I want to admit here and now that Mean Girls is one of my guiltiest pleasures. Whenever I’m taking a sick day or feeling less than myself I love to pop it in my DVD player and commune with the junk food gods. The film was actually loosely based on the book Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and Other Realities of Adolescence, and however “fluffy” the film is its actually a pretty hilarious and accurate take on how traumatizing girls can make adolescence for each other. That and Tina Fey…oh, how I love Tina Fey…

You may wonder why I bring up my obsession with the film at this moment, given it’s been out of theatres since 2004 and there’s a lot more relevent projects that Lindsay Lohan’s been involved in that could be worthy of a feminist critique. I bring up my Mean Girls fascination because of one scene in particular; the Halloween Party scene. That was the first time on film that I had witnessed a (joking) critique of the fact that (as Lindsey Lohan’s character Cady puts it) “Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it.”

Now I wouldn’t put it quite that way, but I have been noticing a trend over the years that Halloween costumes for women are becoming increasingly sexualized, increasingly offensive, and the ages these sexy costumed are marketed to seem to get younger and younger.

Feministing’s got a post today about some of the more disturbing “children’s costumes” being sold online, such as “French Maid Child” and “Major Flirt.” Then there’s the midriff baring “Mega Star Child.” Am I alone in this, or was everyone else dressed as a pumpkin or a clown when they were under the age of eight?(more inside…)

Film Friday isn’t until tomorrow, but a girl has to plan!

If you find yourself in Toronto this weekend, head down to the Planet in Focus International Environmental Film and Video festival. The films are a fantastic mix of genre and style that explore a wide range of issues. Festival Director Candida Paltiel suggests that “The festival transcends class, gender and other boundaries because of its broad definition of environment.”

It’s so good.

Documentary filmmaker, writer and environmentalist Mark Haslam founded PIF as a one day film screening in 1999. Since then, it has grown into five-day event with year round programming including a growing archive of environmental films. Between movies, check out the eco-fair, Activist Cinema Roundtable, Green Pitch competition, panel sessions, programs for children and opportunities to chat with the filmmakers.
(more inside…)

In The Guardian today, former/current Spice Girl Geri Halliwell let her thoughts be known on feminism:

So, is Halliwell a feminist?

The question clearly hits a nerve: what, she asks quickly, do I mean by feminism? Well, I tell her, for me feminism is about the fact that women still aren’t treated equally, which raises issues of justice. OK, concedes Halliwell, maybe she is a feminist: but she has a few distinct caveats. One objection seems to be that she fears feminism will emasculate and demoralise men: but her bigger problem is its image. “It’s about labelling. For me feminism is bra-burning lesbianism. It’s very unglamorous. I’d like to see it rebranded. We need to see a celebration of our femininity and softness.”

So much for girl power. Zig-ah-zig-ahhhh?

Cortney at A Feminist Response to Pop Culture wonders “why the feminist bloggers that I read are not writing more about Britney Spears?” and I have to agree with her.

Thea has previously touched on the demise of Spears’ popularity as a feminist issue, but now that Britney’s bad VMA performance has been eclipsed by the loss of her children, I agree with Cortney when she says the need for some feminist blogging on the subject is nigh. She reports:

A few days ago one of my very close feminist friends informed me that Britney Spears had lost custody of her children and what a good thing that is. It was more than a bit disconcerting to hear someone for whom I have a great deal of respect so openly revel in the pain and suffering of a woman who lost her children.

News broke today that Britney has regained her full parental rights, but I think it might be time to reflect of whether or not the feminist community has a responsibility to support, defend, critique or ignore the constant flurry of news that is “the Britney Spears.” Is our analysis of her iconic downfall merely adding fuel to media frenzy, or can it pull some positive insight about women in the media gaze out of an otherwise destructive machine? (more inside…)

*Actual quote from male “Shot at Love” contestant

Thea asked me to blog about this one and I have to be honest, I don’t even know where to begin.

For the good of the blog, I just sat down and watched an entire episode of a new reality show on MTV called “A Shot at Love,” and that’s a half an hour of my life I’ll never get back. The premise of the show is described in the Toronto Star today:

A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, you see, is one of those dating shows … with a twist. The suitors vying for Tila’s fickle affections include “16 gorgeous straight guys!” and “16 hot lesbians!”“Each week I’m going to kick their asses to the curb one by one until the right man or woman is left standing,” Tila promises, with typical gentility.

(Tila Tequila is a famous person, by the way. That and she uses the show as a vehicle to “out” herself; “I haven’t even told my parents yet,” she says during the premiere.)

And yes, it is just as awful as you would assume, exploiting every “women are for the male gaze” stereotype of female sexuality possible, screaming “hot lesbian!” at every turn, dressing all the contestants in bathing suits and touting itself as “the ultimate battle of the sexes!” The men are forced to walk in high heels and get waxes, while there’s gratuitous shots of “lesbian man hate” (cause they’re rarely referred to as women, just as “lesbians”) The men come up with gems like “I’ve never been with an Asian chick before, but I love Chinese food” when they’re not continuously beating the crap out of eachother. There’s even a couple of virgins in the mix, to exploit the cultural facilnation with sexualizing virginity.

The entire show is based on a “boys are like this/girls are like this” dichotomy, with a little (okay, a lot of)”let’s watch girls kissing” thrown in. And if you were wondering, yes - all of the lesbians are of the stereotypical “for the male gaze/straight porn” variety, and if they weren’t “lipstick” enough (Tila’s words, not mine) they were gone by the end of the first show. Actual quote: “I think that a butchy girl is so creepy. Good god.”(more inside…)

I admit I have been a part of the “at least Dove is doing something” camp for a long time now. I always felt that even if marketers were using less than typical images of women just to sell product, at least those images were challenging and changing the current media climate. Even with my awareness of the other brands Unilever represented, I was optimistic about the effect the Dove ads could have on the wider industry as a whole.

Now I’m not so sure. I just read this fantastic, thorough piece over at The Situationist called “Hey Dove! Talk to YOUR parent!” that really fleshes out the hypocricy of the campaign. The “onslaught” Dove critiques (and tells parents to “talk to their kids about”) is one they’ve created. The author of this piece makes a great point that despite the fact that the “onslaught” ad is a powerful one, it shifts blame off of the beauty industry by pointing a finger at parents for not talking to their kids about the imagery that saturates their lives:

It seems peculiar, therefore, that Dove would offer a film demonstrating the ubiquitous attack of the beauty industry that ends with the suggestion to parents that they are the ones to make a difference by simply talking to their kids. If the industry is the problem, it strikes me as odd that the parents are supposed to be the solution.

But the thing that struck me the most about the article was what it said in regards to Axe and Lynx, two products that perpetuate these unrealistic, sexualized images of women in the most demeaning of ways, and what Dove (and not parents) should do about it:

But if the problem is sexualized stereotypes and unhealthy body types, then why is Dove telling parents to “talk to their kids before the beauty industry does”? Shouldn’t Dove be talking to its parent about not talking to our kids? (more inside…)

There’s a great piece posted over at thetyee.ca today about Dolly Parton: “No greater oracle of wisdom, sunshine and feminism than she.” For me it’s preaching to the converted:

She got it all, and she did it her way: wearing sequins, four-inch heels and a wig, showing off that enormous rack while she did it. Perhaps more than anything, she represents a third option for women in the music industry — be talented, be bold, be yourself, and — yes, get to livin’.

If you’ve ever bought anything via Amazon.com you’re aware of those emails they send out periodically - you know, the ones where they say “You bought (insert book you bought) so we thought you might want to buy (this other book.)” Today they got it very wrong when they recommended I order “Girls are Weirdos but they smell pretty.” Todd Harris Goldman of “David and Goliath” fame, is no stranger to critique - in the past he’s been attacked for promoting a battle of the sexes among young people via the boy bashing slogans that have adorned his t-shirts, bags and various other accessories.

It seems that “Girls are Weirdos” aims to continue the battle. From the back cover:

A Book That’s All About You. Congratulations! You’re a girl. You like the color pink. You watch Chick Flicks. Some days are Bad Hair Days. Other days are for Shopping, where you hang out with your BFF, compare Crushes, and ask the eternal question: Does this dress make me look fat? Isn’t it great?!

Admittedly I haven’t read the book, and it could be a joke? A witty tongue-in-cheek diatribe on gender identity? If that’s the case, the book description really doesn’t do it any justice:

Narrated by a boy who’s sort of a moron, it questions all the things that are completely alien to boys, but with a surprisingly sweet insight and great good spirit. Waxing vs. shaving. The color pink. Shoe obsessions. The everyday dilemma: “Does this dress make me look fat?” The appeal of tiny little dogs. Fake boobs. The mysteries of PMS. In the end he can only conclude that girls are weirdos and leave it at that—a conclusion that girls will not only understand but own up to proudly.

and finally…

…this book is in fact a wonderfully astute and affectionate look at the female psyche, and perfect for any girl with a sense of humor (and a desire to know what boys think of girls).

Um, I’m not sure what girls they’re refering to, but it’s certainly not me…

What do you think? All in good fun, or all around offensive?

You know, it’s not often that you go to a rock show and hear a performer drop lines like, “So I decided to take the advice of my friend, Elvis Presley…”

Last Friday I had the chance to hit two really great birds with one stone - I got to see my buddies The Stolen Minks (how can you not love a band whose lyrics include the lines “Girls on the stage and boys on the floor!” and “Batman, you’re the sex!”?) open for Wanda Jackson, on Jackson’s 70th birthday. And even though this will reveal me as a horrible phoney for being at her show in the first place, on Friday I also finally figured out just who Jackson is.

Wanda Jackson, as I discovered, is the First Lady of Rock and Roll. What that means is that she was the first girl to ever get up on stage with a guitar and rock out. That may not sound like a big deal, but just think about what life was like in 1954 for ladies, and then think about the kind of guts you’d have to have to get up on a stage and rock and roll if you were a lady back then.

It’s kinda interesting that Jackson is not more well-known. I can tell you all sorts of things about Elvis Presley and Bruce Springsteen (two boys who’ve waxed at length about how great she is), but until Friday I was only distantly familiar with Jackson. Could it be, ahem, at least in part because she’s a lady? I wonder…

Elvis Costello seems to think so. As he says in a letter to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame asking them to once and for all induct Jackson:

For heaven’s sake, the whole [Hall] risks ridicule and having the appearance of being a little boy’s club unless it acknowledges the contribution of one of the first women of rock and roll.

(more inside…)