Not-so-shocking news...

I don't really think that this is surprising to any women anywhere, probably, but now there is a scientific study to back up the fact that looking at models makes women feel worse about their own bodies.
Women Of All Sizes Feel Badly About Their Bodies After Seeing Models

The study suggests that the majority of women would benefit from interventions aimed at decreasing the effects of the media, regardless of weight. Mintz said past interventions have targeted specific groups of women, such as those with pre-existing eating and body-image concerns, but this study suggests that reducing the acceptance of mass media images of women and trying to stop the social comparison process is important for helping all women.

I was thinking the other day about how much my sense of body size has been warped, partly, I'm sure, by exposure to media. I was watching this season's "America's Next Top Model" (clearly part of the problem, hah), and I found myself automatically always thinking of the "plus-sized models" who are on the show this season as "fat." In reality, these girls are probably like a size 8 or 10, maybe 12 at the very most, and are therefore thin by real-world standards. (What is the average for American women these days? Like 14 or 16, I think?) Because I'm constantly looking at them next to all these size 2 models, they look large. So I feel like that's a microcosm of what happens with women's actual body image... and most women are not even perfectly proportioned, fit, 6-ft tall bombshells, like these "plus-sized" girls are.

Don't you wish they taught this in sex ed?!

Watch this video to learn about parts of the clitoris you didn't even know you had.

Hahah, Betty Dodson is the cutest little old lady, I love her.

Feminist Slam Poetry

Courtesy of Mica-



(And God knows if this will work, because Blogger hates me)

Okay, *that's* what I wanted to say!

Yesterday I ranted a bit about Laura Sessions Stepp's WaPo article, "Love's Labor's Lost," which was basically a summary of the arguments in her new book, Unhooked: How Young Women Pursue Sex, Delay Love, and Lose at Both. It was a little difficult for me to fully process what pissed me off about this article, but luckily, a review of Stepp's book by Kathy Dobie already said a lot of what I wanted to say.
I think this about sums it up:

The author resurrects the ugly, old notion of sex as something a female gives in return for a male's good behavior, and she imagines the female body as a thing that can be tarnished by too much use. She advises the girls, "He will seek to win you over only if he thinks you're a prize."And goes on to tell them, "In a smorgasbord of booty, all the hot dishes start looking like they've been on the warming table too long."

It's exactly this old-school model of heterosexual relationships, upon which Stepp and other critics of "hook-up culture" base their arguments, that annoys me so much. She completely ignores young women's sexual desires, instead assuming that female sexuality is something to be dangled over men's heads in order to get them to "adore" you.

Anyway, read Dobie's review, I really enjoyed it.

Hooking up will make you unfit for love. Well, if you're a girl, at least.

I just came across this article in the WaPo ("Love's Labor's Lost" by Laura Sessions Stepp) about why "hook-up culture" is detrimental to college students... though apparently according to this author it's mostly a problem for young women, who are fundamentally damaged and hurt by it (naturally). I thought it was interesting in light of certain discussions that have been going on at Hamilton as of late *ahem*, and that I would share my thoughts on it.

So far as I can tell, this lady's general argument is that not having serious, committed, "boyfriend-girlfriend" relationships (let's just point out up front that this article is ridiculously heteronormative) in college makes young women ill-prepared for getting married and making babies (No, seriously, she says: "These things [the ability to compromise, care for another person, be emotionally intimate, etc., which she implies can only be gained through dating?] are essential to being happily married and raising children, both of which young women say they want someday.")

First, she claims that hooking-up happens because "being emotionally dependent on a lover is what scares these young women the most" due to modern upbringing that encourages women to be independent. Women are then unsatisfied, however, because they don't get "adored" by men like they need to be. Now granted, I agree that it's bad if anyone (young women included) fears emotional intimacy to the point where they can't get close to someone when they want to. What I find offensive and just plain untrue about her argument is that it implies that young women all secretly want to be "adored" and doted on by some guy (any guy!), but that they're just afraid of love because some naughty feminists taught them to be independent.

Why isn't it just possible that college-aged women happen to be as interested in having fun as college-aged men have always been ("boys will be boys," right?!), and that now the culture allows them to do so without being called sluts (well, at least not as much)? I don't think that most women who are hooking up have completely written off the possibility of a relationship from their mind if they found the right person(though some have, and that's fine), they're just not obsessed with defining themselves through a relationship with a man.

Not that there aren't many issues to be found with the way "hook-up culture" operates at colleges... but I don't think that it's a tragedy just because not all girls are obsessed with being in relationships when they don't really want to be... Okay, I've ranted. Thoughts?

The Vagina Lady

I love this lady!!! She dresses up in awesome vagina costumes for various events (and for a cross-country tour), and she makes vulva-riffic art and jewelry. She does this because, in her words, "Somehow the air of mystery about the vagina has become mingled with shame and discomfort. But the vagina, in its glowing non-pornographic beauty, deserves to be admiredin a non-pornographic way. The Vagina Lady wishes only to share this beauty with the world." Right on, sister!

Personally, I'm a big fan of these pictures of her at Mt. Rushmore, but there's lots of other funny ones too. Her art is pretty neat, too, though too expensive for me to afford. She also has some cool websites listed on the "links" page.

With the Monologues in five days, I'm in a very vagina-centric mood right now... can you tell? :)

Fashion Week and Super-Skinny Models

I thought this article on Fashion Week from the Washington Post's fashion critic was pretty interesting, despite having a silly, pun-filled headline: "Designers Face a Weighty Problem: Excuses for Hiring Super-Skinny Models Are Wearing Thin." In it, he follows the casting process for a Fashion Week runway show.

Among other things, the article talks about how, even though fashion models have always been skinnier than the average woman, in the past decade the discrepancy has become larger. Sample sizes have gone from 4/6 (which he describes as "supermodel amazons," like Tyra or Heidi I assume) to 0/2 ("stickpins" and "waifs").

He also points out a practical consideration involved in changing the industry standard that I have never thought of before:

This is the designer's dilemma: Because the size-2 models are the most popular, they have the most experience. The size-6 model is inexperienced. Hire her for aesthetic reasons and she'll stand out not only because of her size but also because she isn't as qualified.