Beauty Standards and Shaming...

Ren, of Renegade Evolution (not so much safe for work. Unless you work in a place that's totally cool with blogs about sex and sex work. In which case, I guess that it is safe for work.) is guest blogging over at feministe, and has a post up called Something I Never Really Understood..., wherein she discusses body acceptance. In particular, she's wondering what it really means, and if many feminists are only willing to accept women's bodies if they meet some kind of particular feminist ideal- not shaving, not wearing makeup, not dressing in certain ways.

Often times being thin, via nature or diet or time in a gym is thought of something horrible. The intelligence of women who wear make up or get any sort of cosmetic surgery is guestioned, and often they are made fun of. Women who enage in any sort of “Patriarchy Approved” grooming or body ritual, well, when they admit it, they appologize for it. They are appologetic or ashamed of being thin, or wearing eyeliner, or having blonde hair...

... It seems like an odd sort of backlash to what was supposed to be a mode of thought that would make women more comfortable in their own skins, no matter their shape, size, mode of dress, or alterations. One can read feminist lit of all types, from books to blogs, and see this odd backlash, feminist people calling women bimbos, porno barbies, sticks; women disdaining their own natural attributes that fall within the realms of conventional beauty, things such as being tall, or thin, or curvy or blonde…

I don't know how common this is, in general, but I know that I've noticed it on occasion. I've seen threads about lipstick, makeup, high-heels, etc. end up becoming quite heated, as some people take hard-line stances about them. I've seen people essentially say "You're not really a feminist if you wear heels/lipstick" or whatever the topic of choice is. And, let's be honest, there are big taboos against breast enlargement in a some feminist circles. I'd have guessed that this was a minority position- the way that I generally think people being criticized for working out or being thin tends to be a minority situation- but I also realize that, as a guy, I'm not in the best position to notice these sorts of criticisms.

Still, Ren's question is an interesting one to me, because I don't think that there's a good response, necessarily. The problem is between dealing with individual choices, and the social implications that those choices can have.

Here's what I mean: I'm a huge supporter of people exercising their personal autonomy. I think that you should have the right to do just about whatever you want to your own body. If you want to be thin, be thin. If you want to be fat, be fat. If you want to dye your hair purple and wear nothing but yellow polka dots, I say go for it.

Some people want to be as "natural" as they can be- they don't want to shave or get cosmetic surgery. They want to leave their body as it developed. I think that's great, and I don't think that they should be judged poorly for it. On the other hand, some people take great pleasure in having total control over their bodies. They like to be able to sculpt themselves and know that their physical presentation is exactly as they want it to be. I think that's great, too. And, of course, a lot of people fall somewhere in the middle.

So, when it comes to any particular individual, I think that body modification is totally fine. I get the impression that this is a minority view. In abstract, I don't see anything wrong with breast enlargement over any other form of elective, cosmetic surgery. Sure, not necessary, but, then, neither are lots of the other forms of body modification people get. In abstract, what's the difference between a boob job and, say, getting lots of piercings, or tattoos, or teeth bleaching, or hair dying, or braces, or, or, or...

All of those things are surgeries or alterations people get to change their physical appearance in ways that they control. Don't like that bump on your nose from when you broke it when you were twelve? Get a nose job and fix it. Don't like that you have to wear glasses? Get lasered. Get a navel piercing. It's a way of exhibiting control over your body, which, I think, can be a perfectly healthy and understandable desire to have. We don't think twice when someone wants to get her teeth straightened.

Ultimately, I think that all of those things should be left up to the individual to decide. It's not my place to tell another person that she should or shouldn't alter her body in some way that doesn't effect me.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal or abstract world. We live in a very real world where we don't make our choices in a vacuum, and that's where I think the disagreement/trouble comes in, and where I think Ren is finding people's comments troubling and/or confusing. In a world where women are constantly bombarded with images and messages telling them that they're not good enough, and that they'd be more attractive if they shed a few pounds and had bigger, perkier breasts, and if they wore the right foundation, and had longer lashes... well... I can see why some people start to have concerns.

And I understand that and think it's totally fair, too. If you've got a system that really pushes women to feel like shit about how they look naturally, then you're going to have a system that pushes women get bodily alterations done. Socialization is powerful, and it's hard to know how much it effects women's choices when it comes to these things. How many women would cover their faces in makeup if it weren't for the social pressure to do so?

So, of course, it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If you don't shave or wear makeup, you get criticized for it. You're breaking a social taboo, and people will look and question and prod and poke. If you do, you're capitulating to harmful social pressures that demand women look a certain way.

So, how do we come to a place where women who want to modify their bodies or wear makeup or wear certain clothing get the respect that they deserve, but where other women can feel free to criticize the system that reinforces the notion that real women dress or act or look a certain way? How do we avoid criticizing any particular woman for getting a breast enlargement while still fighting the system that tries to tell women that their breasts aren't good enough?

I think that's precisely how, though. I think it's entirely possible to say that the system is screwed, without attacking any particular woman. If a woman says that she did X, Y, or Z because she wanted to, I think that's fair. If a woman says she's considered the implications of an action, and has decided to go ahead with it, that's good enough for me. I don't think it's my place to question any particular person's feminist credentials based on whether she's wearing red lipstick or high-heels.

So: to answer Ren's post: I think that it comes from being troubled and concerned with the systemic problems, and attacking the women that are seen as perpetuating them. I think that it's very easy, when you're trying to fight a systemic problem, to end up hitting individuals sometimes. I'm not suggesting that it's nice or right to do so, but I think that it's understandable that it happens. If you're trying to fight a big problem, and you see someone that is reinforcing that very problem, frustration or imprecise language can create a situation where you end up lashing out at an individual.

Still, like I said, I don't know how pervasive this problem is, though. For my money, I'd have guessed that it was more likely that feminists feel guilty or troubled by their own wearing of makeup or concern with beauty than for them to be criticized by other feminists for it. I'd love to hear other people's experiences wit this though.

Because you know what's funny? Gay People. And Asians. Oh, and short people. And, well... everyone but average heighted, straight, white men.

What the eff, Hollywood?

I went to see Transformers the other day (Shut up!), and was treated to the delightful previews. There was a preview for the new Adam Sandler flick, I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry. See, they're fire fighters, but there's something about them needing to be married to make sure that their families can get the money if they die. Or something. The point is, they pretend to be gay! See, that's funny! The preview includes the brilliant comedy bits you'd expect: When told they can kiss at the wedding, Adam Sandler punches Kevin James instead, and says something about "Yeah, that's how we are in our family." Which, of course, gets a knowing look and an "Ooooooh" from the man officiating the ceremony. Oh, and the hill-are-ee-us scene where Jessica Biel strips to her underware in front of Adam Sandler because, you know, he's gay, right? And she makes him feel her breasts. Because they're real.

Anyway. Yeah, looks like a real flippin' winner, this one. Nothing screams comedy like men pretending to be The Gay.

And if that wasn't enough brain smashing comedy genius, I got to see a preview for Rush Hour 3, as well! See, it's a loud black man, and a martial artist Asian man! And they have wacky hijinks! Woooooaaaaah! Ker-azy!

Yeah. It looks awesome. Especially the part where they're in France, and a Chinese man shouts something in French at Tucker, and Tucker responds "You Asian, man, stop embarrassin' yourself!"

Yeah. Brilliant.

I hate that. I really do. It's not that race or sex or other statuses can't be used to great comedic effect. They can. It's just that the majority of Hollywood writers seem quite content to play it low. They're not looking to poke fun at stereotypes, they're looking to reinforce them. It's possible to poke fun of and subvert stereotypes for comedy, but, far too often, being gay/black/female is the joke. If your whole schtick is "Look, I'm a man pretending to be gay! I loooove fashion." then you're not being clever. Sorry to break the news to you.

And before anyone says it: No, I havne't seem them yet. Maybe I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry will be awesome. Maybe it'll expose some of the very real and very harmful bigotry that homosexuals still face in our society. That'd be awesome. As it stands, though, the preview plays to that very same sort of bigotry. Stereotypes of homosexuality are funny. Har. Har.

Speaking of movies and previews:

Most of us have heard the news about the billboard ads and the lead-in to Captivity. Joss Whedon put up an impressive missive on his site after seeing the ads and watching the trailer. It was, shall we say, a shit storm. The news on the release party- suicide girls, cage fighters, live torture rooms, something "probably not legal" etc...- didn't help. That the party was touted as a "personal little tribute" to "women's groups" didn't, either. The whole thing painted a pretty bleak picture.

And that's the thing that's interesting to me: I know it shouldn't be a surprise, but it is. The whole controversy? All the "it's a movie about kidnapping, torturing, and murdering a woman"? It's all smoke and mirrors.

It's all PR bullshit meant to drum up controversy in support of the movie. From reviews of people who've seen the movie, and from the many posts you can find online, it's pretty clear that the whole thing was manufactured. It's all a scam. All the posters and billboards and the buzz around it being about her getting tortured and murdered? Intentional controversy to get people's interest piqued.

Which, ultimately, brought a question to my mind:

Which is worse? A guy who makes a movie about kidnapping, torturing and murdering a woman because he's an asshat who thinks that is totally awesome, or a guy who makes a movie where the woman escapes, but uses shitty adverts to sell it?

Frag Dolls: Friend or Foe?

I make no secret of the fact that I'm a gamer. I've been playing video games for as long as I can remember. My father loved video games and bought a 2600 when they came out. My parents picked up a computer back when they were using cassette tapes as data storage. Given how much I love video gaming, it should come as no surprise that I'm very interested in the intersection between my hobby and my socio-political beliefs. I've been really interested in how gaming and feminism intersect and overlap... if they do.

Women have really gotten a raw deal when it comes to gaming. Historically, games have been made by men for men. When most people think of a gamer, they probably think of either a child, or the stereotypical fan-boy living in a basement eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew (Sorry, Jimmycav). There may have even been a time when that was true, but now? No way. Gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry. It's huge. It's time for the industry to recognize the fact that roughly 43% of gamers are women, and quit churning out the typical sexist fanboy bullshit.

It's time for women to be recognized as real gamers.


It's as impossible to talk about women in gaming without mentioning the Frag Dolls as it is to talk about women in games and not mention Lara Croft, I suspect. When you talk about women gamers with other gamers, the Frag Dolls are almost always going to come up. And why not? They're very visable women gamers who make a living through their gaming. They're like the poster-children for the women in gaming movement.

And yet...
And yet...

I can't help but have reservations about the Frag Dolls.

At least, I have reservations about thinking of the Frag Dolls as particularly feminist. Obviously, they're women. From what I can tell, they're solid gamers, too. They've won a number of tournies, which is great. As for being good for women gamers in general, though? As for sending a positive message about women and gaming? As for being feminist?

Some background, perhaps?

The Frag Dolls are a corporate gaming team put together by Ubisoft, through a craigslist ad, back in 2004. They serve multiple functions: They compete in tournaments, push Upisoft products, and attend industry events. Their main goal, they claim, is to encourage women to play games. They are, they say, trying to change the image of women gamers, and increase awareness of the female market. That's not a bad goal, I think.

And yet...
And yet...

What is it about the Frag Dolls that scratches the back of my brain? What is it about them that makes it so hard for me to say "Hey, great work"? The more I think about it, the less convinced I become that they're really doing that much good for women, the industry, or feminism. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Maybe they're great? Maybe they're really just what we need? Women gamers who make a name for themselves and show that women are every bit the gamers that men are?


And yet...
And yet...

It took me a little while to really start to figure out what my problem is, but I'm getting there. Let's start with the obvious, shall we? I'm hardly the first person to point this out, but I think it's worth noting. It really bothers me that all of the Frag Dolls are pretty stereotypically attractive. There's a reason that they're accused of being glorified "Booth Babes" by critics- Ubisoft has selected a bunch of women who largely conform to acceptable beauty standards. They're all thin, mostly white, and young. Conversations about the Frag Dolls on any given gaming site are at least as likely to be about how hot X member is as they are to be about how talanted they are.

That's troubling.

Of course, Ubisoft is quick to argue that the Frag Dolls are not booth babes. They're not just models, they say.

And yet...
And yet...

When the casting call went out that the Frag Dolls were looking for two more members, they got dozens of responses. They selected only eight for consideration.
Should I be surprised that all eight are... drum roll... thin and attractive? Should I be shocked that the winners were 21 and 19?

I suspect not.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with being attractive. As I mentioned in my other post, I don't think that one's looks should have anything to do with how talanted one is, or how one's accomplishments are viewed. But, when we're talking about a team put together by a business, I think that it's worth noting. Maybe it's a big coincidence that all of their Frag Dolls are thin and attractive? Maybe it's just chance that they're mostly white? Maybe that's all unintentional?

Of course... it's interesting that, according to a former member of the Frag Dolls' Uk team, applicants were required to submit 15 pictures of themselves before being told what the project was all about. The article is interesting, in that it shows how much focus Ubisoft wanted on the women and not on their gaming. From wanting photographs prior to disclosing the project, to making sure that the camera stays on the women and not the games they're playing, to The implication seems obvious to me: While Ubisoft may claim that the Frag Dolls are a way to get more women involved in gaming, the focus is at least as much about getting attention from men, too. The Frag Dolls may not be booth babes, but Ubisoft definately treats them like pin-ups or poster girls.

Or, despite their claims to the contrary... as booth babes. When they make public appearences at conventions or launch parties, they're dressed up, standing in front of the demo, handing out t-shirts and getting their pictures taken standing with male attendees. They play Ubisoft games, and endorse Ubisoft products, and are paid by Ubisoft. That's their job. They're there to shill and promote Ubisoft products to the public. Despite the fact that Ubisoft originally tried to push the Frag Dolls as an Ubisoft sponsored clan, the group rarely do competitions (the UK group hasn't done a single competition since they were formed over a year ago).

So, the Frag Dolls are a group of thin, attractive women who are paid to promote Ubisoft products and spend most of their time in public handing out t-shirts and creating buzz for Ubisoft?

Now... that sounds familiar... Isn't there a name for someone that does that?

Maybe I'm being unfairly harsh?

And yet...
And yet...

Even the name bothers me, to be honest. It's a personal thing, but I'm not comfortable with the whole "women as plaything" terminology. Women aren't dolls. They're not toys. They're not a plaything. Dolls are passive... they're played with and acted upon.

I think that the Frag Dolls have probably been great for Ubisoft. They've got a bunch of attractive women that they're using for sex appeal to draw attention to Ubisoft products. When they go to conventions and tournaments, men line up just for a chance to have pictures taken with them. They hand out promotional photographs of themselves. It's great publicity for Ubisoft.

Is it good for women, though?
Is it good for gaming?

That's what I keep coming back to. Are the Frag Dolls good for anyone but Ubisoft? I just can't get to "yes" on that one. I just can't see how the Frag Dolls are anything but another attempt by a business to use women's bodies to sell products. The Frag Dolls might like playing games, but it's not their talants that are being marketed- it's their bodies.

I can't help but feel like the Frag Dolls just reinforce a lot of harmful imagery. Ubisoft is marketing them as sex, and it seems to me that they're just reinforcing traditional beauty standards. Their value as "dolls" is directly related to how attractive they are. They're there as eye-candy for the men gamers. Sure, they play games, too, but, as I said above, that's not the primary focus of the marketing behind them. They're mostly there to look pretty and draw in men to the Ubisoft products. And that's harmful. They've created a very public face for women gamers, and that face is thin, young, white, and stereotypically attractive.

I also think they're bad for gaming, in some ways. Groups like the Frag Dolls keep reinforcing the message that sexism sells and sells well. It keeps gaming trapped in this area where they give lip-service to the idea that women should be involved, but only if they appeal to men. I don't see that they're breaking new ground or doing anything to help the industry grow and branch out and show that games can be great for men and women. The gaming industry is already plagued by sexism, and I just don't see that the Frag Dolls do anything to challange that. If anything, they reinforce it.

That's not to say that they don't do any good. There are certainly women gamers who've come out because of the Frag Dolls. Any time an article is published about them, there are women who comment too, and who show support for women gamers. There are women who've started their own gaming guilds in opposition to or because of the Frag Dolls. I think that's great. The Frag Dolls, in some ways, brought more attention to women in gaming.

So, consider me torn. My gut feeling is that the Frag Dolls are just one more example of a company exploiting women's bodies to push products, but maybe that's me being cynical? Maybe I'm missing something deeper? Maybe they're really good for the industry and good for women?

Thoughts?

Cross posted at 79 Soul.