feministhemes.com

In looking for an image to go with the links I posted on sexual assault earlier this week, I came upon these posters.  They are from 2007 class project, and as far as I can tell the campaign no longer exists (you can check out the original link here).  I don’t doubt that the motives here were well-intentioned, but I think that the posters that the students developed are a prime example of how we talk about sexual assault, rape, and domestic violence in our culture.

Myth #1: Rape doesn’t count unless she was a virgin

This poster says “No one has the right to take it by force.”  Reasonably and appropriately, “it” means sex.  However, the imagery here of a bruised and wounded cherry doesn’t imply “it” as sex – cherries are a notorious symbol of virginity.  The poster essentially says “No one has the right to take [your virginity] by force.”  The truth is that no one has the right to demand or force sexual contact ever, regardless of virginity or purity or anything.  Whether a woman* has had sex before or not, even whether she has had sex with the partner demanding sex or not, does not negate her right to say no at any time, for any reason.  Rape and sexual assault have nothing to do with “cherries.”

Truth #1: No one has the right to force sexual contact, under any circumstances

Myth #2: Victims of sexual assault are irreparably damaged

As a graduate student in the field of psychology, I would be about the last person to say that survivors shouldn’t seek help.  However, the image of a shattered plate that needs someone to piece it back together is not a very flattering metaphor for survivors of sexual assault.  Even the use of the word “survivor” rather than “victim” begins to return power and control to the individual.  Survivors need to regain a sense of strength.  The fact of the matter is that no matter what happened, she survived. In fact, many in the field of psychology have begun taking strength based approaches to working with clients, allowing the individual to “own” their own change and recovery.  This is especially important for survivors of rape and abuse.

Truth #2: Survivors have more strength than they know

Myth #3: You need to talk about it to get better.  Now.

Again, I would be the last person to say that assault survivors don’t need help.  However, there are not rules about these things.  Remember that tip above about the survivor taking her power back?  Shaming survivors into seeking services is counterproductive.  First of all, as with any other type of recovery or change, there is nothing that the people around someone (friends, family, therapists) can do if that individual isn’t ready for change to happen.  Many people do find that talking about what happened has a healing effect – but that talking needs to happen on her time frame, not yours.  The best thing that you can do is let her know you’ll be there when she’s ready.

Truth #3: She’ll talk when she’s ready.  Be there, but don’t be forceful.

Myth #4: Victims are too busy defending their abusers to face the facts

This is quite possibly the most victim-blamey poster of them all (although you could probably make a strong argument for each of them to win that prize).  This poster essentially says “We can see you’re messed up, quit making excuses.”  There are lists a mile long of reasons that women stay in abusive relationships, and many of the reasons are understandable.  Just like any other decision one must make, there is a cost-benefit ratio that must be considered, and leaving is much harder than it sounds.  Defending one’s abuser and/or minimizing the abuse are just two of many psychological self-defense mechanisms that may be involved.  Rather than blaming women who stay, we should work towards making it easier for them to leave.

Truth #4: Leaving isn’t easy, and survivors need support to get out of an abusive relationship

*For the purposes of simplicity I’ve used female pronouns throughout this post, but another common myth is that only women can be assaulted.  Men may also be survivors of sexual abuse, assault, rape, and domestic violence and are less likely to come forward for help due to cultural attitudes about “masculinity” and “victimhood.”  Although the post uses female terms, all of these points also apply to males.

I hope that seeing these posters in a new light helps you understand how deeply ingrained our stereotypes about sexual assault victims are – even when trying to help we might imply these blaming, shaming messages.  Think critically about the language and imagery we use in day to day life (whether it be talking about sexual assault only when it happens to “nice girls” or using the word “rape” casually ex. “That test raped me!”).  Be aware of these myths and truths, and educate the people around you when they fall into those traps, too.

I did not watch the SuperBowl.  Proudly.  But my stance on professional sports is a topic for another discussion.  Anyway, if there’s one thing that the SuperBowl is known for (besides hypermasculinity and large men in spandex trying to kill each other in addition to rubbing up against one another and grunting in a totally non-sexual way – wait, another post, right) it’s envelope pushing advertisements.  These are being covered all over the place today, so here are some links to get you thinking about the fallout.

Woes Of Bros: Super Bowl Ads Star Pathetic Men — And The Women Who Ruined Them [Jezebel]

Knowing that Super Bowl Sunday is the only day of the year in which TV viewers actually care about commercials, you’d think ad agencies would have tried to reach the men and the women watching at home, right? Wrong.

Superbowl Sexism: Spineless, skirtless edition [feministing]

I’m sensing an anxious masculinity theme for the Superbowl commercials this year. I mean, we get it, dudes: You’re worried about being castrated by lavender scented candles and shopping with your lady friend. Go kill something, quick! And for the love of god, stop being nice to your girlfriend.

The Super Bowl and Madison Avenue Misogyny [feministe]

Superbowl ads are sexist. This is well trod ground: Marketers objectify women and play up stereotypes in order to sell things to (heterosexual) men. But we knew this year was going to be special. This year there was going to be some extra anti-feminist flavor… There were fewer half-naked women and dick jokes this year. Instead, the 2010 Superbowl Ad Mantra seemed to have one common theme: “Feeling castrated? . . . by women? Man up.”

The Critics On The Super Bowl Ads: Boring, Misogynistic [Jezebel]

• From Time’s James Poniewozik:

Wow, Super Bowl ad men really hate Super Bowl ad women this year, don’t they? …. Why would CBS turn down a Super Bowl ad from a gay-dating service, then run a bunch of ads with the message that men can’t stand to be around women?

• From  Slate’s Seth Stevenson:

Is it me, or was this year’s dose of casual misogyny a little rawer and angrier than usual?

• From The Washington Post’s Tom Shales:

An oddly recurring theme had to do with men asserting their masculinity, or attempting to assert it, as well as the perpetual male fear of emasculation.

• NOW via the Los Angeles Times:

NOW president Terry O’Neill said it glorified violence against women. “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it,” she said.

Looks like a big mess.  Did I miss any good critiques of last night’s ads?  Feel free to leave your own responses as well as links to more posts in the comments.

CBS doesn’t want America to think about Choice, so we have to do it virally.  Here are some awesome counterpoints to the anti-choice rhetoric that is being crammed down our throats with Doritos and beer this SuperBowl Sunday, starting with Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards explanation of the meaning of Choice:

For a multitude of reasons I will not be watching the SuperBowl today, but welcome any tips on who the winners and losers in advertising are this year.

I don’t even know where to start with this one, although I will say that none of the lows that advertisers stoop to really surprise me when I’m watching football.

Okay, first, just because I am a woman doesn’t mean that the plethora of stereotypes spewed in the ad apply to me in any way.  Secondly, just because I don’t like those things, doesn’t mean I will like your man-machine.  Yoga and sports cars are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, beyond never wanting anything to do with this man-machine, I don’t want anything to do with anyone who does want anything to do with the hypermasculine desperation dripping from this hunk of metal.

I hate football commercials.

In case Kellog’s message about doctors and nurses wasn’t clear, check out these toys:

Remember, boys use blue medical equipment and are called “doctors,” while girls use pink medical equipment and are called “nurses.”  Other combinations of equipment and/or titles are not allowed.

Check out the full post at Sociological Images.

Lately I’ve caught a bunch of these Broadview Security commercials, and they kind of make me want to mace the advertising advisers.  But, Current’s Sarah Haskins covers this better than I could hope to.

So, to all of those of you who aren’t white women, enjoy your new year.  For those of you who are white women, COWER IN FEAR or buy a Broadview Security system.  Or, you know, take a self-defense course, join a neighborhood watch, carry a cell phone and/or can of mace, or…

When I saw this commercial, I thought oh, that’s nice, the little girl is the doctor and the little boy is the patient!  How refreshing…

But that would be progressive.  Of course, the little girl is the nurse fetching the patient for the little boy doctor.  I mean, how hard would it be for the little girl to be the doctor and the little boy to be the assistant.

Is it a big deal?  Probably not.  But the messages here about what little girls and little boys can grow up to be isn’t lost on me.

Thanks, Kellog’s.

Because reverse objectification isn’t any better than the status quo.

This ad stinks.

We’ve been over this, people. Girls (and women) play too. We don’t just watch our boyfriends play in amazement.

Even if it weren’t for this commercial, this isn’t the type of game I’d typically choose, but I have certainly known my share of bad@$$ gamer women who destroy male gamers on Halo and other shooter and action games.

Marketers would do well to realize that women are a viable video-game market, and they should try catering to us without the pink and romance and stop insulting our intelligence in male-targeted games.

One thing is for sure: moms are annoying!  They’re always doing irritating and embarrassing things, like trying to “save money” and “look out for their families.”  Just ask the marketers over at AT&T!  They know what’s up!

Exhibit A

Dads are, like, so much cooler than moms.  Hahaha, lactose intolerant.  Good one, dad!

Exhibit B

Plus, she’s always telling me to help out around the house, and when I try to make a buck at our stupid garage sale she blows my deal!

Exhibit C

And then she gives you that stare when you ask for something?  Like, “I’ve told you a million times, and I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed?”  Mom’s are so lame!

Marketers love stereotyping their customers, and AT&T happily targets moms.  I understand that there are probably a lot of moms out there who can identify with this woman’s bratty teens, but this is just one more example of the nagging wife/mother trope that is so overused in media today.  What if instead of playing into the stereotypes, marketers treated their consumers with respect and demonstrated some positive family images?  I’m not asking for Leave It To Beaver, but I am asking for change.

« Older Entries