From the category archives:

Media

picture-6I sat down to watch Fox’s new reality series More to Love last night because, as a feminist and cultural critic, I felt like it was my solemn duty to do so. After 60 agonizing minutes, I can tell you that I won’t be doing that again.

Writer and fat activist Kate Harding had some interesting things to say about whether this kind of representation of plus-size women on TV is progress (and then had some even more nuanced things to say about it at her blog). I also read Marianne Kirby’s condemnation of the show here at the Daily Beast. But really, I didn’t think either of them went far enough in their critique.

More to Love is just as repulsive as The Bachelor, and for many of the same reasons. There are a boatload of women gasping about how cute the guy is; there are rivers of tears; there are several proclamations of, “This is a guy I think I could fall in love with,” even after spending approximately 30 seconds with him under the glare of cameras and lights. Both shows share that heady mix of despair (”I just want someone to love me!”) and desperation (the “look at me! Look at me!” antics). And there is similar casting: most women are white (on More to Love, there are no token black women, which struck me as odd, but there were a small handful of women who appeared to possibly be Latina), most are in their 20s (with one or two in their 30s, only to get booted off in short order), and there are a range of heights and hair colour.

So, really, in many respects the shows are exactly the same. Except More to Love, I’m sorry to say, is a freak show.

The mere fact that the premise is “lookit the fatties get with the fatty!” is what brings it to the doorstep of freak show; the execution, though, shoves it firmly into the freak show house of horror. First of all, when each woman is introduced to the audience through interview clips, her stats are also shown. Yes, age, height, weight are all there–though perhaps I should be grateful they stopped just short of BMI or waist-to-hip ratio?). And is not objectifying because…?

Secondly, the usual sobbing and mascara-running interview clips emphasized many of the women’s struggle with their weight, blaming their poor romantic track records on their body size. Now, I totally believe the women who said they had been dumped, etc. because their stupid boyfriends thought they were too fat. But framed in the context of a show like More to Love, all of life’s ills are going to come down to “too fat.” Most of the women on the show were in their 20s, and you know what? Maybe that has something to do with it. A lot of women date jerks and losers when they’re in their 20s, or have a hard time meeting the right guy. But a variable like that could never come into play on More to Love.

Why? Because the show’s narrative must be based on the premise that a fat woman’s body is aberrant in order for a transformation to take place. You know how these shows are: at the end, one woman is chosen to be The One (even though that lasts for all of 3 months, on average). In order to construct just the right romantic narrative, though, she must go from being the ugly duckling to the swan. She must be Changed by His Love, so much so that she Finally Accepts Herself. She must be Reborn by the “I’ve never felt this way before,” and “I never thought anyone could love me for me” and “I can’t believe I found my Prince Charming” lines that she inevitably utters in the final episode.

Okay, I could go on, but I’ll stop myself. The final thing I want to say is that the dude in question, Luke Conley, strikes me as a bit of an ass. It wasn’t his double-entendres that bothered me (what does he like to eat? Anything “thick and juicy”). It was his totally tacky methods for getting the women to hug and kiss him that I thought was revolting. “How do you say ‘kiss’ in Spanish?” he asked one woman. “Beso.” She said. “Can you share one with me?” he asked. “Um…” was her reply. Then an edit. Then cut to them kissing–while he was flanked on the other side with another woman. BAAARF.

Have you watched More to Love? Can you provide a justification for doing so?

{ 3 comments }

I’m not quite sure how to feel about a recent post at change.org announcing Oprah’s plan to make over a family homeless shelter. America’s talk show queen is pairing up with Benjamin Moore and has asked contestants to fill out an online form indicating in 100-200 words why their shelter is the most deserving of a makeover. The contest is now closed (sorry, folks), but I imagine a future episode of The Oprah Winfrey Show will be dedicated to unveiling the transformation.

My immediate response to this news included a requisite rolling of the eyes–which is often the case when I hear about yet another one of Oprah’s magical makeovers, favourite things giveaways, and other stunts that encourage endless consumption. And I always get miffed when I see corporate sponsorship disguised as benevolence. Oh, thank you, Benjamin Moore for donating what is probably a very negligible amount of paint and supplies in return for HUGE publicity.

Making over a homeless shelter seems like such a flawed idea. Is this really the best way to help homeless families that have been hit hard by the recession? It comes off as a frivolous gesture that doesn’t in any way tackle the real issues that homeless people face. Wouldn’t it be better to donate money towards the provision of basic needs like food and clothing, or perhaps building more shelters so that everyone without a home has a place to go?

But then I started thinking a bit more. I spend a lot of time enjoying the pleasures that are associated with being surrounded by beauty and beautiful things. And I’ve chosen to decorate my apartment in ways that make my space feel like a home to me. So is it fair to say that an aesthetically pleasing environment is a luxury that shouldn’t be afforded to the homeless? While Oprah’s homeless shelter makeover will in no way contribute to the elimination or reduction of homelessness or poverty, it will provide a certain amount of dignity to its recipients. And I think that feeling of dignity and overall comfort in having a reasonably updated home can go a long way to lifting people out of difficult situations.

Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, we all know that Oprah is a near-omnipotent media magnate who’s got the power to enlighten and persuade. Millions of people watch her show every day, and the topics she covers often inspire her viewers to take action and create change within their own lives and communities. If Oprah does a show that educates Americans and the world about the impact of the recession on the homeless population, I have no doubt that her viewers will respond and start making the types of contributions that do actually effect change. So Oprah redecorates a shelter, but then her viewers take on simpler yet equally meaningful tasks such as donating clothing, food and time to a local shelter.

So, as I continue to mull over the pros and cons of Oprah’s homeless shelter transformation, I’ll leave you with these questions: within the context of homelessness, is it sometimes necessary to balance pragmatic concerns with aesthetic, pleasure-driven ones? Is Oprah doing a good thing?

{ 3 comments }

If you caught Oprah yesterday, you saw Dane Cook, George Lopez and Mo’Nique doing and discussing comedy. The episode was nothing to write home about, really, except the release of the trailer for an Oprah co-pro (with Tyler Perry) called Precious–and believe me, this film has absolutely nothing to do with comedy. Rather, it looks like an amazing drama about a poor, young, American black woman struggling under horrific circumstances (an abusive mother and a pregnancy via her father, for starters). Apparently the film got lots of buzz at Sundance, but because I haven’t been on top of my Entertainment Weekly reading, this was the first I’d heard of it. The trailer sent goosebumps all over my body and, I will admit, made me cry (check it out below). When this movie is released this fall, I will be first in line to see it.

{ 1 comment }

Mother and baby gorilla by mape_sAs you are no doubt aware, Mother’s Day was on Sunday. I’m a mother, and so our little family did what you’re supposed to do on Mother’s Day–eat brunch. How are those two things related? I’m not sure, and yet doesn’t Mother’s Day brunch seem to have cemented in popular culture like Polygrip on dentures?

I’m also completely unsure as to why KFC continues to run those goddamn “Moms Night Off” ads, which seemed to be on TV all the time in the run-up to Mother’s Day. First of all, the whole concept is totally sexist. It’s a given in these ads that it’s mom who does all the cooking. Somebody alert Ward Cleaver, but that simply isn’t the reality in untold numbers of households. Secondly, it’s kind of insulting to suggest that if mom was going to take the night off once a week/month/year that her replacement would be KFC. If it’s going to be a treat for mom not to cook, why not actually have something nice for dinner? Thanks for making all those healthy meals, mom–now let’s chug back some Coke n’ trans fats. Finally, I’m vegetarian, so if my husband and kid ever said to me, “You know, you deserve a night off. Let’s get dead birds for dinner!” I’d probably swat them with my purse (in as loving a way as possible, natch).

Plus, is it just me or is there something about this meal that makes you want to barf?

moms-night-off-feast-top-eng

Like, seriously. I see this picture and I start laughing in order to stop myself from hurling. There’s something about the grease content on display here that makes my stomach lurch. Deep-fried chicken with deep-fried potatoes with deep-fried cheese sticks with–what is that?–macaroni salad, some greasy icing-laden cake and, deep in the background, a gesture at a vegetable with some cole slaw. And don’t forget about the bowl of thick, sticky brown grease masquerading as gravy. Fuckin’ UGH, man. Mom’s Night Out? Count me out.

{ 4 comments }

Holy mackerel. This is one time that I kinda have feelings of love for a bank. The spot features a trans woman in a totally respectful way. Amazing.

{ 7 comments }

The origins of teabagging

by Sabine on April 17, 2009 · 1 comment

in Media

Let’s close out this week at Confabulous by celebrating a little clip from John Waters’ film Pecker, the one that can be held responsible for, er, inserting the word “teabagging” into popular culture (h/t BoingBoing)

Happy weekend, all! See you on Monday!

{ 1 comment }

Marriage is So Gay by Mind on FireIf you’ve been living under the internet rock, you may not have yet seen that homophobic “Gathering Storm” advertisement that was released in the U.S. last week by an organization that calls itself National Organization for Marriage. I’ve decided not to post the ad here, but if you want to see it, go here. As you can guess, it’s an anti-gay marriage video, and completely homophobic. It’s a horrible piece of flimsy propaganda–the kind that you would swear was written by the people behind the Onion if you didn’t know better, the kind that makes you want to laugh out loud, except you can’t because you’re so pissed.

But it seems to me that this ad is an opportunity for Canadians to share with our American neighbours what it’s REALLY like to live in a country where gay marriage is legal. Um, except, when I was thinking about this, I really didn’t know what to say. You know why? Because HELLFIRE AND BRIMSTONE was not visited upon our nation when same-sex marriage law was ushered in. In fact, almost nothing happened–except a bunch of people who loved each other and wanted to get hitched went and got hitched. Woo! Cue the scary muuuusic!

But I really do want to share with our American readers a few things you need to know about how equal marriage has impacted the life of a heterosexual, married woman (with a baby!) in Canada (that would be me):

1. My marriage is not threatened by same-sex marriage. Here’s a newsflash for you: straight people are doing a fine and dandy job of eroding heterosexual marriages (what with that 50% divorce rate and all). All LGBTQ people want is to have the same rights as straight people, given that they are human beings, citizens and taxpayers. So the whole “My freedom will be taken away” thing–I totally don’t get it.

2. The issue of houses of worship having to choose between following the law and following the law of scripture: um, no. A church that doesn’t want to perform ceremonies between gay or lesbian couples will not be compelled to do so.

3. Then there’s the matter of schools teaching kids that gay marriage is okay. Um, yeah! Yeah, they are! So? (But this was happening before equal marriage was on the books in Canada; lots of schools and school boards across the country have been putting this into curriculum for over a decade now).

4. Frightened homophobe: “I will have no choice.” That’s right, you won’t. As a straight person living in a country where equal marriages are legal, you won’t have a choice. Live with it. I live in a country where I don’t have a choice about my tax dollars being spent on waging war. I don’t like it at all. Not a bit. But I continue to live here anyway.

5. “The storm is coming.” Seriously, I can tell you, no storm ever arrived in Canada once same-sex marriage was okay’ed, except the regular amounts of snow and rain that we usually get. What storm is coming? Which?

6. What’s with “A rainbow coalition of people from every creed and colour are coming together in love to protect marriage”? Listen, homophobes, DO NOT CO-OPT the love. Don’t even try it. Because WE–the LGBTQ community and its allies–have the love.

Now that we’ve gotten that overwith, here is the totally awesome parody (warning: do not drink any liquids whilst watching this vid. You may endanger your computer keyboard with your spit-take).

{ 2 comments }

Last Friday’s death of Wendy Ladner-Beaudry has gripped media attention and the city of Vancouver alike. It was a killing that appears to be totally random and completely senseless. Reports indicate that Ladner-Beaudry went out for a run in Pacific Spirit Park, and a few hours later, her body was found beside one of the many trails that wind through the park.

I thought what Michel Beaudry said about his wife yesterday was really beautiful. Reported the Globe and Mail:

“She died doing what she loved most,” said Mr. Beaudry, a well-known outdoors writer and mountain adventurer. “We would ask anyone who has any knowledge of suspicious behaviour in the area to notify the police and help us take back this park for the safe enjoyment of everyone, especially the women who value it so much.”

But I get really irritated when these attacks are followed by the usual police warnings about women’s safety (don’t go into the park by yourself, don’t go out at night on your own, yadda, yadda). It completely misplaces the emphasis on individual women, rather than on actually targeting perpetrators and a culture that is unsafe for women.

I’m also wondering why, when apparently there is little evidence regarding who committed the murder, the finger-pointing has begun with the city’s homeless. Obviously the investigation should cover all possible bases, but that kind of reporting just adds to erroneous beliefs about poor and indigent people, and it fans the flames of fear-mongering that conventional media seems to relish.

{ 0 comments }

herizons-winter-2009-coverKudos to Penni Mitchell and the gang over at HerizonsCanada’s magazine of feminism, for a great winter issue–definitely one of their best ever!
 
Highlights include this feature on Serena Ryder, an article on homelessness in Canada’s North, and this piece by Renée Bondy, exploring some of the sad and sorry reasons why some young women (among them, Women’s Studies’ students!) are reluctant to use “woman” or “women” to describe themselves and their friends (instead, many feel “ho” is more appropriate/affective nominclature). Outstanding–but not online–is Kaj Hasselriis’ story on feminist MP and role model Judy Wasylycia-Leis; any woman interested in getting in the political game should check it out.
 
Want a copy? Herizons is available in better book and magazine stores everywhere. Better yet, why not subscribe?

{ 0 comments }

Schick website Oh, ma ga. Parlaying our culture’s current fascination with hairless lady parts, Wilkinson Sword’s Quattro for Women has released a new ad in the UK…and the not-so-subtle tagline is, ahem, “Mow the lawn.” The UK/ European version of the ad features a variety of multicultural women gleefully pushing lawnmowers and happily wielding hedge clippers while singing a catchy little tune about the joys of shaving. The US version for Schick Quattro is much more toned down and totally humourless–that one features women walking past bushes that magically shrink and become all tidy. Of course the European version is much more campy than the US version–and as a result, the humour diminishes the potential offensive-ness.

Debate about women’s, um, bushes aside, one thing that really did bother me about the UK ad was that, despite the happy multi-culti faces, there were still some racial sterotypes that were reinforced. Specifically, at one point, a black woman sings, “Some bushes are mighty big,” and then it cuts to a dainty-looking Asian woman in front of what appears to be a bonsai tree who sings, “Some gardens are really small.” UGH. Yes, ladies, apparently even the volume of our pubic hair is determined by “race”!

Judge for yourself. Here’s the “naughty” UK version:

And the boring North American version:

So, what do you think? When you laugh at ads like this, are you doing so in spite of yourself? Or do the yuks take the politics away?

Thanks to Divine Caroline for being the source for the original clip.

{ 12 comments }