This was an interesting article about girls in gaming and stereotypes. I thought it was a nice list. I have been coming across a lot of articles about gender in gaming, which I will elaborate on more, but for now, enjoy this!

http://www.gamesradar.com/f/9-things-real-female-gamers-hate-about-gaming/a-20100326161620941082

So, with the Superbowl on it’s way this Sunday, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding some of the ads that are going to be displayed or not displayed. In my previous post, I mentioned CBS’ involvement in showing anti-abortion ads for the group Focus on Families. A little update of that effort : CREDO (the organization involved in the petition to pull those ads) have gathered over 120,000 signatures, which CBS is very aware of, but choose to ignore. Regardless of your stance on the issue, it is hard to feel sympathy for CBS’ hypocrisy with their “No-Advocacy” policy, when they start banning other advertisements that may promote certain lifestyles they do not wish to align themselves with.

Now, I have come across two specifically that really benchmark what kind of game is being played at the superbowl this year (pun intended). Even with the number of people that watch the Superbowl, football is largely a masculine sport with male followers. With that being said, I think it sets the stage for the two banned ads (I am sure there are more) that came my way.

ManCrunch

ManCrunch, which is an online gay dating site has had their ad refused by the powers that be. Now, there is already a little controversy with this ad in general. The signs in the back, the displeased friend, etc. Although there are multiple interpretations, I would say that having a football related , gay ad would be a good ad to run, regardless of some of the negatives. I think the ad breaks the gender barrier of saying that masculine, football-loving men are, indeed, gay as well. Take from the ad what you will, but the ban is very obviously one of gay nature (and im sure the image of very tough, football-loving, men shunning their heterosexual nature isn’t part of that AT ALL). The thing to consider here is the mash-up of gender and sexuality. Even though these men are retaining their masculine qualities (being strong, etc.), their masculinity is instantly stripped once they are gay. It’s an interesting and ironic measurement of gender studies to see how those two can be separate, then closely tied in specific circumstances.

GoDaddy

This one has surprised me. GoDaddy is notorious for very sexist, over the top, sexualized advertisements (FOR WEB HOSTING!). Just last year I switched my hosting to DreamHost because I did not agree with Bob Parsons’ take on women, the industry, and advertising. I didn’t want to support such blatant objectification of women. That is why their latest ad can only dictate the humiliation of effeminate acting men. In the ad, Lola (an ex-football player), built a business as a clothing designer. Of course, Lola is very “gay acting” (effeminate), and even though effeminiate does not equate homosexuality, I think it is implied in this ad. I am not sure the intent GoDaddy had with this one. Danica Patrick has been their mascot for quite some time, and she is in her full suit (sometimes she’s barely wearing anything), and narrating the story of Lola. I’m not sure if they were TRYING to sell limited images of gender (how a masculine man can become feminine with the snap of selling clothing — hint : selling clothes does not make you snap your fingers and lisp) or if they were trying to get the gay vote (if they were, they need better marketing consultants). Either way, it’s fail, so it is good this is pulled off the air, but in the same time, the reasons for it being pulls are also for the wrong reasons.

Now, between the ManCrunch and this ad, both gender and sexuality for men take a beating, as well as women’s right to choose abortion as an option. I am not sure how in 2010, we are regressing so much, but apparently the marketers are pulling out all the stops on this event.

I don’t watch the superbowl (as a male!), but I wish I did , so I could boycott the event. I really am excited to see what ads actually air, and then the final release of the rejected ads. If you have any other gender/sex related banned superbowl 2010 ads, let me know! Also, let me know your thoughts on the ads!

I was just reading a movie blog when an add for the direct-to-DVD (probably because it’s too over the top for theaters) film “I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell” popped up on the side. Now, I have seen this book in Borders in the humor section, so it’s not meant to give a totally accurate portrayal of men, but it becomes pretty apparent in the cross-over version of this film (just from watching the preview) or seeing the ad to the right that women are going to be overly objectified in a way that is not even masked  in the littlest sense. The entire film is just about how guys are assholes.

Upon further look at the trailer (end of this article). there are MANY things wrong, even in the first few moments of the trailer.

• Guy asks beautiful young woman what she is doing. She replies that she is talking to the turtle in the tank, and he wonders if they are telling her to KILL “the fat chick” at the bar. When the girl walks away he asks how she could be real because “fat girls aren’t real people”.

I don’t think a lot of this trailer needs to be analyzed because I would hope that everyone realized how over the top it actually is, but just in case a 7 year old gets hold of this film, they are going to both A.) devalue women in general B.) devalue women who are not a size 1 even more. The male goes even further to suggest that the turtles are telling the girl to MURDER the heavier set woman in the film. Not a great message.

• Typical roadtrip to a stripclub, which is featured in a lot of male-centric films.
• Defiance of the law (urinating in public)
• Very typical dynamic between boyfriend who goes on the trip and the girl who stays behind. Although this is not technically cheating, it shows a mask for lying, deceit, and uses the metaphor for cheating. He is usually the “sweet” guy, but is still peer pressured by the others to participate.
• As with a lot of films in a similar nature, the main goal is to get laid, but not before getting extremely wasted. What kind of message does this send about healthy sexuality when these films constantly promote the mixing of sex and alcohol (ability to give consent, anyone?). Although these images are of social drinking as well, there is a major problem with alcoholism in our country, especially with depressed males, so that sends a whole other set of messages.

I am going to have to watch this film to just see how horrible it is, although I will need to find an art in summarizing because I am sure it will be an hour and a half of blantent stereotypical hyper-masculine behavior. Although the film is marketed as “these guys are assholes” (and who wants to be an asshole?), they are still images of men being men. Also, I am not against just a comedic experience in general (I think political incorrectness is funny as well), but I think as to go as far as suggesting a “fat chick get murdered” is outside the scope of satire / rude humor.

I was lucky to be exposed to 6 hours of daytime cable television today while bringing a friend to the ER, and of all the things that caught my eye, a commercial for “Depends” diapers. The part that caught my ear was “Men and Women are different” and a woman proceeded to talk about how uncomfortable wearing the diapers can be when the positions of the diaper don’t align correctly with her body. I couldn’t help but criticize their use of man/woman. Now, I realize this is a little up for debate, but within progressive gender circles I think it’s pretty common to cite male/female as SEX and man/woman/boy/girl as GENDER (man having masculine qualities, female having feminine qualities). There is discussion about the language more in depth in a few other of my posts if you are interested :

A Question of Language // Surveying Meanings

Simple Language Nuances That Matter // Gender & Sex

Aside from the debate over the language used, I thought “This is a male versus female problem”, and these are the kind of differences that I see no problem with. Men and women are shaped differently (everyone is for that matter), so having a diaper that will fit you is important. I tried finding the commercial online (just because I like to have media), and went to the Depend’s website. Sure enough they use the same language and even have separate sections for men and women (male/female), which again is fine because they are marketing to a SEX (regardless of their language use) not a GENDER. That was until I actually went to their site. Gender is one of the strongest components that can be marketed to because we all identify with something and it gender is so prevalent in our culture.

I reanalyzed my stance that they were selling to a specific sex, when I saw their very traditional pink and blue themes for the man/woman pages. I guess in case the old people cannot see to read the pages, they will at least know they are purchasing the correct diaper for their body by identifying almost the #1 fundamental and common gender assignment of pink and blue.

Now, I would be willing to secede from the language debate if they did not use such elementary uses of gender stereotyping. But for all intensive purposes, I guess if someone identifie’s as a woman (girl, feminine, what have you), they should use the “woman diapers” regardless of their biological makeup!

An interesting theory could be that since they are older, these gender norms seem more pertinent, and I suppose if we were to market gender to any group, it would seem most comfortable in the older population, as younger teens seem to reject complete traditions of gender stereotyping (although still struggle with it immensely when developing their identities). At the same time we still see the traditional blue and pink schema when we walk the aisles.

I was listening to Rachel Maddow this morning, and I didn’t get 3 minutes in when she spoke about one of the very odd things Scott Brown said at his victory speech about his daughters.

He suggests after he was kidding, but why make such a preposterous joke at a victory speech, and you can tell it was a backtrack, as his daughters seemed appalled (although publicly appropriate). Now, “Daughters for Sale” is going a little far, but it just reminds me of how some Republ….”Independents” hold on to such old values in our country. It wasn’t that long ago where the days of suitors were the only option in town, which were normally decided by the father of the family (who his daughters were good enough to marry). We aren’t living in medeval times, and even if it were “a joke” aren’t there thousands of other jokes that don’t involve his (very traditional) beautiful, college-aged, daughters? At the very least it was tasteless, and not really appropriate to publicly open that can of date worms.

Whip It was released in theaters last October (when I should have posted this), but I watched it again last night, and got “Derby Fever” once again. If you are unfamiliar with the film, Ellen Page stars as Bliss Cavender, an alternative misfit who works on a diner and leads a relatively guided life with her mother constantly entering pageants. She soon finds a flyer for a women’s roller derby bout and falls instantly in love. Without giving the entire plot, she joins the team and soars, finding herself in the fitting mantra of the film : Be Your Own Hero.

Putting my love for Ellen Page is hard because she plays this role like a rockstar, but the shows bevy of positive gender roles throughout it. I’ve often coined that “matriarchy is no better than patriarchy”, which could be construed in this film (how is it different than say, men’s wrestling?) because the full contact sport can be relatively injury-inducing. I don’t really want to press the point on this because although agressive sports have their spot for discussion, the film focuses more on the relationships of Bliss finding herself as a young woman.

The characters in this film are phenomenal. Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut shines with positive female energy. The women in the film are both aggressive and caring. Kristen Wiig’s character is touch on the skates, but at night does not go out with her fellow teammates because she is taking care of her son. This shows a mixture of traditional “caretaking” and agressive sports participation. Viewers don’t even realize the “caretaking” side of her until much later on in the film because her son is often referred to as “her man” (which implies she has a boyfriend waiting at home). Drew’s character is probably the most agressive, getting into fights, playfully beating up her boyfriend, and generally having violent tendencies, but she is still fun and loving (she keeps her aggression in the game for the most part).

As much as I am not for agressive sports, the film takes me back to my childhood when roller derby gained it’s second wind of popularity. Even though women being violent isn’t an answer to all the “gender problems” in our society, I think leveling the playing field and showing that women can be tough, independent, and organize themselves (although their coach is male). The film is very loosely based on the real life roller derby resurgence that happened in the 90’s. If you watch the documentary, Hell on Wheels, you get an entirely different outlook on the reality of this resurgence. I would recommend this film as well because it shows how the real life coach was really in it for the money and screwed over the women who were the heart of roller derby, so the re-organized themselves without him.

I don’t want to boast about all the metaphors in the film, it’s a coming of age film, so there are a lot of layers about growth and the transitions from teen to adulthood. When I first saw the film, I was doing some research to see what other people thought about the film, and I found an article in “Psychology Today” entitled “Lesbian Fantasy, Disguised“, where author Jeremy Clyman suggests that the entire film was a huge “coming out” story for Ellen Page’s character. Although my bias comes in the form of being drawn to sociological theory and reasoning, I think some of the claims in this article are just far out. I will start off by saying that film, like most art, is highly interpretive, so his analysis on the film has validity, my main gripe comes with passing off his personal interpretation as either scientific, or sound enough to have on a website that is supposed to support psychological research. My other problem comes with the fact that most of this article ignores any sociological factors.

But I think this film is also a secret communication to closeted lesbians living in hostile places in which the closet is the only safe place to be.

I didn’t get this at all from the film. Bliss and her mother have a tumultuous relationship, but I don’t see this as a “closet-case”. Bliss’ mother enters her into debutant-style pageants, and as a growing teen who is moving into an alternative lifestyle, it just does not fit. A lot of this article talks about “secret communication” a.k.a. “Metaphor!”, which can be found in any film, it doesn’t exclusively suggest that this is the case. Bliss reconsiles with her mother at the end (although agreed her mother doesn’t fully accept it). Although seeing the film through Jeremy’s interpretation would be a good one, and someone like me who is usually looking for metaphors did not see this level of the film at all (again, not suggesting it cannot be there)

Let’s back up before we get into conspiracy theories. “Whip It” is directed by a female (Barrymore), its protagonist is female (Page), and the story is about a girl who becomes a woman in a female dominated world. There isn’t a serious male character to be seen. Oddly enough, the film is also about sports and the Deep South. I know what you’re thinking. I, as a heterosexual man, am incapable of watching an exclusively female story without conflating its straightforward coming-of-age purpose with some sort of secret, subversive sexual agenda.

He does note this, but although they are not the lead characters, there is at least 1 serious male role (which he later effeminates in the article as he wears short shorts). The more you read the article the more you can see that gender is the primary transcendance of this film, and not sexuality (the only obvious sexuality in the film is when Bliss has sex with her :boyfriend: Oliver.

I have developed the hypothesis of “Whip It” as lesbian fantasy in disguise, because even if this is not the intention of the filmmaker, it still works on this level, and by functioning on this level it is serving a social purpose above and beyond the gender equality comment that women can make films too.

I don’t think the “purpose” of the film is to show that women can make films, I think it is that women can be strong, agressive, play sports, kick ass, and still be caring, loving, and dynamic (as all humans should be).

First, there needs to be a concealable stigma, as it is this notion that constitutes the heart of the dilemma of being, in this case, homosexual. Possessing a concealable stigma means that a significant aspect of one’s identity can be hidden from the public, and the public has arbitrarily defined this aspect of identity to be poisonous/unequal/unlovable/you get the idea. “Whip It” is about a less intense stigma than being gay; it is about being a female athlete in a sport that is embedded in a punk culture. This is sufficiently unsuitable for a high-society southern lady hoping to appease societal expectations.

Note the part in bold. He says directly that the stigma is not about being gay, that it is about being a female athlete. Now, if we know anything of SOCIOLOGY, we’d know that gender is a social construct, such as “a female being an athlete”. “Punk Culture”, “High-Society”, “Societal Expectations” (i feel like he is accepting it there at the end), but these are all factors that would hinge on the “female being an athlete” portion of the film, into a gender-breaking film, not a sexuality-breaking film. If Whip it wanted to be “gay”, it would have done it more obviously like in Point C of this next quote

A. “Whip It” is about roller blading, which this movie defines as a group of half-drunk women, in tight athletic gear and rollerblades muscling each other for inside positioning, as a few key teammates weave in and out of the pack. Those that have finesse are chased by those that have strength, somewhat akin to the cat and mouse pursuit of a top and bottom sexual power dynamic (there’s a reason the standard sexual position is missionary). In short, this game is a metaphor for sex.
B. The protagonist, Bliss (Page), behaves in the way that a lesbian might behave before she knows she’s a lesbian. We meet her just as she’s playfully dying her hair blue for a beauty pageant. Her inexplicable love for roller derby is incited by the image of three women pushing each other on rollerblades. She dumps her boyfriend with suspicious ease and celerity. She’s an adolescent who likes to be different, is experimental and puts a boyfriend second to roller derby. Now, obviously none of these things makes her a suppressed lesbian, but as a lesbian in the audience you might be cued into the possibility of an alternative, unconscious sexual agenda.
C. A character named “Jaba the Slut” is definitely a lesbian. She winks at girls and offers them drinks and come-on lines. This is never made explicit, which signals to the audience that lesbianism is both present and not really present.

A. There seems to be a lot of stretching happening here. First of all the “Hurl Scouts” (that sounds sexy, doesn’t it!), and the other teams do dress a little “scantily”, but this could easily be attributed to women recognizing their sexuality (a la “My Short Skirt” in the Vagina Monologues), but it is for them only. They are strong and powerful women, is it gay that men who play football wear tights as well? What would you call a male dancer in a leotard with an all female troupe? Is he trying to “get all the ladies”, gender and stereotyping would dictate otherwise. I don’t think I can even justify a response to how “being chased by those with strength” is a metaphor for sex, with this metaphor, tennis is long distance relationship, doubles tenis is a bisexual game, and rugby is S&M. Anything can be a metaphor for anything, but odds are this isn’t what is happening

B. Dying your hair blue means you are a lesbian. I better go back in time and tell some of my straight friends who did this in high school that they might be gay (it’ll save them year of torturous straight marriage). There is lot of claims without explanation here. When she meets the girls who are pushing each other around, she is drawn to them based on their alternative look (which we know she is into with her blue hair). She puts her boyfriend 2nd to roller derby because why would she give up her new identity (which i am not saying IS heterosexual, but that is the only actual sexuality she shows in the film, maybe she’s bi, but it’s too hard to tell because I think what Jeremy is doing is looking at a lot of the social factors of becoming part of this all-female group and just throwing sexuality onto it). As a person in the audience (having seen it twice and the second time having this article in mind), I didn’t.

[High School Outcasts, Beware! Dying Your Hair Blue Can Cause Gayness]

C. I think it was pretty obvious these two were lesbians (or they could have just been experimenting, or bisexual), but this was literally a 20 second clip in the movie, and was never alluded too again.

I don’t want to respond to the entire article. I picked some points I think refute some of what this article is trying to put out there. He never really talks about the bisexual option (as Bliss does have sex with her boyfriend, and even when she “gives up him so easily”, it doesn’t feel like she is saying “goodbye all men”).

This is my last analysis, and I think it sums up a lot of the, “it’s more about gender, than sex” thing I am talking about here. Note that just about all the things he speaks about are a matter of gender, and not sexuality.

Let’s look at the men in this world: there’s the passive sports-crazed father, the sexually androgynous boyfriend, the I’m-just-one-of-the-girls coach and the horny roller derby announcer.

Just a note that because there are not strong, dominated males in this film, does not logically imply that Bliss is a lesbian. These less dominated males give the film a stream to punch forth their “girl power” (not sexual tendencies). I think its absurd to say that because males were sensitive and non-oppressing in this film, that somehow links sexuality. This directly goes against his earlier point about how repressed she would be in this environment. If there were all these effeminate males, wouldn’t she be more likely to “come out”.

Although dad flirts with mom he clearly loves sports and beer more than sex. This is made conscious with a scene in which Bliss encounters her father’s van in an abandoned, moonlit parking lot. All signs point to raunchy sex until she realizes that he’s just watching the Texas Long Horns.

So, her father is being emasculated because he does not commit adultery. Another absurd analysis. Also, I would say he still retains some of his “manhood” (not entirely sure why this is important), because he IS just sitting around watching sports and drinking beer (typical “man” behavior).

The boyfriend may be straight in the same way the Beatles were harmlessly straight, but his long hair, fondness for wrestling and effeminate smile, at the very least, sucks the testosterone out of the room.

Again, I do not see how her boyfriend lacking testosterone really says anything. This actual counters his point because if Oliver was so feminine, would she not have stayed with him? Although I guess the rebuttal would be that she left a girly man for actual women, but the point remains that because someone is masculine / feminine does not imply sexual orientation.

[Testosterone Free Zone]

The coach inexplicable wears tight jean shorts and inexplicably loves roller derby. He writes play books, pushes them in practice and cheerleads them during games. If roller derby is a metaphor for sexual identity then he nurtures and protects this identity in a way that few straight men can.

Even if he were gay (which we know he isn’t because he is making out with one of the team members at Johnny Rocket’s party), again I am not seeing the connection. He says “If roller derby is a metaphor for sexual identity…”, which proves he sees gender and sex as the same thing. “short shorts”, “cheering”, “writing play books”, are all behaviors that would imply gender, because someone cheers does not mean they have sex witha  certain type of person. I would say this point above all else discredits this argument a great deal.

[Playbooks & Jeanshorts, The End All To Be All]

Then there is “Hot Tub” Johnny Rocket, the announcer. He is the epitome of over-sexualized, aggressive machismo. Lesbians fearing rejection hate what he epitomizes, and he is predictably and harshly torn down. He is laughed off when he wants to join the ladies in the hot tub; his appeals to the audience for dates seem unsuccessful, at best. The last name “Rocket” makes it more than obvious that he represents a penis, an impotent one.

I wouldn’t entirely disagree with this (anymore than i do agree with it), although he isn’t aggressive in a violent way, moreso in the annoying “I want to get laid way”, which is important to note. I think the author is missing the point that the film is about women finding themselves and “Being their own hero”. It isn’t about Johnny getting laid. I did suggest earlier that the coach was getting some action at the party though, but if there is any metaphor, I would suggest that it is Johnny (who is sleezy), getting turned down because he is a dog who seemingly would take advantage of women (and only want them for sex). Is it wrong to reject this notion? I don’t think so.

There is  bunch more to the article, you should all read it. I don’t want to completely discredit it, but I think there is some major collisions with social factors that are ignored as well as the lack of distinction between gender and sex(uality), which I think in this case IS important because some of the things he is basing his analysis on are factors of gender, which do not imply sexuality. I suppose you could make the argument that because the movie does use some of these stereotypes of gender (and gender is usually associated with sexuality), that these points do ring true, but this blog is about analyzing gender (with some tendency to try and separate it from sexuality based on the fact that they are NOT mutually exclusive). There are some valid points in the article, and maybe young lesbians did view the movie that way, but I think you would have to reach down VERY deep to get these conclusions, but it does seem that Heather Hogan in her article “I See Gay People“, agrees. The article also talks about Hannah Montana being a metaphor for lesbian-hood. Although I don’t think that these metaphors CANNOT be see, I think you see what you want, which isn’t a bad thing, but I wouldn’t really put it up on Psychology Today. Heather, who writes for a Logo blog probably sees these metaphors in a lot of everyday movies/music/tv (as I do with gender-related materials, which is what drew me to Whip It, the positive female characters that break traditional gender stereotypes).

(Last point, I promise!)

Like I said, i’m not saying this ISN’T underlying in the film, , but if it was supposed to be there, it wasn’t strong enough (although Heather suggests Jeremy’s analysis supports that “lesbians can feel uplifted, and straight people can feel unthreatened”, but if you look at roller derby in general, the women are not hiding behind anything, they are gender-breakers by nature, so why be “in the closet” (if Bliss felt that way, she could have been herself with the women, but she never did anything that would suggest or imply that). If you want Hell on Wheels you get another perspective of how blunt and passionate these women were, and even if you go to the Maine Roller Derby website, they are very honest with who they are (and this is Maine!) ::

• Moms, girlfriends, wives, and joyously single women
• Straight girls, gay girls, and anything in between
• Loud-mouthed firecrackers and quiet, reserved badasses
• The list goes on and on…

So, either this was a MISS on the part of Drew Barrymore to disregard this inherent nature of roller derby women and to not realize that if Bliss was a lesbian, she would have come out OR she was just a teenager finding herself, her identity, with a bunch of women who broke gender tradition (and some of them WERE lesbian, go figure). You decide, but I know which one I am picking.

Heineken knows about the struggles that can drive a knife into gender divide and break it open like a bottle opener hitting a cold brewski! I know this advertisement is a little old, but a friend recently sent it along to me and I was reminded of it.

Now, I have to applaud the advertisers on this one because it is really clever. Employing a method of paralleling men and women’s experience to show that they are similar (Although the men jump up and down only after the women go crazy with shrieking and then they jump around “like girls”) is a pretty wise tactic. It’s almost believable until you look at the very obvious that women are going crazy for shoes and clothes and men are going crazy for beer. It’s interesting to blow over the entire stigma of men being alcoholics and treating alcohol (which leads to alcoholism), with such breeze. It’s not really comparable to clothing (although shopping addiction can ruin lives as well). I don’t mean to sound extreme, men can like beer and women can like clothes (and women like beer and men like clothes). My friend who sent this to me made a strong assertion that, “would i scream over a walk in closet? no way”. For me, trying to say men and women are the same because they have their genderized hobbies is topic of interest.

This is an image I saw some time ago, and have had it saved on my computer (I am trying to update the site more frequently!). I was just logging into my Yahoo! E-Mail account, when I saw a relatively disturbing image!

The image is clearly showing a mother and son. Yahoo! is implying that she will be getting updates about her son (who looks like he could be on his way to college), but he doesn’t look too happy about that (don’t use Yahoo!?). My main concern with this image is a simple one. Why can he not be happy? I am sure tons of teens relate to the overcaring mother who wants to know what their child is up to all the time, and it kind of annoys them, but he looks like he is about to throw her onto the other side of this ad. Now, just because gender is what this blog is about, I think this simple ad that is advertising e-mail is overly aggressive, portraying a young black man (double stigma!) as stone-cold and emotionless while his dear mother reads about how he had chicken nuggets for lunch (it’s a pretty big secret).

Not to go too far down the over-reacting road, but Jackson Katz talks a lot about the portrayal of black men in media in his film Tough Guise. When black men started getting roles in Hollywood, they were often playing roles of gang members, abusive husbands, or crocked cops. Although we’ve come a long way (some of this taking place in the 80s and 90s), there are still subtle hints of it throughout culture (and at times not so subtle hints). If you haven’t seen the film, do so, it is one of my favorite gender critique films!

My point here is a simple one. Why does Yahoo! not take the high road. Maybe they are going for stoic, cool, son who’s mother has an more vested interested in her son than he does in her (which is also a typical family dynamic), but in this time, with advertising so rampant (especially on the net), why perpetuate this. It’s funny because if the ends of his lips were about 2 degrees pointed upwards each, I wouldn’t have even second guessed it, but when I am logging in and see an “angry black man”, I look over, then try putting together this whole puzzle! I’d like to think i’m overreacting, and you probably think I am, but watch Tough Guise a few times and you’ll see what I am talking about. These are not end all to be alls, but it’s something worth considering.

(CNN) — A dating site that markets itself as an elite community for beautiful people with a “strict ban on ugly people” has axed about 5,000 members for packing on the pounds during the holiday season.

The international site BeautifulPeople.com threw out members after they posted photos “revealing that they have let themselves go,” according to a company statement.

Read the rest of the article here : http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/01/04/dating.site.overweight/index.html

I don’t think I really have to point out the ridiculousness of “an elite dating site for beautiful people”. The one thing I am wondering about is the breakdown of males and females were “let go”. Society dictates different weight and images for men and women (both are set high, in different ways).

Segregation based on beauty! Although it’s always existed, with the way the internet operates, there is plenty of opportunities for closed communities based on whatever (it would be interesting to infiltrate one of these communities and do social research) criteria they see fit. That’s the beauty and harm of social networking these days, the network can be whatever we want it be. Elite beauty clubs aren’t really a new concept.

Without a lot more information or statistics about who was let go, I can’t really make a lot of conclusions about why or how people were let go, but it’s an interesting article that equalizes gender. I am assuming both men and women were let go (although it’s my suspicion more women were let go). Really “beautyism” isn’t much different than racism, or other types of prejudice. We are born a certain way, and society values the way some are born over (based often times on looks), and we segregate (sometimes very obviously) based on them. Now, beautyists are a more sneaky, in general (not in this case, the site was very direct about their intentions) because their rule is very well backed by Hollywood, and their ammunition involves straining sexualization and exclusivity. Don’t let the fatties and uglies sit with the cool kids at lunchtime. It reminds me of the song “High School” by Superchick, talking about how we never grow out of the popularity contest, and a lot of this has to do with gender placement. I’m sure this elite site has its share of models and doctors that find true love.

Maybe there should be separate dating sites, “The Average Looking” and “Pretty Ugly”, or we could divide things up a little more and have 10 sites 1.com, 2.com, and so on, where your ranking gives you exclusive backstage membership to other singles in your ranking!

In all seriousness, I think we’ll see a gay president before we see the breakdown of the social beauty pageant.

In the spirit of keeping with the opposition to these delimiting standards, the song “High School” that was mentioned earlier provides an upbeat alternative to growing up and expanding past the superficiality that surrounds us -

I was browsing the internet today  when an ad for “The Special K Challenge” popped up. I decided to click the link because I am looking for a decent diet right now. I figured, “cereal is good, maybe I can lose some weight eating it!”. What I found out, is that the cereal world is no place for a man. You see, cereal is a sacred and feminine tradition. For centuries, men ate steak and potatoes for breakfast, while their desperately seeking thin wives ate a very balanced breakfast of fruit and Special K. Now, there seems to be marketing campaigns in the cereal world : Kids and Health. We all know that the average dieting housewife doesn’t really care about the Trix Rabbit or Lucky the Leprechaun, but they do care about the health factor. That’s why Kellogg’s targeted the women (men don’t want to lose weight).

As I journeyed to the page, I didn’t think anything of the rotating collage of women on the main page.

It wasn’t until I went into the “meal planning” section, that I looked back on the main page (to see if there were any men). This little message is what prompted my inquiry.

Isn’t it obvious! I NEEDED TO LOSE THIS “BABY WEIGHT”. After my wife got pregnant, I just binged all the time, so I ended up gaining all this weight! For real….!

Although all the other one’s could apply to men, my feeling with starting off with “Lose Baby Weight” (how is that different that just “lose weight” or even “Kick-start an even better me”?) they were implying these choices were for females. Although men do care about how they look on their wedding day, there is a lot of pressure for women to “fit into their dress” for the wedding, which is not even a critique because as a society we are constantly finding reasons we need to be thinner (like the options above). Also, i’m not sure the motivation relates to the meal you are eating (so why ask? getting personal, are you developing a special relationship with me Special K?!).

So, the next time you are in the cereal aisle, REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE! If you have recently had a baby, get Special K. If you are a 10 year old, get Lucky Charms, if you are a man, go 3 aisles over, the Hungry Man breakfast meals are waiting for you!