50 Shades of ... Seriously Ladies, C'MON.

Ok, maybe I was wrong. Maybe, this new generation I dreamed up of strong, feisty women was just a figment of my imagination.

Perhaps, in the end, the roles have reversed and suddenly women are the ones who only think about sex.

I'm talking about the phenomenon 50 Shades of Grey, a novel that emerged of a fan fiction of Twilight.

And we all know how much I love Twilight.
Example:

 

Since it's mass publication, 50 Shades of Grey has taken then throne of the Best Seller's list in Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and even the New York Times.

Why? 

Some might say curiosity, others to the simple fact that sex sells. But that's only for men...right? 

Clearly not.

I believe the popularity of 50 Shades of Grey is in response the recent trend of, "mommy porn".

Don't worry. For all parties involved, we will keep this within the Samford Values Conduct as much as possible. 

Also, one might think this is more of a social/moral issue than a commentary on media. But media is what drives it. Media sells sex, plain and simple. And now, men aren't the ones who this method is appealing to.

I'm talking about dolphins.

Just kidding.

Women are just as susceptible.  

The truth is, we go around accusing men of having porn addictions and acting like pigs, blah blah blah blah. And I'm not saying porn addiction isn't a problem. It is. I'm just saying it's a two way street.

If 50 Shades of Grey has done anything, it has in fact brought to light that women... well, need 'that stimulating visual' as much as men. Women just have a different kind of porn (don't worry, the link is a clip from 30 Rock).

A woman's version of porn is about getting attention from her significant other, having him dote obsessively on her, make waffles in the morning, know just what to say, and apparently creep outside her window and watch her all night. 

The difference between the concept of  Liz Lemon's fantasy or the typical Disney prince ideal, and 50 Shades of Grey is that 50 Shades of Grey is far more sexual (is that a word I can use without getting thrown out? Hope so.) It's downright scandalous in some cases. I mean, who would have thought that women indulged in that behavior?

Well, this sexually driven "porn for women" has been under our noses all along.

Actually, not even under our noses---right in front of our eyes.

Look at the cover of any Cosmo magazine. What do you see? 

The above should make you wonder how Cosmo, among other female magazines, is acceptable to display at the grocery store and not say, a 'dirty' magazine. Honestly. You can justify it ONLY because the covers have SLIGHTLY more clothing.

  I'm not saying  Playboy or Cosmo is acceptable by any means (think of the CHILDREN). I'm saying it's a double standard for women get upset over men looking at porn, and then there is HIS NUMBER ONE SEX FANTASY posted in caps next to an enticing celebrity.

Don't even get me started on what's inside.
It's just the same as any magazine that is labelled 'porn'.

Plus, with 50 Shades of Grey as the ultimate mommy porn, the so called novel's vast readership in women only proves women are just as guilty as men when it comes to having blatant sexual desires (again, please don't kick me out). 50 Shades has just made the behavior even more commercialized and acceptable. For women, that is. 

Meanwhile, men are still forced to hide behind closed doors in front of their computer screens.

You might say, "Well that's different."

It really isn't.

So porn skews men's view of women? That they all should be big busted and submissive and most importantly, satisfying in bed (the nicest thing I can write without risking getting kicked off campus moreso than I have)?

Well now, women expect men to have big bank accounts, be submissive, and also be satisfying in bed, just like Edward from Twilight and the main guy from 50 Shades of Grey. Both mysterious, wealthy men who are fit and sexually satisfying... kind of like certain porn stars. (No links provided).

The difference is, women can flaunt their wronged expectations in the open-- men can't.

If a man wrote 50 Shades of Grey, feminist would burn him at the stake. It was a woman however, who concocted this little piece of erotic literature. Therefore, it's ok?

Apparently so, because the media doesn't bat an eyelid or criticize women for having outlandish sexual (I'm getting thrown out for sure) expectations, and that's just wrong.

Females should be held as accountable as men for reigning in their sexual desire. I'm not saying women shouldn't be allowed to show their ankles, but ladies, come on.

 Don't look down on men as purely sexual beings when you're not all that innocent, either. Just because the media justifies your behavior, and it's not labelled as porn, or given a nice name such as 'mommy porn', doesn't make it any less wrong than men watching what you deem as 'actual porn'. Men can be just as insecure, too. 

The media, particularly it's response to 50 Shades of Grey, has brought to light what women are really thinking (not that it's been a secret), and put them on the same level as men.

 It will be interesting to see how the porn industry reacts to this sudden craze. I mean, can a woman really protest to her husband watching porn, when she herself reads a novel dealing with S&M? It's like the yogurt dilemma all over again. Except women don't want to be judged for different reasons-- they don't want to be put on the same level as men when it comes to sex. They want to see themselves as in control of their desire.

Except, clearly, ladies we aren't. Or not as much as they thought they could be. Again, the media, particularly with newest release of 50 Shades of Grey, has proven this point.

 To lighten the mood, I think I'll end this post with more examples of how much I love Twilight. 

All Natural

First of all, this part of the blog has nothing to do with what I'm about to write at all.
Absolutely nothing.

But I make old-people conversation.

I know old is a state of mind, but I talk to people generally like I should be wearing an oxygen tank and feebly attempting to play Wii Sports.
(I hear old folks like the Wii these days)

At Starbucks one time, I tried flirting with this guy by complaining about the air to chip ratio in the bag.
I mean..........that really is just sad.

(Secondly, whilst writing the blog, I lost all my material-- or a good chunk of it, anyway.
Apparently, Blogger doesn't believe in an automatic save option for when its program decides to sabotage your post. This isn't the first time this has happened.
I hope I can recapture the awesomeness that was the first draft.)

Anyway, back to the topic at hand: Hilary Clinton.

I'm just going to be upfront and say, Mrs. Clinton is one of my top five favorite women. Why? Because she clearly knows what she wants.

It would have understandable for her to break down and leave Bill Clinton after his little affair. Curse his name all over the news. Instead, she stayed. She stayed, because she knew she would have more power that way, and she cared more about power than her husband acting like an idiot. And maybe, deep down, she still did love him. Love is a funny thing. 

Either way, a lot of people criticized her for staying with President Clinton.
I say, more power to her. Because either way, she wins.
If she didn't leave because she loves him, it demonstrates that love does conquer all, and she was able to forgive him.
If she didn't leave because of power, it showed that she wasn't going to let an affair slow her down. 

You're probably wondering what this has to do with anything.

Recently, Mrs. Clinton got a lot of flack for wearing no make up. In fact, this is not the first time she's been criticized for her fashion choices. She's been under the public's eye for making, what they describe as, "unforgivable fashion mistakes."

Yes. Senator of New York, Secretary of State, a woman who recently solved what could have been resulted in a nightmarish dispute between America and China, and we're going to criticize her fashion sense.

I could go on a feminist rant, but I won't. You know why?
Because Mrs. Clinton didn't, either.

Again, she could have made a comment on how the media attacks women based on looks and not character, but she didn't. She owned up to it, and shrugged it off like it's not a big deal.

Yes, the media's approach to the former first lady is nothing short of sexist. However, She doesn't acknowledge the issue as being one of gender. The media does that all on their own.

She's not the only female politician to be scrutinized for superficial details.

Michelle Bauchmann became famous when the media deemed her hair the new Rachel (from Friend's). Furthermore, when I googled her name for the exact article, one of the search suggestions was 'Michelle Bauchmann hot'. I mean.... I don't even want to know.
I just don't.

The same can be said for Sarah Palin's hair and fashion sense. Not that she hasn't been criticized immensely for her political reasons (and not even legitimate political concerns, either), but more likely when you search Sarah Palin's name, the search suggestion comes up with movie, affair, hot (again ew) and feet (I clicked this one out of sheer, morbid curiosity. Apparently, she has sexy feet. Didn't know that existed outside of some weird fetishes).

(No offense to people with foot fetishes... I shouldn't say weird. Just. Not my cup of tea.)

Condoleeza Rice is attacked by the media quite often as well, but at least it's for legitimate political reasons such as her involvement with Iraq.... and having an affair with George Bush .

Grant it, the link came from a website called Afro Saxon Heat and uses the punctuation of a second grader (or anyone on the internet these days). Still. The fact that it is out there makes you wonder. 

The point is, the media likes to focus on superficial details rather than important political concerns. They have their reasons. Viewers and readers are more likely to watch what they enjoy, rather than what benefits their overall well being. It's like the difference between (insert your choice of desired desert over undesired vegetable).

If they started talking about the issues that mattered, the ones that would genuinely effect the population, people would stop caring about politics. Given youngsters these days don't know even know who their senator is, I doubt they would have the capacity to handle the 'real issues.'

(See what I mean about talking like an old person? It's really sad.)

I'm not saying politicians shouldn't be held to a certain standard. Obviously, if they do something to jeopardize the well being of the country, the people should know.

But hair ties?
Leather jackets? Hair trends?
Condolezza Rice vs. Michelle Obama?

Who is voting, the mean girls from high school?

 IS THIS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE? 

I know I'm not preaching anything new, here. And I'm not one to talk. The only way I can swallow the current news is through the Daily Show with John Stewart. Mostly because talking heads give me a migraine.

But honestly, to base a politicians' capabilities on their gender, or any other superficiality, is... I don't know, I could just say 'wrong' but that doesn't even cover the scope of injustice to female politicians. At least they get press for it. Right?

Regardless, while other politicians have sopped up the media attention, Hillary does not let the media define her. She is her own kind of amazing.

Also, here is a list of my top five favorite women:

1. My mom (obviously)
2. My sister (duh)
3. Tina Fey/Liz Lemon
4. Hillary Clinton 

5. Sassy woman threatened my boyfriend, and I quote, "Beat yo' over the side of the head."

According to Rom Coms, All Women Are Psycho

I'm not going to get into whether women are competitive or not, that's a whole other can of worms. 

The point is that chick flick catfight movies like Bride Wars or, to a lesser degree, My Best Friend's Wedding, are banking on the fact that female audiences are going to cheer for the catfighters in the movie.

And whether you think women are catty bitches or not, this makes no sense. Non-competitive women would obviously be unable to identify at all, and most competitive backstabbing women still have enough social awareness to know it's not something to be proud of, and would cringe at having their worst traits magnified on the big screen.

That probably explains why Bride Wars saw a dramatic dropoff due to bad word of mouth after an already-weak opening weekend, since its entire basis was that best friends will turn on each other in an instant if some stupid female treasure like their "perfect wedding" is threatened in any way. 

Strangely, women did not flock to the movie shouting, "That's me! That's my life! It's funny because it's true!"

Yogurt Does Not Have a Uterus

Why do we associate food with gender? Think about it.

Think of every yogurt commercial you've seen, ever.

Do you ever notice a prime, male executive, eating yogurt? No.
Do you see a young male college student eating yogurt? No.
Do you see an old man in a home eating yogurt? No.

It's women. Women in sweatpants, nonetheless.

The media associates yogurt with a state of hopelessness. By default, since yogurt is reflected as 'feminine', women are portrayed as unable to function. You never see an empowering yogurt commercial. Instead, it's usually Jamie Lee Curtis or Ellen Degeneres or a gaggle of women discussing superficial topics.

One of the few exceptions is a 2012 greek yogurt commercial that premiered on the Super Bowl. Then again.... that's greek yogurt, not the processed flavored yogurt that solves 'digestive' problems. Which apparently, only women have.

On the flip side of that, steak and beer are considered to be 'masculine.'

There is one particular commercial that comes to mind from Miller Light. The man-card commercial.

Apparently, if a man does anything emasculating, his 'man-card' is removed. I guess I could say something Freudian inasmuch men are just afraid of their 'manhood' being robbed. Thus, beer commercials use the threat of not being manly enough to pressure their macho obsessed demographic into buying their product.

But what is a woman's excuse? Will she be less feminine if she doesn't eat yogurt but chooses steak instead?

There's also another real, disturbing side to gender association of food.

Beer, beans, steak, and Digiorno pizza are not exactly qualified as 'healthy'. Yogurt, however, is one of the best things to eat for losing weight, as well as Special K, salad, fruit.....

....whose commercials all star women trying to lose weight.

It's never the man who has to be in tip top shape, it's the women's job to maintain a 20 something year old body. (As I'm typing this, the double standard is slowly dawning on me, and thus the aggressiveness of this particular blog is spiking.)

Sure, there are gym commercials. But they often have an equal balance of men and women.

So, women are the ones who are being forced to maintain their weight, while men can go off and eat whatever they want because, hey, even if they're pudgy, if they have money or a nice personality, females will still go for them. Women have to rely more on their beauty.

Right?

I have a much different theory.

I think men are far more sensitive about weight than women are. And I think the media has picked up on that fact.

They don't want to make commercials about men losing weight because men are over sensitive about it a primal, toddler sort of way. They can't take criticism the way women can. It's not a question of initiative, but rather, a man needs to be 'a man.' And that's why they don't show up in yogurt commercials, unless they are woefully oblivious to the existence of yogurt.

It's not that yogurt is pro-helpless women, but rather, men can't handle the thought of having to "emasculate" themselves to lose weight.

Star Wars did Just As Much Damage as Disney Princesses

Does it seem like men feel kind of entitled to sex? Does it seem like they react to rejection with the maturity of a child being denied a toy?

Well, you have to keep in mind that what men learn as kids is really hard to deprogram as an adult. And what they learned as kids is that males are each owed, and will eventually be awarded, a beautiful woman.

we have Star Wars where Luke starts out getting Princess Leia (in The Empire Strikes Back), but then as Han Solo became a fan favorite, George Lucas realized he had to award her to him instead (forcing him to write the "She's secretly Luke's sister" thing into Return of the Jedi, even though it meant adding the weird incest vibe to Empire).

The woman, of course, has no say in this -- compatibility doesn't matter, prior relationships don't matter, nothing else factors in. If the hero accomplishes his goals, he is awarded his favorite female.

Yes, there will be dialogue that maybe makes it sound like the woman is having doubts, and she will make noises like she is making the decision on her own. But we, as the audience, know that in the end the hero will "get the girl," just as we know that at the end of the month we're going to "get our paycheck." Failure to award either is breaking a societal contract.

The girl can say what she wants, but we all know that at the end, she will wind up with the hero, whether she knows it or not.

Yes, the women in these stories are being portrayed as wonderful and beautiful and perfect. But remember, there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them.

Bella Swan Would Have Starved in the Hunger Games, and Katniss Would Have Stabbed Edward Cullen

The Hunger Games has been one of the most highly anticipated movies of the year. That in itself is an understatement, of course. The first installment broke records at the box office. Yet, what makes the movies and books so intriguing? Is it the parallels it draws towards today's obsession with reality TV? Is it a product of the post apocalyptic trend?

Personally, I think a large contribution to the series' popularity is the main character, Katniss Everdeen. Not since Princess Leah have we seen a heroine who has the perfect mixture of sexiness, moxie, and femme fatal. The appeal of a strong minded young woman is a long needed reprieve from the plague that has diseased young pre-teen girls idea of relationships and maturity.

The plague I'm talking about is of course, Twilight.

There's no comparison between Bella Swan, the protagonist in Twilight, and Katniss. When Edward left Bella, she moped around for months, and literally wallowed in self pity.

Katniss, on the other hand, at one point thought her "lover" was trying to kill her. What did she do? Cry? Feel sorry for herself?

No, she unleashed a hive of deadly wasps on him and his accomplices.

Throughout the entire series of Twilight, Edward denies Bella from becoming a vampire, and Bella goes a long with it, because, hey, anti feminism.

Yet when Peeta tells Katniss not to go retrieve a medicine that will save his life, Katniss does anyway without Peeta's permission. In fact, Katniss pretty much does whatever she wants without having someone come rescue her all the time or wait for anyone to tell her to do so.

The list goes on, but the point is this: the media seems to have finally had enough of the hopeless female character, and has gone back to strong, independent women. Women who think for themselves. Women who fight back. Women who take charge. Katniss is not portrayed as a  nagging, pants wearing, workaholic, either. Her struggles don't revolve around finding her identity, but rather her struggle of keeping her family alive.

(At this point I would like to go on a side bar and discuss how her struggle of providing for her family can be see as a metaphor of a mother providing for her children, shattering the stereotype of the typical 'housewife', but I will resist.)

The same can be said for Lisbeth, the protagonist in the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, or Joan from Mad Men. These women are self serving, decisive, and desirable. Perhaps finally girls who read the young adult genre are starting to wise up.

Annie's Got an Servant

This week, I was going to comment on how Toddlers and Tiara's is ruining young women worse than Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera did in the 90's. And I will eventually get to that topic. However, I came across an article about a New York woman that had been essentially enslaving an immigrant worker. 

The entire situation is absurd. A person would expect to read this in an Agathie Christie novel, or see it an episode of CSI, or maybe even in a particularly outlandish episode of (insert choice of wealthy teen drama here). Yet the reality is a woman spent years of her life in a closet, being paid 69 cents an hour.

Human trafficking is a touchy subject in the media. Talking heads, politicians, and major magazines seldom touch the subject. After all, no wants to admit that human trafficking is rampant in their country. (Instead, they attack the hardworking immigrants, illegal or not, who pick up for America's slack.) 

Part of me is grateful that Yahoo! was willing to publish an article that handles such a sensitive topic. However, I think its publication was due mostly to the incongruity of the situation. If the circumstances are scandalous enough, it will create intrigue. There's no telling how many other Indian, Latin American, African, Asian, or Chinese women who are in the same exact situation, whose stories will never be heard.

Less is More: A Statement of Crazy Lost in the Crazy

In 2010, this happened.
Feast upon the horror... or not. That meat is probably marinated in STDs.

I would like to say that this is an isolated occurrence.
That it's just a product of one woman's insatiable need to reconcile the underlying pain of not receiving enough attention as a child.

Sadly, The 2012 Grammy's proved that women's clothing no longer has to make sense. It's about making a statement.

And that statement is... well, I have no idea.
Daddy issues, maybe?

The point is, the media goes nuts for style that pushes the envelope. And in a world where twitter, facebook, tumblr, and other social network services are the driving force behind the circulation of news, mostly using pictures as their medium, female celebrities have to keep up with the constant motion of trends changing from one day to the the next across the web.

Coverage of the Grammy's, then, was less about the music, and more about a convention of insanity. Yes. I feel comfortable using the word insanity.

On Yahoo's music page the focus of women artists was  more on the so called 'fashion' and less about the music. Nevermind Adele, who won six of Grammy's and performed after recovering from major vocal surgery, and who ALSO dressed tastefully and beautifully. Let's center our attention to the woman who still think she is promoting the Smurfs movie.

Now, I'm not trying to discourage any woman's right to express herself through her clothes. Whether or not that's an idea the fashion industry leads us to believe so we'll buy more ironic sweaters, what you wear says a lot about you as a person. But there is a line between expressing yourself and... what appears to be a black tarp cut into a....form.

Thus, the eccentricity is lost in a sea of outlandish costumes. Crazy becomes the standard.

(I will say, however, that this artist did a great job making the statement, I Am A Soviet Russian Robot Sent to Destroy You All.)

I'm afraid that this mentality will bleed into "common" female culture. Women will no longer be competing with each other to see who can be the best dressed, but instead, who can be the most scantily, crazily clad in....do these even qualify as clothes? DO THEY?

And showing of their talent (if there was any to begin with)? Nope.
Not even issue. Because apparently, they've stopped caring.

Why? Because this is what the media endorses. Yahoo Music, in order to compete with the hundreds of other blogs like it, must use shock value over actual talent. You can have a picture of Adele holding a Grammy, or a sparkly dress that looks carnage

Make no mistake. Young girls will follow their example. When my niece enters middle school, she'll be wearing peacock feathers and a head dress. Yahoo Music should go back to what it's there for: the music. And as for the fashion... well, I always believe less is more.

No, Fergie, that's not what I meant.