Objectification Theory-Case Study
Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) is a theory based on the idea that
females are prone to internalize an observer‘s perspective as a primary view of their own
physical bodies. This theory argues that girls and women subject their body to constant
monitoring, which in turn leads to body dissatisfaction and sometimes, even eating disorders.
Whilst body objectification is increasing in women, it has made women and girls make a
conscious effort to change their physical appearance through any way possible. This can
include diet and exercise changes, which in some cases may be beneficial, but a lot of the
time these changes come through surgery and unhealthy eating habits, which in turn leads to
12
disorders such as bulimia and anorexia. Fredrickson & Roberts (1997) explained that a
woman’s body is commonly viewed for its use by others, particularly for pleasure.
According to Fredrickson & Roberts (1997) all females experience some form of body
objectification, but it can vary between women and girls depending on age, class, sexuality
and ethnicity. When a woman is subjected to body objectification, this then leads to body
surveillance and body dissatisfaction. Body Surveillance has been described as constantly
monitoring yourself in terms of viewing one’s body from an outsider’s perspective. Body
surveillance can then result in body dissatisfaction by contributing to the realization of a
discrepancy between one’s own body and an internalized body ideal (Fredrickson & Roberts
1997). In western cultures it has been shown that women report higher levels of body
objectification, than men, and that women learn to internalize an observer‘s perspective of
their bodies more so than men.
Radford (2007) completed a scientific review of Mental Health practice which expressed the
idea of American women’s mental health being constantly affected by the media.
Radford
claims that most women are involved in a physically and psychologically damaging battle
with their weight and inability to live up to social ideals. This allegedly leads most women to
eating disorders, body dissatisfaction, and low self-esteem. It also states that even though
these claims have been widely repeated in books, news related media, and journals both
popular and scholarly these assumptions have received very little critical attention.
Radford heavily focuses on the idea of the Barbie doll depicting the perfect body image of
what a girl, or women should aim for. The review explains how there has been many studies
that have suggested that the media influences body image, but have lacked a specific
conclusion on whether women find models, such as Kate Moss more attractive or prettier, or
whether it is simply because of her stick thin figure. Radford makes reference to other
13
articles claiming the lack of answers on this subject. The role of socio-cultural factors in the
aetiology of eating disorders has been widely accepted. Nevertheless, how or by whom the
pressure to be thin is transmitted to young girls remains unclear (Field et al, 1999).
Stephen & Perera (2014) conducted a study where by 30 female Malaysian and Chinese
participants aged between 18 and 23 were recruited from the University of Nottingham
Malaysia Campus. They were asked to wear a tight fitting, grey tank top and bicycle shorts
so that the body shape of each individual was visible. They compared differences in
preferences, attractiveness and health, between groups exposed to images of models of
varying attractiveness and body weight. Results indicated that participants preferred a lower
weight for attractiveness than for health. Furthermore, women’s but not men’s preferred BMI
(Body mass index) for attractiveness, but not health, was influenced by the type of media
images to which they were exposed, suggesting that short term exposure to model images
affect women’s perceptions of attractiveness but not health.
Similar results can be seen in a study completed by Champion & Furnham (1999). Their
participants consisted of 203 teenage girls of different cultures. Each girls BMI was
calculated. They were then asked to indicate which of five categories; `thin', `slightly
underweight', `just right', `slightly overweight' or `fat' they felt they belonged to. A pictorial
scale was then presented to each participant, consisting of a series of seven line drawings of
the female figure, labelled from A-G, ranging from extremely thin on the left to obese on the
right. The participants were asked to indicate which figure they considered to be most like
them, which they considered the norm and finally, which figures they would most like to look
like.
Overall, the results concluded that many participants in this study believed themselves to be
slightly overweight or obese, when in fact only 32% of them could actually be defined as this
14
according to health statistics. Furthermore 54.1 % of all girls wished to have a thinner body
shape and 53.8% even wished for a body shape thinner than that which they perceived as
normal. Additionally, age seemed to play a huge factor on overall body satisfaction. It was
found that the older group of girls who were aged 18 and above expressed more
dissatisfaction with their weight, more dissatisfaction with various body parts and more
dissatisfaction with their general body image, than girls from the youngest age group, who
were under the age of 18.
Krahe & Krause (2010) examined the influence of thin and normal weight models. The
participants they used were 50 female undergraduate students at a university in Germany, all
of which were of Caucasian origin. They were randomly assigned to one of two experimental
conditions. These included thin models and normal weight models. The average age of the
participants was 22.2 years. Their results concluded that women who saw advertisements
depicting thin models were more likely to choose the diet variant of a snack than women who
saw the same advertisements in which the original model’s image was manipulated to be of
normal size. 64% of participants in the thin model condition, but only 28% of participants in
the normal model condition, chose the diet snack over the normal snack.
It is clear from the research such as Stephen & Perera (2014) that body dissatisfaction is
prominent in females aged between 18 and 23. All three of the studies mentioned ranging
from 1999 to 2014, found that girls preferred a slimmer figure to what they have themselves,
were conscious of their weight and or believed that their own weight was above what the
healthy norm should be.
Thursday 30 November 2017
Monday 27 November 2017
Practical
Although it has been decided that I would like to develop a magazine as part of my COP practical, i wanted to outline specific factors in relation to this.
Firstly, the publication will be specifically feminist and will include articles from myself and others in which contest the themes of 'traditional' women's magazines. As it was discovered within the creative report that sex is often used as a way in which to objectify women, and that sex is largely deemed only pleasurable for a man, it has been decided that any sex related articles should promote female sexuality. Other sexuality's should also be explored rather than the traditional heterosexuality present within mainstream women's publications.
The publication should explore a range of topics, highlighting that women can be intelligent as well as being feminine and enjoying the colour pink for example. Rebelling against the traditional gender roles is also a key element to be commented upon, as well as including feminist perspectives from different religious/groups.
After the creative report is fully complete, further comparisons shall be made in order to ensure that the publication is highly influenced.
Firstly, the publication will be specifically feminist and will include articles from myself and others in which contest the themes of 'traditional' women's magazines. As it was discovered within the creative report that sex is often used as a way in which to objectify women, and that sex is largely deemed only pleasurable for a man, it has been decided that any sex related articles should promote female sexuality. Other sexuality's should also be explored rather than the traditional heterosexuality present within mainstream women's publications.
The publication should explore a range of topics, highlighting that women can be intelligent as well as being feminine and enjoying the colour pink for example. Rebelling against the traditional gender roles is also a key element to be commented upon, as well as including feminist perspectives from different religious/groups.
After the creative report is fully complete, further comparisons shall be made in order to ensure that the publication is highly influenced.
Analysing Kim Kardashian 2013 cosmo cover
The initial factor in which draws the consumers attention is that of the protagonist, Kim Kardashian West. With cosmopolitans lead readership being that of 18-24 year old females (according to statstics from the compilations media kit), Kim Kardashian, a cultural icon, is a highly influential social light amongst this demographic. This being evident through her 104 million Instagram followers. The cover image itself promotes a direct mode of address, this is envisioned through the direct eye contact promoted between the protagonist and the consumer. This not only keeping the consumer engaged but also making the publication feel personal to them. The body language presented by Kim subtly advocates provocatively. With her hand being situated upon her hip, she strategically outlines her hourglass physic. Her other hand running through her hair, as if she is lost in seductive thought. The draped nature of her dress exposes her shoulders, emphasising her collar bones, as well as her cleavage. Although emphasising her curves, Kim promotes a petite body frame, the beauty ideal. No imperfections are notable within the image suggesting that photoshop has been used in order to promote perfected skin, alongside unrealistic expectations of the body. Consuming three quarters of the cover, it is evident that Kim's physique is the key factor within this editorial design. Presented in a male gaze format, she appears the ideal, imposing her unrealistic beauty upon others.
When considering the type implications, it is evident that a clear hierarchy is present, with page divisions sublimely being made. The masthead appears within its iconic location, making reference to the magazine instant. A range of techniques have been devised in terms of the typographys format in order to promote distinctive opinions. The main cover line 'LOOK BETTER NAKED', appears within capital letters in order to showcase that this is an essential element of the magazine, drawing the consumers attention. The theoretical message behind this could subjectively suggest that the consumer doesn't already look good naked, again reinforcing gender ideals. The word 'NAKED' is specifically enlarged in order to promote hierarchy within the design. This giving the opinion that the consumer should alter their naked body. A smaller tag line is position beneath reads, 'What Kim Kardashian Eats to Look THIS Smokin''. The variation of upper and lowercase letters in this instance present hierarchy again, with an emphasis on 'THIS'. It may be suggested that this word has been specifically highlighted as it gives the illusion that all women, if they try hard enough can look like the protagonist. An unfair illusion as the original image has been densely photoshopped. Other key atributes to the covers design include the secondary cover lines. Again the subversion of type characteristics have been used in order to promote hierarchal anchorage. The title 'The SEX QUIZ You Must Take' is a key example of this. By highlighting the word 'SEX', this gains instant attention from the consumer. This is followed by the tagline 'Get What You've Always Wanted In Bed', this therefore suggesting that the female is not sexually satisfied. Again, it can be subjectively suggested that this is as a result of the objectification of women. The article itself also directly focuses upon heterosexual relationships, and therefore is bias.
In terms of colour, pink and purple are significantly used in order to promote femininity. It has been lazily used in order to signify the publication as a women's outlet.
5 Myths Sex-Positive Feminism Can Perpetuate About Women Who Don’t Do Casual Sex
May 8, 2016 by Suzannah Weiss
I’m one of the most feminist, sex-positive and, frankly, sexually preoccupied people I know. And yet, when given the opportunity to have casual sex, I almost always turn it down.
This confused me for quite some time. The sex-positive feminist circles I traveled in taught me that you should have sex whenever you feel the physical desire to do so, and if you don’t, it’s because of internalized societal pressures.
As such, my sexual decisions have confused my friends, too. Several have tried to convince me to just “let loose a little.” One even asked, “But aren’t you all about women’s liberation?” when I said I wasn’t interested in sex outside of a relationship.
“Yes,” I told her – and that’s why I owe it to myself to make choices regarding my body that make me comfortable, even if others feel I should behave differently.
That’s what sex-positive feminism is about, after all: helping people have the sex lives that work best for them. This might mean having a lot of sex, or it might not, and both choices are equally acceptable.
Sex-positive feminism is also about consent, which means only engaging in activities that all parties involved are 100% sure they want to participate in. The same way I would never do anything with someone else without their enthusiastic consent, I refuse to do anything I’m not stoked about myself.
But why am I not interested in casual sex, specifically?
After all, I do desire and enjoy sex – a lot – and I don’t believe it’s ever wrong between consenting adults. And according to the (warped) version of sex-positivity I learned, you should have sex as long as those two conditions are met.
But that philosophy has gotten me into situations I didn’t feel good about afterward. And that’s why it’s not feminist – because it favored what I “should” do over what was actually best for me.
The bad feelings I got after casual hookups have many roots, some more problematic than others. One is that society has made me fear having “too many” sexual partners, and that’s something I’m battling – but there are other reasons.
First of all, I take time to warm up to people. Since my boundaries haven’t always been respected, I’m protective of them. I won’t even cuddle with someone unless I feel confident they won’t expect more. Sex with strangers scares me.
Plus, purely physical interactions feel empty to me. I feel disingenuous engaging in acts that I consider signs of affection with people I don’t actually feel affection toward. Hooking up with people I don’t truly know makes me feel sad, as if I’m not fully appreciating them, and it falls short of the loving, connected sexual relationships I’ve had (not that all sex has to be loving or connected).
But as a feminist and as a woman, I’m often questioned for this decision. However, I believe that you can be uninterested in casual sex and be a feminist, and neither of those things take away from each other.
So here are some of the myths I’ve run up against as a feminist woman who doesn’t engage in casual hookups – and why they actually undermine feminism.
Myth #1: We Just Need to Liberate Ourselves from Sex-Shaming
Some sex-positive feminists seem to believe that if there were no societal constraints, everyone would elect to have lots of sex with many partners. But that’s not what everyone wants from their sexuality.
Sometimes, there’s truth to the belief that women who don’t have casual sex are sex-shaming themselves. I experience a lot of anxiety around the possibility of my “number” increasing.
But that doesn’t mean that’s the only reason I’m not interested in casual sex. And even if it were, I still shouldn’t do anything that makes me uncomfortable.
There are many reasons other than sex-shaming that people might not like casual hookups. They may be on the asexual spectrum. They may have traumatic sexual pasts that make trust difficult. They may prefer stronger emotional connections.
Casual sex isn’t immoral. But morality aside, it just doesn’t work for all of us.
The belief that you must have casual sex in order to be liberated is actually anti-feminist and sex-negative because it forces people into a narrow definition of liberation rather than helping people liberate themselves on their own terms.
Myth #2: We’re Less Sexual
People sometimes assume that because I turn down hookups with people I’m not dating seriously, I have a low sex drive. I’ve had women tell me they could never do things my way because they have too big a sexual appetite.
I’ve also had people mislabel me demisexual, which means you don’t feel attracted to people you haven’t bonded with emotionally.
But my decision actually has nothing to do with that.
Because I still feel desire for people I’m not dating. I just don’t act on it.
On the other hand, when people don’t know how I conduct my sex life, but simply know I’m open about liking sex, they assume the opposite: that I must be very interested in casual hookups.
This assumption stems from the belief that women’s sexuality exists for other people. If we’re openly sexual beings, the story goes, we’re looking to please men.
The idea that women must have lots of sex to be sexual can actually encourage the notion that women can only be sexual in relation to others. It can also encourage the anti-feminist idea that outsiders get to define a woman’s sexuality, rather than the woman herself.
Feminism really says that you can be an extremely sexual person without sleeping with every interested party – or anyone – because you can be sexual on your own terms.
I may not have a lot of sex, but that doesn’t make me less sexual. I still have sexual thoughts and feelings and desires that nobody else is privy to. They belong to me, and they define my sexuality just as much as any external behavior.
Myth #3: We’re Missing Out On an Integral Part of Being an Adult
When I’ve hooked up with people I wasn’t seriously dating, I’ve expected to feel like an adult in the morning. That was what grown-ups did, after all, right? At least on Sex and the City.
But actually, casual hookups made me feel unsure of what I was doing and unable to control my physical impulses. So, basically, they made me feel like a little kid.
One thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older is how to parent myself.
The same way a parent might say “I know your favorite show’s on, but you need to go to bed or you won’t be a happy camper tomorrow,” I sometimes need to tell myself, “I know you want to sleep with that person, but it’ll be more trouble than it’s worth.”
That’s maturity: being the parent, not the kid.
Having casual sex doesn’t make you any more mature than staying up all night as a kid because you’re at home without a babysitter for the first time. Being a grown-up isn’t about doing “grown-up” things just because you can; it’s about not doing things that don’t make you feel good in the long-term even though you can.
And casual sex has never made me feel good in the long-term, even though I respect others’ right to engage in it.
When feminists tell other feminists how to be empowered, they’re contributing to an anti-feminist culture that treats women like children.
Sex-positive feminism should be about trusting women to be adults and figure out what’s good for them, even if it’s not what’s good for you.
Myth #4: We’re ‘Withholding’ Sex from Potential Partners
In college, I dated a guy casually for about two months. We fooled around a little bit, but didn’t go very far. It wasn’t clear whether the relationship was going anywhere, and given that he once unbuttoned my shirt after I’d told him not to, I didn’t really trust him.
But being nineteen and not the best judge of people, I was still bummed out when he ended our relationship, saying he wasn’t looking for anything serious.
Seeing how down I was and wanting to help me avoid feeling that way in the future, a family member asked me, “Well, were you intimate with him?” and explained that of course a twenty-something guy will skedaddle if he’s not getting what he wants.
And maybe that was why he ended it. But that’s a good thing. If he wasn’t open to taking things slowly, we wanted very different things and wouldn’t have been compatible in the long run.
Then there were the potential partners who gave me a hard time themselves for not sleeping with them. I’ve been called a “tease” and told I was “leading on” guys just for kissing them or hanging out in their rooms.
This has even happened with self-identified sex-positive feminists. I’ve been on dates with men who have spoken passionately against sex-shaming but had no problem prude-shaming me because my version of liberation didn’t benefit them.
Too often, women’s sexual freedom is defined as “freedom” to do what men want.
But no matter where it manifests, the belief that a woman owes sex and is therefore wrong to “withhold” it is part of rape culture.
When we decide not to sleep with someone and they’re bummed out about it, that’s their problem, not ours. And if someone wants to end a relationship over it, that’s okay because they’re not right for us anyway.
And if someone’s really sex-positive and a feminist, they won’t want anyone to do something they’re not ready for.
Myth #5: We’ve Made This Choice Because We’re Women
My biggest fear as a woman who doesn’t do casual sex is that I’ll confirm gender stereotypes.
Many people have told me there are biological reasons behind my decision that I’m just not aware of.
They’ve said that women get hormonally attached even to casual hookup partners (never happened to me), that women are more complex and require love poems and candlelit dinners to be turned on (not me), that women have lower sex drives (so not me), and that women don’t get as much out of casual sex because they’re harder to please (not quite).
But you don’t have to be a woman to decide casual sex isn’t for you. And, of course, you can be a woman and love casual sex.
Because of stereotypes like these, a lot of women feel pressure to have fewer casual hookups than they want, and a lot of men feel pressure to have more. One study found that women are as interested in casual sex as men when they know their partner will give them a good experience and they won’t be judged for it. Another study found that teenage boys feel more pressure to have sex than girls do. (These studies unfortunately did not include people who don’t identify as men or women.)
Feminism and sex-positivity have made a lot of progress in challenging the stereotype that men want to sow their wild oats and women want to settle down. But when sex-positive feminists say that a woman should sow her wild oats because she’s a feminist, as my friend did, they’re pressuring someone to represent women.
When we attribute the decision to have or not have casual sex to someone’s gender, not who they are as individuals, we reduce people to their genders, which only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
Just as people shouldn’t have to defend their decision to have many sexual partners, they shouldn’t have to defend their decision to have few or none. We already judge women by their sex lives too much, and we don’t need more of that from within the feminist community.
Feminism should give us the option to follow or reject gender roles – not the compulsion to reject them.
The fight against sex-shaming and for women’s right to have a lot of sex with a lot of partners is important, but it doesn’t have to exclude or put down women who make the opposite decision. There’s no point in feminism or sex-positivity, after all, if they don’t let women make the choices they want.
As I told my friend, my identity as a feminist has nothing to do with how many sexual partners I’ve had and everything to do with how I’ve made that decision: with sole consideration for what’s best for me.
I’m one of the most feminist, sex-positive and, frankly, sexually preoccupied people I know. And yet, when given the opportunity to have casual sex, I almost always turn it down.
This confused me for quite some time. The sex-positive feminist circles I traveled in taught me that you should have sex whenever you feel the physical desire to do so, and if you don’t, it’s because of internalized societal pressures.
As such, my sexual decisions have confused my friends, too. Several have tried to convince me to just “let loose a little.” One even asked, “But aren’t you all about women’s liberation?” when I said I wasn’t interested in sex outside of a relationship.
“Yes,” I told her – and that’s why I owe it to myself to make choices regarding my body that make me comfortable, even if others feel I should behave differently.
That’s what sex-positive feminism is about, after all: helping people have the sex lives that work best for them. This might mean having a lot of sex, or it might not, and both choices are equally acceptable.
Sex-positive feminism is also about consent, which means only engaging in activities that all parties involved are 100% sure they want to participate in. The same way I would never do anything with someone else without their enthusiastic consent, I refuse to do anything I’m not stoked about myself.
But why am I not interested in casual sex, specifically?
After all, I do desire and enjoy sex – a lot – and I don’t believe it’s ever wrong between consenting adults. And according to the (warped) version of sex-positivity I learned, you should have sex as long as those two conditions are met.
But that philosophy has gotten me into situations I didn’t feel good about afterward. And that’s why it’s not feminist – because it favored what I “should” do over what was actually best for me.
The bad feelings I got after casual hookups have many roots, some more problematic than others. One is that society has made me fear having “too many” sexual partners, and that’s something I’m battling – but there are other reasons.
First of all, I take time to warm up to people. Since my boundaries haven’t always been respected, I’m protective of them. I won’t even cuddle with someone unless I feel confident they won’t expect more. Sex with strangers scares me.
Plus, purely physical interactions feel empty to me. I feel disingenuous engaging in acts that I consider signs of affection with people I don’t actually feel affection toward. Hooking up with people I don’t truly know makes me feel sad, as if I’m not fully appreciating them, and it falls short of the loving, connected sexual relationships I’ve had (not that all sex has to be loving or connected).
But as a feminist and as a woman, I’m often questioned for this decision. However, I believe that you can be uninterested in casual sex and be a feminist, and neither of those things take away from each other.
So here are some of the myths I’ve run up against as a feminist woman who doesn’t engage in casual hookups – and why they actually undermine feminism.
Myth #1: We Just Need to Liberate Ourselves from Sex-Shaming
Some sex-positive feminists seem to believe that if there were no societal constraints, everyone would elect to have lots of sex with many partners. But that’s not what everyone wants from their sexuality.
Sometimes, there’s truth to the belief that women who don’t have casual sex are sex-shaming themselves. I experience a lot of anxiety around the possibility of my “number” increasing.
But that doesn’t mean that’s the only reason I’m not interested in casual sex. And even if it were, I still shouldn’t do anything that makes me uncomfortable.
There are many reasons other than sex-shaming that people might not like casual hookups. They may be on the asexual spectrum. They may have traumatic sexual pasts that make trust difficult. They may prefer stronger emotional connections.
Casual sex isn’t immoral. But morality aside, it just doesn’t work for all of us.
The belief that you must have casual sex in order to be liberated is actually anti-feminist and sex-negative because it forces people into a narrow definition of liberation rather than helping people liberate themselves on their own terms.
Myth #2: We’re Less Sexual
People sometimes assume that because I turn down hookups with people I’m not dating seriously, I have a low sex drive. I’ve had women tell me they could never do things my way because they have too big a sexual appetite.
I’ve also had people mislabel me demisexual, which means you don’t feel attracted to people you haven’t bonded with emotionally.
But my decision actually has nothing to do with that.
Because I still feel desire for people I’m not dating. I just don’t act on it.
On the other hand, when people don’t know how I conduct my sex life, but simply know I’m open about liking sex, they assume the opposite: that I must be very interested in casual hookups.
This assumption stems from the belief that women’s sexuality exists for other people. If we’re openly sexual beings, the story goes, we’re looking to please men.
The idea that women must have lots of sex to be sexual can actually encourage the notion that women can only be sexual in relation to others. It can also encourage the anti-feminist idea that outsiders get to define a woman’s sexuality, rather than the woman herself.
Feminism really says that you can be an extremely sexual person without sleeping with every interested party – or anyone – because you can be sexual on your own terms.
I may not have a lot of sex, but that doesn’t make me less sexual. I still have sexual thoughts and feelings and desires that nobody else is privy to. They belong to me, and they define my sexuality just as much as any external behavior.
Myth #3: We’re Missing Out On an Integral Part of Being an Adult
When I’ve hooked up with people I wasn’t seriously dating, I’ve expected to feel like an adult in the morning. That was what grown-ups did, after all, right? At least on Sex and the City.
But actually, casual hookups made me feel unsure of what I was doing and unable to control my physical impulses. So, basically, they made me feel like a little kid.
One thing I’ve learned as I’ve gotten older is how to parent myself.
The same way a parent might say “I know your favorite show’s on, but you need to go to bed or you won’t be a happy camper tomorrow,” I sometimes need to tell myself, “I know you want to sleep with that person, but it’ll be more trouble than it’s worth.”
That’s maturity: being the parent, not the kid.
Having casual sex doesn’t make you any more mature than staying up all night as a kid because you’re at home without a babysitter for the first time. Being a grown-up isn’t about doing “grown-up” things just because you can; it’s about not doing things that don’t make you feel good in the long-term even though you can.
And casual sex has never made me feel good in the long-term, even though I respect others’ right to engage in it.
When feminists tell other feminists how to be empowered, they’re contributing to an anti-feminist culture that treats women like children.
Sex-positive feminism should be about trusting women to be adults and figure out what’s good for them, even if it’s not what’s good for you.
Myth #4: We’re ‘Withholding’ Sex from Potential Partners
In college, I dated a guy casually for about two months. We fooled around a little bit, but didn’t go very far. It wasn’t clear whether the relationship was going anywhere, and given that he once unbuttoned my shirt after I’d told him not to, I didn’t really trust him.
But being nineteen and not the best judge of people, I was still bummed out when he ended our relationship, saying he wasn’t looking for anything serious.
Seeing how down I was and wanting to help me avoid feeling that way in the future, a family member asked me, “Well, were you intimate with him?” and explained that of course a twenty-something guy will skedaddle if he’s not getting what he wants.
And maybe that was why he ended it. But that’s a good thing. If he wasn’t open to taking things slowly, we wanted very different things and wouldn’t have been compatible in the long run.
Then there were the potential partners who gave me a hard time themselves for not sleeping with them. I’ve been called a “tease” and told I was “leading on” guys just for kissing them or hanging out in their rooms.
This has even happened with self-identified sex-positive feminists. I’ve been on dates with men who have spoken passionately against sex-shaming but had no problem prude-shaming me because my version of liberation didn’t benefit them.
Too often, women’s sexual freedom is defined as “freedom” to do what men want.
But no matter where it manifests, the belief that a woman owes sex and is therefore wrong to “withhold” it is part of rape culture.
When we decide not to sleep with someone and they’re bummed out about it, that’s their problem, not ours. And if someone wants to end a relationship over it, that’s okay because they’re not right for us anyway.
And if someone’s really sex-positive and a feminist, they won’t want anyone to do something they’re not ready for.
Myth #5: We’ve Made This Choice Because We’re Women
My biggest fear as a woman who doesn’t do casual sex is that I’ll confirm gender stereotypes.
Many people have told me there are biological reasons behind my decision that I’m just not aware of.
They’ve said that women get hormonally attached even to casual hookup partners (never happened to me), that women are more complex and require love poems and candlelit dinners to be turned on (not me), that women have lower sex drives (so not me), and that women don’t get as much out of casual sex because they’re harder to please (not quite).
But you don’t have to be a woman to decide casual sex isn’t for you. And, of course, you can be a woman and love casual sex.
Because of stereotypes like these, a lot of women feel pressure to have fewer casual hookups than they want, and a lot of men feel pressure to have more. One study found that women are as interested in casual sex as men when they know their partner will give them a good experience and they won’t be judged for it. Another study found that teenage boys feel more pressure to have sex than girls do. (These studies unfortunately did not include people who don’t identify as men or women.)
Feminism and sex-positivity have made a lot of progress in challenging the stereotype that men want to sow their wild oats and women want to settle down. But when sex-positive feminists say that a woman should sow her wild oats because she’s a feminist, as my friend did, they’re pressuring someone to represent women.
When we attribute the decision to have or not have casual sex to someone’s gender, not who they are as individuals, we reduce people to their genders, which only serves to perpetuate stereotypes.
Just as people shouldn’t have to defend their decision to have many sexual partners, they shouldn’t have to defend their decision to have few or none. We already judge women by their sex lives too much, and we don’t need more of that from within the feminist community.
Feminism should give us the option to follow or reject gender roles – not the compulsion to reject them.
The fight against sex-shaming and for women’s right to have a lot of sex with a lot of partners is important, but it doesn’t have to exclude or put down women who make the opposite decision. There’s no point in feminism or sex-positivity, after all, if they don’t let women make the choices they want.
As I told my friend, my identity as a feminist has nothing to do with how many sexual partners I’ve had and everything to do with how I’ve made that decision: with sole consideration for what’s best for me.
https://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/sex-positive-casual-sex-myths/
Sunday 26 November 2017
Abortion in Italy, a Right Wronged
By ILARIA MARIA SALANOV. 13, 2017
Late last month, Cosimo Borraccino, a left-wing member of the regional council for Apulia, in southern Italy, proposed passing a local law to require the enforcement of national legislation granting women access to abortion. His opponents on the council, mostly from center-right parties, said the bill was unnecessary and that Mr. Borraccino was “slamming into a wall of self-evidence.”
Yet when it comes to reproductive rights in Italy, respect of the law is anything but self-evident. In fact, 9 out of 10 gynecologists in Apulia refuse to perform abortions, even though the right to obtain one has been legal since 1978. Nationwide statistics are only slightly less staggering: Seven out of 10 gynecologists in Italy won’t terminate a pregnancy.
They can do that because the very law that legalized abortion nearly 40 years ago also exempts medical personnel from providing the procedure if “they have a conscientious objection, declared in advance.” More and more conscientious objectors — many of them Catholic — have joined gynecological wards, women’s clinics and pharmacies since, and as a result getting an abortion in Italy today can be as hard as in countries where abortions are illegal.
Some 20,000 unsafe and illegal abortions are said to be performed in Italy every year, compared with about 100,000 legal ones. The number of illegal procedures is increasing, advocates for women’s rights say, even as the number of legal ones is decreasing. According to 2015 figures from the health ministry, the most recent available, less than 60 percent of public hospitals in Italy even provided abortions. Earlier this year, one woman in Padua, a city in the northeast, had to go to 23 hospitals before she found one that would terminate her pregnancy.
For this, Italy has been repeatedly chastised by the Council of Europe and the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The government has responded demurely, at times claiming that the number of medical personnel who are not conscientious objectors has remained steady for 30 years.
Yet, according to official figures, the share of conscientious objectors among gynecologists rose from 59 percent in 2005 to 70 percent in 2013. (The government has stopped releasing the data in recent years.) And Noemi di Iorio, an activist with the women’s collective La Mala Educación, told me during a women’s rights rally in Bologna on Sept. 28 — International Safe Abortion Day — that “the presence of religious conscientious objectors in women’s health clinics has reached a peak.”
A pitched battle certainly now seems to be underway — in hospitals and on the streets, in local assemblies and courts throughout the country.
Early this year, a major public hospital in Rome listed two job openings for gynecologists, specifying that it was seeking candidates who were not conscientious objectors. The Italian Bishops’ Conference denounced the ad as discriminatory, but a local court said it was legal. In August, an administrative court in Rome ruled that medical personnel could not invoke conscientious objection to refuse prescribing birth-control pills or withhold certificates of pregnancy, which women seeking an abortion need. Local media called the decision a “revolution.”
Almost as soon as Law 194 was passed in 1978, the Church and its political proxy then, the Christian Democratic Party, tried to have it repealed. A referendum was held in 1981, but voters rejected the idea — roundly, by a margin of 2 to 1. Having failed to change the law, the Church then set out to exploit its internal contradictions — which it had helped create.
Even as Law 194 guarantees the right to an abortion, it “recognizes the social value of motherhood.” According to Angela Balzano, a researcher in philosophy and bioethics at the University of Bologna, that built-in tension, along with “the loophole provided by the clause on conscientious objection,” was an attempt to mediate between “two irreconcilable positions” in the late 1970s: the abortion-rights agenda of the Radical Party, a leading left-wing party, and the anti-abortion Catholics. She called this “a clear case of judicial antinomy.”
Four decades later, it’s apparent who has benefited from that weakness, and this result is no accident. Pope Francis himself, speaking at a gathering of Italian Catholic physicians in 2014, encouraged doctors to make “brave choices that go against the current,” referring pointedly to conscientious objection and abortion.
Although the Christian Democrats are no longer, Catholicism remains a major political force. The religious movement Comunione e Liberazione(Communion and Liberation), whose stated mission is to promote the “education to the Christian faith” and comes under the pope’s direct authority, has thousands of supporters — some say many thousands — including in hospitals, universities and women’s clinics, and among politicians in center-right parties, like those who opposed Mr. Borraccino’s law in Apulia.
In addition to legalizing abortion, Law 194 called for establishing specialized women’s clinics. But after years of cuts to the state health care system, many clinics today are Catholic, and those refuse to provide even information or basic services to women seeking an abortion. What’s more, they are partly funded with taxpayer money: 0.8 percent of personal taxes are directly allocated to the Church, unless taxpayers specifically ask to opt out. So much for the separation of Church and state.
The law granting women access to abortion has been gutted, Assunta Sarlo, a journalist and activist with the feminist group Usciamo dal Silenzio (Let’s End the Silence), told me, partly “because the religious forces have been able to count on political allies in what remains a strongly Catholic country.” But it’s also, she said, “because the reputation of abortion is such that choosing to be a gynecologist who carries out this type of procedure is akin to career suicide.”
Opinion polls suggest that the vast majority of Italians still support access to abortion. But some three-quarters of the population also call themselves Catholic, and so even for some Italians who support women’s right to terminate a pregnancy, abortion still carries a stigma. And that’s just the kind of tension that the Church has been expert at exploiting — at a great cost to women, as well as the rule of law, in Italy.
The best feminist podcasts
As I am myself, an active listener of podcasts, I wanted to promote feminist talks surrounding a variety of topics. From the everyday to the very occasional. As a result of this, I searched for the best female podcasts available. Below is part of the extract in which I may include within the magazine.
'Women are empowering, but unfortunately undervalued and lack voice, as a result I have correlated the best feminist podcasts out there, in which range from fetishes, to the arranged marriages. A broad range of topic areas are to be covered, all in which are relevant to women, their bodies and minds.
The guilty Feminist
My all favourite podcast is that of The Guilty Feminist. Created by Frances-White and Sofie Hagen in 2015, the podcast features guests on a panel to discuss topics on and related to feminism, and is recorded in front of a live audience. The witty nature and relatability, will engage you for hours, taking you on a personal journey of feminism.
Guys we've fucked
Corrine Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson team up to talk about everything from the election from hell to sex trafficking, they've even interviewed some bad-ass women such as Amber Rose.
This podcast is like listening to a stand-up show in your living room. Phoebe Robinson and Jessica Williams are hilariously funny, and they frequently host amazing guests, with strong opinions.
'Women are empowering, but unfortunately undervalued and lack voice, as a result I have correlated the best feminist podcasts out there, in which range from fetishes, to the arranged marriages. A broad range of topic areas are to be covered, all in which are relevant to women, their bodies and minds.
My all favourite podcast is that of The Guilty Feminist. Created by Frances-White and Sofie Hagen in 2015, the podcast features guests on a panel to discuss topics on and related to feminism, and is recorded in front of a live audience. The witty nature and relatability, will engage you for hours, taking you on a personal journey of feminism.
Guys we've fucked
Corrine Fisher and Krystyna Hutchinson team up to talk about everything from the election from hell to sex trafficking, they've even interviewed some bad-ass women such as Amber Rose.
Womens hour-BBC Radio Four
Factual and reliant. This broadcast focuses upon a range of life conundrums. With six new broadcasts every week, these podcast updates will keep you informed about a variety of issues effecting women.
Two Dope Queens
Interview with Kitty from Ladybeard
Interview with Kitty from Ladybeard
The interview took place on the 26/11/17, via a phone call
Where does the name ladybeard come from?
It's a quote from 'as you like it'. A play, focusing upon gender, the limitations of gender and gender swapping. If people can remember the name and shocked by it, it's effective.
Compared to traditional women’s magazines, you revolutionise sex.. why do you think this is important?
Everything leads back to sex. Talking about sex and masturbation is a taboo. Looking back on that issue, [in reference to issue one] it explores relationships. Sexual equality in relationships is important. When I became single it made me realise that how women are so unequal to men when having sex, and how many rules you play into. Male loneliness is perceived to be a choice, whilst females not a choice. Sex is a shocking topic, and it always catches attention, people are ashamed of it. Its about treading a line between owning your desire, but when you do that desire is intimidating, its intimidating to let go and enjoy yourself that pleasure.
A woman's taught to be be fearful, and told different stories of sexual desire. If we were shown images of same sex intercourse outside of gender line, it would be far easier to comprehend. Its exhausting, as a women to grow up in a world where beauty is the main atribute. Were told to be beautiful. Even in bed, I've found myself doing things in porn, but why?
Whens the next issue out, and whats the theme?
Its out in February and, beauty. The last issue [mind] opened it up [in reference to mental health] and showed that its part of the everyday. This was before mental health was discussed as widely as it is now. Mental health is a spectrum, which you go in and out of. The beauty issue does the same, it shows what is beautiful, in and out of trends. Theres a shoot exploring blind people, seeing beauty from a different perspective. Its about opening up what we find beautiful and what we celebrate.
What platforms do you use to promote the magazine?
Whens the next issue out, and whats the theme?
Its out in February and, beauty. The last issue [mind] opened it up [in reference to mental health] and showed that its part of the everyday. This was before mental health was discussed as widely as it is now. Mental health is a spectrum, which you go in and out of. The beauty issue does the same, it shows what is beautiful, in and out of trends. Theres a shoot exploring blind people, seeing beauty from a different perspective. Its about opening up what we find beautiful and what we celebrate.
What platforms do you use to promote the magazine?
Our website, twitter, and Instagram.. Instagram is the most effective. I really like twitter though, its really great, I like gifs. The magazine is print only, but we do publish semi-regularly on the website. Theres a large market for print mags. Millions of website do what we do, but curated aspect of the magazine are special. It's physical in a world of digital.
What do you think is missing from the traditional women magazine?
So much.. I think the problem with traditional magazines is telling you what a women should be.In order to appeal to the reader, they stereotype. Making every women appear the same. Its like, 'an Elle girls thinks this and that'. In order to be that girl you have to be in the girl in the pictures: white, thin, perfect. You aren’t going to look like this girl. I realised a long time ago that I wasn't going to look like an Elle Girl. They make you think that if you want it enough you can look like that, you must be decorative first before everything.When do men get told that? Never. Its so frustrating that we have to grow like this. Every image you see it sets you, it shape who you think you need to be. Its exhausting. We need more media of real people, images of people you don’t look like and don't necessarily want to look like.
If you could give me any advice, what would it be?
Tell stories that you think are actually important. Don't box tick, write what you would like to read. Just think 'what am I offering', 'is it important', and question 'do I care about this'.
What do you think is missing from the traditional women magazine?
So much.. I think the problem with traditional magazines is telling you what a women should be.In order to appeal to the reader, they stereotype. Making every women appear the same. Its like, 'an Elle girls thinks this and that'. In order to be that girl you have to be in the girl in the pictures: white, thin, perfect. You aren’t going to look like this girl. I realised a long time ago that I wasn't going to look like an Elle Girl. They make you think that if you want it enough you can look like that, you must be decorative first before everything.When do men get told that? Never. Its so frustrating that we have to grow like this. Every image you see it sets you, it shape who you think you need to be. Its exhausting. We need more media of real people, images of people you don’t look like and don't necessarily want to look like.
If you could give me any advice, what would it be?
Tell stories that you think are actually important. Don't box tick, write what you would like to read. Just think 'what am I offering', 'is it important', and question 'do I care about this'.
What have you found most challenging
Doing it with no money. Makes it really hard, especially as we have no advertisements.
Contacting Ladybeard
Ladybeard takes on the form of a glossy magazine but revolutionises the content. With mainstream media promoting self hate, they promote the voices of the rebellions, removing stereotypes promoted by the mainstream media.
Forming an annual publication, the collective behind Ladbybeard promote women, their opinions and beliefs. The two issues developed so far focus upon sex and the mind.
As I really enjoyed reading the publication, I felt it relevant to email the collective, asking for them to aid myself with my publication. As a result of this, myself and Kitty arranged to talk on the phone, with myself interviewing her.
I looked at interview questions asked on the creative review, as well as its nice that. I also searched Ladybeard's website in order to highlight details specific to the collective and publication. The questions in which I selected felt relevant to my practice, as well as my general interests. These can be highlighted below..
Questions
Where does the name ladybeard come from?
Compared to traditional women’s magazines, you revolutionise sex.. why do you think this is important?
What platforms do you use to promote the magazine?
What do you think is missing from the traditional women magazine?
Only four questions were selected, as with our Level 5 task, John suggested that you shouldn't ask too many questions as this means they will not go into the necessary details, rather skim information.
I am currently uncertain whether the interview will be placed within the magazine or not, but I believe that it will influence my decisions, creative or theory.
Saturday 25 November 2017
Case Study: Vangardist HIV Heroes Issue
Agency: Saatchi & Saatchi Switzerland
Brand: Vangardist Magazine
Award: Yellow Pencil / Direct / Direct Mail / 2016
In May 2015 Vangardist, with help from Saatchi & Saatchi Geneva, published a magazine printed in the blood of HIV positive people.
In this in-depth case study we trace the campaign from its gestation, through production and distribution to the worldwide response.
Read on for the extraordinary story behind this ground-breaking publication, which stretched the boundaries of what a magazine could achieve, and broke new ground in collaborations between publications and advertising agencies.
Background
For Jason Romeyko, Creative Director at Saatchi & Saatchi, the idea of using infected blood had been a long time in the making.
“My partner Jan Teulings and I tried to do it for a newspaper in Belgium, then we brought the idea to Austria, but it was not made because of legal restrictions. So the idea went away.”
Eventually though, the right client was found in the form of Jason’s friend Julian Wiehl of Vangardist Magazine.
“They wanted to devote an entire issue to HIV Heroes – people living with HIV. He felt the magazine needed a big idea for this edition.”
And so the brief was born.
“That was our brief – how could we adapt the idea of printing something in HIV+ blood to Vangardist Magazine, and what would the message be?”
THE HIV+ ISSUE
Insight
The team at Saatchi & Saatchi found that the conversation around HIV had diminished in recent years, but a stigma around it remained. During their research, a startling fact emerged: that there had been an 80% increase in new HIV cases in the 10 years since 2004. [source].
As Jason puts it, “It struck us as strange that nobody was talking about this.” With their insight pinned down, it was time to find partners to help the idea happen. “The advice was to find an NGO to support us. So we approached a whole host of them.”
But they were reluctant to get involved.
Bemused as to why NGOs wouldn’t help, Jason turned to the world of science to find supporters, “I called a leading expert in HIV, and he loved the idea. He explained that the 80% increase in infections is highlighting the fact that the NGOs are not making any progress…”
“The people who should be solving the issue were actually contributing to the stigma.”
This realisation proved to be a catalyst. “As soon as I understood we would not get NGO support I decided we would go ahead with the idea anyway. Sometimes when you’re trying to reignite a conversation you have to have that audacity and courage and go forward and do it.”
Jason and Jan had such faith in their idea that they even put their jobs on the line, offering to leave the agency if a lawsuit emerged.
Julian Wiehl believes the very essence of the idea was challenging for many, “Blood is something very mystical. The stories from the past are very close. 500 years ago it was forbidden to open bodies, it was something sacred. And these old beliefs are surprisingly still part of our culture.”
They subsequently secured endorsements from Harvard University and Innsbruck Medical University to reassure all involved that the risk of infection would be zero.
Production
Unusually, the team at Saatchi & Saatchi worked with the editorial team at Vangardist to create the magazine’s content. They asked the people who had donated blood for the ink to become the story also. This, of course, made finding the donors even more difficult.
“The biggest challenge we faced was finding the right blood donors. It was a very public thing that we asked people to do,” Jason explains. The final donors, and interviewees, were to include a variety of people. “I believe HIV is more than just a gay issue, it affects the whole community. We found the donors who had the courage to match the audacity of the agency and magazine.”
The donors included a young gay man, a woman whose husband had been living with knowledge of HIV for 10 years and infected her without her knowing, and a straight man who had struggled to find support for his condition.
Jason expands, “It’s more courageous for a donor to put their face on and blood in something than it is for agency or magazine to produce it.”
Donors now secured, the next problem was how to obtain the blood itself. Julian remembers the many obstacles they came up against, “Normally a hospital would kill a virus by heating up the blood and throwing it away. But through great luck we found a Professor, who agreed to do it and sign for it, taking all the risk of this process.
“We then had to find sponsors to transport the blood, because you can’t transport blood with your own car.”
The challenges were multiple, which for Julian had one benefit, “We were worried that someone else could steal the idea and try to do it themselves. But it was so complicated, there were so many obstacles, that we realised nobody else could have done it in such a short time.”
But the difficulties of an advertising agency working with a publisher continued throughout the production. As a natural problem solver, Jason saw this as an opportunity.
“For example, we argued for a long time over the cover. They were insistent that there must be a naked man on the front cover. But I argued that that wasn’t right for the serious message we had to get across.”
After much debate, the teams arrived at a solution they were all happy with.
“The cover worked for the idea: the 3,000 ‘infected’ print run was advertising a ‘non-infected’ print run of 15,000. The infected cover shows the texture and feel of Vangardist: you see edges of the body which appear on the cover of the non-infected version. It was what we needed to communicate, but was respectful of the magazine. It felt like art direction coup, which married fashion and advertising.”
Strong leadership from both teams, and mutual trust went a long way towards making the project a success.
Julien Wiehl explains, “It was the first time that Vangardist had worked with an ad agency. We’re used to doing things for ourselves, but the idea was from them. So we had to be careful to discuss how they expected the idea to work. And they had to respect the heritage of the magazine.”
Delivery
With the magazine headed to the printers, it was time to get it onto the shelves. But before distribution could begin, there was one more twist.
“I believe whenever there’s an obstacle there’s a creative way around it.” Explains Jason Romeyko “We were instructed legally that we needed to put a warning on the magazine. But I argued that would take away from the shock value.”
So they created what Jason calls a ‘moral dilemma’. Breaking the seal of an outer wrapper would allow you access to the magazine. The strap-line said it all: ‘Break the seal, help break the stigma’.
“That moral dilemma that we added to it, which came from a legal issue, just made it better.”
The magazine was initially distributed to subscribers in Germany, Switzerland and Austria. But it wasn’t long until news spread…
Response
Jason remembers the moments after the magazine launched, “The owner of Grindr called me the following day from LA demanding a copy. But the moment I really knew we were onto a good cause when the right wing American newspapers called me the “twisted queer soul behind the bilious idea”.
“You know when you’re pushing that button, you’ve made it. It became exactly what we wanted – a conversation around the topic was happening everywhere, and that’s the best sign.”
The team at Vangardist had a similar experience, “Many people wrote us letters about how grateful we were that we made the magazine.” Continues Julian, “They had conversations with their partners, in gay and heterosexual communities, over ‘would you or wouldn’t you touch the magazine’. In this discussion they found out about their own thoughts about HIV. They found out something about themselves. They found out they had never talked about this important topic.”
And there have been benefits for the magazine too, “We are now known for this campaign, which is good; we like our readers to be progressive people who like strong ideas. Now wherever I go, even when I call someone in New York, they know about it. It gives credit to the brand and makes it easier for us to work internationally.”
For Saatchi & Saatchi Switzerland there were benefits too, Jason believes, “There was of course a knock on effect for the agency. People felt prouder, and people talked about it. It’s always been an international agency based in Switzerland, I wanted it help build the agency’s international reputation.”
“For Switzerland and Austria, it’s a real honor to win a D&AD Pencil. It just feels like a wonderful book-end to a wonderful story.“
Over 55 million people saw media exposure of the campaign, and social media interactions numbered over 7 million. Timed to coincide with the Life Ball in Vienna, and the Eurovision Song Content, endorsements came from Conchita Wurst and Adam Lambert. The campaign has picked up 26 awards worldwide to date, including three D&AD Pencils, for Direct, Media and PR.
Jason ends with the most important outcome, “This is about helping people, and about starting conversations. Since the issue there are a lot more campaigns generating conversations around HIV. So I feel it’s had a knock on effect in the industry. I’m really encouraged that there are more and more people talking about it.
Case Study: Weapons of Reason
Weapons of Reason is a brilliant example of marketing for social good; a magazine to turn knowledge into action. Made in partnership with D&AD, it's an eight-issue publishing venture to understand and articulate the interconnected global issues shaping our world, and provide ways to inspire positive action. Issue one begins with an exploration of the Arctic.
Illustrating the Arctic
Weapons of Reason commissioned leading illustrators, including Jean Jullien and Adrian Johnson, to provide an accessible way to approach the huge topic and worked with Human After All’s Anna Dunn, Eve Lloyd Knight and a new young illustrator, Aaron Nelson, to create artwork and data visualisations that embody the power of great visual thinking.
“The visual information needs to travel fast – there’s no pointless decoration or embellishment. Everything is lean and done for a reason.” Paul Willoughby, Creative Director, Human After All
These illustrations both reflect the effect of pollution on the Arctic – the oil shape is both forming the outline of the animals, and looks like it is about to envelop them.
Adrian Johnson
I originally looked into different routes involving melting candles or cakes – which eventually led me to the ice lolly. With this I could illustrate the melting ice cap, the sea water, and oil below. The bite taken out of the 'oil' represents the consumption, the stick works as a device to show drilling, and the top of the lolly literally being the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
Jean Jullien
I was asked to illustrate mankind's enormous appetite for energy, so I chose to draw a greedy eater eagerly awaiting his meal to be served, with his fork in the shape of a plug. The idea was to show our constant expectation for energy, we never give much consideration to where it comes from (very much like food), we just expect to be served.
Eve Lloyd Knight
For 'The Future' section we commissioned two academic specialists to collaboratively write opposing scenarios for the future of the Arctic – one utopian, and one dystopian. Both pieces spoke to each other, which gave me a starting point for two complementary illustrations.
For the dystopian vision (that sees the Arctic ravaged by countries seeking its riches), I used the cake device to dish out the Arctic and its oil into slices. After I settled on the cake as a metaphor, the fun part was biting out chunks of oil and drawing puffy smoke from burning candles.
Aaron Nelson
My brief was to capture the vibrant city of Iqaluit. One of Canada's smallest cities, Iqaluit's population is constantly rising with a diverse mix of inhabitants . I was inspired by some of the city's unique architecture designed at the time for functionality, the ability to withstand climate conditions and cut material costs. It allowed me to replicate a number of the distinctive buildings that are located in and around the city of Iqaluit.
Cajsa Holgersson
A project for a cause very close to my heart, a brief containing the words ‘crisp vector art’, an intelligent client whose work I admire – there wasn't really much to ponder when Paul Willoughby asked me to contribute to Human After All’s new magazine.
With the guidelines simple and bold in my mind, I decided to focus on dimension of spaces rather than objects and details when making the illustration. To add a bit of detail without worrying about it being a distraction from the message, I chose to use a minimal dot-raster effect.
Illustrating the Arctic
Weapons of Reason commissioned leading illustrators, including Jean Jullien and Adrian Johnson, to provide an accessible way to approach the huge topic and worked with Human After All’s Anna Dunn, Eve Lloyd Knight and a new young illustrator, Aaron Nelson, to create artwork and data visualisations that embody the power of great visual thinking.
“The visual information needs to travel fast – there’s no pointless decoration or embellishment. Everything is lean and done for a reason.” Paul Willoughby, Creative Director, Human After All
These illustrations both reflect the effect of pollution on the Arctic – the oil shape is both forming the outline of the animals, and looks like it is about to envelop them.
The title 'Appetite for the Arctic' came after the illustration was complete. The challenge was to try and illustrate our insatiable appetite for oil buried deep under the Arctic whilst simultaneously communicating the melting of the polar ice cap. As with all my artwork, I aspire to say as much as possible with minimum means. I'm a reductionist at heart.
I originally looked into different routes involving melting candles or cakes – which eventually led me to the ice lolly. With this I could illustrate the melting ice cap, the sea water, and oil below. The bite taken out of the 'oil' represents the consumption, the stick works as a device to show drilling, and the top of the lolly literally being the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
Jean Jullien
I was asked to illustrate mankind's enormous appetite for energy, so I chose to draw a greedy eater eagerly awaiting his meal to be served, with his fork in the shape of a plug. The idea was to show our constant expectation for energy, we never give much consideration to where it comes from (very much like food), we just expect to be served.
Eve Lloyd Knight
For 'The Future' section we commissioned two academic specialists to collaboratively write opposing scenarios for the future of the Arctic – one utopian, and one dystopian. Both pieces spoke to each other, which gave me a starting point for two complementary illustrations.
For the dystopian vision (that sees the Arctic ravaged by countries seeking its riches), I used the cake device to dish out the Arctic and its oil into slices. After I settled on the cake as a metaphor, the fun part was biting out chunks of oil and drawing puffy smoke from burning candles.
Aaron Nelson
My brief was to capture the vibrant city of Iqaluit. One of Canada's smallest cities, Iqaluit's population is constantly rising with a diverse mix of inhabitants . I was inspired by some of the city's unique architecture designed at the time for functionality, the ability to withstand climate conditions and cut material costs. It allowed me to replicate a number of the distinctive buildings that are located in and around the city of Iqaluit.
Cajsa Holgersson
A project for a cause very close to my heart, a brief containing the words ‘crisp vector art’, an intelligent client whose work I admire – there wasn't really much to ponder when Paul Willoughby asked me to contribute to Human After All’s new magazine.
With the guidelines simple and bold in my mind, I decided to focus on dimension of spaces rather than objects and details when making the illustration. To add a bit of detail without worrying about it being a distraction from the message, I chose to use a minimal dot-raster effect.
Friday 24 November 2017
Practical article- Why are swear words that contain female anatomy worse than male anatomy?
The most offensive curse word in English has powerful feminist origins
Breathe deep, because we’re about to cover an awkward topic. But it’ll be fun and we’ll be more free when we’re done. Go ahead, say it. Just once. “Cunt.”
It’s a tough, clipped, harsh word with hard sounds; two consonants and a guttural stop. It’s powerful, sounding almost like an assault. The taboo against using it is extremely strong too, according to ”radical” anthropologist Camilla Power of East London University, who illuminates the history of “The C-word” on the July 25 episode of the Very Bad Words podcast.
Still, there’s reason for women to reclaim this word. While cunt’s exact origins are unknown because the word is so very old and has sounds that are common to both European and Indian languages, there’s evidence it was used throughout the ancient East and West—and not as a pejorative. For example, in The Story of V: A Natural History of Female Sexuality, published in 2003, Catherine Blackledge noted that kunthi referred to female genitalia in sanskrit. A Hindu nature goddess bore the name Kunti as well.
In addition, the word kunt was found in the writings of Ptah-Hotep, an Egyptian vizier who lived in the 25th century BC. It referred to women and appears to have been a term of respect. The Egyptian word for mother was k’at, which meant “the body of her,” a sign that reference to the body could apply to even the first beloved woman in a person’s life and was just fine.
In the 1983 book Women’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (pdf), Barbara Walker noted that 20th century Egyptologists were shocked to discover Ptah-Hotep’s language. But Walker says that the word’s “indelicacy was not in the eye of the ancient beholder, only in that of the modern scholar.”
From fine to pejorative
The process of cunt’s pejoration—going from a good or neutral word to a bad one—is inextricably tied to ancient human history, according to anthropologists. Once upon a time, about 10,000 years ago in the Stone Age, people wandered. They lived in societies where men and women had multiple sexual partners and female sexuality was not problematic.
But women with sexual power got a bad reputation when ancient nomadic societies stopped moving and began grabbing and holding lands for families. Men then needed to know who their children were, which meant keeping women monogamous was a must. Women’s roles shifted. For children to inherit, societies became patriarchal, and so the notions of female sexual power and goddesses disappeared, as described by anthropologist Joseph Campbell.
The end of women’s sexual liberation tarnished the reputation of female sexuality. But the word cunt was a simple descriptor for a long time after that, and it can be heard in old Norse and Germanic tales. It lived on in English and shares linguistic origins with noble words like queen, king, and country, and harmless terms like quaint, linguistic anthropologist Evelyn Dean Olmsted explains.
In medieval England, the word cunt wasn’t totally taboo. It first appeared in the Oxford English Dictionary in 1230. As recently as the 1400s, there were even about 20 “Gropecunt Lanes” in the country; that was a practical description of what might be obtained in these red-light districts, just as one might visit Meatcut Lane for a steak.
Wits referred to the cunt more subtly. In Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, published in 1478, the Wife of Bath asks, “Is it for ye wolde have my queynte allone?” While this sounds like a reference to cunt, and is often cited as such, “queynte” actually means a clever device, and is presumably used euphemistically in this context.
A more accurate descriptor
Today, many feminists argue that cunt must be revived. One reason is simply because it’s a better descriptor for female genitalia than “vagina.” The word vagina has Latin origins, and refers to a sword sheathe—the female sex organ, in this linguistic rendition, is simply a holster for the penis.
Technically speaking, vagina refers only to the “sexual passage of the female from the vulva to the uterus.” Cunt, however, describes the whole shebang, external and internal, including labia, vulva, pudendum, vagina, and clitoris. Thus, it accounts for and allows female sexual pleasure. To reclaim the power of their sex, women must take back the word that best describes their sex organ, feminists argue.
Politics of language
Despite its fine lineage, saying cunt can be awkward, however. Very Bad Words podcast host Matt Fidler—a long time public radio producer who loves salty language—was nervous about covering this particular curse, he told Quartz. “I grew up in a house where swearing was okay, and my mom doesn’t censor herself. But that’s one word she never uses, which intrigued me,” he says.
He began digging into the history of cunt and was stunned by what he found. Fidler had no idea his research would take him to the start of human history. “I wanted to talk about it but I didn’t want to mansplain it since we still live in a patriarchal society and I do need to careful with some of the language I choose to explore,” he says.
But when he dared to talk about it, he discovered that female friends were already embracing the positive power of cunt. Writer Katrin Redfern, who co-hosted the c-word episode with him, had already thought a lot about this topic, for example. Redfern read Inga Muscio’s 1998 book Cunt: A Declaration of Independence and it changed her life. She came to understand that the word is only an insult if you think strong women with sexual desire are a bad thing.
Still, Fidler was hesitant to utter the word when speaking to Quartz, as if he couldn’t get over the fact that it sounds very, very, very bad indeed, even to the indelicate. He admitted it’s still hard to say. “It’s just language but language is all about context,” he explains. “In the current cultural understanding cunt is still an insult for many people. But when I taught young women in broadcasting classes in New York, many seemed to be re-appropriating it, and things may change. I heard them use it a lot.”
Facing facts about sexuality
Evidence that strong young women are reclaiming the word includes musician Azealia Banks’ charming 2011 debut music video, 212. At the time, Banks was only 20 and cute as a button, her hair done in two braids like a child, her smile sweet. Wearing cut off jeans and a Mickey Mouse sweater, she declared repeatedly, “I guess that cunt getting eaten.”The song, video, and Banks were a huge internet sensation, but even those thrilled with her hit found her sexuality shocking. In a December 2011 story for Self-Titled magazine, Banks’ interviewer Arye Dworken admitted, “It’s jarring hearing a young girl say ‘cunt’ so often.”
Banks replied, “It’s so funny because I didn’t know it was that offensive…I feel like cunt means so feminine.”
So, should you start saying cunt, and when would doing so be okay? It all depends. It may be an empowering move when used in the right spirit. But do consider context. “I do use it now, partly in jest, knowing it’s offensive but not meaning it that way,” Fidler says. “But I still wouldn’t say that word around my mother.”
Article sorted from Quarts, written by EPHRAT LIVNI
FULL ARTICLE AVAILABLE @ https://qz.com/1045607/the-most-offensive-curse-word-in-english-has-powerful-feminist-origins/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)