I've been neglecting my blog this week in favor of trying to get my paper done, a project that has been hanging over my head for no less than two years now! And it looked like it was going to be another day without an entry, that is, until I sat down at my computer with my morning coffee to engage in my usual a.m. routine of reading the news and my favorite blogs.
The illustration accompaning "the bitch wrinkle"In search of some interesting and engaging news stories I was shocked to find my usual national read, The Globe and Mail, had run this article by Sarah Hampson. Titled "Obsession with aging female parts has created a new body lexicon", the article proceed to dissect a woman's body according to how the aging process has affected it with accompanying cartoon-like sketches. There's "the bitch wrinkle", "the old lady butt", and the "vampire dinner lips." Yes, I'm serious, this was published in arguably our nation's most sophisticated paper (evidently, it has lost this title in my mind).
Perhaps the Globe caught me on a particularly feisty day, or perhaps it's all of the reading I've been doing recently about the way girls (and women) are constantly being equated with their bodies, but I fired off angry emails to Hampson and the Globe higher-ups and now I'm writing this post. Quite honestly, I'm fed up with sexist content being touted and "funny" and openly accepted in the media.
At the very basic level, focussing an entire article on dissecting a woman's body into individual "parts" is troubling and sexist, but unfortunatley has a long history in media. I would expect it from a celeb glossy, magazines that are known for reporting on Britney's cellulite, but it is even more disgusting coming from a "reputable" newspaper.
The irony of it though is that Hampson genunienly seems to wonder why women have developed such a hatred for their bodies, writing "The names suggest annoyance, never love or fondness of the type men have for some of their parts." (To which I would ask her, where has she been living the past, oh 50 years?!) Hello?! It's articles like these that make women so self conscious about their "aging female parts." She has obviously consciously overlooked the fact that she is contributing to the problem or is so unfamiliar with basic feminist debates about body image and aging that she really needs to enrol in Women's Studies 101 if she is to continue to pen articles about women.
Even Madonna can't escape misogynist body critiqueBut returning to her query about men: Why do men have a "fondness" for their aging bodies while women only seem to express hatred and disdain? Answer: Could it be because men are still depicted and regarded as aging gracefully and with sophistication while women are viewed as just getting "old"? The aging double standard lives on, in case Hampson hasn't realized it. When was the last time you heard someone pick apart George Clooney's body, while Madonna (arguably in better shape than any of us will ever be) was, as Hampson points out, criticized for having "bingo wings" while she waved to fans last month.
I understand that Hampson was perhaps trying to be "funny" with this article, a type of girlfriend gabfest where we can all get together and have a bit of a laugh about our changing mid-life bodies. And in that context - think a couple close girlfriends, a bottle of wine and some good food - it might be funny. But a national newspaper isn't that setting and I'm surprised that nobody in the editing room caught on to that.
I could even, perhaps, see the humor in the piece if male bodies were dissected alongside their female counterparts. But - surprise, surprise - this is never the case. The article would have never been published in relation to mens' bodies because it is not socially accceptable to critique male bodies the way we so avidly do womens'. Because men age with sophistication, remember?
The article also spawned numerous digusting comments, including one along the lines of: "So that's why the divorce rate is so high!"I won't even comment on such a ridiculous and troubling statement.
I'm still mystified why overt sexism is still often labelled as "funny". Problem is, it's easy to shy away from critique because no one wants to be accussed of being uptight or not having a sense of humor. But when I see things like this I'm willing to take the chance on being called "uptight", which is arguably better than "saddlebags", right?
I encourage anyone else who is offended (even my non-Canadian friends, please!) to contact the Globe and express your anger with this misogynistic article. The contact emails are:
Sarah Hampson (author) shampson@globeandmail.com
Editor-in-chief John Stackhouse: jstackhouse@globeandmail.com
Deputy Editor Sylvia Stead: sstead@globeandmail.com
I hope we one day get to the point when we can celebrate women's bodies in the media for all of the amazing things they do (like, make life!) rather than pick them apart with hatred.
xo, jessalynn
Saturday, August 8, 2009 at 07:15PM 
A painting of "Eve"... an adamant woman on the loose?!I got an email yesterday from a woman that's part of a feminist media collective (yes! we need more of these, right?!) at Edmonton's community radio station, CJSR 88.5 FM. The collective runs a Feminist News Radio program called "Adamant Eve" (love the name!) every Friday and kindly asked if they could read my commentary on empowerment, "Sorry Can't Do Raunch Today" on yesterday's show! (Of course, I said yes!) I'm also going to be interviewed for the show in a couple weeks, so I'll keep you posted about that. I'll be talking about young women and feminism (naturally!) , so it should be an exciting conversation!