Links - February 18, 2013

Links Roundup for February 18, 2013

Feminist Current - Girls explains the difference between porn and nudity in half an hour (nsfw)

Feminist Current - There is No Feminist War on Sex Workers

CODE RED for gender justice! - Can One Billion Rising End Violence Against Women?

Michael Laxer - No exception for Assange: Rape apologetics and the left

Candice Chung - Do men really prefer rental girlfriends?

Zoe Williams - Baby health crisis in Indonesia as formula companies push products

Michael Zhang  - Woman Photographs Herself Receiving Strange Looks in Public 

 Mike Blanchfield - Highway Of Tears: Human Rights Watch Alleges RCMP Officers Raped, Abused Aboriginals In BC

Rebecca Watson - The Privilege Delusion

Bo Winegard and Ben Winegard - The New Atheists, Political Narratives, and the Betrayal of the Enlightenment The Real Delusion: Part 1

Links for October 29, 2012

Links -- October 29

Rebecca Watson “It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too” 

Rebecca Watson "Sexytime Dilemmas: Rape, Feminazis, and Grammar" 

Heidi Moore “iWant:how Apple and the gadget-makers train consumers' covetousness”

The Feminist Current “The end is nigh. And the proof lies in Breast Cancer ‘Awareness’Campaigns”

Anne Summers “Painful, impractical, and perverse:the shoes designed to bring women to heel”

Nora Loreto “Trolls and the spaces created by trolling”

Max Waltman via Feminist Current “Evidence shows that ending demand works: A response to Noy Thrupkaew and the attack on the Swedishapproach to prostitution”

Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter “Feminist Responses to the death of Amanda Todd”

Krissy Darch “Why isn’t anyone talking about themisogyny involved in Amanda Todd’s life and death?”

XLondonCallGirl “Can prostitution be empowering?”

XLondonCallGirl "The Importance of Specialist Charities and Projects to Help Women Exit Prostitution"

and because Halloween is coming soon....here are some spooky vintage photos

Weary Wednesdays: Pole-Dancing Fitness Class For Kids

Trends! Don’t you just love them? There is always some new idea, product or activity that is promoted and popularized through mass media. These trends, however, are almost always aimed at women and the majority of them revolve around physical appearance and/or how to better perform one's social roles. While the pressure on maintaining a particular physique may be on the rise in younger men and boys, the majority of the pressure is placed on women and girls. These trends are reinforced through various mediums including but not limited to: websites, magazines, television, film, advertising, and books.

From how to stop one’s skin from wrinkling, drying, flaking, sweating, sagging –to how to lose 2 pounds a day before your big day! All the way to strip aerobics fitness DVDs, the neo-burlesque movement, 50 shades of grey, vampire stalker movies, anti-aging products, celebrity-endorsed diets, and "body shapers" aka. suction undies. 

It is likely that all of these fads are connected to one another as women are sold the same idea with each one; that our physical appearance is paramount in defining our value as people. The companies behind these trends inform us that it is empowering to be within the male gaze, to put all of our energy into arousing heterosexual male desire, to be detached from our whole selves rather than be respected for our minds, our ideas and our actions. 

This, they say, is power for women.

Marketers and their focus groups inform us, and the rest of the society, that our bodies need to be sculpted, surgically altered, constrained, whitened, waxed, and objectified. Porn culture, or the the normalization and infiltration of porn into everyday life, has lead to activities such as stripping/pole-dancing, lap-dancing, and burlesque becoming popular within the dominant culture and among some middle to upper-middle class women.

However, due to today’s limitless marketing as well as the ubiquitous presence of mass media and social networking, children are taking up some of these trends themselves. 

Pole-dancing fitness classes gained popularity with adults several years ago; some were even setting up poles in their homes and attending stripping aerobics classes, granted they had the funds to do so.  Now some fitness instructors have been inspired to start up pole-dancing fitness classes for children as young as five. 

Yup! You read right, children's pole-dancing classes. The class circulating through the media is being offered on Vancouver Island in British Columbia. It costs about $70 per one hour class and explicitly intended for children. Unlike "spinning classes" which usually refer to riding a stationary bicycle, this pole-dancing class is euphemistically named “Little Spinners” and involves nothing sexual, according to the instructor. In fact, owner Kristy Craig claims that it is a great workout for kids. 

Photo from National Post - I altered the photo to protect the identity of the child.

Nonetheless, according to the Toronto Sun, Craig is shocked by all of the negative attention that her classes have received. She told the media that she teaches gymnastics moves but instead of a horizontal bar, she uses a vertical pole. "It’s nothing new,” Craig said, remarking that pole-dancing competitions are already offered in Russia and the U.K. “People need to really look into it before jumping to any conclusions about what I’m offering.” She argues that pole-dancing has "evolved" into a sport just like any other. “For competitions they actually have rules and regulations that there can be nothing sexual, or any article of clothing removed, and in some you aren’t allowed to wear high heels,” she adds. “The sexuality is being taken out of it. It’s highlighting the gymnastic, athletic and circus acrobatics aspect.”

Another supporter of Craig’s classes, Tammy Morris owner of Tantra Fitness, told the National Post in regards to sexualization that “they have no association with it or think there is anything wrong or bad about it. That’s an adult putting that on them.” In 2010, her Vancouver fitness studio roused public anger when she offered classes to children, predominantly girls, as young as nine and private classes to those as young as five. Morris defends these pole-dancing classes, claiming that the children “love it” and it is not problematic as the girls do not learn how to strip or grind.

Interestingly, on Craig's company's website she features almost only photographs of adult women and adult classes. From the main webpage, which features an advertisement for pink glittery 9 inch stilettos, one would think that the studio was exclusively for adults. Some of the classes listed on the website have names like "Sexy Flexy," "Babes on Bikes," and "Bunny Bootcamp." And yet, all of these classes appear on a posted weekly schedule alongside a class for children.

So, where does the sexualization start and stop? Are there a few days of the week for "Sexy Flexy" classes that are adult-only and one other day of the week that is for a non-sexualized sport class for kids? These are all taught by the same instructor and yet are both, apparently, different. How does one shift from a consciously sexualized pole-dancing class for adults one day to a "this is a serious sport in Russia" class for kids the next day? Why is the class not sexualized when the kids are doing it? Is it because it doesn't have porn-inspired name like "Bunny Bootcamp" which, I'm sure, would have never been considered for the title of the kid's class.

What seems to be missing from the conversation, however, is the realization that everything that circulates in our culture–all activities and all of what we see in the media–have been constructed within a specific society; in a highly pornified and highly misogynistic social environment that is driven by money and dominated by rich white men. 

These classes, despite the Craig’s assertions, are products of a patriarchal, misogynistic industry that thrives on the bodies of women and girls. The sex industry is a daily reality for many women around the world, often as a means of survival and yet, it is becoming a popular fitness trend among privileged women who can afford 120$ pole-dancing classes. 

If fitness and children’s well-being are really the goals of these classes then why not encourage these children to join a sport, go swimming, or explore the outdoors? Why is a sexualized class that costs 70$ an hour better than playing tag or throwing a ball around?

Critical thought is essential when it comes to these issues and all of the messages that we receive through patriarchal popular media. Children are cannot think critically about their activities and the world around them in the same way that adults can. This is why we have an age of consent and why we don’t leave life-altering decisions up to children who have had limited life experience and cognitive development. As adults, as a larger community, we need to step back and question the growing commercialization of childhood and of children. We need to start questioning why children are being so sexualized in the media and why it is being normalized. This normalization impacts children's lives and the way they explore and understand their world. 

Illusions of Power through the Status Quo

found here 

In the past few weeks, my gaze has been overwhelmed by an increase in patriarchal propaganda. Whether it be mural-sized advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs that sport oiled up gals punching shit with boxing gloves, or posters featuring a woman's torso being smothered in a pink corset reading: Striptease, Sexual Shame, Sex Work - it is clear that everything Ariel Levy wrote about in Female Chauvinist Pigs has been ever-increasing in the West.


“We have to ask ourselves why we are so focused on silent girly-girls in G-strings faking lust. This is not a sign of progress, it's a testament to what's still missing from our understanding of human sexuality with all its complexity and power. We are still so uneasy with the vicissitudes of sex we need to surround ourselves with caricatures of female hotness to safely conjure up the concept of 'sexy.' When you think about it, it's kind of pathetic.” (Levy, p. 198)

It seems that the whole confidence for cash shtick has really taken off. Usually, yet not surprisingly, these "confidence campaigns" target women. Women can be satisfied and confident about themselves, they say, but it has to be like in the good ole' days, through through our bodies, through our ability to sexually arouse and titillate men - not through our minds, our ideas, or our actions. Now, this consumer-friendly notion of empowerment and self-confidence is being sold as socially progressive and pro-woman - but it is only re-naming (or re-branding!) the status quo. 


“Women's liberation and empowerment are terms feminists started using to talk about casting off the limitations imposed upon women and demanding equality. We have perverted these words. The freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough freedom; it is not the only 'women's issue' worth paying attention to. And we are not even free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist. There are other choices. If we are really going to be sexually liberated, we need to make room for a range of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up to us as sexy. That would be liberation" (Levy, p. 200). 


Whether it comes from the billion dollar beauty industry, burlesque revivalist camps, the pornography industry, striptease weight-loss home exercise DVDs, or the comical yet profoundly vain self-help industry - the West is obsessed with promoting false reality and false consciousnesses that favors patriarchy and normalizes it.




Source:
Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, pp. 198 and 200, 2005, Free Press

"Boner Killing" is Violence Against Teh Menz?

I've just been informed by an Anonymous poster that my blog title, "Boner Killer" is encouraging and perpetuating "sexual violence" towards men. 


Now that I have finished my lengthy guffaw from the mere shock of the comment, lets hear your thoughts...especially those of you who have expressed a love for my blog title.


Just for the record, Anonymous, killing a boner implies that I am taking away a boner. It does not imply that I literally take to the streets to castrate men and somehow physically overpower them. It certainly doesn ot imply that I, or any other woman for that matter, has the societal power to even walk up to a man in the same way they would walk up to us prior to an assault. This scenario would likely have a pretty rare place in our society, given how women are systematically treated by men around the world. I mean, we can't even go for a walk in the evenings without fearing rape or harassment. 


But I digress. Let's get back to what "boner killer" means...


When someone refers to someone else as a "boner killer" they mean that the other person is a sort of wrecker-of-fun - someone who is attempting to destroy a man's boner or his "good time" somehow. An example of this is my blog search-terms. After the Black Swan came out on DVD, many people were searching "Black Swan Boner Killer" and this would bring them to my blog. It is likely the Black Swan was referred to this way because the film did not contain an amount of boner-inducing zest for these dudes and so they said it was a "boner killer." 


Women who refuse to live up to conventional beauty standards and fail to give a rat's arse about giving dude's the jollies in their trousers are often called "Boner Killers" - that is why this blog is titled as such. 


Personally, it terribly unfortunate to me that someone came here to comment and pretend that sexual violence perpetrated by women against men is a relevant concern in our world - considering how pervasive violence against women is, systematically and otherwise. This is not suggesting that men are not sexually abused or harmed by women. The large majority the of sexual abuse and assault against boys and men are committed by other men. However, this blog is about women and the realities that women face; grim realities. They are everywhere. It is happening every moment of every day, somewhere in the world.

So, to those who wish to comment (those who follow my comment policy) here is my question to you: Are men really at risk for "sexual violence" because of my desire to turn a bonerfied woody into a damp sock? Will gaggles of women take to the streets to be "sexually violent" towards men? Your thoughts...


Oh, and just a reminder, Anonymous comments do not get published - this has been in my comment policy since day one and so adequate warning has been provided. 






Photo found here

The Kids Are Not All Right **TRIGGER WARNING**

**Trigger Warning for Self-Harm, Abuse, EDs and Suicide**

Self-injury now outnumbers strokes in the number of hospitalizations per year in Canada. A recent study has found that more than 45 people a day are hospitalized in Canada for self-harm and the average age range is 15-19 years old - kids, basically. A revealing report claims that 85% of these self-injury cases involved poisonings and 9 out of 10 of these self-injury cases were attributed to prescription or non-prescription medication. 10% of the self-injuries included cutting or piercing and 2% were caused by strangulation. Currently, Canada is the only industrialized country to not have a national strategy for suicide or organizing the current prevention services that are available (CBC News). The CIHI Health Indicator Report shows that the numbers of self-injury hospitalizations between women and men differ significantly in all of the provinces of Canada. Here are the 2009 numbers - these are per 100,000 people. 

Graph from here

Note: The bottom axis simply lists every single province and various hospitals within each province. As you can see the differences are staggering. Keep in mind that these results are taken from hospitalizations and not everyone who self-injures is hospitalized for various reasons. Nevertheless, it is difficult to argue with these numbers. One of the most alarming differences was in Parkland, Manitoba where 390 per 100,000 females were hospitalized for self-injury compared to the non-existent numbers or "†" for numbers that were suppressed "due to small numbers or incomplete data" for males. This is in one year. 

For a chart including all figures see full report

Rates per Province, Image from CBC News

With more and more kids trying to kill themselves and harm themselves, more real conversations are needed to create REAL and lasting solutions. An increase in government spending for better medical care for all (including improved therapy without immediate reliance on medication) would be an obvious starting point - but it is clear that this self-harm epidemic is stemming from our larger cultural climate, particularly in the "developed" world. 
In the same article, the journalists made a note to include what the Canadian government wants to do to solve the problem [I will put my commentary in bold]: 


Canada is providing $27 million aimed at improving mental health of youth across the country.


[I think funding is great, but 27 million dollars could be increased if Harper bothered to properly tax the Big Oil companies existing in Canada. This likely will not happen because of the loyal camaraderie that the Oil companies have with the Harper regime. It is true that more funding is necessary to provide more programs dedicated to mental health and finding long-lasting solutions instead of rushing to medicate kids, but for having no national strategy in place, more money will likely be needed. This should not even be up for discussion - the health of the people should be a top priority]


The federal government is funding the projects through the Public Health Agency of Canada to support projects that focus on fostering mental health for children, youth and families in rural and northern communities, aboriginal communities, and those of low socio-economic status, Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq announced separately Wednesday in Toronto..


[Again, government funding is good but it will cost a lot and with Harper's recent "cut-backs" to public spending we may not see it happen. Throwing a bunch of social workers and public health workers into First Nations reserves with anti-self injury and anti-suicide campaigns are going to be merely scratching the surface of larger, systematic problems. When health workers leave the reserves will they also take all of the poverty, malnutrition and abuse? Will they take away the isolation and racism experienced on reserves? Will their money and campaigns truly end suicides and self-injury in Aboriginal youth? How will it shift the social consequences of institutionalized racism? How will those caught in the cycle of poverty be assisted by public health campaigns put out by the same government that requires them to work 2 jobs and still not have enough money to live? How can their needs truly be met when society is the real culprit?]


The projects address bullying, change and loss, substance abuse and suicide, and seek to strengthen family and community interactions and promote healthy relationships.


[I find it difficult to believe that these anti-bullying programs will end bullying, particularly online bullying. I would be interested into hearing about how they plan to tackle cyber-bullying. 


This money should also be used to create programs in schools and communities, like those mentioned above and create ones that challenge the status quo and call for Ottawa to take mental health seriously. Excuse me, I'm clearly being idealistic here, but it is just so brutally necessary. One can only dream of radical shifts in how we think and how we deal with one another]


For a full-list of programs and initiatives see here

These programs, if they are ever implemented, will likely not significantly decrease the incidences of self-harm because the culture -- this culture need to fundamentally change. This culture has an ever-growing love for violence, money, greed and power. In fact, this Western culture has provided a never ending buffet of self-hatred, apathy and loneliness sustained by a dominant class obsessed with self-starvation, sexy violence and out-of-control consumerism.


To deal with this we must address and critique the societal factors at play. 'First-World' children and teenagers from all socio-economic backgrounds are taking part in this harming behavior. 


Why? 


Young girls are starving, cutting and poisoning themselves while being abused and exploited en masse and yet we still collectively ask ourselves, why? Why would girls and women experience so much self-hatred, shame and trauma? why why why!? 
Of course, there are differences in experiences and reasons for harming oneself. But, despite our diverse reasons and experiences, I can confidently declare that there is nothing  inevitable or natural that causes women and girls to harm and hate themselves at such high frequencies. This hatred and desire to harm or damage oneself or to escape one's reality , my readers, is a result of the ruins of the male operated capitalist machine that has lead to the mass-scale destruction of civilization - both of the natural world and everything that dwells within it.


Women and girls as a sex-class have been and continue to be oppressed in various ways, some subtle and some horribly evident; Oppressed by delirious and out-dated institutions. Evidently, The Mass-Media Machine continues the practice of pop-culture driven woman-hating. The Mass Media Machine asserts that we, as women and girls, do not own our bodies  - our bodies are wrong, dirty, degraded, too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall; too-freckled, too black, too brown, too muscular. These bodies, our bodies are viewed and accepted as commodities under our current system. Likely this internalized commodification is a result of endlessly staring at ourselves; contorted, starved and constructed, plastered all over bus-stops and magazines - typically in pieces. 


Self-harming behavior, in my opinion, must be looked at within the culture that sustains it. The culture, our Western culture that sexualizes and normalizes violence and rape. It normalizes the abuse that can often lead to self-harming behavior. This culture is one that seems to require that any new horror film must include footage of a woman being viciously attacked or brutally raped. But, the evidence is everywhere and if you're not a horror-movie fan, fear not -  you could just turn on a television to see an episode of CSI. Or why not wander into the gas-station to look at the latest issue of FHM or playboy? The propaganda is endless. 


One cannot help but ask what if men were portrayed in the same ways and at the same frequency as women? What if males were self-injuring themselves at the same frequencies females are? There would be an outcry!


But I digress. 


Along with more funding, we must start to think critically and radically. New ideas are necessary - radical ideas.


But, is it even possible?


Is a world where rape and violence against women is not considered sexy even possible? I want a world where young women do not feel obliged to starve themselves only to feed the beauty industry - a world where kids don't feel it necessary to poison themselves to escape from their pain. I want that world.

The American Media Machine and How I Learned to Conquer Television

All this week my ears have been ringing from the constant chattering of the American Media Machine that loves to hear itself speak. Even grocery shopping serves as a reminder of our Hollywood-sick and consumerist culture - I can't even pay for some overpriced produce without seeing "Kim Kardashian's New Butt Implants!" or "Arnold's Love Child." American television is a large, slightly terrifying force that and fills one with a stinking sense of emptiness. The emphasis on American rather than Canadian TV is purposeful. American TV truly dominates and it is significantly different from Canadian TV, particularly any news programs. Television itself, however, proves to be the cause of various bouts of dissatisfaction in the "First World" collective psyche. This should come as no surprise since the media is constantly sending messages to the public saying that we need more shit like boulder crushing pickups and chemical cleaners by a fictional bald dude for those tough stains.  


My television set was always used to occupy the silence, to act as a sort of auditory crutch. In fact, any program would do, as long as it was mildly entertaining. This habit started as a child, when I would watch a lot of television in my bedroom. A blue light could be seen blanketing me on a nightly basis as I slept, the noises making me feel a sense of security.

photo found here

By the time I moved out on my own, my self-esteem and self-worth was suffering more than usual as it was being engulfed by patriarchy and emotional sickness. By this time, of course, patriarchy was invisible to me. Television shows about how ugly and wrong women are and how to fix them with makeovers, plastic surgery and psychotic fitness routines were becoming daily "entertainers" in my life. Since these shows were constantly on, either for entertainment or for the sheer purpose of "background noise," my mind slowly became more fixated on fashion, ultra-femininity, male-approval, and thinness.  The things I never gave two shits about before in my life became somehow crucial issues in my life. I learned to criticize my body and the bodies of others, mostly other women; I learned my role as submissive female - feminine and fragile. The TV perpetuated and normalized ideas about beauty and unattainable happiness, with its redundant commercials that succeeded at turning me into a dainty yet terribly unhappy robot. But what keeps us going back?   


American television keeps its pizazz by using the sad or pathetic lives of others for entertainment for the rest of society who in turn feel better about themselves as a result. I plead guilty as charged to this, too, though this post at I Blame the Patriarchy really put it all into perspective. But I digress. Many a' eyes glaze over while watching celebrity family break ups and many are kept bloodshot from those late nights watching CNN; watching gunfire, bombs and the herding of humans while a white dude in an expensive suit gives his "analysis" of the events. But it is not just the images of Bin Laden's compound or the representations of violence in Libya, there are more subtle ways to titillate the masses. 




Thousands of people spend the days trying to keep up with the latest Western Imperialist Fashion that is meant to dictate their social standing and human worth based on the notion that the quest for perfection is only a transaction away. The fashion industry further perpetuates white-supremacist beauty standards, the rampant rise of eating disorders and exploitation of workers across the world. Yet, we are fed fashion as something humans, mostly women, need and should strive for. Nevertheless, when the news or the latest episode of "What not To Wear" (one of my old favourites) is not playing, advertisements are. Ads, as most people can agree with, are horribly annoying and intrusive, sometimes even catchy. Many people who are financially privileged enough, purchase items they do not need in hopes that they can achieve "happiness" - quotes used to indicate the various, diverse definitions of happiness and challenging Western view of the term. Happiness, perfection, satisfaction, freedom - all catch words that are promised to the masses by large companies through a small window of time between programming. Often, many people will mute their sets when the ads come on but many do not. Instead, some people claim they "tune out" the commercials - ignore them. What is interesting, however, is how we remember the commercials that we supposedly ignored and how we then make decisions to purchase one brand over another. It all comes back to the Media Machine controlling the way we view ourselves and the people around us. The Media Machine constructs a false reality based on white middle to upper-class Happiness newspeak that tells us how to live our lives in a way that fits snugly with the status quo. 


The status quo reinforces oppressive social environments and continues the traditions of patriarchy and capitalism by tricking the masses into believing they aren't satisfied or happy enough. But, do not fear readers, a way that has proven essential in beating a large chunk of the status quo into the ground is shutting off the TV. I know that not everyone is financially privileged enough to own a television, but many do and it is impacting the young people and the generations to come. The messages, through the reality television shows, pseudo-psychologist nonsense and racist police programs, ignored or not, are subconsciously taken into the brain as they are carefully constructed to appeal to people's deepest values, beliefs, emotions and lifestyles. The messages do not exist as mere fillers of silence, marketersdisproportionately male-dominated and thus provide "entertainment" based on patriarchal principles, like playing "women's shows" during the day, while they are allegedly in the home. Luckily, if we're not too emotionally deadened from watching reruns of Family Guy or Sex and the City, we can see through the heaping pile of televised dung and grab the remote.When you shut the television off and take in the silence curiosity will prevail again and struggle for an end to patriarchal and capitalist oppression will become much clearer. 

8 Year old with Botox Injections and How our Culture Consumes Girl-Children

Spray tans, fake teeth and heeled feet - life for the 8 year old pageant girl-child is very far from endearing, but recently an 8 year old girl-child has had her face injected with poison on a regular basis. Yes, you read correctly, an 8 year old child has been regularly injected with Botox. The injections were administered by the girl's mother, in their home without medical approval or supervision. The girl-child, Britney, partakes in various beauty pageants which, as most of my readers will know, encourage young girls to compete with one another and obsess about their body image and physical appearance, rather than skills or personality. Britney's mother publicly admitted injecting her daughter with Botox, while assuring the rest of the world that it was justifiable and even logical for her daughters allegedly bright future:


"I know one day she will be a model, actress or singer, and having these treatments now will ensure she stays looking younger and baby-faced for longer"

Britney after receiving Botox injections. Photo found here

Surely, we can look to patriarchy for the answer to why a mother would potentially harm her own daughter for the sake of a few hops on a pageant stage.Under male-supremacy, all females are told to become hyper-feminine, passive and subordinate or face the social consequences. "First World" women and apparently now girls are taught to fear age and "signs" of aging such as wrinkles to the point of shooting themselves and others up with sausage poison 1. It's extremely unlikely that anyone knows of any eight year olds with crows feet and even if we did, so what? So, now even female children are herded about in a semi circle, wearing gowns, lead-laden mascara and glittery cone-bras like chattel while creepy 50 something year old dudes can grade them. 

photo found here

As an adult, one has tremendous responsibility to ensure the safety of kids, by you know, not jabbing them with a neurotoxin like Botox. Botox, or Botulinum Toxin is a substance that likely is not healthy for anyone to inject into their face regularly, but specifically for those under 18 years of age. The eight year old brain is a very different brain from that of an 18 year old -  during childhood the brain is constantly creating new neurological pathways and taking in new and unique information. Injecting a child with a neurotoxin on a regular basis (for aesthetic purposes, not for medical treatment) is a form of child abuse. However, there are other abuses of children, mostly girl-children that take place in beauty pageants. During a conversation about this with my partner, he brought up other pageant mothers' and fathers' reaction to the story - would they see the botox as wrong but still happily sanction the parading of their own children in false teeth, hair and nails?  After receiving mental images from past episodes of "Toddlers and Tiaras," I nodded in agreement.


It is true that Botox is more immediately harmful to a child's physical well-being but telling your young child to grind on stage in high heels in order to win a couple thousand dollars is no less detrimental. The beauty pageant's perpetuation of the highest level of sexist social constructs and stereotypes robs kids of their childhood - it forces them into strict sex roles and can be physically and mentally traumatic. For example, children's foot growth could be interrupted by wearing restrictive and high heeled shoes. In addition to restrictive attire, the girl-children are almost always coated in makeup which is packed with toxins like lead and silica. Many makeup contains chemicals that are confirmed neurotoxins, carcinogens and endocrine disruptors 2. Not only are these children painted, waxed and pinched - they are also forced to take in mental cues about their own self-worth and body image. These cues will obviously have lasting effects if they are continuously reinforced in our social landscape. 

Kerry and her Daughter Britney. Photo found here

The toll of beauty pageants are not only physical, they are psychological, too. Britney's mother's fantasy appears to have overshadowed her ability to see her daughter's full humanity.The culture we live in is robbing humans of humanity - the young ones are often treated as mere accessories to be decorated and shown off like a blood diamond on a finger. This culture is turning all people, but particularly and predominately females, into one dimensional commodities. This culture consumes women and girls then spits us us back out, in hopes that we will return as sufficiently subordinate, physically attractive and yet self-loathing. 




Notes
1  P, T. Ting, & A, Freiman (2004) Clostridium botulinum: from food poisoning to Botox. Clinical Medicine, (4) 3


2 http://www.ewg.org/skindeep






*** Update *** May 14, 2011


Several quotes were brought to my attention from Britney and her mother via media interviews. These were far too problematic to ignore:


Kerry (Britney's mother) states the following in an interview with the sun:


“I’m sure people reading this will think I am being irresponsible, but I ensure that I test the Botox and 
fillers I buy online on myself first.” 

"I’m proud Britney is getting to have these beauty treatments at such a young age."

“I wish that I’d had the same advantages when I was younger."

“She is a lucky little girl and is going to be famous because of the benefits I am giving her so early.”

According to the same article, Britney's 83 year old now-deceased father/research scientist supported his daughter's "beauty treatments" regarding waxing and injections as "part of normal life" (qtd in the Sun from here) Kerry also stated that she gets her daughter "virgin waxes" to wax any hair that grows on the child's legs and to "make[s] sure she wont develop pubic hair in the future."

Britney was also quoted, the 8 year old girl told the Sun:

“My friends think it’s cool I have all the treatments and they want to be like me. I check every night for wrinkles, when I see some I want more injections.

“They used to hurt, but now I don’t cry that much."

“I also want a boob and nose job soon, so that I can be a star.”

Her mother claims Britney has been taken out of school once "for a headache," but "apart from that she has had no reaction at all" Kerry is being investigated by child protective services at the current time. 

...absolutely terrifying

American Apparel: A Cotton T-Shirt Made of Misogyny!

This is probably NSFW

Two Year Olds Love Shopping and Lines of Credit!

Since a post is long over-due, here's an essay I wrote for my WMST class about this toy called My Pretty Learning Purse made by Fisher Price 

     The aisles in toy stores are reflective of our culture’s ideas and assumptions of gender; girls and boys are separated by blue and pink and by action heroes and dolls. Our society views women and girls to be profoundly different than men and boys on some basis of biology. However, gender is not a biological imperative but rather a social one. Yet, companies create and market toys according to gendered assumptions.  A particular toy being marketed to children, specifically and obviously to girls, is comprised of a pink purse with a musical plastic zipper. I found this toy in my two-year old niece’s toy box. It is called My Pretty Learning Purse and is made by Fisher Price. The purse itself sports a smiling cartoon face on its front and is made from a soft material. The handle is labelled with numbers one through ten and allows the child to open the purse to retrieve the rest of the toy’s pink and purple accessories. These accessories consist of plastic cash, car keys, and jewellery as well as a fake tube of lipstick and a small mirror. The toy itself maintains stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

            My Pretty Learning Purse assumes that girls are naturally inclined to love soft delicate colours and high-class lifestyles full of shopping and cosmetics. The toy fulfills rigid stereotypes based on the societal assumption that girls are just biologically hardwired to like “feminine” toys.  When selling and marketing toys such as this that exist within rigid dichotomies of boy-toys and girl-toys, the idea that gender is natural and fixed gets promoted to children. Teaching girls that they must fit into a narrow, Eurocentric and heterosexist view of femininity leads to society’s perpetuation of the lower status of women and girls. Children will likely assume that toys are separated by gender for a reason when they are bombarded with cultural products like this purse. Girls and boys are socially separated into two groups and toys that are mass-produced like this are reinforcing attempts to order society in a way that divides girls and boys at an early age. My Pretty Learning Purse restricts children’s full potentials by limiting their full exploration of interests that may or may not happen to cross the established gender boundaries.

This toy tries to bully young girls into believing that jewellery and makeup are of upmost importance in life. Such presumptions once again reinforce notions about how girls should behave or what girls should be interested in based on biologically determined factors. In addition, the level of exposure to pop culture is likely a main predictor for how gender myths become viewed as normal or natural in our society. Unfortunately, in today’s globalized world one cannot fathom a life that is not bombarded with some form of media. Pop culture is sending constant messages to remind the public to monitor their behaviour, and their children’s behaviour. They are reminded to examine their perceptions of themselves based on whether or not they are masculine or feminine enough. This toy, like many gendered toys, will only teach girls their socialized “place” in the world based on a patriarchal and andocentric view of reality. Why must we set up such boundaries for children, who are interested in exploring their world? Nevertheless, along with rigid gender role compliance, My Pretty Learning Purse also promotes an idea of class and status that falls directly in with notions of gender. 

            Two year olds do not typically drive cars or wear lipstick, so what about My Pretty Learning Purse is educational? The numbers on the handle could possibly satisfy the educational criteria of the toy, or perhaps the toddler will learn about responsible investments. Firstly, what is the basic purpose of a purse? According to everyone who carries a purse they are used to keep money, keys, and credit cards. Thus, the first class-related problem with this toy is that it assumes that everyone has pocket cash, a running car and a line of credit.  Not only does it assume this, but it presents an idea of economic normalcy to children; normalcy in its assumption that everyone has and that there are no have-nots. Children from low-income families or working class families may not understand or perceive any educational value in such a toy, nor should they have to. It is classist in that it assumes all families have a decent standard of living. This, like the gender component, naturalizes and normalizes one reality and ignores many others. It also maintains stereotypes of girls being dependent, money-hungry “gold diggers” who can’t help but nab a good sale. There may be some small indicator of financial independence within this toy, depending on how one looks at it, but the jewellery and lipstick really suggest stereotyping of women and girls. Furthermore, this purse illustrates the common image of the good girl.  The good girl is the popular girl – she fulfills her perceived roles in life, ones set up by a patriarchal society. The purse asserts that good girls are fashion-forward, middle-class and conventionally beautiful as deemed by Eurocentric views. The good girls are the ones who will carry credit cards and makeup and live happily ever after, according to the enforcers of gender roles. It should be no surprise then that the princess mentality, which has saturated the vocabulary of many young girls in the First World, is also reinforced by this pink purse of plastic wealth and status. The princess mentality assumes all girls are and should behave like princesses and be treated accordingly. The purse refuses to suggest any other reality that may or may not exist outside of the Eurocentric consumer culture that we live in. For instance, the jewellery in the purse is a pink bracelet, a prime indicator of heteronormativity and class-privilege; it does not and will not speak for all girls in the same way. Adult women who have jewellery are considered high-class and elegant in the West. Jewellery also indicates heternormativity by promoting middle-class perceptions of diamonds and commitment.  The only educational element is teaching girls how to be “normal” as deemed by our culture. This toy teaches girls to be feminine, heterosexual, beautiful, and middle class while simultaneously making it all appear natural and inevitable. Not only does My Pretty Learning Purse preserve gender roles and classism, it also promotes a standard of feminine and ideal beauty.

            With the rise of popular culture, girls are becoming continuously ambushed by images and unrealistic beauty standards. First of all, the language used in the title of the toy is vital for analysis. The title uses language that is crucial to ideas of gender and beauty.  The term “pretty” generally refers to a feminine, soft and nearly fragile assessment of beauty. Prettiness in our society translates into pink clothing and red-stained lips. Our culture lends the idea that pretty girls are light-skinned, wear clean and fashionable clothes and can afford jewellery.  Beauty, like gender and class, is a social grouping to some extent. The West tends to see those who are conventionally beautiful to be somehow superior to others or more deserving of opportunities. My Pretty Learning Purse wants girls to look pretty by giving them a plastic tube of lipstick and a mirror to practice with. Lipstick was invented by patriarchal forces to cause a woman’s lips to resemble a flushed vulva – or so the story goes. Lipstick was always a staple in the early days of Western capitalism as a sign of femininity. Femininity is seen as a sign of heterosexuality, which keeps women from looking “deviant” or like lesbians, who are wrongly perceived to be the antagonists of femininity and beauty. Young girls are told to dress pretty and wear makeup to attract boys and maintain an image of compliance with the status quo. Giving a child a lipstick tube shows them that women wear lipstick and other makeup, it is just a fact of life, it is normal. It also, like everything else, draws on class. Lipstick is a mass-consumed product, an unhealthy one at that, and likely is not of the same importance in other parts of the world. The mirror provided in the purse will assist girls on maintaining their beauty rituals, to make sure their lipstick is perfected and their hair looks acceptable. Girls are taught to constantly check their bodies for imperfections, possibly leading to body image problems and obsessions with bodily “perfection.” The pairing of a mirror and fake lipstick suggests that this toy is not intended to educate a child about money or lines of credit, but rather to reinforce stereotypes about gender, class and beauty.

Women and girls, as the social construction goes, are biologically fragile and subordinate. If a woman or girl does not fit the petite, feminine, light-skinned, and middle class criteria, they fail to meet the requirements for being treated like a human being. Fortunately, to save girls the trouble, large companies have created pseudo-educational toys to make sure girls never fail to learn about their position in society. These companies are attempting to teach girls to recognize that their sole purpose in life is to find and keep a husband. Girls are told act in strictly feminine ways and play with feminine toys like My Pretty Learning Purse to make sure they remain compliant, conventionally beautiful and heterosexual. A girl playing with “boy-toys” is seen as a “tomboy” and thus becomes a threat to the status quo. My Pretty Learning Purse is not a toy intended for real educational value; a few numbers and a zipper do not cover the real learning that goes into purse. The real learning happens from the social stereotypes that made this purse possible in the first place. Gender is taught to everyone and this purse aids in that education. Girls play with pink and purple toys, princess, dolls, and tea sets. They are assumed to be biologically inclined towards these items because they are girls. They learn stereotypes about class when they play with this purse. They learn that making lots of money and owning expensive things will increase their happiness and popularity. It teaches them that all other kids come from middle-class or upper middle-class families, own cars and have credit cards. The purse implies that girls are inclined to wear makeup and be overly conscious of their appearances. Boys are not provided with pocket mirrors or tubes of lipstick in their toys because boys are assumed to be hard-wired for playing with toy guns, going fishing or playing sports. This toy simply declares that all of these social constructions are true and inescapable. Girls learn that women carry purses so they can carry the items they need to maintain their place in society on a daily basis. Fortunately, the soothing music bellowing from the plastic zipper will ease the parent’s mind, fooling them into believing their child is learning how to be a responsible consumer.  In reality, this toy and others like it will teach girls that there is one “normal” way of life. You can only be truly happy and “normal” if you live within a high socioeconomic class, own lots of possessions, have feminine characteristics and appearances as well as light-skin and a husband. What better message to teach girls then to limit themselves to rigid gender boxes that are classist and sexist, that teach a girl that the most important things are shopping, status, beauty, male approval and pink fluffy things. After all, girls are just born that way. 

Campus Misogyny

Sitting behind a Tim Hortons* on campus today, I overheard a conversation involving two women and two men. They were loudly speaking at the table next to me, so it was difficult not to overhear. To my horror, the young woman, probably about 19 years old told her female friend (who had a boyfriend sitting with her) that she had gone to many strip clubs. The other woman said she hadn't been to any, so the first woman said she should take her. What came next was the real shock - she informed her friends that while she was at the strip club they played the loonie* game but the stripper was ugly anyway, she said. For those of you not familiar, the loonie game or sometimes  even, the penny game, is where onlookers throw coins at the strippers on stage, hoping to hit them in certain parts of the body. This is apparently a good way to spend a Friday night. Oh, and to continue the trend, the woman also added that the stripper was "a total dog."


It really disgusted me to hear women talking about other women like "the other", like a piece of meat unworthy of respect or dignity without thinking about a society that upholds such hatred of women.


I have heard of women going to strip clubs just to say they went, or to degrade other women. Maybe it gets them more points with their pornsick boyfriends, who knows?


It is commonplace in my city to throw coins at strippers as a form of entertainment. This way, doods (and clearly some women) can go out with their pals and have "fun" at the expense of a woman being paid to take her clothes off for a bunch of scumbag pimps and misogynists. 


To add to the already offensive conversation - the women also talked about up-and-coming female authors and how the only authors anyone could think of was "that Twilight bitch" or "that Harry Potter bitch"


What the hell is going on? 




* Tim Hortons is a coffee chain in Canada (the best damn coffee around!)
* A loonie is a one dollar coin in Canada. It is a large gold-coloured coin with a loon on it. It's not small nor particularly light.