Showing posts with label Fake Outrage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fake Outrage. Show all posts

Friday, July 27, 2012

Dance - Everyone's Watching

The introspection didn't start because of the numerous and plentiful articles and responses about "geek girls" and "girl gamers" and women in general. It started, like so many things start, with Madonna.

I have always admired Madonna, even when I wasn't fond of her music. I admired her ambition, sense of risk and willingness to go big or go home. I liked her tough girl art-chick persona in her early movies, Desperately Seeking Susan and Who's that Girl. I rooted for her even though I didn't buy her albums. They were occasionally fun to dance to, and since I was desperately trying to be an actor I knew all the words and could sing along because that's what you do. You learn ALL the things when you are an actor so that you can use them. Ironically, unironically, bitterly, joyously. You need to be able to feel all the things the way someone might feel them, even if you don't particularly. The first Madonna song I liked was "Like a Prayer" and I probably liked that song because it's true.

When the person I love calls my name it still feels a bit like a revelation - and like prayer sometimes it's intense, or sometimes it's a shock that you still notice or care, and sometimes its a reminder of transcendence. Sometimes it's home.

It's a funny thing about that lyric though. Like all callow youth and the default of all pop songs and everything Madonna it was interpreted by some of my peer group to be about sex, specifically about blowjobs, because of the chorus:


When you call my name it's like a little prayer 
I'm down on my knees, I wanna take you there 
In the midnight hour I can feel your power 
Just like a prayer you know I'll take you there 
[ Lyrics from: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/m/madonna/like+a+prayer_20086915.html ] 


But that interpretation was made by a bunch of oversexed hormonal theatrical twenty somethings who were busy either creating their own spirituality or vociferously rejecting oppressive theologies. I do not say that last bit with snark. It was the era of AIDS. We were surrounded by a group called the "me generation" in the press and the rising of the Moral Majority in our politics and school system. Everyone was either letting us wander along or preaching at/to us.  We were diesnfranchised in the most literal sense being taught that "you can't fight city hall". The biggest joke at my school ( once again most likely because it was true) was that we wrote a longform article on the apathy of our student body and no one read it because they didn't care. Literally, no one even picked up our school paper.

Here's the part of the song you have to ignore in order to concentrate on the sex as subtext in Like A Prayer


Life is a mystery, everyone must stand alone 
I hear you call my name 
And it feels like home


To accept that this song is only about relationships to other humans an not about something more; life, meaning, place, is to ignore that there's no relationship given, that there's no vision or contact with the subject of the song. It ignores that there might be a voice as metaphor that calls her name and the feeling is actually based in a religious feeling.

She wrote a song about her name being called. She made a video explicitly showing the conflicts of being called out by a suffering god and and and angry population and it was looked at not as a song truly about her personal expression/experience of the merging of the conflict/joy of that feeling and interacting with a suffering god in a world ignoring the god and abusing the symbols it was looked at as a publicity stunt to piss off religious people and a song about blowjobs. But that bit:

When you call my name


He said to him "Abraham"

It's like a little prayer

and he answered "Here I am."

Hinneni 

If I had put this allusion through it's paces at the diner after rehearsal while everyone was making blowjob jokes,  I wouldn't have been mocked but I would have been kind of looked at as a killjoy. And honestly at that time the idea that Madonna was genuinely interested in religion or spiritual fulfillment would have been taken as a joke.  If I had brought it up in a group of pagan women I would have been taken to task for a number of things, but one of them would have been why I thought that Madonna would want to express her experience and yearning and interaction of the divine with male symbols and patriarchy.

I am reminded of these situations by thinking about the discussions around women in leisure cultures now.

Most of my female pagan friends at the time admired her for owning her sexuality on her terms instead of exclusivley make defined ones. It's hard to remember now when all of her bits have been co-opted and digested and third wave feminism exists but what she was doing was self-defined.  In retrospect she might be the only mainstream popular act to do that because after her came the two terms to minimize discussion of sexuality or women in cultural consumption "Attention Whore" for those who incorporated their sexuality their persona and "White Knight" for any male who might defend pretty much any woman with a public persona. You can't discuss anything that uses sex and bodies in performance or marketing without having the labels thrown around for chilling effect.

It's still hard for women to admit their sexuality or discuss fluctuations in it without it falling into some pre-packaged trope. Madonna managed to be self defined until very, very recently. When she hit fifty the "cougar" became a sexual stereotype for women who were somewhere between milfs and crones. She and Dr. Ruth Westheimer were my early models for empowered women talking about sex on their terms to other women and whatever men cared to listen, but not for men. Really for them. For us, for little, evenutally growing up, me.

The other Madonna song I liked was "live to tell" .

Madonna is complicated, she's a social signifier, I was waiting, really to find out what would happen next. The two albums of hers I bought because I liked them and they actually spoke to me were Ray of Light and Music.

Most of those songs still speak to me. She's writing about subjects that mean something. By the time they came out while people were very confused and starting to spread crazy rumors about what Kabaalah was ( hint it's not it's own religion and SURPRISE Catholisicim has it's own Kabbalah ) no one by that time would be surprised that her work contained religion and sex intermingled, and even if they thought it was her shtick, most people actually assumed that she probably meant it, even if they now judged her for being crazy.

Of all of the Madonna songs that fill up the cultural soundtrack of my life the one that I hear in the back of my head when I'm very, very still is the one that has these lines:

"When you're trying hard to be your best, could you be a little less"

Does anyone even know that song? Is it one of the ones that get forgotten because it's uncomfortable?

I don't actually play the song through at all. Over the last several years it's made me cry. Mostly because it's true. It's actually the only song or article or anything addressing the topic that feels like what I feel. She wrote it when she was approaching 40.

When you open up your mouth to speak
Could you be a little weak?


But she's not 40 anymore, she's 50 and when she was at the superbowl some other, very brave self defined woman who I admire for all the same reasons I admire Madonna wrote how disappointing it was that she was not embracing her age and seemed to be trying to reach backwards or fight aging in her superbowl performances.

And I wrote back to that woman through the lightness of tweeting that

it's hard 4 someone like me 2 figure out how 2 age in a way that's true 2 self. It must be x1000 for Madonna



And that performer agreed enough to retweet - amplifying my struggle and empathy to ALL of her followers who are quite dedicated. And I found myself worrying a tiny bit if there was a cost to defending something as nebulous as that fact that maybe it's just Madonna's turn to look around for who she is and how to be and find out nothing that fits. She can be sexual, and maternal, and flawed, and perfect and performing because ALL of our age and gender presentations are a performance.

And everyone is watching but the roles are narrowed. How do we explore the space? When do we admit that the construct of a public persona is just as authentic as the personal persona?

The difference is in the size of the audience, but here in the age of the internet all of our performance is the size of internationally sold out stadiums. We are all at the risk of suddenly being judged by the same number of people that will judge Madonna, just for a shorter period of time.

But that's a big thing to risk. We might trip up.

Other things are bubbling up right now about being a female and being in the now. This is it for this one though

"Do you know what it feels like for a girl"

Do we even admit what if feels like when we are still considered "girls" when we're looking to define ourselves post childrearing. Madonna was 40. Girl is much more complicated for me than bitch. I want to both claim and supersede it so that I can be seen as a whole person in the communities I operate in. But if I don't claim "girl" all of my tribe become slightly less visible ( even if I occasionally disagree with large percentages of that tribe).

You know what my male friends don't do? They don't refer to themselves as "boys".

I"m not sure I have an answer, I'm sure that this isn't my last exploration of this theme.

I am sure I want to dance.

Hineni


Friday, June 3, 2011

Fighting The Wrong Fight



This is an ad by the Bodyshop in 1998 - through the power of Facebook people are now reposting it as though it was recently "banned" in the US instead of China and reposting it as though it were somehow controversial now 12 years later.

When I read that it was banned my BS meter pinged so I looked it up with the incredible power of the internet. You know . . . . Google. I found my favorite thing in the world - a primary source.


And I'm furious that we are celebrating this ad being "banned" rather than screaming about the fact that Roddick didn't put her money where her mouth was.

What was Body Shop Really Looking for?

Anita Roddick is an amazing woman, and I for one love and actually use Body Shop products. (or at least I used to - they stopped making/distributing my favorite product Viennese Chalk Scrub)

(*Update : someone mistakenly thought Anita was the photographer who took the shot. The photographer was Steve Perry Anita was the founder and CEO for The Body Shop)

However I would like to take a minute to look at what was "banned" about Ruby. Anita was thrilled that she got a "cease and desist" letter from Mattel. She was amused that one plastic construct could "hurt the feelings of another". She assumed it was the implied insult to Barbie as opposed to the indirect attack on the trademark. Because it fit in with her agenda to do so.

Awesome - that's what provocative activist stands are supposed to do - get enough publicity to make a difference - it worked. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out the sudden trending of Ruby the Rubenesque articulated doll featuring the prominent branding of the Body Shop on all of the retweets and Facebook posts was actually started by the Body Shop's marketing department itself to get back some of it's liberal activist rep back from the early 90's. Before it was just another chain in the dying mall.

Yeah that's right - I am exactly that cynical. Because this ad was banned in China -Here all they got was a cease and desist letter from Mattel and parental complaints about implied nudity.

That's not being "banned", that's voluntarily giving up without a fight here in the US. Because you don't care about anything other than the publicity and you were hoping to be "banned". And that my friends, means you care more about making your point and selling your stuff than anyone's actual rights.

Because let's be honest Ruby looks way more naked than Barbie, and part of that actual sexuality and nakedness is BECAUSE Ruby looks more real.

And let's also be honest - Ruby is posed in a sexualized manner, she is selling product to make you more attractive. And perhaps in the very prudish world where "my first Barbie" is now made with plastic panties so that the Barbie can't even be naked if it wanted to, the argument parents were levying against the Body Shop windows might be that Ruby looks like a naked woman who's posing for her lover getting ready to dive into bed until you get close enough see the articulation points and realize it's an anti- Barbie.

Also this wasn't the only ad that ran in the Ruby promotion, there was also this:


I'm down with a good Odalisque as much as the next art loving gal, but this one really is just unfair to poor Barbie. Girlfriend couldn't even loosen up enough to get on a couch this way:

Which one is going to make parents walking through a mall complain? Naked chick pretending to be a Barbie - that's which one. Also the second ad is bordering on trademark infringement because it's recognizably one of the trademark Barbie TM faces, whereas the standing Ruby is obviously a doll face developed for the ad and in proportion to the doll itself .

Is it possible that it was this second ad - the one not making the Facebook Outrage Rounds that caused the cease and desist letter? Because there's no issue with the first one really, but the second one could be misappropriating a trademarked image for use in advertising someone else's product.

In other words "making Barbie look bad" might actually be "using Barbie's trademarked face to devalue the Barbie Brand specifically to sell your product" Body Shop is a for profit business - not an art house or a non-profit.

Body Image in Media is Important - But Fake Outrage At The Expense of Defending Free Speech Sucks

We'll never know because Anita Roddick didn't really want to fight the REAL fight, she wanted the controversy and she got it. The publicity kicks up every now and then and the images get redistributed. At least one article a year since 1998. The images have done some real good for real people. The woman who created the company and this campaign died in 2007. There is no point in my having a current beef with her. But she stopped before she fought a bigger fight.

Body acceptance is a lovely thing. However not fighting the cease and desist order when you specifically provoked it is a betrayal of real rights.

It is well known that Mattel's lawyers aggressively defend all of it's brands but Barbie in particular. It's also well known that Mattel loses lots of those lawsuits. The Red Ruby poster would have been able to defeat the standard cease and desist, the green one might have had some trouble in trademark law because the part of a doll that you trademark instead of patent is the face.

Going after Barbie is a cheap shot and easy, manufacturing outrage at a corporate entity is also easy - but defending the rights of others to utilize images in art and culture and not allowing trademark to expand past it's legal limit is waaay more important because while Mattel has the right to defend that trademark Mattel does not have the right to say all images of articulated dolls are equal to the Mattel Trademark. Red Ruby was defensible and could have stayed displayed. Body Shop has corporate lawyers on retainer and could have handled the suit.

Mattel didn't sue these guys:


But these guys also did this ad in the same series that caused a bit of a stir so maybe by 2007 picking on Barbie wasn't such big news but going after superheros was:


Or maybe it was just because it was a non-profit.

Mattel just lost the Bratz fight - and they had more valid legal standing there since the designer made the dolls while working for Mattel.


Mattels lawyers continually correct opposing counsel that refers to Barbie as a "person" or a "she" or as anything other than a brand. They play legal hardball but started losing whenever it's a free speech issue. (warning that last link is long and written for lawyers and no one interviews any actual Mattel lawyers until half way down the article).

This means Roddick's characterization of the cease and desist letter is her own construction/projection and had nothing to do with Mattel:

"Their reason: Ruby was making Barbie look bad, presumably by mocking the plastic twig-like bestseller (Barbie dolls sell at a rate of two per second; it's hard to see how our Ruby could have done any meaningful damage.) I was ecstatic that Mattel thought Ruby was insulting to Barbie -- the idea of one inanimate piece of molded plastic hurting another's feelings was absolutely mind-blowing. "

And all in her mind. She does not provide the text of the cease and desist.

So here's what pisses me off :

- either the red Ruby didn't look Barbie enough to get the cease and desist letters going and they made the green one with the "Barbie" face hoping to get the cease and desist because Mattel was so well known for aggressive copyright protection and that was the plan all along

-or it was done with no expectation of infringement but Roddick rode the infringement case to make people believe it was about weight and shape instead of one business suing another.

Either way Roddick was allowing all the people who cared about the image to believe that it was being "banned" for the body image alone - convincing people that they were trying to ban body types. Making those people feel oppressed by a larger force ( the government and the law) than the already considerable forces that oppress them.

Which frankly would be untrue.

If Ruby was Banned it was just a little bit by a country that bans lots of other things not the US

ban 1 (bn)
tr.v. banned, ban·ning, bans
1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: The city council banned billboards on most streets. See Synonyms at forbid.
2. South African Under the former system of apartheid, to deprive (a person suspected of illegal activity) of the right of free movement and association with others.
3. Archaic To curse.
n.
1. An excommunication or condemnation by church officials.
2. A prohibition imposed by law or official decree: a ban on cigarette smoking on airplanes.
3. Censure, condemnation, or disapproval expressed especially by public opinion.
4. A curse; an imprecation.
5. A summons to arms in feudal times.

v1 - There was no governmental or legal ruling to remove Ruby from ad campaigns in the united states - there may have been voluntary compliance with a letter written by Mattel's legal department that had no standing in court.

v2- While an argument could be made that Ruby was subject to apartheid like systems that keep us from seeing the forms of realistic women's bodies in advertising ,judging by the fact that a quick google search shows articles referencing Ruby come up every year I hardly think her movement and communication have been limited.

v3 - I do not believe Ruby was cursed - actually she seems blessed - how many print ads have this kind of shelf life?


n1- Unless Mattel are Church officials Ruby has not been denied religous identity

n2 - the removal of Ruby was voluntary at request except for China - she was totally banned by the government in China but not by Barbie and Mattel.

n3- OK I might go with this one - enough parents didn't like it that the public opinon "ban" counts - apparently it took about three distraught parents until one came up with a ridiculous enough quote to get press and let the Body Shop cave to pressure instead of fight to keep the posters up or just move them so that they were inside the store instead of visible on the mall

n4 is covered in v3

And I'm pretty sure that neither Barbie nor Ruby is being summoned to arms to fight for the King.

I am sure that I will see the Body Shop's Red Ruby all over my internet today being played as a real time outrage and real time trend. But she was a publicity stunt and her withdrawal in the face of very small actions proves it.

She is a beautiful photo and a lovely shape and I truly believe all people of all sizes are beautiful and sexual, and perhaps make you think about body image. But Ruby is still smooth and plastic and young and sexualized. It would have been more radical to put her in the original Barbie one piece. It would have been even better to see Roddick and The Body Shop fight for their right to Ruby, instead of continuing to empower corporate rights past their actual legal boundaries.

But maybe they couldn't because their ad campaign was specifically designed to incite Mattel and parents through trademark infringement and sexualized implied nudity and blame it on sizism instead.

Making women shaped like Ruby feel like the very government wants to erase them might be good for The Body Shop, and allow women shaped like Ruby to feel like Ruby is helping them fight the Power. But there's a strong possibility that she made up the fight in the first place.

And she didn't fight for a damn thing. She just went away when the going got tough.

The Body Shop should have gone to court.

Christina Hendriks and Brooke Elliot getting real roles and being allowed to be sexually active romantic leads without being punch lines is more important to women with real bodies in the media than Ruby is - and the government is not trying to ban either of them. Hell, the government of Britain actually endorsed Hendricks as the preferred figure for the UK- that's kind of the opposite of banning isn't it?

Kudos to the Body Shops viral marketing team - I'm sure sales will go up after the Facebook exposure.