I have, as mentioned, a rather personally fraught relationship with online dating. Catching too many of my supposedly monogamous partners using personal ads to cheat on me left me pretty thoroughly unable to commit to the process. And, when it comes down to it, you have to commit to the process: you are saying, in effect, that you wish to meet potential partners through a service we've all paid for in order to meet other potential partners. You have to accept that it's a perfectly acceptable way to meet someone, and to set down and just let go of your hang-ups about it.
Plenty has been written about the fat husband/hot wife dichotomy on TV sitcoms. The critique usually consists of disbelief that a fat man would be able to land a "hot" wife. Now, in these shows, like According To Jim, King of Queens and Still Standing, the behavior of the husbands is also often undesirable. But the main thing people seem to be outraged about is that the husbands and wives are not of commensurate attractiveness. These men are also often referred to as "ugly," and their "ugliness" appears to be directly tied in to their fatness. While the men on these shows are fat, I would argue that their looks are at the least average if not slightly above average. But, as has been demonstrated in the comments on this blog, people are often perceived to be less attractive if they are viewed as fat.
We need better representation for trans folks on television. Starting with more roles, a greater diversity of trans characters, avoidance of stereotypes, and, critically, getting transgender actors in these roles. There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't have empowering, awesome, interesting, complex trans characters on television. It's a pity that the organizations that claim to be pushing for just that are falling asleep at the wheel.
We're back again with another edition of On Our Radar—bringing you some of the most interesting things we read this week!
With the celebration of the 90th anniversary of women's suffrage in the United States in full swing this week, Womanist Musings' Renee Martin reminds us that not all women gained the right and access to vote in 1920.
Following lesbian cadet Katherine Miller's resignation from West Point due to her sexual orientation, Corey Kilgannon investigates the underground gay culture at the military academy for the New York Times.
On Jezebel, Dodai Stewart tallied up the number of black models in the September issues of fashion magazines.
Check out all the great posts in the "This is What a Young Feminist Looks Like" blog carnival!
All kinds of messed up: Sociological Images' Lisa Wade highlights an NPR report on a scale of evil developed by a forensic psychologist. The graphic used to explain this scale eerily matches the range of human skin color, with the darker the color being the worse the psychopath.
After Sally was caught masturbating on Mad Men this week, Feministe Guest Blogger Monica looks at the assumption that she must have been sexually abused.
On Racialicious, Bitch contributor Andrea Plaid writes on Montana Fishburne, the daughter of famed actor Laurence and a sex worker.
Carrie Polansky focuses on the popular discoursse surrounding disability and sexuality on Gender Across Borders.
One of my favorite sometimes cringe-worthy shows is Louie on FX. I've long been a fan of Louis C.K., while I will admit his humor is sometimes problematic. So his new show, naturally, is hilarious and sometimes problematic. I haven't had a big problem with it so far, but the last episode (I don't know what day it was actually on because I TiVo everything) was full of fail on so many different levels it's amazing. I'm not going to go into detail on every level of fail. Other sites have dealt with that. What I am going to go into is the very last part of the episode when the above screencap took place, because this is a blog about representations of fat in pop culture. Yes, Louis went there. He made it with a fat black chick. A very vigorous fat black chick.
I spend as much of my time as possible watching television, and as with most of the media I critique and consume, I watch it primarily because I like it. From science fiction to sitcom to soap opera, TV shows are a worthwhile occupation on their own. Television, in its many problematic variations, is awesome.
While I like a broad variety of shows, I dislike just as many. I don't like watching shows I don't like, so I don't watch them. And I don't write about shows I don't watch—with few exceptions (Bones, Police Women of Memphis), I don't formally review media I haven't watched or read at least twice. When I'm interested in watching or writing about a particular series or season, I don't just look for how it's "good" or "not good" in a feminist sense—I have to have some kind of positive emotional, literary, humorous, or aesthetic reaction to it. There are too many socially irresponsible shows in television, so I focus on the ones I like.
A love letter to television and Bitch after the cut.
Image: An illustration of a smiling television against a pink background, with hearts above it. From Robert Couse-Baker on Flickr
What makes a work feminist? It's worth answering that before we begin. In some circles, depicting strong female characters resisting sexism is feminist. That's not enough for me. To qualify as a feminist work, I think that something actively needs to include an anti-oppression message, not just an anti-sexist one. A feminist work is one that challenges beliefs and attitudes about race, culture, gender, sexuality, disability, and much, much more. Not necessarily all in the same work or all at the same time, mind you, but I don't give a passing grade to works that are anti-sexist while conveying other -isms.
Your mileage may vary, and for the purposes of these evaluations, I'm looking at work that is considered feminist by society in general, not necessarily by my own standards, which means that these works might not pass my own personal litmus test. Or yours!
It's pretty much limited to reruns on the Style Network now, but when it was on ABC, one of my favorite shows to watch was Extreme Makeover. The show was hardcore; when they said "extreme" they meant it. From nose jobs to liposuction and body "resculpting" to butt implants, boob implants, tooth veneers and LASIK, they will turn your "ugly" into an artificially constructed version of what society deems attractive. For the fat participants on the show, an extreme weight loss plan was constructed that the participants had to complete to qualify for the plastic surgery procedures they so desperately needed. Besides the whole "carrot and stick" factor to the weight loss programs, they didn't particularly revolutionize the participant's eating and exercise habits for the long term, and if they didn't lose all the fat they were required to, they'd pretty much just liposuck that away.
Last week, I had the distinct pleasure of attending a lecture given by Mary Roach. Many of you have probably read her books Bonk and Stiff, and thus you know she is a thorough researcher whose tastes run a bit on the weird side. As she put it, she likes to cover topics that combine "history, science, and some gross stuff." The lecture I attended was on her latest book, Packing for Mars, and the subject matter definitely fits the bill. Pooping in space, anyone?