Women Drivers: Just Another Sexist Stereotype.

Feministing recently posted a short blog about an article on Yahoo! Autos Canada (it looks like they took the post off of Yahoo! but I found it on AskMen.com it is here). The article is titled “Ten Reasons Women Can’t Drive.” Now, just from the title it’s obvious that this article is going to be riddled with sexist stereotypes, and it certainly did not disappoint. Each reason is worse than the last and I honestly can’t say which one offended me most.
It is obvious that Ricky Tanner (the author of this piece) is just trying to be funny with this article, and I can just imagine his response to anyone taking offense to it (something like “calm down, you need to get a sense of humor. It was only a joke”). But even if this was meant to be a joke, it doesn’t mean it isn’t offensive and sexist. One of his points, “They Let Their Dog’s in the Car,” doesn’t really seem like a valid reason that all women are bad drivers. Sure, his saying that “one yippy little thing riding on the lap of another yippy little thing equals one big reason women can't drive” might be amusing to some people, but it is also extremely offensive to compare a woman to a “yippy little thing.” Personally, I’m a woman and I don’t drive with a dog on my lap, in fact I don’t even own a dog. And yet I am lumped into this category just because of my sex. Ricky seems to be ignoring the fact that all women are just as diverse as men, and just because a small minority of women allow their small dogs to sit in their lap as they drive, does not mean that all women allow this.
In case any of Ricky’s readers felt a twinge of guilt that they agreed with the article, or worry that someone may not like their stance on women drivers, Ricky even gives the reader a good tip on how to avoid being called sexist for agreeing with him. He says: “As soon as your girlfriend starts calling you a pig and protesting your agreement with our stance, bring up some of these simple reasons women can’t drive and she's sure to get back to her texting in no time.” Because women are so wrapped up in their cell-phones they can’t take the time to argue with Ricky’s infallible points; they’d rather just talk with their friends.
The very last point on Ricky’s list of why women are worse drivers then men was that “Women Have No Driving Gene.” This assertion that men are naturally better drivers then women is completely absurd. Not only is it terribly sexist, but it is also completely untrue. In fact, according to the Social Issues Research Center men are more at risk to be involved in car crashes then women. This idea that women are worse drivers then men, therefore, is completely ridiculous. I’m not trying to say that all men are bad drivers, but they do, statistically, get into more fatal car crashes, are more aggressive drivers, and are more likely to disregard rules and laws while driving.So Ricky, instead of saying that women can’t drive, maybe you should keep your eyes on the road and stop blaming other people for something that they haven’t done.

The Cougar: Upholding Ageist Stereotypes.

This season TV Land has created a new reality TV show called “The Cougar.” This show is from the same creators of “The Bachelor” and “The Bachelorette” series, and like “The Bachelorette,” “The Cougar” is about one woman dating several other men. Except that in “The Cougar” the woman is in her 40’s and the men are all in their 20’s.

I am personally conflicted about this show. On the one hand, I think that it is sending a positive message that older women, just like older men, can date younger people. But I also feel that it is showing that only beautiful women can date younger men. I was curious about what other people thought of the premise, so I went onto the IMDB discussion board for the show, and one commenter summed up what, I think, many people feel. Oregon_girl said “This show is gross. . . I think an older guy/younger woman is fine but older woman/younger man is gross. It's like he's a kept boy.” This idea of the man being a “kept boy” is interesting, as it shows that a man with an older woman is just a boy and the woman is forcing him to be with her (as the term “kept boy,” at least in my mind, conjures up images of someone being held against their will), but when an older man is with a much younger woman it’s only natural and, in fact, it should be expected.Oregon_girl also says that “Men can stay virile into their 50s but women lose it in their 30s. Why would some hot young guy want to date some old woman with her dried-up c**ch?” This is obviously untrue, as many women retain their sex-drive even after menopause, but it shows that in our culture we have been taught that older women (although I would hardly say that a woman in her 30’s is old) are no longer attractive and do not want or deserve sex. And men can use this argument as an excuse to date much younger women without any guilt or ridicule. This double standard in our culture is ridiculous and it demonstrates perfectly our society’s allowance of men to be free and have fun all through life, while women are confined; and if women break out of society’s narrow role then they are made into a spectacle.

Even though I think women deserve to date younger people just as much as men do, I still think that this show is doing it wrong. “The Cougar,” while showing that older women can still be sexy and fun, is also constantly attempting to portray Stacy (the cougar) as being young-at-heart and worthy of these men, but they still constantly point out the age difference between her and the men. They constantly describe her beauty and vivacity, and in the pictures and videos they have on the website she is always looking sexy and provocative. Essentially the show is turning her into a sexual object, which completely negates the fact that she is older. But the show seems to be a bit confused as it is continually trying to show her as both young (she looks very young and she seems to act very young) but also constantly pointing out that she is older then these men (at one point in a commercial, Stacy mentions that one of her daughters is older then one of the men she is dating). So, while this show might seem to be empowering women, it is really just upholding the stereotype that the only way that it might be a little bit accepted for an older woman to date a younger man is if she is gorgeous and young at heart.

Observe and Reports "Shocking Sex Scene": if This Isn't Rape, What is?

While reading the blog Feministing, I came across a post about Seth Rogen’s newest movie “Observe and Report” which is about Ronnie, a bipolar mall-cop. In the post they link to the Friday Feminist Fuck You, in which Courtney (one of the bloggers of Feministing) criticizes Seth Rogen and the movie for its portrayal of date-rape. This video of Courtney’s drew some fire from the website Wired.com which basically thought that Courtney was overreacting and needed to calm down. Wired even describes the date-rape scene “a shocking sex-scene.” Now, I haven’t seen the movie, nor do I plan to, but after reading this I found a trailer for the movie which has a short clip from that scene (the clip is at the very end of the trailer), and from the little bit that I saw of the scene it is obvious that he is raping her. Although many people argue that Ronnie was not, in fact, raping Brandi because he once stopped in the middle of having sex “with” her and she briefly woke up to say “did I tell you to stop, motherfucker?” That does not mean that he was not raping her, he had started having sex “with” her before she consented to it, and, as Courtney and many other people, have pointed out, it does not count as consent if the person is drunk at the time of the act. And Brandi was definitely drunk. In fact she was covered in vomit and passing out while Ronnie was “grinding away at her” (as Courtney put it).

Many people further defended this scene by saying that Brandi wanted to have sex with Ronnie but could only do it when she was drunk (since she’s the one who showed up at his house, it is automatically assumed that she was only there for sex), so it couldn’t be rape. But that is still rape. Brandi is so out of it that she can barely walk and when Ronnie is having sex “with” her she is passed out. That does not seem like consensual sex to me.

What I found to be most interesting about Wired’s article were the comments that it incited. I don’t know exactly how many comments there are, but it took me over an hour to read through all of them. A vast majority of the comments are people defending the scene and calling those people that are against it (including Courtney) “bitches,” “cunts,” and “lesbians.” Now, not all of them resorted to name-calling (and several people that agreed with Courtney said some rude things), but a vast majority of them seemed extremely angry and were quite hostile to those people that agreed with Courtney. One commenter, Mark, even said “As for that unattractive small tittied idiot who made the video; wouldn’t screw her with my enemies dick... pity though, coz looks like that’s what the carpet muncher needs to get back on track.” So, according to Mark, what every woman needs to get her “back on track” (which here means that she just doesn’t agree with his views and feels that rape should not be laughed at) is a man to have sex with her, even if she is a lesbian (and the only reason he thinks she’s a lesbian is because she’s a feminist). This sort of logic is how we got into this argument in the first place. If people think that a woman needs to have sex with a man in order to calm her down or set her straight, then it only follows that these women should be forced to have sex; which would be rape. These men delude themselves into thinking that they are helping these women or that these women deserve to be raped, and so they rape them and then pat themselves on the back and laugh it off as a “job well done.”

This idea of women needing a man to force them to have sex is disgusting, and movies like Observe and Report are supporting this mentality. Observe and Report is showing that Ronnie had the right to rape Brandi because she was “slutty” and showed up at Ronnie’s house intoxicated. This movie is not being artistic or smart by portraying this “shocking sex-scene,” it is doing something that has been done over and over again; it is taking something absolutely horrendous and trying to make it amusing. But instead of just getting people to laugh at this scene, it is normalizing date-rape and making it seem OK for men to have sex with an obviously unconscious woman because, hey, Ronnie from Observe and Report did it, got away with it, and it was hilarious. This is what the media is teaching people, and I, personally, am disgusted by it.

The Fast and the Bi-Curious: Don’t Worry, it Doesn’t Mean You’re Gay!

In last weeks episode of Saturday Night Live, they had a skit about the new movie “Fast and Furious” which they re-titled “The Fast and the Bi-Curious.”In this skit they made fun of the movie by making the two main characters (here played by Seth Rogen and Andy Samberg) gay. Throughout the skit these characters are in a garage, fixing their cars, ignoring a beautiful woman, and being sexually explicit toward each other.While I did laugh a little at this sketch, I didn’t find it as funny as most of the audience members seemed to. Personally, I don’t find it very amusing when a group of people that have been struggling for acceptance in society are laughed at and made fun of all in the name of comedy.

Throughout this whole sketch the narrator is constantly pointing out the fact that the two main characters are gay and that this should be laughed at. He describes the movie as being “just like the Vin Diesel version except slightly gayer,” which gets a big laugh from the audience; he also says that if you like this movie “it doesn’t mean you’re gay, just maybe you shouldn’t get married” which earned another big laugh. These two lines pointed out to the audience that this premise is ridiculous and it is OK to laugh at it; it allowed the audience members to make this joke into a “them” and “us” category by showing these two men as strange and laughable characters that are completely nonthreatening.

At one point in the sketch we see Seth Rogen lick his finger and attempt to get some oil off of Andy Samberg’s cheek (it doesn’t work too well, he just ends up rubbing his lips instead), while this is happening the camera quickly pans to the one woman in the sketch who is looking extremely disgusted by this (she even mouths the word “ew”). This quick display of another characters disgust during this scene allows people to feel that it is OK that they are laughing at homosexuality since a character is shown as being uncomfortable with it. It is, again, perpetuating the idea of an “us” and “them” mentality by showing that we, by being uncomfortable and therefore laughing at the homosexuality, are not alone and therefore not wrong in seeing this as something to laugh at. Seth and Andy’s display of homosexuality, while slightly amusing, was also problematic, in that they are showing homosexuality as something to be laughed at and pointed out, but never accepted.

American Apparel: Bringing Pornography Into the Mainstream Media.

I recently saw a few ads for the clothing company American Apparel. American Apparel is an extremely popular hipster clothing store known for their non-sweatshop policies (and, in fact, all of their clothes are made in America). I had heard about American Apparel before, both about their clothing and about the ads they use to sell them (they have drawn a considerable amount of heat for their controversial ads, including one where they dressed their female models in blackface), but I had never seen any of these ads myself. So when I saw two of their ads (one for a zipper-front bodysuit, and one for knee-high socks), I was both shocked and disgusted. Not only do these ads have barely anything to do with the objects they are selling, they also portray women as perfectly beautiful and hyper-sexual.

These two ads that I looked at are similar, in that they show mainly naked women, but they are also different in how they portray these women. For the bodysuit, the woman is thin, blond, and practically perfect. Nowhere do you see any blemishes or even a hair out of place (American Apparel prides themselves in the fact that they choose “real” women to model for them, and they do few, if any, touch-ups on their photos, and yet their models are always still gorgeous women with few blemishes or scars). In this ad the model seems to be merely unzipping her bodysuit; her pose and the look on her face do not really hint at anything sexual. In fact, in almost all of the panels, her legs are crossed, which seems to signify that she is merely unzipping her outfit, not for sex, but perhaps just to show off her body to whoever is watching. However, in the ad for knee-high socks, the model is extremely sexual, much more-so then the woman in the bodysuit. In the first panel, the model seems to be covering herself a little bit; she almost seems to be attempting to keep the viewer away from her (even while her face looks like she is inviting someone towards her). In the middle panel the advertisers aren’t even trying to sell the socks she is supposed to be wearing; they are focusing completely on her arms, breasts, and face and the socks aren’t even in the picture. And in the third panel the model is now looking completely enticing, almost as if she is ready to seduce whoever is looking at the ad; she is no longer hiding or coy, now she’s ready for sex.

Both of these ads are extremely problematic. Not only do they promote objectification of women, but they also continue the stereotype that women are sex crazed and unable to keep their clothes on. On the blog The Reverse Cowboy (this post was from last year, but I feel that it is still relevant) the writer defends her use of one of American Apparels controversial ads on the website by saying that the model in the ad is a former porn star (which, I guess, makes it OK to exploit her body, since it’s been done before), and also mentioning that these photos can’t be sexist because a woman took them. According to her, not only is it OK to take nude pictures of a woman because she was once a porn star, but these pictures can’t even be considered sexist because a woman took them (and apparently everyone knows that women can’t be sexist). Even if these pictures aren’t sexist, they are still problematic. They are making it OK for companies to use nudity in ads that are marketed toward teenagers, and they are turning these models into mere sexual objects that men can ogle and admire wherever they go. These ads do not seem to be selling clothing, they are selling sex; it’s no longer about wearing clothes, it’s about taking them off.