Author Archives: Scarlett Harris

Style VS. Fashion.

By Posted in Uncategorized Tagged , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

If you could be fashionable or stylish, which would you choose?

One incorporates fluro, Sass & Bide rats, digital prints and oversized tees; just some of the trends in the past few years that flatter most no one. The other consists of a personal style that transcends the trends. Think Kate Moss, Audrey Hepburn, Nicole Richie and Kate Middleton.

I know which group I would rather belong to, however, when people comment on my clothes, they usually call them trendy. Personally, I can’t think of a bigger insult!

Most of the clothes I buy, or want to buy, are things I’ve been lusting over for years, and are usually vintage or from a myriad of outlets, from “old-lady stores” like Brown Sugar and Blue Illusion, to second-hand markets, to Target, to Sportsgirl. I will admit to buying a plain red cami from Dotti a few weeks ago, but it’s the kind of item I’ll wear for years to come and is quite timeless… well, as timeless as Dotti can be!

One of my friends, whilst rifling through my closet, even commented that I really don’t have that many clothes. I asked why, then, can I not fit them all in. (I have several bags full of clothes hiding at the back of the wardrobe, which I alternate between seasons.) Said friend attempted to recover by saying, “well, you wear the same outfits a lot.” Like the Duchess of Cambridge?! (I wish!)

This is true, though. My favourite pair of shoes are five-year-old electric blue ballet flats that are hanging by a thread. My staple black trench coat for winter is also five years old. Long time Scarlett Woman readers might remember the fantastic mustard yellow dress I picked up at a vintage fair for $30, which is one of my most prized sartorial possessions. I have a marcasite leopard brooch that is permanently affixed to my pleather bomber jacket (about three years old), which I paid a pretty penny for at an antique store… Shall I go on? ;)

Really, the only things I buy frequently in the clothing department are plain white, black and grey tees, jeans, and underwear.

I do like to look good (and my walk to work, where I’m confined to the limits of an unflattering uniform, is always a fashion parade!) but, when it comes down to it, clothes are just clothes, as the sometimes-fashion victim, but usually stylish, Whitney Port said on The Hills.

And you can still have a personal style without subscribing to the skinny jeans, crisp blazer and ballet flat norm of Kate and Nicole.

I have a few co-workers whose style I don’t necessarily like, but who remain true to it. One favours printed tees, badges and Etsy jewellery. Another likes to match her dress to her boots to her tights to her scarf to her hat to her bag. The third is hipster through and through, and has the most amazing collection of bright coats and bags from her grandmother.

These are the items of clothing that quintessentially “belong” to them and their personal style: you can’t find them in Bardot or Myer or Sass & Bide. And even if you could, they ain’t got nothin’ on the original: priceless.

So what I’m trying to say here is that money can’t buy style. Or that fashion fades, style is eternal. Or something. What do you think the difference between “fashion” and “style” is? Can you have both at the same time? Which camp would you rather belong to?

Related: The Way We Wear Vintage Market.

Images via Hills Freak, Saskia 4 Fashion, Franc Trunner, People Style Watch.

TV: Cristina Yang as Feminist.

By Posted in Beauty, Feminism, TV Tagged , , , , , , , , , 13 Comments

 

When it comes to “likeable” female characters on TV, you might think of Buffy Summers. Or Rachel Green. Or the Gilmore girls. But Grey’s Anatomy’s Cristina Yang probably isn’t one of them.

She’s abrasive, unfeeling, career-driven, ruthless and selfish. Everything a woman shouldn’t be, according to patriarchal norms.

Perhaps she could be more like the ousted Izzie Stevens, who was bubbly and sexy and baked cookies. Or the virginal and highly-strung April Kempner, whom Cristina praises for having “virgin super powers”, enabling her to be super-organised.

But I like Cristina just the way she is. She’s got her eye on the prize, won’t compromise her personal beliefs or goals to be liked or for a man, and she’s got “tiny little genius” hands that enable her to roll with the big guns.

This is why Cristina Yang is one of the only “feminist”—or “strong female”—characters on television. Nay, in all of fiction.

For one thing, she refuses to rely on her looks or her feminine wiles to get ahead. In “This is How We Do It” in season seven, she rejects Owen’s compliment about her beauty, saying, “If you want to appease me, compliment my brain.” (Stay tuned for more on beauty versus brains this week.)

And in last week’s final, we saw Cristina exercise her right to choose, and schedule her second abortion on the show, after much (mostly solo) deliberation. While excluding the opinion of her significant other and father of the future child wasn’t the most respectful thing to do, ultimately it came down to her choice, and she chose to terminate the pregnancy.

In season two, Cristina divulges that she’s pregnant to Dr. Burke and, again, makes the decision to get an abortion on her own. Whereas a character like Izzie seems to serve the pro-life agenda (she gave up her own baby for adoption when she was a teenager growing up in a trailer park, and convinced a HIV-positive woman to carry her pregnancy to term), Cristina resists the societal pressures to tap into her maternal instincts and give birth to a child she does not want.

Regardless of whose agenda could be seen as being served by Cristina’s character, she acts without fear of what other people will think of her.

As a person, no matter what gender, it is seemingly second nature to want others to like us, and to portray our best selves to them. Just look at the ritual of the date or the job interview. That Cristina defies this action (though we have seen her star struck when meeting surgeons like Tom Evans, and Preston Burke for the first time) makes her not just a feminist character, but a truly humanist one.

There are people in this world who challenge us, grate on us, and whom we genuinely don’t like or approve of. But that’s what makes the world go around. Cristina Yang being one of these kinds of people, and being portrayed to us as a whole person on television, with hopes and dreams and trials and tribulations and relationships and a career and no desire for children, and not just as the bitchy mother-in-law who lives off her husband’s money and needs a good fuck, is truly a sight to behold.

Related: Grey’s Anatomy Final Asks “When Does Life Begin?”

The Underlying Meaning in Grey’s Anatomy’s “Superfreak” Episode.

Sookie as Feminist? Hear Her Roar.

Are Our Favourite Fictional Females Actually Strong, or Stereotypes?

Elsewhere: [The Feel of Free] Cristina Yang + You Can’t Compromise on a Baby.

[Marinagraphy] Motherhood, Cristina Yang & Grey’s Anatomy.

Image via Home of the Nutty.

On the (Rest of the) Net.

By Posted in On the (Rest of the) Net, On the Net Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

 

Is pop music turning into porn? [MamaMia]

Sex, lies, and DSK. [Musings of an Inappropriate Woman]

Is Lady Gaga “a feminist icon, or just a slightly offbeat sex object?”:

“In some ways, Gaga’s entire persona seems to question what’s expected of women. It’s there in the internal contradiction of her name: ‘Lady’ with its suggestions of gentility, sweetness, high breeding; ‘Gaga’ with its intimations of infantility, madness, antic spirit. She has often been compared with a drag queen and, in many ways, this seems apt. Part of the brilliance and beauty of drag, of course, is that it can potentially expose sex roles—most often femininity—as a performance. A drag queen in enormous false eyelashes, teetering heels, a tight dress, heavy makeup, a voluminous wig, talon-like nails, is mimicking a woman, while underlining that what’s expected of women is in no way natural. With her increasingly bizarre getups, Gaga does the same.” [Queerty]

In defence of young adult fiction. [Girls Are Made From Pepsi]

The underlying lesbianism in the BFF relationship. [Girls Are Made From Pepsi]

One night with Quentin Tarantino. Fascinating, if not 100% verified. [Gawker]

Would you ever go through with labiaplasty? [MamaMia]

Michele Bachmann: “the candidate Sarah Palin was supposed to be.” Scary! [Rolling Stone]

16 & Pregnant as public service announcement. [Slate]

In celebration of gay marriage being approved in New York, check this little ditty out above. [Dear Blank Please Blank]

Images via Loopy Comments, Girls Are Made from Pepsi, Dear Blank Please Blank.

TV: Grey’s Anatomy Final Asks “When Does Life Begin?”

By Posted in Feminism, TV Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , 15 Comments

 

Last night’s Grey’s final saw the seeming collapse of Derek and Meredith’s marriage over Meredith tampering with the Alzheimer’s clinical trial just as baby Zola came into their lives, pending the finalisation of the adoption papers.

Derek chided Meredith for swapping the active drug with the placebo for Richard’s wife, Adele, asking her how she couldn’t differentiate between right and wrong. Meredith replied that to her, things aren’t just right and wrong; there are shades of grey (hello, her last name’s Grey!), and that she’d do it all over again if it meant that Adele got better.

Derek should know this. Back in season five, when Derek introduces Meredith to his mother, she exclaimed that Meredith was good for him: he’s black and white and she’s grey.

But it didn’t stop him walking out on his wife for failing to see her reasoning, much like Owen failed to see Cristina’s reasoning, and kicked her out after she scheduled an abortion without his input.

Yes, that’s right: Cristina’s pregnant, much to her dismay.

She doesn’t want a baby. Never has, and never will. But Owen can’t understand this, and pushes her to see his side.

Now, this is where it starts to get messy. I’m not ashamed to say I’m staunchly pro-choice, so much so that I take the line of reasoning that if in doubt, abort. Especially if the woman in question is young, a victim of rape or incest, or can’t afford to have a baby. To me, life begins when the foetus is out of the womb and has taken its first breath. But I agree with Owen in that Cristina should have allowed him to have a say in the matter of abortion. But I also think that if Owen married Cristina knowing she didn’t want children but thinking he could persuade her anyway, he’s an idiot.

Cristina echoes this notion somewhat when she informs her husband she’s pregnant. Owen is overjoyed; Cristina has a migraine.

She tells him flat out that she doesn’t want a baby, and he responds with, “Well, you have one.”

“Are you getting all lifey on me?!” she remarks in disbelief, while he proceeds to ask her how far along she is, and if the foetus has feet and hands. How dare he tell her when life begins, she reasons.

While the storyline is clearly personal, not medical, it seems that Owen leans towards pro-life, though that could just be because the foetus in question contains his DNA. I don’t think doctors should push their personal opinions onto a pregnant woman who is coming to terms with the “unwanted tissue” inside her. I would go as far to say that I don’t think doctors with pro-life beliefs should be practicing medicine.

Still, Cristina is absolutely right when she says she’s not “compromising” on a baby: “You don’t have half a baby!… You don’t ‘give a little’ on a baby.”

While it’s perhaps easier for the father to bow out on raising their biological child, mothers usually don’t have that (ad)option. Cristina just plain and simply doesn’t. Want. A. Baby. But if she has it, she knows she’ll love it. (That’s the risk women run when they give their children up for adoption.) Owen shouldn’t have put her in the position to do something she doesn’t want to do (“It’s not like pizza or Thai.”), thinking she will “come around” later.

While Derek and Meredith deal with the fall out of Meredith’s “wrong” decision, how will Owen deal with Cristina’s decision? Was it “right” or “wrong”? And how will Grey’s Anatomy continue to discuss the “when does life begin?” question?

Related: The Underlying Message in Grey’s Anatomy‘s “Superfreak” Episode.

Elsewhere: [The Feel of Free] Cristina Yang + You Can’t Compromise on a Baby.

[Marinagraphy] Resisting Motherhood in Grey’s Anatomy.

Images via VideoBB.

Do Nice Girls Finish Last?

By Posted in On the Net Tagged , , , 2 Comments

 

From “In Defense of Women Behaving Badly, Part 1” by Camilla Peffer on Girls Are Made From Pepsi:

“… Women like Courtney Love who gyrated on stage in baby-doll dresses and smeared lipstick, and responded to the adoration of idolising fans with a growling retort—‘You don’t even fucking know me’… As a woman, I was expected to act a certain way, be a certain ‘thing’. To smile, all the fucking time, to be cheerful, to hold my tongue, to flirt with customers if I wanted more tips, to look pretty even if I felt like complete crap, to take criticism lying down.

“As I’ve gotten a bit older, and I like to think a bit wiser, I’ve started to realise that it’s okay to be imperfect. To have fights, to be called a bitch, to be a goddamned rabble-rouser if you bloody well feel like it. To not fit this mould of sweetness and light, of delicate austerity and soft-spokeness. I doubt the Women’s Suffrage would have achieved the right to vote if they’d stuck to their pleases and thank yous.

“When someone tells me that I’m nice, or sweet, I do find it quite superficial. People tend to have this illusion of depressed women—that we’re pretty when we cry, that there’s beauty in the breakdown. Anxiety and depression can wreak havoc on your personality, render your actions and thoughts inhumane, violent, unprofessional, uncouth, anti-social and un-feminine… However, I’m also strong. I can channel my anger into productive energy, and I know when to speak up if I feel I’m being wronged.”

Amen to that!

Elsewhere: [Girls Are Made From Pepsi] In Defense of Women Behaving Badly, Part 1.

Image via Cyclone Cindy.

Movie Review: Sleeping Beauty*.

By Posted in Movies Tagged , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

 

I usually don’t care for indie, artsy films with an “underlying message”. Give me fluff and fun any day.

So it was unusual for me to want to see Sleeping Beauty, the latest Cannes Film Festival effort by Julia Leigh, starring Sucker Punch’s Emily Browning.

Let’s just say I should have left well enough alone and left it to the creative/hipster Nova Carlton crew to nod understandingly along with the quiet and confronting scenes, while I scoffed at the pretension and a group of girls up the front laughed at the copious amounts of nudity.

This was something I took issue with. Normally, nudity doesn’t bother me so long as it’s not gratuitous and lends itself to the story. Browning’s naked body in almost every scene was an integral part of the story when she becomes the titular “sleeping beauty”. However, she also slept naked, went topless at the request of her dying friend, and basically hung around in her natural state. Which is all well and good if this were real life, but the stunted acting and unrealistic dialogue made it clear that the storyline certainly wasn’t realistic. I counted nine instances of Browning’s nudity, not to mention the bondage party at the beginning of the film, which introduces Browning’s character, Lucy, to the underground perversion club she’ll now be working for, and the three old man peens who try to have their wicked and disturbing way with Lucy. But, as madam of the House of Sleeping Beauties, a novella by Nobel prize-winning author Yasunari Kawabata on which Sleeping Beauty is allegedly based, says, “there will be no penetration”. That’s comforting, then!

While I felt that at some point during the movie, Browning’s nudity went from being artistic to exploitative, the same could be said for the men of the movie. Only the older patrons of madam Clara were seen in all their glory, which didn’t take away from Leigh’s commentary on the youth and beauty of Lucy, but was perhaps an effort to objectify the men who objectify Lucy.

*It has come to my attention that I give away too much in my movie reviews, so the asterisk will now serve as a blanket *spoiler alert* from now on.

Related: Sucker Punch Review.

Sucker Punch’s Emily Browning on Slut-Shaming in Hollywood.

Image via IMDb.

Cherchez La Femme (Fatale), Take 3.

By Posted in On the Net Tagged , , , , Leave a comment

 

From an excerpt by James Lileks on TV Tropes:

“They’re the kind of dames who can wear floor-length gowns and look completely naked. The kind with hair piled up on their head like compliant serpents, or falling down in smooth lustrous waves. Dames with hard faces and mocking smiles and eyes that sized you up and found you wanting . . . but you’d do, for now.”

Related: Cherchez la Femme Fatale, Take 2.

Cherchez La Femme (Fatale).

Raymond Chandler on the Femme Fatale.

The “Evil” Woman.

Elsewhere: [TV Tropes] Femme Fatale.

Image via Celebrity Dirty Laundry.

On the (Rest of the) Net.

By Posted in On the (Rest of the) Net, On the Net Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Mark Zuckerberg gets engaged, racism ensues.

Celebrities: what gives us the right to judge them?

“The disappearing bush is a burning issue”: “Just like the rain forest and the ozone layer, pubic hair has been disappearing on young, fertile, desired and desiring bodies…” Must read.

Flavorwire’s top ten teaching flicks. Long live Mr. Holland’s Opus!

The beauty of “the lesser-watched-sitcom”.

The benefits of being an introvert:

“… Extroverts are more likely than introverts to be hospitalized as a result of an injury, have affairs (men) and change relationships (women). One study of bus drivers even found that accidents are more likely to occur when extroverts are at the wheel… [Introverts are] more likely to wear ponytails and glasses and be the subject of a bet featuring Freddie Prinze Junior as the Popular Guy trying to ask her to prom…”

The infiltration of “like” into every (mostly female) conversation. Like, you know, whatever!

Disney and fat-phobia.

Is rape biologically imperative for men?

Why won’t Bristol Palin acknowledge her sexual assault?:

“[Feminist author and blogger Jessica Valenti ponders the] … impact Bristol’s story will have on the thousands of young women who read her memoir: ‘Not calling it assault—and blaming herself, as she does in the book—sends a dangerous message to young women who may have similar experiences.’ She writes that Bristol’s sense that she had ‘sinned’ and ‘had’ to marry [Levi] Johnston ‘broke [her] heart a bit’. Mine too.

“But I actually wonder if Bristol’s story, with all its heartache and ambiguity, might actually serve as a bit of entry level feminism for her readers. What transpired between Bristol and Levi, after all, was not remotely uncommon, and nor was Bristol’s reaction…”

Rachel Hills on Mad Men.

Lumping penis-Tweeter Anthony Weiner, adulterer and sexual harasser Arnold Schwarzenegger, and alleged rapist Dominique Strauss-Kahn in together: are they just afraid of “being invisible to women”?

Speaking of, ladies, make sure you don’t marry a man other women find attractive. The good-looking ones always stray, if Weiner is anything to go by.

My two criticisms of this theory are 1) um, when did the popular consensus lean toward “Weiner is hot”? and 2) Paul Newman. One of the best-looking men who ever lived, and faithful to his wife til the end.

Furthermore, what about that study that said relationships where the man is better looking than the woman last longer because the women puts in more effort to keep him?

Maybe Voltron was right in telling us not to believe the studies…

The myth of the female praying mantis.

“Can we honestly expect corporations to be bastions of morality and ethical behaviour?”

Victoria’s Secret’s target demographic: real women who want to know how their lingerie will make them feel, or 15-year-old boys?

Julia Gillard and Tim Mathieson’s 60 Minutes interview was a few weeks ago now, but Annabel Crabb’s commentary on the topic of our lack of respect for the Prime Minister is timeless:

“Surely she has earned the right not to endure infantilising questions about whether she really loves her boyfriend. And as for the awful matter of the First Nuptials (a grim sequence concluded the interview, with much chummy speculation from Wooley on who would be the ‘popper’ and ‘poppee’ of the marriage question, and more nervous giggling from the PM)—well, it’s fairly rude to ask, even without a national audience watching.

“Why do people feel they can take such liberties with this prime minister?”

25 things you need to know about Green Lantern before you see it. (Warning: ruthless spoilers ahead).

Strange True Blood bedfellows.

“Scientists VS. Shock Jocks: Who Do You Believe” on the subject of climate change?

Leggings running pants as pants.

Naww, this makes me want a dog even more. Even a blind, mangy, abused one. It’s better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. And it’s better for an animal to feel love before loss.

Megan Fox Too “Spicy” for Transformers?

By Posted in Feminism, Movies Tagged , , , , , , , , , 7 Comments

 

A few weeks ago I caught a snippet from a Shia LaBeouf interview in the back pages of Famous, claiming that “Megan [Fox] developed this Spice Girl strength, this woman-empowerment [stuff] that made her feel awkward about her involvement with Michael [Bay] who some people think is a very lascivious filmmaker, the way he films women,” but wasn’t able to locate it again til this week.

Love her or hate her (personally, I lurrrrve her!), you’ve got to admire Fox for her outspokenness and, if that means, in this day and age, that she’s “Spice Girl”-esque, then so be it.

It’s kind of sad, actually, that to stand up to a cretinous misogynist and say “actually, no, I don’t want to be involved in a film where all my character does is lay about on a motorcycle while you direct the cameraman to get up-skirt shots of me” equates to being a caricature of pop-feminism from fifteen years ago.

I think LaBeouf was trying to remain loyal to both sides of the coin, but he has been critical of Transformers director Bay in the past. It’s just that he’s a guy and the star of the film, so they look the other way, whereas Fox is an apparently replaceable sex object who’ll never work in this town Hollywood again.

At least, that’s according to this week’s Famous, which has a somewhat-outdated story on Fox’s firing from the franchise, her replacement with Victoria’s Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, and her allegedly anti-Semitic remarks against Bay. The article references a 2009 interview with Wonderland magazine, and an open anonymous letter posted on Bay’s website, which was written at least a year ago.

When talking about the release of the latest Transformers flick with a male friend, he said Fox was an idiot for trash-talking Bay and expecting not to get fired for it. (There is no evidence to suggest Fox did think that, FYI.) I wondered why Fox is the scapegoat to illustrate not biting the hand that feeds you in standing up for herself and refusing to be objectified in such a “way that appeals to a 16-year-old’s sexuality”, while Bay is lauded for his special effects and partnership with Steven Spielberg.  He said he didn’t care; having a car with a button that you could press which turns it into your very own gigantic friend was cooler. Right: who cares how horrible the people making movies are, as long as the end product is good fulfills some boyish childhood fantasy, right?

Related: The Beautiful, Bigmouthed Backlash Against Katherine Heigl & Megan Fox.

“She Just Wants Attention.”

Gay Chicken: Latent Homophobia in “Why Would You Go Gay For?”

“With a Gun Between Her Legs”: Why “Strong” (AKA “Sexy” Whilst Being “Strong”) Female Characters Are Bad for Women.

Minus Two & a Half Men.

Elsewhere: [IndieWire] Shia LaBeouf Claims Megan Fox’s “Spice Girl Strength” Got Her Fired From New Transformers Movie.

Image via Semaj Blogeater.

Does Pop Culture Glamourise Our Carbon Footprint?

By Posted in In the News, Movies, TV Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 3 Comments

Carbon tax. It’s got everyone in a tizzy, and has given Julia Gillard the lowest approval rating of any Prime Minister since Paul Keating. Oh Julia, you had so much potential… but that’s another blog post for another day.

What I want to write about here is the factors that have caused us to need a carbon tax, the front runner being popular culture!

I know, it seems like an odd thing to deduce, but hear me out.

On the nights when I get home from work or being out with friends and my housemate is home before me, oftentimes I’ll walk into the apartment to be greeted by every light in the place blaring, the heater and TV on, and I wonder why my housemate feels the need to make our home look like it belongs in a decor magazine or, at the very least, a television show. But if you’re looking to television and movies to guide your lifestyle, no wonder Australia (not to mention America, the beacon of all things consumerist and anti-environmental) is up shit creek without a paddle.

Look at any major mainstream TV show or movie staged in an affluent location: every single light is on, adding to the unrealistic “ambiance” of the place. Below are just a few screenshot examples:

Charmed.

The Ugly Truth.

Sex & the City.

Scream.

Also, inhabitants of houses/apartments/sheds/any building one can reside in onscreen have a penchant for leaving their blinds open. This is a pet hate of mine and one I’ll never understand. Not only does it practically invite psycho killers into your home (okay, I’ve been watching too much Scream), but in winter, it completely undoes all the good work of your trusty little heater. (I see this not only in movies and TV, but in real life, too. My friend Katrina recounted to me how she once saw her neighbour walking around topless in her bedroom without the blinds drawn!)

And hard-yakka Aussies wonder why they’re being asked to fork out for a carbon tax.

Girl with a Satchel Erica Bartle put it well when she wrote that we’re “not so hard up, are we?” when it came to light that “the average Aussie household now has multiple computers, wireless broadband internet, a Nintendo Wii or similar game console and a plasma TV”. Also, how much are the media contributing to our carbon footprint when they’re firing up the chopper to get aerial views of Cate Blanchett’s eco-mansion whilst condemining her for deigning to support the tax. (I read this on The Drum  or The Punch or one of those sites, but can’t seem to find the link, sorry.)

Can you think of any other TV shows and movies that perpetuate this lights on = glamour at the expense of practicality and our carbon footprint?

Elsewhere: [Girl with a Satchel] “Carbon Cate” for T Magazines & the Prius Effect.

Images via YouTube, IMDb, Film in America.