Germany's Brigitte

This week Germany’s biggest women’s magazine Brigitte made a surprising announcement: models are out, and real women are in.

The magazine made the decision to stop using professional models in their editorial content after receiving many complaints from readers saying the models are too skinny. Instead, the glossy will feature prominent women and “real” women in their pages.

I must say that it’s refreshing to finally see a women’s mag take a stand on this longstanding problem in the magazine industry. Despite giving lip service to the “all body types are beautiful” mantra, most women’s rags continue to populate their pages with ultra-thin models, making many women’s magazine reading experience a complicated love/hate relationship.

But while this move seems progressive it begs an important question: Exactly what kind of real women will be featured?

I ask this in response to an experience I had as an intern at Seventeen Magazine. Seventeen often uses “real girls” in their editorial features – usually in a type of story that asks a question and has readers give their response with their accompanying pic. I was often in charge of rounding up these girls and interviewing them. On one occasion my editor called me into her office and asked me to find some real girls that would give the magazine “diversity.” She asked me to find “one attractive Asian-looking girl and one attractive black girl” to feature in the story. The catch was clearly twofold: the magazine wanted to appear progressive, while maintaining a narrow version of who exactly would qualify as “attractive.” In this particular case it was girls who had “hints” of their race, while still fitting into normative versions of white femininity – thin bodies, big smiles, long straight hair, and European-like features.  Evidently, not very progressive.  

Then there’s campaigns like Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty, which purports to celebrate a diversity female beauty. A recent tv ad in the US featured young girls participating in seminars that supposedly, “give them self esteem.” While it’s hard to argue against such a campaign (although there’s been a lot of great criticism since the campaign launched several years ago), it’s important to remember that ultimately, Dove is trying to sell us something.

Similarly, glossies like Brigitte and Seventeen are also trying to sell us things. Will Brigitte’s advertisers let the magazine use larger real women (and I mean size fourteen, not size eight!)? Or lesbian real women? Or African real women? I hope so, but it will be interesting to find out…  

xo, jessalynn

The Whip It! LadiesThis is what my friend Jacqueline said after we caught the preview screening of Whip It! the other night (we also got a free shirt for attending!). And it was totally true - the flick succeeded in capturing being a teen girl - the teen angst, the disgust with your fellow peers, and the quirky friendships you make along the way. The movie, which will be officially released in theaters on Friday, was based upon a book by Shauna Cross and was directed by Drew Barrymore. Starring Ellen Page, and other super-cool grrrls like Eve and Juliette Lewis, the movie is definitely a must-see for ladies yearning for some real, dynamic female characters.

There's few mainstream movies that portray teen girls with any kind of real agency and interests outside of boys, shopping, and celebrities. So it was refreshing to see Page's character Bliss step outside those narrow stereotypes while trying to make her way through high school in Bodeen,Texas. And the fact that the movie is about girls roller derby in Austin is a welcome change from the cheerleader and dance-happy suburban movies that tend to dominate the young adult market. (Will we see more young derby grrls in the future? Let's hope so!)

Whip It! has been praised for portraying Bliss' friendship with her BFF, Pash (Alia Shawkat) as a real-life "I-tell-her-everything" kind of relationship - the kind of friend that girls cling to in order to survive high school. I love the scene where Bliss and Pash are happily dancing and singing together at their after-school diner job about moving to Austin - the perfect blend of innocent excitement and spontaneity that comes from being a teenager in a place where you just know you need to leave in order to live to your potential. At the same time, the plot stays away from the superficial sentiments, catty competitiveness, and self-centered deceit that plague teen girl characters, showing that - gasp! - girls can be genuine, intelligent, complex characters too.

The "cute boy crush"The story is not completely without the standard "cute boy crush" - in this case, an adorable rocker named Oliver (thankfully, no clean-cut jocks here!). While we're given what appears to be the ultimate "first love" story, turns out it's actually just a typical teen relationship (thankfully!) ending in that disappointment that most girls face at one time or another (rather than the phoney happily-ever-after script). The one scene that disappointed some of us was when Bliss admits to her mother that she "gave Oliver everything." Jacqueline raised the important point as to why we had to find out that Bliss indeed had sex with Oliver, rather than leaving it as an ambiguous question in the audiences' minds. I was more disturbed by the language used to talk about sex - the old narrative of the girl "giving him everything" and the guy presumably gaining from the experience, while the girl still loses (whether or not it was a good experience or not). I would have liked to see a more empowering way to talk about sex, rather than a confirmation of the old virginity double-standard that girls still have to deal with. I'm surprised Drew let that one slide by her...

As a group of PhD students watching the movie we also wondered why the movie ended with Bliss planning to move to Austin to do roller derby while Pash planned to move to New York to study at Columbia. I'm not saying that Bliss needs to get an Ivy-league education (in fact, it's nice to see a movie veer away from the standard of everyone going off to expensive private universities), but the movie doesn't really acknowledge that well, roller derby is not a career choice. The inclusion of some educational goals for Bliss while in Austin doing roller derby would have been a useful addition in terms of making her a bit more real for girl viewers.

Beside being fun to watch, Whip It! is a movie that finally portrays high school as it is -- kind of crappy. There's no glamorous parties (contrary to what we see weekly on Gossip Girl), there's few people confident enough with themselves to be genuinely cool, and people hang out in diners because, for a lot of kids, there's no place else to go. If you were one of those high school girls who was holed up in your best friend's bedroom listening to Bikini Kill albums and talking about feminism, (am I giving away how I spent my teenage years?) you're probably going to thank Drew for this cool take on being a girl with passion in a town that only rewards conformity.

In related news, Ellen Page and Alia Shawkat grace the cover of the October/November issue of Bust Magazine. Can't wait to check out the interview and hear these ladies' stories about making the film!

xo, jessalynn

   

Drew and Ellen's smooch in October's Marie Claire

I've been a Drew Barrymore fan since 1994, when I got the YM with her on the cover and thought she was so edgy and real, something different from the manufactured celebs usually in teen mags. Admittedly, I still had a bit of that sense of excitement when I picked up the October issue of Marie Claire, where Drew graces the cover with Ellen Page (a Canadian!), another actress that has gained a reputation for being genuine, intelligent, and willing to push Hollywood boundaries.

The interview is publicity for Drew's directorial debut, Whip It! (about girls' roller derby) where Ellen stars as a high schooler who goes from prissy pageant girl to tough derby chick. But perhaps what gained most of the attention in relation to the cover story was the accompanying pics, one of which Drew and Ellen share an up-close lip lock for the camera. I was surprised when I saw this photo - despite Marie Claire positioning itself as "the thinking woman's magazine" with the tagline "more than a pretty face" the magazine stays a safe distance away from challenging heteronormativity or discussing LGBT issues. But does publishing a picture of two women kissing constitute a progressive opening up of (corporate) visible space for lesbians or is it merely a publicity stunt that actually serves to undermine and subvert the challenge that queerness poses to the text of the magazine?

While the kiss got attention in the blogosphere, most postings automatically saw the kiss as a performance for a male spectator in hopes of ramping up attention for Whip It! Of course, the performance of pseudo-lesbian scenerios for the male gaze is nothing new in popular culture (I was reminded of this earlier this week when we showed the Intro to Media Studies class the music video for Katy Perry's I Kissed A Girl - yikes!) but I'd like to try and think beyond this idea and, at least hope, that the Drew-Ellen smooch might have more potential for transgressing boundaries. 

First of all, to point out the obvious -- the picture was in a women's magazine and centered around a film specifically marketed to teen girls and young women. I'd say that this context needs to be read differently than say, the Madonna-Britney kiss at the VMAs a few years back. A female audience may read the kiss within the context of female friendship or as something more sexual. The supporting text leaves this interpretation open, which I think is interesting. There is no mention of boyfriends (a common topic in mag profiles of female stars) or male sexual partners in the article and we hear Drew talk about Ellen's "beautiful body" and how "sexy" she looked during filming. We know that Drew has dated both men and women and has described herself as "bisexual", however, most recently has only (officially) dated men. Ellen Page has been more elusive with her relationships (she's also a relative newbie in the Hollywood scene), but a few people I've mentioned this to have said that rumors have been circulating about her being gay. At the same time, there's reference to the women as "crazy new besties" (magazine lingo for best friends I'm assuming) and talk about how real their "friendship" is. I'm going to suggest that this ambiguity has the potential for a progressive reading of this article and positioning of Drew and Ellen as outside of the binary of straight/gay.  

At the same time I wouldn't be surprised if this is a one-time deal in Marie Claire. While the magazine will occasionally include an article that raises LGBT issues, it remains very much rooted in heterosexuality as the norm and does little to progress lesbian issues in the mainstream magazine industry. In fact, I would highly doubt that the magazine higher ups would even recognize the ambiguity this article presents, and would instead probably position it in the patronizing, post-feminist terms of "empowered girls having fun". So, does the position of this article within a corporate context (and perhaps a denial of the various readings of the accompanying pic) rob it of it's potential progressiveness? Or is it indeed an example of the cracks that exist in mainstream media that can be used to put forth new representations?

Some final words from Ellen on intelligence in Hollywood: "I gravitate to genuine, well-rounded characters. It's a drag because then people are like, 'What an unbelievable young woman, she's so intelligent' - and it's like, Why is that a rarity?"

xo, jessalynn 

Tyra and the ANTM ladies strike a pose...

In true Tyra fashion the show kicked off with introductions of the potential contestants, revealing details about many of the girls that apparently touched Tyra and Co. One girl revealed she lives in a trailer in New Orleans with no running water, another confessed that she had been physically abused by a boyfriend. Then there was one contestant that had been kidnapped and sexually assaulted, and of course, there was the hot lesbian (making Miss J cheer with glee!). This focus on diversity, coupled with an attention to social issues -- poverty, sexual violence, and even a disability (granted, it was a broken leg) were all given lip service to. And while I appreciate Tyra's interest in longstanding commitment to having diverse contestants on the show, her attempts at constructing meaningful social dialogue within the premise of a show about modeling seems a bit...misguided? Or perhaps it's just a genius strategy to get these issues into prime time television?

But as quickly as the deeply personal stories were revealed, they were neatly packaged back up again and the girls were shuttled off for hair, make-up, and the photo shoot. This practice of revelation has been key to the success of ANTM, as the premise of the show rests on the notion of individual merit and strength -- a girl battling through society to reach the "top" of the modeling world.

For this fairytale to work it's imperative to construct the girls as having survived hardship (other seasons have incorporated issues ranging from female genital mutilation to a transgendered contestant), but still making it all the way to the ANTM studios -- just in time for Tyra to step in and give them the opportunity to shine. We never hear about the social conditions that create the various problematic situation for the girls -- it's almost assumed as though it's a personal misfortune that requires a strong personal ethic to overcome. It's a constructed fairytale that I'm hoping to explore in the coming weeks....   

In related Tyra news: I can't post about her this week without mentioning...her hair. In my Race, Nation, Media class earlier this week the topic of Tyra Banks' hair came up (yes -- I'm totally not joking!) and some of us wondered why Tyra hadn't tackled the topic of African American hair yet, despite covering other appearance-related insecurities, like weight. We all remember 'kiss my fat ass', right? If not, see below.

With the upcoming release of Chris Rocks' documentary Good Hair, about black womens' relationship with their hair, as well as the critique launched at Malia Obama for wearing her hair in twists on a summer visit to Rome, it seems as though the topic of hair is ripe for some Tyra-analysis. 

Coincidently, later that day Tyra kicked off the fifth season of her talk show by revealing her "true hair". Presented as a moment of personal revelation (similar to her younger proteges above), but speaking to the larger issue of black women and their struggle with beauty norms, Tyra finally took the issue up.  

For those of you that don't know, Tyra has been a faithful wearer of wigs and weaves for as long as most people can remember. She also loves putting weaves in ANTM contestant's hair when she deems appropriate, which has led some people to wonder what's up with Tyra and her hair obsession? Well, wonder no more. Because according to Jezebel, Tyra has declared that, "Wigs and weaves are options, not something you need." 

And this is why Tyra is a complicated persona... she takes beauty culture to task, yet runs a modeling show sponsored by Cover Girl, she (sometimes) tackles gendered social problems without addressing root causes and solutions, and at the same time she is a black woman who began her career as a model but has now carved out a cultural space where she is deemed both a successful businesswoman and potential role model. More to follow on these ideas as my research continues throughout the term and Cycle 13 of ANTM....In the meantime: What does everyone else think -- love Tyra or hate her?

xo, jessalynn 

It looks like the show is going to play on the usual plot line of the "beautiful, popular" high school girl (Elena Gilbert)  who gets involved with the gorgeous, but ultimately dangerous, vampire. In other words, no lead female vampires here! (Sorry to Adventures of a Young Feminist who blogged earlier this summer about the lack of female vampires in the pop culture landscape). And there seems to be the same underlying message of an obsessive ownership cloaked in the language of romance between the male vampire(s) and female love interest, as well as (ironically) the very same sexualized glorification of purity that ran though Twilight. But I'll hold more critiques for the premiere, which is this Thursday at 8pm on the CW.  

Beyond the actual content, the show has gained attention for going on a multimedia advertising blitz, which includes a blood drive in partnership with The American Red Cross (Tag line: Starve a Vampire. Donate Blood"), and mock promotional products like "Fang Floss" and "Sunscream". Definitely an interesting example of the way media products become "branded" through cross promotion utilizing many mediums.... I'm looking forward to seeing if girls will...bite. (Sorry, had to do it!)

xo, jessalynn

Valenti's book, The Purity Myth

Jessica Valenti

The idea that virginity (or loss thereof) can profoundly affect women’s lives is certainly nothing new. But what virginity is, what it was, and how it’s being used now to punish women and roll back their rights is at the core of the purity myth. Because today, in a world where porn culture and reenergized abstinence movements collide, the moral panic myth about young women’s supposed promiscuity is diverting attention from the real problem – that women are still being judged (sometimes to death) on something that doesn’t really exist: virginity.

If you agree with Valenti there’s nothing too surprising in this book. But while her arguments aren’t necessarily new per se – especially for those schooled in feminist thought – she does a good job of providing a feminist critique of the concept of virginity that is accessible to a mainstream audience. A diversity of contemporary “hot topics” like the HPV shot, vaginal rejuvenation, and moral panics about girls' rampant sexuality are all addressed and used to build upon Valenti's arguement that the virginity movement is really not concerned with the well-being of girls at all, and instead more obsessed with maintaining the status quo by keeping old patriarchal bedrocks (like marriage!) intact.

Valenti goes to great lengths to argue her points, meticulously going through research studies, pop culture references, and media articles to prove the harmful consequences that purity pushers have on girls and to debunk the irony embedded in the virginity movement. (My favorite example comes on page 38: the Heritage Foundation's attempt to use sex to sell their anti-sex message, emblazoned on a shirt for sale on their site that says "Virgins Are Hot"!) Nice!

One of the more powerful points Valenti makes is the connection between the purity myth, race, and nation – and she successfully demonstreates how the purity myth places certain girls – primarily poor girls of color – outside of it’s boundaries. In this sense, there is more than sexism informing the purity myth but also racist attitudes that regard non-white girls as being born "tainted", never quite being able to achieve the sought pure status of white virgins. Viewed within the context of violence we see how the dangerous assumption of "worthy" victims (remember Natalee Holloway?) and "unworthy" victims (what about Crystal Gail Mangum and the Duke lacrosse palyers?) comes about.

But what does this mean for Canadians? Arguably we don’t have the same purity culture here as our neighbours to the south. I did a quick internet search and found no indication that purity balls are a regular part of teens’ (even those that come from evangelical families) social calendars, and we (supposedly) get comprehensive sex ed in most parts of the country. (Yes, abstinence education exists, no doubt, but it is not sponsored extensively by our federal government like in the US). So does the purity myth live in Canada too then?

Of course it does, and this idea leads me to what I think is Valenti's most important point. What interested me most about her discussion is not the overt ways that the concept of purity functions – the purity balls or the chastity rings – but the covert ways it functions to control women. It is easy to dismiss the most obvious and extreme examples, but it’s the way the purity myth lives everyday in society that is the most damaging to girls and women.

To wit: Within the past decade over 60 women have gone missing from Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside neighbourhood and most of you know what happened to these women. (You can read further about Vancouver’s missing women here for those needing background information.) These missing went unnoticed by authorities and the general public for a long time because many of these women worked in the sex trade, used drugs, and /or were women of color. Using Valenti’s analysis, they fell well outside of the purity boundaries (white, middle-class, young, heterosexual) and thus, their worth was diminished in the public eye. It’s hardly the only example, but just one of the most public examples of the purity myth at work in Canada.

So while purity culture may look different in Canada, Valenti’s main point holds true for us too. If we continue to allow conceptions of purity to sneak into our culture women and girls will never be able to reach their full potential as active, engaged citizens. Valenti’s biggest contribution with this book lies in her ability to link purity culture to many of the other issues affecting girls and women – including violence, the sexualization of girls, health issues, racism, and more - demonstrating that the purity myth is much more complicated, far-reaching, and dangerous than a chasity ring or purity ball would suggest. 

xo, jessalynn

Can someone please sue Anna Wintour too?

A lawsuit being launched by a Pittsburgh woman claims so. The woman is suing the Pittsburgh Public Schools for failing to stop bullying by a group of boys who supposedly taunted her daughter by calling her "fat", resulting in the girl being hospitalized for anorexia.

Read the news story here. Might be an interesting case to follow... Too bad we can't also sue Anna Wintour for her role in promoting disordered eating.

xo, jessalynn

Photo Credit: Fred Lum, The Globe and Mail

Despite being good publicity for the camps the inclusion of Sass Jordan's comments were... puzzling. To wit:

While increasingly popular, the concept isn't an easy sell among some in the rock community. Juno award winner Sass Jordan, for example, worries the camps focus too much on gender.

"I wasn't interested in gender, I was interested in the music," says Ms. Jordan, who broke into the Montreal music scene as a 15-year-old. "I never really thought about my gender as being a stumbling block. It didn't occur to me, and so it didn't seem to occur to anyone else. If anything, it was a plus - it made me stand out more."

Really, Sass? These types of comments tend to skirt the broader issue at play -- that being, women and girls' marginalization from rock music on a structural level - the fact that the industry is still predominantly ran by men and makes it easier for men to succeed as rock stars. I'd be highly surprised to find out that Ms. Jordan did not experience any sexism in the industry, as other female rockers, like Kathleen Hanna have so well documented.

Another point worthy of mention: I'm wondering why there's a consistent use of the phrase "no boys allowed" throughout the article. The first thing that comes to mind when I hear this expression is a group of girls playing in an "all-girl" fort, with a "No Boys Allowed" sign. There's something about this terminology that seems rather...juvenile, or like an "immature" phase that girls grow out of. Does this discourse trivilaize the experience that these girls are having? Does it shift the focus away from girls to boys?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into the language used but I find it curious that this expression was used in the picture captions and was reiterated in the article several times. To me, the fact that boys are absent from this camp is only a very small part of the experience, however, it seems to be the focus of this piece, rather then an in-depth focus on the experiences' of the girls themselves.

Thoughts? Especially those of you who've worked at girls rock camps....

xo, jessalynn

PS -- Finally back on my computer on a regular basis so hoping to resume regular posts starting...now!

Teen singer Jordin Sparks' purity ring makes her part of the alledged pack of "nice girls" capturing the imagination pop culture critics

Until then, a related precursor: Check out this interesting article by Marisa Meltzer about a supposedly "new trend" in Hollywood. That is, the invasion of the "nice girls"! You know, the ones that are virgins, study hard, and like everyone? Meltzer offers up some examples -- Emma Watson, Demi Lovato, and Jordin Sparks -- and argues that these girls are quickly dethroning sexed-up party girls like Lindsay Lohan and Mischa Barton as the ultimate celeb role models.

But you don't need a purity ring to be in the "nice" camp -- a baby will do too! Case in point: Meltzer discusses the tranformation of Nicole Ritchie and Christina Aguliera from partying princesses to doting mommies, successfully crossing the boundary between the good girls and bad.

Despite constructing the article along the lines of the stereotypical virgin/whore dichotomy through much of the article, Meltzer interjects her own take on the trend later in the piece, arguing that, "Uniformly nice culture creates female personae that is just as limiting as raunch culture’s ersatz rebellion. What girls need is to be encourages to show a range of traits: The good, the bad, and the full spectrum in between."

So it is more nuanced and complicated than what a first glance of the article might reveal. Nonetheless, I would have liked to see the arguement complicated more from the get-go. Why, for example, is motherhood always presented as a saviour for "troubled" women, "transforming" women for the better, or from selfish to unselfish? Why is it okay for men to be selfish (often cleverly disguised as being 'dedicated' to work or naturally absent-minded towards others' feelings) while women are constanty slammed for it? Or, why is it girls that are still consistently socialized to be nice, not show anger, and put themselves last? And why aren't the detriments of this type of socialization taken seriously?

Finally, the "virgin equals nice" mentality lingers in this piece without a full critique. The fact that a girl's sexuality is brought into the discussion of her moral standing (being "nice/good" or "mean/bad") is troubling, and as I'll later discuss in relation to Valenti's book (where she thoroughly tackles this problem), is still holding girls back from achieving their full potential as complex human beings.

For more interesting discussion of the piece check out Jezebel's critique, which offers up more good points.

xo,

jessalynn 

A painting of "Eve"... an adamant woman on the loose?!

The collective recently launched a blog that covers all the topics discussed on the program each week, as well as links to podcasts of the shows. Awesome! Check out their blog for some interesting stories on emergency contraception, rape culture, orgasms, and Twilight. I'm also looking forward to checking out the July 31st show, in which they featured youth talking about feminism! This is especially cool for Canadians because they seem to focus on lots of local and national feminist content, which we're lacking up here! (I feel like a lot of Canadian feminists have to rely on US feminist media, which rarely covers issues specific to Canada.)

For those non-Edmonton dwellers (like me!), you can also listen to the show online here! Enjoy!

xo, jessalynn