Disneyland is to imagination as pornography is to sex

I spent the last two days in Disneyland, and to my surprise, I didn’t even feel like I was in another world. I thought I would take lots of photos of pinkification and gender-stereotyped-marketing, come back and post them on my blog, and you’d all be shocked and appalled. But I didn’t see much in Disneyland that I don’t see every single time I go to Target or Safeway or turn on my TV.

Disneyland’s “magic” has completely infiltrated our everyday life. In Disneyland, wherever we went, everyone called my daughter “Princess” and handed her free stickers of girls in poofy dresses just like they do here when we visit her doctor’s office.

The significant difference that I kept noticing between Disneyland and San Francisco is that various signs and people kept telling me to have a magical time, that this was a place for my imagination to run free.

Yet, as I strapped myself into my eighteenth car or rocket or clam shell, it occurred to me there are few times in my life that I am encouraged to be this thoughtless. I sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride while I am handed the same fantasies, images, and narratives repeatedly. That’s when I realized that the passivity and homogeneity that Disneyland perpetuates in my mind and body, with all of its highly controlled thrills, is as deadening to actual imagination as pornography is to sex. Too much exposure (and we all have way too much exposure) messes with our brains and puts humans in danger of losing the ability to be stimulated by the real thing.

One of my favorite books ever is called Can Love Last: The Fate of Romance Over Time. Author Stephen Mitchell proposes that contrary to popular belief, romance doesn’t fade naturally in long term relationships. We kill it. And we kill it because it’s terrifying to lust for and depend on the same person. The more you need your partner, the more courage is required to risk perpetually experiencing the roller coaster highs and lows that come with being desperately attracted to him. Mitchell argues that instead of committing to that dangerous ride, for a lifetime, no less, we flatten our romantic partners into something more stable.

Here’s what Mitchell writes about pornography:

Rather than being a measure and consequence of the power of naturally occurring sexual desire, pornography is a measure of the extent to which people tend to prefer controlling desire through contrivance rather than being surprised by desire that spontaneously arises. Do not underestimate the power of contrivance. If I desire you, a real person, and if I long for not just sexual contact but a romantic response, I may be in big trouble. In fact, there is no way to escape big trouble! Because what I want from you makes me dependent upon you, makes me hostage to your feeling towards me, I naturally want some control over my fate. What I want is for you to love me, to find me attractive and exciting, precisely when I want you…This is what makes the contrivance of pornography so useful. Pornography operates on the “what if?” principle. What if I found myself desiring someone, and what if it happened to be this very person in this picture? on this videotape? on this computer screen? Guess what? I can have him or her. A close cousin of the oldest profession, prostitution, pornography offers the wonderful combination of stimulation in the context of simulation–risk-free desire. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. You can’t miss.

Porn is often considered exciting, daring, risky, or imaginative, but it’s just the opposite: a safe roller coaster instead of a real one.

Disneyland, of course, operates on that very principle. Controlled thrills– “stimulation in the context of simulation”– manufactured, repetitive images that don’t inspire individual creativity but paralyze real imagination. Disneyland is like porn for kids.

What if male Avengers posed like the female one?

Whenever  I blog about the exaggerated breasts or ass of a female cartoon character, commenters respond that I have nothing to complain about: all cartoons are caricatures.

There’s a difference between exaggerating muscles and exaggerating someone’s butt. Here’s artist Kevin Bolk’s take on “The Avengers.”

Of course, “The Avengers” model, with its pathetic 5: 1 male/ female ratio and then sexualizing that lone female, is not unique to that group of superheroes.

Check out the Justice League’s latest cover. Notice any similarity?

Here’s the artist Coelasquid’s “If Superheroes Posed Like Wonder Woman.”

I love Coelasquid’s art because it shows so clearly that it’s not only the clothes put on female characters but the poses they are in.

Though of course, the clothes don’t help much. Here’s Theamat’s “If I Don’t Get Pants, Nobody Gets Pants:”

Wonder Woman with no pants was created by (and for?) grown-ups but it leads to Wonder Woman with no pants showing up as a LEGO minifig.

Or most recently, in the ensemble movie “Pirates!” for kids, in theaters right now, there’s one female and she shows up looking like this:

Females are half of the population, yet because they are presented as a sexualized minority in so many movies for adults, they are also presented as a sexualized minority in movies for kids. Those roles are then replicated in kids’ toys and most tragically, in kids’ imaginary play.

Female characters account for only 16% of all characters in movies for kids.

Here’s an interesting coincidence: across the board in all professions, women at the top don’t make it past 16%.

Do you think limiting females in the imaginary world limits them in real life? Unfortunately, your kids do.

‘Avengers’ shows female superheroes as tiny minority

This weekend “The Avengers” broke all box office records by grossing $200.3-million in its domestic debut.

By all accounts, I hear this is a great movie, but here is why I’m concerned. The male/ female ratio in this ensemble movie is 6:1.

The problem is that this same gendered ratio shows up in most movies made for kids. Even though The Avengers” is not for kids, the superhero theme is obviously kid friendly. I bet the images of “Avengers” superheroes from the movie will now be replicated in toys, video games, T-shirts, and sippy cups.

Even if these specific stars are not replicated in kidworld, the “successful” Holllywood formula will continue to be. Unless Hollywood actively does something about it, females will continue to be represented as a tiny minority in kids films. That sexism then infiltrates kids toys and then kids imaginary play in a huge viscous circle.

This is Hollywood, people! Fantasy. You can make up anything. Please make half of the characters in movies for kids female.

When you continually have only one female in movies for kids, it’s almost impossible to keep from limiting and stereotyping her. The more females you have, the more story lines you need to come up with, the more creative you must be.

Hollywood, I know “The Avengers” is for adults, but please don’t keep mirroring this male/ female ratio in kids movies. It teaches kids (KIDS!) that boys are more important and get to do more things than girls do. That’s not fair to children and their growing brains.

‘Pirates’ movie shows kids sexist jokes from start to finish

After seeing the preview for Aardman’s “Pirates” I posted a pretty scathing commentary: Porno or pirate movie for kids?

Some commenters were upset that I judged the movie without seeing it. I wasn’t judging the movie, I was writing about the preview, about how movies are advertised and marketed.

But now, I’ve finally seen the movie and am sorry to report that it’s more sexist than I thought.

When I saw the preview, I was upset that Cutlass Liz, the female pirate, was ogled and hooted at by the male pirates. She wears tight clothing and a belly shirt. Basically, the female pirate is totally sexualized.

But here was my mistake: From the preview, I believed that Cutlass Liz had a major part in the movie. I thought that in spite of her appearance, she would be portrayed as a bad ass, that she’d have a major role in the narrative as a competitor with the Captain (the star of the movie) for the “Pirate of the Year” award.

Cutlass Liz is only in three scenes. She’s a minor character in the film with almost no lines or action sequences at all. One of the few scenes she’s in is a fantasy one: the Captain imagines that he gets awarded the coveted trophy and also the admiration, lust, and batted eyelashes of Cutlass Liz.

After I trashed the preview, I was told by commenters that Queen Victoria has a strong part. In some ways, she does. At one point she rips of her constricting clothing (how original!) and gets into a duel with the Captain. But she is also portrayed as Charles Darwin’s sexual fantasy.  Gross. Why?

Another female is the Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate. Ironically, she is not curvaceous like Liz, who constantly swishes her hips, or Victoria, who has a hugely exaggerated posterior. SCP has the fate of many heroic females in kidworld: she dresses as a male in order to have adventures and be powerful. She wears a beard and has hardly any lines. Her biggest scenes are when she is naked in a bathtub. More sexist jokes ensue here. Ha ha ha.

The best female character in “Pirates” is the dodo. Her role is central to the plot of the movie, but she can’t talk.

The sexist jokes start with the first lines of the movie where the Captain refers to “scantily clad mermaids” and don’t stop until the finish when Darwin laments about impressing women. Female characters exist mainly for that reason: to provide inspiration for the male characters to be strong, brave, and adventurous.

The only slightly redeeming thing as far as sexism in this movie for kids is the way that the compassionate captain and his crew fail to live up to standards of masculinity, choosing the dodo bird, their friend, over recognition and gold.

Reel Girl rates “Pirates: Band of Misfits” ***SS*** Don’t expose your kids to the sexist stereotypes that this film relentlessly promotes.

By the way, after the leper community complained about bias, Aardman did, in fact, change the line in the movie about the “leper” boat. Now it’s called a “plague” boat.

Seventeen Magazine refuses teen girl’s petition to curb photoshop

Julia Bluhm is 14 years old. Sick of seeing photo and after photo of teens photoshopped in Seventeen Magazine, she started an on line petition asking the magazine to feature just one authentic picture a month.

Yesterday, Bluhm took her petition and its going on 50,000 signatures to Seventeen’s office in New York City. Though Seventeen met with Julia, they refused to grant her request. Here is what the magazine had to say about Julia’s petition:

We’re proud of Julia for being so passionate about an issue — it’s exactly the kind of attitude we encourage in our readers — so we invited her to our office to meet with editor in chief Ann Shoket this morning. They had a great discussion, and we believe that Julia left understanding that Seventeen celebrates girls for being their authentic selves, and that’s how we present them. We feature real girls in our pages and there is no other magazine that highlights such a diversity of size, shape, skin tone and ethnicity.

In other words:

We met with the kid, OK? Please get off our backs and let us get out of this PR mess as gracefully as possible.

Listen, it may not seem like a big request, but if Seventeen published one un-photoshoped picture of a teen per month, it would be pretty obvious that all of the other photos in our magazine are photoshopped.

If SeventeenMagazine made girls that aware that they are aspiring to look like the non-humans who the magazine celebrates, our readers might be less inclined to purchase all of the fine make-up, hair products, and clothing advertised in the pages of our magazine.

Unfortunately for Julia and all teen girls, those advertising dollars keep our photoshopped magazine on the racks and pay our salaries.

No other major magazines are refusing to feature one regularly un-photoshopped picture, why should we? Just because our audience is teens? That’s not fair!

If Seventeen took the risk of showing actual girls in our magazine for girls, we risk coming off not as glamorous as our competitor fashion magazines. We are in the business of selling glamor for goodness sake. Again, the more unattainable that glamor is, the more likely girls are to feel insecure, the more likely they are to believe that they need to spend money on the products we’re selling. Get it now?

Sorry, Julia, but we need girls to stay quiet, obedient, and obsessed with their appearance. It’s good for business.

Please do not buy Seventeen’s September issue. Please share and Tweet this info, use hashtag #notbuyingSept17.

Also, please keep signing Julia’s petition. Even better, ask your daughters and sons if they want to sign too.

Pixar’s “Brave” features cliched corset metaphor

Honestly, I am so excited for “Brave.” As you’ve probably heard, the animated film coming out this summer will star Pixar’s first ever (FIRST EVER!!) female protagonist. I also suspect that the movie is based on the book Brave Margaret which I love. But I had to laugh when I saw this by Claire Hummel/ Shoomlah on the blog Animation Anomaly.

Hummel is so right, this scene is so old, so done. I just blogged about the Jean Paul Gaultier show which was all about corsets. Not only is the corset-image tired to see AGAIN in a movie, but Hummel makes another great point: corsets didn’t exist in Medieval times.

I really, really hope that “Brave” is a movie where we can just see a female heroine being brave and powerful, not one who is mainly rebelling and struggling within the confines of the patriarchy (get it? “the corset”) Disney princess style i.e. Jasmine, Mulan, and Belle. I am so starved to see a female being heroic as in “The Hunger Games” where gender is not the main issue. This is fantasy movie; this is animation. Anything is possible, even, yes, gender equality!

I hope that the protag’s main rebellion in “Brave” is not that she actually wants to pick who she marries. (Whoo-hoo! Can you imagine that being the main plot of movie starring a male?) Or that the protag has to pretend to be male in order to have adventures. Why do little girls have to see that so much?  “Girls can do anything boys can do!” That is so patronizing. Ugh. Girls don’t even know about sexism yet for God’s sake. When my daughter was four and saw “Mulan,” she was confused and asked me: “Why can’t girls fight?” I had to explain sexism so she could understand the plot of the movie.

Please Pixar, show much more imagination than this tired corset metaphor suggests. I know you will, I know you will, I know you will.

Ban Saudi Arabia from Olympics for not allowing female athletes

Saudi Arabia won’t allow its female athletes to compete in the Olympics. The International Olympic Committe has a policy not to allow participatory countries to discriminate.

So why hasn’t the IOC banned Saudi Arabia?

The Guardian reports:

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) on Thursday faced calls to ban Saudi Arabia from London 2012 after the country’s Olympic chief ruled out sending women athletes to the Games.

The Saudi Olympic Committee president Prince Nawaf bin Faisal said he was “not endorsing” female participation in London as part of the official delegation.

Sue Tibballs, chief executive of the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation (WSFF), said that was unacceptable. Tibballs said: “Saudi Arabia’s current refusal to send sportswomen to the Olympics puts them directly at odds with one of the IOC’s fundamental principles as laid out within the Olympic Charter.

“It reads that ‘any form of discrimination with regard to a country or a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, sex or otherwise is incompatible with belonging to the Olympic Movement’.

“If today’s reports are to be believed, we would expect the IOC to defend the Olympic Charter and exclude Saudi Arabia from IOC membership and the London 2012 Olympic Games.”

The IOC excluded Afghanistan from the Sydney 2000 Olympics due to its discrimination of women under the Taliban regime. “The IOC needs to send a clear message to Saudi Arabia that they will not tolerate continued gender discrimination,” Tibballs added.

In 1964, South Africa was banned from participating in the summer Olympics in Tokyo because of the country’s racist Apartheid government. That ban lasted until 1992, when South Africa’s white-only government passed a referendum that approved the reform process.

I just blogged about how women’s rights around the world are still considered a ‘cultural’ issue and not a political one.

Women, like all human beings, are entitled to full human rights

A major reason that South Africa ever changed its racist government was because the country was condemned by the global community. Gender Apartheid cannot be tolerated and ignored by the rest of the world or it will never stop.

The Women Sports and Fitness Foundation has a petition on Change.org. As of this posting, it only has 32 signatures. Please add your name to the petition now.

‘Horizontal stripes will make you look fatter!’

This story from the brilliant Melissa Wardy of Pigtail Pals:

Buyer Beware: “Oh no, not that skirt. Horizontal stripes will make you look fatter.” -Grandmother shopping next to me says to a little girl, slapping the girl’s hand away from a really cute tiered skirt. The little girl shrinks. My mouth and Amelia’s mouth fall open in shock.

I want to climb on top of the rack of clothing, and scream at this woman, telling her how cruel and damaging Fat Talk is to girls, especially when Fat Talk comes from the people this girl should be able to trust the most. I want to screech out the stats running through my head — percentages of little girls who hate their bodies and diet and have low self-esteem. I want to grab her and shake her and tell her what awful messages she is planting in this girl’s head. I also kind of want to hug her, and tell her to stop projecting her body hate onto this young child. Not wanting to get kicked out of Target, and not being a crazy person, I didn’t. But I really, really wanted to.

Instead I picked up the exact same skirt, and held it up for Amelia. I’m not trying to be an ass, I just can’t let the grandmother’s words be the last thing the other girl hears in that moment.
“Hey Smalls, look at this! How awesome are these stripes!? Wouldn’t they look so fun and colorful while you run and spin? How fun!” I say.

“I’d say it is full of awesome,” 6yo Amelia offers while waving to the little girl.

What if we all tried to be as creative and proactive as Melissa when we heard people make these kinds of comments to girls? Do you have any stories? Any good ideas? Please share.

Women’s rights are not a “cultural issue”

Yesterday I blogged about a teacher at a Catholic school, Emily Herx, who was fired because she got IVF treatments. I received several comments that because of freedom of religion, the church can fire Herx if it wants to.

That argument doesn’t hold; it’s based on the idea that human rights for women are not important. Too many Americans believe that women’s rights are a “cultural” issue and not a political one.

If the Catholic Church “believed” that African-Americans could not be teachers or that adults should have sex with children, the American government would call that illegal. Freedom of religion does not give a religious institution the mandate to violate basic human rights.

As I wrote yesterday:

In 2010, Herx learned that she suffered from a medical condition that caused infertility. At that time, she told her principal she needed time off for IVF treatment. Her request was granted and the principal allegedly told Herx: “You are in my prayers.”…

Herx is claiming sex discrimination and disabilities discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and requesting lost wages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and compensation for her mental anguish and emotional distress.

Just like infertility, pregnancy is also medical condition. Women have all kinds of serious health complications from ectoptic pregnancies to hemorrhaging. Contraception is preventative health care. Women’s bodies are different than men’s bodies and have different medical needs. To deny women health care based on those differences is to deny women a basic human right. It’s sex discrimination, and it is appalling that this kind of abuse is tolerated in America.

When I was in college, Apartheid was the government of South Africa. Every day, there were protests against South Africa’s racist government in our campus quad. At the same time, I was taking a sociology class where we learned that cliterodectomies were performed in some countries in Africa. I was taught in my class that to condemn that procedure was wrong; it was to enforce my Western beliefs on another country. It was in this way that I was taught the concept of “relative ethics.” It took me years after my “education” to recover from that kind of teaching, to be able to say that cliterodectomies are wrong, wherever and whenever they happen.

The Taliban is gender apartheid. But the first time I ever heard about the horrible gender crimes supported by that government was not in a campus quad or even a sociology class, but in the back pages of Newsweek, where the celebrity news is. In the Nineties, I read that Mavis Leno, Jay Leno’s wife, was trying to raise funds and awareness to help women under the Taliban rule. At that time, I was a producer for a talk radio station. I brought the article to the host of the show and asked him to talk about it on air. “Have you heard about this?” I said. He responded that our show was local, that no one in the Bay Area would care about the Taliban. “How is it relevant to our lives?” he asked.

Of course, the Taliban became relevant to Americans on 9/11. I don’t believe that a country, even ours, can isolate itself from that kind of hatred and violation of human rights, as much as we try our best to ignore them unless a celebrity happens to host a fundraiser.

In 2009, Pulitzer Prize winning journalists Nicolas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn published Half the Sky, a book that documented sex trafficking, acid burnings, poverty, and lack of access to healthcare for women all around the world. The thesis of Half the Sky is that the world is losing its most valuable resource: women. The writers argue that in the nineteenth century, the central moral challenge was slavery. In the twentieth century, it was the battle against totalitarianism. That in this century, our century, the paramount moral challenge will be the struggle for global gender equality.

I was certain that after the publication of Half the Sky and the media that the book initially received, Americans would finally get that demanding full human rights for women is essential to our survival as a human race, that human rights for women is not a cultural issue. But right now in America, in 2012, we’re fighting over contraception? In our Presidential election? For Americans not to allow all women access to contraception and to basic health care is a human rights violation. Until our government stops seeing women’s rights as a cultural issue, how can we ask the rest of the world to?

Maybe this all goes back to what my professor was trying to teach me in Sociology 101: Americans are hypocrites.