I am wondering what the fate of CBS’ anti-abortion ads for the superbowl game is going to be. CBS has a known “Anti-Advocacy” claim in their policy, yet the group, Focus on Family, has paid to run an advertisement about “celebrating life” (in a pro-life kind of way).

Focus on the Family’s “celebrate life” (read: anti-choice) ad features Heisman Trophy-winning college football star Tim Tebow. And CBS approved this anti-choice ad, even though the network has repeatedly rejected advocacy ads in past years including a 2004 MoveOn.org ad that went after then-President Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility and an ad the same year from the United Church of Christ showing them welcoming a gay couple who had been turned away from another church.

There’s a lot wrong with this that relates directly to last weeks overhaul of the legislation to treat corporations as individuals (i.e. they can push as much money into politics as they want). This seems like another fast footed option to give conglomerates more power that relates directly to women’s health issues. Now, regardless of which side on the abortion debate you are on, there becomes a moral issue of multi-billion dollar corporations that can put their money into sensitive and controversial issues (when their goal is to entertain). It’s an unbalanced approach because it’s not like women’s health clinics have the money to push into superbowl ads, thus giving an unbalanced representation of views (which I could also deduct was part of CBS’ thought process in coming up with their anti-advocacy policy, which puts them outside these types of issue).

If you feel strongly about this CREDO Action has a petition to pull the ads. It seems pretty late in the game to pull them, but at least it will show support that people do not agree with this position. The superbowl is masculine enough, do the ads have to promote taking away women’s rights?

SIGN THE PETITION :
http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/superbowl_focus/?rc=fb_share1

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.

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.

I recently got an iPod Touch, and have been a little App obsessed. Needless to say I have been browsing the App Store constantly. This morning I came across the first application that pissed me off! The application is called iGirl – She Obeys. I hit the button immediately to see what kind of non-sense passed through Apples rather arbitrary seeming application process to get apps into the store. Below is a review / tutorial on how to use the very sexist application -  iGirl, just so you get a sense of what the program looks and feels like.

Part of my frustration comes from the fact that I know Trent Reznor tried to get his new app update into the store and it did not pass because of one of the musical tracks in it, yet something degrading like this application can slip through the cracks (or maybe they thought it was perfectly fine). I understand that a simulated girlfriend (where is the boyfriend?) might be a fun gag app to have, but there is only one type of girl being displayed here. Even the guy in this video says “let’s switch from the chauvinistic bikini outfit to the chauvinistic school girl outfit”. There are also not a lot of ethnic choices, which just juxtaposes the exact kind of thinking that goes along with misogyny. Now, i’m not explicitly saying that this is racist, but it just nods to an ethnocentric viewpoint. The girls can only speak English and Russian (not sure what this means or why, but interesting to note)

Wow, so many options, these are all the dynamics of a girlfriend.......

I’d say the other part that frustrates me is the popularity of the application. This app was featured by PCworld, Macworld, Techcrunch (“i’m sure it will quickly become a best seller – Erick Schonfeld) and WorldofApple. This app is advertised as fun and entertaining, but what message is that saying to put a girl on a screen and be able to control her with your hands and angle her for your own pleasure. The implication is almost more extreme than some of the feminist thought on pornography. Don’t forget, though, you can also shake the iPod/iPhone to make her react (shake her booty, for example). Another gimmicky feature is the ability to blow on the iPhone in order to have the classic “Marilyn Monroe” flying dress pose appear. I guess I am happy that the iTunes ratings speak for a demographic of thinkers who feel that this kind of application is totally inappropriate (although many are probably female, but rightfully so) because the overall 5 star ratings are 2287 compared to the 1 star ratings at 9012.

One of my absolute favorite parts is that the developer posits this “Our own rating for this application is PG-13. There is no nudity or bad words in the app. The app has mildly suggestive themes that are akin to what you might expect from a PG-13 movie. This app will never have any nudity in it.” then goes on to suggest that the app is similar to cheap thrills like iBeer or iFart. I call malarky on this statement. Objectification of women is not the same as a beer application. Although the gender implications could be correlated in certain realms of thought, the direct implication is nowhere near as powerful.

I find it hard to place myself in the shoes of the developer here. I could think someone having a thought, “It would be fun to have a virtual girlfriend”, but nothing about this application is about having a girlfriend (although I do love my Apps, it’s just not the same). There is no relationship, there is no communication, it is a person controlling the scantily clad girl on the screen. The fact that you can search : sexy ladies women girls boobs babes guns hunting fishing jokes — proves that there is so much more to this conversation : Fishing and Hunting/Guns — it shows that this is a hyper-masculine and overly-chauvinistic joke on women and their expense.

There are over 16,000 reviews for this application running the gamut from disgust to adoration. One reviewer explains, “elegant way of putting the girl into an iPhone. I had fun showing it off to my friends yesterday. Will keep playing with her and waiting for the future releases”. The more I read the descriptions, I was hoping this was some kind of sociological project, but even if it was (which is clearly is not, as it has not even a hint that something like this is going on), the people who like this application get to propel their misogyny on the go.

I really want to develop and application now that does the opposite or exposes this app in some way. An app where two people relate to each other with respect, and fun. Don’t get me wrong, I have a pretty p0litically incorrect sense of humor, but there is a time, a place, and a context for it, and coming across this application under the “TOP PAID APPS” really kind of pisses me off. I also saw Peekababe, which is pretty much just pictures of women in swimsuits, which is also degrading, but the fact that you control iGirl sets up a whole other range of discussions.

My only saving grace of thought is the reviewers reaction. Although this is a top paid app (at .99 cents), I am glad the average rating is a 2. You think guys would see that and see that “those are probably women rating this application” and have some empathy about putting them on their phone and pinching, skewing, blowing, and shaking them all over the place. I can’t see how this is not a metaphor for misogyny and control.

There she is.