What We Missed.

This is just awesome. via Jezebel.

Scarleteen debunking some myths on oxytocin.

Italia Vogue makes the wrong move on raising awareness around the oil spill. Seriously.

Hugh Hefner is not really worried about Playboy making women objects since “women are objects.” Tell us what you really think Hugh.

A must-read piece by Jessica on how we value our activists.

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

9 Comments

  1. Posted August 5, 2010 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    maybe I’m being obtuse, but how exactly was the Italian Vogue thing offensive? I thought it was pretty damn emotional and serious.

    I don’t think this can be compared to, lets say, PETA photo shoots. I just don’t. And I can probably elaborate on that better than when I have more time, if anyone would like to hear it.

    But I… just don’t see what’s wrong with the shoot…

    • Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:23 pm | Permalink

      I think that it is perhaps problematic in that it makes the same old tired comparison between women and animals, but I agree that this is less than total failure. I believe it is absolutely worthwhile to “humanize” a disaster; however, it probably would have been more effective (and much less problematic) if the photographer used both men and women in the shoot.

      • Posted August 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

        I can see that it’s not perfect… but my first thoughtt was was, it’s evocative and beautiful and says something daring (within the unfortunate context of having to sell clothing). I thought it was a brilliant piece, even though it has some tired tropes in it.

        Maybe I feel like a piece like this is only made to look shitty because of groups like PETA who exploit women constantly to set an agenda. Because this is a one-off political statement, I feel differently about it. Like, I would have been a very willing participant in a shoot like this (which is possibly how the women in the PETA shoots feel… hmmm).

        But I do agree with the fact that this would have been better if it had some men in the shoot. At first I thought, “Well, that makes no sense; this is about selling women’s clothing and why should they use men?”. But then I remembered they use dudes as props in these shoots occasionally… I guess it’s been a while since I’ve picked up a fashion mag.

        Sorry if this is a ramble. I guess I’m trying to figure out why I like this and hate PETA’s stuff.

    • Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:27 pm | Permalink

      Using an ecological disaster to sell clothing, portraying women as passive victims, and comparing women to helpless animals isn’t enough?

      • Posted August 6, 2010 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

        Yes. If women are EVER victims in a photo shoot, it must be sexism at work.

        I’m sorry, I saw the use of victimhood as contextually appropriate. This spill has nothing but victims. And it’s not just animals, it’s humans. It’s women. I thought bringing it together was amazing.

        While I totally agree that this trope is used way too often in inappropriate and malicious and ridiculous ways… but it doesn’t mean that every time victimhood is portrayed it is inappropriate/malicious/ridiculous/unecessary.

        Doing a piece about the spill without a victim in it would be erasing reality. Though, the shot, as @unequivocal mentioned, would have been better served by having men included.

        I just don’t think it’s horribly off the mark, the wrong move, exploitative, or a bad piece.

  2. Posted August 5, 2010 at 10:16 pm | Permalink
  3. Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:04 pm | Permalink

    I bet listening to Hugh Hefner, or trying to talk to him, is just like talking to someone from the Tea Party, or to some kind of religious fanatic. You know what he’s going to say, and it’s nothing you want to hear.

  4. Posted August 5, 2010 at 11:25 pm | Permalink

    Why any woman, let alone 2000 (according to him) would agree to sleep with Hugh Hefner is beyond me. I knew the guy was misogynist but that statement takes the cake. Also, the article says he’s not “opposed to brunettes” like women’s hair color is some sort of political issue now. I can only speak for myself of course, but this blonde wouldn’t go near him with a ten foot pole.

  5. Posted August 6, 2010 at 2:32 am | Permalink

    ….yep, I’m missing the “wrong move” accusation on Italia Vouge, too. Whats wrong?

    As for the Playboy article, I guess I should have guessed otherwise, but I never knew Hugh Hefner was such a misogynist! I always thought he would be respectful to women – especially since he works in the industry – but I guess not. It’s kind of a shock, kind of not I guess…

Feministing In Your Inbox

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

182 queries. 0.414 seconds