As all of you know, I was in Tokyo last weekend (it was a fun trip; thanks for asking!). There was an advertising campaign that I saw on the train whose tagline was “Japanese Beauty.”

The first time I saw this ad, it was in the form of a commercial being played on the screens in the train. It featured a clearly white woman — the same one as in the above image — in Japan doing traditionally Japanese things and wearing traditionally Japanese clothes. My feeling of WTFerry grew and grew until it culminated with a picture of the white woman with the words “Japanese Beauty” printed clearly in the corner. I sort of made an indignant noise, but none of my friends had been paying attention. Nor, if they had been, do I think they would have cared.

It brings to mind a line from Tanizaki’s essay, “In Praise of Shadows,” which focuses on the Westernization of Japan. In it, he has a sort of love/hate relationship with Westerners and Westernization in which he both argues for the merit in traditional Japanese culture while putting Westerners above the Japanese in terms of ideology, inherent qualities, and as for women, whites are more “pure” and more “white”:

The Japanese complexion, no matter how white, is tinged by a slight cloudiness… But the skin of Westerners, even those of a darker complexion, had a limpid glow. Nowhere were they tainted by this grey shadow… Thus it is that when one of us goes among a group of Westerners it is like a grimy stain on a sheet of white paper. The sight offends even our own eyes and leaves none too pleasant a feeling.

And, really, that’s the feeling I get from this ad: that it’s buying wholeheartedly into the fallacies that excuse cultural imperialism. To me, Japanese beauty is about Japan, not some white woman “being Japanese.”

I just got home from helping put on Veganfest, my school’s animal rights club’s annual dinner, and feeding 200 hungry people yummy vegan food. Just in time to remind you all to get those submissions for the Carnival of Empty Cages. I’m extending the deadline to midnight on May 30. Submissions are coming in slowly, so feel free to nominate posts of others (including recipes) if you don’t have time to write something.

Updated the discussion rules to reflect some new stuff. From now on, it’s explicitly against the rules to state stereotypes as facts. Please update yourself on the new rules before posting, as you will be expected to abide by the rules.

I’m working on a real post, I promise. But, in the meantime, please enjoy this movie I took while in Shinjuku. It’s very loud, so I recommend turning the volume down before playing. Sorry, but my cell doesn’t seem to have a mic volume control.

Over at her blog, Mary has a rant about being a heterosexual feminist in a world where men just don’t get it:

So yeah, it sucks and it’s hard blah blah blah fishcakes. And I’ll never be the girl who does anything for a man, and I’ll never be that girl who thinks her man can Do No Wrong, for He Is Man. That’ll suck some of the (twisted, unhealthy, movie-style) “romance” out of your life. And maybe I’m worse off for not being able to feel that way, for not being able to “love” in that sense. Except I’m not. I expect more from my partner, and he will give it to me, or I will walk away. I expect respect and consideration, and he will give it to me, or I will walk away. I expect thoughtfulness, and he will give it to me, or I will walk away. I expect a man to have as much anger at the patriarchy as I do, and he will show it to me, or I will walk away. He will prove to me that he IS the exception, or–you guessed it–I will walk away.

[From I already used up the funny title, by Mary]

Since I’m mostly confined to looking at men as potential parnters at the moment, I am really feeling her pain. I’ve never been the “normal” kind of girl. Even when I believed in the concept of “true love”, I was never into that romantic bullshit. I always thought it was off, and when I was with my first boyfriend I finally understood why: because it’s about abuse and control, not love and partnership. Even when I find a guy who genuinely likes women — a rarity among heterosexual men, unfortunately — that doesn’t mean he likes a girl like me.

It’s annoying, but at least I have a great life going for me. A partner would be an addition, not the thing that makes or breaks my happiness. Yay feminism.

Please enjoy the above movie. It’s college kids showing off their rendition of Mario Bros.

Via Evil Li-brul Overlord >:D.

One thing that will invariably come up when discussing popular culture, especially where advertising is concerned, is that it’s stupid to talk about it because that’s what advertisers want. Take, for instance, the Burger King commercial that was talked about over at RMAN and on this blog, too. After some random LJ-er linked us to poke fun at how we got “upset” over the “humour” (cue me rolling my eyes), we both got a few negative comments on our sites. One over at Luke’s place really stuck with me, though.

Well, you guys are talking about the commercial, so I suppose it is doing its job. You noticed it didnt you?

[From Burger King: “I am hungry, I am incorrigible, I am man”, comment by D. Lai]

Comments like those are far from atypical. The message is clear: if you do nothing, the message perpetuated by popular culture remains unchallenged, but if you critique the problematic product, then all you’re doing is spreading the message. It seems like a lose-lose situation, right? Sometimes I do wonder.

Is it true, though? Is it better to say nothing, then to spread the message through critique?

Read the rest…

I’m going to be in Tokyo for the weekend, but Ariel has said that she’ll approve comments while I’m away. Assuming she can, please keep in mind that I haven’t found a way for them to be e-mailed to her for my posts so she’ll have to rely on checking them herself. Because of this, it may take a long time for your post to show up.

I apologize for the inconvenience, but, I mean, come on, it’s Tokyo.

“It’s just a(n) [insert medium here]!” “It doesn’t restrict what I do or say, so lay off!” “Why don’t you focus on a real problem like [enter "real" topic here].” The list could go on. They’re all different takes on the same idea – popular culture just isn’t important enough to study or critique. That’s all I seem to hear from anyone who doesn’t have the same interest in looking at pop-culture and its intersections that I do. So often, in fact, that I’m beginning to think that most people find the critique of whatever medium is being discussed is so heinous that the mere discussion of it must be stopped immediately or they think they’ll spontaneously combust.

In my introduction, I addressed the general concern of frivolity; namely I said that it wasn’t, indeed, a frivolous topic, but rather one that has immediate relevancy in our lives. In this installment, I would like to examine and debunk the common myths that make up the claim of popular culture being less important a field than traditional ones.

Read the rest…

I have the next installment of my series mostly written, but it’s already 6 here and I haven’t eaten nor done my homework yet. So, I’m going to point you in the direction of an interesting post instead.

OS.CB regular Dora has made a post, Repeat after me: “We are all individuals …”, on her livejournal inspired by my post on Superheroine’s Demise. In it, she talks about the difference between criticizing individuals and being aware of the institutions of oppression that influence our choices. I’m with her 100%.

An excerpt:

Superheroine’s Demise, and the people who hold that fetish, are individuals. I won’t tell an individual to change who he is, or the individual choices he makes. I will not even wholly condemn him, because he is not completely, or exclusively, guilty. All of us are at least partially culpable in maintaining sexism. Yes, this case is worse than others, but it isn’t the sole villain among innocents.

I will, however, continue to (vocally) expose the sexism beneath practices such as these, so that people will learn about it. And I will continue to believe that people have a responsibility to educate themselves when they are presented with the opportunity. Unquestionable acceptance of misogyny is inexcusable – especially when you’re given the chance to enlighten yourself.

If that’s your kink, then that’s your kink. Just be honest about what that means.

The discussion rules have been updated to alert users to the moderated status of the blog, and a new point has been added. This point is about actually reading the post before commenting. Not that I think it’ll stop the trolls will read it. Like the ones who go off about how the BK commercial is targeted at men and jeez, why am I talking about women… Really? Here I thought having a category called masculinities would make it obvious that I was focusing on men for once. Silly me, thinking that feminists could actually see a connection between the cult of masculinity and equality. So glad the drive by trolls have educated me.

Also, and I would think this would be obvious, but telling me that I’m “over analyzing” an issue is not going to get your comment published. It’s, you know, dismissive of my point. Which is against the rules.

Really, people, it’s not a hard concept: when you comment, be respectful. Not dismissive, not whining abou teh ebil feminism, not making stupid posts that are like, “I am man!!” (really? because here I was thinking that man wasn’t synonymous with dismissive asshole. so glad to have been educated… again).

So, there’s some discussion going on about a site called Superheroine’s Demise. What, do you ask, is this site? Well, it’s a pornography site that focuses exclusively on the violence and humiliation of female super heroes. Honestly, although I define as sex-positive, my kneejerk reaction to this site was, “Ugh, yet more misogynistic porn. Just what the world needs.” And after several hours to think about it, I still can’t shake that feeling.

Maybe part of it is because I have issues with pornography, period. I’m not flatly against it, but I have yet to find porn that isn’t in some way problematic. Maybe, also, because I feel like I should be uncritical of this because humilation play is a valid fetish. But, you know what? I’m not uncritical of anything. So, fuck that. I don’t like this site because I think it’s misogyny dressed up in a super heroine fetish, and this post is going to be discussing why I feel that way.

Read the rest…

In a move that is surprisingly good, Glamour has published an extensive and well written article that covers the governmental assault on women’s health. From the FDA to government funded abstinence only ed, the article is a long read, but well worth it.

An excerpt:

“Abstinence is a laudable goal,” says Deborah Arrindell, vice president of health policy for the nonpartisan American Social Health Association, an STD-awareness group. “But it is not how young women live their lives—the reality is that most women have premarital sex. Our government is focusing not on women’s health but on a moral agenda.” Consider this a wake-up call.

[From The new lies about women's health by Brian Alexander]

Now I just want to know why the editors thought that a naked woman’s backside was the most appropriate picture they could think of for a health related article. I mean, maybe it’s just me, but when I think “assault on women’s health” I just don’t think “woman butt.”

Via Ragnell.

Due to the insurgence of trolls who believe that they are above the rules that govern common decency, I’ve decided to put all comments to moderated. Especially because of the time difference, I’m not around enough to get my delete on. So, please be advised from now on all comments must be approved by me, and I will not let any comments through that are harassing, rude, or otherwise in violation of the comment policy. You have been warned.

The first issue of the Erase Racism Carnival is up at Ally Work. Topics are The Realities of Whiteness, The Problem of Colorblindness, The Prospect of Seeing Our Common Humanity, and The Cultural Representation of Whiteness. Check it out–Ally Work is an awesome, accessable blog and a great place to start thinking about deconstructing race if it’s a new concept for you.

I originally wrote on this issue for the now defunct Shrub.com articles, but instead of simply reposting it like I did with the other articles I wrote, I thought it deserved a full out rewrite. Predictably, in my revising and expanding efforts, it grew longer than any sane post should be. So, please enjoy the first part of my open series on popular culture.

Popular culture is a pet topic of mine, especially when it comes to how it influences the way that we interact with the world. We are all immersed in it – from advertising that becomes more invasive as the years go by to whatever hobbies we choose to get into. Yet, despite how widespread the phenomenon is, most people are convinced that these things have absolutely no impact on our lives. To the extent that the study of popular culture – whether in a formalized academic setting, or just people examining their own hobbies – is seen as “frivolous”. It is my belief that labels like those stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of popular culture and how it works. In this series, I would like to explore all the facets of pop-culture in an effort to promote better understanding of what it is and why it’s valuable.

Read the rest…

Today has been a day for posts that really resonate with me. Since I don’t feel well (hence me being home right now instead of at class) and therefore don’t want to work on a real post, I’ll share the words of wisdom from the other bloggers.

First off, a post (inspired by my Gaming While Female post, how special am I!) over at Guilded Lilies about the genderdization of gaming labels, entitled Hardcore Vs. Casual: It’s A Woman’s Prerogative:

The term “hardcore” when applied to gaming brings up the immediate image of a young male player, most likely with a game controller tightly gripped in his hands. For many, this idea of the “hardcore” gamer defines gaming – it is the standard by which all other gamers are measured. Any approach to gaming that falls outside of this parameter is not given the same status as being serious enough to be considered a real gamer. Using this standard alone “casual” gamers fall short, and since female players are the ones being identified with the “casual” gamer classification, women are often seen as not being real gamers.

Next up we have a post from Killer B of Modern Feminist, a geeky feminist new to me, where she “vlogs” (video blogs) about facing sexism in the vlogsphere. I don’t have a quote for Follow up thoughts on the vlogosphere because, well, it’s a video (only audio for me, ’cause my quicktime had problems), but it’s well worth the 6+ minutes it will take to listen to it.

And, finally, over at The Bipolar View, Spotted Elephant calls the popular picture blog Cute Overload out on its objectification of women in her post, Face the Facts:

Treating women as the cats ‘n’ racks photos do causes real damage. They show that’s it’s ok to view women as sex objects. They perpetuate the belief that women exist for the pleasure of men. All of these beliefs protect the status quo: men are human but women serve as decoration and sexual outlets.

Where do you suppose violence against women comes from? Why are women battered, raped, and murdered by their male partners? [...] When a man gets angry at work, does he punch his boss? No, he needs his job, so he controls himself. Why do some men control themselves with their bosses, but beat their wives into a bloody pulp?

Because they can.

Attitudes and beliefs inform behavior. You don’t batter, rape, and kill someone you view as your equal. But when you view women as being less than men, all kinds of terrible behaviors become acceptable. The ubiquitous message that women are worth less than men matters. When violence and hate are everywhere, there’s no such thing as acceptable objectification.

I’m glad that she reminded me that it was past time to take Cute Overload off of my blogroll. It’s not like they need whatever paltry traffic I may give them, anyway, and their response to criticism about their “Cats ‘n Racks” section was… unacceptable, is the most charitable word I can think of. Misogynist, dismissing, the same old bullshit of men justifying their bad behaviour are probably more accurate.

No, Burger King (BK) does not have the monopoly on awful advertising. Not by a long shot. But this new commercial combines sexism, racism, and probably a whole lot of other -isms that my mind wants to blank out into one nasty little package. I just… yeah. Didn’t Carl’s Jr. try this one before? And Jack in the Box? And, like, didn’t it fail? Miserably?

Shame on me for trying to apply Earth Logic to Marketing! I should know better, really. But, in all seriousness, this commercial is just plain bad. I don’t mean to pick on Burger King (well, I sort of do), but it’s making the rounds on ther internet (elsewise I never would have seen it, me being in Japan and all), and I can’t help but put my two cents in. Two cents that should be studying my kanji, but, hey, I got all but the hardest combinations right when my study partner quizzed me. I deserve a break.

So, without further ado, let’s begin with the analysis.

Read the rest…

The Center for Biological Reform was invited to my school on Tuesday and Wednesday by Western for Life, my university’s anti-choice club. They put up a display comparing abortion to genocide in the center-most public area of campus. There were signs that read, “Warning, Genocide Ahead,” but the area is difficult to avoid and many students told me they proceeded expecting something about a real genocide.

I took a few pictures of the displays. They are graphic and probably not work safe, so you may want to skip this post if you’re not up for being in a bad mood.

I took these pictures on the second day. On the first day, there were small children behind the barricade, in the sun, and infants being carried by women.

Read the rest…

vegankid has an excellent post over at Ally Work debunking the myth of lazy “welfare queens”. The post traces the history of welfare, brings up statistics, cites sources… all you could want from a topic like this and more.

Here’s an excerpt:

Martin Gilens, in Why Americans Hate Welfare, finds that “the belief that blacks are lazy is the strongest predictor of the perception that welfare recipients are undeserving.” In a mid-90s study titled “White’s Stereotypes of Blacks: Sources and Political Consequences,” researchers Hurwitz and Peffley found that White people agree that most Black people are lazy (31 percent), not determined to succeed (22 percent), and lacking in discipline (60 percent). It was these stereotypes that fueled the racist attacks on welfare despite the fact that at the time, the majority of welfare recipients were White wimmin. By catering to racism through imagery and rhetoric, those with the agenda of wiping out welfare could convince the largest recipients of welfare (economically-poor White people) that it was a good idea.

All to often, people (white people especially) seem to conflate issues of race with class. But, really, they aren’t the same. At all. Anyway, vegankid says it better than I ever could, so go read the post.