to the numbers on the scale and shape of one’s figure signals a  sociohistorical shift in the ways in which girls and women are valued. It doesn’t matter if you’re intelligent, independent, competent, charismatic, artistic, or successful unless you’re thin, toned and flawless. In other words, you’ve got to be hot, too.

The pursuit of hotness, as an extension of the battle to achieve the elusive beauty myth, trumps all other facets of  a woman’s character or accomplishments. Even pregnancy and motherhood are not excluded from the pressures of the socially constructed measure of beauty. The MILF, a term made popular by the film American Pie, has become a staple fixture in pop culture.

Naomi Wolf sounded the alarm over twenty years ago with the publication of The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty are Used Against Women. As women began making strides thanks to the tireless efforts made during the second wave of feminism during the Women’s Liberation Movement, we began to be bombarded by increasingly unrealistic images of female beauty. This proliferation of our cultural space with skantily clad or nude women has continued and increased. The relentless and one-pointed focus on beauty has resulted in generations of women imposing, what Brumberg calls “internalized control,” on themselves.

Beauty in itself is not the problem. Dominique Millette tackles this debate in a recent post. So, what is the problem and why is it important?

Melanie Klein of Feminist Fatale states five excellent reasons why the beauty myth must be deconstructed. Read the rest of her article here.

Post to Twitter

PinkStinks: Challenging Girly Stereotypes

Mark Hall/Getty Images

Not So Pretty In Pink: Are Girls’ Toys Too Girly? by Beth Gardiner at Time

Mark Hall/Getty Images

Mark Hall/Getty Images

Twin sisters Abi and Emma Moore noticed a few years ago how different their south London houses looked as Abi’s started filling up with her sons’ toy dinosaurs and trains and Emma’s turned pink and girly with her daughters’ playthings. Already frustrated by the barrage of pretty princesses and sparkly fairies marketed to girls, Emma says she reached a breaking point when she watched her daughter open a huge haul of presents at her sixth birthday party. Out of 40 gifts, Emma recalls, only three were items not designed solely for girls – two games and a set of colored pencils. Much of the rest, including several Barbies and a play-makeup set, ended up at a local charity shop, but the shock Emma felt stayed with her.

Not long afterward, she felt compelled to do something about it. In 2008, she and Abi, both 38, started an advocacy group called Pinkstinks, which they hope will spark a shift in a popular culture that they say puts girls “into a pretty little box” from birth, offering them toys that emphasize the importance of looking good and being feminine, while the boys are allowed to go exploring and get dirty. The sisters have launched campaigns to pressure retailers to move away from such stereotypes, like their recent effort to help persuade the British supermarket chain Sainsbury’s to repackage a doctor costume that was labeled for boys and a nurse’s outfit labeled for girls.

Read more about PinkStinks at Time

Related Content:

The Pink and Blue Guise of Gender Roles

Post to Twitter