Sale Bait

Here's what's likely a new term for you: ''Linkbait.'' That's when websites use gimmicks to draw the hits to their content and, hence, their ads.

This video, created for Bitch Magazine, explains it very well. It also makes the point that women's bodies are commodified even by progressives to sell stuff.

It never changes.

Via Feminist Frequency.

Mad Max

So now there's a fifth Mel Gibson tape.

For those who have not kept up with this sordid story, the former megastar (Braveheart) -- who already has been in trouble several times for using his mouth as a Lethal Weapon -- has been apparently caught berating his former girlfriend Russian musician Oksana Grigorieva, the mother of their baby daughter, in the most abusive and profane language imaginable.

In the course of the nearly four minute recording, Gibson also says, “Yeah, you know what mean is now, don't you? So don't call me mean when I'm nice to you. Because I'd like to show you what mean really is. Bitch, [expletive], whore, gold digger! All true! You [expletive] proved it to me! If you're ever interested in proving otherwise, let me know. If you don't care, I know you know what you are too."

He allegedly goes on: “Look at yourself. And look what you've done. Look what you've [expletive] done! … You [expletive] excuse for a mother. You're a [expletive] bitch!"

I'd link to the YouTubes but my Star overlords would have my bleep-bleep. So let Google be your guide. it won't be difficult, I can assure you.

What's been bugging me about all this is that, judging from these tapes, I see Gibson as just another woman abuser, albeit one who is famous and has a lot of money. The celebrity trash media however have not been connecting the dots, treating this as some kind of oddity, as if Chris Brown never bashed Rihanna, as if Charlie Sheen hasn't been attempting to plead out charges of battering his ex Denise Richards, as if O.J. Simpson ... oh you get the point.

I wasn't gonna say much about it but then I got this email from Dr. Molly Dragiewicz, Assistant Professor of Criminology in the Faculty of Social Science and Humanities at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology.

The release of the tapes of (what appear to be) Mel Gibson's abusive and threatening speech is an opportunity to have an informed and serious discussion about woman abuse.

As anyone who works with battered women will tell you, these tapes are a snapshot of garden-variety woman abuse.

Gibson's comments are explicitly based in patriarchal attitudes toward women. He expresses his feelings of entitlement to sexual service, his belief that Grigorieva's resistance to his abusive behavior justifies the abuse, and uses every sexist and dehumanizing slur in the book. At the same time, he sees himself as the victim due to Grigorieva's failure to "treat him like a man" in a submissive way that is satisfactory to him. Far from being extraordinarily monstrous, such comments are typical for men who abuse women. What is exceptional is that this kind of abusive comments have been publicly broadcast when they are usually kept private.

The tapes are a perfect opportunity for those who have never been abused to begin to understand the many reasons that abused women often don't report the abuse: threats of violence & death, financial dependency (especially for abused mothers who have taken time out of paid employment to take on the majority of child care), victim blaming from others, and the threat of losing custody of a child to an abuser.

This is what domestic violence looks like. This is why we need to continue to fund shelters for battered women and address the widespread cultural attitudes and structural factors that continue contribute to men's violence against women in 2010.

This story has been getting a lot of play in the entertainment sections and gossip blogs. it's been treated as titillating and amusing.

But it should be dead serious.

It should be on the front page.

UPPITY WOMAN DATE (19/7/10): Ooops. Got the wrong Charlie Sheen wife. This one is Brooke Mueller.

Chick flick flack

Yeah, I watched the Oscars last night, along with a million Tweeps who were firing off the cutting comments. Even I joined in on dissing the dresses. (Was Charlize Theron wearing grape-flavoured Cinnabons on her chest?) It's a sexist thing to do, I admit.

Was I thrilled that a woman, Kathryn Bigelow, was the first in 82 years to pick up Best Director and then, bonus, also Best Picture? Meh. Not really.

That's because, as Jane Fonda points out:

Women directors actually dropped by 2% since 2008, accounting for just 7% of directors on the 250 top-grossing movies of 2009. That's the same number as 1987. Only 2% of the top 250 films credited female cinematographers, and just 8% of writers were female; 86% of the films had no female writers credited. The list goes on.

Indeed, it does, as the annual report The Celluloid Ceiling reminds us. And men write 70 per cent of the reviews in the major dailies. (Which could help to explain why one of my fave flicks this past year, Nine, got so many thumbs down.)

So why is there this impression of a big breakthrough? Melissa Silverstein, editor of Women and  Hollywood, says this to Reality Check's Sarah Seltzer:

The perception is based on the fact that that Kathryn Bigelow was nominated for an Oscar [for directing "The Hurt Locker"] and [woman-helmed British film] "An Education" was nominated for Best Picture, and "Precious" is obviously about a girl. Plus "It's Complicated," and "Julia and Julia" both made $100 million dollars. Several high-profile women released films this year: Nora Ephron, Nancy Meyers, Mira Nair, Jane Campion. ... Also, two films that starred women were in the top 10: "Twilight: New Moon" and "The Blind Side." That's great, but then you look at the content of those films. That's why I think it's too soon to tell. We can all judge for ourselves based on whether more women get jobs starting next week.

You know how I will know women have moved ahead?

When I hear women's names rattled off at length in the thank-you speeches, thank you.

And names don't include ''Mom'' and ''my lovely wife.''

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: From regular commenter (and blogger) Cat Boreal:

There was a lot of talk about Kathryn Bigelow being nominated for Best Director, how her win would be a historic step forward for women directors, blah, blah, blah…

And yes, all this is true, but did anyone notice that her film could best be described as a testosterone fueled joy ride?  In other words, a guy-flick?  Basically she proved that girls can blow things up as good as the big boys.  As I mentioned before, I haven’t seen the film yet, so it might be more character driven than I’m given to believe after seeing the trailers and reading the reviews.  And while I’m happy that Bigelow won, I’ll be happier when a woman director wins the prize for a film that has a decidedly feminine voice.  When women’s stories are seen as being as worthy of praise/awards/money as anything made by a man.  Actually, I’ll be truly happy when gender doesn’t enter into it.  All this brouhaha reminds me of a speech by Joss Whedon where he discusses why he writes strong women characters:  “Because you’re still asking me that question.”

GaGa

Okay, I am back.

Things have been pretty weird and hectic in my personal life. Lots of pressure, and  matters over which I have no control.

Did manage to catch bits and pieces of last night's Grammys.Yes, it was about spectacle, but it was also spectacular.

About halfway through it hit me hard. Women were stealing the show. Not just Beyoncé and Taylor Swift, but also the wonderfully talented Lady GaGa.

And, as for Pink, I ask you: Has there ever been a Grammy performance to match hers?

And in high heels yet. 

There's a video of her headspinning rendition of Glitter in the Air here. But it may not last long due to copyright issues.

If ratings were up 35 per cent over last year's telecast, cherchez les femme

Click here for a Star slideshow of highlights.

Stretching the truth

The Gothamist spotted this huge bit of digital manipulation, which no doubt helped to fat shame women even more than it already does.

It shows Mad Men bombshell Christina Hendricks at Sunday's Golden Globes.

On the right, the original. On the left, as published.

Everybody knows Hendricks' globes and everything else about her are golden. She works them all as part of her role on the incredibly successful series about the ad bizz in the 1960s.

But in this big fat lie of a photo -- Gothamist has a screen grab of the original -- she's distorted, ostensibly to make the writer's point that Hendricks made a fashion faux pas:

... pretty Christina Hendricks in Christian Siriano’s exploding ruffle dress. (As one stylist said, 'You don’t put a big girl in a big dress.')"

Now, if this was performed by some celebrity trash tab or bitchy gossip site, it would be one thing. But no. It was in the New York Times.

All the news re-sized to print.

H/T Dammit Janet!

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: One of my Tweeps suggested this may have been the result of some clumsy page lay-out. Maybe. A very interesting one, no?

Digital scale

Via the New York Times' health blog:

What is the fastest way to lose weight? Try getting a cover shoot for a magazine.

The Web site Jezebel.com this week offers a “Photoshop of Horrors,” identifying the 15 most “egregious” examples of digital retouching of photographs on magazine covers. Not surprisingly, many of the photos involve making already slim women look even slimmer.

I've posted a few over the past couple of years, as you can see here.

But Jezebel has the whole hall of shame, at least those that were glaringly obvious.

The worst? Pop star Kelly Clarkson on the cover of the September issue of Self, which isn't even a fashion magazine really but more about health and fitness.

In explaining the obvious fakeover, Self's editor would later blog (I added the boldface):

Kelly has this amazing spirit, the kind of joie de vivre that certain people possess that makes you want to stand closer to them, hoping that you can learn what they know. In this case, you get the feeling Kelly has not let fame spoil her, but also that she was just born confident, with a generosity of spirit that is all about others and rarely about herself. She is, like her music, giving and strong and confident and full of gusto. Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best. Did we publish an act of fiction? No. Not unless you think all photos are that. But in the sense that Kelly is the picture of confidence, and she truly is, then I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.

Right.

Can you see the cover line at the top right of the issue?

Stay true to you and everyone else will love you too.

Unh-hunh.

No wonder so many girls are so screwed up.

Maria, I just met a girl named Maria

Okay, here's the first thing.

Maria Sharapova is a very talented tennis player. Right now, she's ranked No. 14 in the world. That's fantastic.

Let's not kid ourselves. At No. 14, the main reason she gets so much attention is not so much for her backhand but for her backside.

The way I see it, the Williams sisters, far better players, have even better back. But Sharapova is white, blonde, and conventionally pretty in that sort-of East Europe-meets-USA runway model way.

Can you imagine Venus or Serena getting an ad like this? (Although, admittedly, Serena did just pose for this.)

The other thing is, no way would a male sports star would be celebrated in a commercial for his looks. It would be for his prowess, speed, agility, power, ferocity and/or, yes, maybe his size if it's relevant -- say like in basketball. 

Sure Sharapova is unsmiling in this, yes she ignores the people singing about her, and yeah, she caps it off with a slamming swing, but ultimately it still is about her looks which she exploits for mucho dinero.

Sure it's a great ad. But what is it selling?

(H/T to my friend Joanne Thomas Yaccato)

Glamour Shot

My Facebook friend Alisa asks a good question: 

I read in the paper that Rihanna got named "woman of the year" by Glamour magazine. So all you need is to get beaten up by you by your famous boyfriend and that makes you a woman of the year?

Why yes, apparently so.

Although Rihanna is very accomplished for a woman so young, it's a safe bet that she was honoured this year because of the much-discussed pummeling she received from former longtime love Chris Brown.

Note however that she is not the only ''Woman of the Year.'' She's joined by a dozen others, including Michelle Obama, Maya Angelou and Serena Williams. 

Still, Rihanna has a hot new CD coming out, and, on it, she has a look that seems to exploit the publicity she received after being beaten. Bet that's the biggest reason for her landing Glamour's cover.

Glamour: If you could offer a message to the millions of young women who look up to you, what would you tell someone who found herself in a similar situation?

Rihanna: Domestic violence is a big secret. No kid goes around and lets people know their parents fight. Teenage girls can’t tell their parents that their boyfriend beat them up. You don’t dare let your neighbor know that you fight. It’s one of the things we [women] will hide, because it’s embarrassing. My story was broadcast all over the world for people to see, and they have followed every step of my recovery. The positive thing that has come out of my situation is that people can learn from that. I want to give as much insight as I can to young women, because I feel like I represent a voice that really isn’t heard. Now I can help speak for those women.

Glamour: I think that’s a great message. What about your new album? What’s it like?

It is a great message.You can't repeat it often enough.

But do tell us about your album anyway ... and your shoes ... and your hair ...

UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Another take, by Broadsheet's Tracy Clark-Flory.

It's inevitable that every song and video released by Rihanna in the near future will be subject to a critical exegesis. She's been elected the new poster-child for domestic violence and, as such, is expected to deliver the appropriate public service announcement -- but let's not forget that it's her experience. She owns it; not us. As she told Glamour: "Even if people don’t love [the album], I made exactly the piece of art that I wanted to make. It’s super fearless -- which is exactly how I feel right now. I am in a really good place."

Barely scary

Further to this, this and Wednesday's treeware column, which I didn't get around to blogging, this cartoon by Andy Marlette which says it all.

And for good measure, a snip from Wednesday's treeware musings:

Mr. and Mississauga, this weekend, when your daughter spurns the Hermione sweater vest for the prostitot getup, be ready to put up a fight.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I loved to smear lipstick on my face and wear my mother's cocktail dresses. You can be sure I wanted to go out looking like jail bait. But no way would I have gotten past the foyer.

Which is why I got nostalgic at last week's Mad Men when Sally and Bobby dressed as a gypsy and a hobo.

One Halloween, my dark-haired sister, Irene, was outfitted – all from stuff we had in the house – like a gypsy, while I had dirty smears on my face as a hobo.

I was insanely jealous of her eye makeup.

Now, of course, homemade costumes just won't do. At least not from what I can see every year at this time: frazzled parents lining up to get into It's My Party on the Danforth, where all the Riverdalers go for their Halloween supplies.

It's also where big girls can go for their outfits, invariably skimpy sexed-up versions of nurses or sorceresses.

But, no need to look for parking. Just Google "Halloween costumes sexy" – and you'll find all you need to look as if you're working in the kinky division of your local brothel.

Even in plus sizes.

If you hit the club district this Saturday night, you'll see sexy French maids, sexy firefighters, sexy everything.

As for the guys, they may be costumed, or not.

Consider how the men dress up: more often than not as zombies or vampires, gangsters or super- heroes, athletes or cops.

Boys and men invariably opt for personas that represent power or strength, for good or bad. I can't count the number of Freddy Kruegers that continue to show up at my door on Halloween.

So what is it about the female sex that drives them to strut their stuff in thigh-high fishnets at least once a year?

That's a heck of a lot scarier than some of the ghosts, monsters and other fright sights back in the day. Check out these vintage photos for the homemade hauntings I can recall.

Happy Halloween.

Via Sociological Images.

These boots are made for talking

Noah Cyrus, 9, younger sister of Miley Cyrus, at a Halloween party over the weekend.

Slut or princess. These are your Disney-sanctioned career options, girls.