Via The Guardian:

The BBC today asked users of its news website “Should homosexuals face execution?” on a talkboard discussion for a World Service programme for African listeners. Posted on a BBC News premoderated talkboard, the thread was designed to provoke discussion ahead of the latest edition of interactive World Service programme Africa Have Your Say.

“Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question, but this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death,” the post said. The talkboard post asked users to send in their views to the programme, which goes out on the World Service and is also available online.

“Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual ‘offences’ be monitored?,” the post added. Premoderated posts included one from Chris, Guildford, posted at 8.59am, which attracted 51 recommendations of support. He wrote: “Totally agree. Ought to be imposed in the UK too, asap. Bring back some respectable family values. Why do we have to suffer ‘gay pride’ festivals? Would I be allowed to organise a ’straight pride’ festival? No, thought as much!! If homosexuality is natural, as we are forced to believe, how can they sustain the species? I suggest all gays are put on a remote island somewhere and left for a generation – after which, theoretically there should be none left!”

Another, from Aaron in Freetown, said: “Bravo to the Ugandans for this wise decision, a bright step in eliminating this menace from your society. We hope other African nations will also follow your bold step.”

The Africa Have Your Say programme aired at 4pm today. By 5.30pm, the headline of the discussion had been changed to “Should Uganda debate gay execution?”.

Liliane Landor, the BBC World Service acting head of Africa region, defended the radio programme and talkboard post, saying it allowed gays and lesbians from Uganda, whose voices have never been heard in the UK, to talk with dignity about the impact the legislation would have on their lives. The show also included the opinion of those who supported the anti-homosexual legislation, including religious leaders, she said. “The programme was a dignified exchange between people who have differing beliefs,” Landor added.

Given that it is aimed at an African audience, and given that much of that audience probably never heard LGBT persons and allies marshall their points before they were shouted down, the decision might be defensible. It is the obligation of the liberal to stimulate dialogue where they have no legislative or policing power of their own. And also offer asylum.

However, this argument is contingent upon the intended audience. If the post had been seriously posing the question to Westerners, Landor would deserve to be fired. Hard.

Via Publishers’ Weekly’s The Beat:

A few months ago Marvel announced that 2010 would see a big push for some events built around women — as characters, as creators, and as readers. Here’s one of the first projects out of the box, GIRL COMICS, a three-issue anthology miniseries much in the spirit of STRANGE TALES, featuring comics created exclusively BY women. And that means writing, lettering, drawing — everything.Contributors include Kathryn Immonen, Marjorie Liu, Devin Grayson, Ann Nocenti, Trina Robbins, G. Willow Wilson, Stephanie Buscema, Amanda Conner, Jill Thompson, Louise Simonson, Valerie D’Orazio, Colleen Coover, Molly Crabapple, Nikki Cook, Ming Doyle, Abby Denson, and Carla Speed McNeil. The book is edited by Jeanine Schaefer, and we’re happy to debut the cover of the first issue, by Amanda Conner, colored by Laura Martin.

I can’t say anything about any of the contributors listed. The only names in comics I know are the blockbuster indie stars, and all male; Alan Moore, Art  Spiegelman, Bill Williangham, and of course, Joss Whedon (and the latter I don’t know by his comics work. I picked up like two copies of Buffy Season 8 before the shame of buying comic books overwhelmed me.). So I cannot speak to how or if women creators were selected on a meritocratic basis from the female-creator pool.

If the best female creators weren’t picked, is the whole undertaking a stunt condescending to women? Or do female fans and creators, underrepresented in the comics community, need the publicity boost as a means of advancement?

Editor & Publisher Closing
Trade publication Editor & Publisher, which tracks the newspaper industry, is folding as Nielsen Business Media sells eight of its titles to a joint venture of Pluribus Capital Management and Guggenheim Partners. The Hollywood Reporter …

Nielsen shuts down Editor & Publisher, Kirkus Reviews …
Nielsen Business Media announced on Thursday it will shut down two venerable trade magazines: Editor & Publisher, which has covered the newspaper industry since the turn of the 20th century, and Kirkus Reviews, the 76-year-old trade …

Editor & Publisher To Close, After Failed Attempts To Sell It …
Along with the announcement of the sale of Nielsen Business Medias (NBM) eight media titles, one thing was obvious: the buyers party didnt want anything to do with Editor & Publisher. Neither did anyone else. After attempts to sell …

AMERICAblog News| A great nation deserves the truth: Editor …
News and opinion about US politics from a liberal perspective.

Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews Will Stop Publication; Other …
Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Review, two venerable chronicles of the newspaper and book publishing industries, are closing as their owner, Nielsen Business Media, gets out of the trade publication business. …

Editor & Publisher shuts down – LA Observed
Editor & Publisher shuts down Kevin Roderick December 10 2009 8:55 AM. The chronicle of the newspaper industry has been around 1901. Kirkus Reviews, around since 1933, is also killed by owner Nielsen Business Media, which completed …

Editor & Publisher Closing | Online | Mediaite
Today is a sad, defining day for the media industry: Editor & Publisher announced to staffers that it will be shutting down by the end of the year. E&P has been in print for 125 years, and was the leading trade publication covering the …

Editor & Publisher closing after 108 years | Antiwar Newswire
The Nielsen Co. is selling some of its most prominent trade journals including The Hollywood Reporter and Billboard and shutting down Editor & Publisher, which has chronicled the newspaper business for 108 years. …

Nielsen Finally Sells Adweek And THR, Shutters Editor & Publisher
“This move will allow us to strengthen investment in our core businesses those parts of our portfolio that have the greatest potential for growth and ensure our long-term success.”

Can you please recommend me a magazine editor/maker software?
I really want to be an author, i love writing and have written a few novels but i don’t know how i would get to an editor then publisher, and i don’t know if i want to go that far yet because im only 15. . .I have seen sights like www.worthyofpublishing.com but i don’t know whether it is safe to put my stories on without my ideas being stolen… but if you put your stories on people can criticize them for you and give you advise and occasionally some publishes see stories and end up publishing them… Do you think it is worth putting them on these sites?

Publishing Stories to Websites?
I need to cite a book called Ultimate Biography. It doesn’t have a specific author, but rather the different editors, directors, and contributors. I figure I should attribute the book to the contributors, but there are seven of them. Is there a way to do this? Should I just use the publisher? And I need to do this in Chicago format. Thanks!

How to cite multiple authors chicago style?
What are some companies in Canada that publish magazines? I’m the editor of a zine and I was thinking of getting it published.

Thanks!

Magazine Publishers In Canada?
My kid is writing a book, and I think it’s good. When she’sdone with it, I want to see if someone can publish it for $. Of course I’d give it to my little one though. It’s rightfully hers. But please help, my girl wants to be an author and says, why not start now. And her book is almost done,and if anyone is a publisher, or knows somebody, please tell me! And maybe an editor, too……..

In a book written by a kid, who do you ask to publish it?

What kind of college degree do you need to be a book editor/publisher?
I am a sophomore in high school and recently I have been interested in becoming either a book editor or publisher.I would like more information about both of these careers. I’m not sure what is needed in college for that or if it would be a good field to go into. Any help?

If I want to go into publishing/editing, what would I major in in college?
I was wondering if the author decides on it, or if the publisher/editor, or someone else.

Who decides the final cover art to go an author’s novel?
But it’s not even finished yet. It’s a trilogy, and I’m about 1/3 of the way through with the 1st book. Should I start contacting publishers and editors now, or what? I’m completely new to the publishing business. Although, when I get out of school, I really want to be an author for novels and whatnot. Any tips—especially if you’ve got experience in the publishing/editing business–would be GREATLY appreciated.

Here’s the idea for my trilogy: http://theblackseries.yolasite.com/

I’m writing a book, and it seems to be a pretty awesome idea…?
ok….dont pay any attention to the stuff down there. i had to get my friend to email me some homework and i couldnt check my email on my school laptop and my jumpdrive wasnt working right so i had to post this and blah blah blah….it really doesnt matter…
Key Terms for Literature

Connotative – the quality of using the words of feeling associated with the word instead of its dictionary definition

Denotative – the quality of being a sign of; indicating

Pun – a joke exploiting the different possible meanings of a word or the fact that there are words that sound alike but have different meanings

Homographic pun – a joke exploiting two or more words that are spelled the same but do not have necessarily the same pronunciation or meaning

Homophonic pun – a joke exploiting two or more words that have the same pronunciation but do not necessarily have the same spelling, origin, or meaning

Comedian – an entertainer whose act is designed to make an audience laugh.

Humor – the quality of being amusing or comic, esp. as expressed in literature or speech
-a mood or state of mind

Humorist – a humorous writer, performer, or artist.

Cartoon – a simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way, esp. a satirical one in a newspaper or magazine
-a motion picture using animation techniques to photograph a sequence of drawings rather than real people or objects.
- a full-size drawing made by an artist as a preliminary design for a painting or other work of art

Comic strip – a sequence of drawings in boxes that tell an amusing story, typically printed in a newspaper or comic book

Character – the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual
-a person in a novel, play, or movie.
-a printed or written letter or symbol.

Flat Character – a minor character in a work of fiction who does not undergo substantial change or growth in the course of a story; minor character

Protagonist – the leading character or one of the major characters in a drama, movie, novel, or other fictional text; major character

Conflict – a struggle between opposing forces

Internal Conflict – A struggle that takes place in a character’s mind

Point of View – a particular attitude or way of considering a matter

Editorial – an article in a newspaper or other periodical presenting the opinion of the publisher, editor, or editors

Symbolism – using something specific to stand for something else, especially an idea. A symbol is a person, place, object or action that for something beyond itself

Irony – a contrast between what is expected and what actually exists or happens. Irony spices up a literary work by adding unexpected twists and allowing the reader to become more involved with the characters and plot.

Verbal Irony – when the speaker means something totally different than what he or she is saying and often times the opposite of what a character is saying is true.

Situational irony – the difference between what is expected to happen and the way events actually work out.

Dramatic Irony – occurs when facts are not known to the characters in a work of literature but are known by the audience.

Exaggeration – a figure of speech in which the truth is stretched for emphasis or humorous effect. (hyperbole)

Understatement – a statement that is restrained in ironic contrast to what might have been said; the opposite of hyperbole, usually used for a humorous effect.

Mood – a mood or atmosphere is the feeling that a literary work conveys to readers. Mood is created through the use of plot, character, the authors descriptions, etc

Tone – the writers attitude or feeling about his or her subject.

Flashback – an interruption of the chronological sequence (as in a film or literary work) of an event of earlier occurrence. A flashback is a narrative technique that allows a writer to present past events during current events, in order to provide background for the current narration.

Foreshadowing – when the writer provides clues or hints that suggest or predict future event in a story.

Static character – a character who does not change or who changes very little in the course of a story.

Round Character – is a character who is fully described by the author

Antagonist – a character in a story or poem who deceives, frustrates, or works against the main character, or protagonist, in some way. The antagonist doesnt necessarily have to be a person

External Conflict – the problem or struggle that exists between the main character and an outside force

Theme – a common thread or repeated idea that is incorporated throughout a literary work. A theme is a thought or idea the author presents to the reader about life or human nature.

Generally, a theme has to be extracted as the reader explores the passages of a work

Characterization – all of the techniques that writers use to create characters – describe the distinctive nature or features of

Allusion – a reference

what is your favorite breed of dog?
I am only a teenager but i am writing a novel. But before i go ahead an write the entire thing, i would like to know how to find an editor. Also if anyone knows how to get a contract with a publisher could you please add that into your answer. I am knew to this author thing and I need to know some stuff to get started.

editor and publisher magazine, editor and publisher yearbook, editor and publisher jobs, editor and publisher market guide, editor and publisher annual directory of syndication services, editor and publisher online, editor and publisher classifieds, editor and publisher syndicate directory, editor and publisher interactive, editor and publisher journal, EP, newsrooms, North American, newsprint, periodical article, 10-21, Ron Davidson, News Business, Watchdog Reports, Media Analysis, syndicates, Porterville Recorder, Tribune Company, Information Authority, Elliott, Community Journalism

Further delving into the mess that is the “infantilisation of women”, I started looking at specific examples that some sites were giving, mostly focusing on the clothing and appearance of women in advertising. Some prominent examples were white socks, black maryjane shoes, tartan skirts and pigtails. I also found a raging debate on Halloween costumes for women, and how they were forcing women to dress as children. I absolutely don’t believe that the infantilisation of women is detrimental, perhaps because I actively choose to present myself in this way. I tend to take things like this personally, because I find it deeply patronising for people to suggest that the way I choose to present myself is a product of me being oppressed or not knowing my own mind.

These are some examples of “slut costumes”, which employ childish imagery, blurring boundaries between the sexualisation of childhood symbols and the infantilisation of women.

(images from http://www.zoogstercostumes.com/landing/slut.php)

“I’m speechless, and dumbfounded that any self-respecting woman would ever want to wear something labeled ’slutty.’ Then again, there are a lot of women out there with no respect for themselves. Has it ever occurred to you that the reason some women (heh, certainly not the kind of women I associate with) have virtually no awareness of why these are wrong because they’ve been raised under this sexualized environment their entire lives? Every single one of my female friends agrees on how disgusting these costumes are.” (Quote from unknown author, discussing these sorts of costumes)

This is exactly what I have an objection to with “feminism”, “the feminist view point”, etc. – either women have an understanding of the issues and agree with you, or they are too poorly educated to make their own decisions, hence disagreeing with you and needing to be informed as to “why they are wrong”. To disagree with this sentiment is to have your character attacked – if you don’t conform to the view that women should not dress in this way, you don’t have any self-respect, and you don’t have any social awareness. I have chosen to try to be as educated as I can be on these issues, but I still see nothing wrong with these costumes. I would actively choose to wear them, I think they are very aesthetically pleasing. And I think this is the difference – I embrace the idea of using the female body as a means of expression, that female bodies are viewed and objectified constantly, so I try to use this to my advantage in expressing myself. I tend to put a lot of thought into my appearance, because I use it to express identity, but also irony. I like to dress in such a way that makes me look childish, despite the fact that I am always very conscious that it sexualises me to a high degree – just adding pigtails to any outfit is pretty much guaranteed to make you look like a “slut”. I enjoy looking like this, and expressing myself in this way. I see it as an expression of irony in that I like to dress conservatively but sexually – kneehigh socks, argyle-print jumpers, pigtails, ribbons – particularly when I feel like conforming to stereotypes in sitting quietly, vacantly, twisting my pigtails around my fingers, and then do something to completely invalidate that view. I feel much more inclined to stand up to the men who want to trample on my views when I look like this, because of confidence. And I know this is sad, and I should go along the line of “appearance isn’t important” and be a good little feminist, but I think that the halo effect is very prominent – people are going to be more likely to listen to you if you’re attractive.

I like to pretend, and I like to use my body as a means of expression seeing as women are objectified constantly. I’m not all that sure what point it has, but it’s something I like to do, a form of expression that is important to me, and I find it more degrading for people to suggest that the way I choose to express myself is a product of my social ignorance than material that infantilises women. In my view, women are more infantilised – taught to be passive, taught that they need to be looked after, protected – by the view that women need to be saved from certain types of media.

“At the same time, we oppose the notion, advanced by anti-pornography feminists, that women can never make free, voluntary choices to participate in the production of pornography, and that they are always coerced, whether they realize it or not.  This infantilization of women denies them the freedom of choice to engage in otherwise legal activities. “
“Even consensual, nonviolent sex, according to MacKinnon and Dworkin, is an evil from which women — like children — must be protected.  Such thinking is a throwback to the archaic stereotypes of the 19th century that formed the basis for enacting laws to “protect” women from vulgar language (and from practicing law or sitting on juries lest they be subjected to such language).  Paternalistic legislation such as that advocated by MacKinnon and Dworkin has always functioned to prevent women from achieving full legal equality.” – ACLU

So, today the Tribune ran a story on the Women and Gender Studies Program. In the print edition,* the story is headed with a collage-type  graphic featuring the pictures of 20 students, 10 men and 10 women of all stripes: Contemplative Looking Woman! White Dude with Dreadlocks! ROTC Guy! Cheerleader! Hipster! Totally Nondescript Males No. 1-3! Girl in Hijab! Basketball Player! Man on Cell Phone! I hadn’t realized the WGSP hosted such a diverse array of persons. Heck, I didn’t even realized there were twenty people in the program.

That’s because there aren’t. The program, as the piece itself notes, has five (5) people enrolled for WGS major, and eight (8) for the minor. Whereas most readers would be predisposed to assume a collage of portraits posted in conjunction with a story about a major/minor pictured people actually enrolled in it, this does not seem to be the case unless seven people are there for filler. It seems the people photographed were selected simply because they were people with genders.

Of course, the reporter cannot necessarily be faulted for the graphics to go with the story. However, they are responsible for a somewhat narrow focus which might leave interested parties with questions. Only reporting how many people are majors and minors misrepresents the real scope of the program. There are dozens, more likely hundreds of students enrolled in courses that count towards the completion of a WGS program. Obviously, dozens of people enrolled in classes like Women in Literature, Intro to Feminist Philosophy, Psychology of Sexuality, Sociology of Gender or suchlike could probably guess their courses count. But I enrolled in a WGSP class without even realizing it. It wasn’t my first choice, but my schedule was wonky and I needed an elective, so for spring I signed up for Comm. 4100, Mass Media and the American Family. Only in the second step of registering did I see the WGSP notation.

The Tribune piece points readers to a few people they could talk to about breaking into the program, but doesn’t list or describe any of the actual coursework that it would entail. Instead, most of the piece concerns itself with what “gender” is, the history of the department and what it calls itself (for this section, there are big pink-purple graphics), and paraphrasing of quotes about the reception of the program.

Dunno. I can’t presume to speak for the administrators of WGSP, who for all I know might appreciate the publicity. Anyone enrolled have an opinion on the piece? Are my criticisms fair, or I am merely the Spirit that negates/convinced all that comes to be/deserves to perish wretchedly?

*The online edition’s illustration is a kind of A Chorus Line silhouette lineup.

Update: I realized “dishonestly” wasn’t an entirely fair descriptor, and have changed the headline accordingly.

These images are from the Chanel Spring Collection 2010, which I was alerted to by the postings of fashion students. Initially, my interest was that the clothes seem to make the models look younger than they probably are, like they are emulating lolita fashion, but in the mainstream. I’m interested in why it’s big business to parade young women in childish clothes around in front of crowds of onlookers judging them solely on their appearance. This sort of mass objectification and judgement of looks is ok in this context, but not in others. Is this because fashion is fantasy, not reality? The images seem to mix the sort of floral dresses found in childhood, with symbols of sexualisation like high heels and what look like stockingtops, merging innocence with sexuality. If such a big fashion label is doing this, it must be a desirable way to look, even in the mainstream. I wonder what the difference between this and images of child beauty pageants is, seeing as essentially they do the same thing – why are child beauty pageants outside acceptability, but fashion is ok? Well, more than ok – a subject to be studied at university. Clearly it’s going to be accepted by the university itself if it teaches it. Does it cover childrens’ fashion? Basically, society seems to be saying that it’s accepted, even expected, that women will be objectified and judged on their looks, but they must be over a certain age before it’s ok to do this. It’s age that determines the acceptability of this, not that it’s ever actually unacceptable to objectify a person.

Some of the images from the Chanel collection were so sinister that I saw them as images that seem to subvert fashion, presumably without realising it. I decided to draw the image above because the jaunty, oddly angled, skeletal frame of the model, combined with the dark, sunken eyes made me remember discussing ‘dead’ models in fashion and advertising, and I thought this was a good example. To me, it is an image that shows the contortion of the model to put herself into a shape that is most aesthetically pleasing to the audience, but she becomes grotesque in her pursuit of aesthetics. I wanted to highlight the uncomfortable angles of her limbs, the severely thin waist, the shadows in the crook of her arm where the skin is tightly drawn across the bone, the attention-seeking halted pose of her legs, the dark-ringed eyes, the painfully pouted lips. I view the images with an almost morbid curiosity, and sadness, but this is just what I get from it – I know that other people have very different opinions, and I’m just glad that I’m not one of the awful feminists who believe that feminism entails dissuading women from their career choices because they don’t agree with them, so obviously the women aren’t intelligent enough to choose for themselves, so must be helped. I wouldn’t say I’m against fashion, just against it being seen differently to other forms of female advertising.

I wanted to paint this in a light, sensitive way, but to have it express the hollowness of the images presented by fashion. I think it displays a subtle part of my working process in that whenever drawing portraits, the last element I add is the pupils of the eyes. I’ve been told that my paintings look hollow, unreal, uncomfortable, creepy, until they are complete because of this, which is why I chose to leave this one ‘unfinished’. As with most of my work, I wanted to emphasise the makeup on the model, mostly through the blusher highlighting her cheekbones, as I liked the idea of her having blushing, rosy cheeks, red lips, made somewhat sinister through her empty eyes.

I’m not all that pleased with the paintings I produced, but I do like that they convey similar emotions to those evoked by the original photos. I decided to paint from them because I was feeling at a bit of a loss, and wanted to see if doing something practical would spark more ideas. It made me start to think of using fashion photography or painting from fashion photography, accompanied with text that attempts to advertise or sell the model rather than the clothes or products. It’s something I’ll have to think about a lot more, particularly as I have no experience in typography, design, advertising, etc. but maybe it’s something I can look at further in the future.

This is a biro sketch from an image of a runway model. I used to draw mainly in pencil, but I’m finding that I want the more definite markmaking of pen in my sketches at the moment. I’m not really going for the detail and shading found in pencil drawings, but instead want to convey expression, and I find drawing in pen cathartic, whereas pencil is painstaking and has too much room to erase mistakes.

I started looking at fashion and runway models because of the postings of fashion students on my university blog. I’ve always had an interest in fashion in that I enjoy drawing attractive women in pretty clothes, which meant my family thought I may go into fashion as I spent most of my childhood drawing women. In encouraging my interest in fashion, they even bought me a toy drawing set in which you could set up the pieces, splitting the outline of the same impossibly proportioned female body into head, torso, and legs, selecting her outfit, mixing different hats, dresses, shoes, etc. which could then be traced and coloured in. I think this is testimony to how things are taken literally, and according to convention. Me drawing women had to be about the fashion, not about drawing the female body, and I wonder how this would have been interpreted if I was male. Similarly, it was taken as a literal statement, that I enjoyed fashion, whereas obviously really I wasn’t drawing the clothing, but even in drawing attractive women, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I’m doing it for the enjoyment of it – I’ve always wanted to put different themes and meanings into my drawings, even if they tend to take a common expression.

Anyway, the image above captured my imagination because I’ve never seen such an asexual portrayal of lingerie. It made me consider that maybe fashion works on the exact opposite principles of music video, but for the same end – they both desire to sell a product through their advertising, and use the objectification of women to do so, but in different ways. From my perspective, fashion tends to portray women as pure figures with no sexuality. I’d go so far as to say that they’re presented as having nothing beyond their appearance – no sexuality, but also no personality, no emotions, no thoughts. It seems like they’re stripped down to basics, that they are walking mannequins, hollow and void to accentuate their clothes and/or makeup. I think that this is part of fashion models being so thin – they have no flesh in order to make sure that they cannot be interpreted sexually in fear of this detracting from their purpose to draw attention to the products they are advertising.

Alternatively, other advertising media, for example music videos, television and magazine advertising, etc. tend to objectify women differently, through attempting to sell products through sexuality. Media such as this tends to accentuate and fetishise the body parts of models that are overlooked in fashion – breasts, hips, ass. Women in runway fashion tend to be so desexualised that even when exposing parts of their body that would generally be seen in a sexual context, they are still not sexualised, but instead objectified. Fashion seems to give the view that beauty is removed from sexuality – that fashion models are beautiful because they have no hint of sexuality, even when in outfits that show most of their body they cannot be seen sexually, somehow proving that they have pure feminine beauty instead of the more shallow beauty created by sexuality. By doing this, it places all focus on aesthetics, whereas arguably sexual beauty can be to do with aspects that are not about appearance.

The fashion industry interests me because models have a career based solely on their physical appearance – is it possible to value other aspects of yourself as highly as your appearance when it is that that gives you status, a job, etc.? To me, if music video, advertising or pornography are to be seen as the exploitation of women, then so must fashion. That’s not to say that any of them are ‘bad’, they are all just reflections on society that can be learned from, but I think there needs to be some awareness that it is not just the types of media that can be easily demonified that give stereotyped, objectifying views of women.

This week in baseball books, featuring the best-sellers according to Amazon.com on Friday, December 4.

Title	Rank
General
Baseball Americana: Treasures from the Library of Congress (565)	1
The Yankee Years, by Joe Torre and Tom Verducci (731)	2
The Machine: A Hot Team, a Legendary Season, and a Heart-stopping World Series: The Story of the 1975 Cincinnati Reds, by Joe Posnanski (1,020)	3
Sixty Feet, Six Inches: A Hall of Fame Pitcher & a Hall of Fame Hitter Talk about How the Game is Played, by Bob Gibson, Reggie Jackson, and Lonnie Wheeler(1,192)	4
Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, by Michael Lewis (1,597)	5
Essays and Writing
Sixty Feet Six Inches	1
Moneyball	2
Now I Can Die in Peace: How The Sports Guy Found Salvation Thanks to the World Champion (Twice!) Red Sox, by Bill Simmons (3,856)	3
Sports Illustrated: The Baseball Book (4,428)	4
As They See ‘Em: A Fan’s Travels in the Land of Umpires, by Bruce Weber (4,807)	5
History
The Machine	1
Sixty Feet, Six Inches	2
Game Six: Cincinnati, Boston, and the 1975 World Series: The Triumph of America’s Pastime, by Mark Frost (2,492)	3
Satchel: The Life and Times of an American Legend, by Larry Tye (3,552)	4
Now I Can Die in Peace	5
Statistics
The Bill James Handbook 2010 (2,746)
The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010 (7,368)	2
2010 Baseball Forecaster, by Ron Shandler (8.809)	3
Baseball Prospectus 2010 (10,476)	4
Watching Baseball Smarter: A Professional Fan’s Guide for Beginners, Semi-experts, and Deeply Serious Geeks, by Zack Hample (11,932)	5

Analysis: Baseball Americana jumps to the top spot, since it’s getting down to the wire for gift-giving time. Perhaps that’s why most of the rankings are so much lower. Gift books and overall bestsellers leap to higher slots, pushing these older titles down. new season draws nearer.

Larry Tye’s Satchel returns to the top 5, aided, no doubt, by its inclusion on The New York Times‘ list of notable books for 2009.

Marissa Evangs briefly profiles Pres. James McCabe, who first admitted women to MU.  

Alexander Engler writes about gender equity, interviewing (among others) Empowerment co-chair Desiree Valentine offers the most conscise and public articulation of our group’s goals: 

According to Valentine, the group looks to move past formal equality, or equality under the law, which she believes the feminist movement has already achieved. Instead, she said Empowerment aims to remove de facto discrimination, or discrimination by practice.

Rosemary Lane  debunks of the Disney myth:

Disney’s early princesses pave the way for passive princesses. They wait for the prince, look pretty, sleep, talk with animals and sing. Only a man’s kiss literally brings them back to life. Snow White was the “one who started it all.” Disney’s first princess, spawned in 1937, was modeled after the pin-up girls and silent movie actresses of the ’30s, wrote Elizabeth Bell in “From Mouse to Mermaid.” She was “the fairest of them all,” reinforced by her name, Snow White: fair-skinned, blue-eyed, slender, docile and happy to sweep the floor of the seven dwarf’s cottage, as blue jays and deer tapped on the window. Walt Disney described her as “a kind, simple little girl who believed in wishing and waiting for her prince charming to come along.”

Ashley Dobner, a junior in the College of Business Administration, said when she was 7 years old, she asked her mom why Snow White couldn’t get up on her own. “I always wondered why she needed someone to kiss her to wake up,” Dobner said. “If it’s that simple, why not get up?”

There are also articles about cosmetic surgery among the young , idealization of the feminine body and idealization of the masculine body. On newsstands now. Check it.

I’ll be honest, I went on a little bit of an Amanda Palmer binge last night…. If I’m painfully honest, this went on until 5am. I tend to get a little obsessed with things that inspire me, but I hope that it doesn’t just seem like I like her music so want to use her in my art. I think she’s an incredible performer, not just musically but through her acting, expression and articulation of her work. She seems like she has a lot of creative control over what she’s doing – her music videos often seem so amateur – she even produces videos that seem to be just for fun, like lipsyncing to the songs of others, often in public. To me, that’s performance art, akin to Improv Everywhere, or such like. I’m hoping that this work is seen as art… Some times I’m unsure, but I feel that analysing media is an important part of my practice, otherwise I don’t think I’d have a practice. I do feel that I’m not producing much of my own though – I’m finding it hard to apply what I’m learning to what I want to create myself.

I thought this video was worth talking about because it’s another that sparked controversy. The record label had an objection to part of this video, and requested that it was edited. Any ideas what this might be? I’ve heard the suggestions of underage dancers, gay kissing, violence towards women…. No, no dice. The answer is, in fact, Amanda’s “uncommercially fat” stomach. I think this just illustrates how hard it is to deviate from the mainstream – people seem to suggest that it would be better to have images of “real women” in the media, but this isn’t going to happen while companies think that the only way to sell products is to use impossibly thin, unreal women, and that anything else is likely to result in a loss of sales.

I thought this video linked really well to what I’ve already mentioned on Protest Art, as this performance has nothing to do with music – it’s all acting and sociopolitical statement. It conveys such collective passion for a cause, which makes sense considering what Proposition 8, or the California Marriage Protection act, was. How a statement like “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” can have been passed to become part of the California constitution in modern society is beyond me. I think that a video like this is quite confrontational and can be interpreted as negative stereotyping of the gay community, but, at the same time, I think that it conveys righteous anger and is a very honest portrayal of using subversion to lash out at authority. Expressions like this tend to be read as immature or reactionary, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong in presenting your emotions like this – it’s concentrated emotional reaction, and that’s important in art. If I were to ever be part of something like this, I would feel proud of it because it doesn’t compromise in fear of what people might think of it.

I think I engage with this video because it looks so amateur. It may be that that’s just how it was intended to look, but I get the feeling that these videos aren’t filmed in the same way as mainstream music videos. I’m also reading into it something that it probably wasn’t intended as, but I see it as very relevant to the art scene – to me, it’s a piece on censorship, that the expression the protagonist wants to undertake is stifled, and it becomes obsessive, aggressive, in an attempt to convey their thoughts, but convention and the mainstream won’t allow it. I think I probably got this particularly because of the lyrics “I fought the British and I won”. Britain is very lucky to have the degree of freedom of expression that it does, but at the same time, it’s not up to scratch. British censorship is much stricter than other Western countries, particularly in regard to art. It may seem strong, but I think it is going into the realm of thought-crime – when you can be arrested for taking a photo of a child in public, when this isn’t a crime, it’s getting out of hand.

From looking at conventional music videos, I wanted to go on to look at videos that I’ve always thought conveyed a strong sense of irony.

My first thought was this video, which has a strong female sexuality, but it’s not the conventional sort presented by the media. Everything is done with such aggressive satire and irony, possibly because this video gives power to the female  – they know they are being seen sexually, but use this to their advantage. This isn’t something generally presented in mainstream media, and I think videos like this help to try to put things into context. This video shows sexuality, but is it more or less acceptable than mainstream portrayals of women in music videos?

Ironic statements on, well, anything, seem to be far less accepted than mainstream sentiments, even if people don’t necessarily agree with the mainstream. It seems like people are used to what they’re used to and don’t want to alter their opinions because of it, which is why I deeply admire Amanda Palmer as an artist. The song and video “Oasis” was banned from being played on the radio or tv in the UK, because of the view that it “makes light of rape, abortion and religion” (What’s wrong with that?) It can be seen that way, but it can also be seen as irony, which is what it was intended as. I see it as a really powerful piece, because it conforms to all the traditions and conventions of a pop song, but subverts it superbly. I think it’s much like how art must some times use the form of mainstream media to be relevant – obeying convention some times makes things more powerful, and I want to learn how to use this to my advantage. There are a few examples of this in “Oasis”, through using knowledge of music to create something that’s mainstream, yet subversive, as with backing vocals creating the idea of an 80s pop song, and changes in tempo or key highlighting changes in the story.

I want to include some quotes from Amanda Palmer -

“as i was walking over to the bbc the other day and my label rep mentioned that they might not let me play “oasis” on the air, i suggested that i might be allowed to play it if i just slowed it way down and played it in a minor key.
think about it. if they heard the same lyrics against the backdrop of a very sad and liliting piano, maybe with some tear-jerking strings thrown in for good measure, would they take issue?”

It shows that context is really important – you can use the same material, so long as you’re using it in a conventional way. It’s like, if I’d used the images that people took issue to to make the point that pornography is wrong, immoral, etc. then maybe people wouldn’t have had such a problem.

“our collective freedom to approach situations with humor, with irony, with anger, with sadness, with darkness, with an edge, from a different perspective, from within the situation…it’s essential. we have to agree about this or we all get in trouble… an artist’s (and a human being’s) freedom to do that, without fear of retribution, is the cornerstone of what keeps the world moving forward, not backwards, not standing still… should we just cry about it demurely and hope that the proper reaction, the one that society deems appropriate, will make it go away?”

I deeply enjoy irony and want to look at ideas of satire further – it’s just often hard to do well.

After considering the gender stereotyping of music videos, I decided to look at some for myself. I wasn’t quite sure where to start – what counts as sexist? A quick google search suggested that I must’ve meant “sexiest music videos”, so I figured same difference…

So I tried to take Maxim’s word for it, and looked at some of the 20 sexiest music videos. A few of which started to capture my imagination in trying to think about them critically.

I found this one curious, because the makeup of the women is done to a point where it looks grotesque. Therefore, I tried to view it as an exercise into irony and self-validation. The lyrics “Watch me work it, I’m perfect” combined with images of women in drag queen/beauty pageant makeup pouting and licking their lips, with men rating their performance on scoreboards, seemed like something that must have some element of irony in its intention. And even if that’s not how it was intended, that’s how I read it, and so it takes on meaning other than possible sexism.

Again, I view this as social commentary, this time on advertising. It conveys a highlighted, exaggerated view of advertising like American Apparel, which is explicit about trying to sell you a product according to the model rather than the product – surely a video like this just takes that further. Videos like this show how hard it is to distinguish between straight representation and irony. For example, it shows all the stereotyped, fetishised elements of music video – tanned women in bikinis, licking their lips, winking, blowing bubbles with gum. By conforming so rigidly to these things, the models become almost grotesque and like the video is aware of the irony, and even if it wasn’t intended as a parody of stereotypical visuals in music video, it can still serve that purpose.

The next book to exposed to (hopefully scathing) criticism is “Dangerous Relationships: Pornography, Misogyny & Rape” by Diane E.H. Russell.

Obviously I can only give you my own interpretation, but I felt that the book tried to dictate how to feel, think and act to women, suggesting that they are blatantly wrong or outside of ‘feminism’ if they don’t agree with the views expressed by the author, for example one of the chapters is “The Irrationality of Pro-Porn Feminists”. To me, it conformed to negative stereotypes, for example in the quote “Proponents of the anti-pornography-equals-censorship school deliberately obfuscate any distinction between erotica and pornography, using the term erotica for all sexually explicit materials. In contrast, most anti-pornography feminists consider it vitally important to distinguish between pornography and erotica. While condemning pornography, most of us approve of, or even advocate, erotica”. It seems to suggest that women, or even everyone, must only enjoy or expose themselves to erotica rather than pornography. I think this has a particularly detrimental effect on women, as there’s already a lot of shame about sexuality, and this pushes people into the idea that it really is only ok for women to read ‘romantic’ novels, or watch erotica that is specifically designed for women. It puts in place more gender divides and differences, rather than focusing on similarities or acceptance of differences.

“I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or exposure of the genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner which appears to endorse, condone or encourage such behaviour.”

Endorsing, condoning or encouraging behaviour is totally contextual and subjective. Personally, I would say that I haven’t seen anything that does any of these things, because I have boundaries between fantasy and reality, I know that the things I’m seeing are staged, and treat them as I would any other drama – that it isn’t going to influence my behaviour, I’m not going to copy it just because I saw it in the media. The terms “abuse” and “degradation” are totally dependent on individual semantics, and also whether the individual sees this as meaning that the material is truly abusive or degrading, or whether it is presenting a fantasy of abuse or degradation – it’s infinitely important to see a distinction. As I see it, these sort of views promote and protect the rights of fictional female characters in porn over the right of real women to think for themselves, form their own opinions and expose themselves to whatever media or sexual experience that they choose, exemplified in the index having the terms “Lies about women – Bondage as pleasurable/Rape as pleasurable”.

Statements are backed up by tenuous evidence, for example a study by Charlene Senn and Lorraine Radtke, which is presented by the book as the most simplistic study ever done – I have no idea whether it was like this in reality, or whether the book just doesn’t do it justice. However, basically, the study was to show a group of women images of violent pornography, non-violent but dehumanising pornography, and erotica, then monitor their mood state. Unsurprisingly, as it has been included in a book against pornography and for erotica, the subjects reacted most negatively to violent pornography and most positively to erotica. Interesting that there was no category of pornography that was neither violent nor dehumanising.

“My definition’s requirement that erotica must be nonsexist means that the following types of pictorial materials qualify as pornography :

- sexually arousing images in which women are consistently shown naked while men are clothed
- pictures in which women’s genitals are displayed but men’s are not
- images in which men are always portrayed in the initiating, dominating role”

None of these things are treated as personal preference, they have to be labelled as ’sexist’. I also notice that there’s no mention of ‘erotica’ designed for women, in which a common category is “Clothed Female Naked Male”. Even in material like this, the common theme seems to be that women are subservient to these men, and why should this be considered a bad thing? It seems like female subservience is classified as being something only found in pornography for straight males, but pornography for women tends to be pretty similar – well, the things that actually claim to be hardcore, other than that most of it is pseudo-dirty stories, giving the view that that’s all that is acceptable for women. In my view, if women were shown in the initiating role in pornography, as the author suggests would be positive and nonsexist, then it would just be subjected to stereotyping and the woman would be labelled as a slut, wanting to please the male character, and it would just be defined as sexist for a totally different reason.

“Degrading sexual behaviour refers to sexual conduct that is humiliating, insulting and/or disrespectful: Examples of degrading sexual behaviour include urinating or defecating on a woman, ejaculating in her face, treating her as sexually dirty or inferior, depicting her as slavishly following men’s orders and eager to engage in whatever sex acts males want, and/or calling her insulting names such as “bitch”, “cunt”, “nigger”, “whore”, while engaging in sex.”

This is just what she considers degrading – what about the women who don’t find this degrading, or even enjoy these activities? By placing moral boundaries on activities, it gives suggestions on what is ‘normal’ for women, making it harder for women to have the same sexual freedom as men. If feminism is worth anything, it should allow women the ability to make their own choices, to be autonomous and not seek the validation of others to form their opinions, and views like this just push back progress. It’s arguable as to why women have these particular fantasies – whether it’s conditioning by society, somehow biological, or both – but they are common. People seem to ignore that maybe male pornography isn’t just for men, that even illegally violent pornography may appeal to people who identify with the ‘victim’, not the ‘attacker’, but it’s too hard to legislate against that, so it’s easier to suggest that the people who identify with the ‘attacker’ will commit a real crime, whereas the only way you can discredit the people who identify with the ‘victim’ is to suggest that they’ve been abused or othersuch stereotypes that suggest that they aren’t in control of their choices.

“A particularly important feature of my definition of pornography is the requirement that it appears to endorse, condone or encourage abusive sexual desires or behaviours. These attributes differentiate pornography from materials that include such abusive or degrading sexual behaviour for educational purposes. Movies such as The Accused or The Rape of Love, for example, are not pornographic because they present realistic representations of rape with the apparent intention of helping viewers to understand the reprehensible nature of rape, as well as the agony experienced by rape victims.”

I found this rather comical, as I’ve actually spoken to people who have cited the rape scene from The Accused as something that they’re aroused by, which proves the point that peoples’ interpretations of material can’t be controlled – something that is educational to one person is pornography to another. Why is it that it’s only educational portrayals of sexual violence that can even be shown in British media? By it trying to be educational, it already loses credibility by conforming to a certain agenda. I think it’s worth mentioning that films like The Accused may show the reprehensible nature of rape and the suffering of the victim, but equally, it is still fantasy and can be interpreted as such. If it was real, I doubt people would find it arousing – there’s the common view that people want violent pornographic material to be real, but the disclaimers on sites suggest otherwise. My blog has even been found on search engines by searching for different violent fantasies, but generally those searches include the word ‘fantasy’, because people want to be sure that what they’re viewing isn’t real.

I feel the need to backtrack to some of the books I started to read a while ago, because I think they fit well here, but then so do lots of other things – it’s hard to know how to present all the different links and branches of thought.

Ok, so first off, “Searching for Intimacy: Pornography, the Internet & the XXX factor” by Lyndon Bowring. I’ll be honest, I didn’t get past the blurb with this one, but there’s so much to talk about even from that that I think my head might’ve exploded if I’d actually had the opportunity to gaze upon its innermost pages….

“A message of hope to help people escape from the dangerous web of internet pornography.”

From this, it sounds like it doesn’t make a differentiation between healthy and unhealthy use of pornography. It seems like pornography is taking on a reputation much like drugs, that you can’t use them, but only misuse them, that if you use them at all, it’s an addiction. Using the internet to access pornographic websites isn’t destructive in itself, it’s the things that come from that that are negative.

“Isn’t the Internet an amazing tool, giving access to a huge range of material? But it can be incredibly destructive. Increasing numbers of people use the internet to visit pornographic websites. Evidence shows this usage is causing young people to drop out of education, families to break up and people to lose their jobs.“

The book gives the example of young people dropping out of education, families breaking up and people losing their jobs. To be honest, I can’t talk about the first one because I can’t think of how pornography causes people to drop out of education, but I’d suggest that family breakdown is not directly due to pornography, but how society views pornography. Social norms and values seem to impart the view that women should have nothing to do with pornography, and that it’s perfectly acceptable to condemn your partner for looking at pornography. I can understand that a lot of women have the view that pornography negatively impacts their self-esteem, that they’re not good enough, that their partner is ‘cheating’ by watching pornography, but these are issues that the woman needs to work on, and it’s something that needs communication between the couple, not just scapegoating the pornography and demanding that that stops to save the woman from dealing with the other issues. It’s not the pornography that is causing this, it’s the reaction to pornography, and that society doesn’t seem to encourage women to work on these issues, but instead places all of the blame onto the man and the pornography.

“This provides an honest look at the problem’s extent and the legal situation. It raises the challenge of the forgotten victims – the children and women abused in the past and re-abused every time their picture is viewed; or the wife or partner of the person who views pornography.”

To call anything ‘honest’ is misleading, but really, how can this be ‘honest’ when it gives such a biased view? I wouldn’t say that my views are ‘honest’ because they are equally biased. I suppose that they’re ‘honest’ for me, but not for others. It’s not possible to be ‘honest’ in something so subjective, just as this book is not ‘honest’ for me, because I have an alternative opinion. It also doesn’t seem to recognise that pornography is largely fantasy. I’m sure that there are some cases of material that is really non-consensual, but I’d argue that that isn’t necessarily pornography, it’s the record of an actual crime. The issue shouldn’t be that there’s a recording of it, but that a crime happened in the first place. I think it’s completely misleading to suggest that women and children are ‘re-abused every time their picture is viewed’, for many reasons. Firstly, it is illogical – there’s no awareness from these people that their images are being viewed, it just makes a nice emotive sentence to sell a book, creating guilt and shame in people who think that they have an issue with porn, in order to make them buy a book to help them to get over the problem, seeing as this is what this book intends to do, through achieving true intimacy with Christ…. Aaaanyway, there’s also that you can’t categorise everyone who’s ever been in pornography by one view – maybe some people feel abused by it, but maybe some people don’t. Similarly, to say that wives and partners are victims of pornography is ridiculous. It over-generalises, and suggests that all women feel the same way – surely that’s much more sexist than pornography ever could be, because it tells women how to think.

It’s difficult to know whether media influences peoples’ views, but I think that in the absensce of first-hand knowledge, people will probably try to seek knowledge from the media because they still believe it to have some element of fact. I think that maybe pornography influences adolescents, but in more subtle ways than the media would have us believe – for example, that I think adolescents would be more likely to pick up knowledge of sexual techniques from pornography, rather than their views of women, because sex education tends to be more biological than personal, so they don’t get practical information. I suppose that some people would then try to apply this to techniques (rarely) found in pornography, like rape, but that’s disregarding that the mainstream gives information on this, so there isn’t a gap in knowledge, and people tend to favour mainstream values over anything else, as they are more exposed to it.

Why do I have more of a problem with music videos than I do with pornography? I suppose that part of it is that pornography seems to have a sense of self-awareness, that part of what it’s doing is almost irony or parody. Maybe part of it is also that pornography is an extreme example of gender stereotyping, removed from society, whereas music videos permeate culture, pretending to be a real representation of society. I find it fascinating that one of the main arguments for censoring pornography is that children might see it, but that music videos now bear a striking resemblence to pornography, but its target audience is teenagers.

So I tried to view music videos in a different way, giving them as much thought as I would give to reading into art or literature. This is something that I think censorship prohibits – reading new meanings into ‘offensive’ material. Something may start off with the intention of being a particular thing, but may be read as irony, or social commentary, and without it beginning as a certain thing, those new meanings wouldn’t be found. Similarly, I think there’s the worry that satirical material will be interpreted literally – it becomes difficult to present ‘offensive’ material, even if it is expressing commentary against it, because the general public aren’t credited with understanding satire or irony, so it is seen as condoning the thing it’s creating a parody of. For example, Allen Jones’s sculptures. Any interpretation of media or art is a valid one, but that doesn’t mean that some are more valid than others – just because someone sees something offensive in something doesn’t mean that they’re more right than someone who doesn’t.

It also makes me think of the new ads for Avon’s domestic violence campaign – they show a usual beautiful, photoshopped model who is altered to the point where she almost doesn’t look real (although I don’t think this is intentional, it’s just their usual style) with a bruise under her eye. It’s only common sense and context that tells us how to read this image, that it’s a charity campaign against domestic violence, but then what’s to stop people from being aroused by that image through it provoking thoughts of violence towards women and for it to be read as condoning domestic violence? The same goes with all other media, and this shouldn’t be a reason to censor when anything can be read into anything.

In trying to find inspiration, I somehow found a sociological film by Sut Jhally, called “DreamWorlds 3″, which looks at the gender stereotyping in music videos. I love the concept of a film like this, that it uses clips from videos to illustrate a narrative of theory on how gender stereotyping is presented, what possible effects it may have, etc. but this video seemed to spend more time describing what was happening in the videos than applying this knowledge. I would have been severely pissed if I’d spent the $250 to buy this 50-minute DVD (Why is education so expensive?)

The whole thing left me with more questions than answers, but it did provoke new thoughts. Ok, so, music videos obviously present women in terms of sexual imagery, but they are fantasy – what they present isn’t actually real, but, like pornography, which has a lot of influence on music video, it can seem real. Some of the clips presented in “DreamWorlds 3″ very nearly ‘offended’ me, for want of a better word. It made me feel uncomfortable to see men throwing money at the bodies of undressed women, but I know that that’s my problem, not anything inherent in the media. It may provoke negative feelings in me, but it also makes me think. How do the people involved in filming these videos interact with each other when they are not being filmed? It could be that they revert back to equality, or it could be that people have higher statuses than others, but would this be to do with rank in the filming, or gender? Are these necessarily different, when often women are background models and men are ‘main characters’? Does presenting women like this in a video give the idea of permissiveness even when they are out of that character – or is it a character that they maintain throughout their work, whether they are being filmed or not? Can we ever really know the answers to these things when the media is so distorting?

A big question that I had to consider in this was, Why is it fashionable to present yourself as a misogynist? It’s possible that these people are not actually misogynists, but that it’s an act for the music video, but then, why would it be seen as positive to create this identity? Also, how has it become such an acceptable part of media to use sexualised female bodies in advertising? I’m not suggesting this is a bad thing, more that it’s difficult to see where this shift was made – I think that women have always been judged in terms of their appearance, but how did this start? I suppose that changes in social norms and values has allowed for advertising to be more explicit than it was in the past, but why did this come about, and why is it pretty much solely women used to advertise products – is it just that they are more aesthetically pleasing, and, if so, why do they need to be sexual to be attractive? Why are women only defined by their appearance – is it just that advertisers think that this is what people want? Could the reaction be the same to an attractive and intelligent or somehow personified woman, or would this be too threatening? Would this only be threatening because it is not widespread, not something the media generally presents, so it’s still unknown? I’m not sure that answers to all these questions exist, because everything in this realm is just theory, but it some times makes me sad to think that maybe I wont understand all of this ever. I think answers lie in culture and social context, but it’s complicated to look at. I think that a lot of people have fallen into the trap of giving easy answers, answers that people seem to agree on and not look any further into, like that the media presents a negative view of women, and feminism needs to counteract this because these negative views will influence behaviour towards women.

I’m still trying to work out my opinions on all of this, because I think I’ve only just started to look at things a bit deeper, that there’s more to the subject than how women are presented in the media, and how this might influence peoples’ stereotypes – that an important part of this is that it is fantasy, that it’s not possible to say that a certain portrayal is degrading to women because that’s grouping all women together as having a collective opinion, and that the media may not influence behaviour. The last part of this is particularly troubling for me, because I studied psychology and sociology at A-level and have always found the media fascinating. At A-level, I was convinced that the media did influence behaviour, and cited studies in my coursework, etc. For example, one study looked at EEG results from gamers who frequently played violent games, monitoring their brain responses to images of violent scenes, and non-violent scenes such as famine. Responses to violence were diminished and delayed, and, in the context of A-level, we were lead to believe that this would lead either to passivity to crime, or to actively engaging in these violent activities because they didn’t see it as ‘wrong’ any more. It’s so simplistic – it doesn’t take into account individual differences, or that people may be desensitised to something but not have any desire to actively engage in it.

In applying this to music videos, I think that compartmentalisation is an important factor in this – that people can see sexism and objectification of women as acceptable or even attractive in the context of a music video, because they know that it is not real – the same actions outside of this context would not be acceptable. Maybe men (I hate using this term, because it ignores that not all men react the same way to this material, and completely disregards womens’ views, but I don’t know how else I can put it, as I assume it is mostly men that react sexually towards music videos) are able to be aroused by music videos because they know that these hollow women can’t actually exist in reality, that they are only in fantasy – potentially, it holds appeal because the music video gives an opportunity for escapism and wish-fulfilment, with the knowledge that real women are not like the ones in the media.

“DreamWorlds 3″ seems to suggest that real violence is influenced by the views learned from music videos, because of particular cases where actions mirrored those seen in music videos. In my opinion, it’s impossible to attribute blame to one specific type of media in the first place – that people have exposure to so much media, and also personal experiences, that there’s no way of isolating a particular event that causes this violence. I would also suggest that a music video isn’t going to be the catalyst for violence, although it’s possible that the form may mirror something viewed in the media – the violence would have happened in some way, but ideas are picked up from media. One of the examples given by the film was a parade in New York, where women were sexually assaulted by groups of men – the documentary seems to blame this on music videos because, visually, they were similar, completely ignoring factors like group mentality, anonymity, or conformity.

This I found on the blog of, of all blogs the esteemed century-old journal of liberal opinion, The New Republic. It’s a story about the death of Solange Magnano, 38, and mother of two. Her death is deemed newsworthy because she is a former Ms. Argentina, and because she died as a result of glutal plastic surgery, the story is being milked for laughs–for example, when the reporter choses the word “dernier”.  Jon Chait, a commentator I always respected even when I could not agree with him, reposted the story under the jokey headline, “Dolce Et Decorum Est Pro Ass Mori,” a play on a verse of the Latin poet Horace, ” Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” or,  in English, “It is glorious and honourable to die for one’s country.” Even the ABC news outlet proclaims, in bold 42-sized font, “Former Miss Argentina Dies ‘For Firmer Ass.’”

Magnano is beyond dignity and indignity now. But her family at least could be considered.

After publishing the last post, I found some interesting quotes in relation to Jones’s sculptures -

“the exploitation of already exploitative material cannot be seen as politically neutral, whatever the artist’s intentions and the use of a particular kind of sexual imagery contributes to the ‘objectification’, even degradation of women” (Tickner, Block 1, p. 39)

To me, this seems to be suggesting that images that may be interpreted, or indeed misinterpreted, as objectifying women, even if this is not their intention, should not be used because in making statements against the objectification of women by using images that literally show objectification of women, it may be seen as contributing to the negative effects it is against. But how can you make a relevant statement against a subject that you aren’t allowed to portray for fear of contributing to it? By these standards, no one can use images of women being objectified, even though this practice is so entrenched in society, it’s normalised, everyone is used to it – society needs people like Allen Jones to create highlighted, accentuated images of this because at least they’ll be noticed and draw attention to the more subtle images of objectification that slip into the public consciousness unnoticed every day.

“Women depicted as furniture and objects in this society: as pure pornography, which purpose is to titillate and arouse, I find this imagery far too revolting and even disturbing. It won’t arouse me, and if it does, it makes me ask what the hell is wrong with me? And for being called feminist works they are far too “slick” and “sexy” (meaning here the typical commercial media imagery — of fashion, ads and so on — intended to please a typical masculine eye), since there can be clearly found the fetishistic imagery criticized by Mulvey and Tickner.” – pHinnWeb

I think this quote really shows how people view this sort of work, as they can’t see it as feminist because it doesn’t conform to ‘mainstream’ feminism. Allen Jones’s work hits so hard because it conforms to the “slick”, “sexy” images common in commercial media, but subverts them. To have an impact, I think art must use these sort of images present in the media, but to use these styles and techniques to draw attention to the flaws in that sort of media – it would never have the same sort of effect if it didn’t possess and implement the knowledge of mainstream media that it does. The imagery in Jones’s piece is seen as “revolting” or “disturbing”, but surely this is the point – it needs to be revolting and disturbing to make its point. But then again, I don’t find them revolting or disturbing – I would find them revolting and disturbing if the artist was making the literal point that women are furniture, they deserve to be treated as objects, but obviously that isn’t their purpose. It’s like people don’t understand that art can use images that, on the surface, are just sexual imagery, to make a statement against sexual imagery – it’s like they want it spelled out to them, that if it’s for sexual imagery, use sexual imagery, if it’s against sexual imagery, they should really make it obvious and put a cross through the picture or something…. I think people have a really high sensitivity to imagery like this, even when that imagery is being implemented as a statement against a culture and media that sees women as objects, and that people separate their aesthetics from their meaning, and the meaning is ignored. I really don’t think that feminist work cannot conform to the “slick”, “sexy” imagery used by mainstream media – to be a relevant cultural commentary, I think it needs to. Who’s to say that imagery that implements the objectification of women can’t be feminist? It’s a really narrow view which should instead take into account the meaning and intention of the work, not just how it looks. With my own work, I would label it as feminist, perhaps because it’s the best-fitting term, but isn’t necessarily accurate because “feminism” can be interpreted as the genders being equal, but can also be interpreted as finding any imagery that objectifies women offensive, drifting over into pro-censorship, anti-pornography, etc. My work tends to use objectifying, sexualised images of women to convey its messages and themes because it’s more subversive to use images typically found in fashion or advertising – to use things that people are used to to give an alternative message – and so if people are to look at the aesthetics rather than the intentions, then my work would be seen as deeply misogynistic, but there’s more to it than that. People seem to ignore irony in art work – my work shows the sexualisation and objectification of women, but that doesn’t mean that it’s condoning or applauding that, generally it’s saying the complete opposite.
I also have a problem with the previous quote suggesting that there is something wrong with someone who finds the objectification of women arousing, or that images like Jones’s and those in the media “intend to please a typical masculine eye”. There’s no inherent problem in being aroused by the objectification of women if that is kept in fantasy, it only becomes a problem when people can’t separate fantasy and reality, and the views they receive from the media are the real views that they have on women in daily life. I’m willing to admit that I probably objectify women more than most men do, which is why I think that I have a somewhat unusual view on media, pornography and such like. Not only am I looking at women from the ‘female’ standpoint of comparing myself to them, objectifying them in order to assertain whether they’re more attractive than me, whether I want their body or their clothes, etc. but I am also looking at women from a ‘male’ perspective, in that I find women more attractive than men. I don’t think that there’s any problem in me objectifying or sexualising women, because I know I’m not going to act on it or treat women any differently to how I would any other person – it’s a fantasy. I know that even while I’m seeing them as objects, they do have personalities, thoughts, emotions, whatever some feminist theory seems to think that men can’t see in women if they objectify them. So in some ways I have rather conflicting, hypocritical views on the media, in that I disagree with the portrayal of women in mainstream media, but on some level I enjoy it – I think this is why my art has always focused on women, generally using highly sexualised media images, as they are images I like to look at, even if I don’t agree with the views they present. In some ways, it makes me unsure of why I find it so important to make commentary on this sort of media, as, if it was in my power, would I really get rid of it? Does the media really give people misogynistic views? This is also why I think pornography is such an important issue, as it’s so removed from mainstream media, and presents deeply unpopular views of women in such an exaggerated way that I think it can be seen as an outlet for sexual images of women, and I think people are much less likely to be influenced by it as it’s so discreditable, whereas people are constantly exposed to mainstream media, meaning that it becomes normalised, that it’s no longer seen as outlandish views of women as with pornography, that they become ‘true’.

I’m really unsure of how relevant any of these ideas are to what I’m doing, particularly as I’m finding it so hard to come up with anything visual based on these ideas, but I want to document all of my thought processes and links between thoughts.

So, from looking at the 1995 Vogue featuring the photos of Helmut Newton, I looked more at Newton’s work, and this solidified the link between fashion and pornography for me.

images by Helmut Newton

These views are entirely subjective, but I want to express some ideas in regard to these images, even though I’m sure other people will have conflicting views. For example, I think that maybe the top image is seen as more dominating and aggressive than the bottom image, because our schemas say that male/female aggression is detrimental to the woman, even if it isn’t real, because the woman is so much weaker than the man, both physically and emotionally. Contrasting with this, I think maybe the bottom image is seen as less violent because both of the models are women, and so there’s more inherent equality – they may be playing roles of dominant/submissive, but these roles are acting, not reality as with male/female relationships. I think that maybe the image would be seen differently if it was pornography aimed at male viewers, because then the women acting in this way is seen as both of them being submissive to the male viewer – that they’re doing it for the male voyeur. This is something I’ve considered in pornography, as lesbian pornography aimed at men seems to have this effect seeing as the dominant partner may as well be a man – they act like a stereotypical male pornstar, it’s just better for aesthetics for them to be female. I find it interesting that the fear of pornography is based around male viewers harming women, but this ignores any gay or lesbian pornography, which I think bases legislation on gender roles and stereotyping. Gay men won’t be victims of violence because they’re men, they can protect themselves. Lesbian women watching violent pornography (if this ever happens – they are women, afterall) won’t commit a crime because they’re women, and therefore not violent. Maybe there really is the view that it’s only straight men that watch violent pornography.

Another highly subjective account now (which again contains sordid little details about my kinks, so if you enjoy seeing me as asexual, stop reading), but I feel it links to this, and maybe it’ll be useful for me to work out my feelings on gender roles and such like – or maybe it’ll be totally conflicting, we’ll see once it’s written. So, in the past, I’ve engaged in roleplay of my partner dressing up like a woman, and ‘acting like a woman’. I put that in those quotes that convey irony or sarcasm, because roleplay like this can only work on stereotyping – there’s no particular way a woman acts, obviously. Thinking about it, it’s a bit strange really because I don’t tend to define people by their gender, so I don’t see how anyone acts as them acting as though they’re male or female, which is maybe why I need highlighted, accentuated, stereotyped acting to get this across. But anyway, to me, it conveyed a lot more equality – it was a totally different experience that shifted roles of dominance or submission, as I was able to be sincerely dominant without that role being given to me through the permission of my partner. Personally, I dont feel it’s possible to have an equal relationship in heterosexuality – that’s not to say that people aren’t equal in everyday life, but in sexual fantasy I dont think it tends to work like this. Maybe because both me and my partner are rather domineering individuals these power struggles are very pronounced, and so I find it interesting to look at unequal relationships and the switches in roles. I like the idea of looking at fantasised violence through power-games, dominance, submission, and fights between partners to take on these roles. Some times I wonder if I could give a view onto these times in my relationship, whether they would be interpreted as offensive, or indeed genuinely ‘violent’, because I suppose they are genuine, they are real, but at the same time they’re fantasy. It does implement violence, but it’s all in the realms of what’s acceptable for us, and it’s casual, friendly – like in vying for dominance there is often hitting, scratching, shouting, until one of us submits and agrees to take on the other role… We were discussing the other day, whether I’d be shocked or offended if he called me a ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’, and it wasn’t set up as something within the boundaries of what we do. I realise my relationship may sound rather strange now – who would be seen as the violent partner, who would be the victim, could it ever be balanced in the middle? Using the example of calling me a ‘bitch’ or ‘cunt’, I think that that’s something many people see as unacceptable – I know if my parents knew this, they’d be horrified. I think the very idea of it paints my partner as some sort of abuser because people can’t understand a context in which this is ok – there’s the general view that if I see it as ok, then it’s that I’m wrong and need to have more respect for myself or something. Feminism at it’s best – you can have an opinion, but it must be one that empowers you in a conventional way.

In looking at the work of Melanie Pullen, I then went on to look at violent imagery in the rest of fashion, and found a number of images that I thought were rather unorthodox.

Firstly I found the phenomena of “Kegadoru”, apparently literally translated to “Injured dolls”, although I like the term “Broken Dolls” that is commonly substituted for this, as it gets rid of the human aspect of ‘injury’, favouring the term ‘broken’ which implies an object, which I think is a fair term  for women in the media, whether that’s fashion or pornography (and is that necessarily a bad thing?) Kegadoru is something that is based both in pornography, but also in more mainstream media like anime/manga, and has now crossed over into fashion, with Kegadoru items being sold in London. There’s also a lot of debate over whether this sort of ‘fetish’ is misogynistic, as the women present themselves as weak, vulnerable, in need of assistance. To me, it’s just interesting that this sort of thing is sexualised, that clearly there is a desire to see women injured, but if it was real, I don’t think there would be any desire to see it. As I understand it, it’s the fantasy of it – it’s having a beautiful women with parts of her body covered in bandages, which would surely add to the taboo and excitement of seeing her naked, which is maybe a common element of fashion? It also links to censorship, that forbidding some things from being seen fetishises these things.

images by Helmut Newton, Vogue, “The Empowered Woman”, 1995

I found these images very interesting in that they were included in mainstream fashion, particularly as they were under the title of “The Empowered Woman”. I’m unsure of how they’re meant to be interpreted, but to me it seems ironic, that the woman can only really be seen as empowered because of how she looks – it even goes so far as the woman being physically helped by 2 men in one of the photographs. Equally, I don’t know if they’re effective because of creating something that the audience subconsciously wants to see, or whether it’s that they’re something that offends base sensibilities – or even both. Women are generally shown as less capable than men in the media – I suppose this is just a highlighted, extreme example, if we’re to take the legbrace or crutches as symbolism of being constrained.I think it also confuses the audience by showing a model that conforms  to mainstream values of how women should look, but also disobeys these conventions – perhaps it’s that the model conforms to some criteria, and this makes their disobedience more grotesque. I suppose these images sum up some of my views on fashion quite well, and I’d like to explore these views of perfection, and destroying this perfection by subverting it, making perfection horrifying, grotesque, through mixing it with violence, death, etc.

“Paparazzi” by Lady Gaga

From looking at the Newton images, I got linked to the Lady Gaga music video, which I found interesting as it uses injured, dying and dead women. The cuts to these images of dead women are glamorous, colourful, unreal, probably in such a way that they could be sexualised, yet this is permitted to be in mainstream media, yet if it was specifically for sexual arousal it probably would not be allowed. If presentations like this don’t promote violence towards women, why is it seen that alternative media like pornography do?

Whenever I’m exposed to things like this in current media, I wonder whether I’ve picked up on a theme that is currently relevant, and how this has happened. I don’t have a television, I don’t read newspapers, I don’t listen to the radio, I’m not really very up-to-date with pop culture even through my constant internet use, so have to wonder whether I’m somehow picking up subconsciously on the themes that are present in the media, or that these issues are currently more prevalent in the media, or whether I just notice those themes more because I’m interested in them.

I’m going to try to put down all the thoughts I’ve been having recently, because it’ll be useful sometime, maybe. It links to working process and artistic practice, but I’m a bit confused about all of it still – I dont know how I can incorporate these sort of ideas into my own work, or whether I just have to admire this work from afar.

Demetri Martin is an interesting comedian  – I see his work more as art than comedy some times. Like in this show, he takes the stimulus of the words “If I” and looks at their meanings, following branches of research, looking at autobiographical influences also. It made me think of the nature of art – what is art? Could this be considered performance art? I suppose that work like this gives messages and themes, but is so accessible that maybe it isn’t seen under the category of ‘art’.

photo of Derren Brown, used mainly to convey his showmanship, energy and charisma. I’d suggest that his shows can be seen as a working practice, going through a process to reach a final revelation of ideas, but that the whole show can be seen as art.

Another example, Derren Brown. I was reminded of Derren Brown from Demetri Martin because of one of his scenes where Martin demonstrates his “useless talents” in the form of a stageshow. It got me thinking of showmanship, and what better showman is there than Derren Brown? I see his work very much as performance art, that often small scenes demonstrating his incredible talents then build up and link, culminating in something that destroys what the audience first thought, explaining the “magic”, and possibly changing peoples’ views on religion and/or supernatural phenomena. I think the fact that Derren Brown’s “Seance” can’t be viewed online any more shows that demonstrating peoples’ errors in logic is frowned upon – people get offended when they realise that they’ve been wrong. Derren Brown’s shows would never work if they were ethical, if they had informed consent, because they hinge on the idea of people not knowing what’s going on.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/episode-guide/series-30/episode-1

Above is the link to Derren Brown’s “Messiah”. I suppose that I think of it as art because it has such a powerful message to convey, and it does it so effectively – the ideas are incredible, and they’re conveyed in a fantastic and accessible way. Then again, Derren Brown could do anything and he has the charisma to make anyone like it. A perfect artist.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown/episode-guide/series-26/episode-1

Link to Derren Brown’s “Something Wicked This Way Comes” stageshow. I suppose this is a more conventional sort of art, in that it mimics the sort of stageshows of past, or even present, charlatans (nice irony), but incorporates theatre, psychology, media. I can’t describe the sort of awe I have for this sort of work. I find it far more effective in its expression of ideas than any high art.

Upon entering the theater I felt nerves and anticipation coursing through my body. I expected to cry. I expected to feel anger and helplessness. I did, indeed, feel all of those emotions; but, I also felt more emotions than I expected inspired by the people around me and their comments. The experience of watching Precious has likely strengthened my resolve to tell my story. Not because anyone can do it if Precious did it, but, because, it will be my red scarf handed down to the little girl who feels all alone in the world.

Prior to viewing this movie, I read tweets from people who refused to see it, from those who saw it and were deeply touched, and from those who opined on the gross amount of racial stereotypes. Of those who refused to see it, many found fault based on the previous work of the people responsible for bringing the film to the big screen: Lee Daniels, Tyler Perry, and Oprah Winfrey. Words and phrases such as “coonery” and “typical black girl from the ghetto” were common in their complaints. Of those who saw it and were unimpressed, this tweet speaks volumes: “Whoeva suggest anyone too see this movie “precious” need to kill urself….dis givs black familys a bad look smh.” Please don’t listen to this person. I could cry peeling back the layers of disillusionment and incongruity present in that one allegorical onion. What came first: Precious or the Black Family?

This movie was adapted for film by Lee Daniels based on the novel “Push” by Sapphire. It is a first person narrative dictated to us by Clarice “Precious” Jones. Walking through the streets of Harlem with a scowl on her face and the weight of years of sexual, physical, and verbal abuse on her shoulders, she tells us the story of her life in such a manner that it prompted one viewer behind me to say, “This is realistic. I like it.” A concise and accurate statement, it is the reason to see the movie.

In the afore-mentioned tweet we see a common model for behavior in (Black) families. What goes on in the house, stays in the house; and, this is a thread that runs throughout the movie, as well. From the outset, we see Precious avoiding the truth and refusing to tell her story, petrified that her mom would kill her. Meanwhile, her mom continues to call her a fat ass, tells her that she’s a dummy, education won’t help her, she’s a nobody, and she should rely on a welfare check to get by in life. These are the racial stereotypes that people are afraid to see. They don’t want people to know what is said in their homes. Well, maybe what is said should change. It’s just a theory. A theory that “Precious” is attempting to make a practice.

In one form or another everyone can relate to her story. We have all either been the abuser or the one abused in some way. Other comments heard around me include: “Is that really how big she is?” “She looks like a boy. She looks like Eminem.” “Y’all ain’t right.” The second comment was directed to Mariah Carey’s performance as a social worker. Without her glamorous hair and makeup team, Mariah looked like an average woman, but it prompted someone to call her a boy. Worse, her friends laughed and made other jokes about her appearance, causing one girl (the only big girl in the group) to casually denounce their behavior. It is this casual accusatory tone that encourages the abuse. It is not seen as something that is really bad behavior. If she were to leave the theater and discontinue the friendship, she would be blamed for taking herself too seriously. “It’s just a joke” they might say. Well, Precious didn’t take it as a joke when she smacked her classmate for calling her fat.

The tagline for the movie is: “Life is hard. Life is short. Life is painful. Life is rich. Life is….Precious.” Does it have to be this way, though? We’re so busy preparing each other for the “real world” that we forget to take care of each other. We forget to love. We forget to be the models of good behavior that we actually seek in others. Life is not some made up entity that comes out of nowhere to do us harm. Life is people. We are the creators of Life. If our lives are so rich and precious, why do we choose to de-value it?

This is a biro drawing, over the top of text, again, and I wanted to draw with the intention of making the image look disgusting, grotesque, to conform to all the ideas of what an image mixing sexuality and violence is. I feel that the result is this rather uncomfortable image, which I decided to write all the words that I’d had in mind over the top of. I wanted to give the idea that how you view things will be tainted by your preconceptions, as with what happened with this – how I drew the image was influenced by how I was thinking about the image during viewing and drawing it.

Part of why I wanted to do this was to look at whether I’d used the same images that could be interpreted as ‘offensive’, and followed public opinion by condemning them, would my work be seen as being as offensive as it is when saying that the images are acceptable. I suppose it’s like, if Marcus Harvey had been using his image of Myra Hindley to confirm the view that she’s an evil, monster of a woman, would it be considered offensive seeing as it agrees with what the general public believes? But maybe a piece like that wouldn’t be seen as the piece of art that it is now, because art is meant to be challenging, subversive, to expose views that people don’t like – can something really be considered art if all it intends to do is voice mainstream, accepted opinions? Anyway, it’s something I want to think about during this project, perhaps by trying to give different views with the same images, or creating works that represent mainstream thought to see how they’re reacted to, whether art can be engaging if it’s not confrontational.

Going back to the Myra Hindley example – an image of Myra Hindley isn’t offensive in itself, it’s what the artist is saying about the image that is considered offensive. Or in the case of Marcus Harvey, what he was not saying with the image – I dont think the piece was intended to glorify Hindley, but at the same time, it didnt paint her as subhuman, which is what people want to think. It’s the same with an image of a naked teenage girl – it’s not the image that offends people, it’s how it might be read into. It’s the messages that don’t conform to mainstream culture that are found threatening, not the images themselves. Similarly, extreme pornography wouldn’t necessarily be seen as offensive or dangerous as a simple image, it’s the fear of what the images may induce in people that causes it to be viewed so negatively. I think that there are some things that aesthetically may be uncomfortable to view, but if something is in a context that expresses a view that everyone wants to hear, it’s more ok, it doesn’t offend in quite the same way – for example, how anti-pornography “feminists” are able to screen extreme pornography to horrify their audiences of suburban housewives, because it’s expressing the view that it’s disgusting and shouldn’t exist. I suppose when you’re using ‘offensive’ images to get across an ‘offensive’ point, it’s just not understood in the same way as using offensive images to convince people that they are offensive, to make a ‘moral’ point. It makes me wonder if I’d used the images that got deleted for shock value, accompanied with statements saying that pornography is immoral, or wrong, or objectifies women, would it have been considered ok because I was doing something positive in convincing people of mainstream views. It’s interesting that it’s apparently legal to show illegal pornography if you’re agreeing with the government and trying to get their views across, but not if you’re disagreeing with those opinions.

The more I look at this drawing, the more horrifying and disgusting it becomes. I absolutely hate it – to me, it’s utterly grotesque, which I quite like because the only image that I’ve created during this time on these themes that I’ve found disturbing or harmful is the one where I’ve tried to express the alternative, but mainstream, view that these images are horrible. So, even without explicitly intending to, I’ve turned a disgusting opinion into disgusting art. That’s how strongly my subconscious must feel about all of this.