4 Credits: Subculture and Feminism in the Media

Gap Attempts to Capitalize on Subculture

2008-04-24T09:52:00.001-07:00

Despite the fact that Gap is monopolizing on the recent popularization of Andy Warhol factory subculture (seriously, have you SEEN the ridiculous posters hanging in the windows of the store on Broadway and Astor?), its sales remain disappointing. I, personally, haven't shopped at Gap since 2004, the whole dark wash bootcut jean and tailored oxford look having been thrown out with my stained North Face jacket.

The Gap is having an identity crisis. Despite continuing to present traditionally clean cut Americana clothing in predictable patterns and fabrics, they're also making an attempt to attract the funkier of us through Warhol advertising. Note: Edie Sedgwick would not have been caught dead in a hideous floral halter dress with dart seams.

The stores that go full throttle one direction or another are the ones that achieve the most success. It's the in-between that's dangerous. Urban Outfitters put a monopoly on expensive thrift store clothes; American Apparel has built an empire on comfy basics in classic colors like heather grey. Gap may have been popular a few years back, but its attempt to try to compete with edgier stores who imitate haute couture like H&M or cheap-but-incredible Forever 21 means they're essentially burying themselves alive.

My advice for Gap: take a page out of the book of Ann Taylor and stick to what you know. If you do this, and I ever need a cardigan, I promise to come to you, as long as you don't continue to piss me off with your wannabe advertising.

-Jessica

This week on The Hills: Audrina continues to ruin everything for girls

2008-04-24T09:43:00.000-07:00

Audrina continued to commit crimes against womanity with her reacceptance of archetypal assholes everywhere, Justin-Bobby. Clearly a cokehead and a disheveled, motorcycle riding wunderkind, Justin-Bobby swooped Audrina back off her feet with a few flashes of his oddly white smile. Audrina, of course, fell right back into his arms, signaling that self respect and restraint mean nothing to the Hills girls. Lauren had Jason (and, arguably, Steven Coletti, who makes an appearance on the show next week), Heidi has Spencer and Audrina has Justin-Bobby: each male character is a protypical asshole who the girls KEEP GOING BACK TO. So now the teen girls in the midwest dreaming of living in LA will know that true love is an emotionless grunge king with a drug problem who preys on women with insecurities.

I myself am guilty of this sometimes, but I've recently been trying to curb my desire to return to asshole after asshole becase I know that they are no good for me. I wish "The Hills" girls would take a page out of the book of feminism and do the same.

-Jessica

Philadelphia: Behind the mainstream news

2008-04-24T09:36:00.001-07:00

Being from Pennsylvania has never been something I’m particularly proud of. I always saw it as a waste land of sorts: two cities with filthy streets and filthier politics bridged by corn fields and hunting rifle racism. But recently I’ve become the opposite of a fair weather fan; my city is in trouble, and I kind of feel obligated to say something about it.

My friend Samantha sent me an article a few days ago chronicling the various issues Philly is currently grappling with, and how they affect blue collar neighborhoods, particularly situated in pockets of North Philly.The realities are stark, shocking, pained: gun deaths have sky rocketed, drugs continue to serve as a lucrative market, and murder rates are higher than they’ve been in years. And as Democratic contenders Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton attempt to court Pennsylvania’s voting block, they seem to be ignoring the cries from citizens concerned about the declining quality of life in Philadelphia.

Obama and Clinton spent so much time attempting to galvanize central Pennsylvania that Philadelphia’s problems fell on deaf ears; it is a glaring example of the amount of effort candidates will put in when they understand that they will reap the benefits. Addressing Philadelphia’s issues wouldn’t help them score the harder to reach central PA vote. They assumed they had Philly, a notoriously democratic city, in their back pocket, and so any issues the city may have had went ignored.

My father lives in the suburbs in a community sheltered from the aggressive violence that has recently pervaded Philadelphia. Since the age of 12 I grew up there, unaware of the rage that was bubbling beneath the surface of the city I lived so close to.

When my parents divorced when I was 14, my mother moved to Germantown, a relatively nice part of Philadelphia; but it was still Philadelphia, and on the way between houses I’d still spy hunched over African American women in head-wraps pushing carts full of recycling cans, and gaunt men leering suspiciously at children in the park.

This primary has really put in context for me what it means to be from Pennsylvania. It is a state that is so frequently ignored in the national debate, and considering I live in New York now, that reality has become desperately obvious. I’m annoyed at my fellow Pennsylvanians that they chose Hillz over Obamz, but I do hope that whoever ends up winning the nomination will focus at least some of their concerted efforts on the growing Philadelphia Problem.

-Jessica

The Paper: Finally a good role model for girls!

2008-04-24T09:32:00.000-07:00

MTV’s new reality show “The Paper” chronicles the lives of school newspaper editors at a high school in Florida. Truth be told, I wasn’t going to watch it, but it follows “The Hills” at 10:30pm on Monday nights, and I was too lazy to change the channel. But I’m glad I didn’t.

The best and worst thing about “The Paper” is that it is rife with the harrowing anxieties of life in high school: the bitch fights, the beer pong, and the social climbing. Two years out of high school, it’s entertaining to relive the horror, but it also allows an unwelcome nostalgia to creep up the back of your neck.

“The Paper” perfectly captures the stereotypical kids you went to high school with and thanked god you never saw thereafter: the annoying popular couple obsessed with PDA, the ex-dork who had a crush on you before he got cool and now that he’s cool doesn’t like you anymore, and the gay guy who shouts everything.

Then there is the star of the show and Editor-in-Chief of The Circuit, Amanda. In the second episode she turns up fresh from summer vacation with a nose job and tons of team building activities that result in an awkward ice cream social where people talk mercilessly about her behind her back. But she is strong, an independent woman, and intent on making the paper “the best it can be.” It’s inspiring for young girls to see someone who is so driven, ambitious and (despite the nose job) comfortable with herself, especially after having watched 30 minutes of fake tans on “The Hills.”

“The Paper” manages to capitalize on those awkward high school years in a way “Laguna Beach” chose to gloss over; we are right there observing the triumphs, the disappointments, the shame and the insecurities. These kids are articulate and talented, and it’s nice to see a group of teenagers on TV not afraid to be portrayed as smart and successful. They do not dumb themselves down for the camera. Sure, there is an inherent self-consciousness that rears its ugly head when it comes to social interaction, but overall “The Paper” accomplishes what “Laguna Beach” refused to: portraying a group of high school students who are simultaneously smart, relatable and entertaining.

-Jessica

Offensively sexist one-liners from Men’s lifestyle magazine Best Life

2008-04-18T13:47:00.000-07:00

Lady mags aren’t the only ones setting gender relations back with every issue.

All quotes from the May 2008 issue.

Women don’t seem to recognize the transcendent significance of a .367 lifetime batting average (42).

“Is your marriage suffering from a personality disorder? Try speaking to her in a tongue she understands… speak slowly and give her all the facts” (38).

Oh look! An article on page 68 entitled “Can I Buy My Wife a New Va-jay-jay?” It goes on… “When your wife gave birth to your children, she martyred her vagina… [now] neither your wife nor you can get much pleasure when you have sexual intercourse. What if we could fix that in a simple outpatient procedure and give your wife the va-jay-jay of an 18-year-old? Wouldn’t that be the greatest Mother’s Day gift ever?” (69).

-Jess

New York's Finest?

2008-04-18T11:51:00.001-07:00

I get hit on a lot. I'm not saying this from a place of arrogance; in fact, I'd prefer it didn't happen. Because it's not cute boys with glasses that are hitting on me, it's the delivery men, the truck drivers and the vagabonds of this world who find me attractive. My friends call me a creep magnet. It's flattering, I know. But today this reached a new level.
I'm used to the hoots and hollers from cabbies and movers and construction workers; they don't faze me anymore. But today while walking down Mercer on my way to work, I spotted a cop car parked outside of the Marc Jacobs store. Inside there was a policeman smoking a cigarette and eyeing the people walking up and down the street. I was immediately gripped with anxiety: even when I'm not doing anything illegal, the police manage to scare the shit out of me. I'm always terrified they can sense that I had smoked a J the night before, or that I'm a champion underage drinker.

But this policeman did not question me or give me an evil glance; in fact, he used his eyes to fuck me.

I got eyefucked by a member of New York's finest, and he wasn't even subtle about it. He even said, "Hey honey!" to me as I walked by.

Aren't police officers supposed to be protecting me from sexual harassment, as opposed to, you know, sexually harassing me? What would have happened if my dress had been a little bit shorter, my hair a little bit straighter, my heels a little bit higher? Would that have made me the subject of even more ridicule? And is there somewhere you can report sexual harassment by police officers?

I mean, it's not that big of a deal in context. He eye fucked me, he tried to flirt with me, I moved on, he kept smoking his cigarette and daydreaming about donuts. But I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what would have happened if I had been doing something illegal and they had reason to handcuff me? Part of me totally wants to play out that fantasy, and part of me is thankful I was an upright citizen at that moment in time, especially after last week's Law and Order: SVU episode.

-Jessica

Feminists and their egotistical boyfriends

2008-04-16T13:54:00.001-07:00

Jezebel posted an article today comparing Carrie Bradshaw with noted feminists Sylvia Plath and Simone De Beauvoir. If you're a fan of SATC at all, you remember Carrie's egotistical, power hungry and emotionally unavailable (yet completely perfect in my eyes) boyfriend Mr. Big. He was rich and selfish and even cheated on his wife with Carrie at one point. Jezebel argues that there are cases of many feminist type characters falling for the anti-feminist. (I would definitely disagree, though, that Bradshaw is a feminist)

I'm going to use myself as an example.

I posted this a few months ago about the kind of guy I like. To sum it up for you, they're usually selfish, arrogant, angry egomaniacs who call themselves writers but rarely write anything. I like them because they don't get jealous and they let me flirt with other people in front of them and they really enjoy that I'm down to have sex whenever(/wherever). Perhaps that's the kind of feminist I am: all sex and power. And maybe that's the reason I'm attracted to guys who are so into themselves. Egomaniacs are too wrapped up in their own self interest to even notice that I'm macking on another guy right before their eyes.

Emotional unavailability is probably the most attractive quality to me. I am so in touch with my emotions that it's sometimes scary. I can tell what you are feeling before you even blink at me. Maybe I need someone who is stoic to balance that out. I also enjoy fishing for emotions beneath a hard facade. If you're open and outright about how you feel, I'll probably lose interest rather quickly.

Then there are the cheaters. Plath allegedly killed herself because Ted Hughes started dating another woman. I've luckily never been with a man who cheated on me, but I can only imagine how easily it looms in my future.

So why am I, and tons of other girls, always attracted to those who treat us as lesser individuals? Who laugh when we express our feminist ideals or think it's "cute" when we get angry? Who can't take us seriously, and then when we demand they do, they get angry that we're always so serious all the time?

The men who are cold, hard, minimal with their affections: these are the ones that reel me in the quickest. And unfortunately, as Plath's oven showed us, those are also the ones that drive us to emotionally violent extremes. I mean, I would never hurt/kill myself over a guy (talk about the anti-feminist), but it's not like I derive happiness out of being treated like shit. Or perhaps like many feminists before me... I do.

-Jessica

Britney, Christina, and How Honest Sexuality Can Make You

2008-04-10T12:01:00.000-07:00

Their lives began as parallels: blonde nymphs in the Disney cult hit The Mickey Mouse Club, a kind of kid's musical variety show aimed at preteens with little interest in Mickey himself, and a whole lot of interest in Justin Timberlake's dreamy eyes.

They both scored recording contracts in the name of Bubble Gum Pop; they were the new front girls for a genre of music that was to possess the nation and its youth with raunch masked as sweetness.But that's where their paths diverged.

There's no doubt that Britney is the more famous of the two; she's had more hit records, and is way more of a paparazzi and tabloid target than Christina. But she's also the craziest, the most loved-but-hated: the one who gets in trouble with the law and feeds her kids Cheeto's and shaves her head and goes to gas stations barefoot. Britney's reputation has been forever tarnished by a slew of unnecessary events that signal some kind of mental collapse. Was she always prone to this kind of behavior, or was it the pressure of constantly being in the spotlight that caused her to deteriorate? And why hasn't Christina been crippled in the same way?

I'll tell you why. Because Christina always embraced the fact that she was dirty, while Britney was cast as a stunted little girl, a virgin, a madonna. Sure, the "Baby One More Time" video was a little sex-kittenesque, and she always did have an affection for belly shirts and body glitter. But we have to remember how she was marketed. She was the Hannah Montana of 1998. The good girl, the southerner, the Christian, the virgin: she was supposed to be all of these things, as symbolized by the shy, reluctant sexuality in songs like "Sometimes."

Christina was always upfront about her sexuality. She was the whore to Britney's madonna. Everyone knew Christina was raunchy, even before she released "Dirrty." The truth is, it didn't even matter that Britney frequently and chronically lip-synched, while Christina had the pipes of a goddess. Christina was the poor man's Britney, but at least she had no delusions about it.

So what happened when Britney grew up, threw off the shackles of her branding and decided to show the world that she wasn't a little girl anymore? That she had previously been "Overprotected," and was now ready to break free?

Well, she went a little crazy. Hello identity crisis. While Christina married and had a baby and continued to release hit records and grew into a classier version of herself, Britney spiraled downhill, feeding off the paparazzi, marrying and divorcing, then losing custody of her children. She could not reconcile between what the industry had branded her as and what she really was. She had lied to us all, and now, like karmic clockwork, it was coming back to haunt her.

Because it was Christina who had an oiled-up girlfight in a wrestling ring, and as hard as Britney tried, she couldn't top that. We still saw her as America's Sweetheart, even when she was flashing her vag all over Hollywood. The public's refusal to see her as the new Britney, coupled with her inability to understand why we couldn't just accept that she was grown up and sexual now, eroded at her image until she became this thing: this paparazzi hungry, mildly overweight, umbrella-wielding, non-singing/non-dancing thing.

And Christina, while still raunchy, cleaned up her act with a baby and a little red lipstick. But Britney was too far gone; if she had made a "comeback" at the VMA's, as slotted to, we would have accepted her back into our hearts. But still as the Old Britney. The one we remembered fondly, with whimsy, and sometimes perhaps, in the dark of night while driving along those back roads listening to her Greatest Hits Album, we shed a single, lovely tear for.

-Jessica

The New Iran

2008-04-10T12:00:00.000-07:00

The Iranian parliament recently put forth legislature that would make working in what it deems to be "pornography" illegal - and not just illegal, but punishable by death.

Iran is seen as a country shrouded in mystery; women cover their hair and faces lest the morals police harass them. They can barely leave their homes without a male escort. Religion and law are perilously intertwined into Shari'a, an Islamic based legal philosophy. The nation has a popularly elected president, but everything is controlled by the Supreme Leader - a religious figure, a power-hungry titan, and yes - a fascist.The sad thing about Iran is that it wasn't always this way. It is a land rich in cultural and political history. Spanning back to the Persian Empire, Iran has always churned out immensely well-educated people, and has its own set of cultural values that Americans, with such a young nation, could only dream of having. It was only within the past 50 years, after the Iranian Revolution, that things in the nation started to change.

Things weren't always this strict. They weren't always this difficult. The segmentation between public and private spheres of life was not always this rigid, obvious, painful.

And it is painful for those who remember the old Iran to see what the country has come to. Ana's mom, Fereshteh, frequently goes back to visit family. I was there when she returned from such a trip and the anguish on her face was palpable; she remembers the Old Iran, and shudders when confronted with the New Iran - the one that makes it illegal for women like Zahra Amir Ebrahimi to make a sex tape with her boyfriend, and, citing Islam, denies the human body. In a country that had previously celebrated sex and the body through artwork and public dialog, this is a damn shame.

It is important to remember that this is not the peoples' decision; it is a handful of ideologues and zealots who control the government; frequently in richer parts of northern Tehran girls can be seen wearing their head scarves pulled back, and in tighter clothing. The youth of Iran, which comprises a large chunk of its population (in the 80's, Khomeini encouraged people to breed, and thus the youth population is astounding now), has no allegiance to this Islamic government. All they see is a loss of freedoms; the right to express yourself sexually, graphically, in both an intimate and public setting harshly revoked.The other irony is that, under Shari'a, temporary marriage is legal. Temporary marriage allows a married man to take on another wife through a verbal contract. No one needs to officiate this marriage, and in this way, both men and women can skirt anti-prostitution laws. If a man is caught fucking someone who is not his wife, all he needs to say is that they entered into a verbal temporary marriage agreement, and they are both free to do as they please. How is this not sexual promiscuity? How is this not worse than pornography?

But the Iranian government does not see it that way. And for women like Ebrahimi, unfortunately, sexual expression could now lead to death.

-Jessica

April Fool's

2008-04-04T18:20:00.000-07:00

The ladies over at Jezebel were certainly in a jovial mood this week.

I admit, when I read the very first post about Gawker Media tycoon Nick Denton turning over my favorite site to the claws of the evil Conde Nast(y), I totally bought it. This text exchange even occurred:

JESS: OMG! nick denton sold jezebel to conde nasty! my world is crumbling
DAVID: ahh are you serious? why??
JESS: i don't know but i'm so upset. the amount of snark is about to drop tremendously. denton is so greedy!

But then came the myriad of posts, introducing people like Steeny Taylor-Wood, and quotes like this:

We hope that by taking the more veteran Jezebels out of their sweatpants and small studio apartments, they will be able to express their creativity and femininity in ways we haven't seen before. (I've always felt that sloppy dressing equals sloppy thinking.)

A quick read through comments on posts about the move both on Gawker and Jezebel revealed that I'm a gullible loserpants. But it really was an elaborate April Fool's joke. They even changed the masthead to read Conde Nast's Jezebel and all the links at the bottom to gross CN publications like allure.com.

Let's just say this has made me realize how thankful I am for women like Moe and Tracie, who aren't afraid to bitch and get stoned and say what real women think, not just talk about the most chic spring accessories every societal mouth breather should own.

It's definitely a comment on the status of ladymags, and the role Jezebel-brand feminism can play to combat them.

-Jess

The NYTimes won't be getting me a blind date anytime soon

2008-04-04T18:16:00.000-07:00

The NYTimes Books section is maybe one of the most self-referential (read: obnoxious) pieces of pretentious garbage to ever make its way into a newspaper. Think I'm exaggerating? Read this article.

Or, if the headline causes vomit to form in the back of your throat, just skim this clip:

Pity the would-be Romeo who earnestly confesses middlebrow tastes: sometimes, it’s the Howard Roark problem as much as the Pushkin one. “I did have to break up with one guy because he was very keen on Ayn Rand,” said Laura Miller, a book critic for Salon.

While similar tastes are important to a relationship, including literary tastes, you're way too picky if you refuse to date a guy because he likes Atlas Shrugged. Have you SEEN the New York dating pool recently? Because I have, and as long as a guy can read ANYTHING, as in, he's not illiterate and speaks some form of English, he's okay in my book. Besides, there are more important things to male-female relations than the books one keeps on their shelf.

As Jezebel points out, the greatest part about this article is that it's on the list for Top Most Emailed Articles. What kind of pretentious people are e-mailing this article, nodding their heads in unison and going, "I'm so glad I dumped that Jonathan Safran Foer enthusiast?" Oh, right: the kind of people who read The New York Times Books section.

-Jess

If this were the POPLINE database, you couldn't type in "Abortion"

2008-04-04T18:07:00.000-07:00

A government-funded reproductive health database in place at hundreds of libraries across the nation has now blocked users from obtaining any information about abortions.

This is an extreme version of the abstinence-only rhetoric mandated by the Bush Family Doctrine. There is no way to justify this: it is our right as Americans to be able to research legal (and even illegal) medical procedures whether we are interested in obtaining them or not.

This is such a blatant blow to reproductive health information that I can't even fathom it. I hope, for the sake of women searching for answers about abortions, that other sources are made available to assuage the ignorance this database is furthering.

-Jess

Ashley Dupre: Not quite a feminist

2008-04-02T13:08:00.001-07:00

Elizabeth Wurtzel, heroine, fellow depressive, writer of my life story, penned an article last week for the L.A. Times lamenting the fact that even though a woman is running for president and magical vaginas abound, women today are still left to reconcile between the Madonna and the Whore.

Because it's true; even the brand of neo-feminism I champion has little to do with taking off your top for horny men sweating tequila. Where is the power in that? You're playing into exactly what they want from you, and depending on how many shots you chugged prior, you're probably not even making your own decisions.

If women truly do need to toe this imaginary line between the Madonna and the Whore, how is letting Girls Gone Wild film you making out with your sluttiest friend not just plain whorish?

We're squandering away what little power our breasts and our blowjobs bestow upon us. A neo-feminist wouldn't flash the camera and claim that's empowerment; she would, instead, flirt fearlessly with Joe Francis himself into getting her a PR or media contract. No breasts splayed across camera, no drunken make out sessions; just the knowledge that, like the Madonna, our body is our temple, and like the Whore, that body totally turns guys on.

Because there's a difference between empowerment and being a drunken slut. Using your body as a tool to gain power requires that you're conscious of it; it doesn't mean flashing someone and then claiming afterwards that it was oh so feminist of you.There's a kind of self-awareness that comes with female empowerment, a self-awareness that so many girls today lack. And whether that stems from the media or the deeply engraved inferiority complexes most women seem to possess is something not even my girl Wurtzel can figure out.

-Jessica

The Carrie Bradshaw Paradigm

2008-04-02T13:07:00.001-07:00

This is the dumbest article I've ever read in my life (that's not in WSN).I know that the Sex and the City Movie is coming out this summer, and everyone from young, chic New Yorkers to frumpy middle-aged midwesterners are biting their lips with excitement.But can we please stop comparing every successful, beautiful woman to Carrie Bradshaw?

It's frightening, really, that the paradigm of success for a woman is based off of an HBO romantic comedy.Don't get me wrong, SATC is one of my favorite shows. I just don't follow it like the Bible. I aspire to have Carrie's job and wealth and okay yeah Mr. Big. But I don't aspire to be Carrie.

And frankly, I think it's sad that Julia Allison does. She should aspire to be so much more than her Carrie counterpart, who stands as a vague, 2D shadow of a real person.

It should be said that a lot of media outlets have a problem with Allison. I don't hate her, but there is something remarkably unlikeable about her, though she does have that breed of self-confidence most girls would kill for. What happened to her with Jakob Lodwick was kind of unfortunate, but she did bring it on herself.That said, I don't think it's fair to compare her success to a fictional character. That's sweeping it under the rug and attributing all her hard work to a series of circumstances akin to what befell Carrie herself (running into that Vogue editor, having her book optioned, etc). And I don't really get why she would do it to herself, either. Get with it, girl! We are so much better than vagina monsters and frizzy hair.

-Jess

Just because I touch your arm doesn't mean I want to sleep with you

2008-03-28T12:50:00.000-07:00

My co-worker Elizabeth e-mailed this to me a few days ago and I feel like it explains so much about my life that it's terrifying. It's scary to me how at the base of it, we really are just this bunch of atoms, buzzing around, bumping into each other, and that all of our behavior has a scientific explanation (which usually somehow relates back to basic human instincts, like the desire to mate in this case).

It is no secret that I am a little bit coquettish. I "flirt" with the men who bag my groceries at the supermarket, with taxi drivers and men in subway cars and people at my work. People are constantly pointing it out to me, but the trouble is that I don't consider what I do to be flirting.
Yes I am an animated talker, and I crave physical affection so I will touch a boy's knee or something while talking to him, but rarely does it mean I want to sleep with him. And I've been in so many situations where just because I smile back at the leering truck driver, he assumes I'm actually into him.

So this article makes me feel a little better. It's not that I'm overtly flirty, it's just that some men happened to misinterprate my friendliness for sexual attraction. I mean, FYI, when I'm attracted to you, you'll know it. I'm not really a shy person.

I feel like this article could have saved me so much time in high school. I should print it out and carry it around with me and any time a gross guy asks me out on a date simply because I flicked my hair, I can hand it to him and be like, "Read up, buddy. This lady's got standards."

-Jessica

Does Facebook make you who you are?

2008-03-28T12:48:00.000-07:00

A few nights ago my roommate and I had a conversation about how strange it is that we even know each other. Our group of friends is so strange because there's no direct lineage tracing back to how we know each other. Well, there is one thing: Facebook.

Ashley and David lived on the same floor last year, but the rest of us knew each other simply through Facebook; it's how I met my current roommate Dhani, and it's how I knew who Josh was that fateful night at the rooftop party even though he didn't even live in my building. It's how I knew David was (unfortunately) gay and that Sam was rich and that Luvina's mom was the character from Diary of a Mad Black Woman. (Not really but they tricked me there for awhile)

But isn't that strange? How has Facebook changed the nature of friendship?If this had been college 10 years ago, there would be no Facebook, and we'd all be forced to just befriend the people around us. Friendships would most likely be more based on convenience, and we wouldn't be so damn picky about who we're friends with. I probably wouldn't be friends with any of the people I am now simply because there would really be no way of meeting them and getting to know their interests. I'd stick to the people living on my floor, and maybe a few in my classes, and call it a day.

But the thing about Facebook is it has allowed people to be so much more discerning about who they're going to befriend. Don't like the music they list? Don't have to be their friend. Facebook has allowed us to not only perfectly tailor our own interests, but also make sure we choose people to be friends with who have interests that line up exactly with the kind of people we think we want to know.

And I think that's a little bit tragic. Friendship now is so much more robotic and so much less organic. Incoming freshman choose the people they want to know, and those they don't, based on a few little boxes on a ridiculously popular website, as opposed to getting to know them and seeing if they actually click or not. In some ways, Facebook also mandates social circle boundaries; people go with what they know, and Facebook allows you to avoid befriending anyone that you don't think fits into your archetype of a friend. Therefore cultural, linguistic and ethnic hurdles are less surmounted than before Facebook, simply because you can choose the most white-washed inoffensive person and decide to be bff with them.

So not only has Facebook changed the way friendships operate, but it has also completely retooled self-identity. Our friend Mike deleted his Facebook a few months ago and the running joke was that he now "didn't exist." If I meet a guy in a bar and he doesn't have a Facebook I consider that to be unquestionably shady. When did Facebook become a birth certificate, a driver's license and a passport, all at once?It's true in some ways that if you don't have a Facebook you don't exist. You don't know about parties, you don't know about relationships and you can't see the most recent slutty pictures that trashy tanorexic girl from your high school who now goes to a shitty state school posted. But the deeper problem is not that others don't think you exist, but that possibly, without a Facebook, you don't think you exist!

I am probably one of those people and Josh is definitely one. We often joke about how he takes his Facebook "way too seriously." And in a way I think it's because it's become an integral part of how he views himself. To have ironic, silly jokes in each of the little boxes makes us feel like we're ironic, silly people and cuts through the pretension that our MisShapes default pictures conjure. With such painstaking concentration and somberness do people fill out their profile, because they know that they're going to be judged on it; not only by other people, but by themselves.In this way Facebook has become this specter, an alternate life looming over everyone, filling in the gaps that our own personal pursuit for self-discovery can't patch together. And are we really okay with that?

-Jessica

You suck, Jason Segal!

2008-03-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

By now (if you live in New York) you've probably seen posters like these plastered everywhere from subway cars to billboards:

What a gimmicky advertising scheme, huh? Sensationalism is apparently the only thing that works on the American people anymore, especially for jaded New Yorkers. I'm all for the You Suck posters, but the feminist in me has a little bit of a problem with the ones that read:

You do look fat in those jeans, Sarah Marshall! and
My mother never liked you anyway, Sarah Marshall!

The problem I have with these is that they play off of basic insecurities that most women have; they then use those stereotypes to further a movie based on a girl who dumped her boyfriend who probably wasn't that great anyway. I understand that the film is parodying the cruelty that some men resort to when their feelings are hurt over such romantic ventures as Sarah Marshall, but seeing billboards all over New York advertising said cruelty and delving into the psyche of female insecurities makes me kind of uncomfortable. I've started going to the gym every day and the kind of masochistic body-hating girls I see there make me sad, and also make me concerned about the kind of effect advertising like this might have. We already have mags like Cosmo to tell us everything that's wrong with our bodies, do we really need stark billboards to angrily drill it further into our insecure skulls? Thanks, Jason Segal.

Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but for a movie with a premise that is already kind of sexist, you'd think they could maybe try to go a different direction with the advertising.

-Jess

The Trouble with Hillary Clinton

2008-03-24T13:01:00.000-07:00

I'm so conflicted over Hillary Clinton. As a neo-feminist/feminist/whatever I am these days that allows me to think girls should have lots of sex and be self-confident, you'd think I'd automatically support her just because we have the same ladyparts. But that's not the case. And here's why.

If we're going to get really technical, the true feminist wouldn't support Clinton simply because she's a woman. The true feminist would hold Clinton to the same standards as her male opponents, (and call her Clinton, not Hillary, fyi!) and make political decisions based on her background and goals for the country, not on the basis that she has a vagina. So all of the women out there who are supporting Clinton because they think it's time for a woman president are really setting us all back; if you support Clinton because you think she'd make a better president than Obama or McCain, then so be it. But if you support her simply because you're a woman and you are trying to perpetuate this idea spearheaded by Pelosi that women should be elected simply because they're women, well, then you're kind of the anti-feminist.

And even further than that is the fact that, if Clinton is elected and she does the poor job she will almost certainly do (in my humble opinion, of course), then we won't get to see another female president for a long, long time.

Of course I love the fact that a woman is a primary contender in this election. And I appreciate that women are doing their best to try to snatch the power from their male counterparts. But besides the fact that the Clintons are kind of a dynasty and we Americans should inherently hate dynasties considering this country was founded on anti-dynastical thinking, Clinton just doesn't have the clout in my mind to make it as the first woman president. She is a disappointing contender for this role, too; I don't like her in the same way I don't like McCain. It has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with policy.

-Jess

What if Hillary had cheated instead of Bill?

2008-03-24T12:59:00.000-07:00

The Clintons are an interesting clan; out of the 4 of them, I like Socks the best, and even had a postcard of him. I'm not really a Hillary Clinton supporter, but this article on Jezebel got me thinking: what if Hillary had been the one to cheat?

As First Lady, you're held to standards almost as exacting as the President. You become democracy's version of royalty, and if you even think about smoking a cigarette or calling your daughter a "bitch," you're going to make the headlines. Bill was totally roasted for his sexcapades, but would Hillary have been treated the same? And why hasn't Hillary had an affair? Is it simply because she's good at keeping secrets, so all of her indiscretions are well hidden? That's doubtful, considering that most likely her opponents are trying to dig up that kind of dirt as we speak. But what about other women in power?

Newsweek argues that fewer women in power have affairs simply based on numbers. There are only 86 women in Congress, and can you name a single one besides Nancy Pelosi? (Okay, I can- Allyson Schwartz. But that's only because I worked for her). And this has some truth to it, as does the argument that men can be a little, um, apprehensive about getting involved with women in power. But I'm also going to argue that men and women simply have different views of marriage and sex. If a woman is unsatisfied, she typically just gets sad and eats a lot and laments the fact that she can no longer orgasm. When a man is unsatisfied in a marriage, he screws a hooker.

So girls: if you're stuck in an unhappy marriage, put down the Ben and Jerry's and pick up a Tilda Swintonesque Latin lover. It will make your vagina happy, and it will also help close the gap that men like Bill and Elliot have widened.

-Jess

On prostitution

2008-03-13T10:19:00.000-07:00

No one you meet is going to argue that what Spitzer did was right in any way. He cheated on his (now heroic) wife Silda Wall Spitzer, he broke the law, and he acted like a total hypocrite while doing it (as attorney general he managed to go after a "sophisticated prostitution ring," hopefully not the same one he patronized).

But there is one good thing to come out of Spitzer's admonishments, and yeah, the media is having a field day with it. What the fuck is up with prostitution?

Earlier this week I argued that this scandal opens the door to the discussion of prostitution, and perhaps even paves the way for an intelligent conversation about the possibility of legalization. My roommate Ashley had a lot to say about that, and her points did not fall on deaf ears. But Emily Bazelon over at Slate has other ideas.

There are two sides to the story: Ashley was right in a lot of ways, there is evidence to show that legalizing prostitution only exascerbates the problem. It fails to protect women who are "victims" in the sex industry, helps pimps, drives the cost of non-government regulated prostitutes down (and thus the demand for them up), and may increase the rates of illegal human trafficking. According to the US government:

The United States government takes a firm stance against proposals tolegalize prostitution because prostitution directly contributes to themodern-day slave trade and is inherently demeaning.

But, as Bazelon argues, if that were the case, states like Nevada would be overrun with illegal human trafficking rings and the demand for prostitutes would steadily decrease. But that just isn't true.

So maybe the answer lies in places like Sweden, one of those awesome Scandanavian countries that's lax on everything. They've made it legal for women to sell sex, but illegal for men to buy it. This completely strokes my feminist ego-- turn the tables, make Spitzer the criminal, not Kristen. And it seems to work. According to Slate:

In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution hasbeen reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%."Trafficking is reportedly down to 200 to 400 girls and women a year, comparedwith 15,000 to 17,000 in nearby Finland.

But the problem remains that sociologists and government officials alike really don't know much about how the sex indusry functions. Rates, relationships between pimps and callgirls, and the amount of violence that actually occurs are all statistics that have yet to be hammered out. Without information like this, how is it even possible to make any informed decisions about prostitution, whether it be to legalize it or to keep it illegal?

It's clear that prostitution was made illegal based on strict moral and ethical codes (stemming from religion, most likely) that are maybe old-fashioned in our oversexed society. And without information about how the sex industry operates, it's nearly impossible to either support or deny this law.

Perhaps instead of focusing on Spitzer and his transgressions, the media and their scientific counterparts should look into gathering statistics and facts that would help back up their arguments. Perhaps what the government needs is a branch that doesn't hold women accountable for being victimized in the sex industry, and doesn't criminalize them as such, but instead works with them to gather reputable information that could help probe deeper into the phenomenon. If Big Brother spent half as much time trying to understand why and how the industry works as they do running sting operations on poor prostitutes in Hell's Kitchen, then maybe the media, as well as the public, wouldn't be so confused and frazzled over the whole issue.

-Jess

Loose nut screws and bolts

2008-03-12T13:11:00.001-07:00

This week marked the resignation of NY (and my) governor due to his alleged involvement in a high class prostitution ring. Frankly, I'm not really surprised; he's an old rich married white man. I think it would be more surprising if someone found me an old rich married white man who doesn't support the oldest profession known to man.

But why is prostitution so stigmatized? The word "prostitution" in itself has become dirty, something the media has slandered to depict life on the "wrong side of the tracks."

This case allows us to look at a side of prostitution that is rarely examined. Working girls are often classified as poor drug abusers who work the streets just to make money to pay rent. But there are also high class working girls who do the job because, well, they're good at it. And in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with that.

Why not use this debacle as a platform for getting a debate going about legalizing prostitution? Legalized, regulated prostitution would be beneficial in the following ways:

1) Protection of prostitutes against violence and STI's.
2) Less stigmatization against a group of women who are smart enough to use their bodies to get by.
3) Protection against blackmail from pimps.
4) Taxing their salaries = government revenue.
5) Less drug abuse among prostitutes.

The stigmatization of prostitution is such an ancient notion; it has its roots in religious and moral philosophizing that is long out of date in a society like ours where I can flip on the TV and see Kim Kardashian in a thong. Sure, Spitzer was wrong; government officials, especially those who fight against corruption, shouldn't break the law. But what if prostitution wasn't illegal? What if it was regulated and standardized, much like strip clubs or that Bunny Ranch in Las Vegas. I think Spitzer would agree with me: the world would be a happier, less sexually frustrated place.

-Jess

High School Confidential

2008-03-11T12:22:00.000-07:00

Last night my roommate and I took a study break to watch the new documentary-turned-mini series High School Confidential. Sharon Liese, the writer/director, followed 12 girls around from grades 9th-12th (2002-2006, which is especially relevant to me because those are the years I was in high school) and each episode features two different girls and the changes they experienced throughout that formative 4 year block. Last night we met Lauren, a drill team captain Christian who was diagnosed with a benign brain tumor and forced to have brain surgery. I can't imagine going through something like this, especially during those painful high school years. But girlfriend handled it with grace and control.

Then there was Cappie. Hailing from a single-parent home, Cappie hung out mostly with boys and began drinking at the early age of 15 (hello, who didn't?). The thing that shocked me is that all of her behavior was so startlingly textbook and predictable:

1. She didn't have a father in her life, and alternated between pretending it didn't faze her and being stark-raving mad and upset about it. ("Imagine going to your friends' house and seeing them hug their Dads and you... you don't have that. It's hard.") So, naturally she only had one good girl friend, who probably also struggled with Daddy issues; and though she claims she was "The Virgin Mary," she clearly had definite problems with men. She even dumped her best friend Ashley in order to start dating her boyfriend. I know that not only girls with "daddy issues" are prone to this kind of behavior, but I think it explains a lot, psychologically.

2. Her mother didn't really seem to care about what she did. She knew that Cappie hanging out with all guys was probably bad, and she admitted that she was probably into things that she didn't really want her daughter doing; but her total nonchalance allowed Cappie to begin failing classes and take up drinking more. I think single parents are heroes; it must be unimaginably difficult to raise a child on your own. The problem wasn't that her mom was a single parent, it was that she was a distant parent, completely disowned from her daughter's obvious issues with men and with substances.

High School Confidential, overall, did a pretty good job of capturing the troubling issues teenagers confront when they enter that painful time. Some of it was boring, but a lot of high school is. I just hope the other girls' issues aren't as disappointingly obvious as Cappie's.

-Jess

Beauty standards for men?

2008-03-05T12:36:00.000-08:00

Maybe it's because I live in New York, or maybe it's because many of my closest friends are gay men. Whatever the case, one of the first things I (admittedly, shallowly) notice about the opposite sex is his clothing. And I'm not alone.

One of my coworkers got into a fight with her significant other this weekend over his... wardrobe malfunctions. And it made me think: does what your boyfriend wear really make a difference to your relationship, or are women just shallow?

We've all heard men referred to as "fixer-uppers."
He'd be cute... if he cut his hair and got some new sneakers.
I would date him if only he didn't wear that same sweater every day.

Perhaps the same beauty standards men hold women to are slowly creeping up to bite them in the ass. To which I say: it's about damn time!

Because clothes do make a difference. It's not only about public appearance, but it gives the impression that you don't care about how you look, and for many women, that's a huge deal. Having pride in your appearance is one thing -- being a metrosexual is another. We're not asking you to gel your hair or bathe in Axe or have a wardrobe comprised of only Brooks Brothers. All we're asking is that you not wear that same stain encrusted faded buttondown you don for both holidays and lazy Saturday afternoons.

It's really not much to ask when you think about all the things women are expected to do to be considered beautiful by men's standards. Do you know how long it takes to shave our legs? How painstaking it is to apply eyeliner just right? Not to mention the hair: blowdrying and straightening alone takes 45 minutes. A lot of times women do these things because they want to be perceived as attractive by the opposite sex. If I lived in a city full of women I doubt I would wear dresses as much as I do.

So next time your girlfriend asks you to please put on something clean, something unwrinkled, something a normal human being would wear: just oblige her. Unless you want her to stop shaving in revenge. Think about THAT.

-Jessica

Promiscuity is no license to rape

2008-03-04T11:59:00.000-08:00

This is an ad released by the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women. According to Jezebel, a new study conducted in Scotland revealed that 25% of men believe that victims of rape are at least somewhat complicit in the act. Scotland is now releasing an ad campaign similar to the Los Angeles one that shows scantily clad women with slogans such as the one pictured above.

I hate that there is such a stigma against rape victims. I can't picture anything more horrible than being raped, and due to this stigma, so few victims end up coming forward. It's absolutely tragic. People need to understand that when a woman is raped, despite the circumstances - if she was drunk, if she was wearing a short skirt, or even if her rapist is her husband - it is NEVER her fault if she said no. Even if she didn't say no! Even if she said nothing at all!

I like the way they're going with these ads; as a girl who often wears a short skirt and gets shouted at on a regular basis by construction workers and taxi drivers alike (just today a man yelled, "You could stop traffic, honey!"), I think the direction of these ads hits at the heart of the rape problem: victims, it's not your fault.

-Jessica

No, I won't iron your shirt

2008-03-04T11:29:00.001-08:00

I picked up the new issue of Paper Magazine today (with Linlo on the cover!). I was all excited to read about the hip things going on in New York these days; unfortunately I was confronted with two spreads that literally left me speechless.

One spread features a woman and the other features a man.

The woman's spread is called Iron My Shirt and depicts the woman doing household chores, taking care of a kid, working out-- all in couture, of course. Now this wouldn't necessarily bother me. Maybe it's meant to be ironic or kitschy, and the photos are artfully done. No, it wouldn't bother me, if the men's spread wasn't titled Mr. President. THAT spread depicts a man clad in suits looking, well, presidential. (They do get points for making the model African American - an homage to Obama, perhaps?)

How are women supposed to advance if magazines as culturally forward and avant garde as Paper continue to perpetuate these stereotypes? Sure, the editor included a forward before the spreads, calling Hillary "on her game, talking tough and samrt and deflecting missiles from many of her male opponents like a superheroine." Maybe I'm humorless, but it seems hypocritical to write so well of Hillary and then title a sexist spread "Iron My Shirt," the same phrase a heckler bellowed during one of her speeches.

And I'm not alone. I showed both articles to a few of my coworkers and even the men were aghast. I might have to rethink that Paper subscription, afterall.

-Jessica

The F Word

2008-03-03T10:35:00.001-08:00

No, not fuck or fat or fucking fat. The F word, in this case, is Feminism.

In Jessica Valenti's book Full Frontal Feminism, one of the things the Feministing.com creator explores is the relationship between women's opinions about themselves and the world around them in contrast to their repulsion by the word Feminism.

This is a potentially pointless example, but I'll give it anyway.

At one point I had added feminism to my interests on Facebook. Immediately, I began receiving messages from questioning friends wondering if I had gone to "the dark side" and would now refuse to shave or become a man-hater. The following exchange took place between my friend and I:

My Friend: feminism. haha you would.not?
Me: yeah, feminism, but in a cute way. as in, i can still wear Phillip Lim frocks and lipstick and have long hair. k?
My Friend: ok good... i didn't want you to be like, stop shaving your legs and no bra/man type person. phew!

Why did I feel the need to justify adding feminism to my interests? Why did I feel like being a feminist reflected poorly on my femininity? This goes back to Kipnis' argument of femininity vs. feminism; is it possible to be a feminist and still embrace the femininity that makes us women? Why was I so ashamed to let the world know that I stand for something so simple and base: equal rights for both men and women.

Because feminism has become a dirty word. It has become associated with manhaters, women with hairy armpits; if you're a feminist you're probably a lesbian. But guess what-- it's men who are making these associations. It's men who have made the word feminism ugly so that women no longer want to be associated with it and the concepts it brags. Did men do this because they are afraid of women galvanizing and gaining power, or is it just another way to knock us down a level?

I am going to work on not being afraid to call myself a feminist. And I think Jessica Valenti will help me with that.

-Jessica

Like a virgin: touched for the fourth, or fifth, or sixth time

2008-03-02T10:01:00.001-08:00

Jezebel pointed out this site from the Pregnancy Resource Center of Northeast Ohio that discusses how to become a renewed virgin. They all but suggest hymen renewal, which, in my opinion is very creepy, and demonstrates some men's obsession with wanting girls to look and, well, feel completely pre-pubescent: the ideal body type for a woman is to be emaciated with no hips and the body of a 13 year old. What might that say about society?

Anyway, I don't understand the point of wanting to become a virgin again. It's one of those irreversible things that you can't take back. Perhaps they should change the phrase to: nothing in life is certain but death and taxes and the fact that you can only lose your virginity once. I mean, if you lost it, you lost it, and no amount of vaginal rejuvenation is going to bring that back.

This causes me to beg the question: what's the deal with guys and virgins? It's not like taking a girl's virginity is particularly sexy. Wouldn't you rather be with a girl who knows what she's doing? And as a woman, losing your virginity is not a particularly fun or enjoyable experience. Why would you want to go through that all over again?

With pre-pubescence being the societal standard of beauty, it just demonstrates another burden placed on women: we are meant to be demure whores; we are allowed to love sex, but not too much; and we are counted upon to maintain our sexuality in the form of vaginal rejuvenation in order to satisfy the men in our lives. That seems a little messed up, don't you think?

-Jessica

WACK!

2008-02-28T09:46:00.000-08:00

Kirsten Justesen, Sculpture II, 1968

My friend Max works at the P.S.1. MOMA in Long Island City, and yesterday he brought me the schedule of exhibits to peruse. I came across an exhibit that I'll hopefully get to go to in the near future, because it combines two of my favorite things: feminism and art.

It's called WACK!: Art and the Feminist Revolution and it's showing there from February 17-March 12. The description reads:

P.S.1 Contemporary Art Center presents WACK! Art and the Feminist Revolution, the first comprehensive, historical exhibition to examine the international foundations and legacy of feminist art...WACK! includes work by women who operated within the political structure of feminism as well as women who did not necessarily embrace feminism as part of their practice, but were impacted by the movement. Comprising work in a broad range of media—including painting, sculpture, photography, film, video, and performance art—the exhibition is organized around themes based on media, geography, formal concerns, collective aesthetic, and political impulses.

I am so unbelievably excited about this exhibit. It will give a whole new perspective to feminism and subculture; I study feminism in light of the media, but seeing it as depicted through art should be very interesting. I'm going to try to go this weekend; expect a report by next week.

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Vulnerability, Part 2

2008-02-27T12:29:00.000-08:00

I once decided to count the amount of times I was verbally and sexually harassed while walking from my apartment on Broome street to my work on West 4th street; this is about a 15 minute walk, through SoHo, which is a very nice neighborhood of Manhattan.

I was harassed seven times. SEVEN! In 15 minutes! And I wasn't even wearing a provocative outfit.

I'm not sure what men think gives them the right to comment on my appearance, especially when those comments verge dangerously on vulgar ("Hey honey! Look at that ass! Damn, I'd f*ck that.") But it happens, and as women, it's something we have to deal with daily.

I've become relatively immune to unwanted attention from men: they will park and climb out of trucks, shout at me from cabs and make disgusting noises when I walk down the sidewalk. It's part of living in the city, I guess. It's troubling that I've come to accept it, but if I yelled at every man who did it to me I'd never stop yelling.

It's this attitude of men that makes us women so vulnerable. We seem to be pieces of meat that belong to them for the taking. They can make comments, touch us inappropriately, and, in the worst cases- make unwanted sexual advances on us, and we are really at their whim. As Kipnis put it, we have this wonderful jewel (our vaginas) that most men want, and we have to try to protect it with a serious lack of upper body strength. It's another example of women being "physically inferior" to men. Then again, if men didn't have it in them to rape women, we wouldn't necessarily need to defend ourselves so thoroughly.

I'll close with this.

"On the other hand, a vagina is also an extremely costly attribute to lug around and makes a woman forever vulnerable-- just walkindg down the street is like wearing a Rolex at a burglars' convention" (Kipnis 123).

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Vulnerability, Part 1

2008-02-27T12:13:00.000-08:00

Kipnis' final chapter of The Female Thing explores the relationship between female anatomy and vulnerability. There are, however, two sides to this equation, and I want to break up her analysis into two different entries. First up: the things being a woman can get you, and how it can put you in a better position than men!

There are tons of reasons being a woman is great, particularly when it comes to getting what you want. A flick of your hair, a bat of your gorgeous eyelashes: this new brand of feminism I want to champion has no qualms about using our sexuality to get ahead in this life. We are at a disadvantage to men in so many ways, that if we have this one weapon that can help us overcome that disadvantage, then I don't think we should hesitate to use it.

Kipnis writes, "Fathers once traded their virgin daughters for bride payments; nonvirgins were handed over at reduced rates. Even today, play your cards right and a vagina can mean all sorts of social rewards... in what other system of exchange can you trade exclusive access to an orifice for a suburban split-level and a lifetime of monetary support? Not such a bad deal, considering the backbreaking and alienated things a lot of people end up doing for money" (Kipnis 123).

This isn't to say I support becoming a gold digger, though if that's your prerogative, I really have nothing against it. But being able to use our sexuality as a tool to getting what we wanted is not something to be ashamed of. Obviously sexiness isn't all we've got going for us; it's the whole package, which includes intelligence, of course. But if looking nice is going to get you an interview, you're one step closer to being able to showcase your brains.

The trouble comes when this sexuality is misread by men, and translated into something beyond feminine wiles and charm. It instead becomes an invitation, and thus comes rape-- and the public's tendency to blame women for what happens to them.

-Jessica

National Eating Disorder Awareness Week

2008-02-25T12:38:00.000-08:00

It's sort of ironic that National Eating Disorder Awareness Week comes on the coattails of the Oscars, a veritable skin-and-bones showcase of pin-thin stars like Keri Russell . It just goes to show the huge role the media can play in the perpetuation of serious illnesses like anorexia and bulimia.

Jezebel just put out an article about pro-ana websites and Facebook groups and the responsibility the webmasters have of curtailing their power. The insecurity, the shame, the awfulness of eating disorders is laid out like holy literature in sites like these. Girls lament the fact that they've gained an ounce, discuss ways to hide their disorder, and share dangerous dieting tips. It's a bizarre little world that they've created for themselves, and celebrities with gaunt frames are the secret torch bearers of places like these. In this way, the media has a hell of a lot to do with the rapantness of eating disorders; but it's not just that. The internet has transformed communication and created subcultures and enclaves for people to not only discuss their problems, but to exascerbate them.

That being said, I don't think Facebook has a responsibility to stop these groups. This is America. People have a right to talk about their sicknesses, even if it makes their sickness worse. In the end, it's up to peoples' families to help them overcome their eating obstacles. The internet might always be unhelpful in situations like these: from learning how to build bombs or bullying people via Myspace to the progression of a very serious illness that affects people both physically and psychologically. Perhaps because Anorexia is so rooted in the psychological, these groups do create tremendous harm, but I don't think that they shouldn't be allowed to exist. I wish they didn't; maybe then my own little foray into the world of EDs would have been even more shortlived than it was, but the fact is: we as humans have agency, and if that agency leads us to a place that is dark and sad and perpetuates a sickness... then maybe we just have to live with that.

If you or anyone you know is struggling with an eating disorder, please go here.

-Jessica

Jamie-Lynn Spears: A Case Study in Teen Pregnancy

2008-02-21T13:28:00.000-08:00

One of the things that seriously bothered me about the movie Juno was how lightly the film took the issue of teen pregnancy. The movie came on the coat tails of a NYTimes article declaring that teen pregnancy rates have risen for the first time since 2001. I believe that this has a lot to do with the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education and that the federal government needs to take a very serious look at the damage these programs are doing to young girls. It seems that the Spears camp is intent on making me look like a genius. Enter, Jamie-Lynn Spears. 16 and sperminated. Yes, Britney's little sister. The media proclaimed her "the good one." She has a popular show on Nickelodeon. But just like millions of other 16 year olds around the US, she's pregnant.

But what does this say about girls today? It's hard to tell if Jamie-Lynn had an "accident," (i.e. the condom broke, she was one of the unlucky girls who get trapped by the 1% chance the Pill doesn't work, etc), she was "unknowledgable," (cue: abstinence-only sex ed), or she just didn't care (let's face it, sex does feel better without a condom). But her decision to not get an abortion is the strangest part of this whole thing for me.

I'm not saying that I don't trust teenage girls to make the right personal decision about their bodies. I think a lot of girls are way more informed about their options than their parents/the government would like to believe. But I also think that movies like Juno, and tween celebs like Jamie-Lynn, can have an impact on the psyche of the American youth. It's hard to say how many girls, struggling with the secret of pregnancy, are going to see Jamie-Lynn and Juno and say: Well, let's have this thing then. But it's a definite option. Juno made having a baby look so easy!

Having a baby at any age will change your life. Having a baby at 16 will most likely change your life for the worst. When Diablo Cody, screenwriter of Juno, glossed over the idea of Juno getting an abortion in order to progress the plot, something very important was lost; teen pregnancy is not easy, no matter how jaded and soaked in sarcasm you are. Little Jamie-Lynn is going to stand testament to that. She will be the real life example that disproves the Juno theory. So if girls take anything away from this, it should be something positive: Jamie-Lynn messed up her life. Don't you mess up yours.

-Jessica

The Paradox of Dirty Hair

2008-02-21T13:07:00.001-08:00

The New York Times printed an article today discussing how the new hairstyle among pretty young things is... dirty hair. This harkens back to decades ago when, due to styles that required dirty hair to help them hold, as well as a lack of nice showers, women really only washed their hair about once a week. With the advent of Boho Chic and underage style icon Cory Kennedy, it's not hard to believe that girls are finding matted, knotty hair more attractive these days. But what's attractive amongst women isn't necessarily attractive to men.

The irony is that most men don't like makeup, but women tend to cake it on like their future marriage depends on it. Most men prefer mismatched bras and panties to slutted up lingerie. The fact is this: women and men define "sexy" in different ways. Ask a woman to pick out the sexiest woman out of a pile of pictures and undoubtedly she'll pick a different picture than the men.

So who are we trying to be sexy for, and how does dirt play into this? Maybe it takes confidence to shun societal standards of cleanliness and leave your locks greasy and matted; or maybe it just takes a stronger desire to fit in with the women than to attract the men. Whatever the case, I'll stick to my daily shampoo regiment.

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Dirt

2008-02-21T12:01:00.001-08:00

Continuing my study of Kipnis' book The Female Thing: Dirt, Envy, Sex Vulnerability, I came to the chapter on dirt. Kipnis contends that men are typically labeled the "dirtier" sex, since they have less of an aversion to messiness than women do. If women were cast to the domestic sphere because of their lack of upper body strength and therefore inability to operate a plow, then what in this modern, practically plowless world keeps us there?

I can attest to the fact that women are cleaner than men; my bathroom sparkles a lot brighter than that of my boyfriend's, but does that really play into the male-female psyche? In the past, women were actually considered the dirtier sex, and subjected to religious rituals and taboos that set them apart from men. What caused this shift? Why are men labeled slobs, and does this really do anything positive for women?

Dirt is tied to shame; smells and textures that remind us that we are all animals afterall. Perhaps it's that women are supposed to be the least animalistic of all: we are meant to smell good, act politely and with grace, pretend we don't have typical bodily functions and keep clean in a way that men aren't necessarily expected to. Perhaps because historically we were labeled the dirtier sex, we are attempting to make up for all that dirt with sponges and loofahs and Marc Jacobs perfume. And if we are clean, is it about attracting men to our cleanliness, or is it just something that we are prone to? Is the female avoidance of dirt learned... or inherent?

-Jessica

The origins of female repression: Women and Early Industrialization

2008-02-20T13:04:00.000-08:00

For my Social History of New York class, I had to read an article by Christine Stansell entitled "The Origins of the Sweatshop: Women and Early Industrialization in New York City." Stansell discusses how women called "outside workers" often worked in their own homes "outside" a shop or a factory. Because of New York's precarious position in the growing American economy, there were really no factories like those in Lowell that could accommodate women laborers. Instead, handwork such as sewing and making clothes was done in the home where women could simultaneously make money and care for their families. Stansell contends that this method "made them vulnerable to the most severe exploitation as workers and limited their means of redress through collective organizing."

The home, a place of peace and sanctity that was supposed to shelter you from the outside, cruel working world, instead became perliously entangled with their stressful, underpaid jobs. Therefore, Stansell continues, "there was little room in the emerging plebeian woman's sphere for women to develop a sense of themselves as individuals bound to like individuals through common self-interest in the work place. Their loyalties and priorities there were so entangled with children, husbands and kin: how could the more abstract solidarity of sex replace the felt unity of family?" Because women functioned primarily in the private sphere, both at work and at home, their inability to cultivate a public persona limited the maturation of generations of women who were trapped by both domestic and working spheres that bound them to the home. Could this be the root of women's dependence? Surely the problem of patriarchy stretches back further, but outside workers are a clear example of society's maltreatment of women and the effect is has had on the female gender.

-Jessica

Jobs before slobs

2008-02-20T11:57:00.001-08:00

Good news from CNN:

Young women are choosing their careers over future husbands.

That means no more MRS degrees. I think I just heard a collective sigh of resignation from state schools everywhere.

-Jessica

Does pregnancy keep women from realizing their full sexual potential?

2008-02-20T11:56:00.001-08:00

Op-Ed Contributer Caitlin Flanagan wrote an article in The New York Times a few weeks ago entitled "Sex and the Teenage Girl," in an attempt to continue to beat a dead horse by putting Juno in the context of sex ed and female sexual health. Flanagan basically contends that girls can't achieve the same amount of sexual freedom as men because we can are the ones that get pregnant. She writes:

We, too, have a deep commitment to girls, and ours centers not on protecting their chastity, but on supporting their ability to compete with boys, to be free — perhaps for the first time in history — from the restraints that kept women from achieving on the same level. Now we have to ask ourselves this question: Does the full enfranchisement of girls depend on their being sexually liberated? And if it does, can we somehow change or diminish among the very young the trauma of pregnancy, the occasional result of even safe sex?

True, girls can get pregnant even if they're having safe sex. But Flanagan's problem is that she sees pregnancy as the be-all-end-all of sexuality for women. A woman has three choices when she gets pregnant: 1) Abort it, 2) Have it and keep it or 3) Have it and give it up for adoption. Though all might take their emotional toll-- a toll not necessarily felt by men-- the chance that you could get pregnant, even if you're on the pill AND using a condom, should not stop women from achieving their full sexual potential. Admittedly, for me, there is always that fear of pregnancy that subtly sweeps in during my post-coital cigarette, but it would never stop me from being sexually active. Girls just need to learn how to avoid getting pregnant (which would be easier without abstinence-only curriculum) and then they ARE free to explore their sexuality.

-Jessica

Do guys only want success so they can have succsex?

2008-02-20T11:36:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago, a guy friend told me me that he reads news articles differently depending on whether they are written by a man or a woman. He contended that, in general, men pursue goals that will make them successful because they're hoping to get laid, and women have much more pure intentions. Therefore, he can't help being unable to separate men's inherent drive for sex from the topics about which they write. He may have been being ironic, but it got me thinking.

I'm sure there are men out there who are driven by the desire to succeed for reasons other than sex, even if those reasons aren't necessarily pure: financial gain, personal satisfaction or pleasure through work. I just haven't necessarily met any in New York. I'm sure somewhere on the golden plains there's a backhome boy who just wants to raise a family and milk cows and let his wife decide when she wants to have sex, and if she says no on Monday nights after returning home from their kids' PTA meeting, he'll just kiss her and say, "Okay" and go back to bed.

But really, is it true that men only want to be successful so they can have succsex? It's also interesting to note that women don't neccesarily perceive success as a tool to sex: in fact, it can sometimes hinder women in the bedroom department because some men may be threatened by women in power. If women attempted to view our work ventures in conjunction with our romantic ventures, would we get as far or further than our male counterparts?

-Jessica

On sex, orgasms, and that female thing

2008-02-19T09:51:00.000-08:00

After I lost my virginity, I expected le petit mort; I expected to feel changed. But without prior knowledge of what this little act would take from me emotionally, I had no idea what to feel. Mostly I just knew that my hips kind of hurt from having him on top of me, and that now I was an Adult. Capital A. Not a virgin, but a woman. The two had somehow become mutually exclusive.

I didn’t know what to expect because no one in school or at home ever told me exactly what I would feel on that fateful day. My parents taught me how to say no. My school told me about STI’s and pregnancy and not to put my drink down at a party. But when I was a teenager, no one ever taught me intelligent ways to say yes. Because of this, I was completely daunted by guilt and confusion. I also didn’t recognize the importance of achieving my owns sexual satisfaction, and not just doing whatever it was that would make my boyfriend come.

Women become ready to have sex at different points in their lives. I was ready when I was 17, but when it came down to it, I knew so little about the emotionality of sex. I knew the logistics of how to physically do it, but I didn’t understand the emotional consequences because I was taught only the frigid, abstinence-only rhetoric that my public school supplied. My health teacher, one of those predictably blase and generally unknowledgeable women who’d prefer to spend her time playing volleyball than controlling a room of hormonal teenagers, simply tossed slides on the projector and told us that if we had pre-marital sex we’d most likely catch a disease or get pregnant and therefore become some kind of social pariah. The curriculum never prepared us for what would happen when, inevitably, we decided we wanted to circumvent societal norms and help our boyfriends make us orgasm.

So in high school I decided I needed to learn more about my body and the emotional sides of sex. I got into feminist theory and pro-comprehensive sex education my senior year of high school, because I realized that, as a woman, I deserved the same amount of pleasure my boyfriend was deriving from our sexual encounters. I needed to learn how to say yes to sex intelligently; to discard the shame and bitterness that shrouded it for so many women, so that I could achieve my full sexual potential.

I’m still working on that. My boyfriend took me to an exhibit in London on sex this weekend that was set up to teach you how to be a perfect lover, and how to wholly satisfy both yourself and your partner. I loved it, I learned a lot, but I still felt like the biggest prude in the room. Everyone was touching the light-up dildos and fondling plaster-cast nipples and I just kind of watched the “How to Give Oral Sex” video guide in the corner with my cheeks all red.

The point is that we women deserve to achieve the same amount of sexual pleasure as men. We can work up the confidence and comfort to ask for it, but even that might not be enough. Does this mean that we have to stick to self-satisfaction in lieu of parner-satisfaction? That thought is depressing; no one wants to run to the bathroom straight after their boyfriend finishes so that they can finish off themselves. But at this point, it’s the only foreseeable conclusion in a sea of sexual confusion.

In The Female Thing, Kipnis discusses the difficulty of females achieving orgasms in comparison to their male counterparts. Women can have two types of orgasms: clitoral, which is considered more masculine and immature, and vaginal, which is considered more feminine and mature. If a man can penetrate you and make you orgasm, you are supposed to be more desirable than a man who has to search for hours for your clitoris.

The clitoris has stood for many different things over the years; feminist proclaimed it as a way to achieve orgasm without a penis, and therefore championed its existence. But if the clitoral orgasm is inferior, that is placing it in a patriarchal context. No, women don’t need a penis to achieve orgasm-- in fact, few achieve it when there is a penis involved. But the idea of a clitoral orgasm being less satisfying, less sexy demonstrates the male on top female on bottom kind of society we still inhabit today. Sex seems to only complicate the gender issue even further.

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Sex

2008-02-12T13:33:00.001-08:00

Chapter 2 of Kipnis' feminist novel The Female Thing explores sex and the gap between men and women when it comes to sexual pleasure. Up to 75% of women admit to faking orgasms and not achieving their full sexual potential with their male partners. Kipnis points to the fact that, in order for men to reproduce, they must have an orgasm; meanwhile, women can reproduce without experiencing any sexual pleasure at all (i.e. clitoral stimulation), and therefore this can make female orgasms seem "unnecessary."

Kipnis contrasts this with the New Woman, those of Generation X, who are into the hook-up culture and acting like men when it comes to serial dating, but who still don't achieve the same amount of sexual gratification as their male counterparts.

Part of this is physiology, yes, but part of this also has to do with the amount of shame linked to female orgasms. Women are too afraid to tell their partners what they want in bed, and thus they never get it. Until female sex can be stripped of all its shame and repression, the rate of women faking orgasms (75%) will most likely continue to rise.

-Jessica

Do fashion designers have a responsibility to their market?

2008-02-12T09:56:00.000-08:00

As I've mentioned before, I'm horribly into fashion. Sometimes I feel guilty about it because it's one of those things that makes it impossible to reconcile feminism and femininity, but I can't help being attracted to structure, material and shape. For me, fashion is the highest art. But I'm also aware of how political it can be, which is why I have to say I absolutely hated Marc Jacobs' Fall 2008 Ready-to-Wear collection.

The colors were drab, yes. It was a lot less imaginitive than other Jacobs shows, yes. But the worst part for me was how Jacobs seemed to be completely disconnected from his market: the women he dresses.

No woman is going to look good in this:

Even the 90lb model looks bulky.

As a fashion designer, Marc Jacobs has a huge responsibility to the people that he dresses. Millions of girls everywhere had their eyes glued to the runways in New York last week, eager to tap into the Next Big Thing. If Marc Jacobs puts out clothes that make women look and feel fat and frumpy, then what is he saying to his market? Clearly he cares more about the aesthetic than the actual women who buy his clothes. Fashion is about making yourself look and feel beautiful. I think Jacobs missed the marc (pun!) by a longshot this season.

-Jessica

Hit Me Baby One More Time: The Sexualization of American Tweens

2008-02-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

After doing a presentation for class on abstinence-only sex education and the ideologies surrounding the sexual restriction of women today, I came across this article on Jezebel discussing the sexualization of youth in our society.

Honestly, I don't think this problem is anything brand new. 10-15 years ago, when I was a kid, I wanted to be sexy, too. I dressed up in cute little outfits and danced around my living room to old school Christina Aguilera and Britney Spears, who back then were closer to tween role models than sex symbols. Paris Hilton did not make girls interested in looking sexy. Not to say that I support baby drag queens like those in Little Miss Sunshine, but I definitely don't think we can blame Paris for all this. This problem has been institutionalized for years; if you're going to blame anyone, blame the Spice Girls. Better yet, blame the parents! Mine wouldn't let me go out of the house in something that was "too old for my age." I wasn't even allowed to really play around with makeup until I was 12 or 13, let alone go outside wearing it. And my parents were not strict at all. They were just aware of the effect society can have on young girls, not just Paris Hilton or celebrities that the media deems "slutty."

Anyway, Jezebel points out Carol Platt Liebau's argument that "girls are being led to believe they're in control when it comes to sexual relationships but they're actually living in a profoundly anti-feminist landscape where girls compete for attention on the basis of how much they are sexually willing to do for the boys." Now this makes me nervous. I spend a lot of time harping on how women should learn and understand their bodies so that they can have gratifying sexual experiences, whether alone or in relationships. Liebau makes me question this argument. Could I have been wrong all along? Could I have been tricked into believing that I, as a woman, wield the sexual power, when in fact I am just feeding into a patriarchal society that I refused to acknowledge?

I'm not sure I'm willing or ready to buy into Liebau's argument. As a woman, as a human being, I have agency, and whether I decide to use that agency in a sexual manner or not, I am still making my own decision. I may be impacted by social norms, but for the most part I try to break out of the (chaste) box society puts women in. If Liebau is so concerned with little girls emulating older women, perhaps she should look no further than American history; sure, society is oversexed these days, but women are getting married much later in life, compared to the 14-16 range common in the Middle Ages. I also think it's interesting that she would resort to blaming the media for the sexualization of tweens, when just last week the Times published an article about the ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education, which is a governmental function, not a media one. Teens are having sex younger and getting pregnant more frequently. The media could have something to do with it, but it’s the government’s fault for funding ineffective programs.

And most of these programs are anti-feminist. Debbie Nathan argues in The Nation that abstinence-only programs are targeted specifically for girls, intent to plant the notion that having sex before marriage is considered “deviant” societal behavior. This is so deeply embedded into the heads of girls that, even when they choose to get married and lose their virginity (though 88% of girls who make virginity pledges end up breaking them), they cannot disentangle the concepts of “good” and “bad” sex. There is still a negative connotation attached to sex that lurks over them, and it becomes a completely unenjoyable act, focused solely on pleasing their husband. If we could stop framing the abstinence debate and the (sex) objectification of girls in a patriarchal context, perhaps then women can break out of the “anti-feminist” Liebau speaks of, and when little girls dress like sluts, we wouldn’t think it was a bad thing because we wouldn’t even have use for the term “slut.” But that’s just my idea of utopia, I guess.

-Jessica

$()##$)@(#!@^$^*

2008-02-12T09:45:00.000-08:00

Jezebel posted an article a few weeks ago from New Scientist about the science of curse words, and the comparisons that can be drawn between the foul mouths of men and women. I just recently finished taking a course called "The Meaning of Silence," and one of the books we had to read, Sociolinguistics by Peter Trudgill, was incredibly fascinating. Trudgill studied the differences between the way women and men speak in order to draw conclusions about their societal positions. He found that women tend to speak up, attempting to imitate upper-class language and minimize the usage of curse words. On the contrary, men tend to speak down, using lots of swear words in an attempt to sound less educated and therefore, tough. But New Scientist claims that now the amount of times women use curse words has become relatively equal to that of men. To this, I say: HELL YEAH. But what are the social implications?

For one, I think the stigma against curse words is slowly being lifted. Not only can you say "bitch" on TV, but you can also say "f*ck" in places where it previously would have been considered inappropriate. Maybe it's because I live in New York, but I can hear someone say "f*ck" in almost any public space and not be offended or taken off guard in the slightest. People in my office, a professional space, often employ curse words. My professors use them. People on the subway use them. My barista at Starbucks uses them. Curse words do not necessarily make you seem uneducated anymore. They are not relegated to just the vernacular of the poor. Instead, they've seemed to cross both economic and gender lines.

I also think, as women gain more power in our society (Think: Hillary running for President, Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, Britney Spears as the most famous person in the country), we are less afraid of sounding like "men" and more afraid of sounding weak. Thus, the introduction of "bad words" into every day speech.

I, for one, am happy with this change. I had the foulest mouth as a little girl, and that hasn't really gone away. So if women are beginning to side with me in an attempt to say screw you to vocabulary standards, then of course, I think that's the sh*t.

-Jessica

Flavor of sexism

2008-02-12T09:40:00.000-08:00

Last night my friends and I eagerly gathered 'round the T.V. to catch the season premiere of Flavor of Love 3. While in the past I had enjoyed its subtly racist and sexist ridiculousness for the sheer entertainment factor, I simply could not stomach the show last night.

The girls degrade themselves in a way that makes me sick to my stomach. They understand the "feminine" aspect of themselves and crank it up to a notch where body glitter and cleavage reign supreme. They know that they need to be feminine to catch Flav's attention, so they throw all gender progress to the wind in an attempt to become the next big reality T.V. star. Flav even combined a set of twins into one person that received one clock when they won; not that I can blame him, they market themselves as such.

This show is entertaining, but it is also about 5 steps backwards for both African Americans and women.

-Jessica

What is subculture?

2008-02-08T11:03:00.000-08:00

I'm currently reading the book Subcultures: Cultural histories and social practice by Ken Gelder and it got me thinking: what in fact defines a subculture? Gelder contends that "subcultures have generally ben understood:

1) Through their often engative relation to work
2) Their negative or ambivalent relation to class
3) Their association with territory rather than property
4) Their movement away from home into non-domestic forms of belonging
5) Their ties to excess and exaggeration
6) Their refusal of the banalities of ordinary life and in particular, of massification."

I'd never thought of subculture in these terms before. Mostly I'd just acquainted them with #6. I'm going to try to frame current subcultures in this mindset in an attempt to more accurately analyze them.

-Jessica

What's so wrong with us?

2008-02-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

One of the main things wrong with women’s magazines today is the amount of envy they market. Not necessarily “penis envy” in the Freudian sense, but instead the idea that women can always make themselves better. Better orgasms, better abs, better relationships, better eating habits: magazines sell copies because they have somehow convinced women that they are fundamentally broken somehow, and by reading an article in Cosmo about how to be sexier, they can possibly be fixed.

In this way, women are doing these things to themselves. It is women writing and marketing these magazines that are targeted at the subtle inferiority complex most women harbor. They know exactly where to hit to make it hurt the most. Bad skin? Buy this product. Flabby tummy? Do these exercises. And always remember to do these things to please him in bed. In order to sell more copies, women’s magazines have delved deep into a woman’s psyche; but the problem is, they are not necessarily trying to help women with inferiority complexes. Instead, there is always something new wrong with you that you never even imagined would be possible. That half-inch hair on your chin? It might be keeping you from scoring a date. Your eyebrows are too thin. Your thighs touch. Buy this magazine and you will get a boyfriend in T-minus three weeks.

As Kipnis points out, the main resounding theme is the idea of missing something. Whether it be a penis, in the very literal sense, or even the kind of hair that falls straight without the help of an iron, women are always up against some immeasurable odd that can somehow be surmounted with the help of Elle.

But the problem, for me personally, is that I really like women’s magazines. Cosmo turns me off with all their male erogenous zone articles that are fake and have never done anything for me and my boyfriend: sex is not a universal thing, and just because Cosmo tells you that he likes when you touch his earlobes, it doesn’t mean he’s going to keep from cheating on you. But I do like fashion magazines that sell me the kind of brand conscience skinny-girl syndrome that I fundamentally loathe. Perhaps the women’s magazines, therefore, have done such a flawless job of delving into my psyche that at this point I don’t even care. And isn’t that kind of tragic?

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Envy

2008-02-03T13:13:00.000-08:00

One of the most interesting things about this book is the way it turns problems within our patriarchal society around onto women themselves. We are not just victims of society, but in fact we play into the patriarchy, either subconsciously or purposefully in an effort to get what we want.

Kipnis makes an important distinction in her study of the female thing. She draws a line between feminism and femininity. Feminism is the theory that women should be equal to men, and assumes that things can change, and is the political and social attempt to help gender progress. On the other hand, femininity is “the method for creatively transforming female disadvantages into advantages, basically by doing what it took to form strategic alliances with men: enhancing women’s appeal and sexual attractiveness with time-honored stratagems like ritual displays of female incompetence aimed at subtly propping up men’s sense of masculine powers” (Kipnis 5). Femininity, therefore, assumes that things can’t change, and attempts to make things better within the rigid framework of male-female gender relations.

Sure, these two ideals are at odds, but I myself seem to navigate them rather gracefully (if I do say so myself.) I might get one of my guy friends to help hook up our cable, but I’ll also get rightfully angry if a man hoots and hollers about my “fine ass” while I’m crossing the street. In some ways, the times that we live in now are more complicated for women than ever; as women become more powerful in the workforce, and men are being emasculated by the minute, it’s difficult to straddle that line between helpless young woman and angry feminist with a sturdy agenda.

Kipnis argues that these two conflicting ideas have created an identity crisis within the female race, and points to women’s magazines as the primary culprit for perpetuating this conflict. But that’s for another entry.

So my question is: where is the good balance between being feminine and being a feminist? I have a feeling that might be something that takes my whole life to figure out.

-Jessica

The Women of the Beat Generation

2008-01-30T11:35:00.000-08:00

"In many ways, women of the Beat were cut from the same cloth as the men: fearless, angry, high risk, too smart, restless, highly irregular. They took chances, make mistakes, made poetry, made love, made history. Women of the Beat weren't afraid to get dirty. They were compassionate, careless, charismatic, marching to a different drummer, out of step. Muses who birthed a poetry so raw and new and full of power that it changed the world. Writers whose words weave spells, whose stories bind, whose vision blinds. Artists for whom curing the disease of art kills." - Women of the Beat Generation, Brenda Knight

The Beat Generation is probably one of the most (in)famous subcultures to take root in America. Spearheaded by such figures as Jack Kerouac (On the Road), William S. Burroughs (Naked Lunch) and Allen Ginsberg (Howl), it represented, "spontaneity, open emotion, visceral engagement in often gritty worldly experiences" (Wikipedia). It was a generation borne of men and drugs and spontaneous literature, but how much do we know about the women of the beat generation? I myself have read most of the works associated with beat literature, but never any by a woman.

Each week I'm going to give a quick profile of a woman who was central to the movement, and helped propel it forward in some way, whether it be through art, music, writing or political activism. I figure it's a good way to combine feminism and subculture into one lovely package.

-Jessica

The Body Image Images

2008-01-29T11:50:00.000-08:00

If Laura Kipnis is right, then the way women (negatively) view their bodies has great bearing on typical male-female gender relations. Everyone knows that the images splashed across the glossies give girls unrealistic expectations for how their bodies should look. My 16 year old little sister is extremely athletic, plays field hockey, and at 5'0", can't weigh in at more than 110 pounds; yet she is constantly complaining that she is "fat," and pouring over Us Weekly like it's the Bible.

Taking all of this into account, I decided to scan my favorite fashion and subculture magazine, NYLON, for some model pictures. What I discovered is that NYLON, perhaps more than any other magazine, uses some extremely emaciated models! Below, some pictures, and my analysis as to why this might be.

NYLON is probably one of the only magazines completely in touch with both New York and L.A. subculture. They were one of the first to proclaim Cory Kennedy an "Internet It Girl" and put her on the cover of their magazine. The Misshapes frequently grace their pages. They also have interns, some of whom go to NYU, who are hooked up into both the underground New York and L.A. scenes, which gives them an edge that other, more mainstream magazines don't necessarily have.

That said, it makes perfect sense that NYLON would be a frontrunner for super-skinny models. As I discussed in my previous entry on the NYC underground scene, you have to possess a Kate Moss waifishness in order to gain any kind of attention from the photobloggers' lenses. With NYLON as both a friend and a proponent of these subcultures, it's no surprise that their models reflect the pale, awkward and hungry look of hipster New Yorkers and their LA counterparts.

The problem, however, comes when looking that malnurished becomes the mainstream. And now with the internet, girls all over the country have access to these underground fashions, and subsequently the dangerous body stereotypes that come with them.

-Jessica

In New York, subculture is mainstream

2008-01-29T09:35:00.001-08:00

My friends from home have been begging me to explain to them what's up in the New York underground world these days. The truth is, despite the fact that subculture is my Gallatin concentration at NYU, I really don’t know. They're all fascinated by the (pretentious) photobloggers and the (throwback) fashion and the (ironic) music; I used to get it, but I don’t anymore. Such is disenchantment.

Last year I was very into the underground scene. Though it was probably a slow descent into that maddening confusion, now it seems like it was slapboombang, me in the middle, all of those things ripening around me, taking root, pulling me down (or was it up?) with them. Everything felt so crazy, and yet none of it was real. The people in my New York life mattered nowhere outside of the Manhattan/Brooklyn/Astoria trifecta, and yet they were worshiped, absolutely worshiped, in the city.

The strange thing is that now it is spreading. I remember once after a night at Misshapes over the summer, I went home and in both the fashion issue and regular issue of Teen Vogue that got delivered to my doorstep, there were 4 page spreads on the phenomenon of the Misshapes, and how it has changed New York City subculture.

I didn’t know how to feel. It was weird to see people I associated with in the pages of a magazine. And yet it was validating, somehow, like we made it to this unforeseen place, this hipster heaven where everyone was cool and perfectly awkward, but only in our little world. And yet I knew it was nothing. It was all fake, and in the long run, ended up getting me nowhere. But I was fascinated, enamored, thrown headfirst into it all. I was 18 and I felt like I was 25. So this is my best attempt at explaining it.

New York City subcultures are so enthralling to me. This particular one is borne of something that was already raging prior: the 80’s. The drugs are the same (cocaine to go out, weed to come down), the fashion is the same (might I direct you to The Cobrasnake) and there is a type of lifestyle that a person is expected to uphold that would coincide perfectly with kids who grew up in the 80’s. The only new advent of this modern day New York culture is the internet; because of the internet, the Misshapes can't stay under the radar: so their parties become too popular, and their goal to stay popular within groups of unpopular people completely blows up in their faces. Can they spin at a Teen Vogue party, or at fashion week, without sacrificing what gave them their namesake: being loners, rebels, misshapen?

It's all so confusing, the glorification of emaciated 17 year old girls with 25 year old pouts. But then again, I guess that's something that categorizes this subculture, as well. It sets it apart from other social (non)organizations like the Greek system, or club Plumm-attending tanorexics: you don't have to be beautiful to be popular at Misshapes.

But you do have to have a certain look about you. Vintage clothes are a must. An ivory yet sallow complexion, sunken in frame, like you eat nothing, and when you do, it's junk. There's something distinctly impoverished about the people who grace misshapes.com, like they haven't had a good meal in well, a couple of years, like they drink vodka and smoke cigarettes for breakfast, following up with a couple fat rails to get them through their dayjobs (shifts being 2-10pm) at thrift exchanges or poorly circulated art mags, so that they can come home, change into their daily procured new outfit, and hit the town, bleary eyed, hungry for the flash of a camera, the glimmer of recognition in the face of a pseudocelebrity who might step out of rank once, just this once, and swoop them up under their apocalyptic wing, whisking them into the darkened underbelly of what is quickly becoming the famed world of the underground New York hipster scene.

I am simultaneously repulsed and fascinated by what's going on in New York right now. Because it is nothing new, it is not fresh. It is void of the excitement that was built around Andy Warhol during his factory days, or the Tunnel/Palladium scene of the 80’s. There is still the narcissism, the bloodthirsty social climbers, the backstabbing and passing-out-drunk in alleyways and air kissing: but now it is all captured on film, for the ENTIRE WORLD to see. What happened behind the hallowed walls of Tunnel was a mystery, in those days, unless of course you were there, a blatant accessory to the crimes at hand. But with the internet, with photobloggers snapping your picture with powder under your nose or your top falling down or you engaging in one of your more clumsy dance moves, there is absolutely nothing you can hide. And yet, this world still births so many secrets with answers unable to be excavated from the dusty crevices of the bottom shelf of the Don Hills bar. These are secrets that the cameras miss: relationships don't develop as easily, as scientifically, as a roll of film. And that's what makes this whole thing so fake, I guess. Relationships borne from a camera can't flesh out with that kind of stark humanity we look for in each other.

So then what is it about the flash of a camera that feels so validating? Are we that easily tempted by the monster of narcissism, or is it something more? We want to be a part of this big, bad thing, because maybe we were all misshapen in high school: sliding down the fluorescently lit hallways with a sense of anonymity unappreciated by athletes or scholars, awkward until the very end, unfurling shyly, quietly, in the springtime of New York, a place where the misfits fit in better than the wholesome, tan, rich kids that haunt our pained adolescent memories. Could it be that simple? Square pegs raised in circle hole environments finally finding their square holes, even if those holes are filled with an aggressive keep-out attitude that ultimately mirrors the attitude of the popular cliques in high school?

So in the end, isn't it all the same? What's the moral of this story? Vanity, beauty (no matter how awkward), and a certain attitude trump all else in the world of the misshapen. It's just another subset, another subculture better documented than any that came before it.

A camera flashes in a dark basement in a club so deep in the West Village that the Hudson makes my hair smell like seaweed and exhaust; I strike a pose.

-Jessica

The Female Thing: Are women to blame?

2008-01-29T09:08:00.000-08:00

I just started reading Laura Kipnis's book The Female Thing: Dirt, Envy, Sex, Vulnerability.I'm going to read a chapter a week and use it to write a string of entries concerning the subject at hand.

This week: The preface.

As a self-proclaimed neo-feminist, turning the blame for patriarchal society onto women themselves actually makes sense to me. How many of your girl friends play into female stereotypes? We pout when men are mean to us. We talk about our feelings. We use our sexual appeal as a weapon. All of these things may be construed as means to achieving power over men, but in actuality they also put us right back where we started: mired in a terrible inferiority complex.

Kipnis contends that the most crucial thing holding women back from accepting feminism as an ideal is their relationship with their bodies. She writes, "Among the many "things" that don't yield to progress, foremost would be women's relation to the female body... self-loathing abounds, even when it's masked as self-affirmation" (Kipnis x).

The fact that women and men are anatomically different doesn't come as a surprise to any of us: however, what surprised me is that women's problems with feminism can be so deeply rooted in the physicality of it all. It's not only in our heads, but it's also inherent in our bodies. Women want things from men, women beautify themselves for men, women starve themselves and spend hours at the gym and get bikini waxes for men. All of these things cater to the preservation of the female form. Kipnis continues, "Having one of these things instead of one of the other things in a culture that still hands out social power and resources on the basis of what kind of anatomy you've been assigned invariably structures the female experience here on earth, and how could this not leave its big pawprint on interior life?" (Kipnis xi).

From these conclusions Kipnis draws that the female condition is primly divided into four primary regions: Envy, Sex, Dirt and Vulnerability. It is these four concepts that keep women from achieving equality with men. And it is these four concepts I will explore in depth within the coming weeks.

-Jessica

Teeth: Damaging or liberating?

2008-01-27T11:44:00.000-08:00

Few independent films are as highly anticipated in 2008 as the thriller "Teeth," directed by Mitchell Lichtenstein. The movie brings the myth of vagina dentata to the big screen, and with it pop up a myriad of cultural and sexual issues that have led me to question the film's intentions.

Though I have yet to actually see the movie, this article in Salon explains its motives fairly clearly: Lichtenstein may not achieve the full potential of this simultaneously funny and sad script, but the issues it raises are pressing, especially in light of the upcoming presidential election.

If we are to take this film in a purely satirical context, the idea of a woman having teeth on her vagina seems almost like power play: it symbolizes men's subconscious fear of women actually possessing more power than they do. And in the one realm where men seem to be almost positive that they are the ones in charge (i.e. the bedroom), this movie seems to argue that they might be wrong.

But what about the people who go to see this movie because they think it is funny, or conversely, terrifying? What kind of effect will this movie have on American subculture, if any? Will teenage boys who go to see it take rape more seriously, or will it be made into a joke?

This movie is a paradox: it gives women power, and then takes it away from them. And is that really the message we want to be sending out to the world about the state of youth feminism today?

-Jess

The launching of 4 credits

2008-01-26T14:29:00.000-08:00

My name is Jessica Roy and I'm a student at NYU. I've started this blog as part of an individualized study project that I'm undertaking this semester to try to examine the relationship between subculture, feminism and the media. Due to my interest in media and popular cultural analysis, this blog will analyze current new stories from sites such as The New York Times and Salon as well as various books. Using these texts as a basis for my blog entries, I will focus on two major themes that may arise in these different articles: Youth subculture, and more specifically, feminism as it exists for young women today. I want to focus on the nature of these topics in different sources: what sort of themes fall under these umbrella concepts, how they may differ by author, and what kind of cultural implications they possess as a whole. Furthermore, I'm doing this in blog format, as opposed to typical text format, as it relates to my interest in media and how the age of technology has changed how and why we read cultural articles.

I called this blog 4 credits for a very obvious reason: I'm going to hopefully be receiving 4 credits for this academic endeavor. However, 4 credits means something more than that; 4 credits stands for the four pillars I will be studying throughout the semester: Youth, subculture, feminism and media.

Please feel free to comment on anything I post, and hopefully we can get some stimulating discussion going. I look forward to pursuing this!

-Jessica

4 Credits: Subculture and Feminism in the Media

Gap Attempts to Capitalize on Subculture

This week on The Hills: Audrina continues to ruin everything for girls

Philadelphia: Behind the mainstream news

The Paper: Finally a good role model for girls!

Offensively sexist one-liners from Men’s lifestyle magazine Best Life

New York's Finest?

Feminists and their egotistical boyfriends

Britney, Christina, and How Honest Sexuality Can Make You

The New Iran

April Fool's

The NYTimes won't be getting me a blind date anytime soon

If this were the POPLINE database, you couldn't type in "Abortion"

Ashley Dupre: Not quite a feminist

The Carrie Bradshaw Paradigm

Just because I touch your arm doesn't mean I want to sleep with you

Does Facebook make you who you are?

You suck, Jason Segal!

The Trouble with Hillary Clinton

What if Hillary had cheated instead of Bill?

On prostitution

Loose nut screws and bolts

High School Confidential

Beauty standards for men?

Promiscuity is no license to rape

No, I won't iron your shirt

The F Word

Like a virgin: touched for the fourth, or fifth, or sixth time

WACK!

The Female Thing: Vulnerability, Part 2

The Female Thing: Vulnerability, Part 1

National Eating Disorder Awareness Week

Jamie-Lynn Spears: A Case Study in Teen Pregnancy

The Paradox of Dirty Hair

The Female Thing: Dirt

The origins of female repression: Women and Early Industrialization

Jobs before slobs

Does pregnancy keep women from realizing their full sexual potential?

Do guys only want success so they can have succsex?

On sex, orgasms, and that female thing

The Female Thing: Sex

Do fashion designers have a responsibility to their market?

Hit Me Baby One More Time: The Sexualization of American Tweens

*$()#*#$)@(#!@^$^*

Flavor of sexism

What is subculture?

What's so wrong with us?

The Female Thing: Envy

The Women of the Beat Generation

The Body Image Images

In New York, subculture is mainstream

The Female Thing: Are women to blame?

Teeth: Damaging or liberating?

The launching of 4 credits

$()##$)@(#!@^$^*