gender: beauty

Kimi W. sent me the documentary “Married to the Eiffel Tower” (originally found at Mental Floss) which documents objectum-sexuals, or people who have relationships with inanimate objects.

[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/19783541[/vimeo]

I find this just fascinating, particularly the way most of the individuals describe the inanimate objects in insistently gendered language–they may be taking part in an unusual type of sexuality, but it is generally a specifically heterosexual one. (A couple of commenters pointed out that the Eiffel Tower was referred to as she, but most of the objects are described as he.)

I don’t quite know what to make of the fact that these are women who express some discomfort or dissatisfaction with men and/or sex. Given the small number of people interviewed, that may just be a fluke rather than a tendency among objectum-sexuals (I have no idea what proportion are male and female, have or haven’t had sex with humans at some point, etc.). I suspect most people will watch the video and just conclude that they are crazy women with emotional issues who pick often phallic-shaped objects to create elaborate sexual fantasies around. I mean, I teach all about sexualities and social constructions of “normal” and “abnormal” and all, and my first reaction was still “Uh, WTF???” Among other things, in several sections of the documentary the women just seem really sad and lost, particularly when the one talks about childhood sexual abuse, family dysfunction, and so on.

The videos might be useful for talking about the medicalization and regulation of sexuality–who gets to define what types of sexualities are “normal” or healthy? Do these women need mental health treatment? Are they hurting anyone? Is it the fact that they are turned on by physical objects or that they claim to love them in a deeply romantic way that is most disconcerting, and why? Are we partly uncomfortable that women are speaking so openly about sexual desire and having orgasms as a result of being around or thinking about objects? Are these women having “real sex” with the objects they love? By what definition?

Thanks, Kimi!

Gwen Sharp is an associate professor of sociology at Nevada State College. You can follow her on Twitter at @gwensharpnv.

Text:

Wine doesn’t just come with cheese.  For women it’s also accompanied by hair loss, wrinkles, and obesity, plus the other problems like breast cancer, early menopause and memory loss.

This ad rests on women’s fear of looking like men (whatever that means)

(1) Interestingly, none of the side-effects of alcoholism listed seem, to me, to be masculinizing.  I can only imagine that the creators of this ad thought that straying from the norms of youthful femininity makes a woman seem masculine, thereby conflating aging with masculinization in women.

(2)  Also, notice the excessive make-up.  The ad is relying on the viewer being disgusted at the idea of a masculine face covered in make-up.  That is part of what is supposed to create a negative reaction.  But make-up and masculinity are not intrinsically or naturally at odds.  We only believe this to be so.

(By the way, the fact that most men do not wear make-up, I think, is a beautiful example of the triumph of gender ideology over capitalism.  For example.  But see here.)

(3) Finally, what’s “drink like a man” all about?  I guess men can have all the wine and cheese that they want without getting wrinkles because, gosh darn it, it’s just how men drink!   Maybe they even get more masculine!  (Hmmmm… as someone who loves her liquor, suddenly I do have penis envy.)

Thanks to Julie C. for the link!

NEW! This vintage ad (found here) uses the same logic:

Ten Apples and a Flat Sponge reports that the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen is selling reproductions of Venus with Apple and the Birth of Venus, with some artistic interpretation:

Hat tip to Shapely Prose.

Fascinating:

Bush’s comment is offensive (yes, all pro-choice women are ugly, angry, and undesirable). Clinton’s complicity is unfortunate.

In the comments, Sabriel asks what my “sociological angle” is.  Sabriel, I think Bush’s comment and Clinton’s complicity reveals that it’s still essentially fine to be hateful towards women, especially those who refuse to play by the rules of patriarchy (whether that be measured by attention to their attractiveness to men or accepting that their role of mother should take precedence over any and all other needs and desires). Regarding Clinton’s complicity: Imagine the flak he would have taken had he defended the woman that Bush castigates. By and large, at least in politics, it is easier to be sexist than it is to be feminist.

Via Feministe.

Captain Crab sent in a link to this story in the Mail Online about two girls who were kicked out of school for being “two blonde.” Here are the girls:

The girls claim the headmaster said they would be expelled “unless they dyed their hair brown.” He says he simply sent them home until they had it dyed, and that this is in accordance with the school’s dress code, which does not allow “unnatural” hair colors.

It brings up some interesting questions about “naturalness” and how we alter our bodies. Is an “unnatural” hair color any color that a human has never had without help from some type of chemical or other coloring agent? Or is “unnatural” a color other than what your hair would be if you didn’t dye it? Both of these girls dyed their hair colors that many women dye their hair and that some people do have “naturally,” that is, without bleaching it. Does the fact that they chose blonde have anything to do with the reaction? If they had dyed their hair black or auburn, would they have been sent home? I have no idea, I’m just wondering.

You could also use this story to discuss attempts to control kids at school through the use of uniforms, dress/appearance codes, etc., and the way kids always try to get around them, leading to constant renegotiations of what is acceptable and unacceptable between students and school authorities.

Thanks, Captain!

Leontine G. sent in this iconic image (found at Empire) of Spock and Captain Kirk from the original Star Trek series, next to the actors who play those characters in the new version (a movie by J.J. Abrams):

Leontine says, “I have a vague feeling that actors and musicians are getting smoother and more plasticky looking,” and this image shows some of that. The Spock and Captain Kirk on the right are supposed to be younger than the ones on the left (the movie is a prequel, more or less), but it’s not just that the actors are younger. There’s clearly also irbrushing and make-up used to erase any lines, blemishes or other “imperfections” on their faces (and either New Spock’s shirt fits perfectly, or they airbrushed out most of the wrinkles).

You might use this to talk about changing standards of beauty in the visual media. If the original Star Trek came out today, how much retouching would they do to the picture of Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner? Maybe the photo would still show them with as many wrinkles and facial lines as they have…but I’m doubtful.

For another example of how TV standards of changed (in this case, how much sexual activity is shown on teen-oriented shows),  see this post about the old and new versions of Beverly Hills, 90210.

Taylor D. sent in a link to a set of vintage ads featuring African Americans. This one is for wigs. Notice the commodification of liberation and freedom: you buy it in the form of a wig, which gives you a whole new look in seconds!

This one is for a hair straightener:

Of course, the “tamer” and “the boss” that can “stir up some beautiful new excitement in your life” can also refer to the man who is stroking her hair, playing into the idea of the man who tames a wild woman–and that all women, deep down, want a strong man to tame them.

This next one uses women’s fear that men won’t find them attractive to sell deoderant:

Thanks, Taylor!

Because Barbies and Bratz dolls are so popular with young children, the products regularly get flak for revealing, sexualized clothing. [The Black Canary Barbie, for example, provoked outcry, which we covered in a previous post.] Old Hearts Club Dolls consciously set themselves in opposition to Barbies and Bratz. The About page on OHC’s Web site states:

Unlike any other doll, Only Hearts Club™ dolls combine detailed and realistic facial features with soft, fully-poseable bodies. The dolls bodies and clothing actually look like those of the young girls they are intended to be. The dolls’ fashions are hip, based upon what real girls are wearing, and are also age-appropriate.

“Realistic facial features” are in contrast those of Barbies and Bratz, who feature stylized, large eyes and lips. The “soft” bodies of OHC dolls are explicitly different from the hard plastic used to make fashion dolls. Finally, “age-appropriate” is code for “non-sexualized, non-revealing.”

While other alternatives to the popular fashion dolls have tried and failed to get off the ground [see August 15, 1991 New York Times article about the Happy To Be Me doll], OHC dolls have been going strong since 2004. For example, I have seen them in independent toy stores around the Boston area; toy stores have even sold out of them, much to my frustration when I want to purchase one.  You could use the story of these dolls in a conversation about portrayals of femininity in toys or current debates about “modesty” in fashion.