Presidential Barbie Stands on Her Own Two (Weighted) Feet.

 

Last week she went bald, this week she’s running for president (again). Is there anything Barbie can’t do?

Jezebel notes that Barbie has been running for office on and off since 1992, when she wore an evening gown. Now she wears a sensible pink suit and weighted shoes so that she can stand up on her own two feet for the first time ever. Now there’s a campaign slogan to rival Obama’s “Yes we can”.

In the spirit of inclusion, and perhaps harkening back to Obama’s historic win, the I Can Be… President Barbie, released in conjunction with The White House Project which aims to get more women running for office, comes in white, Hispanic, Asian and African American ethnicities.

Related: Bald Barbie: Actually, Barbie Won’t Be Bald At All. Instead, It’ll Be Her Best Friend.

Elsewhere: [Jezebel] Barbie is Running for President (Again)!

[New York Daily News] Her Dream Job! Barbie Running for President?

Image via Styleite.

Bald Barbie—Actually, Barbie Won’t Be Bald At All. Instead, It’ll Be Her Best Friend.

 

On the one hand, we need to applaud Mattel for accepting an “outside idea” for Bald & Beautiful Barbie, which aims to lessen the stigma of hair loss due to cancer treatment for young girls and their mothers who have the disease.

On the other, it’s not going to actually be Barbie who’s bald, but her bestie. Let’s just hope that this time she’ll be able to get into the Barbie Dream House, unlike the last doll they tried to make in honour of people who don’t fit the able-bodied norm: Share-a-Smile Becky, whose wheelchair didn’t fit inside the Dream House doors. Whoops!

So with this new doll, Mattel might be saying that bald is beautiful, just as long as it’s not Barbie who loses her hair. Baldness is beneath Barbie, don’t you know?

One step forward, two steps back…

Elsewhere: [Jezebel] Barbie’s Friend Will Soon be Bald & Beautiful.

Image via Jezebel.

Hating Kony is Cool.

 

You could have only missed the YouTube documentary that went viral, Kony 2012, if you were living under a rock last week. It already has 74 million views and has been online for nine days.

While it’s all well and good that a documentary about child soldiers in Africa is getting the recognition it deserves and people are starting to take action to stop this, we have to ask why. Why now? Why this cause? Why?

Because it’s cool, of course.

Some commentators have been saying that Kony has been a force for evil for 35 years, so what’s getting everyone all hot under the collar about him now? Children being used as soldiers was no less bad 35 years ago than it is today.

Jason Russell, the brainchild behind Kony: 2012, worked on the doco for close to ten years. It’s great that a young activist is using the skills at his disposal to work towards a greater good, but there are so many other charities and causes out there that deserve recognition, too.

But on April 20, we’re going to be bombarded with posters and badges and volunteers stopping us in the street for our cash and urging us to watch the video, as if by then there’d be anyone who hasn’t seen or heard about Kony: 2012 and the Invisible Children organisation that runs it questionably spending money on documentary-making, when grassroots and on-the-ground activism would have put that money to much better use.

Why? Because it’s cool.

There are thousands upon thousands of charities and awareness-making organisations out there and have been for the 35 years it’s taken Joseph Kony to gain worldwide recognition. The reason everyone’s kicking up a stink about the warlord and his 30,000 child soldiers now is because it’s cool.

As Josh Kron and David Goodman wrote in The Age about the phenomenon this past weekend, “Some have called the video a pitch-perfect appeal to the so-called slacktivism, a pejorative term for armchair activism by a younger generation, often online.”

Now, I don’t agree that just because you’re young and use the internet as the primary means of publicising a cause it’s akin to “slacktivism”. Look at SlutWalk and the Arab Spring.

But I do agree that having all your Facebook friends and people you follow and who follow you on Twitter posting the video and pledging their money for the Kony: 2012 action kit (which is now sold out. They have some great marketers on their hands.) works as a kind of peer pressure to do something about it, too. When Rihanna and Taylor Swift and Angelina Jolie (though she promotes many a charity, with less-than-Kony results) come out in support of it, it must be totes cool. Because it’s not worth supporting a charity unless it’s a cool and popular one, right? Kony: 2012 is the new Pink.

I think we should be working towards a better world actively all the time or when and where we can, not when a fad YouTube video comes along.

Related: Ain’t Nothin’ Gonna Break My Slutty Stride.

Elsewhere: [The Age] The Warlord Versus the World.

[Marie Claire] The Big Business of Breast Cancer.

[Jezebel] Kony: 2012 & Invisible Children Are Funded by Anti-Gay Creationist Groups.

Image via Human Rights Now.

Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word Revisited.

 

I know I only wrote about this earlier in the week, but since then, Mia Freedman has published a great article on MamaMia calling for an end to the torrent of abuse being hurled at Yumi Stynes for her comments about Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith last week.

Freedman’s no stranger to this kind of abuse, which she asserts is exclusive to women, in which their appearance, sexuality, sensuality and family are attacked. Where’s the similarly-themed attack on George Negus?

And because Stynes is part Asian, you can bet much of the abuse is centered around her race.

This great article on ABC’s Ramp Up talks about a Herald Sun headline that stated “Yumi So Sorry”; where’s the public moral outcry surrounding that?!

But what really gets me is how all these people who are saying these horrible things about Stynes were initially outraged about her saying an apparently horrible thing. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? It reminds me of militant pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics and murdering abortion providers; um, hello?!

What do you think of the blatant double standards of political correctness in this country (which the Ramp Up article talks about pitch perfectly) and what’s happened to Stynes?

Related: Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word.

In Defence of Mia Freedman.

I Think I’m Beginning to Understand This #MenCallMeThings Thing. Except It’s Not Just Men & It’s Not Really Me.

Elsewhere: [MamaMia] Why the Abuse of Yumi Stynes Must Stop.

[ABC Ramp Up] Right Wing Political Correctness & “Outrage” Double Standards.

Image via Ramp Up.

Angelina Jolie’s Right Leg & What it Tells Us About Youth & Beauty.

 

One of my sleazeball colleagues asked me who I thought was the best dressed at the Oscars, pretty much as an excuse to fill me in on his “hot for teacher” J.Lo feelings. Inevitably, the subject of Angelina Jolie and her right leg came up. Some coworkers who joined in the conversation were sure she knew what she was doing. I wagered that if she did, she was probably making a tongue-in-cheek statement about her standing as a sex object. Perhaps that’s just how she felt comfortable (after all, all we heard was how comfortable the black velvet Atelier Versace dress was), or knew she was rocking it and wanted to show off.

Whatever Jolie’s reasoning, apparently she’s “too old” to be showing off her legs like that, according to abovementioned coworker. “It’s not like she’s 16,” he said. No, because if she was sixteen it would be highly inappropriate. “36 is just too old” to be wearing a dress like that. Not only are there some deep-seated pedophilic tendencies coming to light here, but it just reiterates society’s predilection for youth and its sexism. We’ve all heard about that study that says women don’t feel comfortable wearing a miniskirt over the age of 35. Paging Jolie…

Personally, I think my legs are my worst feature, but many women love their legs. They’re one of the only body parts that don’t sag too much with age, and can be bared when tuck shop lady arms and age spots apparently set in. My grandma will be 90 this year and she still maintains her legs are her best feature. Obviously I didn’t inherit varicose veins from her!

And 35 being too old to flash some leg, even if you are one of the world’s sexiest women, is bullocks, indeed!

I think Jolie looked bangin’, if a little staged, and should continue to rock the flesh-baring gowns til the cows come home. You go, girl!

Elsewhere: [MamaMia] 47 is Too Old to be Wearing a Bikini. Oh Bullocks.

Image via The Telegraph.

Sorry Seems to be the Hardest Word.

 

So I know Yumi Stynes and George Negus’ comments about Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith’s brain capacity and skill in the sack were so last week (heads up: tomorrow’s post is equally last week’s news. Hint: Angelina Jolie’s leg.), but I haven’t read much in the media about the aftermath.

For those of you not familiar with what happened, Victoria Cross recipient Corporal Ben Roberts-Smith appeared on Sunday Night where he revealed he and his wife used IVF to conceive their twin daughters. In the days following, the story was picked up by Ten’s morning show, The Circle, in which Stynes commented on the above image on Roberts-Smith in the pool, asking if he was looking for his brain on the bottom of it. Now, Roberts-Smith is a pretty impressively ripped guy and we all know the trope goes that if you’re a beautiful person, you can’t be smart as well. Negus followed that up by this ambiguous statement:

“I’m sure he’s a really good guy, nothing about poor old Ben… But that sort of bloke, and what if they’re not up to it in the sack?”

To me, that insinuates that not only might Roberts-Smith be dumb, but that he’s obviously on steroids and we all know how that can affect performance “in the sack”. Stynes went on to summarise: “… he could be a dud root?”

Last Wednesday night, Negus and Stynes went on The Project to publicly apologise, and reveal that they also spoke to Roberts-Smith via telephone to apologise and that all is good between the three parties. I thought Stynes came across as genuinely embarrassed (rightly so) and apologetic. Negus… not so much.

The friend I was watching it with at the time said Negus is apparently a big proponent of free speech and it was clear he was only apologising because the higher-ups wanted him to save face. Fair enough if what he said was actually something he believed in and didn’t feel the need to apologise, but it was pretty obvious that the presenters on The Circle were just engaging in some mindless banter and they probably don’t actually believe what they said.

But one headline I read or saw on TV (can’t remember which one) asked “is [saying sorry] enough?” Well it has to be, doesn’t it?

If someone is genuinely sorry, like Stynes and, to a lesser extent, Negus, seemed to be, and they’ve made amends with the person they’ve upset and have learned from the situation and will, in future, think before opening their mouths, then there’s nothing else to be done.

This could be seen as a bit hypocritical coming from me who, two weeks ago, wrote that Chris Brown should be expunged from society for what he did to Rihanna, even though he has publicly apologised to the public and Rihanna. The difference is, his apology was orchestrated from above (arguably, so was Stynes and Negus’) and read from a teleprompter, and his behaviour hasn’t changed one bit since then. Just last week, he snatched a phone out of a fan’s hand for taking a photo of him and drove off with it! Also, he brutally beat his intimate partner, someone who loved and trusted him. He didn’t just make some thoughtlessly flippant comments about someone in the media he doesn’t know, as Stynes and Negus did. (There are some major double standards when it comes to this issue. For example, where was Daniel Craig’s apology when he said the Kardashians were “fucking idiots”? Meanwhile, Usher was forced to issue an apology when he was caught on tape saying he thought Brown should have some remorse over his attack on Rihanna when he was photographed jet skiing in Miami.) Sure, it was offensive to Roberts-Smith, his family, people in the military and many others, but they were just words. And a remorseful apology and promise not to say it again has to be enough.

Related: My Thoughts on Chris Brown.

FuckWalk: The Floodgates Have Opened.

Elsewhere: [MamaMia] Why Call a War Hero a Dud Root?

[Jezebel] Chris Brown Stole an iPhone from One of His Fans, Could End Up in Jail.

[Hello Giggles] I’m Not Okay with Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys and I’m Not Sure Why You Are.

Image via MamaMia.

Happy Leap Day! Heterosexual Ladies, Today You Can Freely Ask Your Significant Other to Marry You And Only Endure the Shame Once Every Four Years!

Today is February 29th, a date which only occurs every four (Olympic) years. Apparently, tradition has it that women can freely propose to their partners—sorry, non-heterosexual partnerships need not apply—on this day and only be reminded of the shame of taking their own destiny into their hands and not waiting around for a man to determine it once every four years! Super!

Perhaps instead of using the extra 24 hours to uphold gender norms we could use it to do something meaningful like, I don’t know, work towards marriage equality. Or adopt a pet. Sign up to volunteer. Work on asylum seeker activism. Something other than reiterating that until you’re married, life is meaningless.

Rihanna & Domestic Violence*.

I’ve written about the Rihanna-domestic violence dichotomy before, and how no matter what the public persona presented in her music videos and interviews is, it’s consensual and it’s her prerogative. What Chris Brown did to her wasn’t.

But what role do her songs play in the unfortunately common perception that she “deserved” to get beaten by Brown; that she must’ve liked it if she sings about “S&M”; that she might have been egging Brown on in the form of “Breakin’ Dishes”.

We’ve heard a lot about the former two assertions. What I’d like to focus on in this post is her lesser-known single from the Good Girl Gone Bad album, “Breakin’ Dishes”.

Personally, I love the song and it’s one of my favourites from her. But, ashamedly, until recently I’d never put two and two together: the lyric “I’ma fight a man tonight”, the disbelief that female-on-male domestic violence exists, and Brown and Rihanna’s altercation three years ago.

Now, just to reiterate, I don’t think that what Rihanna sings about has any bearing on what goes on in her personal life (hell, she doesn’t even write her own songs). “Whips and chains” in the bedroom does not mean biting and punching in a car. But what does the lyric “I’m not gonna stop until I see police lights” mean coming from the mouth of Rihanna? That hitting a man and destroying his property is okay if you suspect he’s cheating? That it’s okay because he hit her first (yes, I am aware that “Breakin’ Dishes” was recorded well before the 2009 assault)? That it’s not really domestic violence because a woman hitting a man doesn’t do as much damage as opposed to the opposite occurring?

I’m not going to pretend that there are right and wrong answers to these questions, but I do know that intimate partner violence is never okay, no matter what the gender of the people involved. This is a message that we need to be getting across to everyone, so that those who are victims of it are better informed and equipped to leave the situation, and that they won’t be blamed or questioned for their role in it.

By the same token, and again, I’m not condoning or excusing it, sometimes the partner who takes the brunt of the violence is somewhat guilty of baiting their lover. I’ve witnessed it firsthand. Someone might start saying things that they know are sensitive subjects for the violent party; maybe they’ll slap or shove them to see how far they can push them. Sometimes they thrive on the aftermath; having their partner comfort them and tell them how much they love them and that it’ll never happen again. But this is part of the cycle of violent relationships and the “grooming” that is done by the perpetrator. I don’t know what’s going on in the heads of those involved, but I can certainly sympathise.

*

I remember reading a comment on someone’s Facebook post about Chris Brown at the Grammys last week or the week before. The comment was saying that yes, what happened to Rihanna was bad, but her music and sexy image is also bad and is sending the wrong message to our children. (Will someone please think of the children?!) I’m sure the commenter wasn’t aware that what they were writing was essentially a domestic violence apologist statement, but that’s certainly how it came across to me. Like they were sorry Rihanna got hit, but what does she expect when she acts so sexy and independent all the time?

In 2012, we should be able to understand that “art” (however loosely that term is applied) is not always an imitation of life, and that humans are capable of critical thought to separate the two. Singing about consensual sadomasochism and a hypothetical violent fight between lovers, however tasteless and closely related they are, is never an excuse for actual intimate partner violence.

*Trigger Warning: This post deals with domestic violence and may be upsetting to some.

Related: My Thoughts on Chris Brown.

Rihanna’s “S&M”: Is it Really So Much Worse Than Her Other Stuff?

Rihanna Upholds Traditional Gender Roles.

Rihanna’s “Man Down”: Revenge is a Dish Best Served in Cold Blood.

“Chains & Whips Excite Me” Take 2.

Image via MamaMia.

Hugo Schwyzer’s Ousting from the Feminist Community.

I must have been living under a feminist rock for the past couple of months, because when I saw some sentences that jumped out at me in this blog post about Hugo Schwyzer’s abusive past and resignation from The Good Men Project (I wondered why I was never seeing new posts from him on there), I was shocked.

I’ve recently been embroiled in a staunch disagreement with one of my friends over the Chris Brown, Michael Fassbender et al. debacle, in which I’ve attempted to personally boycott all things related to wifebeaters and horrible people in general, and she’s attempted to justify her support of projects they’re involved in because of all the other people it affects (a film crew of hundreds of people, for example).

But what happens when someone I openly admire (Scwhyzer) is revealed to have attempted a murder-suicide on his girlfriend in the past?

I’d have to call myself somewhat of a hypocrite, then. I still think Schwyzer produces some of the most apt feminist and gender-based musings out there. I also think that that incident was 13 years ago and, as far as we know, Schywzer got help and hasn’t relapsed. He’s taken his mistake, learned from it, and used it to add to the feminist and gender discourse. Which is more than I can say for Brown at this point. To play devil’s advocate (because I’m still adamant that Brown is a wifebeater through and through and will definitely strike a woman again), he’s still young and perhaps hasn’t woken up to the full scope of his actions and how they have hurt both Rihanna and himself.

This whole kafuffle has brought forth these questions, as asked by Raphael Magarik in The Atlantic:

Can men be feminist leaders?

Yes, they can. I’m not someone who thinks men can’t be feminists because they don’t have a vagina. Where does that leave trans women, then? How about the many gay men who have faced prejudice and champion the feminist movement? I’ve always thought Schwyzer has valid points to make (admittedly he’s really the only male feminist I read), and I think male voices can aid in the reconciliation of equality between men and women.

What role—if any—should men’s personal experiences play in feminist discussions?

I have a couple of male friends who, when presented with talk of feminism, will undermine and devalue what I’m trying to say with the straight white male reverse-racism bullshit. But, I think, as long as men are willing to listen to what feminists have to say without diminishing it with their white male privilege, personal experiences can aid in the discourse. For example, men who’ve grown up with strong women in their lives, men who’ve been abused, men who’ve abused and are aware of why they did it and are immensely sorry.

And how should feminists treat repentant former abusers?

I know a repentant former abuser who I’ve all but removed from my life, so I’m probably too biased about the situation to be completely inclusive of them. However, I think those who’ve experienced abuse are the ones who have to be having the conversation with former abusers and be okay with them jumping on the feminist bandwagon. If they are truly sorry, have a demonstrated history of non-abuse since they last abused, and can use that history to add value to female-male relations, then I think it might be okay. But the trust is still eroded…

How [do] men feel, what [do] they think about gender, [and] what [do] they need to change?

This is what Schwyzer is concerned with in his writings: how feminism relates to men. I hate the idea of feminism as this exclusive club (an idea which has been doing the rounds since noted second-wave feminists like Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan and Naomi Wolf stepped on the scene, and was recently reignited with the whole Melinda Tankard Reist business) that you can only gain entry to if you’re the “right” kind of woman. To me, feminism is about equality and inclusion of voices other than the “right” kind of woman.

How do you feel about men in feminism and Schwyzer’s abusive past potentially delegitimising his feminist voice?

Related: My Thoughts on Chris Brown.

Conservative Feminist Melinda Tankard Reist for Sunday Life.

Elsewhere: [The Atlantic] Exile in Gal-Ville: How a Male Feminist Alienated His Supporters.

[Hugo Schwyzer] Why I Resigned from The Good Men Project.

[Feministe] Sex, Drugs, Theology, Men & Feminism: Interview with Hugo Schwyzer.

[GenderBitch] You Don’t Get to Tell Us Who Our Enemies Are.

My Thoughts on Chris Brown*.

 

So the interwebs were all aflutter last week with talk of Chris Brown’s Grammy performance, nomination and subsequent win, starting with a Tweet (or several, as the screenshots will attest) from a young girl who didn’t know what Rihanna was complaining about: she’d love it if Brown punched her.

Wow, just wow.

Following on from this, I read this fabulous post from Sasha Pasulka on HelloGiggles on why she wasn’t okay with Brown performing at the Grammys and why you shouldn’t be either, and another great blog post in which Michael Fassbender was vilified for allegedly beating his girlfriend whilst simultaneously being lauded for his acting skills in the media.

Now, I’ve never seen anything Fassbender’s been in, but my housemate is (or was, until I linked him to this story about the assault) a fan, so I’m familiar with his work.

I linked the above news story (is TMZ considered news?!) on Facebook admonishing Fassbender, and a friend asked me if I was going to boycott everything anyone with a dubious personal life has been in, like David Boreanaz, for example. I replied that cheating may be immoral, but it’s not illegal, whereas Brown and Fassbender (along with my favourite, Charlie Sheen) are accused of intimate partner violence, which is never okay.

Now, I’m not really a fan of forgiveness and second chances, personally, but I do agree that Brown and Fassbender should be given second chances so that we can say they have when they inevitably fuck up again and then expunge them from society. Some could argue that Brown had his when he trashed a dressing room on Good Morning America and threw a chair out of a window. From experience, I know that violent men hardly ever only hit once and will always revert to their old ways.

The abovementioned friend who asked me if I will boycott all Brown, Fassbender, Sheen et al. projects (and so far I have successfully done so) said, after reading the TMZ piece, that Fassbender’s girlfriend should have left after he dragged her from a moving vehicle causing injuries to her knee, ankle and a blown ovarian cyst.

Sure, to anyone safely removed from that situation and reading about it from the comfort of their own home, the seemingly logical thing to do would be to leave after the first push, slap or abusive comment. But that reeks of victim blaming; abusers are highly skilled in manipulation and will make you feel like you have no other option but to stay. That it’s your fault. That they only hurt you because they love you so much. That they promise they’ll never do it again.

And, in the case of Brown, to allege that Rihanna deserved it because she sings about “S&M” and “Breaking Dishes” (more on this to come next week) is abhorrent! Those songs are what Rihanna does for a job. Furthermore, S&M is a consensual sexual act with “safe words and boundaries”, as one commenter on this MamaMia thread put it. Intimate partner violence is not consensual and there are no safe words. “Stop!” “You’re hurting me!” and “I can’t breathe!” are not enough to stop those who are mentally predisposed to hurting their lover with violence.

I thoroughly urge you to read the HelloGiggles piece if you haven’t already. In it, Pasulka uses quotes from the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Carrie Underwood, who said what a tragedy it was for both parties involved in the assault at the time. Oh yeah, it’s really tragic for Brown to have his name dragged through the dirt for a crime he actually committed. I guess it’s kinda tragic for Rihanna, too, as she was beaten to a bloody pulp by the man she loved and trusted and was then disparaged for it by the public.

Pasulka also cites the statement from the producers of the Grammys in which they insinuate that Brown’s attack on Rihanna the night before the awards three years ago was an inconvenience to them. Yeah, I’d say it was pretty inconvenient for Rihanna, too.

Also troublingly, going through the screenshots of all the Chris-Brown-can-beat-me-all-night-long-if-he-wants Tweets, they are primarily from young, white girls. To me, that signifies the trope of black-man-as-predator. Yes, this probably didn’t even cross the girls’ minds, but that they’re seemingly willing to be with someone who is a known wifebeater because he is attractive (personally, I find him ugly, but then I’m biased) not because of his race is a problem within itself.

In the comments thread on HelloGiggles some commenters raised the question of why is Brown being so vigorously vilified while other known/alleged wifebeaters such as Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson go by unscathed. Is it because he’s black?

And they raise a good point. Personally, I don’t think it is, but it baffles me as to why people jumped at the chance to follow Sheen on Twitter, get tickets to his My Violent Torpedo of Truth tour and lament the fact that Two and a Half Men is apparently now less funny with fellow douchebag Ashton Kutcher at the helm. (Gibson suffered considerably more public scrutiny for his racist and anti-Semitic vitriol, but was still cast alongside one of his defenders, Jodie Foster, in The Beaver. That he was replaced in The Hangover with Mike Tyson is just as bad: substituting one violent racist, sexist alcoholic for a convicted rapist. Nice.)

Brown responded to his haters after winning a Grammy with the above Tweet. Take from that what you will but, to me, that doesn’t sound like a man who’s remorseful for physically assaulting his girlfriend and deserving of a second chance.

*Trigger Warning: This post deals with domestic violence and may be upsetting to some.

Related: Why Are Famous Men Forgiven for Their Wrongdoings, While Women Are Vilified for Much Less?

Minus Two & a Half Men. 

Rihanna’s “S&M”: Is It Really So Much Worse Than Her Other Stuff?

Elsewhere: [HelloGiggles] I’m Not Okay With Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys & I’m Not Sure Why You Are.

[Feisty Feminist] There Are People on my Dash Posting About How They Think Michael Fassbender is Wonderful Etc.

[TMZ] Girlfriend Fears Inglorious Basterds Star.

[MamaMia] Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys is Not Okay.

Images via The Vine, MamaMia.