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

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

Remembering Ruby

ruby body shop

By Sharon Haywood

Fifty-something-old Barbie[1] might be middle-aged but she sure doesn’t show it. When she was in her 30s, her manufacturer Mattel sent her for plastic surgery, not to maintain her youthful appearance, but rather in response to market demands to morph her into a more realistic-looking doll. In 1992, Barbie’s waistline slightly expanded. Then in 1998, Mattel altered one version of the doll—Really Rad Barbie—giving her a decreased cup size and slimmer hips. Currently, her estimated measurements—38-18-34—contrast greatly with the American woman’s average of 41-34-43[2]. Barbie’s curves fall several inches short of what typical women possess today.

Considering that the average woman in the U.S. is a size 12/14, a doll that wears a double-digit dress size would be a much more accurate reflection of American women. The late Anita Roddick (1942-2007), the founder of The Body Shop, thought the same. In 1997, the socially-conscious international cosmetics franchise and Host Universal created Ruby: a chubby-cheeked, chestnut-haired, computer-generated figurine. Ruby was the brainchild of The Body Shop’s self-esteem campaign, “Love Your Body.” Her size 16 image was accompanied by the caption, “There are 3 billion women who don’t look like supermodels and only 8 who do.” She sent the message that you should love what you’ve got, not loathe it.

If you’re familiar with Ruby, you know that she’s not easy to locate. So, where’s this confident and curvaceous character been hiding? You can find her here, alongside other rejected and banned ads.[3] We can thank Mattel for Ruby’s label of “Banned.” The U.S. toy manufacturer thwarted the innovative campaign in its early days by serving The Body Shop with a cease-and-desist order; all posters had to be removed from American shops. Why? In Roddick’s own words:

“Ruby was making Barbie look bad, presumably by mocking the plastic twig-like bestseller … Mattel thought that Ruby was insulting to Barbie.”

Outside of Roddick’s explanation on her website, no other information regarding Mattel’s specific legal grounds can be found online. We can surmise that Ruby’s rolls and less-than-perky breasts were the offending culprits.

This year Ruby would have turned 14. But imagine if she had grown from being a self-esteem campaigner into a three-dimensional doll in direct competition with Barbie. Do you think that when she would have reached her 30s, she would have gone under the knife, too? Would the folks at The Body Shop have decided she needed a tummy tuck, a breast lift, and some lipo to give her a competitive edge? The Body Shop’s global communications head told the New York Times that Ruby represented “a reality check” in contrast to the “stereotypical notions of unattainable ideals.” Odds would tell us that the Rubenesque beauty wouldn’t have any part of her body nipped or tucked; in fact, like many women approaching middle-age, she might even have gained a couple of pounds. Regrettably, we’ll never know for sure.

Although Ruby’s existence was short-lived, her presence generated controversy. She caused Mattel to sit up and take notice. Along similar lines, consider that Barbie underwent cosmetic surgery to appease consumers’ demands. Although Mattel was conservative in its alterations of Barbie’s figure, the company did respond to the public. Furthermore, with sales of the blonde figurine consistently dropping,[4] the toy manufacturer has even more incentive to cater to the customer. If more and more women let corporate giants like Mattel know what they really want, who’s to say that Barbie’s waistline (and the rest of her) can’t fill out as she eases into her fifties? Something to ponder in memory of both Ruby and the visionary Roddick.

Originally published at Any-Body on June 21, 2009. Cross-posted with permission.


[1] When Any-Body originally published this post in 2009, Barbie had just turned 50 years old.

[2] I cited body measurements for White women ages 36 to 45 to reflect Ruby’s race. For the same age group, the average measurements for Black women are 43-37-46; 42.5-36-44 for Hispanic women; and 41-35-43 for Asian women.

Post to Twitter

Five Surprising Ways to Love Your Body This Halloween

Image by Kyla Hollis

By Ashley-Michelle Papon

When I was a kid, before I understood that patriarchy wasn’t a particular type of game hen, Halloween was my favorite holiday. I spent weeks dreaming about my costume. In hindsight, this was a rather amusing waste of my time because I dressed up as a ballerina for six years straight. It’s worth mentioning, of course, that growing up in Kansas, I spent many Halloweens lacing my toe shoes over my snow pants as a way to stem off the cold while we trekked from door to door.

Maybe it was this early flirtation with clothing conservatism that kept me from seeing the value in the trend of Halloween costumes in recent years. In fact, I often feel like Lindsay Lohan’s character from “Mean Girls,” trying to dream up the most awesomely intricate character charade, only to be greeted by fellow femmes hanging out in lingerie and animal ear headbands.

With this kind of backdrop, is it any wonder Halloween seems to kick off the season of shame and insecurity? As women, we’re constantly bombarded with messages that we need to be all sex, all the time, something that has created a wide range of lasting impacts in our society from eating disorders to self-esteem issues. Culturally, women are taught that their overall sexiness defines their worth and identity. Even a night which has come to commercially bill itself as the one in which we can be anybody else offers only a conditional escape for women: they can be whomever they want to be, provided that person is still sexy.

This year, Halloween we get a much-needed make over in the self-esteem department from the Love Your Body Day campaign on October 19. Since 1998, the Love Your Body Day, an awareness effort by the National Organization of Women, has sought to get a dialogue going to speak out against advertisements and images of women that are harmful, disrespectful, and demeaning. These same words seem to be pretty appropriate descriptors for the Officer McNasty get-ups and sexualized storybook characters (I really don’t recall Dorothy wearing thigh highs, and remember, I’m from Kansas, so I’m totally an expert on all things “Wizard of Oz”).

Of course, swearing off the makeshift black cat backup costume is only a small step towards living the dream of body acceptance. Here are five surprising ways to use this fright night to celebrate and accept yourself—the scariest possible concept to companies that bank on people always hating what they see in the mirror.

1. Stage a costume contest that doesn’t include a category for the Sexiest Costume. Instead, honor the Most Comfortable Costume or Best Looking Costume That Escaped Conditioning for What Women Should Look Like but Really Don’t Because It’s Unhealthy. Similarly, good luck fitting that title on a plaque.

2. Listen to songs that preach loving every inch of yourself, regardless of what the magazines say. When you’re creating your party shuffle, make sure to sandwich songs like Christina Aguilera’s “Beautiful” and India.Arie’s “Video” between Halloween hits “Monster Mash” and “Thriller.” These tender tunes (and others) are a perfect anthem of acceptance.

3. Make a pinata based on snappy advertising lingo. Take a stack of magazines and pull out the pages that offer up advertisements promoting weight loss or exploiting women to sell a product. Use these strips of magazines to create your own Halloween pinata, because what will be most satisfying than smashing words like “THE NEW AND IMPROVED SKINNIER YOU” to pieces?

4. Bob for buzz words. This activist twist on the old favorite has partygoers attempting to remove apples from tubs of water, but each apple is carved with charged, body-shaming language like “THINspiration” or “Nothing tastes as good as thin feels.” Whoever collects the most gets to take the apples home to make into a pie of body-praising affirmative goodness.

5. Skip the usual monster and spooky fare to create a more positive pumpkin carving experience. Using medium to large-sized pumpkins, select a word that sums up loving your body. Decorate one side of the pumpkin around this word, carving and bedazzling it. Make it yours! On the other side, illuminate why this word applies to you.

Halloween is usually a holiday where we get to celebrate being someone, anyone else, for another day. This year, let’s focus on celebrating the opportunity to be ourselves.

This post is part of the 2011 Love Your Body Day Blog Carnival.

In Hollywood, Love Your Body Day is celebrated on Sunday October 23rd and Adios Barbie will be there! Co-founder/co-editor Pia Guerrero is leading a panel called “Beyond Beauty and Body Image” that’s not to be missed. For more information, visit NOW Hollywood’s website here.

Related Content:

Halloween is Frightening When it Sexualizes and Stereotypes

7 Ways to Love Your Body (Through Thick and Thin)

Post to Twitter

Fashion’s Night Out: When Will We Have a Fat-shionable Fall?

F-No, we won't go! Or will we?

F-No, we won't go! Or will we?

By Ophira Edut

Summer’s about over. The red carpets are rolling out (hello, MTV Video Music Awards), which means sucking, tucking and plucking season has begun again. The new fall shows, with a fresh crop of homogenous stars, will be premiering. (Oh, how I’m counting the minutes until Glee’s third season.) New York City, where I live, is gearing up for Fashion Week and the stampede that is Fashion’s Night Out. While I enjoy style and creativity, I admit that my first wry thought was: Fat Girls’ Night In, is more like it. Or maybe Fat-Shun’s Night Out. Hide your kids, hide your wife!

Extreme? Yeah. But I’m issuing a back-to-school rallying cry: will any celebrities step out this fall and represent for the F-word? Not the expletive that got bleeped out of so many VMA acceptance speeches. I mean F-A-T.

Look, I’m not asking for 300 pounds, but that would be awesome. A girl can dream. Gabby Sidibe is available for hire, you producers out there. And I’m not talking about casting for The Biggest Loser, Celebrity Fit Club, or any other fat-bashing show designed to “correct” (read: shame and vilify) people whose size ticks into the double digits. I don’t want to see cameras panning through a weeping fat woman’s apartment as she talks about her out-of-control emotional eating, then is “saved” by some heartless celebrity trainer.

Unless, of course, we level the playing field. Here’s an idea: let’s bring a camera crew into the home of skinny stars secretly wolfing down carbs or binge drinking, smoking, and exercising for hours a day. (Training for a role, my ass. And half my Hebrew School class got nose jobs because of deviated septums, too.) Watch the poor things weep as they forage for cigarette butts in the bushes, or do their third week of a kettle-ball workout and pretend to love it. Perhaps a psychiatrist from the fat acceptance movement can come save this person from the life-threatening dangers of addiction and yo-yo dieting (which can lead to heart attack), or the psychological perils of body dysmorphia. And please, keep those damn calipers away from me, o’ commission-earning trainer stalking the gym floor. The whole BMI measuring system is so out of wack that even Brad Pitt would be considered overweight by its standards. (Seriously? Has anyone else seen Fight Club?)

Nowadays, if I dare say this kind of stuff, I’m accused of a) being a clueless hothead, and b) ignoring the “big O”: obesity. Which may be real, but it’s been co-opted and corrupted by so many money-making industries, that a lot of the hype is pure bull-shizzle.

There. I said it. Slap on my scarlet F (for fat acceptance), please! I hear that red is big on the Fall 2011 runways, speaking of fashion…

Fighting obesity has given us something to do with our money instead of oh, saving it or investing in a sinking stock or housing market. We have an enemy! It has a name! Of course, soda machines don’t belong in schools (duh) and kids could use more exercise. Sure, we should all ride bikes, take hikes and eat fresh produce. But do we all have equal access to these things? Hell no. So let’s shame the poor a little more and blame them for not being able to find a decent piece of fruit for miles, find affordable health care or power-walk safely through crime-riddled neighborhoods. Thumbs up for urban farming and all the eco-friendly efforts that bring health and sustainability to under-served communities. Healthy living without the shaming and judgment, I’m all for.

Then, there’s the simple, unacknowledged truth: food is fun. At my stepdaughter’s upstate New York elementary school, sweets are banned from the cafeteria, even on cupcake-friendly holidays like Valentine’s Day. So now we’re teaching kids that sugar is bad, something to fear and avoid. THAT should keep the candy stores in business on allowance day.

* * *
I’m keeping a scrapbook of celebrities who dare to embrace their non-conforming bods. Much like the stars in Hollywood, it’s perilously thin.

There’s Tyra Banks from a few years ago, who went out in a bikini after putting on some weight. Jennifer Love Hewitt, who always wears bikinis, even when her weight fluctuates and the bloggers publicly stone her with cruel posts. This week, Disney Channel star Demi Lovato scores the F for going “curvy” to the VMAS (whatevs, she’s still tiny) and Tweeting “I’ve gained weight. Get over it. That’s what happens when you get out of treatment for an EATING DISORDER.”

The Kardashians get an honorable mention, though I keep taking them out of the book. Fat that’s distributed to body parts sexualized by mass culture (the Hottentot Venus ass, namely) doesn’t count. There’s no risk involved, otherwise Kim wouldn’t flaunt hers in every bandage dress she can find. Oh, and 50 points off for the QuickTrim sponsorship. Mixed messages are the enemy of healthy body image.

People are visual. Thanks to reality TV, we’re officially desensitized to the surgical fat-sucking and anti-aging procedures that so many millions undergo. So, how about we apply the same treatment to love handles, belly rolls, cellulite, sags and all the body “issues” we’ve declared war upon? Let’s see that being normalized. Because, frankly, that’s what NORMAL looks like. We’ve largely forgotten. With CGI, Photoshop and all the latest digital retouching wonders, our minds are being trained to erase normalcy, SPAM filtering it out into a big global junk file.

Self-acceptance is not defeat. I’ve been saying it for years, and I stand by it. That doesn’t mean you don’t make changes for your health, happiness and well-being. But please, make them from a place of self-love, not shame. And truly question: if you didn’t feel shamed by the culture, would you really make these changes? Look deep. We all want the goodies of acceptance, and social anxiety is not easy to navigate. But the long-term effects of body hatred are worse.

[Author's note: if you're a fashion-loving girl who doesn't fit a size 2, The Curvy Fashionista has listed a handful of Fashion's Night Out events for the plus-size crowd here. But ugh, Lane Bryant is debuting a new line of "slimming jeans" featuring their "exclusive T3 Tighter Tummy Technology." Soooo, invite us to your store so we can spend to look skinnier? Enough already! But the Cupcakes, Curves and Cleavage Event at Viva La Femme in Chicago sounds rad. More, please!]

I do smell the opportunity for a revolution here, though. Fashion’s Night Out COULD be respun as Fat’s Night Out. (Fat being used loosely, to encompass anyone that doesn’t fit the ever-narrowing standard, that is.) If anyone wants to do some impromptu fashion activism, by all means, do! (I’m imagining a picket line chanting “F-no, we won’t go!” But picket lines aren’t all that fashionable anymore.) Whatever your creative version of resistance looks like, go to town. Fashion IS supposedly all about art and free expression, or so they say. So hit the streets with your own Fat-shion’s Night Out parade. Tell them we sent you.

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

This Is Why I Worry About “The Help”

The+Help

By Tami Winfrey Harris

A lot of folks have been giving the whole idea of a book, written by a Southern white woman,  about black domestics in 1960s Mississippi, the side eye. I understand. When my book club decided to read Kathryn Stockett’s The Help last year, I was ambivalent. The book was a popular best-seller with rave reviews. Yet, I have learned to brace myself against the biased and stereotypical way black women are rendered in media. I have become weary of Mammy-fied caricatures that bear little resemblance to the many Southern black women in my family. I am sick of narratives that read like a sort of pre-Civil Rights porn for people who get off on “the good ole days.” And I have become tired of narratives where black folks are “saved” by the awesomeness of good white folks. So, yeah, I came to The Help begrudgingly. But I liked it.

The Help was a good book. I had a hard time putting it down. The black characters did not feel “off” as they often do when written by a non-black person. And Stockett wove her story with far more nuance than I expected. The author illuminated the pains, dangers and hypocrisies of 60s-era racism and segregation. She even departed from discussion of race to explore class, an issue often overlooked in tales like this. Not every white person was wealthy or considered “the right sort.” Not every white woman felt comfortable in the role of mistress of the house.

Oh, there are racial fails in The Help. Nearly all of the black characters speak in dialect, while none of the white characters do. And I don’t want to spoil one of the book’s big reveals, but surely Stockett realizes that there have been mixed-race people in black families since we arrived in the country, perhaps most especially in the South due to slavery, Reconstruction and the exploitation of black women. It is not shocking for a black family to have a member or members who could easily “pass” as white. There are other problems, but I will say this, The Help had no more racial fails that most other fiction I’ve encountered. Or at least, in my eyes, the book rose above it.

My concern is not with The Help. My concern is how American society processes race and how people will receive the movie, based on the book, which debuts this weekend.* Here’s an excerpt from Rolling Stone’s three-and-a-half-star review of the film:

The film’s catalyst is Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan (Emma Stone) a recent graduate of Ole Miss looking to spark a career in journalism by getting Aibileen and Minny to confide their feelings about working for white families in a changing South. Skeeter is a tricky part–white girl liberates enslaved black womanhood–but Stone, an exceptional talent, is so subtly effective at showing Skeeter’s naivete. It’s Skeeter’s job to first liberate herself from the bigoted codes passed on through generations, including her mother (Allison Janney) and Skeeter’s own card-dealing, role-playing girlfriends. [Emphasis mine.]

See this. This is the problem. Skeeter begins capturing the stories of her town’s domestics for her own benefit. She wants a writing job in New York City. She has outgrown Jackson, MS, and its cages for both women and people of color. It is true that she begins to recognize and rebel against the rigid societal rules of the time, including the ones related to race. Skeeter is also, naive, young and privileged. In fact, some of her behavior puts the black women she is working with and herself in danger. Skeeter is not Moses. She liberates no one, but herself.

The black women who tell their stories to Skeeter do so for their own reasons. Because they are tired of being silent. Because they have put up with years more oppression, as black people and as women than Skeeter has. And their race, gender and class give them very few of her freedoms. These black women liberate themselves. The book and film take place in the 1960s–a time when black people were fighting hard for equality. In 1955, years before The Help takes place, Rosa Parks, who once worked as a domestic, refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Ala., bus and sparked a boycott that changed history. Many domestic workers would take part in that boycott, walking miles to their jobs in white people’s homes in a bid for their civil rights. How offensive to imply that what a group of grown black women needs is for a young white woman to come alert them they are “enslaved” and them lead them to freedom.

To me, The Help was less about race than it was about gender–about women of different races, ages and classes chafing against the ways society marginalizes them and restricts them and tries to own them. But that narrative, perhaps, does not lend itself to big box office receipts and product tie ins. (Yeah. Product tie ins.) So instead, we’ll get Nice White Lady Saves Po’ Black Folks – Jim Crow Edition. (If you haven’t seen Mad TV’s parody of this kind of film. You have to click through that link.)

Here’s what Booklist has to say about The Help:

Jackson, Mississippi, in the early 1960s is a city of tradition. Silver is used at bridge-club luncheons, pieces polished to perfection by black maids who “yes, ma’am,” and “no, ma’am,” to the young white ladies who order the days. This is the world Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan enters when she graduates from Ole Miss and returns to the family plantation, but it is a world that, to her, seems ripe for change. As she observes her friend Elizabeth rudely interact with Aibileen, the gentle black woman who is practically raising Elizabeth’s two-year-old daughter, Mae Mobley, Skeeter latches ontothe idea of writing the story of such fraught domestic relations from the help’s point of view. With the reluctant assistance of Aibileen’s feisty friend, Minny, Skeeter manages to interview a dozen of the city’s maids, and the book, when it is finally published, rocks Jackson’s world in unimaginable ways. With pitch-perfect tone and an unerring facility for character and setting, Stockett’s richly accomplished debut novel inventively explores the unspoken ways in which the nascent civil rights and feminist movements threatened the southern status quo. Look for the forthcoming movie to generate keen interest in Stockett’s luminous portrait of friendship, loyalty, courage, and redemption. –Carol Haggas

This is my worry: That even if The Help film gets it right, viewers will see just another movie about a spunky, young, white girl, setting the world on fire, while the lives, stories and agency of black women remain invisible.

*Originally published at What Tami Said on August 9, 2011. Cross-posted with permission.

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

Help Expose the Real Illusionists

Illusionists

By Sharon Haywood, Co-Editor

“To men a man is but a mind. Who cares what face he carries or what he wears? But a woman’s body is the woman.” Filmmaker Elena Rossini cites this quote from writer Ambrose Bierce as her third reason out of 30 for creating The Illusionists, a full-length documentary about how the body has been transformed into the “finest” consumer object worldwide. As www.theillusionists.org explains, author Germaine Greer referred to women as illusionists “as they ‘fake the roses in their cheeks, the thickness, color and curliness of their hair, the tininess of their waists, the longness of their legs and the size and shape of their breasts.’” But the real illusionists—the beauty industry and mass media—are exposed in Rossini’s documentary as the culprits who unscrupulously sell unattainable beauty:

“They create, shape and maintain our shared beliefs, values, and rules, promoting aspirational ideals of female beauty that are very difficult – if not impossible – to achieve, in order to create new needs and apprehensions that fuel a 500 billion dollar industry.”

Rossini and her team have set up a fundraising campaign that needs your backing. They have chosen Kickstarter, an incredible online fundraising platform that provides creative projects the opportunity to reach out to like-minded folks like you for support. The ask? $33,000 in 43 days. At the time of writing this, $16,000 has been donated and 29 days remain. An amazing amount of money in two weeks. But Kickstarter has a catch—the project abides by an “all-or-nothing funding method.” In other words, if the project fails to reach 100% of its funding goal by August 5th, all pledges will be lost.

With footage from around the world, including Europe, the United States, India, and East Asia The Illusionists will present a truly global close-up at “how mass media, advertising and several industries manipulate people’s insecurities about their bodies for profit.” The film’s list of experts is impressive: Psychotherapist and author of 11 books, including Fat is a Feminist Issue and her latest, Bodies, Susie Orbach; author and filmmaker Jean Kilbourne, most recognized for her groundbreaking film series about women and advertising, Killing Us Softly; and the founder of Women in Media & News and author of Reality Bites Back, Jennifer Pozner. Plans are in the works to interview others, such as the famed writer and philosopher Umberto Eco and the controversial photographer, Oliviero Toscani well known for his multi-racial Benetton ads. What’s more the film will also include testimony from advertising executives, magazine editors, scientists, historians, and sociologists.

I can think of a few more solid reasons why we need to see The Illusionists: it will act as an invaluable educational resource “making viewers more empowered consumers of media,” provide people with a tool to help them reject the self-esteem crushing messages from marketers, and it might even act as a catalyst for change in how women are represented in the media. But none of that can happen without your support.  Rossini explains that,

“there is a lot of censorship surrounding these issues. Funding the film independently, through people’s donations, is the only way we can be completely candid about these topics, without interference from media companies.”

That’s where you come in. With only 29 days and $17,000 to go, Rossini and her team are relying on you. The last but definitely not the least important reason Rossini has chosen to make (and fund) The Illusionists is number 30 on her list: “Because I feel inspired by this quote by Margaret Mead: ‘A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.’” Be part of the change. Extend your support and help the Illusionists team meet its goal. The repercussions are bound to be long lasting.

* * *

Visit The Illusionists Kickstarter campaign to make your pledge (which also comes with cool rewards like a DVD of film).

More about the filmmaker: Rossini’s previous work is outstanding. At just 25, she wrote, produced, and directed the full-feature narrative fiction film, Dove Sei Tu. She was also commissioned by the Louvre museum and ARTE Web to create the powerful short documentary, Ideal Beauty in which she compares and contrasts how beauty has been expressed via art with mass media’s current version of the physical ideal. More recently, notable projects include being the cinematographer for Three Days to See (director Garrett Zevgetis) and filming Lili’s Journey, in which she interviewed the Her Majesty Queen Rania of Jordan.

 

Related Content:

In the name of girls: The AMA calls for magazine ads to end photoshopping bodies

 

 

 

 

 

Post to Twitter

A Monster Success!

kanye-monster-video

By Sharon Haywood

It’s official folks, and you heard it here first: MTV and VH1 will not air Kanye West’s “Monster” video. Jeannie Kedas of MTV Networks, which also controls VH1, has recently confirmed that neither channel “has plans to air the video.” Kedas cited MTV’s voluntary standards department as a guiding force in their choice, but you can bet that our collective online movement against the official release of “Monster” also had something to do with MTV’s principled decision.

When I first watched the leaked clips of “Monster” I was so infuriated and disturbed that I couldn’t just say, “That’s an incredibly offensive and misogynistic music video. Wow, artists are really pushing the limits, aren’t they?” and get on with my day. In the past, there have been countless media messages that have riled me up, but never have I been so affected than after watching those unofficial clips for the first time. My stomach turned as I took in images of nearly naked dead women hanging from chains, a contorted dead woman splayed on a couch wearing nothing but red stilettos, and two dead woman propped up in bed being maneuvered like playthings by Kanye himself. Oh yeah, don’t forget Kanye gripping the hair of a woman’s severed head. I couldn’t just sit by and tweet how P O’ed I was. I’m so glad I didn’t.

In January, I paired up with author and activist Melinda Tankard Reist to create a petition targeted at MTV and Universal Music Group (UMG) to prevent the mass release of these misogynistic images being touted as art. With the support of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women Australia, Collective Shout, Amanda Kloer of Change.org, Samer Rabadi of the Petition Site by Care2.com, and my colleague, co-editor/founder of Adios Barbie Pia Guerrero, we circulated two petitions, where we were met with your overwhelming support of over 21,000 signatures. In late February, as the number of signatures continued to climb, I communicated with Kedas who informed me that the network “would not air the current version,” a success that we shared on our Facebook page. MTV followed up shortly thereafter to clear away rumors of a “Monster” ban. They posted this statement on their website:

“The video was submitted to MTV, but it wasn’t banned; rather, edits were requested based on the channel’s decency standards.

MTV has not banned Kanye West’s ‘Monster’ video,” the network said in a statement to MTV News. “We have been in constant communication with the label regarding this matter. However, we are still awaiting the edits we requested in order for the video to be suitable for broadcast.”

So, we waited and continued to speak out against the use of eroticized violence as mainstream viewing. On June 5th, the official release of the long-awaited version of “Monster” appeared online. The only thing that was strikingly different from the leaked clips was the disclaimer at the beginning of the video: “The following content is in no way to be interpreted as misogynistic or negative towards any groups of people. It is an art piece and shall be taken as such.” It might as well have read: “Warning: The following content may cause physical and emotional upset such as nausea and seething anger” because the final cut still contained the same sexually violent images that sparked our activism in the first place. It’s obvious that the inclusion of a disclaimer tells us that someone at Def Jam, UMG, or even West himself is paying attention to our protest. Note to artists and producers: A disclaimer does not erase nor excuse misogynistic content.

We want to publicly acknowledge and applaud MTV Networks for choosing not to air “Monster.” We congratulate MTV for reinforcing the fact that violence against women, even if couched in a horror-film format, should never be used as a way to engage and entertain viewers, many of who are under the age of 18. We need you to let others know that MTV is acting as a leader by recognizing that eroticized violence in no way, shape, or form, is entertainment. (Here’s their Facebook page. Like ‘em.)

And what about UMG, the other target of our petitions? Despite my many attempts to procure an official statement, UMG has nothing to say on the record. Some may argue that UMG shouldn’t be held accountable, as the company is not responsible for the creation of West’s content; the artist’s own record company Def Jam assumes that role. Instead, UMG focuses solely on distribution (as is indicated in the copyright at the end of “Monster”). Thanks to MTV, there aren’t many distribution options left for the video. (Here’s MTV’s Twitter handle. Thank them personally. I have.)

It’s high time that media big guns, like UMG follow MTV’s lead and recognize that profits can still be gained by taking a socially responsible stand—not in spite of doing so, but because of it. As your support has shown, there are a growing number of consumers who give more than a damn about what choices are offered to them as entertainment. Corporate bigwigs need to also realize that our work is not yet done. Far from it. Our petitions did not target the music industry as a whole but instead we focused on a single video as taking one step toward positive change. As Change.org says,

“We believe that building momentum for social change globally means empowering citizen activists locally — and that the influence of a local victory is always much larger than the change it immediately achieves.”

The sum of many small victories means notable social change. We know that the video’s lack of distribution will not eliminate the presence of misogyny in the music industry. But at least we know we’re moving in the right direction. We’ve been heard. And we’re fairly sure that the music industry will continue to listen.

Stay tuned.

* * *

Related Content:

Read the text of our petition that was distributed by The Petition Site and Change.org.

Check out Pia Guerrero’s “Deconstructing Kanye’s ‘Monster’” published a week after our petition went live.

Samer Rabadi of The Petition Site interviews Sharon Haywood shortly after the petition launch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Post to Twitter