Posts tagged offensive

True Life: I Was A Prom Queen Runner-Up and Lost

There’s so much we could say about this article (patronizing, pronouns, utter confusion), but perhaps the most egregious of all is this: Nicole Fabien-Weber seems to think that her granting - or denying - permission for gay boys (or transgender girls) to be crowned prom queens matters. To which we say: Who cares? We are all for gay boys as prom queens, straight jocks as prom kings, straight jocks as prom queens, gay jocks as prom queens, little highschool butches as prom kings, genderqueer folks as prom kings, femmes as prom kings, butches as prom queens - honestly, pretty much any combination you can come up with - as long as the new royalty is happy with their title. And unlike Fabien-Weber, we don’t expect any high school students to be waiting with bated breath for our blog’s opinion on the matter.

Blogic likely agrees with some fraction of the author’s argument, but there’s so much insanity it’s impossible to make sense of it. (For the record, the concept we agree with is that we should cut prom royalty pageants all together).

*interestingly enough, this blog post came from the same people at “thestir.cafemom.com” who also brought us this worthwhile blog post. They sure do have a thing for royalty and backhanded homophobia.

While the interwebs and cell phones have prevented many a communication disaster, technology brings its challenges. Thank goodness that GalTime.com (yup, actual name) has brought us “He Said/She said: Decoding the text message” to help navigate the rocky waters of SMS:

Text: I wish you were here

GIRL INTERPRETATION:  “He really likes me! Awww and he misses me!! So cute!”
BLOGIC INTERPRETATION: We don’t have high hopes for this relationship. For one thing, Unidentified Text Messenger is so cool that he only speaks in Pink Floyd album titles, while Girl has rewatched Sally Field’s Oscar win too many times.  

Text: Are you going out tonight/ What are you doing later?

GIRL INTERPRETATION: “He wants to hang out with me! He can’t stop thinking about me!”
BLOGIC INTERPRETATION: At last, someone is telling the truth about how girls only think in exclamation points! Or, on special occasions, hybrid question marks/exclamation points?!
BONUS: “Ensley,” commentator, offers this helpful text interpretation: “Maybe I can get this one in the bag before I have to buy her too many drinks.”

Text: Can we reschedule for another night? I am not feeling well.

GIRL INTERPRETATION: Poor little boo boo! He needs me to bring him chicken soup and some lotion-infused Kleenex!
BLOGIC INTERPRETATION: Girl’s following thought: “Too bad I can’t bring him any of those things. I’m too young to drive.”

Text: I’ll text you later.

GIRL INTERPRETATION: He must be really busy right now. He has such a stressful job! Why can’t his boss give him a break?!
BLOGIC INTERPRETATION: What? No texting at work?!? This Girl seems fundamentally confused about the real-world demands of a job - but that’s probably because her full time job is providing in-depth relationship analysis in 140 character increments.

Blogic is all about making communication easier (if, at the very least, to avoid these situations), but Galtime’s “advice” is does more to perpetuate absurd gender stereotypes than provide any real technological insights. Besides, trying (and failing) to provide insight into relationships via canned stereotypes is so 90s.

Pepsico’s new online forum for women, the Women’s Inspiration Network: “An online interactive network offering global female perspective, inspiration, and idea sharing through the involvement of experts, influencers and real women. It’s a network for all who are interested in listening, engaging, enabling and supporting women.” 

Apparently, corporate online networks are a brilliant new marketing tool for inspiring “brand loyalty” among women, via a faux “by women, for women” forum. For all their talk, it’s obvious that the only “inspiring” that pepsico intends for WIN to do is to inspire women to go buy a can of pepsi (perhaps in a new skinny can?).

Reasons we’re uninspired by WIN:

• Women deserve real networks, news, forums and general spaces—online or otherwise—that exist outside of conglomerate marketing.
  
• Also, didn’t Pepsi already kind of make this site already?
• Re: the above description - we don’t think this means what you think it means, Pepsico.
  

But wait, don’t despair! Here are some sites that we recommend you visit instead:

• RHRealityCheck: an online community committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights.
• Moms Rising: a soapbox where people across our nation can talk politics, policy, and parenting
• Ms. Magazine: engages a diverse readership with each other and with the world through extensive coverage of international women’s issues
• Feministe: one of the oldest feminist blogs online designed by and run by women from the ground up
• Feministing: a platform for feminist and pro-feminist writing, to connect feminists online and off, and to encourage activism.
• Hello Ladies: inspires smart, busy women to advance their agenda at work, at home, and in their communities.

Possible bylines that would justify this photo choice:

• Budget cuts force AP classes to be held at 3am
• School cafeteria food spiked with Nyquil
• Chemistry class GHB science experiment goes awry

Nope, not even those outrageous bylines excuse this photo/headline combination. Seriously, Huffpo? Seriously?

Diet Pepsi presents the taller, sassier new Skinny Can at New York’s Fall 2011 Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week

“Diet Pepsi has a long history of celebrating women through iconic fashion imagery seen in our infamous and historical campaigns, and we’re proud to continue that tradition as an official sponsor of Mercedes-Benz Fashion Week,” said Jill Beraud, Chief Marketing Officer, PepsiCo. 

Thanks, Pepsi:

• So, fashion(able) = slimmer and taller? That’s original.
• How exactly does this “celebrate” women? It seems more like it reduces women’s value to little more than the 5-cent deposit on an aluminum can (okay, 10-cents in one state!).
• Just to be clear, it’s the same old pepsi inside the can. We won’t be sprinting to the store for a taste of this “new” beverage.
• “Infamous” doesn’t mean what you think it means, Jill. (Or maybe it does, and she’s just being honest?)

The San Jose Mercury gives the “list of powerful women” concept a go. This list is in some ways superior to that of a certain other publication—for one thing, the women’s credentials aren’t accompanied by photographs or details on their marital and reproductive status. The article also lists its criteria for ‘powerful’: “size of their company or organization; number of people under their management; and scope of their influence beyond their company.” Certainly better than offering no definition whatsoever (thanks again, Forbes). Yet, O’Brien follows this with “Though in talking with Theresia Gouw Ranzetta, another one of the 10, I realized women might have their own way of defining power that’s very different from men.”

Is this true? While at least one woman on this list supports this theory, does that support his conclusion that women define power as: “helping others succeed or having an impact on their community”? Everyone is hurt by narrow, gendered definitions of power and success. Women who do not fit into the definition O’Brien highlights are often referred to as “bitches” or “ball-busters” (Martha Stewart), and men who do are seen as too weak to be truly powerful. 

Even some of the lauded successes are questionably framed:

• “Sandberg [chief operating officer, Facebook] provided much-needed maturity to a company that had sometimes resembled a rowdy college dormitory.” Good thing Frat-house Facebook hired a woman to play housemother and keep them organized!

• And, of Katie Cotton, vice president at Apple: “Here is a woman who possesses the greatest of all superpowers: invisibility… Not only does she do a masterful job of stoking the cultlike fervor for Apple products, but she’s also considered to be the cultivator of Steve Jobs’ image.” Media, take note: praising women for their “invisibility” is nothing more than good old-fashioned sexism in disguise.

 By the end of our read, we were scratching our heads as to whose was worse - the Forbes piece or this one - what do you think?

The NYT’s annual “Places to Go” series never ceases to offend. From

1. Santiago, Chile
Undaunted by an earthquake, a city embraces modern culture.

to the more explicit

4. Iceland
Where a country’s hardships are a visitor’s gain.

the NYT Travel Section seems to be under the assumption that the world is its wealthy travelers’ playground, with all manner of natural or man-made disaster, civil unrest or economic crisis relevant only for their potential to turn an entire nation into a “bargain bin” for visitors.