What We Missed

Are you an LGBT parent? Take this survey to be part of a Lawrence University research project.
The Senate Finance Committee approved it’s version of health care reform legislation today, with a yes vote from Republican Senator Olympia Snowe. It’s got no pubicpublic option. Now all the bills go behind closed doors, where congresspeople will craft one piece of legislation to be voted on.
A Ralph Lauren model was fired for being “too fat”, when she weighed in at 120 pounds and 5 foot ten inches. She was also photoshopped to the point of absurdity in a previous ad for them (see link for pic).
The National Cancer Institute now has a website exclusively for adolescents and young adults battling cancer.
Another technological advancement for detecting the date rape drug–this time it’s a coaster.
Domestic workers are at heightened risk for exploitation. This SF gate article examines why.
Sexism from liberals is no more acceptable than sexism from conservatives. Olbermann screws up big time when talking about Michelle Malkin on his show.

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

33 Comments

  1. Brittany
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 5:06 pm | Permalink

    I saw that Ralph Lauren article about her being too fat.
    SHE’S A SIZE 4.
    Why don’t they just take a science class skeleton to wear their clothing, and pull them on wheels along the runway?
    Because that’s what that photoshopped picture looked like.
    Peoples’ concept of beauty – or ugliness – can be disgusting sometimes.

  2. era4allNOW
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    yeah, like I’m really shocked about Keith Olbermann…the same person who said someone should take Hillary Clinton into a room and only that person come out.
    he’s a real class act when it comes to talking about women.

  3. Lilith Luffles
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    120 and 5’10″ is too fat? Wow… to think I’m essentially “too fat” to be a model really shows just how ridiculously thin those models are. I’m 120 and 5’8″!
    I don’t think I quite get the Malkin thing… I get why it’s sexist but I don’t see how it implies Olbermann wants to see her physically harmed. What if instead he called Glenn Beck a “mashed up bag of meat with a tie?” I’m not really defending what he said, I just don’t get why it’s equated with domestic violence.

  4. creebakthedestroyer
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

    But Michelle Malkin IS just a big bag of mashed up meat. We all are. And she wears lipstick. KO didn’t say “someone should turn her into a…” he said without her hatred she would just be a bag of meat, implying she has nothing in her other then hate. It’s no different then the hyperbolic insults he throws the way of anyone he doesn’t like (which is annoying, because it certainly doesn’t raise the discourse) and I don’t see any sort of gender overtones in it.
    And why is the voice sexist?

  5. liv79
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 5:52 pm | Permalink

    WHAT?! The health care bill has no pubic option?!! Good heavens!

  6. era4allNOW
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    did you read the article? the article says how its sexist. whether you agree with the assessment or not is something you can address, however.

  7. Sabo
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:20 pm | Permalink

    That photoshopped picture looks like a human head on a Barbie body. If I wasn’t so sickened by it, I would probably be laughing.

  8. creebakthedestroyer
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    No, the article just says he puts on an “unintelligent female voice”, and what Michelle Malkin did was very unintelligent. Implying one woman is/acted dumb is not the same as implying all women are dumb.

  9. JesiDangerously
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    It’s not the final version, though. It’ll be debated and tweaked by the House and the Senate, merged with other bills that do have the public option, and hopefully, the final draft will not be a complete waste of paper.

  10. Pantheon
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:42 pm | Permalink

    I agree that model isn’t anywhere near fat, but I bet they fired her because they didn’t want any more ads with her in them to remind people of all the negative attention that that photoshopped ad attracted. Still sucks, because it wasn’t at all her fault that that happened– but I bet it has more to do with the public relations of that ad than with her weight.
    Also, is she really 5’10 and 120 pounds? She looks thin, but not quite THAT thin. I guess it could be the baggy clothes. I always wonder if they fudge those numbers when giving them to reporters.

  11. Femgineer
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

    I think they should also fire the person/people who did the photoshopping, and the person/people who approved that photo to be printed in the magazine.

  12. Cicada Nymph
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:00 pm | Permalink

    You probably already know this, but keep in mind that due to skeletal differences and fat to muscle ratio as well as proportions that 120 pounds on two people of the same height can look quite different.

  13. timberwraith
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

    *chuckle*
    Read the original text again, if you will. Notice that it says “there is no pubic option” rather than “there is no pubLic option.”
    I wonder what the pubic option would entail?
    OK, don’t answer that. I’m afraid.

  14. Cicada Nymph
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:10 pm | Permalink

    I have to wonder why the reason they gave for firing her was that she could “no longer fit in the clothes” if it was really only about the photoshopped photo fiasco, because firing the model for being too fat when you are trying to come off as sincerely sorry for giving women a warped sense of body image hurts their cause rather than helps it. It seems to me like they do think she is too fat and that is why they photoshopped her down such a ridiculous amount to begin with. The person in charge of photo shopping was probably instructed to photoshop a lot of weight off of her. Ralph Lauren’s solution seems to be that they will just stick with super skinny models and then they won’t be “forced” to photoshop quite as much weight off them, therefore minimizing the potential to mess up the proportions to such a degree as this again. By the way, off topic, but if you needed another reason to hate Burger King and Fox, did you see the the BK sponsored cartoon that ran during NFL Sunday? The whole point of it was making fun of Jessica Simpson’s weight. It was really disgusting.

  15. rhowan
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

    “I bet they fired her because they didn’t want any more ads with her in them to remind people of all the negative attention that that photoshopped ad attracted. Still sucks, because it wasn’t at all her fault that that happened — but I bet it has more to do with the public relations of that ad than with her weight.”
    The article says she was laid off 6 months ago so I don’t think it can be connected to the current scandal. Ralph Lauren’s assertion that her contract was terminated “as a result of her inability to meet the obligations under her contract with us” seems compatible with it being about her weight.

  16. johninbuffalo
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    Yeah, the comments by Olbermann were really disappointing. It’s sad how liberals think they can say whatever they want about conservative women and get away with it. I do rather enjoy Olbermann’s show, so I hope he’ll have the maturity to apologize for it.
    Also, i hope somewhere in the offices of MSNBC, Maddow took him to task for it.

  17. Hershele Ostropoler
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    He’s a ’60s liberal, like Stokely “Prone” Carmichael.
    I always wonder how well he gets along with Maddow, because while I don’t think he’s a homophobe, I do think he’s sexist (which isn’t quite the same thing as misogynist).
    Like, presumably, johninbuffalo, I’m watching now in the hopes he’ll apologize.

  18. Comrade Kevin
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    Olbermann means well, but I never forget that his original background was in sports, which isn’t exactly known for being the most sensitive to issues of sexism. His ego exceeds his best intentions frequently and this is why I frequently can stand him only in limited doses.

  19. Cicada Nymph
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    Wow, so apparently this is not the only case of Ralph Lauren creating photo shop nightmares. Here’s a link to another:
    http://jezebel.com/5381844/yet-another-ralph-lauren-photoshop-of-horrors

  20. Cleveland Lass
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Also check this:
    http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/where-the-wild-things-are-as-a-parenting-guide/?hp
    No your eyes do not deceive you– it is another gendered parenting guide! (Because, you know, boys will be boys and girls can’t possibly share similar behavior patterns)

  21. LalaReina
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 9:56 pm | Permalink

    Please when you defend Michelle Malkin you’ve driven off the cliff with me. Spare me. I could care f-ing less what anybody says about her in any context I don’t have time to be stupid noble.

  22. alixana
    Posted October 14, 2009 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Oh right, ’cause feminism is only about defending women we like from sexism.

  23. Lilith Luffles
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 12:12 am | Permalink

    I’m pretty sure he gets along fine with Maddow. It’s not as if Maddow is a radical feminist and Olbermann is sexist pig. I mean, most people are sexist, even if it’s just a little bit. They both champion feminism and decry anti-feminism at about the same rate, as far as I’ve seen. And I watch them both a lot.
    It’s more likely Matthews or Scarborough that she would have a problem with.

  24. Jack
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:14 am | Permalink

    I’ll admit that what Keith said was rude. I would even go so far as to call these comments sexist. But I really think that drawing a parallel to domestic abuse is going way too far.

  25. Lynne C.
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:15 am | Permalink

    I’m only 5ft and 110. While I’m a bit overweight, it is not anything drastic. I would HATE to see what kind of condition someone at 5’10 and 120 lbs would be in. That’s just downright scary.
    What on earth, so if you can’t see your ribs, you’re overweight now?

  26. WIDave
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 1:57 am | Permalink

    It appears Keith Olbermann has inspired one of his fans to write mail to Michelle Malkin. I will copy the whole thing here:
    Joel joel.tarp@comcast.net
    to writemalkin@gmail.com
    date Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:04 AM
    subject Hi Michelle
    mailed-by comcast.net
    How did you become the blow job girl at Fox News? I didn’t think you would ever be considered a Blow Job Queen, since you usually so full of shit that it runs out your mouth. Your a pig with no morals or any redeeming values. NONE you “big mashed up bag of meat with lipstick. ONLY A COW would put a GLAMOUR shot of herself

  27. kahri
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 9:29 am | Permalink

    I read some of the comments posted at the linked article about Lauren model Filippa Hamilton.
    Does anyone here know what’s up with the hateful comments like this one from a commenter called “Ezekiel14″:
    Gay designers only want skinny, no-breast women.
    I recall having seen comments like this before, but I can’t remember in what context… What’s the story with this? It seems like a wingnut homophobic christian conspiracy theory. There’s got to be more out there about this…

  28. kisekileia
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:23 am | Permalink

    I’m 5’0″ too, and going by BMI–which is pretty strict–we’re not overweight until we hit 128 pounds. I weigh 116, and my friends still say I’m skinny.

  29. kisekileia
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    :D
    My mom used to work in government–public policy stuff–and I think they eventually set up their computers to flag the word “pubic” after it mistakenly found its way into an important document.

  30. kisekileia
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    She’s also below the BMI cutoff for anorexia in women who display eating disordered behavior and aren’t menstruating. She’s underweight, unless she’s that thin naturally, and Ralph Lauren STILL thinks she’s too fat! Scary.

  31. Citizen Lane
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    It’s a common misconception among straight, ignorant men that homosexual men in the fashion industry choose skinny models because skinny women remind them of young men.
    No one has yet been able to disabuse them of this notion and explain the problem, in all it’s complexity, in grunts and crude gestures.

  32. MarisaB
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    Hey guys I am a young feminist with a new blog that I hope to do a lot with!
    http://femiwhat.wordpress.com/
    If any of you have any questions, comments, complaints, or advice as to how to get my blog out there I’d love to hear it! My e-mail is Marisa.Baglaneas@loop.colum.edu
    Thanks!

  33. jmbehrens
    Posted October 15, 2009 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    I’m a little torn on this Olbermann thing … and this is coming from someone who doesn’t like the guy to begin with.
    The lipstick thing, I think — I hope — is a rewiring of the “lipstick on a pig” thing the McCain campaign exacerbated to lead Obama into a campaign trap (see here: http://www.slate.com/id/2199805/), so what Olbermann is ostensibly saying is something to the effect of “You can put lipstick on a vile, hateful, bag of meat, but its still a vile, hateful bag of meat.”
    And, crass as his phrasing might have been, I do think hes speaking to a larger issue here, which is that a prerequisite for being a conservative woman in mainstream media seems to be that you’re easily fetishized by conservative heterosexual men.
    So I think I see what Olbermann was driving at; its too bad that his job is to drive at things within the confines of Bill O’Reilly-style snark, snideness, and sometimes, frankly, cruelty. Which is why I don’t watch his show. Either of their shows, actually.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

233 queries. 1.069 seconds