Well, my fellow bitches, I'm about to depart. Today is the end of my gig at Bitch. So, in the spirit of farewells and last words, the topic of this post is break-ups. (Not that we're breaking up. But more on that later.)
I've always been of the opinion that unless a relationship has taken an unusually ugly turn, or you feel unsafe in some way, breakups should be done face-to-face, or at least by phone, where both sides can express their feellings. That's how most of my relationships have ended, and when I've stayed friends with my exes, it was usually because the breakup itself was amicable and we handled things sensitively enough that there were no hard feelings. A lot of people, though, are a lot less comfortable with that. Breakups are undeniably unpleasant, and lots of us would rather find a way to get it over with without having to actually look someone in the eye or hear the sound of their voice.
I only ever flipped through Archie comics while waiting in line to buy groceries, bored by the overwhelming whiteness of Riverdale and confused by Jughead's hat. But it always seemed weird that a series about such a squeaky-clean golly-gee group of teenagers revolved around something as potentially controversial as vague polyamory. The series is over 70 years old, and its technology has changed with the times (Betty blogs and Veronica snaps pictures with her camera phone) but its gender politics are completely outdated. Betty's worship of Archie is portrayed throughout the series as admirable loyalty rather than creepy unrequited dependency, while Archie's inability to retain even a casual commitment to just one girl is framed as… completely normal. So this week's Douchebag Decree goes to you, Archie Andrews, you sly dog. Make up your mind.
Meghan McCain posted the cleavage shot that launched a thousand tweets last night with this twitpic of her reading an Andy Warhol biography:
The photo, which she captioned with the line, my "spontaneous" night in is my Andy Warhol biography and takeout....I'm getting old caused a major freakout among her devoted Twitter followers and their pervy friends, with cries of "boobs!" and "slut!" and "boobs!" echoing throughout the Twitterverse. (Yes, I said Twitterverse. It's a thing now.) Slut shame much, tweeple?
Who better than tackle the topic than Target Women's Sarah Haskins, who was on the Rachel Maddow Show last night! If you missed it, here's the clip...(it also shows what happens when their graphic design team uses the same Photoshop dimensions on Rachel Maddow!)
"Ralph Lauren is just playing the game with everyone else. I think this incident primarily explains, to me, why Ralph Lauren fired...me."
Lately we've (or at least I've) been a little Thao-crazy. I interviewed her for the Consumption Junction podcast (where she offers something special to Bitch podcast listeners, so check it out!), she was a fave on the latest episode of Bitch Popaganda, and (shhh) she just may play a role in the next issue of the magazine. What can we say? Thao rules! And so does her new video, so check it out after the jump (oh, and you eagle-eyed readers just may be able to spot a Bitch Media staff member or two in the crowd – I said we were Thao-crazy)!
Sorry to not post the video in the teaser – it was posting as a wonky size and the player wouldn't let me change it. Click through to see the good-sized version!
Dear Lord, Taylor Swift fans! I cannot keep up with you! Witness just a sampling of the very angry comments on my Taylor Swift post of last week:
Personally I think she is kind of silly, but I can understand why so
many people like [Taylor]. Especially teen girls. She tells girls that its
okay to wear "T-shirts and sneakers" instead of "High heals and short
skirts". She is an alternative to the super pornified world we live in.
at least taylor doesnt cater to some stupid male fantasy where you can
only have sex for mens fantasies. What about the Katy Perry's and the
Megan Fox's who are only sexual for the pleasure of men. "I love sex, I
like it 24/7, but only with a MAN that i love, one noght stands make me
sick, they're gross, unless its with a girl while my man watches!".
Perpetuating sexist girl on girl male fantasies and marketing them as
objects to sell, the girl on girl thing is a way of life for some
people and they are objectifying it. Not to mention that girls like
Megan get huge amounts of Plastic Surgery have a career based on their
looks and then call themselves feminists.
I wince whenever I hear a movie described as "not your average chick flick," because while I want it to mean "intriguing, character-driven film on what it means to be a contemporary woman that just might have mass appeal!", it usually means is "It's a chick flick. There's just more vulgarity and boobs so your boyfriend will buy a ticket." The latest contender is Women in Trouble, which debuted at SXSW this spring. Writer/director Sabastian Gutierrez describes his new film as a "a comedy about a serpentine day in the life of ten seemingly disparate women – including a porn star, a flight attendant, a businesswoman, a psychiatrist, a masseuse, a bartender and a pair of call girls."
Wow! There were a lot of skinny white women in lingerie and tight clothes in that trailer! But I also saw a female-centric film (although it's written by a dude, although that dude has collaborated with Almódovar, although Almódovar recently...I DIGRESS!) and a plot revolving around more than relationship woes (wonder how they'll handle that unplanned pregnancy....). Plus that 13-year old seems pretty awesome. It's obvious this movie isn't your average "Lonely successful career girl doesn't even know she's falling in love--and it's the best thing to ever happen to her!" That being said, I do suspect there is some female bonding and heart-to-hearts (to say nothing of Josh Brolin and Jospeh Gordon-Levitt's presence for chrissake!) But you guys, this is NOT A CHICK FLICK. Take their word for it....
Sorry for so much Mad Men, but as my blogging stint approaches its end, I wanted to complete my little triad on the women of Mad Men - and I'm a little worried lately about Joan.
I'm worried because the last time we saw her she was no longer wearing that hairpiece and her walk was more tentative than usual. I'm worried because she married that frat boy douchebag which everybody says is so 60s of her except, I don't know about you, I seem to know a lot of otherwise redeemable women who married fratboy douchebag. (Some of them even had humanities degrees!) Most of all, I'm worried because Mad Men has tucked her away into some kind of "lost causes" sock drawer in terms of both screen time and character development.
Now, let me be clear: I have a difficult relationship with Joan, and more particularly with the way the show holds her up for us to fetishize. She's sooooo curvy! Look at her red hair! She wiggles so elegantly! I hate that the show uses her to do a lot of ass shots that, uprooted and placed in the context of a Gossip Girl or a Desperate Housewives, we would simply call gratuitous and let it be a day. I hate that Mad Men gets a pass on them because Christina Hendricks is gorgeous. I mean, she is gorgeous, but even though she is not a stick figure and there is value in having a woman like that be extremely sexual on the small screen, it still saddens me that she gets pigeonholed as the "bombshell" who is there for contrast with "plain" Peggy. The show, in other words, more or less leers at her, all the time and unapologetically - much like Roger does!