Choose you battles

June 9, 2013

Image

When this photo was first published, my heart stopped for a moment. OMG, the baby died! Then I realized that of course, that wasn’t what had happened, what we saw was just a heavily made up mother with a not so made up infant.

This is not an unique example, I’ve seen several pictures of human men seemingly marrying life-size Barbie dolls, like these two Image

Or watching a couple of figure skaters leave the ice where the man looks like a pimpled, anemic teenager by the side of the extremely made up dance/athlete/queen-partner.

Image

Now , the people in the pictures are all royalty (yeah, but that’s the subject for another text), and the pictures are not random snapshots. I would assume that whoever took the pictures are professionals, the people in printing are professionals and for God’s sake the royal families must have professional managers/press advisors.

I’m sure we have all been in the situation where a professional gives advice but the customer still wants his/her way and the result is crappy. But still. It would have been really interesting to hear the conversation in the shooting of these:

“perhaps we should put some powder and blush on the baby/husband to be”

“make up on a baby/man- are you out of your mind?”

“then perhaps slightly less on the princess?”

“but the princess want to look good on this very special day”

If two people are to be in the same picture and one of them is wearing heavy make up, the other one will at best look insignificant, more likely ill or even dead. That’s sort of the idea with make up- you put it on to look healthy and beautiful and whatever. Especially on photos. And it’s understandable that in a beauty contest you want to outshine the other contestants, but in an engagement picture? Or one showing off your newborn baby to the world?

And if make up on anyone but a woman is impossible, how about photoshop?

With or without beards

April 11, 2013

I wonder why false hair in different forms is considered ridiculous on men but not on women.

Is it because vanity is ridiculous in a man but not in a woman? Or perhaps because women are ridiculous anyways, so a little more makes no difference?

Men have the options to use false hair on the head, or in the face. It’s not like false moustaches and beards don’t exist, it’s just that they’re only OK to use at masquerades and in 1930´s detective stories, as a disguise. ImageWigs to hide baldness are laughed at if you’re a man. On a woman it’s expected.

I think the vanity-angle is the most useful here. Men are allowed to, and even expected to, look good, but only in a “natural” way, such as nice clothes, clean skin and hair, facial shaving and after shave. Maybe even some hair wax. Working out is ok. A well-trained body on a man is usually considered attractive, and one of the few vanity traits that doesn’t evoke laughter or anger, as long as it’s not too excessive.

Since men are OK, no matter how they look, going out of their way to look better is just stupid. Women, however, need their looks to matter in other areas, and thus vanity is to be expected from them.

Perhaps on a man it’s obvious how superficial the faked look looks, while on women we’re so used to seeing it that we don’t notice.

Image

Perhaps the false facial hair isn’t of good enough quality to look like the real thing, and this is the reason why it’s only used for farce?  But then again there are false eye-lashes so long that they’re obviously not real and that doesn’t seem to matter. On a woman, that is.

I don’t wish at all for men to have the constant worry over looks, weight and aging that seem to take up so much of women’s time and minds. I do, however, feel sorry for men for being considered so ridiculous when  trying to look good and for having such few options in terms of looks.

Flashing images

March 28, 2013

I’ve noticed several times how women express strong feelings of disgust at the sight of a man’s penis, be it in pictures or as a joke in casual situations. Where accidental or “accidental” showing of female body parts are usually considered embarrassing or exciting, the male equivalent is quite often met with disgust.

I wonder why this is, and have come up with some ideas.Image

Within feminist theory, there’s a term called”the male gaze”. It refers to the assumption that since white, heterosexual, men are the norm in western society pictures, whether in merchandising, movies or art, are made with men as the main recipient.

This explains why females, at least if they’re young and pretty (and they tend to be), are quite often shown from angles and with lighting that will emphasize sexualized body parts such as breasts and behinds whereas men are not.

Women are presented as something men would like to go to bed with, (or rather, a thing that heterosexual men with enjoy looking at) while men are presented mostly as someone the men can recognize themselves in.

The male gaze can occasionally be homosexual as well as heterosexual. In this way of viewing things, a big poster of David Beckham in boxer shorts is not aimed at the female erotic mind, but at that of gay men, and possibly also as a physical ideal for other heterosexual men.

It is understood that women as well as men look at pictures using the male gaze. Women may be in the audience, but the camera identifies with the men and looks at what the men are expected to be interested in. Most of us are so used to this we don’t think about it, and since it’s very seldom mentioned but rather considered the default view, women are trained from childhood to be interested in, or even identify with, the male gaze.

Now, in order to keep up the assumption that ALL men are (or rather should be) heterosexual, a lot of policing is going on, and one assumption is that if men are sexually aroused by naked or exposed women they are as a consequence NOT AT ALL aroused by men’s bodies.

ImageYou would think that NOT BEING AROUSED should show itself as indifference, but since the notion is that ALL men are (or should be) heterosexual, the non-arousal must be publicly recognizable and therefore expressed as disgust or ridicule. The women who identify with the male gaze will, as a reflex, react the same way as the men in the audience are expected to react.

There is another interesting point in this. Since most of us are very used to the male gaze, we’re not at all used to seeing men in vulnerable positions. In fiction, of course, men are quite often imprisoned, shot at, injured in sports etc, but the camera with the male gaze makes sure not to sexualize the temporary loss of strength and power. Instead that’s quite often understood as the fuel for the revenge that is to take place in one way or another.

The vulnerability of the sexualized and naked female body must then be interpreted in another way in the case of men. We are given the assumption that vulnerable men are not good and I suspect the unexpected vulnerability about the naked male body makes us confused, and that confusion leads to anger because we don’t know how to handle it.

There’s a third possibility, and that is that women have very few opportunities to laugh at and ridicule men in public. The unexpected flashing of private body parts is one permitted reason for laughing at men. Perhaps women take the opportunity to get back at men for all the policing of women’s bodies (about food, weight, skin, hair and the extremely difficult balance between showing enough body parts to be interesting but not so much that you’re a slut).

The negative reaction from females towards viewing male private parts is possibly, then, an expression of homophobia. If true I find this very interesting. I also find it very depressing.

The Y-factor

September 6, 2012

The posters for the new TV-show X-factor has come up around where I live, and I must say it looks very promising. How do I know? Glad you asked. On the poster are depicted four people whom I assume will be prominent in the show: two White Guys, one Babe and one Black Guy.

Image

Now this indicates that the show will be for Everyone, it won’t be a chick-flic, it won’t be some ethnic thing, because those kind of shows are for minorities only, right? It’s just gonna be plain ole entertainment we can all relate to. Because we can all relate to white guys, right? RIGHT?

And because the babe and the black guy are in the picture right aside (or actually slightly behind) the white guys, all the feminists and anti racists can’t say anything because the Others are represented, aren’t they? Perhaps the white guys compose the biggest group, perhaps on this poster, they are half the population, but hey, that just mirrors reality, right? Or if it doesn’t it mirrors the fact that most people are only interested in white guys anyways, right? After all, they are in majority, right?

Image

Animal Sex

July 21, 2012

The TV is showing  a documentary on animal sex. Heterosexual sex is explained in terms of procreation (as if they knew…) The frequently occurring homosexual acts seem to be harder to understand. The scientists scratch their heads and invent all kinds of explanations. Like it’s some kind of practice for “the real thing”, or dominance of some sort, or perhaps it’s  a way to get a heterosexual partner excited ( if , that is, it’s two females doing it…)

Maybe it’s because there is no partner of the opposite sex available?  Or maybe the stupid animals are simply mistaken about the sex partner’s gender?

Unfortunately none of the theories seem to work; the lion males don’t look twice when two females are having sex right next to them, and the baboons practice homosexual sex even though there’s plenty of individuals of the opposite sex within reach.

Finally one scientist sticks out his neck and speculates that maybe they don’t have a reason for doing it one way or the other, maybe animals do things just because it feels good. By now the viewer has almost lost their voice by yelling at the screen for the past 45 minutes: Hey! maybe they’re just ENJOYING themselves!

Is the study of animals really so functionalist that it’s controversial to imagine they might  do something out of sheer pleasure?