Design Post #1

I have this bracelet, handmade in Colombia, which has seven colors in it, all delicately strung together. This bracelet could inspire the design of my blog because of its masterful use of color and balance.
I like the way the colors look together, even though there are seven of them; the bright pink near the center almost overpowers the rest of the colors, but since the central color is still the pastel pink, the eye is not overwhelmed by the brightness. 

The other colors on the bracelet are, from the outside in: brown, beige, green, yellow, and red (followed by the bright pink and then the pastel pink centers). Even though these are bright colors, they fade into the background of the visuals of the bracelet because of the bright pink near the center; however, the presence of the beige connects to the light pastel center, which ties the whole look together. This could be a lesson in complementing colors and bringing them together around a focal point.

The pinks also make this bracelet seem feminine (although a man could certainly wear it too, and it also incorporates traditionally masculine colors like brown and green), and femininity is the subject of my blog, so it suits my blog. The delicate way the strings are arranged is also inspiring to me. Even though the colors are vibrant, the bracelet itself does not overpower the visual field because each color is made up of a very thin string, woven carefully in lines around the whole wrist. The juxtaposition of the bright colors and the delicate construction comes off as a balance of beauty and power.

While this might be too many colors to incorporate in one blog consistently, this shows me that I could use all of these colors in various capacities without clashing. 

Happy (Sexy) Halloween!

October's ending, and you know what that means: Halloween! Spookiness, free candy, and the opportunity to dress up in costume and let your creativity and fun flow for one night. 
It's hard not to get excited walking through the stores and seeing their best set up for the festivities: jack-o-lanterns grinning, spider decorations looming, and sexist Halloween costumes displayed for the buying.

Honestly, nothing gets my blood pumping like a sexy Minion.
Who doesn't love Halloween? 
(Incidentally, I don't, but it has less to do with the sexist Halloween costumes and more to do with wanting to get Halloween over with so the real holiday -- Christmas -- can begin.)

Disclaimer: this post is not about what you should or shouldn't want to be for Halloween. If you happen to love dressing up as a sexy Luigi, good for you. I'm here for your empowerment (and Laci Green does a wonderful video about why self-expression is important on Halloween). This post is about the shameless oversexualization of almost every major Halloween costume in the market.

Don't believe me? Watch how this funny Buzzfeed Guys video nails the hypocrisy of Halloween costumes. (Seriously. Click that link.)

I'm not going to insult your intelligence and explain why the blatant sexism of Halloween marketing is bad; you can piece that one together for yourself. Instead, I'm going to point at the elephant in the room and make you look at comparison photos of men's costumes versus women's costumes.

So without further ado, we now come to the main attraction: 

My Top 10 Favorite Sexist Halloween Costumes of 2015!

10. Sexy Patrick Star

Because nothing screams "sex appeal" like the animated friend of Spongebob Squarepants, right? My favorite part about this particular costume is that, if you take away the cartoon face on the woman's torso, there is absolutely nothing tying that minidress to the chubby, dopey cartoon friend.

9. Sexy SWAT Team 

This one's really authentic; I bet she can do all sorts of functional things SWAT members do in those knee-high boots, and I bet her boobs don't get in the way at all. (And, just wondering, where's her bulletproof vest?)

8. Sexy Monkey

I can't even joke about this; trying to be a sexually attractive monkey is tiptoeing a little too close to beastiality for my comfort level.

7. Sexy Military

Look, women in the military have enough hurdles to jump for equality without having to worry that the civilian world is sexualizing their profession. Bonus points to this one for being a child's costume. I could have done an entire series just on the children's costumes, but honestly, it was making me sick.

6. Sexy Prisoner

Well thank God that if there are going to be horizontal stripes in prison, they'll at least be pink. Are those boots regulation? 

5. Sexy Nerd

Has anyone ever actually seen a nerd dress like this? Honestly? 

4. Sexy Astronaut

Something tells me her dress is not zero-gravity safe. Has anyone contacted NASA? His suit looks pretty legit, but is that what female astronauts wear? 

3. Sexy Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

For when you want to relive your childhood and be desperately uncomfortable all night! Again, why are we sexualizing children's characters? Which are turtles?

2. Sexy Pilgrims

 

Is this what our country was founded on, people?

And last, but not least, just as I promised:

1. Sexy Minions

Perhaps the real problem with Halloween is that it forces us to face the fact that apparently people are sexually attracted to characters from children's cartoons.

The Most Difficult Test to Pass

This test is harder than your AP Physics exam, more difficult than Advanced Chem, more strenuous than any SAT.
The Bechdel Test: a measure of gender disparity in movies.

Bechdel's original comic.

Developed by Alison Bechdel, a lesbian cartoonist whose graphic novel Fun Home has garnered many awards (and even a hit Broadway show), the Bechdel test is comprised of only three simple questions:

1. Does your film have at least two named women in it?
2. Do the women speak to one another?
3. About something other than a man?

You'd be shocked by the number of movies that don't pass. The bar is so low that filmmakers are tripping on it. 

Think of your favorite movie. Apply those question. Does it pass or does it fail?

Mine fails.

My favorite movie is, and always has been The Princess Bride. It's a wonderful film that is funny, clever, and romantic, and although it features many women who speak (including a strong female lead in its Princess Buttercup), none of them every speak to each other. 

I know it is, Vizzini. I know it.

It's . . . inconceivable! 

But Amanda, you might be thinking, The Princess Bride only has one primary female character. That's part of the story. You're being harsh.

To which I say: Maybe. But I'm justified.

Because even films about women, with multiple female characters, fail. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II fails. The Avengers (which features two of the strongest women in Marvel history, Black Widow and Maria Hill), fails. In the entirety of The Lord of the Rings trilogy, there are only three significant female characters, and none of them ever even meet (my heart breaks to type that; damn you, Tolkien). 

And that's just sci-fi. 

It's not like movies with women don't make money; in fact, a 2013 study found that films that pass the Bechdel test actually make more money than films that don't. The chart below further details that money gap.

This is not the end-all, be-all of film criticism, though. The Bechdel test isn't the only measuring stick that should be used to gauge gender disparity in movies; sometimes films scrape by with just a single scene of women chatting about something other than a man, without much real substance, when other films feature empowered women who don't speak to other women at all. But the Bechdel test is a great place to start. 

Next time you watch a movie, notice. Ask yourself, "does this movie pass?" Because really, why shouldn't it?

I mean, if Anchorman can do it, shouldn't everyone be able to?

***

2013 study shows that movies that pass make more money

I Don't Support Susan G. Komen, and I Don't Think You Should Either

Happy October! It's finally fall; the leaves are turning, the stores are stocked with Halloween costumes, and literally everything is pink in honor of breast cancer awareness month.So I feel like it's my duty to remind everybody to think twice before you buy those pink water bottles/bracelets/t-shirts/guns and remember that, at one point, the Susan G. Komen foundation's CEO made $684,000 a year. 

Six-figure salaries don't exactly scream "charitable" to me.

The problem isn't that Susan G. Komen doesn't do good work; they have certainly raised the bar on breast cancer awareness (their name is basically synonymous with the topic). The problem is that their group is flirting with the line between charity and corporation.

More important than funding cancer screenings?

It's a controversial opinion, and one that doesn't make me many friends, but I don't think the Susan G. Komen foundation should own the market on breast cancer awareness, and yet, they have made it their mission to sue any other charity which uses their slogan, "For the Cure." Seems like a good use of donor money, right? Money that could be used to, I don't know, find a cure?

Television personality Stephen Colbert commented on the Komen foundations' practice better than I ever could: 

"Anybody who knows me knows I am a huge supporter of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation, which raises millions of dollars a year in the fight against breast cancer . . . So I'm giving a big Tip of my Hat to the Komen foundation for spending almost a million dollars a year in donor funds to sue these other groups. If they don't own the phrase 'For the Cure,' then people might donate money thinking it's going to an organization dedicated to curing cancer, when instead it's wasted on organizations dedicated to curing cancer." 

Comic courtesy of Quora 

In recent years, Susan G. Komen has endured a drop in contributions. This is largely because they toed over the line from charity to political entity when, in 2012, they pulled funding to Planned Parenthood, a women's health clinic which gives breast cancer screenings. It simply doesn't make sense to stop funding an entity which directly helps your cause - unless your cause is no longer to "find a cure," but to please other donors and get more money. 
Sure, some say the money saved on Planned Parenthood can be used to fund other meaningful endeavors, but isn't screening for cancer a meaningful endeavour? Isn't it the easiest way to detect cancer, so that the cancer can be treated?

A terrible ad campaign

And when Komen is selling out to KFC and Mike's Hard Lemonade, let's not pretend it's prevention they're worried abou: fatty foods and excessive alcohol consumption are linked to increased chances of getting breast cancer.

Dishearted and disillusioned? I was too. Fear not, though: if you still want to support the fight to end breast cancer without succumbing to Komen's pink-ification, there are plenty of places to donate your money, all listed and linked below. You'll get the satisfaction of knowing that your money helps real women and men diagnosed with breast cancer.You just might not get a cool t-shirt that lets everyone know you, like, totally support the ta-tas.

***

Better charities:
American Cancer Society
The Breast Cancer Research Foundation
The National Breast Foundation 

Suffragette: to Boycott or Not to Boycott

Photo courtesy of ScreenRant

Earlier this week, the cast of the upcoming film Suffragette came under fire when the cast was photographed wearing shirts that read "I'd rather be a rebel than a slave."
If you know the context of the quote, you might like these shirts. If you don't know the context of the quote, you might still like these shirts. If you blame slaves for being enslaved, you might also like these shirts.

But let me explain.

For those who don't know: Suffragette, out October 23, is the mostly-true story of the women's suffrage movement in early 20th century England. It stars Carey Mulligan, Helena Bonham Carter, and Meryl Streep, among others. It also boasts a female writing/directing team (Abi Morgan and Sarah Gavron, respectively). It's been hyped as "the epic feminist movie we need."

The quotation in question was spoken by Emmeline Pankhurst (who Streep plays in the film), a key leader of the women's suffrage movement. Within the context of this film, the quotation is appropriate; after all, it was the early 1900s. Now, though, it's 2015, we're much more racially sensitive (or at least, we should be), and many people are wondering why any photographer, stylist, or publicist thought it would be a good idea to put a group of white women in shirts that seem to suggest that slaves could free themselves by simply being rebellious.

The photos in question.
Courtesy of Irish Times

Time Out London, the publication for which these photographs were taken, have defended their photoshoot and the intentions behind the controversial shirts, saying that "[the quotation] is a rallying cry, and absolutely not intended to criticise those who have no choice but to submit to oppression, or to reference the Confederacy, as some people who saw the quote out of context have surmised."

Now, film reviewers and movie-goers stand in wait. Will the bad publicity affect the box offices, or will offended parties take a chance on the film anyway?

As a feminist, I am torn. Realistically, I know that this photoshoot, and the fact that this film is acted by an all-white cast, is a bad move for intersectional equality; the women's suffrage movement was notorious for pushing the efforts of black women to the background and putting white women front and center, an idea which makes me uneasy. However, I worry that poor sales for this film will hurt the chances of female-helmed films in the future. Women should get the chance to have their voices heard on screen -- but by supporting Suffragette, am I implying that it is only white women who deserve to have their voices heard?

As a feminist and as a cinephile, I've got some thinking to do, and one question to ask myself:
Is it more important to read the shirts, or is it important to understand the film's message?

***

This comic sums up how white women treated black women during the suffrage movement.

(Courtesy of Kate Beaton)

Let's Pretend the Words "Dad Bod" Never Happened

This is Vladimir Putin, Russia's leader and haver of a dad bod.
This photo is intended for humor alone. The joke really makes itself.
(Photo courtesy of IAgreeToSee)

As we head into the winter months, I have stopped to gaze at the changing leaves, breathe in the crisp air, and consider all of the horrifying culture trends we left behind us in the summer. One particular trend is close to my heart: body acceptance. This year has been great for the body acceptance movement, from clothing line Aerie deciding to quit airbrushing their models, to  model Ashley Graham's body-acceptance TED Talk going viral. I embrace all of these movements and encourage everybody to apply them to their own lives as they're relevant. 

But I wouldn't mind leaving the term "dad bod" in the past. 

For those not in the know, the dad bod has been described succinctly by Mackenzie Pearson: "The dad bod says, 'I go to the gym occasionally, but I also drink heavily on the weekends and enjoy eating eight slices of pizza at a time.' It's not an overweight guy, but it isn't one with washboard abs, either."

Don't get me wrong: I think the spirit of the "dad bod" is great. Men should celebrate their bodies in whatever shape and size they come in. Bodies are wonderful, and they deserve to be treated with respect. Absolutely no argument there.

The problem is that the dad bod isn't body acceptance. The dad bod is a category of its own: a weird mixture of fetishization of the male body and female acceptance of the self. As a social construct, it's fascinating. As a movement, it's baffling. 

Many of the men who claim to have a dad bod have weighed in (pardon the pun). Take this Washington Post writer, for example, who links his dad bod to his success with women in long-term relationships. While he seems to be using the correlation for humor (in my opinion; read his linked article for your own interpretation), the idea is still present: that a man's body type exists for a woman's desire. This kind of objectification goes beyond mere preference into a strange degree of ownership, and as a reminder: having a body type for a significant other is a personal choice, but it is not the heart of body acceptance. 

Another problem with the dad bod is that it highlights an incredible double-standard of our society. 

The fact that men are being celebrated and fetishized for having average-shaped bodies while women are demonized for having average-shaped bodies is alarming. In the aisles of every grocery store are gossip magazines that tout headlines and blurry photos with horrible headlines like Ten Celebrities with Not-So-Fab Bikini Abs (I wish I was joking about that one). There's usually a token Celebrity Man thrown into the photo spread, but the word "bikini" in the headline already indicates what gender the magazine will be analyzing, and a hint: it's not usually men who wear bikinis.

Billion dollar industries are built upon making women feel like they need to do more and be more in order to be good or desirable -- men, apparently, need only to drink beer.

Luckily, the women and men who see the issue fight back with the mom bod. The mom bod is less about fetishization (it is a response to the dad bod and not a serious movement in itself) and more about drawing attention to the double standard of a society which celebrates men who eat pizza and drink beer but demand that its women stay fit and beautiful. It also celebrates the fact that the female body can literally grow humans. 

This is not about one sex's superiority; it's about equal-opportunity body acceptance.

I love beer and pizza; if I'm going to partake in those gifts from God with my male and female friends, I'm just hoping we can all like each other afterwards, despite what it does to our bodies. 

The Voldemort of Women's Health

Photo courtesy of  FlickrHiveMind

We've got a problem in this country, and no one's talking about it. In fact, we're pointedly not talking about it. Discussing it means over-sharing, making people uncomfortable, or, -- dare I say it? -- publicly showing emotion.
Let's get serious for a moment and talk about facts: between one fifth and one third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. 

I know. I should have warned you that this would be sad. But the truth is, I have some questions, and someone's got to hear them -- someone's got to listen to these women.
Let's start with this: where is the public support for the women and their partners who are suffering the effects of this trauma? Why isn't it okay to tell people you or your partner miscarried when they ask you what's wrong? Why is it more socially acceptable to tell them your aunt passed away, or your grandfather has cancer? 

What are we so afraid of?

Defined by the brave and brilliant Laura Benanti as "the Voldemort of women's issues" in an article for Huffington Post, miscarriage is perhaps the most taboo of women's health issues. Truthfully, no one wants to discuss women's health at all: it's easy to make big claims about it (looking at you, Jeb Bush, who thinks $3 per person seems like too much money to keep all us pesky women safe and healthy!), but harder to actually confront. And it's true: no discussion of health care is easy because being sick is messy business.
But this is not about the state of privatized health care in the United States, or even the attacks on women's health care services (which is an enormous enough topic to deserve its own post). It is about the uneasiness and stigma surrounding miscarriage.

Think of the mothers you know. Of every ten you can name (and I'm sure you know three times that many), anywhere between one and two have miscarried. According to some statistics, 10-25% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. That's a huge percentage; why aren't we talking about it?

Is it our uneasiness when it comes to women's health care? Is it because we're afraid of hurting those women who have miscarried by bringing up a sore subject? Is it because we don't know what to say?

With this many women standing in solidarity over this common experience, maybe it's time to figure it out.

For one thing, we can no longer pretend this doesn't happen. Erasing the stigma is the first step, and the only way to do this is to be vocal. When we have conversations, topics are normalized. When topics are normalized, they become socially acceptable. When they become socially acceptable, women and their partners do not have to hide their grief over their lost pregnancies.

That's not to say that every couple wants to talk about their grief; it just means that those who do want to should not feel forced to avoid sharing the reason for their sadness in fear that it will be met with an inevitable cringe or awkward pity.
An easy claim, sure, but realistically, what should we say to these people?
Try beginning with, "I'm so sorry."
Or, "Is there anything I can do for you?"
Or, "My sister miscarried last year, and it hurts your whole heart, doesn't it?
Any one of these lines may work, or they may not. Ask any woman in your life what she would have liked to hear after she miscarried (remember that one-fifth of them did). But the cycle of silence must end if we ever want to create a world in which these women and their partners can openly feel their emotions. The problem is too big to ignore any longer, and these couples deserve our attention. They deserve our sympathy, and they deserve our care.

In the words of Albus Dumbledore, fear of the name only increases fear of the thing itself
.