we need to chat about kissing girls.

found via Dear Jane Sample. click to view source and Katy Perry's obnoxious video.

i am not even going to get into the religious aspect of this. no. instead i'm going to bitch about the song. i'll grant you it's catchy. but i'll tell you why the church is afraid for your daughter's heterosexuality. it has nothing to do with 'catching lesbianism' and everything to do with going to an all girls' school. don't believe me? clearly you've never dated, or had a friend date, a Catholic school girl. sucks for you.

this song is not about reveling in the awesomeness of kissing some femme wonder. it's about getting "rebel cred." even if you don't know any other words to the song, you know the chorus: i kissed a girl and i liked it / the taste of her cherry chap stick / i kissed a girl just to try it / hope my boyfriend don't mind it.

a) it assumes that kissing a girl is just some fun thing to do on the side--while you are busy being respectable and having a boyfriend. no boyfriend?! OMG. you're such a LEZZIE. having the boyfriend element in the song makes kissing a girl "okay." especially when she's unimportant--after all, you're drunk and just met her, you "don't even know [her] name."

b) so we've already got heterosexuality down while remaining cool by dismissing people who are actually homosexual. after all, it doesn't mean you're "in love tonight"--it's just something to do. "it's no big deal, it's innocent." we'll just go back to being hetero in 5 mins. that okay with you honey? oh good. go get me a coca cola.

c) "it's not what good girls do." OOOOOH REBEL! that's right. mommy and daddy will hate you, the church will condemn you, your boyfriend will think it's hot, and tomorrow you can pull an Anne Heche about how 'crazy' you went. it'll all be okay by 3pm and you can laugh about the Facebook pictures and talk about Lindsay Lohan.

in short i think that contrary to opening up possibilities of alternate sexuality in mainstream pop culture, it instead reinforces the fact that alternate sexualities are just a 'game' that can be elected to be acted on--or not--and that we should all return to our regularly scheduled hetero programming.

this does not lift up homosexual--or hell, even bisexual--women as a theme song. even if it were a man singing about kissing a girl, it's terrible. it's too derogatory to the rest of the situation, especially the girl the narrator is kissing. it's certainly not enticing you, or your daughter, to go date girls. if anything, it's trained on the "male gaze" and acting out for it, emphasizing that "oh shit did i just make out with that girl in front of you--oops!" moment that drunk chicks get. so congrats to them. they get one more hit to fall down on the floor to. so rest assured. you have nothing to fear for her heterosexuality. you may want to watch that socolime intake, though.

and if i have to hear that girls are MAGICAL one more time i will fucking vomit. what is that word. seriously. magical? that's for unicorns and My Little Ponies and movies like Legend.

skewering women to save sharks

it's times like these that Riot's feminisms (that's right, plural, people) are at war with one another. [and if you're not sure the difference in the mindset of different 'waves' of feminism, drop me a line--i'd be happy to explain.]

the stunt at hand: Lush, a company i admittedly love [bring me those massage bars!], was raising awareness on behalf of Sea Shepheard about the hacking of shark fins to make soup [among other things].

at first, the ad-Riot says, okay, this is pretty sweet. using a skin pull, also called suspension, to attract attention from passers-by and draw the parallel that animal folks are into: "animals are people too." not dissing that. the performance artist, Alice Newstead, hung for fifteen minutes.

old-school second-wave college feminist Riot rebukes with, what the fuck is that shite? excellent. let's replace mutilated sharks with mutilated women. that's a brilliant statement. because what's better than information? a half-naked woman giving said information. duh! it only propagates objectification of women, and while that's almost forgivable by corporate slime, progressive groups should know better, or at least think harder. [aka: this is the feminist "external view" or appropriation of the gaze]

post/third wave real world feminist Riot retorts with, whatthefuckever, it's performance art. which is to say, Alice was not in pain, consented, views it as art, for a good cause, and it made her happy to do so. not to mention she had the balls to get those piercings in the first place, and probably did her fair share of skin pulls prior. which is to say: it's her own damn choice and don't put your politics on her beyond that which she is stating: stop cutting up sharks. [aka: the feminist "internal view" or, 'what makes a given female happy is inherently feminist for her']

[i always tend to go toward my third wave views, but the college breeding always makes me feel guilty for it... i hear my Womens101 prof in my head as she rants in disbelief over how i felt classic nudes were not always objectifications. ohhh well.]

anyway. cool and controversial. always a plus in the wondrous world of ads. via.

interlude: both sides now.

an interlude having nothing to do with advertising
---

have you ever had that song you were totally addicted to?
it seemed, at first, to make perfect sense in the scenario in your head?
maybe it became a positive, self-affirming theme song for awhile.

no i won't sit nice and be quiet.
[shattered - the trucks - listen on songza.]

and then curiousity gets the best of you. or things decide to be serendipitous.
either way, you come to know the undeniable truth in the song.

it's not at all what you thought it was.

this just happened for me. i tripped across this blog post yesterday.
i have no idea who the girl is. but it brought me back to perspective.

i don't care about what some folks think is over sharing.
at some points, communication, expression, is really what it is all about.

you shattered my image of love.

thank you for writing it. thank you for being brave.
my heart goes out to her and to whomever else has had this happen.

i am so sorry.

so when i bit, it was for blood.

thin women effect: hating self, loving brands.

according to a study reported on by AdAge, thin women in advertising make women feel poorly about themselves, but good about the brand. viewers will eat less or choose low-calorie options after seeing a thin model, feeling inadequate, but will like whatever product better; yet, when faced with a "normal" sized woman, women are less inclined to purchase the advertised product, but won't monitor their eating. the study was comprised of "a sample of 194 college students aged 18-24."

i feel the need to address this, especially because it's getting attention as a reason for marketers to return to skinny models: they sell product better.

i don't think this is the case. i think for a long time now, women have been living in 'the valley.' no, not like valley girls. i mean this trench from which we try to crawl out of. on one side, expectations and traditions (and don't you dare get me started in a debate by saying 'but they aren't there any more'--bullshit); on the other side, a long way up and out, paved with dogmas and philosophies difficult to navigate, aiming to feel alright in this world and in our bodies.

this shift is still changing.
the valley is getting smaller, but it will take time. this movement is helping more than hurting, if marketers/brands can suck it up a while longer. only in the past decade (being generous) have girls been able to see 'real women' in the media around them. wait for these girls to grow up. then tell me about their confidence, their eating habits, their response to thin models. if the same results hold in 20 years, then i'd consent to maybe there being something in it.

because right now, the valley effect is such that women see skinny women in skinny jeans (for example). that's a goal and aspiration that they were brought up (in many cases) to fulfill, understanding that this is what our Western society views as desirable. they want to be the skinny woman so they can buy the skinny jeans. thus, they get down on themselves, eat less, and do like the brand more--it's a status symbol, a version of self-growth and attainment/contentment.

that is removed for current 18-24 year olds, many of whom grew up on Britney Spears and Spice Girls, when they are shown images like themselves. there is no push to better oneself, no goal to reach, no status attached to something they can readily buy. to put it in perspective: the iPhone. if it was cheap and easy to get, tech geeks wouldn't be all over that shit. the iPhone are the skinny jeans of today's market gurus.

but that desire for the skinny jean will dissipate when it is no longer a status symbol. if the regular jeans are as desirable as the size 00s. to extend the metaphor, when it becomes more about the cut and style of the jeans, rather than the size. this is the shift. don't cut it off from happening. the study also found that seeing regular women was self-affirming, though brand-denying. but i should know better than to ask the industry to consider the end user over the almighty dollar.

[side note.
i'm not even getting into the fact that 194 students is a shitty sample size to be parading this data around on.]

how facebook ads are expanding gender use.

i think i'm actually an advocate of the above ad. minus the "fail" part.

courtesy of failblog.org

and now for something completely different.

okay, that's somewhat of a lie. it's still advertising. it's just different insofar as: i like it. these are two spots i enjoy. more friday viewing. cheers!

[yanked from agencyspy, where i can't comment because i hate registering to do so]

of course it's only airing in europe because our president may pee himself if he ever laid eyes on it. why do i like it? not just because i'm young and 'radical' (though probably that too); i like it because it offers Karis as Karis-the-person, not a story about Karis-as-tranny. it's Karis' voice (we are led to assume) and even if Karis didn't get to write his (pronoun choice based on script identifying himself as a "boy"--if in error, apologies) own material, the first-person voice makes the message more heartfelt, even if the intent was shock value. it even discusses gender issues out loud (like when Karis talks about taking his top off at the end of his routine) and doesn't just stick to a "total queen" talking about how great shaving his legs is and how smooth he feels. in fact, the product isn't even mentioned until the end. thank you, DDB and Tribal London. kudos.

--

another spot i liked... i was watching ESPN Classic last night (don't ask... flipping through, American Gladiator was on, and they were beating one another with those silly oversized cotton swabs. i couldn't help it.) and a spot came on that simply said "these [XX] seconds of silence brought to you by Karako" with some other, limited factual text beneath. it was really effective. definitely made me pause, particularly because i'm not used to hearing silence on the television. enough to make me remember the name of the brand, and, to blog about it. it's likely not the first time someone's done it, but it's the first in a long while that i've seen it. kudos there, as well.

a-HA! no wonder i fail at internet dating

not like i was trying in the first place, since i'm in a relationship that was the product of a face-to-face encounter. and no, i'm not bashing. i'm just saying i'd be godawful at internet dating if these are the rules.

last time i checked, names like “fun2bwith” or “i’msweet” made me think a person was hella desperate and had nothing further unique about them other than "i swear i'll adjust my personality to fit yours if you'll only give me a chance."

and “cutie” or “blueeyes” makes me believe you are assuredly not. it's like those sweatpants with "cutie" on your ass. either you look good in them and are trying too hard, or you shouldn't have put them on to begin with. especially because, while i'm all for self-esteem boosting, you can't boost from your bum. or in this case, your username. at some point, the cat will get out of the bag, and i'm skeptical from the get-go.

how names like those ranked at the top of preferred username lists for 'net dating makes me sad. you would rather go on a blind date with 45 guys (or girls) called "sweet4u" or some variation than, say, something USEFUL like... "pomolover" or "kanyerocks" or, hell, anything that tells me you have an opinion on something.

excerpt:
Males daters said they would be less likely to contact screen names such as “wellread” or “welleducated”, although the study found women were more drawn to names that suggested men were cultured.

SOME MALE PLEASE CHIME IN AND DEFEND YOUR XY GENES.
because somehow that does not surprise me.

and yet, while users seem to understand the nature of deceit, ie, "it seems they are well aware people embellish themselves online and it makes them suspicious," in the case of using wealthy usernames like "wealthyandwise", somehow "cutie" and "hotstuff" don't hold up to the same scrutiny?

...yeah, okay.

this is "houseofleaves" signing off.
and KUDOS if you get that reference.

men... are not idiots?

AdAge gets down on those who dis dad.

and yes, i agree. my dad is awesome. and no, he does not resemble homer simpson or peter griffin. but my dad is one of my best friends, along with my mom (hi mom!).

i am not refuting the fact that "Bashing Fathers and Husbands Isn't the Right Way for Marketers to Sell Products" but there has been women (mother/girlfriend/wife/etc) bashing for WAY longer.

[and you, AdAge, you are LUCKY that it is 5:09 PM because i swear a RANT will come from me one day, misters who say girls are more privileged now than men. my ARSE. PS >> great way to defend your point, as in, not at all. defensive much?]

i'm not saying that makes it alright, but what i am saying is, advertising is becoming an equal-opportunity offender just as we all become more and more sensitive.

my serious questions to you all:
are we getting too sensitive the more we are hyper-targeted?
whatever happened to desensitization through the media, or does that not apply here?



...man, i do talk a lot about the "humanizing" of gender lately, don't i.

blogging as sacred feminine?

First, brief yourself here. This is a response post.

[hey look, i seem to be in a caps mood today. how strange! or perhaps academic.]

Read it? Good.

Firstly, if there's one thing my (wonderfully) crazy professor Zillah taught me in all our sex/gender/war classes, it's that we constructed the binary by which we think.

Blogging is not a 'feminine' practice because it involves concept linking, communicative aims, and use of word craft. It is 'feminine' because we have -concepted- these things as feminine. They are just actions, thoughts, motives. We assign them to females, and thus encourage them in our females. This links to social networking only insofar as it is similar to social grooming (the way we are expected to act in social settings as defined by mass social standards).

Yes, throw studies at me about differentiations in brain activity in different sexes. I'll list book titles about how there are more than three sexes and brain biology is an individualized aspect rather than a sexualized one.

Moreover, if we were to even say that this brain dichotomy exists, we also don't know enough to understand if this is an evolutionary skill or an innate one: that is,
...if girls are better at verbal because they are expected to be; because they are expected to be, their brains have grown throughout time to be wired more efficiently to do so
...or, if it is just as simple as you think it is. (Which it never is. Anyone read up lately on how identical twins don't share identical DNA, making many studies based on this control flawed?)

As Jason Falls points out, "Yet, the first blogs were run by men. Most of the top blogs in Technorati’s list are run by men. Nearly 2/3 of the bloggers attending Blogger Social were men and professional blogging tends to be male-dominated. Are the liberal gender roles of the 21st century allowing men to embrace roles not traditionally given to masculinity?"

I don't think it is a matter of liberal gender roles, nor embracing a side 'less masculine' because we as a society deem them to be. I think it's that blogging/etc has offered up a venue of creative, nonlinear thought previously considered only to be accessible by women. The anonymity enables men who would not have engaged in such thought to find their own voice within it.

If anything, I would argue that in the stereotypical way that men tend to dominate in a patriarchal culture, "more men blog" because more men are given attention. Society still values the male opinion over the female, a shift that is still being fought today. Being male gives you more authority, and thusly, likely more readership.

This is not uncommon. It happened with books, news reporting... the list goes on. It just always seems more sensible, easier to swallow, and more authentic, out of the mouth of man. --At least (to qualify again) to the masses. The binary described attributing blogging/social media as feminine is only a product of our society's thoughts... not the actual aspect.

So therefore I would argue that blogging is not inherently feminine.
It is a human need to communicate through methods locked into the 'female' category and exploited (willingly or not) by their 'male' counterparts--all the while not realizing that the point is still the human need to communicate, regardless of boxes.