HippieMommy

posted by amanda on Jul 23

Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
By: Ariel Levy

I am not making this up.

Just in time for my entries on Female Chauvinist Pigs - look what I found in the $1 section at Target. I had to pull out my Treo and take a pic.

That’s right, America. This is what we consider “empowering” for our girls. Our future women.

Wow. How “Girl Power!” of them. Apparently lipstick, hair spray, short skirts, go-go boots, and plunging necklines make us quite powerful, ladies.

Is it any wonder that women feel that they are empowered by acting and looking sleazy? Its taught to us from the time we’re in elementary school

posted by amanda on Jul 20

I think my comments are fixed now, so please give ‘em a check for me!

posted by amanda on Jul 20

Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
By: Ariel Levy
I must say that since my last post on Female Chauvinist Pigs, my search engine hits have been some odd ones. You would not believe how many people search for “hippie p*rn”

But now, continuing my thoughts from my reading of Female Chauvinist Pigs

Ariel Levy talks about an interview that she has with Christie Hefner, Hugh’s daughter and CEO of Playboy. During this interview, Hefner talks about how she views the playboy bunny logo…

…[The bunny logo] symbolizes sexy fun, a little bit of rebelliousness, the same way a navel ring does… or low rider jeans! It’s an obvious I’m taking control of how I look and the statement I’m making as opposed to I’m embarassed about it or I’m uncomfortable with it.

Levy points out in her book that if you’re looking at it in this way, then you will fall into the trap that I spoke of in my last post.

I think that has more to do with the current accepted wisdom that Hefner articulated so precisely: The only alternative to enjoying Playboy (or flashing for Girls Gone Wild or getting implants, or reading Jenna Jamenson’s memoir) is being “uncomfortable” with and “embarassed” about your sexuality. Raunch culture, then, isn’t an entertainment option, its a litmus test of female uptightness.

So then Hefner goes on to talk about how olympic atheletes, lawyers, mothers… all sorts of women appear in Playboy. Playboy, in her opinion, appreciated all sorts of women and helped women to prove they were sexy (one example she gave was that the Olympians proved in their spread that they could be atheletic and sexy).

But Levy responds that as you flip through the pages, the Olympians have been molded into the same look that every other playmate has. Its not celebrating what they do - its making them into what everyone else is.

Why can’t we be sexy and frisky and in control without being commodified? Why do you have to be in Playboy to express “I don’t think athleticism is at odds with being sexy?” If you really believed you were both sexy and athletic, wouldn’t it be enough to play your sport with your flawless body and your face gripped with passion in front of the eyes of the world? Rather than showing that we’re finally ready to think of “Sexy” and “athletic” as mutually inclusive, the Olympian spread revealed how we still imagine these two traits need to be cobbled together: The athletes had to be taken out of context, the purposeful eyes-on-the-prize stare you see on the field had to be replaced with coquettish lash-batting, the fast-moving legs had to be splayed apart.

:nodding:

That women are now doing this to ourselves isn’t some kind of triumph, it’s depressing. Seuxuality is inherent… yet somehow we have accepted as fact the myth that sexiness needs to be something divorced from the everyday experience of being ourselves.

I really appreciate the angle from which she is approaching this subject. I’ve been noticing examples of it everywhere in life. Its really fascinating.

posted by amanda on Jul 20

Nice, huh?

I’m reading Diet for a New America (love it!) and the discussion of the way that we treat animals in our culture has been really interesting. I found this quote and just had to research it.

The official position of the Catholic Church has long been that animals don’t have souls. During a Church council in the middle ages a vote was taken on whether women and animals have souls. Women squeaked by. Animals lost.

Honestly, this seems to be pretty debated when I looked it up online. I know that I have quite a few Catholic mamas who read my blog, so please let me know if you can confirm or deny this claim The internet opinion seems to be pretty split on whether or not it happened.

Whether or not this is true, this book has really given me some food for thought on the animal rights issue. I’ve always said that my veg*nism is due to health reasons, not animal rights. The more that I read about factory farming practices, the more upset I am. Animals are not treated with dignity or respect. They are treated in ways that would cause the humane society to seize the animals if it were a home. Its sick. Really sick.

This week we have new baby birds outside on our front porch. The mother and father bird (I’m assuming? There’s two of them.) have been carefully taking turns feeding and watching their babies. Its been so cool to watch and the kids have been so excited to see the birds grow each day. Its been really neat. I’m sure it is what made me extra sensitive to this quote

Male chicks, of course, have little use in the manufacture of eggs. So what do you think happens to the males? How are the little fellows greeted when, having pecked their way out of their shells, expecting to be met by the warmth of a waiting mother hen, they look around and seek to begin their lives on earth?

They are, literally, thrown away. We watched at one hatchery as ‘chicken-pullers’ weeded males from each tray and dropped them into heavy-duty plastic bags. Our guide explaines: ‘We put them in a bag and let them suffocate.’

That sucks.

Reading about their living conditions, lives, and treatment really struck me. My kids still eat eggs. The fact is that I could never go and do this to an animal, yet I pay to have it done all the time. :sigh: I have thinking to do.

posted by amanda on Jul 9

I know its a pain in the rear, but I’ve switched to make it so that registration is required in order to comment on my posts. That’ll cut back (or hopefully eliminate) the dirty spam. Oonce you’re registered you can subscribe to be notified when I post something new, just in case you’re interested

Sometimes I do protected posts too, and only registered users can see them

I promise never to sell your name or spam you if you register :>>

OK, now scroll down to the good stuff in my latest post about our raunchy culture

ETA: OK, now its working again! I upgraded my blog software

posted by amanda on Jul 9

Oprah recently aired a show entitled “Stupid Girls” which tackled the role of women in our society. Ariel Levy appeared on that show after Pink talked about her song “Stupid Girls.” Levy wrote Female Chauvinist Pigs - Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture and as she spoke about it I was instantly intrigued.

Levy was on the show along with a girl who was a recruiter for the Girls Gone Wild videos. Levy talked about how if men were male chauvinist pigs before - exploiting women - now women were taking over for them by exploiting each other and ourselves. The girl from GGW talked about how she convinced women to appear on the videos FOR FREE and how it was their own fault if they regretted it. These women were somehow convinced that appearing on these videos was empowering.

Levy and Pink both mentioned on the show that almost anyone could name a sleezy star (Paris Hilton, Jenna Jamenson, etc), and yet we are hard pressed to name an intelligent successful young woman who isn’t getting ahead through sex.

At the same time, our culture is leading us to believe that in order to be sexy, we need to be like porn stars or strippers. Breast implants jumped by about 700% between ‘92 and ‘04, from 32,607 a year to 264,041 a year. Surgeries are on the rise for vaginoplasty and labia operations that do not increase pleasure, but make it look more like a porn star or stripper’s parts. Are we completely forgetting that their job is to IMITATE arousal? They are a cheap replica of the real thing, and women are now being led to believe that to be sexy we must imitate the imitators! How ridiculous is that?!

Levy says:

This may seem confusing considering the “swing to the right” this country has taken, but raunch culture transcends elections. The values people vote for are not necessarily the same values they live by. No region of the United States has a higher divorce rate than the Bible Belt. (The divorce rate in these southern states is roughly fifty percent above the national average.) In fact, eight of the ten states that lead in national divorce are red, whereas the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country is deep blue Massachusetts. Even if people consider themselves conservative or vote Republican, their political ideas may be just that: a reflection of the way they wish things were in America, rather than a product of the way they actually experience it.

She talks about how at the same time Bush was elected to his second term, the number one tv show in red areas like Atlanta (which voted 58% for Bush) was Desperate Housewives, which far from promotes family values or great women role models.

She then says

Playboy is likewise far more popular in conservative Wyoming than in liberal New York

Ah. That’s nice to hear.

So why is it that we accept the porn stereotypes as the norm? Why are we considering that to be sexy? Why do women go around wearing Playboy bunnies and “porn star” shirts and consider themselves liberated and sexually free? That is the most ridiculous thing I can think of!

I’ll definitely write more about this later

posted by amanda on Jul 3

I don’t normally think of myself as too much of a tree-hugger, but I really had a moment this weekend…

We drove all around the beautiful state of Colorado and visited quite a few of the ski resorts on our way. We did some gorgeous nature hikes and learned a ton about the native plants and animals.

While we were on a guided hike at one of the resorts, it ended up being just our family and the guide. We went up to 11,500ft and learned all about the plants and animals that were living around us. The guide pointed out a 4-year-old tree to my ds. She first asked him to find a tree that was 4, and he picked one that was almost exactly his height. Then she showed him that they only grow about an inch and a half per year.

I’m sure this isn’t shocking to many people, but as I stood there and looked at my 4yo standing next to a tree his height that was nearly as old as me, I couldn’t help but think of all of the times I’ve stuck a 7′ tree in my house. I never considered how many years it took for that much growth to occur. Here in Colorado you can get a permit to cut down your own tree, and that was our plan, but now I’m feeling pretty guilty about it. Who am I to rob that much growth just for a few weeks of pine smell?

So then I started researching and see that wikipedia explains that there is almost just as much controversy over fake trees. The use toxic chemicals and often parts of real trees, so they’re really not too much better better. Its also impossible to recycle them.

Then again the Christmas tree farms use a ton of chemicals and provide hostile environments for animals. You can find organic trees. I never would’ve considered that…

So anyways, that’s my enviro-friendly depressing thought for the day. Wikipedia quotes Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former president of Greenpeace as saying

Whether you choose a cut or growing tree to enjoy this holiday season, I believe that a sensible environmentalist would opt for renewable over non-renewable every time.

I guess I’ll dig my fake tree out of the crawl space and keep using it until I find some way to recycle… Or I’ll decorate a tree in our yard…

Eh, maybe I don’t need a tree. They’re just a pagan symbol anyways, right?