Category Archives: Just for fun

Mama Mia, and selling inadequecies

Posted on by
1

I read an interview on Mama Mia yesterday where Mia Freedman (the former Australian Cosmopolitan editor/columnist writer/’Voice of Feminism’) interviewed Caitlin Moran (author/former journalist/ another ‘Voice of Feminism’). And look – far be it from me to be judgey-wudgey about ‘Voices of Feminism’, but there were just SO DARN MANY problematic comments made within one single interview.

Ahem.

So, of course, I’m taking to my soapbox blog to have a good ol’ pass at identifying and commenting on at least one of the comments made.

Mia: You hate Sex and the City, don’t you?

Caitlin: Yes. I think it was an important stepping stone in that it had women talking freely and openly about their sexuality… [but] the end thing that you take out is that it’s an enormous amount of hard work to be a woman, just to look beautiful.

And it’s hard work to be a woman, but I don’t want to put all my effort into looking fabulous and kind of maintaining my walk-in wardrobe. If I’m going to put that much effort into something it will be a fucking Marxist feminist revolution, it won’t be debating accessories. It annoys me that women are having their energy sidetracked. Every Christmas, I used to get a jigsaw, and one year my sister walked past me and she said “Why are you doing a jigsaw? You’ve just bought yourself a problem.”

And I said “I’ve just spent $7.99 to put to together a picture of some trees, and spend three days doing that. And that’s what Sex and the City seemed to be for me, it was women buying themselves a problem. You watched it to the end and you went, “Shit, I didn’t previously know that my life needed to be fabulous and revolve around racketing around bars, experimenting with my anus, and coming up with fifty new kinds of hair.

M: It’s the inadequacy though, isn’t it? It’s that so much media aimed at women and that depict women make us feel shit about ourselves because that’s not real life. I come from a magazine background – I used to be the editor of Cosmopolitan – and I’ve railed against the whole airbrushing/Photoshop bullshit. And I’ve now become one of those mothers who don’t allow magazines in my house.

satc1

Want to know the immediate thought that struck me about “buying yourself a problem”? It went along the lines of “gee, doesn’t that sound like buying a Cosmopolitan magazine”. And my next thought was, “gee, who was the former editor of that again?!”. And then I repeatedly banged my head against my desk for a solid three minutes.

Because, yes, although Caitlin Moran is partially correct in making the observation that “Sex and the City” is a  bit like buying yourself a problem, it has nothing – I repeat, NOTHING – on ACTUALLY buying yourself a problem when you blow $7 or more on a women’s magazine such as Cosmopolitan. I’m not blaming Mia Freedman for being a former editor of Cosmo – because, as she said, she tried to make a difference there (particularly in regards to the airbrushing/Photoshopping crap) but Mama Mia isn’t always a shining light of intelligent dialogue, either – it can, and does, fall into the same trap. Case in point: on Mama Mia’s home page at the moment, they have an ad for ‘Mama Mia shopping’, and right under that, an article on a baby who died from whooping-cough at 6 weeks old. And right next to that, an article on Anne Hathaway’s vagina ‘going viral’, and whether girls are wearing underwear any more. Surely I’m not the only who thinks that’s a case of “women having their energies sidetracked”?

Untitled

Do you remember the #fakemamamia hashtag that was floating around on Twitter recently? The Sydney Morning Herald claims that it was apparently started by a tweet promoting an article on Mama Mia, which was written by Rosie Waterland. The tweet read “Am I the only one planning a c-section to avoid the pain and keep my lady parts intact?” I’ve since be told that the hashtag was started elsewhere, by @Shirleymullet, with the first tweet listed below. Regardless, what followed from the #fakemamamia hashtag was an at-times hilarious, at-times snarky avalanche of tweets ridiculing the Mama Mia website. Stand out tweets included:

“The 6 things that will tell you your partner will be a deadbeat dad #fakemamamia” @Shirleymullet

 

“Worried about the latest middle east meltdown? Here’s 15 great outfits to wear while worrying#FakeMamaMia” @RedBaff

 

“This issue: ‘Learning To Love Yourself As You Are’. Next week: ‘Still Single At 30? It Might Be Your Fat Arse And Ugly Head’. #fakemamamia” @deltrimental

 

“10 ways a new red Kitchenaid will save your marriage#fakemamamia” @jarrodbooth

And so on, and so forth.

Look, I understand that Mama Mia doesn’t sell itself as a hard-hitting news website. It’s fluffy, with a focus on entertainment, fashion, motherhood, and other “women’s” stuff. I’m not attacking it for these reasons. But what does bother me is when a website that purports to promote ‘fluff’ then goes on to comment about issues such as victim blaming, and making judgements about the ‘inadequacies’ of one television show – whilst at the same time, trying to also tell me about a female celebrity’s vagina ‘going viral’, and whether girls are wearing undies anymore.

I’m not calling for an all-out women’s war (or as Caitlin Moran said, a “Marxist feminist revolution”), whereby we place a ban on anything ‘fun’ or ‘fluffy’ on the basis of it “side tracking one’s energies”. But what I would like is a little bit of perspective. When a website is able to grab the ear of the Prime Minister and the Opposition Leader, it should take some time to think through and reevaluate some of its opinions. Particularly in relation to car-locking analogies for victim blaming, and attacking Sex and the City for selling “inadequacy” (whilst also trying to sell its own online clothing shop).

Just a little bit of self-reflection would be nice.

How to transform yourself into Lisbeth Salander

Posted on by
1

Over the Halloween season, I’ve been lucky enough to attend a few costume-heavy parties. After the realisation came to me that I actually had to ‘dress up’ for these events, I realised I needed a kick-ass costume that was easy on maintenance, and high on ‘scare’ factor. Enter: Lisbeth Salander.

In case you’ve never heard of her, Lisbeth Salander is the main character of the ‘Millenium’ series of books, the most popular of which is ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’. Two films were created, based on the book: one in its native Sweden, and the second out of the US.

The actresses who played Lisbeth in the Swedish and American versions of these films were Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mana, respectively. You can see them here:

I based my costume more around the Swedish version of Lisbeth – mostly because I think that Noomi’s portrayal is amazing, but also because it was a bit easier to achieve when considering my hair and eyebrows (I was not going to bleach or cut anything).

Let the transformation begin!

BEFORE: No make up, hair relatively frizzy, minus the ‘clothes’ part of the costume.

STEP ONE: Wet and then braid hair. I sectioned my hair off into two chunks, divided by the side part. I then pinned up the top section on my right side, in order to later ‘drape’ it over my face.

After doing this, I braided the two chunks of hair towards the back of my head, and then tucked them up and pinned them. From a distance, it almost looked as though I’d shaved my head, which was the intended effect.

STEP TWO: Apply liberal amounts of eyeliner. Just keep piling the stuff on.

Chuck on as much foundation as you like, and then powder over that. Try and make yourself as pale as possible (I didn’t have very much ‘pale’ make up, but I’m sure you can go out and buy some if you’re super-motivated).

STEP THREE: Apply approximately 543, 289 coats of eye shadow in grey, or black, or dark brown. Can you see how thrilled I am about the eye make up? But in all seriousness, you need a few coats. And then you’ll probably have to re-apply the eye shadow over the top of that.

STEP FOUR: Apply black lipstick. FUUUUN! I always like this bit. I couldn’t actually find decent black lipstick, so I made do with a black eyeliner pencil. It stayed on much better than lipstick, so it may be the easier (and cheaper) way to go.

STEP FIVE: Chuck on your costume. You’ll need whatever ripped black clothes you own, plus a pair of boots. I already owned the shirt, the cardigan, ripped jeans and some combat boots – but it would have been nice to have a leather jacket! The only thing I had to purchase was the dog collar.

STEP SIX: Apply piercings. Great if you already have all these piercings – and if not, you can buy a pack of 10 off eBay for about $6. Super cheap, and really easy to use.


STEP SEVEN: Go out and frighten the masses. You’ve earned it.

What relationships force you to learn

Posted on by
2

Relationships force you to grow. Either through their initiation, throughout their duration, or simply due to their termination – one way or another, your ex boyfriend or girlfriend will force you to learn something new.

Here is what I have learnt from previous boyfriends (and as a side note, I’ve used ‘boyfriend’ here as that’s all I have previously had – but the term ‘girlfriend’ is equally applicable):

- When a guy wants to show off what a man he is by driving recklessly in his car, he is usually “compensating for something” – and it’s not always the size of his penis. It can be related to other issues – but regardless, don’t let him show off, and don’t let him drive you around again. He obviously doesn’t value your life enough to drive carefully.

- When a guy you’re interested in doesn’t get back to you after a good first date – don’t chase him. Evidently, he doesn’t want to go on another date, and you text messaging him asking him if he got your last text message, and the text message before that, and the text message before that won’t change anything. It’s much more therapeutic to simply bitch to your friends.

- If your boyfriend cheats on you, it’s something only you can decide how to handle. Don’t let other people tell you what to do – whether you stay or go, it’s only something you can decide. Only you know how much shit you’re willing to put up with, and only you can learn if you’re willing to put up with that shit again, and again, and again.

- When your boyfriend knows you well enough to just tell that you are in need of lots of cuddles, you know you have found someone who “gets” you.

- If your boyfriend doesn’t look after himself (mind and body) then it’s not your job to step in and help. You’re his girlfriend, not his life manager.

- Not all relationships end with a fiery ‘boom’. Sometimes, they fizzle out over months or years – and it’s not until you look back at the mouldy, rotten hunk of cheese that was the old relationship that you wonder why you hung around inhaling that smell for so long. Don’t worry; this is called a ‘learning experience’, and you go through the ‘fizzling out’ period so you can better recognise it the next time around.

- Finally, there’s the superficial perspective. If none of the above helps you, it’s always reassuring that your ex has the potential of dating someone who just isn’t as ‘good’ as you next time around (and ‘good’ doesn’t necessarily = pretty).

Femininity, and women who know their place

Posted on by
6

A few weeks ago, John Laws appeared on the ‘Kyle and Jackie O show’. One of the ah, more interesting comments he made was in relation to Jackie O, and women. Apparently, he asked Jackie O if she was wearing a dress (because, of course, that’s highly relevant to her job) and said twice that he likes “feminine women who just know their place in the world”.

Now, if Jackie O was a feminist, she might have objected to these comments. As it stands, the comments left me asking what the hell is a “feminine woman”, and what on earth is their “place”?

After conducting a highly un-scientific Google image search, these images apparently represent “feminine women”:

Sidenote: this Google search also, somewhat hilariously,  led me to a blog post helpfully entitled “How to become more feminine”. Pro tips include “letting go of your desire to be right”, and “becoming a receiver”. I recommend reading it if you want to induce a migraine, as it reeks of sexism (“women are nurturers!” “let a man be a man, and show appreciation for a masculine man!”and “learn to let men simply ‘do’ for you!” are my favourite lines).

So, who are these ‘feminine’ women? They like wearing dresses, have long hair, and perhaps accessorising said hair with flowers or sparkly objects. Traditionally, personality traits include gentleness, empathy, and sensitivity (according to the completely unreferenced source of Wikipedia). Which, you know, is fine because being called ‘feminine’ alone isn’t necessarily an insult (although I would smack anyone down who tried to tell me to “become a receiver”). It’s the association to the female gender that bothers me. Here’s a mind-blowing thought: men can be feminine, too.

And women can be masculine.

And there is nothing wrong with this.

The argument that women are “naturally” more feminine is entirely up for debate in quite a few fields. It’s called “biological determinism”, and has been a point of contention for, well, ever. As you can probably guess, I stand firmly on the side that society, my upbringing, my peers, et al made me more “feminine” than “masculine”. I do not believe that my genetics made me more inclined to like pink, sparkly objects (because I am not a pigeon).

Now, onto this comment of Laws’ that Jackie O “knows her place in the world”. I am presuming that this “place” is in the kitchen, not the board room. Quite simply, all I can say to this is that a woman’s place is wherever she damn well wants it to be – and someone like Laws should not be dictating it for her.

To borrow from a meme, I don’t always gets angry – but it’s pretty much guaranteed that I will if someone tell me that I’m not in the correct “place” for a woman. It’s also the case that I will then demonstrate the correct placement of my womanly foot up someone’s ass.

To conclude: the idea of a “woman’s place” is outdated, oppressive, and serves only to remind women that they damn well had a ‘place’, and isn’t wherever they are currently located.