On the (Rest of the) Net.

Embrace your inner slut:

“If someone calls you a slut, there’s nothing you can say to refute the claim because it never had any cognitive content anyway.

“If you try to argue that you’re not a slut, you’re implicitly buying into the idea that there are sluts out there. If there’s some criterion that will set you free, that standard will indict someone else—someone with a higher ‘number,’ or shorter skirt, or a later curfew. So we get bogged down in slut/non-slut border skirmishes over a line nobody should have tried to draw in the first place, and we all lose.

“Even virginity is not a defense against alleged sluttiness. Virgins can be sluts if they dress the wrong way, walk the wrong way, or even instill the wrong thoughts in other people. Some people will convict you of sluttitude because your body is the wrong shape, or the right shape.”

Sluts just can’t win. That’s why you should (as above) embrace your inner slut and join the SlutWalk next weekend in Melbourne, at the State Library from 1pm. I’ll be blogging more about this throughout next week.

Glee’s Mercedes just can’t get a date!

Video vixen VS. female bodybuilders:

“It is not ‘respectable’ to be black, female, voluptuous, and sexy on a stage for profit, but it is perfectly acceptable to be black, female, muscular, and ‘unsexy’. Is this double standard acceptable? Is one profession truly more sexualized than the other?”

I don’t entirely agree with this hypothesis. I think it’s far more acceptable to be conventionally and femininely sexy, as opposed to muscular and unconventionally masculine. Sure, the video vixen job title isn’t exactly perceived as a classy, “respectable” occupation, but neither is female bodybuilding. Society as a whole would much rather see women shaking what they were born with (or, you know, what the plastic surgeon gave them) than manipulating their bodies via hormones and free weights.

The surrogacy debate rages on at MamaMia

“$150,000 Doesn’t Make You Rich. Discuss.” Okay, I will: I come from a family where my mother stayed home with my sister and I, and my dad worked three jobs at some stages. I was very young then, so I have no idea how much money he brought in. But I can tell you, it sure as hell wasn’t $150,000, and we struggled to keep our heads above water week-to-week. We never had savings, we could never go on family holidays that required much travel because we couldn’t afford flights or accommodation. I missed out on all but one of my seven cousins’ weddings because we couldn’t make it interstate. My parents have only bought two houses in their lifetime: the other nine we resided in throughout my lifetime were rentals. I also don’t know how much my dad makes now, but it is a lot less than $100,000, and my mum’s on a pension. In my opinion, $150,000 a year is rich.

“Opposition leader Tony Abbott says the Government is punishing ‘aspiration and hard work’,” with the new middle class welfare breaks. Is working three jobs and hardly being able to see your family not hard work, Mr. Abbott?

How to deal with your boyfriend’s porn-watching habit.

The argument for Pixar movie heroines who aren’t princesses, “from all the girls with band-aids on their knees”.

The perils of being smiled at by a cute guy in a café when you’re not wearing makeup.

Texas’ “10 Hottest Female Sex Offenders”. “No doubt that 4-year-old boy, that 2-year-old boy and that 13-year-old girl are taking solace even as we speak that at least they were abused, molested and assaulted by a hot person.”

Hillary Clinton, brownies and Vanity Fair’s cover line.

The aftermath of the royal wedding and the state of Britain’s monarchy for the next 30 years.

Gay/straight chicken: when straight men insult homosexuality and “gay men insult women”.

“Is Kate Hudson Coasting on Cuteness?” My money is on “yes”. When was the last time she starred in a box-office smash, or was nominated for an award other than a Razzie?

Images via Jezebel, Fashion Fame.

On the (Rest of the) Net.

 

These iconic images, taken by photographer Lennart Nilsson for Life magazine in 1965, and later used for pro-life propaganda materials, have actually been taken of aborted embryos, not living fetuses in the womb:

“Although claiming to show the living fetus, Nilsson actually photographed abortus material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under the liberal Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus’ mouth.”

“Does Carrying Condoms Make You Easy?” Will.I.Am seems to think so.

Erica Bartle on maintaining the balance between “frothy and bubbly and frivolous” and her passion for writing about her faith and God on Girl with a Satchel, which she understands can sometimes be “like receiving a knock on the door from a Jehovah’s Witness  (or a pamphlet in the postbox)” for some. (Okay, I’ll admit it: I’m one of them.) Food for “critical thought”.

Should the government be pouring money into funding to fight domestic violence against women and children, when there are also men who are victims of domestic violence out there?

Girl crush porn in Mia Freedman’s new weekly post, “A Week in the Life” on MamaMia.

The importance of “good, old-fashioned” sub-editing.

How to be a Playboy Club Bunny, circa 1968.

Love, domestic violence and Gossip Girl.

On Hillary Clinton being photoshopped out of the situation room photo in Hasidic newspaper Der Tzitung:

“The religious paper never publishes pictures of women, as they could be considered ‘sexually suggestive.’ Apparently the presence of a woman, any woman, being all womanly and sexy all over the United States’ counterterrorism efforts was too much for the editors of Der Tzitung to handle…

Der Tzitung edited Hillary Clinton out of the photo, thereby changing history. To my mind, this act of censorship is actually a violation of the Jewish legal principle of g’neivat da’at (deceit).”

Would you rather be blind or obese? According to an Arizona State University study, 1 in 6 women would choose the former…

Images via The Hairpin, Sociological Images.

Magazines: Paper Dwarves, Digital Giants?

 

A few weeks ago, in response to ABC’s Paper Giants: The Birth of Cleo, Mia Freedman wrote on MamaMia about her thoughts on the state of the (mag) nation and if magazines are still relevant and the amount of influence they wield in 2011:

“… Not that much excitement goes on in magazines anymore… [It’s a struggle to] get them [those who work on a magazine] to try and think about something that hasn’t been done before, something that will start a conversation and boost sales.”

Freedman compares pay TV’s Park Street, a The Devil Wears Prada-esque reality show about ACP’s head offices, featuring the editors of Dolly, Cleo, Cosmo, Madison and Shop Til You Drop, which received dismal ratings and poor audience response, to the critical success and brilliant take on Cleo in her influential heyday of Paper Giants. She says, “Gemma Crisp [editor of Cleo] explained the editorial process that a story undergoes from conception to publication. It takes a minimum of three months… When was the last time you waited three months for something? Life doesn’t happen in increments of months anymore. It happens in moments, in text messages, in Tweets. It’s fast and it’s relentless and if it takes you three months (or even three weeks) to get from thought to print then that’s just too long to retain the attention of your audience.”

When she puts it like that, Freedman makes me long for a simpler time, when I hung on the every word magazines published, as opposed to reading hundreds of articles a week, mostly on blogs, but also in magazines, in an attempt to stay on top of my blogging game.

Erica Bartle, creator of Girl with a Satchel and a former mag girl herself, says Freedman’s “blog-cum-website” “deals in what everyone’s talking about TODAY. It feeds off the 24-hour news cycle. And Mia’s own profile. And her opinion… It’s like a current affairs program for women online.” And now with MamaMia launching on SkyNews, Freedman’s brand is literally a current affairs program.

Not all blogs can operate this way. MamaMia has a team of bloggers, editors and techs who keep the site running smoothly which thus, as Bartle said, allows it to operate on a 24-hour news cycle.

Personally, I have a part-time paid job I go to four times a week, this means I only get to blog two or three days a week, and with so much info to process and a maximum of 15 posts per week to churn out in a small amount of time, this means I can’t always post as early and as often as I’d like.

But even for those who blog fulltime, like Bartle, it’s not always about what’s happening right NOW as it is about maintaining the blog’s integrity.“I personally operate on a different plane, because my beliefs very much inform my work. For that, I’m willing to sacrifice certain economic constraints,” she says.

Still in the blogging world, you have someone like Gala Darling, who is very much a self-made businesswoman as a result of her über-successful blog of the same name. She’s gone from strength to strength over the past few years; something she could never have done had she been a magazine editor (bar the select few, like Anna Wintour, Anna Dello Russo and yes, Freedman).

But, essentially, MamaMia has the advantage of possessing “a figurehead with credibility whose background is in traditional media. She has the gut instinct of an editor. Online you need news nous as well as technological nous and business nous.”

Another editor who has these qualities in spades is former Cleo and Girlfriend editor, Sarah Oakes, whom Bartle worked under at Girlfriend. Bartle says she invoked an atmosphere of ghosts of magazines past, creating “camaraderie, creativity and positivity, which I think she achieved. She gave you more work if she thought you could be stretched; gave you a talking to if you had crossed a line; gave you a pat on the back for a job well done.” Very Ita-like, wouldn’t you say?

Oakes is now editor of The Age & Sydney Morning Herald’s Sunday Life supplement, a title which has improved markedly since she took over. (I have also blogged here about how I think both Girlfriend and Cleo became better titles under her leadership.)

In fact, newspaper inserts are giving the glossies on the newsstand a run for their money, as they “are getting exclusives and have strong writing and design teams, as well as columnists and styling/shoots. These free weekly titles, because of the mastheads they reside within, have enviable readerships and access to celebrities. They are also respectable, well executed and FREE,” Bartle notes.

But at the end of the day, are magazines relevant?

Freedman writes:

“The internet has not only sucked up their readers, it has also gobbled up their purpose: to be a way women form tribes and communicate. Now there’s YouPorn and any other number of sites for titillation, Google for questions about sex, and any number of websites or free newspaper magazines if you’re looking for other types of content or a magazine-style experience. Women don’t want to be spoken TO anymore. They want to be part of the conversation, something which the internet allows, in fact depends on… the internet has taken the sting out of the raunch-factor for mags like Cosmo and Cleo.”

Yes, as Freedman says, there are much raunchier locales to get what would have been included in a sealed section only a few years ago. There’s also Perez Hilton, TMZ and even shows like Entertainment Tonight and E! News that monopolise celebrity content, while the fashion blogs are more of a go-to for what kids are wearing these days.

Sure, Vogue’s always going to be a premiere source for high fashion shoots from photographers the likes of Annie Leibovitz, Patrick Demarchelier and David LaChapelle, but magazines “seem to exist on a strangely distant planet where all the people look like plastic and the sole pursuit is ‘perfection’. Except that perfection doesn’t really exist,” says Freedman.

When sites like Jezebel, Cover Girl Culture and, yes, MamaMia and Girl with a Satchel are debunking photoshop myths and striving for more realistic representations of women in the media, magazines are doing this movement any favours. (Except maybe Brigitte.)

And when you can get most of a magazine’s content online anyway (I passed on a near-$20 copy of US Harper’s Bazaar in favour of accessing interviews with Kim Kardashian and Hillary Clinton on their website), are they really worth it?

Bartle doesn’t think so. “No, but they need to be distinctive from what we can get online or elsewhere if we are going to part with $5-$10 to purchase one. Premium magazines, which I have no qualms spending extra on, include The Gentlewoman and O The Oprah Magazine, because they cater to my tastes, sensibility and need for a good read on a Saturday afternoon with a cup of tea.”

I agree with Bartle’s sentiments.

While online is great for content from individuals not curated and/or watered down by magazines editors to fit the mold of their magazine, holding a truly great glossy in your hands, like the appeal of a physical book, while at the hairdressers, a café or tucked up in bed, means magazines will always hold a place in our hearts.

Right next to the Kindle and Google Reader.

Related: Paper Giants: The Birth of Cleo Review.

Everything They Touch Turns To Gold.

The Evolution of the Bookshop at The Wheeler Centre.

Elsewhere: [MamaMia] Paper Giants VS. Park Street: Why Magazines Are Not What They Used to Be.

[MamaMia] MamaMia Gets a TV Show.

[Girl with a Satchel] Homepage.

[Girl with a Satchel] Mid-Week Media Musings.

[Gala Darling] Homepage.

Images via ABC, MamaMia, Teacup.

UPDATED: Julian Assange—Modern Day Outlaw.

 

From The Curvature via Musings of an Inappropriate Woman:

“I am SO SICK today of people who can’t see that:

1) WikiLeaks is important and does good work;

2) Julian Assange may be a rapist;

and

3) The pursuit by the authorities for the rape charges may be motivated as much by WikiLeaks as by a desire to see justice done are not in any way contradictory positions and could all be simultaneously true.”

Also check out Rachel Hills’ further musings on WikiLeaks and Assange here.

And for some more opinions on WikiLeaks, visit MamaMia for Mia Freedman’s compilation of the most poignant, as well as her own admission of jumping to conclusions and maybe not articulating her views as well as she could have.

And here is my original post, published last week:

The Australian founder of whistleblower website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has handed himself over to police today on “undisclosed sexual assault charges” (allegedly rape, which was then changed to having consensual sex with two women whilst claiming to have worm a condom, but didn’t).

He does have a certain creepy quality to him which makes me think it’s not unlikely he’s committed these crimes, but is that really the issue?

More than likely, these charges have been fabricated to get him behind bars, thus stopping him from publishing more confidential government documents and damaging international relations.

Do we really need to know that the U.S. thinks Kevin Rudd is an “abrasive control freak” or the common perception of world leaders such as Hillary Clinton or French president Nicolas Sarkozy? Most of the stories published in the mainstream media about Wikileaks doesn’t indicate many imperative top secret documents (related to terrorism, nuclear weapons etc.) that the general public arguably has a right to know have been leaked. Obviously there are larger issues at hand: Assange is a threat to global governments.

But here in Australia, Assange’s home country, he is viewed as a hero. Somewhat of a modern day Ned Kelly, if you will. Aussie’s appreciate an underdog sticking it to the man, so despite what his website has published, I think most Australian’s are probably rooting for him.

Elsewhere: [The Curvature] I Am So Sick of People Who Can’t See That…

[Musings of an Inappropriate Woman] I Am So Sick of People Who Can’t See That…

[Musings of an Inappropriate Woman] Quick Thoughts on Julian Assange, WikiLeaks & Those Rape Allegations.

[MamaMia] WikiLeaks: Some Food for Thought.

[MamaMia] Updated: Are WikiLeaks & Julian Assange Forces of Good or a Dangerous Menace?

Julian Assange—Modern Day Outlaw.

 

The Australian founder of whistleblower website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has handed himself over to police today on “undisclosed sexual assault charges” (allegedly rape, which was then changed to having consensual sex with two women whilst claiming to have worm a condom, but didn’t).

He does have a certain creepy quality to him which makes me think it’s not unlikely he’s committed these crimes, but is that really the issue?

More than likely, these charges have been fabricated to get him behind bars, thus stopping him from publishing more confidential government documents and damaging international relations.

Do we really need to know that the U.S. thinks Kevin Rudd is an “abrasive control freak” or the common perception of world leaders such as Hillary Clinton or French president Nicolas Sarkozy? Most of the stories published in the mainstream media about Wikileaks doesn’t indicate many imperative top secret documents (related to terrorism, nuclear weapons etc.) that the general public arguably has a right to know have been leaked. Obviously there are larger issues at hand: Assange is a threat to global governments.

But here in Australia, Assange’s home country, he is viewed as a hero. Somewhat of a modern day Ned Kelly, if you will. Aussie’s appreciate an underdog sticking it to the man, so despite what his website has published, I think most Australian’s are probably rooting for him.

TV: Gossip Girl Proves There’s No Such Thing as Wonder Woman.

 

The crux of third-wave feminism seems to be the “Wonder Woman” effect, which asks the question, “can women really have it all?”

Last week’s Gossip Girl somewhat addressed this issue, with Blair and Chuck finally succumbing to their undeniable love and giving their relationship another shot. Their only reservations are that Chuck’s hotel, The Empire, will suffer if he banishes his bad boy image by getting back together with Blair, while positive opportunities for Blair, like taking over from Nate’s mother, Anne, as the face of the Girls Inc. foundation, will be jeopardised by the negative reputation of her boyfriend.

While this prophecy turns out to be untrue for Chuck, with his business manager telling him his new-found image might work out for The Empire after all if Blair agrees to attend events as “Chuck Bass’s girlfriend”, Blair is told by Anne that the man in her life might not be a reflection of her, but she will always be a reflection of him.

When Chuck says, “We really can have it all”, Blair tells him she wants to be “Secretary of State, except with better hair” not “Hillary Clinton in the White House ”.

Chuck reasons that they can be like “Brad and Angelina” and “take turns on top” (with two strong characters like Blair and Chuck, I’m sure this is a contentious issue in their relationship!), but Blair says she has to be Blair Waldorf and do something with her life, before she can be “Chuck Bass’s girlfriend”.

While I beg to differ (as long as both partners in a relationship are supportive of one another, they can be successful in their own rights), this dilemma does echo those of powerful women today. As Blair says to Anne, “Should empowered women get to have relationships, too?” A common argument, though, seems to be that powerful women were too busy with their careers that they “forgot” to get married and have a baby.

I’m sure marriage and a baby is the furthest thing from Blair’s mind right now (however, Chuck was set to propose to her last season), but I hope the writers use this development as the catalyst to set Blair on her merry way into the land of success, and potentially reunite her and Chuck at the end of the season. Until then, XOXO.

Related: Has Feminism Failed?

Surfing the Third Wave: Second Wave VS. Third Wave Feminism on Gossip Girl.

Pretty But Dumb: Serena’s Tertiary Education Predicament.

Women in Fiction: Are Our Favourite Fictional Females Actually Strong, or Stereotypes?

Sexual Healing: Gossip Girl Takes a Page Out of John Irving’s Book.

The Last Tango… For The Season. Gossip Girl Season Three Finale.