Fashion, politics, and front page news

I really apologize for not posting all summer; things have been pretty hectic. I plan on getting back into blogging now that the semester is up and running. This is a quick rant - I'll probably formulate a better thought out and articulate response to Sarah Palin in the near future. I've actually been wanting to write a piece comparing/contrasting the media's coverage of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. But in the mean time, here's an off-the-cuff rant concerning this story: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/09/17/palin.glasses.ap/.


CNN is so freakin' ridiculous! Discussing Palin's glasses designer and the designer's political affiliation is NOT news and certainly not FRONT PAGE news. Who cares about Sarah Palin's glasses!?!? And even more, who cares who her glasses-makers are voting for? And we really wonder why people are politically uniformed and apathetic and why people expect politics to be entertaining. This is not a fashion show or some stupid reality TV program. I feel like we are deciding who is getting voted off the island instead of the next vice president (president?) of the United States.

Also, I'm so tired of the discussion of female candidates' style and physicality - from Hillary Clinton's cleavage and suits to Sarah Palin's glasses. I might expect to see this conversation in the blogosphere, but front page CNN news?!?! Good grief CNN, I don't know why I continue to be surprised by this kind of bullshit headline, but I do. It reminds me of Kathleen Jamieson Hall's argument concerning the "double bind" of women leaders: If a woman leader is viewed as feminine she is seen as incompetent, if she is viewed as competent, she is considered unfeminine. In this case however, the discussion of Palin's femininity (fashionability) actually serves to distract us from her incompetency.

Chain Gang - cuter in pink?

I have been on quite the writing sabbatical this summer; as in, I haven't written a thing! I'm just now getting back into a routine - teaching reading full time to kindergartners through the adult level and I'm back in marathon training. I guess I've really needed the writing break though. Lately I've had some great ideas of things I should write about, but when I sit down to actually do it...all desire escapes me. I have been keeping a running list of future paper/research ideas though.

In the past few months I've been watching a lot of nighttime shows on WEtv. I've noted that so many of the documentary-style shows focus on either "deviant" women or "unruly" women - criminal, or otherwise. Tonight I've seen a couple shows that focus on female criminals - Women Behind Bars and Chain Gang Girls. Then there's also the Secret Lives of Women. Tonight it focused on a dominatrix, a woman whose husband was gay, a bi woman in an open marriage, and a pill-popping prescription drug addict soccer mom. The episode after that was about how "size matters". It focused on a little person, a 6'5" woman, and two BBW (Big Beautiful Women).

The latter episode was rather frustrating to watch. Juxtaposing the struggles of a very tall supermodel (literally, she was a supermodel whose dimensions were 6'5", 36" x 29" x 34") with the struggles of a little person (who is only 3'1") really doesn't seem right. While I can accept that both women struggled with self esteem issues growing up, as adults, their struggles hardly seem comparable. The tall supermodel's problems included not being able to find shoes, pants, or boyfriends who were as tall as she was. Inconveniences, no doubt, but she was a very beautiful, fit, thin, sexy, woman who made a living on her looks. Additionally, she's a supermodel who can afford to have her clothes custom made. She also mentioned that she didn't "get" her first boyfriend until she was 17. She noted that this was unusual and late in life.

Whereas the little person's struggles revolved around the way the world treated her, how simple things like cooking could be challenging, as well as a few struggles with her love life. There was no mention of how difficult it must be for her to shop for clothes, and really that's no surprise given the fact that her struggles (and the confidence she has found as she has overcome those struggles) are much greater than finding a cute pair of shoes. Finally there were the 2 BBWs (weighing around 300 lbs. each) who were self-made women who helped other large women discover their own beauty and confidence. The women started online groups, opened up a fashion boutique and a dance club.

While I appreciate the inclusion on the taller woman's struggles, I just can't get behind the show's decision to compare a perfectly thin and beautiful supermodel to a little person and two very large women. Not being able to find shoes is hardly the same thing as being 3' tall or 300 lbs. While her story might be worth telling, I don't think it should've been placed in the same episode as these other stories. Additionally I'm sure they could've chosen another tall woman who is not a supermodel.

Lastly, the actual title of my post comes from something I saw that would be quite humorous were it not so absurd. Chain Gang Girls is a docu-style series about America's only female chain gang prison. The show is interesting on many levels, but what initially struck me was the color PINK! The women are in black and white striped prison garb wearing pink underwear, pink sports bras, pink undershirts, pink socks, and sleeping on pink sheets. Who in the world thought that female chain gang prisoners would appreciate having everything turned pink? I don't see blue blankets, undershirts, or boxers in male prisons. This is a female-only prison nonetheless, why the gender distinction? How unnecessary!

Mary Kearney recently gave a talk at Console-ing Passions about "Pink Technology" - media production technology that is pink for girls (such as video cameras and guitars). Having heard her presentation I've become hyper-aware of pink (I noted it before, but even more so now). I was recently at the Toys R Us in Times Square and was appalled by all the gendered pink toys for girls! For example (one of hundreds!), these ought to look familiar to most people:


But guess what? They're now available like this as well:I have no problem introducing new color options, but why only all pink? Why not different shades of green, or red, or blue as well? There was nothing inherently masculine about the rings that have been around for decades, nor is there anything particularly gendered about this toy that would need to be "tweaked" to attract girls to it. Not to mention the fact that the rings lose some educational value when you can only teach your daughter different shades of pink. Instead of learning orange, green, yellow, and blue, what's she going to learn? Dark pink, light pink, lighter pink? When did this basic assumption that girls will only like a toy if it is pink start? It's like Mary said at her panel, it's not that the pink option is insulting in and of itself, but it becomes problematic when that is the only option girls are afforded. It continues to position girls as Other, somehow a deviation from the norm of Male. The world of toys, games, media is intended for boys and in order to get girls interested and involved we have to feminize the toy.

It really amazes me that the pink assumption/obsession has now gone so far as to infiltrate the prison system. I wonder to what extent the pink is an attempt to (re)feminize these women, in so much as criminality is often perceived as masculine (interestingly most of these ladies' crimes are "feminine" - shoplifting and prostitution, with some drugs as well). Have no fear, when our little pink princesses grow up and find themselves in trouble, they will not have to sacrifice their pretty in pink panties in prison!

Justice, finally

Awhile back I posted an entry about presenting a paper at the International Symposium of Online Journalism; the paper was titled The Megan Meier MySpace Suicide: A case study exploring the social aspects of convergent media, citizen journalism, and online anonymity and credibility. In brief, a mom created a false MySpace account, pretended to be a 16 year-old boy, became the "boyfriend" of Megan, and then turned mean on her and told her the world would be a better place without her. Within 20 minutes Megan had hung herself. Overall the paper was analyzing the role blogs and alternative news sources played in exposing the MySpace "hoax."

However, another perhaps more critical aspect of this story also emerged, and that is, the St. Louis police department said that Lori Drew (the creator of the false MySpace account) had unfortunately broken no laws; no charges were to be filed. "There is no way that anybody could know that talking to someone or saying that you're mean to your friends on the Internet would create a substantial risk," St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas said. "Under the law, we just couldn't show that." Such a statement fails to acknowledge that Lori Drew was not merely bullying Megan Meier, she was romantically involved with Megan Meier while posing as a 16 year-old boy and that is a whole other issue than mere bullying. While a lot of people were outraged by this case and the lack of charges filed, there was an important detail that was continuously being overlooked in this case though, and that is the inherent gender bias embedded within the law. Had Lori Drew's husband been the one to create a fake MySpace profile, pose as a 16 year-old boy, and romantically involve and deceive a 13 year-old girl, a crime would have been committed. NBC has an entire series dedicated to this kind of criminal deception - To Catch a Predator. However, because Lori Drew was a woman she was somehow excused from this law. Clearly online child predator laws are unjustly heteronormative and gender bias.

Well, a year and a half later justice has finally been served, or at least moving a step closer. A federal court indicted Lori Drew on charges of creating a fake profile to lure Megan Meier into a romantic relationship. This whole case is such a tragedy, but I'm glad to see that the law is recognizing the romantic nature of the "hoax" and not solely focusing on the cyberbullying aspect. Regardless if Megan had committed suicide or not, and regardless of the cyberbullying element, creating a fake account as an adult to romantically engage with a 13 year-old girl should be against the law, period, regardless of the ramifications. Lori Drew could face 20 years in prison, unfortunately she has a teenage daughter at home who has also become an unfortunate victim in this affair. Nonetheless, I'm glad that she has been indicted.

Flow Conference 2008

I really am going to start updating this more frequently, really. But for now I'm quite pleased to announce that the Call for Responses for the 2008 Flow Conference is now up and running!

Flow Conference 2008 is the 2nd biannual conference for FlowTV.org, a University of Texas at Austin graduate student-run, online academic journal focusing on television and media culture. The conference will be held at UT Austin October 9-11; deadline to submit a response is June 15.

Visit the conference website for a complete list of roundtable questions in full detail. We especially encourage responses that address issues of race, class, gender, sexuality, age, and ability, as well as international perspectives.

In an effort to include a wide range of participants (i.e., scholars, fans, critics, activists, policymakers, industry professionals, etc.), we encourage wide distribution of this call.