"Boxing for men, robots for boys and Hugh Jackman for women"

Just in case it's not clear, this is a line from a Polish tv ad for a new movie, "Real Steel".

I am not even sure if it requires any comments... too tired to repeat truisms around.

Is that a hypocrisy? Or just lack of sensitivity and thinking?

The Voice of Poland is a version of another similar program from the US (it might have a different origin, though). The idea is quite interesting - the judges are choosing singers while sitting with their backs to them, and as such judging their voices only. Great idea, and during a few rounds of the "search" step, there were only great, great vocals. But I had to cringe each time there were comments about the beauty of a singer. Like when someone didn't press the button to choose a particular contestant for his/her team, and after turning and seeing the woman he was complaining loudly what a pity it was because she was so pretty. So many times there were comments about the look, that even the singers tried sometimes to pull the conversation back to their vocal talents. It seems like the program's main idea, turned the attention even more to the looks, as a separate being, acknowledged, shown and flirted with all the time.

I still love the program, and the judges happen to be great musicians. I am looking forward to watching more episodes as teh quality of vocal abilities is amazing. But I hope I won't have to listen to more sexist comments, open flirting (with the contestants visibly uncomfortable at times) and innuendos. There is room for gentle flirting and honest complements about the looks, but without crossing the line.

What would YOU do to get a job?

I've read yesterday a short article on a sensational DailyMail, linked from HP. Interesting discussion followed. I observed a few different tendencies among the commenters. Some were simply disgusted with the picture of round worms. Some made fun of the stupid Chinese who would eat anything, others made fun of the stupid women who do such things... Some discussed the deeper problems - the unrealistic burden of fitting a particular (thin) expectation and more and more difficult job market, where the employers might pick and choose, forcing people to do very questionable things simply because they have no real choice.
We know already that fat women are paid less, hired less and generally considered lazy, stupid, unskilled, with will power or self-control. The women are already burdened with unrealistic expectations just to be accepted as attractive females, no job interviews in sight yet. Twelve year old girls on diets... what is more disgusting? This or swallowing round warms? It's a difficult choice to make.

I spent couple hours yesterday researching and googling for images to use in my "Body and Sexuality" class. We have been already discussing a bit the problems of assuming overweight people are that way because of not taking care of their health or overeating. I want to discuss more with them on the societies imagery and the extreme pressure for both men and women to obey the, often unrealistic, expectations.

Below is a sample of vintage ads. It's interesting that it was much harder to find the accurate spot, as both too skinny and fat was forbidden...

Of course it's pretty obvious that for both men and women the only incentive to be "slender" is to be accepted and considered attractive by the opposite sex. What is more annoying in the case of women, that it's assumed it's their fault if they lose the interest of their husbands. Both in the ads about weight loss, various cosmetics and home appliances, it's a woman's job to "keep the husband".

And for the end, a very interesting ad... it looks like China is not that far from the Western Culture after all...

Halloween is coming

And with it flood of tasteless, over sexualized and simply ugly costumes.
Halloween is not my tradition, so I am not excited about it and don't have any fond childhood memories. In Poland this day is celebrated by visiting family graves, contemplation, prayer and generally filled with very "memento mori" atmosphere.

I have noticed a few entries over various blogs bringing examples of costumes advertised for this season. All of the ones I've seen are offensive for one or another reason. I find them extremely sexist, reducing women to sex objects, often culturally insensitive.

I have decided to look by myself if the bloggers were cherry picking and exaggerating or if indeed it's that bad.
Well, it is bad.
First, the costumes for adult women as compared to adult men:

I found one or two examples were men were portrayed somewhat "sexy", mirroring their female counterparts:

The only images where women were not made up to look like Playboy fantasies occupants, was in a "hoop clown" costume.

Now to the culturally offensive... Looks like the "Indian Princess" and "Gypsy lady" win the competition. I was wondering what a male version would look like, thinking of some bare chest "warrior" disaster. I found even better: woman is the "Indian princess", man is a cowboy. I don't even have words...

What is also interesting, their "teen" section seem to differ only is slightly better breast coverage.

Now to the children costumes. The toddlers are still more or less sweet and cute, gender neutral. But when we enter the section for pre-teen and teens, the division is very clear. Boys' costumes are warriors, robots, fighters, action figures, super heroes/villains and generally strong characters with pants, often bulky clothing disguising the body's shape. Not so with girls' costumes. As far as I've seen all of them have skirts, mostly mini-skirts. The difference to adult costumes is, that the skirts are often fluffy and bulky instead of tightly skin-like. The characters are all over the place... witches, bees, butterflies, skeletons, ballerinas, dancers... I am guessing the girls could use the boys' costumes if they wanted, but it is pretty clear that most of them are made with gender in mind. Let's see some examples:

Differences between boys' and girls' costumes of the same theme:

I think I am glad I am not part of that all. It's a pity how early on the sexualization of little girls begin.

this and that.

some interesting, moving, or funny things I found today. I obviously am using my days off to break a record in reading online :)

1. A wonderful advice for all women who struggle with male dominance at work:

Jezabel added a few extras to the citi's list:

1. Women tend to have two X chromosomes — you are not heard.

2. Women menstruate in public — emphasizes your femininity and deemphasizes your capability.

3. Women sit vaginally — the power position when seated at a table is to have a penis.

4. Wear panties in meetings — boxer-wearers are seen as more assertive and knowledgeable than those in lacy underthings.

5. Women have wombs — children come out of wombs. Men don't reproduce, they conquer.

6. Ovulate — women ovulate at the smallest provocation which erodes your self-confidence. Men tend to move into sperm producing mode.

7. Women tend to smile inappropriately — an "inappropriate" smile is a smile that is on a woman's face.

8. Observe "Rules" — rules are made to be broken by men. When women break them, it is a violation of workplace culture. When women follow them, it is self-sabotage. To be safe, avoid being a woman whenever possible.

9. Being invisible — 90% of adult humans are unable to visually perceive women. Solution: wear a bear suit.

10. Offer a female handshake — the best way to combat this is to have a man's hand transplanted onto your wrist. Or purchase a giant foam hand at a sports stadium. These are very masculine and you are sure to be taken extremely seriously while wearing one.

2. Here you can see a seriously well done example of "If Facebook existed long time ago".

3. Great, simple and well done explanation of changes in health reform:

4. Another great idea to spread awareness - this time it's social education. From social images - using the style of historic site sign, the authors make strong messages about social injustice.

5. Disproportional poverty levels among minorities. Read full article at change.org "poverty in America".

"nearly 26 percent of blacks and just over 25 percent of Hispanics were poor in 2009. Only about 9.4 percent of white Americans were poor during that same period of time. To be fair, gargantuan gaps between white, black and Hispanic poverty rates (and income levels (pdf)) aren't new. They just got worse — much worse — in 2009.

The reasons are complex and interrelated. They rage from the quality of schools and teachers that serve the nation's low-income kids to, yes, poor personal decisions. But they are also the direct legacy of decades of discriminatory policies and practices affecting everything from the way housing is sold to the way banking is done and other wealth and poverty drivers far too numerous to name. And it's not just a question of what's happened in the past. Poverty disparities are very much a function of what is still happening right now."

This is really a shame. The fact that the richest country in the world has such high levels of poverty is a disgrace. I am coming from a pretty poor country, but everyone could go to a hospital, get medicines with big cuts, single mothers get help, and there is paid maternity leave. I knew people who couldn't afford buying new clothes (ok, almost all of us throughout the years... even now I can't buy new clothes, old habit...), but never hungry.

I just can't get it. How come it is ok to kill and spend obscene amount of money on war, but it is morally wrong to "give away"? Why "tough love" is somehow seen as the ideal? Does it really matter if the single mother is "spoiled" by getting enough money from the government that when combined with her salary (which is what? 67% of what she should be getting if she is a woman of color?) she could have a decent life for herself and her children? Is it really so bad? Why so many people who work hard can't afford health care? How come the income of the top percents of richest Americans multiplied may times, while the minimum wage actually dropped? No one on minimum wage is able to lead modest, but decent life. It's just impossible. The myth that the poor are all lazy, drunkards and have no will power is just such a lie.

How difficult would it be to cut off some from the military spending and build more schools? Hire more teachers so there would be no more than 10-15kids in a class, so each would have individual attention? Why not invest in parks, play fields and after school programs so the kids would have choices and enrichment programs instead of hanging out on the streets where troubles can easy find them? Why not fund hobby-clubs, homework support, support for the very talented and the struggling ones. Education could help millions of kids getting better future. But it just happens that the rich and white middle class who make the majority of people with power, have their kids in good private schools or nice suburban public schools, with tennis classes and private tutors. They talk the most about "everyone has the same chance, everyone can go to university" or whatever other crap. such a bs.

Here is another image that shows the discrepancies in income depending on ethnic background (from family inequality):

another example how women are pressured to feel guilty about eating.

It's a commercial of a yogurt that is supposed to make you feel "fuller for longer". It is full of tortured women eating celery sticks (well, I would look tortured as well, 'cause I hate that stuff), rice cakes, lettuce ... you would think it should be contrasted with real food. Instead it is contrasted with the "solution": fat-free yogurt which looks very thick, which means you are "satisfying" yourself with thickeners and preservatives and artificial colorants. Women are still not allowed to eat normal food.
And I won't even comment on the mechanization, as if women were brainless robots, repeating everything others do, suffering taken as normal and necessary to be slim and "attractive". And are there really only white slim women in Australia? (ok, one Asian).