Jezebel posts a leaked memo from ABC to Lane Bryant, showing that, contrary to its claims, the network did refuse to air the ad featuring a plus size model in her bra.
Leaked memo reveals ABC’s refusal to air Lane Bryant ad
Reply
Author Archives: margotmagowan
Fat girls wear bras too!
When plus size company Lane Bryant’s sexy TV ad was supposedly censored by ABC as inappropriate for “Dancing With the Stars” audiences, there were calls of hypocrisy. After all, TV networks don’t seem to have an issue showing lingerie ads for Victoria’s Secret (or even the much touted half naked extravaganza ‘Victoria’s Secret Special.”) Still, TV executives seemed to feel that fat girls shouldn’t show cleavage. Ironic, since big girls are more likely to have big breasts, but I guess natural is what’s offensive here.
ABC is now denying it ever censored the ad. Lane Bryant still claims the ad was censored. Either way, I’m having trouble leaping on the feminist band wagon burning up the blogosphere defending this commercial and demanding it be aired. Fat women should be allowed to be objectified too, dammit!
I had the same negative reaction when Mo’Nique hosted a fat girl beauty contest for TV. I didn’t think it was so awesome that large women were gaining entry into the world of the skinny, finally allowed to compete against each other so a panel of judges could decide who was the prettiest.
I was also bummed when “High School Musical” featured a fat cheerleader and everyone called that progressive and “so PC.” Cheerleaders are just bad for women. I don’t care if they’re fat or of color or have athletic skill. Being a cheerleader is the definition of being the sideshow, her role is to make the main event look good; she is not and never will be the star. Cheerleader obsession is like teen training ground for the perfect heterosexual relationship; it’s like wife school. The hot girl cheers on her talented guy, standing by her quarterback, loyally, faithfully, whether he wins or loses; her admiration is constant and her love is true.
www.salon.com
Another recent example of fake feminist progress is Angelina Jolie’s much touted role Salt, originally written “for a guy,” a guy like Tom Cruise! Scott Mendelson wrote about EW’s self congratulatory cover story on how progressive the movie is on his blog. Mendelson has this quote from EW:
“In the original script, there was a huge sequence where Edwin Salt (the original male protagonist) saves his wife, who’s in danger,” says Noyce. “And what we found in the new script, it seemed to castrate his character a little. So we had to change the nature of that relationship.”
Mendelson writes:
So, hidden in an article on how “Salt” is oh-so-empowering for female action heroes is this tidbit. The filmmakers believe that it was perfectly OK for the spouse to be rescued from mortal danger if said love interest was a girl, but not if the romantic partner was a man. Apparently, it’s great if the action hero is a girl, as long as she doesn’t have the opportunity to one-up any male counterparts or reverse the oldest cliche in the action-film handbook.
What a bummer. The supposedly feminist “Salt” remains safely within the gender boundaries of every classic Disney movie, and is it even possible to be “a little castrated?”
Update: Jezebel posts a leaked memo from ABC to Lane Bryant, showing that, contrary to its claims, the network did refuse to air the ad.
Second update: To the offended commenters, just like I tell my six year old, “fat” is not a bad word! Nor is “large” nor is “chubby.” People who are upset I used the word “fat” to describe the plus size model in the photo are reinforcing the values of a society that thinks one woman’s size is so preferable to another’s. And yes, of course size is relative, as is height, weight, age etc. Compared to certain groups of people, in various societies, the Lane Bryant model would not be fat or plus size.
Third update: Ashley Grant, the Lane Bryant model, says on ET she thinks her breasts were too big, bigger than the Victoria’s Secret models and that’s why her ad was censored.
I don’t watch “Dancing with the Stars” but seeing the clips on my TV right now, the costumes on those women look like my three year old got near them with her scissors; they’re missing whole sections.
While I was posting this story last night, Joy Behar was on TV with Pamela Anderson as a guest, showing clips of half dressed Pam doing splits, again and again, over her dance partner. If ABC censored big breasts during its cartoon hour, that would be one thing, but during “Dancing With the Stars” gives a whole new meaning to the term “double standard.”
Congresswomen introduce ‘Healthy Media for Youth Act’
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) have introduced “the Healthy Media for Youth Act to “authorize grants to promote media literacy and youth empowerment programs, to authorize research on the role and impact of depictions of girls and women in the media, to provide for the establishment of a National Task Force on Girls and Women in the Media…”
Feministing.com reports:
The bill, which draws on research by Girls, Inc. and the Girls Scouts Research Institute, among others, focuses on the most harmful aspects of media, including unrealistic representations of female beauty, sexualized images of young girls and teens, and violence against women as entertainment.
The bill also mentions the Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media:
The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media found that the majority of female characters in children’s movies are praised for their appearance or physical beauty rather than their personality, intelligence, or other talents, and are often short-sighted and narrowly fixated on romantic relationships that lack substantial connections or courtships. Girls and boys watching children’s programming may vicariously learn that beauty is an essential part of being female and critical for gaining attention and acceptance.
The bill never mentions photoshopping. I don’t get why. It’s already illegal to lie in advertising, so why photoshopping is so prevalent and still permitted is beyond me. I guess it’s because photoshopping’s victims are primarily women, and probably those women are supposed to be grateful they get to eat an extra donut and save money on plastic surgery.
The bill does refer to ‘narrow and restrictive’ gender roles. What could be more narrowing than Filippa Hamilton’s story?
Hamilton is a 23 year old former Ralph Lauren model. She was horrified when she saw the photoshopped images in the ad pictured below right. You can see that the width of her hips is narrower than width of her head. The real 5’8 120 lb model is pictured on the left. Hamilton worked for Ralph Lauren since she was fifteen years old, but said the company fired her after telling her she could no longer fit into their clothing. Ralph Lauren claimed that they let her go “as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract with us.” I wonder if those obligations included avoiding puberty?
www.posh24.com
Thank Goodness there’s a brave model speaking out about what really happened to her. Often women are quiet because they’d prefer not to be called fat or ugly publicly or otherwise humiliated into silence. And it doesn’t make it easier to improve things when the US government has a congress that’s only 17% female, only seven female governors, and throughout our entire history, only three women who have ever held the office of Supreme Court Justice.
Thank you to Democrat Tammy Baldwin and Republican Shelly Capito for insisting on media education. A ‘Healthy Media for Youth’ bill gives me hope that a couple representatives in our government understand that when an advertiser alters an image of a woman and then she loses her job for not conforming to it, that’s not trivial, but an issue that affects all girls and the women they will grow into.
Here’s more on the Wisconsin bill from feministing.com
The bill, which has been referred to committee, proposes a three-pronged strategy to combat potentially dangerous media images: Media literacy, further research on the impact of consuming media that depicts women and girls in a less than positive light, and the formation of a national task force, run by the NIH, on girls and women in the media. You can read the whole bill here.
How flipping awesome would it be to know that federal money is going toward “countering the perpetuation and damaging effects of narrow, restrictive gender roles, stereotypes, and expectations, including the sexualization of female children, adolescents, and adults”? How about “teaching youth how to create and use media that contribute to social change, especially in their communities” or “facilitating connections between girls and women, and boys and men, as mentors”?
Sarah Palin gets ‘Foxified’ in new SNL skit
Last night Tina Fey reprised her Sarah Palin role on Saturday Night Live. I’m psyched Tina Fey’s brilliant parody is back. Not only is she hilarious, but her portrayals of the politician in 2008 were instrumental in turning America on to the silliness of Palin’s candidacy.
Tina Fey was funny last night as usual, but here’s a new idea: instead of depicting Sarah Palin in her signature updo, Fey should show her losing her look because now she’s joined Fox, home of the pornstar/ anchor.
Here’s the skit.
SARAH PALIN GETS ‘FOXIFIED‘ (scary music)
Tina Fey is in her dressing room at Fox News. She’s got big, blonde Fox woman anchor hair, a bright pink suit with cleavage and new, large breasts. She’s surrounded by make up artists, hairdressers, stylists etc, all putting the finishing touches on her new look.
Make-up artist: “For your debut on Fox News, we want to keep it kind of natural. We’re just going with some rouge, some foundation, a little concealer, some blush, some mascara, some eyeshadow, some lipstick, some powder, some bronzer…”
Sarah Palin trying to wait patiently, finally interrupts, still looking at herself in the mirror: “I’m just not sure about the hair.”
Hairdresser: “Oh, it’s great! I’ve done lots of famous people– Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton, Heidi Montag, Denise Richards, Kate Gosselin. Not a lot of people know this…” He bends down to her, “But they all had lots of problems. Their hair was…brown.”
SP: “What’s the matter with brown hair?”
HD: “Oh, nothing, honey. It’s just, you know, sometimes it can make you look… smart.”
Other make up people and stylist people nod.
SP: (Pats her hair) “Does everyone here get this kind of treatment?”
MA: “Oh, yes, sure. Although with guests, sometimes we just make suggestions. You know Anne Coulter? She used to weigh over 100 pounds.”
Bald and fat Fox News president, Roger Ailes enters, saying, “We’re so happy to have you here, Sarah. Come on out, lets meet your colleagues.”
RA puts his hand on SP’s back and leads her out of hair/make-up room.
There’s a group of blonde haired, big breasted, heavily made up women. Sarah Palin starts shaking their hands, smiling.
SP: “I’m so happy to meet you. I’m so excited to be part of the team.”
RA: “No, Sarah. Those are Tiger Woods mistresses. They’re about to go on Greta’s show.”
SP: “Oh.” (Looking confused)
RA: “Here are your colleagues.” He gestures to as second group of women, identical in look and dress to the first.
SP excitedly shakes hands.
RA: “You really look great Sarah. As you know, presentation is a big part of making the Fox Network a success. Hey look, here’s the star of the network!”
Enter Bill O’Reilly, looking slovenly and bald.
SP: “I’m a big fan!” She pumps Bill’s hand.
Other male stars get introduced until there’s a crowd of old, fat balding men. Sarah stands in front of women and men, everyone clapping and patting her on the back. Sarah faces the audience, smiling triumphantly. SP: “I’m so proud to be a part of this network! I can’t wait for my show go out to all 60 states! From Quebec all the way to Juneau, to tell America for the first time, Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night Fever!”
Please read my related post When women join the Fair and Balanced network, they get FOXIFIED.
When women join the “fair and balanced” network, they get “Foxified”
Even though I wasn’t a supporter of Sarah Palin, she was recently hired at Fox News, and I feel I need to warn her. After all, she’s a brunette who often wears glasses– a breed targeted for extinction in Foxworld.
There’s something creepy going on at Fox, and it’s not just the skewed way they choose to report the news. When a woman gets a job on the “fair and balanced” news network, she gets “Foxified.” No matter how she looks or how old she is when she signs her contract, these female contributors transform, appearing on our screens strangely clone-like, blonde and so heavily made up they all look around 40.
Greta Van Susteren famously made the cover of People after she scored her own show on the network and got “Foxified,” sporting much lighter hair and tighter skin.
When I used to produce talk radio programs for the ABC affiliate in the Bay Area, and the host had a legal issue he wanted to discuss, I often booked a brilliant and beautiful law professor as an expert: Lis Weihl. After 9/11, she was hired by Fox News. The next time I saw her on TV, I only recognized her by her name in the byline.
Fox News is a modern day Stepford factory for accomplished women. By turning professors and authors into porn star doppelgangers, the network effectively communicates what women say is not as important how they appear.
The older, winkled, balding male stars of the news channel obviously have different physical requirements to get a job on TV. Maybe Palin earns some of those privileges, because she’s already famous with her own loyal following. We’ll have to wait and see if her brown hair and Tina Fey glasses survive the preferences of Fox News President Roger Ailes, himself not the most svelte, glossy headed guy in town.
Update: I’m not attacking these women for getting jobs; I’m pointing out the sexist requirements for men versus women on TV. Furthermore, being “Foxified” doesn’t translate to being attractive or beautiful. As a commenter pointed out, it has to do with becoming a “femmebot.” The blonde dye jobs and overly made up faces on Fox News women are indicative of a culture dominated by caucasians and capitalism, keeping women in line by rewarding them when they conform to the rules. It’s a reflexive, but still clever, way to keep women in their place and uphold the power structure as it is.
dailyuw.com
Liz Wiehl
Lis Wiehl, “Foxified”
People
Greta Van Susteren gets Foxified
Can you tell these women apart?
Michelle Obama gets a facelift from Good Housekeeping
First problem: there’s still a magazine called Good Housekeeping.
Magazines and newspapers are dying left and right, the whole publishing industry is imploding, yet Good Housekeeping lives on? It survives not only to give women crucial tips on vacuuming, ironing, or what Febreeze actually is, but to produce a commemorative “125th Anniversary Collector’s Issue” graced with the creepiest cover photo of Michelle Obama I’ve ever seen.
Good Housekeeping
Michele Obama
This from Jezebel’s Jessica Coen:
The entire bottom half of Michelle’s face seems to have been replaced, her forehead has been nicely tightened, and the entire right (our left) side of her face seems to have scored some extreme chiseling. A solid helmet head and weird lighting finish off her look.
Michelle Obama is a stunning woman in every way– why did Good Housekeeping transform her into a waxy, Stepford wife, lips and teeth bossed and glossed, hands clasped primly just under the appropriately wifey headline: “Keeping her marriage close, raising her girls and overcoming her biggest fear.”
I’m so tired of the media’s abuse of first ladies, forever handicapped by that prissy label. When a woman finally becomes president, I can guarantee her “spouse” will never be referred to as the “first gentleman” without irony.
And on a day even further into the future than the debut of “Madame President,” people will look back on how women were photoshopped into drag queen aliens and be completely appalled this was considered “attractive.” The only modern invention more disturbing than these computer altered coverwomen, is the transformation that happens when a woman gets hired by Fox News. For more on getting “Foxified, see this post.
Geena Davis’ new study on gender bias in kids’ media
Variety :
The L.A.-based Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media is set to release this summer the findings of a lengthy study on gender roles in movies and TV shows aimed at viewers 11 and under. The org is also planning a daylong conference in L.A. this fall. The institute has a programming unit dubbed See Jane that aims to work with execs, creatives and other industry orgs to encourage the inclusion of a wider range of femme characters in kid-oriented programming.
Academy Award winning actress Geena Davis says, “Kids need to see entertainment where females are valued as much as males.”
Here is her institute’s mission:
While watching children’s television programs and videos with her then 2-year old daughter, Academy Award winner Geena Davis noticed a remarkable imbalance in the ratio of male to female characters. From that small starting point, Davis went on to raise funds for the largest research project ever undertaken on gender in children’s entertainment.
The research showed that in the top-grossing G-rated films from 1990-2005, there were three male characters for every one female – a statistic that did not improve over time.
The concern was clear: What message does this send to young children?
I can’t wait for this new study. Thank you to Geena Davis for recognizing the gender bias in kids movies and doing something to change it. Go Thelma!
Lift the curse, change the shape
After watching Joy Behar’s show on the Oscar curse, and hearing a male guest suggest that when actresses are “given this giant gold ballast, men get insecure.” Also, feeling that the curse is another way of letting women know they can’t have it all, I decided to start a movement.
Lift the curse, change the shape.
“How to Train Your Daughter” from DreamWorks
“How to Train Your Dragon” is a great movie; I was riveted from start to finish. The story is compelling and the animation is wonderful. A misfit boy, Hiccup, refuses to kill the dragons who relentlessly attack his Viking village, even as everyone around him, who he loves and respects, viciously slaughters them. Hiccup, instead, befriends and trains the creatures, ultimately bringing peace to his people.
But why couldn’t Hiccup have been a girl? Why couldn’t the dragon in the title have been female?
This movie, like most modern day animation blockbusters, does throw girls a few bones. There are two main characters that are girls; Astrid and Ruffnut are both good fighters, but they are clearly in supporting roles. Their job in the movie, as for most girls in most movies, is to help propel the guy, in this case, Hiccup, to greatness. Astrid and Ruffnut preform their archetypal tasks as helpmeets very well. Rah rah.
There are a few minor, minor roles for adult female Vikings, drawn as fat rather than strong, shown mostly in crowd scenes, never getting more than one line at a time. Hiccup’s father is a main character; he’s the leader of the tribe. His mother– surprise, surprise– is dead, so unusual for the mom to be killed off in a kids’ movie. She’s mentioned just once, when Hiccup’s dad hands his son a helmet which he tells his son used to be half of his mother’s breast plate. Ha ha.
The repetitive gender dynamic of boy-leader/ girl-follower is troubling because, like it or not, Hollywood provides our kids with some of their earliest leadership training. The star of the movie is the leader of the movie. Hiccup demonstrates all the skills of a truly visionary and effective leader: he’s smart, compassionate, creative, listens to his own truth, advocates for causes he believes in, builds constituencies, and trains his team. The girls’ critical choice in the movie is whether or not to follow him.
What gets me about “How to Train your Dragon” is here was a prefect opportunity to put a girl in the star role, even without messing too much with Hollywood’s beloved gender stereotypes.
Usually, when I complain about the lack of girl characters, people respond with something like “But in real life, lionesses never lead a pride” (Lion King) or “There aren’t really female chefs in top tier French kitchens” (Ratatouille)— temporarily forgetting while this may be true, it’s also true that rats can’t cook or even speak, and that lions don’t pal around with warthogs and meerkats or sing songs either. Why can’t DreamWorks create a magical world where girl and boys are equally important?
In “How to Train Your Dragon” Hiccup was already stretching the bounds of accepted masculinity by being so skinny and sweet compared with the muscley, hairy, slow-thinking, Popeye-on-steroids Vikings. Hiccup redefined bravery by refusing to kill. Why not go just a little further and make the character a girl? Apparently, DreamWorks is still too afraid, or too unimaginative, to come out with a movie starring a female, so I guess a skinny, weak boy is the next best thing.
How is Astrid finally convinced to put her trust in Hiccup instead of in his father, the tribe’s real leader? Hiccup takes her for a ride on his trained dragon, Toothless. As she dares to climb behind him on the saddle, grinning and clinging to his back, she reminded me of watching “Superman” as a kid, seeing Lois Lane dazzled by handsome Christopher Reeve as he flew her through the starry night or myself, cruising down a freeway in Austin, on the back of my boyfriend’s motorcycle, in awe at the sunset in the giant Texas sky. Yeah, it’s seductive and all, but why can’t Hollywood give girls the chance to be the hotties in the driver’s seat?
There’s one more female in this movie, blink and you’ll miss they call her a she. Spoiler alert: it turns out all the dragons are stealing food to feed a secret, hidden, giant, boss dragon, “like worker bees to a queen,” Hiccup discovers. I’m going to look at this paradoxically minor/ major female role as subversively feminist, and awarding the movie an extra G for it, though I don’t know how many people who see the movie will get that part is a female one.
“How to Train Your Dragon” gets a GG/S rating: some girlpower, some stereotyping.
For those of you who are going to comment boys will see movies about girls, girls will not see movies about boys, please see this post.
Phooey on Ratatouille
I wrote this for The San Jose Mercury news in 2007. It inspired my blog ReelGirl.
Phooey on `Ratatouille’: Female leads lacking in kid films
STUDIOS ACKNOWLEDGE, ACCEPT SEXISM
By Margot Magowan
Article Launched: 07/06/2007 01:32:35 AM PDT
“Ratatouille” made $47 million opening weekend, but as I watched the
film with my 4-year-old daughter, I felt depressed. There was nary a
female rat in sight. I’d forked over $9 so my daughter could get yet
another lesson in sexism direct from Pixar or Disney: No matter if
you’re a rodent, car, or fish – boys are the ones with the starring
roles while girls are relegated to sidekicks.
“Cars,” “Toy Story,” “Finding Nemo,” “The Lion King,” “Monsters Inc.”
each features a male hero and multiple male characters; often a token
female is around to help propel one of the guys to greatness.
“Ratatouille” faithfully follows suit. Colette, a female human sous
chef, even justifies her secondary role in the film with a brief
monologue on misogyny: “Do you know how hard I had to work to get
ahead in this male-dominated kitchen?” she yells at our hero.
The speech is there to throw girls a bone, and you can find this
gesture in most modern day motion picture cartoons. It’s that nod to
the audience: unlike all those cartoons of yesteryear, we know this is
sexist, but there’s nothing we can do about it.
When I complained to my mom and sister: “Why couldn’t Ratatouille have
been female? Why no girls – again?” They said, “Didn’t you hear
Colette’s talk? That’s how it is in the real world.” OK, let me get
this straight: It’s just fine to stretch our imaginations to believe
in a talking rat who can cook, but when it comes to gender
roles, we admire realism and authenticity?
When my daughter goes to the movies, she sees animals talk, fairies or
unicorns prance around, witches cast evil spells, but she’s never
shown a magical land where boys and girls are treated equally, where
gender doesn’t matter. Why can’t Pixar or Disney allow her the fantasy
of equality?
After I saw “The Lion King,” I wanted to know: Why couldn’t the
lionesses have attacked weak, old Scar? Why did they have to wait
around for Simba to come back to Pride Rock to help them? I was told:
that’s how it is in nature – lionesses need a male to lead the pride.
So a lion can be best friends with a warthog and a meerkat without
gobbling them up, but a lioness heading a pride? That could never
happen in the animal kingdom!
Pixar has yet to allow girls any starring roles, but Disney permits it
if she’s a princess. Audiences can count on the contemporary princess
movie to throw girls their bone: Unlike princesses of the past who
happily went off with the first guy who kissed them out of
unconsciousness, these modern girls get to choose whom they marry.
Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine put up a huge stink, stubbornly refusing
betrothal to the obvious choice. But these elaborate shows of
independence are bases for entire plot lines, keeping the princesses
stories almost entirely focused on marriage: rebellion within the
safest possible framework.
When my daughter was watching “Mulan” – probably the most feminist of
all the motion picture cartoons – dress up as a boy to fight in a war,
she asked me, “Why can’t girls fight?” Before she can even understand
how Mulan is empowering, first she has to understand sexism. But does
she need to know, at age 4, about sexism? Does she need to know people
still believe girls can’t do so many things, like cook in a top-tier
French kitchen? Why can’t she just see a girl chef making great food,
receiving acclaim for her talent, being helped along by a girl rat or
sous chef boy?
The hyper-concern for gender accuracy in the fantasy world extends to
things like plush toys – when I refer to my kid’s animals as “she,”
adults invariably do a double take, checking for manes or tusks: even
female toys must stay in their place. And of course, toys are a big
part of the problem. With today’s mass marketing, all these movie
characters live on as action figures, dolls, games, on T-shirts and
cereal boxes. On my daughter’s kite, her beach ball, her pull-ups, the
trifecta of Jasmine, Belle and Ariel smile shyly. My daughter wasn’t
born with this fairy tale-princess fantasy embedded in her brain, but
like any kid, she’s self-centered. She likes the movies that are all
about her. Females are half of the population. We pay our $10 just
like everyone else. When can we get more representation in our movies?
How long do we have to wait?
Pixar is made up of a bunch of guy geeks. Disney’s top brass is
practically all male. Maybe when we get more female studio heads, more
female directors and producers and writers, we’ll see groups of girls
having adventures; girl heroes doing cool, brave things in starring
roles where marriage may never be mentioned at all. Maybe then people
will wake up, finally recognize the radical lack of imagination going
on in our make believe worlds; Princess Charming finally rescues
Sleeping Hunk.