The Real Meaning of Marriage

I keep this blog pretty much to work out the things that stick in my craw and sometimes I feel like I shouldn't post certain things because I know I am going to be accused of looking for stuff or nitpicking.

But, damn, sometimes I just have to say something! Right now I am annoyed because of the comments on this post at A Cup of Jo. I like that blog; it is light, it is cute, it is fun. But it is sorely lacking in any sort of feminist critique. The post in question is about bridal veils. Maybe I spend too much time on feminist blogs but I went to the comments section fully expecting someone to say that veils represent women's subordination and commodification; that they romanticize rigid gender roles.

I got none of that of course, but what I did get was a whole lot of women (I believe) talking about how lovely and romantic veils are. I especially love this gem:

"The veil is so beautiful and wearing it over the face is just so romantic!"

Also, apparently, when talking weddings "old fashioned" is a good thing.

"That is quite romantic and old-fashioned. It seems like veils covering the face at weddings have slowely (sic) been phased out - I still adore the sentiment!"

This one is my favorite:

"This is so moving and beautiful. It really does remind us of the real meaning of marriage. Stunning."

These comments had me thinking about how some women romanticize the wedding ceremony. I am not going to go into all of the different traditions and what they mean because I just don't have the energy. But I am led to wonder how so many commenter's on A Cup of Jo can, without a trace of self-examination or critical consciousness, say that a bridal veil is romantic.

Old fashioned, yes. Traditional, yes. But let us look at that tradition that these commenter's wish to romanticize. On a website for bridal veils, they describe the tradition as such:

"In medieval times...the veil was used to protect [the bride] from 'the evil eye' and was a symbol of purity, chastity, and modesty.

Others say the the origin of the bridal veil was due to the circumstances of an arranged marriage. In days past, men bargained with an eligible young lady's father for their hand in marriage. AFTER the ceremony, the veil was lifted to reveal the brides features. This was to keep a groom from backing out of the deal if he didn't like what he saw.

Some say that the veil was used in days past as a symbol of a bride's submission and willingness to obey her husband."

Remember, this is a site that sells veils! That these traditions actually do represent the "real meaning of marriage" is perhaps the best argument I can think of against marriage.

It really bums me out that women don't think more about the meaning of the traditions that they are upholding in their weddings. And if they do think about it and then uphold them anyway, well that is just terrifying.

Boy Toys/Girl Toys

About two weeks ago I wrote about the highest and lowest paying college degrees and noted that the degrees with the greatest financial value are in fields dominated by men. Today I found this amusing comic that offers an, albeit oversimplified, explanation. Gender socialization plays such a massive role in the stratification of our society it is hard to imagine why anyone would argue that nature is responsible for these differences. Here is a series of very clear examples of nurture clearly overpowering nature.

Apple's iPad Commercials are Sexist

Are Apple's iPad commercials sexist? Yes.
Not really sure why the title had to be posed as a question. And I would strongly disagree that "it may seem kind of a small thing to freak out over." This is just another of hundreds of thousands of ways in which gender stereotypes are reinforced to the point that they seem to be just the natural order of things.

I Guess This is What it Takes for me to Come Out of Hibernation

Via Gizmodo, another image of a woman's body being used as an object. They don't even offer her the courtesy of giving her a head in this disembodied image. Of course, this tee shirt implies that the cord from the controller is connected to her head which further implies that the controller/breasts can be used to control the woman wearing it. I suppose, given the misogynist nature of gaming culture, this would be a logical conclusion.

Because I adore her and I am sure her concern is one shared by other readers I am going to share a comment from one of my friends and my response to that comment:

"Ok, ok, maybe that's true, but lets see the humor in this, To me it looks like she's allowing this to happen. Her arms are back, prepared for what she knows is taking place. She doesn't want her head shown because she wouldn't want anyone to identify her."

I have no doubt that this particular model consented to this particular action. But we must always remember that images do not exist in a vacuum, taken within the context of gaming culture and the larger patriarchal culture in which it has been given room to flourish, images like this have tremendous meaning. It means that women, like game controllers, are objects, in this case, for male consumption and pleasure. Objectifying a person is the first step in the process of dehumanization and ALL of the abuses that we feel justified in inflicting upon objects. Game controllers can be thrown away, replaced with better, upgraded controllers, they can be smashed if they don't work properly and overall, they are objects. They are interchangeable, they don't have feelings. What this image conveys is that women are objects like game controllers and, like objects, it is okay to use them, hurt them, and toss them aside. Again, it has little to do with the actual people in the image and more to do with the greater cultural context in which it was born.

A Few Problematic Products

I am in the market for a new digital camera (not that I can afford it since soon I will be + an MA and - a job, but nonetheless, I've never had one and I've always wanted one). Anyway, I have my eye on a nice purple Nikon so when I came across this on Gizmodo, it caught my attention. Who knew that a camera (much less one whose company is headquartered in Japan) could be so "racially insensitive" or as I'd prefer to say, racist. The varied nature of eye shape seems like the kind of thing you would take into consideration when developing technology to eliminate photos of people blinking.

In other product news, I came across this new "candy bar for women." Another subtle way that women are reminded that their personal value and worth comes from how little space they take up. If the candy bar is for women and it is marketed as being low calorie then it speaks volumes about the ways in which women are taught to think about themselves and other people are taught to think about women. And that is not even to mention the 'creepy' sexual inuendo in the advertising.

Disembodied Art Courtesy of David Byrne

My roommate is a serious biker. For her job (and anything else she chooses to do) she bikes about fifty miles a day! I, too, love biking but if I hit ten miles a day I'd be amazed.

Anyway, she sent me an e-mail about these new bike racks in New York City. She is excited to see such lively and colorful accoutrements just for bikers.

I wonder why a pornulated female body must be part of the city's art and biking culture? Why choose that particular form out of the thousands if not millions of alternatives? For context purposes please see Melissa McEwan's many posts on disembodied things.

If I had to lock my precious bike to this rack (no pun intended) regularly, all I'd be able to think about is how female bodies are quite literally turned into objects for others' use.

"What Do You Call Them?"

Does anyone else think that this Playtex ad campaign is more than a little creepy?

I am particularly unamused by the videos entitled "What do you call them?" I knew it couldn't be long before corporate America reappropriated the feminist rhetoric of The Vagina Monologues, turning it into the same old sexist bullshit, to sell bras to women.

Particularly irritating are these:
"Husband Pleasers." (As if breasts exist solely for the pleasure of men, not for the women or their offspring.)
"Money Makers." (Because women have been taught throughout history that the only way for them to make it in patriarchal economic systems are through their subjugated and sale-able sexuality.)
"Puppies." (Because women are constantly dehumanized by being relegated to status of animals. And we all know how animals are treated in this country.)
"I've been asked to shake the money makers on the subway a few times." (Trivializing the terrorism that is street harassment. I have heard too many stories at the Holla Back Chicago site to think that this is cute. The most recent contribution "I Never Feel Safe" is especially telling.)

I Have No Words.....

Dehumanization? Via Gizmodo.

Dr. Phil Duo

I need to get another job. This can be evidenced by the fact that I have been watching too much Dr. Phil. What is so fascinating about this is that I watched episodes on Thursday and Friday which were just so strikingly sexist, particularly in relationship to one another, that I almost couldn't believe it.

On Thursday Robin McGraw, Dr. Phil's wife, had the opportunity to tell women what we need to do to look ten years younger during an oh-so-tired makeover show. Apparently all it takes to be a happier menopausal woman is microderm abrasion, teeth whitening, cellulite reduction cream, velashaping (?), eyebrow sculpting, 'natural' hormone therapy, not eating, a gym membership, working out in the proper (name brand) gear, an iPod, sunglasses, perfume, high heels, bubble baths, a cocktail dress, a crap-load of make up and a haircut. (Seriously, all of these things were mentioned!)

Image Via

The show featured five 40-50 year old women who were unhappy with their appearance.
"I've become a frumpy mom... I'm not feeling pretty anymore!"
Dr. Phil's only apparent reason for even being in this episode seemed to be to illustrate the contrast between men and women. Every time Robin named off some inane new beauty treatment he would shake his head in that condescending "oh you silly women" way. He joked many times about how women just like to be pretty and thin, blah, blah, blah. He lectured the women about going to the gym (one of them moaned about weighing 130 lbs!) AND he consistently referred to them as 'girls!' Remember, they were all between 40 and 50!!

Near the end of the show all of the women came out to show their new make overs. The audience applauded vigorously when Robin announced that one of the women was now a size 4. Now all of these viewers have learned that being a size 4 is how women are valued in mass media, this is the only reason that this woman made it onto broadcast television. This revelation sequence was my very favorite part because the first thing Dr. Phil did was ask the women's husbands how they thought that their wives looked. He didn't ask the women how they felt or what they thought. No, he was much more concerned with whether their torturous beauty rituals had succeeded in making their fat, balding husbands' dicks hard. Job well done! And of course, all of this was presented as being some great treat for all of these women.

Another portion of the show was spent at the mall. Robin showed viewers how to shop so that you can look years younger! She did this with her token gay man and her vacuous Barbie-doll-looking daughter-in-law.

Heternormativity, misogyny and class privilege all smashed into one hour long show. Well done!

~

The show on Friday was seemingly very different in its focus. However, if you pay attention to the subtext the connection becomes very clear.

The first part of the show was about Adam who is $200,000 in debt. Adam's family thinks that he is too concerned with material things. He claimed (and no one really disagreed) that "it's all about image." I am assuming he meant life.

Image Via

He would buy himself new vehicles at an alarming rate and he went to the tanning salon and got his hair done before being on the show. These things apparently demonstrate his obsession with his image. Dr. Phil's advice for him?

"Why do you care so much about what people think?
"Why do you need that Hummer to perceive yourself as okay?"
"Don't be that shallow, don't define yourself by that stuff."

Now remember that just one day earlier he and his wife were encouraging women to do those very things!! To absorb themselves in their image, to allow their possessions to define them, to be extremely concerned with their outward appearance. Now when a man is perceived as doing those very same things, he is told that that is unacceptable. He should not be so concerned with material things or with his appearance. No, that is the burden that only women must bear.

Another Sexist and Rape-y Advertisement

Image Via

Only days ago, I was a guest speaker in an Intro to Women's Studies course. I spoke to the students about gender representations in advertising (think Jean Kilbourne). I sure do wish I had had this one for my Power Point.

Dismembered Female Bodies Are NOT Funny!

Feministing frequently posts about objects that are made to look like dismembered female body parts. (Sadly that sentence could have been MUCH longer.)


I found one to add to the collection today during a random google search. The Butt Buoy floats in the water above one's anchor looking like either a murdered or seriously mangled female body. (You really need to see the site to get the full effect.) It is appallingly acceptable to symbolically annihilate female bodies for a JOKE!!! How is that funny?

Taken in the context of domestic violence, date rape, and the every day objectification that women live with this is so not funny.