Is this a belated April Fools' joke?
Hey, women! What do you want from your airline?
According to this new American Airlines site, the answer certainly isn’t “Convenient flights at reasonable prices.” No according to their new webpage just for women, we broads need Stepford-esque advice on “girlfriend getaways”, straight-out-of-Oprah reading lists, an all pink layout, and a dumbed down search bar (shown above!) Of course, when designing a site for women, one just cannot complicate the flight booking widget with silly details like, oh, I dunno, price comparisons, awards points, or flexible dates. You know, actually relevant features. That would be too much for our pea brains! Lyke, this website has discounts on spas, y’all!!!
Righteously indignant? You should be. Who’d think that a 2007 company would cater to 1957 ideas of what women want? Targeted marketing is one thing, but pandering in stereotypes? I’m surprised the AA execs think women are getting to a computer at all!
If you’re a frequent flier and embarrassed by American Airlines’ pandering, here’s how you can say something about it (‘cuz picking up the phone is probably more effective than e-mail:
US or Canada
1-800-222-2377
6:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m. CT daily
United Kingdom
08-45-601-0619
8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. GMT
Mon. – Fri.
Closed Sat. – Sun.
All Other Locations:
1-918-832-1384
6:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m. CT daily
As a former AA customer, I’m letting them know tomorrow that this chick won’t be giving them a dime.
(Via Consumerist)
DePauw to DZT: No, It's You Who Ain't Good Enough
Closure has arrived to the DePauw/Delta Zeta sorority scandal as the president of DePauw released a statement evicting DZ from campus:
“We at DePauw do not like the way our students were treated,” DePauw’s president, Robert G. Bottoms, said in a letter to the Delta Zeta sorority. “We at DePauw believe that the values of our university and those of the national Delta Zeta sorority are incompatible.”
I’m glad to see academia standing up to the institutionalized sexism and lookism that Delta Zeta’s practices represented. Let’s hope that the future of American sororities is a little more rosy—and a little less peroxide-d.
Dear NOW: censorship ain't haute!
So Dolce and Gabbana is pulling this ad due to reactions from women’s rights groups. For instance, Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organization for Women, claims that this advertisement “promotes violence against women”.
First off: let it be known that I understand and appreciate that some women may be offended by this image. The reality of sexual assault, rape, and violence against women is no laughing matter, and I would never presume to take such an awful crime against women lightly.
However, to me, the fact that the Pres of the National Organization for Women is saying that this ad indisputably “promotes violence against women” is offensive and condescending to me, as a woman.
Has Ms. Gandy considered that there is a DIFFERENCE between imagery (fantasy) and the reality of sexual assault and violence against women? That some of her constituents may find this image arousing and want to construct a similar scenario in a safe, sane, and consensual manner? That many men are going to realize that this is a “fantasy” image, and that no one ever committed sexual assault with a fashion advertisement as their pretense?
Honestly, even if this does offend some women, why is NOW spending a second of time worrying about this? I do not care about Dolce and Gabbana’s ad campaign (well, I do, but not in the sense of a political action group designed to protect my rights as a woman). The money I pay to be a member of NOW should be going to protect my abortion rights, contraceptive rights, my equal opportunity in the work force, my rights in the public sphere.
NOW, with feminism as a movement on such thin ice with sisters of my generation… I do not care about a glossy,stylized Dolce and Gabbana advert.
I care about my local pharmacist denying me Ortho-Tri Cyclen Lo, and the inability of some of my feminist sisters in rural areas to find quality reproductive health care, contraception, or a safe abortion.
I care about my future employer denying me maternity leave and society denying competent working women comprehensive, affordable child care.
I care about the continued disenfranchisement of minority women.
I care about the REAL violence and sexual assault against my sisters that happens every day.
I’m not sure how policing an advertisement is at all constructive or deserving of NOW’s attention, and I find her commentary about the ad to be disturbingly sex negative (women aren’t allowed to have politically incorrect fantasies!) In the interview, she makes a statement insinuating that women shouldn’t have rape fantasies. Say what? Some women do, some women don’t. It doesn’t make you a bad feminist regardless!
NOW has on their party line an “anti-sadomasochism” statement, saying that BDSM “promotes violence against women”. Combine that with this and I’m questioning whether or not NOW is a group which is truly in touch with the sex-positive views of its constituents.
But sitting on our duffs and complaining about NOW’s well-intentioned but misguided priorities won’t do us good. Instead, we can let NOW know that there are better uses for our time than critiquing silly fashion ads.
Write to NOW and let them know how you feel:
Address:
National Organization for Women
1100 H Street NW, 3rd floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 628-8669 (628-8NOW)
Fax: (202) 785-8576
WTF?
OK, so I already wrote about this over at Viv’s , but I had to just express some quick WTF-ery about this recent attempt by a Canadian strip joint to get dames to compete for tuition dollars . The premise is, the well-endowed yet cash-strapped ladies of University of Guelph shake their endowments at a weekly wet t-shirt contest, in anticipation for a $5000 cash prize to go towards tuition expenses.
Now, as a college chica entirely dependent on financial aid (thank you Uncle Sam!) I can totally understand why you’d need to pay for your education via the stripper pole. Most of us aren’t lucky enough to have parents ready and willing to put us through uni, and sometimes a girl’s gotta do what she’s gotta do to get that nice piece of paper for her career. Some ladies even (gasp!) enjoy their tenure at the titty bar. Who knew?
Yet I can’t help but get all Catherine Mackinnon (and Lord, I hate to invoke this brand of feminism) at the fact that this is basically yet another way in which women are pressured to get objectified in exchange for something which, IMHO, should be basic and accessible (tuition money). In the interest of egalitarianism (and my own libido), why isn’t there an opportunity for guys to show us the Full Monty in exchange for greenbacks?
Have we reached such a low that it’s considered OK for stripping to be an accepted form of pandering for tuition money?
I don’t know. Maybe I’m being a prude about this—but hey, I guess there’s a first time for everything.
What do we think, readers? Objectifying and oppressive, or just some good ol’ educational fun?
make you feel unpretty too
Product revew site The Consumerist is running the latest advert from Dove's Campaign for Real Beauty. The short clip features a young, pretty model transmogrified into surreal and beautiful creature through the modern "miracles" of makeup and airbrushing. Check it out:
On the whole, I think Dove's campaign is doing a great thing for girls. We do live in a society which pushes normative standards of "tall, blonde, thin, and pretty" on girls; a society where 13 marks the transformation from young, capable preteen to hormonal, insecure, self-conscious adolescent. Our society has royally fucked up female (and male) perceptions of self -- that's a given, and it's good that a private company is playing whistleblower here.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I "get" what Dove's ultimate message is. Pointing out the ubiquitous culture of airbrushing is one thing, but is it so wrong to enjoy (within reason) makeup and hair-coloring and even (gasp!) plastic surgery? I cringe whenever someone lectures me about how I would look "better" without blonde highlights. Feminism should mean taking control of your appearance; if you're happy with the way you look, I don't care if it means getting your boobs "fixed" or your eyebrows plucked or your armpit hair braided. Whatever floats your boat, as they say.
I don't mean to downplay how necessary these ads are. As a teenaged babysitter, I can't tell you how many times I would take a gaggle of 8 year olds to the local swimming pool, only to gasp at how they would pinch their "belly fat" and natter on like runway models about Atkins, cardio, fasting. I remember girls in my classes at high school encouraging each other to throw up during lunch period, and I remember binging on Reeses' Pieces with girlfriends later, sharing in some sort of secret shame. Whomever says that junior high and high school are the "best days of your life" is a fucking moron. In my mind, were Dante alive today, he'd make junior high the 7th circle of his Inferno.
Boo, now I sound all depressing. To perk ya up, I'll leave you with this rather hilarious music video from Cinekink band The Wet Spots, titled, "Do You Take It In The ...." I probably won't be able to make it, but Cinekink's line-up this year looks pretty fan-freakin'-tastic:
this is not chick lit
I'm thinking about chick lit today, because Jennifer Weiner, a true daughter of Philadelphia and best-selling author of In Her Shoes, Goodnight Nobody, and Good in Bed, is slated to attend a lunch held at my workplace, the Kelly Writers House. My former journalism teach, Dick Polman, will be there with bells on, hosting the event (which you should totally RSVP for, by the way.)One of the perks of my job at the House is the name-dropping I can commence with after my commencement. I've dined with Margaret Atwood, played hostess to Adrienne Rich, and as you read before, met MoPo and his wife, the Divine Miss Connie Chung. There's more, but I don't want to sound like a big brag; basically, the House is a modern salon for philosophes, and you are going to meet some Really Cool People there no matter what.
Whenever I shamelessly name-drop among the literary minded, the reactions I get involve widened eyes, a "That's so cool!" and "What are they really like in real life?" I thought it would be the same with Ms. Weiner.
I was wrong.
You see, Ms. Weiner has made a grave mistake in her literary career. Unlike her Iowa MFA degree-d contemporaries, whom write Great American Novels with Grand Historical Themes and Intriguing Post-Modern Characters Whom Have Profound Revelations About the Meaning of Life (tm), Weiner has chosen to write about... Domesticity. Motherhood. Men. Quelle horror!
I can't throw a stone off of Huntsman Hall without hitting a feminist who will gladly tell me how Weiner and her contemporaries (Helen Fielding, of Bridget Jones fame, Plum Sykes, Sophia Kinsella, etc) are ruining us all by publishing "chick lit", or, in layman's terms, "books about plucky yet self-deprecating heroines who find fulfillment in snagging the right man, career, and pair of Manolo Blahniks." Instead of the raised eyebrows and "That's so cool!" I've been getting a lot of "Oh, her" and "Are you kidding?" When I say, "But I think she's great!" I am informed that my IQ had dropped about twenty points.
Seriously, fuck that shit.
I'll say it loud and I'll say it proud: I'm a Jennifer Weiner fan.
This is not to say that I worship at the shrine of all things Weiner (or all things "chick lit", for that matter.) For instance, I found Good in Bed more than a little hackneyed, and there are parts of In Her Shoes that sorely needed an editor's critical pen. I would rather drink bleach than read anything by Sophia Kinsella -- not because it's "chick lit", but because her Shopaholic books "suck ass". I do not mean to decry or downplay real criticism of women's fiction; however, it is the criticism of authors like Weiner merely because they are tackling women's topics" that I find disturbing, to say nothing of the misogynistic tinge of hurling the word "chick lit" as if it were a Devil Wears Prada-scented grenade.
Check out this editorial by a former maven in the publishing industry. While she raises some good points (see: my rant about Kinsella above), she also reveals some striking internalized paradigms of misogyny:
"The genre succeeded exactly because it looked more literary than its embarrassing romance counterpart. You could take Bridget Jones’s Diary on the T and not look like a dateless loser. And while this meant huge sales, it also meant that forever after, serious women’s literature (emphasis, mine) was either overlooked for chick lit, or worse, made to look like chick lit."
HOLD UP. The author cites Weiner as one of the biggest offenders for the federal offense of not writing "serious" women's literature. Last time I checked, Weiner tackles the issues of women's body image, abusive parents, America's prejudice against heavy people, family estrangement, and anxieties about career, motherhood, and modern marriage. I didn't realize these weren't "serious" issues, Ms. Famous Book Publishing Lady. (Interestingly enough, the same feminists who "hate" authors like Weiner are the same ones who will wax endlessly about Our Bodies, Ourselves and sport "Big is Beautiful" bumper stickers on the back of their Honda hybrids). Or could it be that our generation is unconsciously perpetuating the notion that anything having to do with women, the home, body image, and family must not be deemed "serious" enough for advanced literary consumption?
As a student of English literature, it shocks me that works by authors on the stereotypically "male" topics (you know, all that important stuff -- religion and politics and war and The Human Condition) get immediately placed into the canon, with books tackling motherhood and domesticity getting dismissed with the "chick lit" label. This does not mean I think Weiner's writing is Nobel worthy (it isn't), but it is indicative of a greater trend in putting down anything literary that has, pardon my French, a vagina associated with it. Writing about stereotypically "masculine" topics deserves its place in the canon. But so does work about stereotypically "feminine" topics as well.
It's even more troubling to realize that this is nothing new. One of the only female authors I can think of who is a universally required reading staple is Jane Austen. And rightfully so! Yet if you ignore the first novel as we know it (that would be Robinson Crusoe, written by Daniel Defoe around 1719) the other first novels were about... women. Women's issues. Marriage, courtship, chastity, maternity, propriety. Sound familiar? Samuel Richardson's Pamela and Fanny Burney's Evelina are both funny, sharp novels about women's issues, but you'll rarely see them outside of the college classroom (much less considered serious contenders in the literary canon). Ditto for the Bluestocking authors Anna Seward, Sarah Scott, Elizabeth Carter, and Hannah More. "Hannah who?" you're probably asking. Exactly.
As scholar Nancy Armstrong articulates far more clearly than I can, the rise of the novel, in fact, centers on the rise of female domesticity and a female "separate sphere". The first novels-as-we-know-them were so extensively female-centered, in fact, that novels were seen as something that men shouldn't read, as "lesser". How strange! Could it be that we now feel the need to classify the Big Important Male Topics as literary canon and the Lesser Female Topics "chick lit" because we want to deny the novel's uniquely female roots? It's probably not the whole story, but there's definitely a grain of truth there.
I suppose my point is this: dislike Weiner and her ilk all you want, but don't dislike them because you want to make some big statement about how "cultured" you are for eschewing books about matrimony and mommyhood. All authors, "chick lit" and otherwise, deserve better than that.
