“Are you trying to find naked pictures of Miley Cyrus?” asked my girlfriend yesterday, glancing at my Google image search results. Needless to say, I wasn’t. I was trying to find those Vanity Fair photos to judge this ridiculous controversy myself.

Today I think I’ve got a better handle on the whole thing, thanks to Nancy Gruver’s post on Stockholm Syndrome in the Media. Gruver has done a lot of thinking on girls in the media. She’s the founder and CEO of New Moon, a fabulous feminist magazine for girls. Here’s her perspective:

Girls are barraged by sexualized images all around them and everyone they come into contact with in daily life is also surrounded by those images. The images viscerally teach “the importance of being sexy” if you are female. The images teach all of us that acting sexy is how girls/women can have power without being rejected as domineering or bitchy (see media coverage of Hillary Clinton for the way “non-sexy” female power is conveyed).

Now imagine the extreme confusion girls feel when they are surrounded by images promoting the power of female sexiness and at the same time are told that it’s bad for girls to be interested in sex, to act sexy themselves, to dress sexy, etc. The real message being conveyed, of course, is that girls shouldn’t want to be powerful.

Usually, I barely follow this sort of stuff. Bubblegum pop stars are well below my notice. But if I have to watch another young woman be eaten by the celebrity gossip/entertainment industry machine, I might just cry.

This interesting article from the Courier Mail in Australia was sent to me recently.

Here’s a nice little snippet:

PRESCHOOL girls are being targeted with sexed-up dolls, which could create a generation of teenagers who hate themselves, experts say.

She said the dolls’ “fishnet stockings, tight-fitting clothes, high heels and heavily made-up faces and large pouty lips” exposed little girls to dangerous stereotypes.

Now I’ve always been of the mindset that we cannot leave it up to the media and pop culture to be the sole forms of education for our children, however I have been noticing the shift in the appearance of toys like Bratz dolls.

I would also hope that the ability to teach self and social confidence would trump materialistic followings like toys, or even better make people empowered in their own sexuality while wearing things like “fishnet stockings, tight-fighting clothes, etc”.

I could never find a Barbie that looked like me anyway.

What say you? Can we really blame toys for the oversexualization that has occurred in mainstream society?

Naomi Alderman finds something to love about the new Grand Theft Auto in The Guardian today, debunking claims that it is “horrifically violent, verging on pornographic, and that a majority of the gameplay is taken up with finding creative ways to murder prostitutes.” Her own enjoyment of the game, she says, come from the incredible graphics and the quality of the gameplay.

Okay, fair enough, but the object of the game is still to shoot people and win gang wars, right? I find it hard to fathom why so many intelligent people insist on defending this game, whose major appeal I once heard summarized as, “you can sleep with a prostitute and then shoot her so you don’t have to pay.”

Creative, indeed.

Celebrity product endorsements are not shocking news by any means, and we’ve certainly discussed them around these parts before, but for some reason this one really didn’t sit well with me.

Why does Madonna even need to do a SunSilk ad? There’s just something wrong about her entire career becoming a montage of hairstyles to sell product…

Time for a little shameless (heh heh) self-promotion (sort of): if you like your media free from corporate manipulation, remember that even free media ain’t free to run, and support your local community media outlet. CKUT, Montreal’s community radio station, is holding its annual funding drive, where the station raises money to cover its operating costs. Because they’re not backed by either large corporations or advertising, grassroots media organizations (like Shameless!) need the support of the public to exist. So if you have any cash to spare after donating to your fave feminist publication, consider helping out CKUT or an independent media outlet in your neighborhood. We need these organizations to ensure we continue to have a diversity of voices in the media landscape. And honestly, where else are you going to hear MIA and Team Dresch back to back? Clear Channel? Methinks not.

portrait of the author as a budding radio enthusiast, circa 1988

For Venus’s annual funding show, we’re going to be doing live karaoke in studio, with special guests from some of our favorite local bands, like Thundrah, Kickers, 100 Common Disasters, and more. The more pledges we get, the more we’ll embarrass ourselves! Tune in this Thursday from noon to 2 PM. Everyone wins!

Thoughts?

Julia Serano has some great ones. Via Feministing.

“Absolutely I am!”

*Okay, it’s not a hard question. But hey, it’s Monday.

It’ll be here soon, so we really should ask…

Can a feminist really love Sex and the City?

For some, Sex and the City was a refreshing story of friendship and sexual freedom. For others, it was an orgy of consumerism and triviality. With the film version set to open, Alice Wignall asks if the series was good or bad for women.

What do you think? Do you think SATC is feminist? Vapid? Fun? Do you think it is in opposition to feminist ideals? Do you think it harms women or empowers them?

Torontoist has just posted this gem of a vintage ad:

Jamie Bradburn offers commentary.

Me? I’m speechless.