Red Light Politics

Welcome to my short form Tumblr blog. My name is Flavia Tamara Dzodan, I am a business developer, writer, public speaker, ideas instigator, content creator, media facilitator and trend watcher living in Amsterdam.

This Tumblr is about the spaces and intersections between politics, culture, race and gender matters with some humor and pop culture thrown in the mix.

My long reads blog is Red Light Politics.

I also blog at Tiger Beatdown.

If you would like to know more about me, visit this page .

Search

The person behind this blog

I am on Twitter, you can follow me

Find me on...

Noted Elsewhere

More liked posts

Tag Results

28 posts tagged women in media

Deliberate choice of images

There is this site, Role/ Reboot, where both Clarisse Thorn and Hugo Schwyzer write regularly. The site is supposedly devoted to issues of gender and sexuality. I don’t check it often but every now and then I see a link to it and click. This was the main page today when I checked it out.

I was all oh, finally they have brought some diversity to the site? Is this a young Black  woman exploring her issues with dating? Considering the title of the post is “I’m single and they are never going to like me”, I was hoping for a personal story of singledom. So I clicked. And this is what the post looks like:

I read the post and throughout the text, I kept wondering why the author would never mention her issues with interracial relationships or “dating while non White” or, you know, what you’d expect to find if you are led to believe this is about a young Black woman. Except that the author, Hilary Sherratt? She looks like this:

And then I let out a screech because really, the only photo in the entire main page that features a WoC illustrates how this woman feels “ugly and unwanted”. Nothing in the way we choose media or look at media depictions is random. Our lens is informed by the culture in which we are immersed and the way we have been influenced by decades (or centuries as the case might be) of depicting “the Other”. That the editors of Role/ Reboot would pick this one image to associate with the title of this post says a lot about the care and attention they put when considering their choices. Because when it is about media? Nothing is innocent.

The Women's Media Center: Media Heroes Recognized

To that end, the WMC awards honored CNN’s Soledad O’Brien (Broadcast Journalism Award), CBS correspondent Lara Logan (Whole Truth Award), Frontier Communications Chair and CEO Maggie Wilderotter (Business Media Award), Howard University student Yanique Richards (Carol Jenkins Young Journalist Award), and Sady Doyle, founder of tigerbeatdown.com, who was chosen for the WMC Social Media Award out of 27 nominees by visitors to the WMC website. Jane Fonda described those honored as “women who have the guts to stand up and speak as women.  And that gives other women courage. We have to do more and more of that. Because if women will stand up, things will change.”

One in five ballerinas at La Scala is anorexic, leading dancer claims

From the article:

On the eve of the new season at Milan’s La Scala, one of the ballet company’s leading lights has dramatically revealed the extent of bulimia and anorexia among ballerinas.

Breaking an unspoken rule never to discuss eating disorders among Italy’s elite dance corps, Mariafrancesca Garritano told the Observer that one in five ballerinas that she knew was anorexic and, as a result, many were now unable to have children.

There is more at the link but I must warn about the content because the article does contain a lot of graphic depictions of eating disorders and health related issues.

Of all people, here I am going to defend Kim Kardashian

This post with thousands and thousands of reblogs is a great many things at once!

It is deeply misogynistic

It is homophobic

It is transphobic

It is queerphobic

And last, but not least, it is simplistically dumb

Let’s look at the first one of these celebrities, a regular punching bag on certain “progressive gossip” media: Kim Kardashian.

Now, do I like the products coming out of the “Kardashian Media Empire”? Not by a long shot. I don’t even watch that kind of reality TV. Her clothes are not to my personal style and the bits and pieces of other stuff she has branded in the past are not really up my alley. However, I simply do not get the small, acrimonious, petty hatred for this woman. They call her “dumb”, “slutty”, or “a dumb slut”. She is labeled as “shallow”, an “airhead”, “fake”, etc, etc. And yet, she makes MILLIONS out of all this. She enjoys an extremely wealthy lifestyle. Some of it unquestionably inherited from her family, but it is undeniable that she has taken it to a whole new level. This is not the result of the machinations of a “dumb” woman. This requires media savvy, knowledge of business and more importantly, the capacity to use them to your advantage. Calling her “an airhead” in this context, is simply misogyny, it is the ultimate put down of a woman who might be many things but stupid is not one of them.

I am highly critical of the role of capitalism in the production of pop culture and people’s responses to this. I am critical of the role of certain allegiances to products that are nothing more than corporate brands. However, can we blame Kim Kardashian for using this very system to her advantage? And what exactly justifies the slut shaming, the hatred, the anti-woman rhetoric? Because let’s be honest here, how is Kim Kardashian any more “fake” (or “real” for that matter), than a TV show like Castle (one that I thoroughly enjoy myself). And more importantly, how is she any less effective than such product at generating personal wealth for those involved? Still, we respond positively to the TV show, while, as a culture, we believe it is our right to use slurs against this woman.

 uhuh-she-said replied to your post: Yet again, the Wolf in sheep’s clothes

I guess Yale didn’t subvert the man enough to that get-out-of-incrimination card Naomi was so keen at handing out before. Ugh she has no credibility. She might as well pack that shit in, go home and spend her time writing fangirl letters to Julian.

Precisely! The key word here is credibility and she has none left. And it upsets me that she is presented in mainstream media as the uber feminist who speaks on behalf of women everywhere (including those of us who share neither her cultural background nor her place of residency).

But of course, and this is where I am surprised by her naivete, as she is instrumental in actually keeping social struggles looking “bad”. I am surprised that someone as media savvy as she is doesn’t see how her big mouth and ignorance are used to actually undermine the very same issues she claims to be fighting for. It might also be that she knows and doesn’t care because self promotion matters to her more so than the issues she claims to stand for. In which case, it’s even worse.

Link
 View high resolution
First of all, I strongly object the use of “revolt” to describe the reaction of seeing a human body, no matter how the body looks. But let’s for a second leave my semantic objections aside and focus on consistency here. If you describe a billboard with such strong language, would you use that same billboard, on your front page, to illustrate the story? Well, Jezebel does. I know they don’t do trigger warnings of any kind (by their own admission and standards), however, isn’t it somehow hypocritical to describe the ad in such strong terms and then go and use it to garner page views? Or is reader alienation a new journalistic tactic I wasn’t aware of?

First of all, I strongly object the use of “revolt” to describe the reaction of seeing a human body, no matter how the body looks.

But let’s for a second leave my semantic objections aside and focus on consistency here. If you describe a billboard with such strong language, would you use that same billboard, on your front page, to illustrate the story? Well, Jezebel does. I know they don’t do trigger warnings of any kind (by their own admission and standards), however, isn’t it somehow hypocritical to describe the ad in such strong terms and then go and use it to garner page views? Or is reader alienation a new journalistic tactic I wasn’t aware of?

“Bravo’s next series, “Pregnant in Heels,” illustrates a certain form of exaggerated reality, depicting women that much of the audience is pretty clearly going to despise: expectant mothers wealthy enough to retain a “maternity concierge.” One mom is a self-proclaimed “branding expert” who treats her yet-to-be-born kid like a new product, enlisting a focus group to help pick the perfect name.”

There’s a ‘Sucker’ debate born every minute - Variety

Oh, I’m sure this show is going to be hilarious! Women that the audience is going to despise! How novel! How… original!

Slate’s Double X: where they praise one woman by putting down others

I’ve already written about my dislike of Slate’s Double X (and more specifically it’s offensive byline “What women really think about news, politics, and culture”).

And today they posted a review of Tina Fey’s book Bossypants. And I had one of my mini rage moments. Because you know, I love Fey. I don’t need Slate’s approval of the book to know that it is likely to be good. But then they go and write stuff like this:

You see, some of us have forgotten this basic point: Responding to a situation with humor, as opposed to, say, dead-serious self-righteousness, is a rhetorically effective way to get a political point across.

or this:

Her attitude is not resentment or simmering or a boring, ordinary, low-grade victimhood, but rather a more accurate and nuanced portrait of the modern working woman.

Because you know, when faced with discrimination or sexism or any kind of violence, you should laugh and laugh and laugh instead of being dead serious, self righteous or *gasp* god forbids, boring.

What upset me about the review is the assumption that it only takes humor. Moreover, Fey’s kind of humor because:

And by humor, I don’t mean the automatic-pilot snideness, or contentless cattiness, or jealous innuendo, or ironic jibberish that sometimes passes for humor in certain parts of the Internet and Internet-influenced culture. I am referring to Fey’s complex, spirited, intelligent kind of funniness

Anything else, of course, is not appropriate. Serious political discourse be damned. Snark and satire borne out of frustration are obviously not worthy of attention. Silly jokes or crude humor? Queue the high pitch “BUT YOU ARE A LADY!”.

You know what, Slate? I fart in your general direction.

Do You Douche?

A montage of vintage commercials about “feeling fresh” by Nerve Media. “No more vinegar and water douches for me!” has to be my favorite line. Vinegar! Inside your vagina! Vinegar!

Women in Literature: the figures

Last week I wrote a post about two major Literary Clubs (in London and NYC) discussing if women should or should not be allowed to become members. In closing, I said “That this issue is still up for debate and that there are men who oppose it, says enough about the networking opportunities they would like to afford their female peers and the intellectual respect they have for them. Not to mention the most glaring fact: their views on gender equality”.

Well, today I came across the cold, hard figures that illustrate the real state of gender equality in literature. Vida, a Non Profit devoted to exploring critical and cultural perceptions of writing by women released The Count 2010, that is, the number of women vs. men in all major literary magazines and journals.

Some of the figures (although, the article at Vida is much more explanatory, as it includes the graphics that go with this data):

  • The New York Review of Books has 462 male bylines to 79 female, about a 6-to-1 ratio.
  • The New Republic has 32 women vs 160 men.
  • The Atlantic published 154 male authors vs 55 women.
  • The New Yorker reviewed 36 books by men and 9 by women.
  • Harper’s reviewed more than twice as many books by men as by women.
  • The New York Times Book Review had 1.5 men to 1 woman (438 compared to 295) and an authors-reviewed ratio of 1.9 to 1 (524 compared to 283).

I am convinced that last week’s story about women writers not allowed into men’s clubs and the publishing figures compiled by Vida are strongly interrelated. It’s a matter of both physical and printed spaces being kept restricted. As long as women’s voices are considered less than, I guess we will continue seeing gender issues downplayed in media. And we know who has the most to lose then.

Hotter than what?!

Also from BBC, what in taxpayer’s funded hell is going on with that trainwreck called “Hotter than my daughter”?! Hosted by media personality extraordinaire, Liz McClamon, of Atomic Kitten fame, this extravaganza of stereotypes is described as

Liz McClarnon visits the home of a mother and daughter, where the daughter is embarrassed by the way her mother dresses and acts and the mother thinks their daughter should dress more their age. McClarnon talks to the mother and daughter separately and asks them how they feel about each others looks and asks the mother if she feels she is hotter than her daughter. A lifesize fold-out picture of the two is shown to 5 Members of the ‘Great British public’, called ‘Joe Jury’ who consider whether the mother, daughter, or both of them should have a makeover, and the guilty party/ies are given a style overhaul by the Hotter Than My Daughter style team.

Here is the thing, in the episode I was unfortunate enough to see last night, both mothers depicted were extremely positive about their daughters appearance. Also, all women involved were unconventional in their looks. The end result is that all personality quirks and peculiarities from these women were removed to present stereotypical versions of what both “mothers” and “daughters” should look like. While the host talks down on the “mothers” and patronizes them for being inappropriate for their age.

To hell with that nonsense. How is a publicly funded TV show allowed to do this, more suitable for the most rancid of tabloid aesthetics? I don’t have answers but the show made me wish that the women involved were simultaneously childless and orphans. Or, you know, just free to look as they wished without the obnoxious policing.

Link
 View high resolution
Strong Women?! Really, Netflix? Your idea of women and/or strength seems to be radically different from mine. Found via.

Strong Women?!

Really, Netflix? Your idea of women and/or strength seems to be radically different from mine. Found via.

“You don’t have to lose weight, unless like me, it becomes an issue of health. I thought I was attractive when I shot ‘My Big Fat Greek Wedding.’ Studio executives and movie reviewers let me know I had a confidence in my looks that was not shared by them. In other words: they labeled me with words like, overweight, unattractive, unappealing. Hey, just say fat. I love the word fat. I used it in the title. It’s actually not a naughty word. We give it a power it actually doesn’t have. So, you’re fat. Big deal.”

My Big Fat Greek Wedding’s Nia Vardalos Talks About Weight Loss and Double Standards | Skinny VS Curvy

Check the interview at the link because it is a great read. She talks about how men’s appearances in Hollywood are evaluated very different from women’s and how people respond to it. And she is funny. So, there’s that added value.

“Unless you’re watching figure skating, never try to upstage a guy with sports trivia knowledge. I had a friend with a girlfriend that would constantly spew out stats like, ‘Did you see so-and-so? They passed for 300 yards last week!’ It was annoying — girls shouldn’t try too hard to be one of the guys. Just show interest, cheer when appropriate, and it never hurts to offer to go get beers.”

A 1920’s “How to be a good girl” guide? Perhaps a satire playing with gender stereotypes? Why, of course not! This week’s 9 Rules For Watching Football With Guys @ MSN Relationships

Link
View high resolution
I am so put off by Slate’s XX Factor Blog byline that I can hardly read it. These universal axioms actually do us no favors. Some women will agree with Slate’s writers, others won’t. But these gross generalizations are the very reason stereotypes of womanhood/ femininity exist. So no, Slate, do not even try to pretend that you speak on my behalf.

I am so put off by Slate’s XX Factor Blog byline that I can hardly read it. These universal axioms actually do us no favors. Some women will agree with Slate’s writers, others won’t. But these gross generalizations are the very reason stereotypes of womanhood/ femininity exist. So no, Slate, do not even try to pretend that you speak on my behalf.

Loading posts...