Heineken beer ad -- funny or not?

I'm torn. The first time I saw this commercial on television last week, I found it absolutely hysterical. But now, I'm not sure. Should I be offended?

I haven't found an English version of the video online yet, but there's not much talking anyway...



On the one hand, I know that stereotypes are bad, can lead to skewed perceptions about gender roles, and shouldn't, in practice, be encouraged. On the other hand, I feel like this commercial makes both the women and the men look absolutely ridiculous. It's so clear that the advertisers are playing on very common stereotypes about men and women, that I'm not finding myself too upset about it.

What do you think?

Feminist Flashback #31

In honor of Gaypril, this week's Feminist Flashback brings you the work of Dyke Action Machine (DAM), a two-person team (Carrie Moyer and Sue Schaffner) whose public art projects have graced the city streets since 1991. According to their website, their campaigns "dissected mainstream media by inserting lesbian images into recognizably commercial contexts, revealing how lesbians are and are not depicted in American popular culture. While questioning the basic assumption that one cannot be “present” in a capitalist society unless one exists as a consumer group, DAM! performed the role of the advertiser, promising the lesbian viewer all the things she’d been denied by the mainstream: power, inclusion, and the public recognition of identity."

DAM encourages people to re-print and plaster their own neighborhoods with DAM posters. The artistic duo also just created a 16-page pamphlet explaining how to "convert lesbianism into a viable commodity." It's oh-so-very educational.

Check out a few of their older projects below and definitely head over to their website to see what they're up to these days:

The Gap Campaign, 1991

Family Circle, 1992

Do You Love The Dyke In Your Life?, 1993

Lesbian Americans: Don't Sell Out, 1998

A critical look at Avenue Q

I very much liked Avenue Q when it came out 5 or so years ago. It seemed witty, intelligent, and socially relevant - even if it was rather vulgar. Not to mention, it was pretty funny. I hadn't heard it in a while, though, so today I pulled out (or rather, clicked up) the soundtrack.

It was... less than impressive. Avenue Q just wasn't quite how I'd remembered it.

It's not the pervasive sex, or the overall message (which is okay, I suppose), or the gay storyline (which was handled fairly well) or anything big like that. It's more that, despite purporting to be different, to attack societal stereotypes, Avenue Q fall into them on a regular basis. Take, say, racism:

Now, they're obviously not in favor of racism. But they seem to think that acknowledging racism it makes it just fine in small amounts. There's definitely something wrong with this - thinking that 'mexican busboy's should learn to speak goddamn english" also causes you to not want to hire them, for example. The question, of course, is whether the satire is honest (the song is truthful) or whether the joke is on micro-racism itself. A quick check around the Internet shows that everyone else is uncomfortable too - which shows that it is definitely a problem. Come to think of it, Avenue Q seems to have a real problem with people generally:

Now, when I first heard this, I thought it was hilarious. (I was a good deal more cynical and angry back then.) But seeing someone suffer shouldn't make you feel good! It should make you feel worse. It's not even worth laughing about. And I don't think there's a good argument here (as there was with 'Everyone's a Little Bit Racist') that they are really making fun of people who laugh at others. It's more of a black humor sort of feeling, minus the subtlety that would make it work as such.

But it's the women that are the most offensive, and not in an empowering way. Lucy is a Slut (with a capital S). Ha. Then, she becomes a born-again Christian. Double ha. The big question is, of course, what's wrong with any of those? Shouldn't she be able to do what she wants? But she moves from bad to bad, and it seemingly escapes any commentary.

Kate Monster has many redeeming qualities (and an actual purpose!), but she apparently needs a boyfriend to really complete her life. Lovely.

Worst of all is Gary Coleman. (Who is played by a female singer, if you didn't know.) When I first saw Avenue Q, this seemed quirky, fun, different. Now, it just seems like they're saying, "Look at this loser. He's such a loser, he's no better than a woman." After all, the writers have stated that Coleman was supposed to be a symbol of failure. Apparently, failure is synonymous with being female.

What do you think? Perhaps I'm over-thinking this. Or perhaps I'm just too dense to truly see between the lines. But just I couldn't help but be disappointed and sad at listening to Avenue Q.

Why analyzing your stats can be depressing

Ever week or so when I look at my statcounter, I marvel that the fact that after almost six months some of the most common search phrases that bring people to my blog are still the lyrics of 3OH!3's obnoxious song "Don't Trust Me," which I posted about back in November.

Searched variations from the past week include

"talk with your hips"
"shush girl shut your lips do the helen keller and talk with your hips"
"talk with your hips lyrics"
"shut your mouth do the helen keller"

And I seriously doubt people looking for lyrics have any interest in my critical feminist perspective on the song's offensiveness and misogyny. UGH!

What are the most inappropriate/weird/obnoxious search terms through which people have found your blog(s)?

Target Women: Carl's Jr.

I think this might be one of my favorite Target Women segments yet. I hate those awful Carl's Jr. ads.

And, "So yesterday I went to get a milkshake, but I ended up giving someone a handjob!" is just priceless.

Rachel Maddow on America's legacy of torture

Rachel Maddow's impassioned--not to mention imminently cogent and smart--report tonight on two American journalists being held in North Korea was truly a sight to see. And if you didn't watch her show tonight, you should definitely watch the clip below now. Maddow really doesn't hold any punches:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Men, watch out! Lesbians are stealing your women!

A few days ago, my father directed my attention to an article by Mary A. Fischer in this month's Oprah Magazine. The article's entitled, "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women," and my dad's of the opinion that Oprah's paving the way for her own coming out. (I'm not really one to speculate, but if I were, I would agree that she does spend an awful lot of time with that Gayle!)

Anyway, the article is moderately interesting, although it doesn't say anything earth-shattering and there are some problematic moments. FeministGal points out a few issues, such as Fischer's use of 'lesbian chic' as evidence of society's acceptance (rather than exploitation, a more accurate term) of lesbian relationships:

Lately, a new kind of sisterly love seems to be in the air. In the past few years, Sex and the City's Cynthia Nixon left a boyfriend after a decade and a half and started dating a woman (and talked openly about it). Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable—or at least, acceptable.

Lesbianism is fashionable? Um. Yay? Also, I've heard that before (e.g. Laura Cottingham's book(let) Lesbians Are So Chic...: ...That We Are Not Really Lesbians at All and Linda Dittmar's article "The Straight Goods: Lesbian Chic and Identity Capital on a Not-so-Queer Planet," both written in the mid-1990s and a long time before the age of Katy Perry and Tila Tequila).

Fischer also points to a landmark 2004 study (referenced a few months ago in this New York Times Magazine feature) as evidence that female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality. I don't know. I haven't read the study itself, but it seems that Fischer is vastly simplifying the results. Regardless, I don't have too much of a problem with the idea that women's sexuality is more fluid--stereotypical though it may seem. Who knows, maybe it's true? I have a much bigger problem with the conclusion Fischer draws toward the end of the article: that women who leave men for other women tend to be more attracted to butch lesbians, androgynous women or bois. She writes:

Ironically—or not, as some might argue—it is certain "masculine" qualities that draw many straight-labeled women to female partners; that, in combination with emotional connection, intimacy, and intensity. This was definitely true for Gomez-Barris, whose partner, Judith Halberstam, 47, (above right, with Gomez-Barris, left) says she has never felt "female." Growing up in England as a tomboy who had short hair and refused to wear dresses, Halberstam says people were often unable to figure out whether she was a boy or a girl: "I was a source of embarrassment for my family." As a teenager, she was an avid soccer player—not that she was allowed on any team. And her 13th birthday request for a punching bag and boxing gloves was met with the demand to pick something more feminine. "Throughout my youth," she says, "I felt rage at the shrinking of my world." Halberstam channeled her anger into a distinguished academic career and authored several provocative books, including, in 1998, Female Masculinity. It was during the past few years that she started calling herself Jack and answering to both "he" and "she."

With all due respect to Judith (Jack) Halberstam, whose work I really admire and whose own sexuality isn't really the issue here, it does seem a little reductive for Fischer to argue that most "straight" women tend to fall for masculine/androgynous women, and the article seems to come to some sort of unspoken conclusion that socially-sanctioned gender binaries (male as rational and female as emotional, for example) still play a role, even for women who fall in love with other women. This may be true for some people. It may even be more often true for straight women who date lesbians. But it's certainly not something I'd be willing to build an argument around.

Do you think female sexuality is more fluid than male sexuality? Do any of you who are gay, bisexual or heteroflexible want to speak to whether or not you tend to be attracted to more "masculine" or more "feminine" women? And what that might mean, if anything? Is this even something about which we can make generalized claims?

Lest I sound too grumpy, I think the article's mostly fine, especially for something published in a mainstream publication. What do you all think?