Two steps forward:
Jezebel, a new blog run by Gawker Media (from what I can tell, a media organization that runs 14 blogs that follow a formula of "frequent postings, vibrant design, snarky attitude") is known for its "unvarnished excoriation of traditional female media, slicing through the superficiality to give you the straight scoop on trends in celebrity, fashion, and sex". Even cooler, the editor actually pays some of the writers! I happened upon it through the Chicago Foundation for Women Tuesday Action Alert (which everyone should subscribe to!) and thought I'd take a look at the site.
It sure is snarky, that's for sure, and they really don't hold anything back. What I found particularly fantastic was a contest they ran a few weeks ago. They offered $10,000 to the person who could capture the worst example of Photoshopping/airbrushing/crazy editing of a celebrity on a magazine cover. One brave soul who actually works for Redbook sent in their July issue with Faith Hill on the cover. This post that shows the before and after shots says it all.
Bravo to Jezebel for shedding a light on the fact that not even beautiful goddesses like Faith Hill can look that good, and those women who are desperately trying so hard to look like that won't be able to do it in real life. This should be a lesson to that little voice inside all of us that whispers insecurities about how we look.
Two steps back:
Really, Washington Post? You really find it necessary to publish an entire article on Hillary Clinton's cleavage?!? This is the kind of crap that is going to keep this presidential race on all of the wrong issues and none of the right ones. They might have well just said, "We're not too comfy with the idea of a woman running for president." Yes, I know that may be a little bit of a jump, but seriously. First of all, she was barely showing any cleavage. If she were wearing some tight, short mini-skirt, that'd be one thing. But she was wearing what seemed to me to be a perfectly acceptable outfit for your typical work day. The article continued to talk about her choices of close as First Lady and Senator. Is this really news-worthy? When is the last time we saw an article about Barrack's choice of ties or Bush's controversial choice of sport coat?
"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."
So, basically, what I'm getting out of this is that Clinton is showing off confidence and physical ease and feels that her intelligence and wit are far more apparent than the shirt she wears. Ummm....isn't that the kind of person we want as a president? Confidence? Physical ease? Intelligence and wit?
Sometimes mainstream media makes me really angry. It's a shame that they're mainstream and considered the real source of information for the world. You'd think with that kind of responsibility, they'd spend a little more time on the important issues on this world and not something as trivial as what someone is wearing.
My favorite comment from NOW's website:
Jezebel, a new blog run by Gawker Media (from what I can tell, a media organization that runs 14 blogs that follow a formula of "frequent postings, vibrant design, snarky attitude") is known for its "unvarnished excoriation of traditional female media, slicing through the superficiality to give you the straight scoop on trends in celebrity, fashion, and sex". Even cooler, the editor actually pays some of the writers! I happened upon it through the Chicago Foundation for Women Tuesday Action Alert (which everyone should subscribe to!) and thought I'd take a look at the site.
It sure is snarky, that's for sure, and they really don't hold anything back. What I found particularly fantastic was a contest they ran a few weeks ago. They offered $10,000 to the person who could capture the worst example of Photoshopping/airbrushing/crazy editing of a celebrity on a magazine cover. One brave soul who actually works for Redbook sent in their July issue with Faith Hill on the cover. This post that shows the before and after shots says it all.
Bravo to Jezebel for shedding a light on the fact that not even beautiful goddesses like Faith Hill can look that good, and those women who are desperately trying so hard to look like that won't be able to do it in real life. This should be a lesson to that little voice inside all of us that whispers insecurities about how we look.
Two steps back:
Really, Washington Post? You really find it necessary to publish an entire article on Hillary Clinton's cleavage?!? This is the kind of crap that is going to keep this presidential race on all of the wrong issues and none of the right ones. They might have well just said, "We're not too comfy with the idea of a woman running for president." Yes, I know that may be a little bit of a jump, but seriously. First of all, she was barely showing any cleavage. If she were wearing some tight, short mini-skirt, that'd be one thing. But she was wearing what seemed to me to be a perfectly acceptable outfit for your typical work day. The article continued to talk about her choices of close as First Lady and Senator. Is this really news-worthy? When is the last time we saw an article about Barrack's choice of ties or Bush's controversial choice of sport coat?"Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed."
So, basically, what I'm getting out of this is that Clinton is showing off confidence and physical ease and feels that her intelligence and wit are far more apparent than the shirt she wears. Ummm....isn't that the kind of person we want as a president? Confidence? Physical ease? Intelligence and wit?
Sometimes mainstream media makes me really angry. It's a shame that they're mainstream and considered the real source of information for the world. You'd think with that kind of responsibility, they'd spend a little more time on the important issues on this world and not something as trivial as what someone is wearing.
My favorite comment from NOW's website:
News break! News break! The Post now attests
that Hillary Clinton has cleavage and breasts!
But take a deep breath and try not to alarm;
she also has lips, and a nose and two arms,
and--news of all news!--they also weren't robed!
In fact, she hung jewelry in naked ear lobes!
And her chin--it was nude of all facial hair
and protruded in space so totally bare
it's entirely a scandal! Politicians and stars
can never be publicly just who they are.
Though "cover ups" might be the nation's disgrace,
it seems the "uncovered" get newspaper space.
So, Washington Post, I hope you will note:
Ms. Clinton has breasts, and has brains, and my vote.
sent in by Debbie W. Parvin
sent in by Debbie W. Parvin
3 comments:
Now, granted, I'm too lazy to read the entire thing, but it seems to me that for a cleavage related article, the excerpt you included sounded like exactly the sort of sentiment that you would be espousing. It didn't even include the words "unfortunate", "disgusting" or "old-lady-tits".
Additionally, I hear/read things about President Bush's clothing all the time. Whether it's referring to the flight suit incidents, his ranch-casual cowboy get ups or ill fitting suits I feel that his fashion choices have been fittingly scrutinized. The obsession with appearance is an unfortunate aspect of our society, but applies to both men and women. After all, what can you tell me about Taft other than he was a fat m-er f-er? Such is life for women and men in the media. Deal with it.
Give me a break Jim! Women have always been more scrutinized for wardrobe choices than men. I will say that the fact that Dubya's clothing choices would be scrutinized in the media with all the other things he should be scrutinized for, is unbelievable! Regardless, the fact that legitimate media would report on Hilary's cleavage, with all of the other issues that face us, is disappointing to say the least.
Just because woman are more scrutinized when it comes to appearance than men, it doesn't mean that men are not. Jim is correct about comments made about President Bush's appearance and I remember vividly the many positive comments President Clinton received during his time in office based solely on his appearance. I would say that making a comment about Hilary Clinton's cleavage, when in the photo I see, there isn't a whole lot of it, is pretty ridiculous.
Post a Comment