no patience for anti-choicers

P.S.: saying "pro-life" is basically falling into a big ol' trap. Because..
A) it makes us pro-choicers also "anti-life" by implication,
and B) it would be presupposing that fetuses are independent entities (if you have any doubts about this, refer to pic below), and lead to that whole there's-no-way-to-get-out-of-this-because-you've-already-made-some-hazardous-assumptions "abortion is murder" argument...

Let's not go there, to that dark place where the crazies live.
But the point of the post was to share some internet awesomeness:

I can't seem to find the original source, though! My bad.

Is the fashion industry our's?

A while ago, this photo made it's way over to Reddit.

Surprise surprise, the predominantly male Reddit community tore these non-makeup-wearing women apart. Feel free to read some of the comments if you have the heart to. It's your garden variety degradation of women, which begins with some sort of insult (e.g. "...lips that look like they got stuck in a vacuum cleaner hose until they bled"), something about which ones are fuckable, and then concluding with more insult. The gentlest comment will probably forgo the fuckability part and just go with two solid insults in a row. Anyway, here is a much better article from Jezebel on why these men feel entitled to ridicule these supermodels (P.S. these are all the highest paid supermodels in the world).

The main point the writer stresses is that the fashion industry is one that 'belongs' to women. An industry that is predominantly female, doesn't rely on men's critiques, and certainly doesn't serve men's tastes. I never thought of it that way. Sure, the fashion industry has it's own messed up standards of thinness (cue Karl Lagerfeld), but I can't disagree that it is relatively dry of the mainstream male's gaze. We always talk about this 'gaze' in class.. Think about it. Almost everywhere you look, the world is framed in the eyes/opinions of a man. It's hard to see only because we've gotten so used to it, but this is a pretty damn good explanation of why women are only visible in public in the most stereotypical ways. Even with the so-called Ugly Betties of television (e.g. Ugly Betty herself, or the nerdy girl from Community, or even that other nerdy girl from Glee), what you're really seeing is a smokin' hot Maxim girl wearing glasses, braces, and a cardigan. Even when the character is somewhat quirky, television shows still feel the need to find a very stereotypically beautiful actress to "dumb down" her hotness for the role.

Click "read more" for the actresses' pictures side by side.

And don't even start with the whole, "Well, it's the magic of makeup and lighting." Sure, there is a lot of magic going on, but I bet you could find a huge population of women who won't look like that even with a team of professionals. The point is that the "male gaze" stops you from seeing possibilities outside of those that are created by the image of a big-boobed, sultry-eyed babe. EVEN when that image dresses itself up as Ugly Betty. P.S.: Here is an awesome article about pretending that the hot women of television aren't hot. The author calls it the "Liz Lemon" effect, haha.

This would also help to debunk the myth that having women on a production/casting/whatever team intervenes in the male gaze. The gaze is soooooooo ingrained in all of us that it's hard to be successful without surrendering to it. Even if you are ideologically against the male gaze, have fun trying to make it big in Hollywood. It's possible, thank god, but it will be a pain in the ass.

SOOOOOOOOOO. My question stands. Is the fashion industry reproducing a male gaze? Is it reproducing some mutated version of it? Or is it an exclusively "our's"? I still don't know if I can answer this one.

walk like a virgin, talk like a whore

or walk like a whore, talk like a virgin? I'm not sure. I don't think that title really worked out here but it was worth a shot. Annnyyywayyy..

So I am super frustrated with these "It's okay not to have sex" ads.

Exhibit A

Okay let's stick with Exhibit A for now, because there's just too much to say about this one. Don't be deceived by the wording... but think about what it's actually reinforcing. The real work, in any advertisement, is in reading what is not OBVIOUSLY stated; in finding the hidden "therefore..." to it. So while this campaign may seem to be innocently telling girls "sexy ≠ having sex," I can't help to think what happens to everyone else who falls somewhere outside of that alignment: "already having sex = ?", or "not sexy = ?".. or both, "not sexy & having sex = ?".
Sooooooooo.
Have you heard about the virgin-whore expectation? If so, move along, if not keep reading. Firstly, girls nowadays grow up with the knowledge that it's much, much, much easier to get what you want when you're beautiful/sexy. Before anyone brings up how difficult their sorry lives are because "nobody takes them seriously as an attractive woman," let's just say this: without your beauty, you would be down right invisible. Being 'taken seriously' is part 2 to being noticed, so let's agree on that first. Secondly, girls are also told just how important virginity is to (A) their self-worth, and (B) the worth that the rest of the world attributes to them. Beginning with creeptastic purity balls, and constantly policed with slut-shaming from parents, friends, and the-general-rest-of-the-world. I'll go into slut-shaming more another day, but just keep in mind the consequences for a young girl or woman who has sex. All hell breaks loose. So let's piece this together: (1) must be sexy at all times to even get my foot in the door, (2) must be virginal. What we get is the virgin-whore complex. This is something that starts young and gets told to women from all different kinds of places--keep in mind that it's also not always with bad intentions, either. When I say that slut-shaming comes from parents, for example, it's not to say that parents are intentionally trying to make their daughters feel like shit. It's just showing you how deep this idea runs.


MOVING ON... can you see now, why I have a problem with the campaign? While abstinence is not a bad thing, this isn't the way to 'promote' it. This is only reinforcing the age-old idea that women, you are worthless without your virginity, and invisible with your sexiness. So here's an impossible tight-rope to walk. Oh yeah, and if you happen to fall off of it, you're a giant slut for it.

I have to take a break from this frustration, but will add more soon!
In the meantime, here is an awesome-on-top-of-awesome article by Jessica Valenti on why we really, really need to throw out the campaign for virginity.