I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends

Jenni S (the brave soul who started the petition against the Bic Soleil ad I posted about earlier) wrote to me in regards to an email she had received in response to the petition. The email she received was as follows:

I came across your petition about the bic razors being demeaning to women.

First of all, I believe women are much more sexual creatures than men. For example, it's much rarer for a man to have multiple orgasms than a woman. If I could have multiple extended orgasms, I'd definitely spend much more effort on attracting mates.

Sex is an incredible thing. Something pretty much everybody wants, and almost nobody has enough of. A woman who is comfortable with her body, rather than ashamed of it is HIGHLY empowered. If your parents didn't have sex, you wouldn't exist to complain about things, now would you?

Here's something interesting. What would you say about a woman who goes out and has sex with many many men, without ever dating them? Would you say she has no self-respect? Would you call her a slut? Many people would. "That girl has no self-respect because she didn't date the guy first! She didn't get something of value from him (his time and effort) before putting out! Slut!" What would you call someone who gets something of value in return for sex...? Yes, a whore. So on the one hand, we have girls who go out and have sex as much as they want without going into a long term relationship, apparently they're called sluts. On the other hand, we have the good girls, the ones that make sure they're getting something from a man, like a relationship, or security. We can call them whores. The high class whores will sign their sex over to one man. We can call these contract whores, or wives. A pretty terrible situation, isn't it? And it's being perpetuated by men AND women. I don't buy into this.

Wouldn't it be surprising if men were outraged if there was an ad depicting a man as being very sexual, doing his best to attract women? It would. Because men haven't been raised with this horrible idea that their chastity was valuable, and that their sexuality should be repressed and denied outright.

Sexuality, like any part of your personality, is something to be BROADCAST, not something to be ashamed of. It is a very high compliment to be thought of in a sexual manner. And no, it's not alright to be JUST thought of sexually. It's no secret that women can be mechanics, everyone knows that. But this isn't an ad for technical school. It quite frankly IS a sex ad. "Want sex? Men like shaved legs. We can help." 

****Women shave their legs because they want sex. And that's okay!****

Men will see women sexually whether advertisements exist or not. Women are using fashion to do what they can to attract their mates of choice.

Would you prefer if she was a dominatrix? Female dominance sure isn't traditional.

When I see cartoon characters depicting macho men, their chests are outrageously huge with obscenely broad shoulders. This does not bother men.

If you're of the opinion that women shouldn't be assigned roles - then why does it upset you that SOME women are depicted in traditional roles?

On another note, would you happen to know any powerful female executives? I'm an attractive young man and I'd like someone to take care of me in exchange for signing over exclusive sexual services. Let's flip the roles!

ps - the girl in that ad is a lesbian... prove me wrong. 

Jenni requested my help to refute this person's argument. So, I recruited Kelsy and together we came up with this:

Dear ******,

Your argument makes little to no sense. Here's a breakdown of why:

To begin with, see this blog post for a groundwork of why this ad is offensive: http://inspireme9.blogspot.com/2010/09/price-to-pay-for-smooth-legs.html

“Women are much more sexual creatures than men...”

Cite a source for this – it's completely untrue. The common conception is actually that men are far more sexual than women, but the reality is that both genders are equally as disposed to arousal. What I think you're referring to is the fact that the female body has been commonly used as a symbol for sexuality, which is exactly why this ad is problematic.

“It is much rarer for a man to have multiple orgasms than a woman.”

This makes no difference whatsoever. Unless you want to delve into the realm of female biology and anatomy and discuss the undisputed fact that a vast majority (over 70%) of women will never orgasm from intercourse alone, and that pornography – a multi-billion dollar industry denies and masks this fact – then let's stick to discussing razors.

“If your parents didn't have sex then you wouldn't exist to complain about things.”

So I shouldn't complain about sexual discrimination because sex is what created me? We aren't talking about the portrayal of sex here – we're talking about the portrayal of sexist imagery that demeans women. Sex is fantastic – sexism is not.

“Here's something interesting...”

To be honest, this point isn't interesting (or concise) at all. I would say that a woman who goes out and has plenty of sex is in control of her sex life – as long as she's doing it because she wants to rather than for the pleasure of men. Apparently you disagree. The point you've made is that there's a mediatized dichotomy between the notion of “good girl” and “bad girl” that is so binarized that it leaves little room for transition or the representation of healthy female sexuality. This, ******, is why the ad is so offensive in the first place – it does nothing to subvert this notion. You say you don't buy into this, but the ease with which you articulate it is extremely telling.

And absolutely – more men should be getting upset about the representation of their own sexuality as rampant, aggressive, brutal and uncontrollable. We're not saying that sexuality should be repressed and denied, but only that it should be represented in a more realistic way.

“Sexuality is something to be broadcast...”

Absolutely – broadcast it. But broadcast it realistically.

“It is a high compliment to be thought of sexually”

But isn't it also true that it's a high compliment to be thought of as smart? Or funny? Or any other personality trait not associated with sexual availability and prowess? Furthermore, this attitude of “it was just a compliment” is what validates people who harass women on the street or grab them as they walk past. You cannot presume to dictate what another person feels is a compliment – your right to compliment someone does not trump their right to be seen as a multi-dimensional being. Is it still a compliment if a man in my workplace tells me I have a nice ass? Because according to Bill 168, the new legislation for respect and violence in the workplace, it isn't the person's intent that matters, it's how a compliment was perceived. If you make someone uncomfortable with your advances, then you're legally in the wrong.

“Want sex? Men like shaved legs.”

Why is it that I can't shave my legs because I want to? Why is it always assumed that my first priority is to aestheticize myself for the enjoyment of men? Why can the message not tell us that if a man won't have sex with us based on the fact that we have hairy legs, then he should probably go to hell?

“Men will see women sexually whether these ads exist or not.”

True, but why do we need to only see one type of female body as attractive? We see this one type of body in every ad for every product, and it's extremely tiresome. And why does this female body have to be framed within the 1950's and idealized because of this association – this is an era where women were extremely oppressed. To add insult to injury, this woman is dressed more provocatively than she would have been in the 1950's in an attempt to sexualize her even further.

“...dominatrix”

I'd still take issue with this ad because it's still a sexualized vision of a woman, where her sexuality is at the forefront of the advertisement and is what is being used to sell the product. In an age where Cialis and Viagra can be advertised freely on tv, but female sexual enhancers such as Zestra are censored, it's flagrantly sexist to exploit an image of a woman's sexuality and then turn around and deny her sexual agency when it comes to her own pleasure.

“Cartoon men with chests...”

Some men do get upset about things like this. However, if you move beyond the realm of cartoons you'll find far more depictions of men who are not conventionally attractive and who are in powerful roles and often married to extremely beautiful women. 'Ugly' men are often portrayed as “cute” while 'ugly' women are portrayed as the butt of a joke.

Your last line in your email seems to be solicitation of prostitution. I'd be careful with that language if I were you.

Sincerely,

Megan, Kelsy and Jenni

Ps. Her sexuality makes no difference.

While we understand that some feminists feel as though it is not their job or obligation to school people on such issues, we feel that if we have the time and feel inclined to do so - we're entitled to take an active role and make things better for ourselves by teaching or informing others about these issues that affect us everyday. So if that means taking the time to write a blog or sending the occasional email to set things straight, then we're willing to make that commitment. 

We're posting this email because we are sure there are other people out there who think the same way, or along the same lines, as ******. We wanted to broadcast our response and opinions on the matter so that they can be taken as a sort of FAQ on where we stand. We hope that this will become a way to track the kind of responses that we're so used to hearing. 

The Price to Pay for Smooth Legs

I was on the subway about 2 weeks ago. I was sitting next to an elderly couple - man and woman - who were both staring at one of the many advertisements that the TTC posts in their subway cars. The ad was for Bic Soleil razors:

The elderly couple sitting next to me began discussing the ad. They questioned what the image had to do with the product that was being sold. Yes, they understood the legs and that razors are used on legs but...what did a 1950s style woman grocery shopping and buying cakes have to do with selling razors? They were stumped by this. They turned to me and asked, "Do you get it?". I let out a laugh and shook my head. "I don't get a lot of advertising these days" I replied.

While it warmed my heart to see this elderly couple discussing such a topic on the subway and that someone out there other than me was confused about this ad and openly questioning/discussing it....the ad is still there. People see it everyday and don't discuss or question it. They just take it in and allow it to get into their heads - convincing them that this is normal and this is how all women are or should be. 

Bic is actually "beckoning" us back to the 1950s - a time where women had very few rights or roles in society. The 50s was an era where women fought for equality at home and in the workplace. This is the era where the stereotype of the housewife was created and flourished! I get it - the 50s and 60s is a fad these days thanks to popular shows like Mad Men. But should we really be setting ourselves back after how far we've come over the past 50 years?

Not to mention that this is an incredibly idealized image of a woman. Yes, it is a cartoon version of a woman (which perhaps is what disguises the ad as "cutesy" with that  sort of "wink and nudge" humour that makes it seem less offensive than it is). But it is still an idealized one nonetheless. As soon as I saw it, it reminded me of that study about Barbie (the popular doll that millions of little girls own and play with growing up - hell, I know I did). If Barbie were a real person, her body would not be able to function properly nor would she be able to stand. Her weight and measurements would be so off kilter that she could not survive. That is what I think of when I see this Bic ad. The woman's legs are so disproportionate from the rest of her body. I find that most forms of media do something to the female figure that, outside of this context, would be considered absolutely ridiculous and brutal: dismemberment. Through the male gaze, the female body is dismembered into pieces (body parts). Dismemberment is an extremely violent act but we do this all the time to women in ads (figuratively speaking). You will see a shot of a woman's legs cut to a shot of her breasts, then to her pelvic region, etc. Women are never shown as a whole being or realistically as a whole woman (body parts are emphasized or more in focus than others) . And when she is displayed as a whole being, it is made to seem like it's an accumulation of these body parts that make up who she is. By doing this, it places such an importance on physical characteristics which, in turn, makes real women feel inadequate to the women portrayed in media. Furthermore, this isn't just an idealized image of a woman because of her physical appearance - it is also idealized because she is a stereotypical "housewife". A hypersexualized one at that. What man wouldn't want a passive, compliant, sexual woman who does their laundry, cleans the house, goes out to buy groceries and cakes with her ass in the air while he is at work? Glorifying this type of image - this type of woman - leads to men wanting and desiring this type of woman. And hey, I'm not bashing the housewives out there. If it is your choice to stay home and take care of your  family then all the power to you. But don't feel like you have no choice or that your husband won't want you if you decide to do something with your life other than cleaning and cooking. And  if he doesn't? Well he can fuck right off. (Just my opinion).

The mere fact the the ad mentions the word "beckon" makes it appear that women are asking for, seeking, or desiring male attention and that we enjoy it. Or that we crave it. Or that the only reason we shave our legs in the first place (other than that we are culturally conditioned to do so) is for attention and acceptance from and by men. This leads me to my next point: Why is it that the ad seems to appeal to the male eye when it is a product made for and targeted towards women? The only answer that I can think of is that Bic is trying to shame us into buying their razors (and they aren't the first company to do this and they most definitely won't be the last). They use this ad to make us feel bad about our bodies, or our hairy ass legs, so that we will run out and buy a Bic Soleil razor to rid ourselves of our ugliness. Because, of course, the only way to make us feel shitty about ourselves is to make us feel that we are not worth male attention. And the only way to warm our spirits? Men desiring us! The best cure for a crushed ego, right?

Why is this the only image of "attractive" women that we ever see? It conditions us to reject difference while maintaining a standard of what is considered beautiful and what is not. I heard a quote the other day from Kels in a book she is reading that said "The only thing shameful to expose is ugliness". No wonder we are the way we are (ads and other forms of media objectifying women which then makes men think its okay to objectify women which leads women to objectify themselves and other women).

I was able to find an online forum (The Big Orange Slide) that directly asks people to post and comment on whether they think this particular Bic ad is sexist. 

Check it out. It's really interesting to read other people's opinions.

A few that I liked were:

Brook Johnston: "‘Sexist’ seems to sell when aimed at the opposite sex (see: Axe Deodorant, 90% of beer brands), but not so much when you’re mocking your own". 

Muffinczar: "It is sexist to assume that men were in the captain’s chair when navigating this campaign". 

Leilah Ambrose: "Would it be more patronizing if the same scene had been rendered photographically instead?". 

Jenni Sager: "I am glad I’m not the only one who finds this offensive. I literally JUST finished creating a publishing a petition against this advertising campaign. Please check it out if you feel the same.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Women-Arent-Objects/

I respect that some of you disagree but I am not particularly good at arguing a point (refuting what you who don’t agree with me are saying). I simply am offended by this poster, it’s my interpretation and I don’t think I am alone in feeling that way".

So, Bic..fuck off. And take your poorly thought out advertising campaign with you. That is the last thing I want to see during my commute to work.

Katy Perry: "It's just pop!"

I discovered this and thought I would post it considering I have a track record of tearing apart Katy Perry and her work.

The New York Times' A Pop Cartoon Springs Out of the Playbook discusses Perry's upbringing as an Evangelical Christian, her celebrity "persona",  and her own opinion of herself and her fame.

The part that kind of bothers me is this:

"It was, after all, just pop: that was Ms. Perry’s line of defense, to call her work lightweight, fun, throwaway".

and

"Ms. Stein noted that, unlike Lady Gaga — the totem to all female pop singers these days — Ms. Perry is not very threatening, obscenities and innuendo notwithstanding. “She hews to the model of a pretty girl being pretty and filling feminine roles, really while nominally subversive,” she said. “She might be winking, but the rest of her body is pretty naked while she does it.”"

How the hell can you be a celebrity and not know or understand that what you do and say has an affect on people? Yeah, sure, it isn't fair that you automatically become a role model to people you don't even know -  so don't become a celebrity then. You want people to listen to your music? Then you need to understand that people listen to the messages that this music sends. It is not "just pop". It is not just something to "throwaway". Little girls listen to your music, youtube your videos, watch your interviews and try to imitate you. That is not something to be taken lightly.

As for her "filling feminine roles" - isn't this just her perpetuating gender stereotypes? While I understand what Stein is saying (Perry is simply SAYING she is subversive/going against the norm but is not ACTING that way at all - she is conforming to the very way that society tells her to), the issue I have with Stein's statement is the very fact that she mentioned "feminine roles" without acknowledging that these roles are a patriarchal creation used to perpetuate gender stereotypes. Additionally, she states that Perry "hews to the model of pretty girl". To me, this just denotes that there ARE certain roles and molds for females to fill. And it also sets up the notion of what is considered pretty and beautiful (a celebrity like Katy Perry). Yes, I get that society has set these stereotypes and roles in place but shouldn't we be trying to reverse or change this instead of just accepting them because they are universal? To me, even using those terms in an argument against them is acknowledging their existence and giving them some power.

And the whole "winking while naked thing" - I think this is a big reason Perry is sometimes overlooked as being an unfeminist douchebag. She really camps it up. She's sitting there half-naked but oh look! She's winking! Ha Ha it must all be a joke because she is smiling and laughing at herself! So I'm not gonna take her and her naked unfeminist ass seriously then. Well, sorry Katy, but you didn't fool me. You ARE still naked and you ARE still promoting the wrong message to women everywhere. And to men too. About women.

She is also being compared to Lady Gaga - it says that unlike Gaga, Perry is not threatening and her obscene behaviours and sexual innuendos don't hold out. I agree that Gaga IS extremely obscene but that doesn't mean that Perry is any better simply because her behaviours and statements "aren't as bad". We can't ignore the controversy that Perry sparks just because there is someone out there worse than she. We need to question and challenge it all, in my opinion.

And for kicks, here are a list of other things noted that semi piss me off:

(About Perry's listening party for her new album "Teenage Dream"): "If she were Lady Gaga she might have required a walkway built of trellised stuffed animals or prostrate assistants; instead there were just models in bikinis, eating cotton candy and tossing a beach ball: postcard Americana."

"Asked if she ever regretted not finishing school, she said: “No, because spell-check exists everywhere.” "

"Mr. Thompson of EMI credited her past failures with her ability to be relatable even as she ascended to stardom."

"She values cuteness — “Ready, spaghetti,” she’ll say — but is more biting than gee-whiz." 

"“California Gurls” has spent more than three months at or near the top of the Billboard Hot 100, where it was recently joined by the title track from “Teenage Dream”"

Despite my frustrations here I do, however, semi-halfheartedly applaud the Times for even mentioning that her songs, "persona", and credibility have been questioned throughout her career.

"No" means "NO"

I really like this. And appreciate it.

Bravo to the MCSR organization for creating this ad. And extra points for not just focusing on and including white hetero relationships too!

A "no" is a "no. It doesn't matter if it's said prior to or when you are already lying there naked. A "no" is still a "no". And if a person is not conscious, or coherent enough, to say "no" - 100% that's still a "no".

Respect a person's "no". Respect a person's right to say "no". Don't have expectations. Don't assume. No one owes you anything.