Objectionable Material (?)

I’ve finally discovered an issue I consider moving or important enough to blog about as a response. I’m still feeling rather emotional about it so the language may end up fraught with descriptive terms that seem out of place. Give me a few paragraphs to catch a hold of myself.

I work at a library so I am constantly exposed to media, literature, art and periodicals that I’ve never taken note of before working there. For example, in the non-fiction section we barcode and shelve magazines. In seeing so many different periodicals pass my desk, I have found that the last interior page of a magazine often has a short editorial related to the theme of that issue or expressing a measure of humor or facts from history. The most recent issue of Ms. Magazine (it's a quarterly, winter 2008, arrived today) has a special last page like that… called No Comment. I am damn well making a comment about this one.

Let me start off by admitting that I have never had the inclination or the opportunity to scan through an issue of Ms. before. It just happened to be on the bottom of the pile I was bar coding today and as I slowed down my work, I peeked at the last page – simply curious. Arranged on the white page were three separate items of interest.

The upper left item is an image of a boxed figure, as if ready for retail sale. It’s Hillary Clinton as a nutcracker called (appropriately enough) the Hillary Nutcracker. The packaging boasts that she has “stainless steel thighs” and “cracks toughest nuts”. The (not extremely) recognizable figure has a toothy smile, blonde hair and a big political button displayed upon her fashionable blue suit. Of course, that’s not all but I don’t want to spoil it for you. Obviously, the closeness of the primaries and her bid for presidential office makes this a time-sensitive icon, possibly to become more popular or appreciated if Ms. Clinton should be successful in her endeavor. I thought it was great. Noting that the marketing company’s address was listed, I assumed that this novelty item was for sale. I wanted to look into the possibility of purchasing one and anticipated a look at their website upon my break.

The bottom half of the page is taken up by an ad for Svedka Vodka. It shows off a very cool feminized android figure called a fembot with the text “Make your next trophy wife 100% titanium”. The smaller image of the product is accompanied by the slogan “Voted #1 vodka of 2033”. I am a huge fan of sci-fi and found this very clever.

The last image on the page (upper right) is the ad from Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, an episode of which I will be watching in about 5 minutes. It’s the torso and head of Cameron, the teenaged female Terminator unit, a starring character of the new show. She’s played by an idol of mine (and my 12-year old daughter’s), Summer Glau – dancer and actress. She takes roles that show females (young admittedly, the lady’s only 26 now) as strong individuals – even if they are the mentally and emotionally vulnerable victims of pursuit by an overwhelming government force. Our household loves Summer Glau and her work, and I always find this image of her attractive. It may be the show’s character suspended from metal rods and wires, her endoskeleton showing from underneath her fake skin, but the light on the profile of her face and the admirable expression is breathtaking and purely Summer’s skill as a physical actress showing through.

So why were these three ads placed together on a page called No Comment? I made a quick assumption about the human(oid) subjects of the ads. The three female images all portray some form of strength (even it’s from electrical impulse driven hydraulic power) and are fake women as far as icons created to sell a product (the nutcracker novelty, vodka, a TV show). I didn’t think much beyond this assumption and planned to investigate further later.

Eventually I take a break at my desk and pick up the Ms. Magazine. Reading more carefully now, I see that there is an explanation to the purpose of the page. It’s to badger the manufacturers and publicity companies about their “objectionable ads”. The reader is further requested to report objectionable ads to Ms. through the editor of this page (No Comment – funny, that title, considering this novel I’m writing).

Interesting how a woman (who appreciates the female form & spirit and associates any image of a “strong woman” with the strengths of character, mind and body that Hillary Clinton and Summer Glau personify) decides to make her first complaint about the stereotyping of women to a medium that claims to defend the rights of women. In fact, I was most concerned when I first saw the front cover, a photo of a woman muted by a tape gag X’d across her mouth. Never one to promote violence against women as a matter of depersonalizing them or making them less human by removing her ability to defend herself or respond, I found this cover photograph objectionable. If ever there was an image that I identified as demeaning to women, this would be it. But I understand the point of the article and agree that the statement made by muffling the woman on the cover is both profound and provocative.

The Hillary Nutcracker novelty isn’t funny when you realize one of the other statements made on the box. It’s “Is America ready for this nutcracker?” If she is the right person for the job, then it doesn’t matter whether she is female or male. Gender is NOT a reason to either dismiss or choose a candidate for leadership – simply their ability to perform in the office to which they were elected. I take offense that someone is using such a creative toy/tool to promote the idea that one of America’s female candidates for president is somehow a destabilizing force simply because she’s got ovaries. This toy/tool would not be funny if it were Britney Spears depicted. Why? Because B. Spears is NOT a strong representation of womanhood… she’s an embarrassment. Hillary C. on the other hand can do more than hold her own. She’s strong enough (however you want to take that adjective) to be the impetus for this toy/tool and makes it both thought-provoking and funny. She can survive this. Besides, the joke doesn't work with the male candidates.

The android vodka seller is an obviously fake (but attractive) female. Her mechanics are showing at each joint and the shiny plastic body forms of her torso, forearms and butt cheeks emulate, but do not convince us of, the soft fleshly exterior of a human woman. There’s an expression on the face but it’s truly inconsequential – knowing that she represents the trophy wife (a reputation for women who are ultimately inconsequential themselves without representing her mate/husband for his benefit) who are often depicted as botoxed, liposucked, acrylic-nailed and bleached blond proves just how fake she is supposed to appear. The text nearby is more disturbing. The single word that I found offensive was “next”, as if a gentleman should expect to have more than one trophy wife in his lifetime. Now the stereotype of trophy wives are cruel and dehumanizing, but let’s face the facts… most stereotypes are based off of some event or trend in reality and we all have a certain standard in mind when the term is said.

Now we come to the image of Cameron, another fake and mechanical woman. But this one isn’t obvious. She was designed to accurately impersonate an attractive but average high school teen. Her purpose is to protect the life of an average (for now) high school teen who happens to be male (John Connor). She’s like the secret service going to college with Chelsea Clinton in that she’s meant to blend in with the surroundings and not disrupt the place too much. So how much more disturbing is the “passing” fake woman than the obvious one? Not. Cameron is a machine but has programming to allow her to function as a human, mimicking emotions and varying her reactions. You just have to remind yourself once in a while that her lack of a heart doesn’t mean that her central processing unit isn’t in the right place.

Why are any of these images of strong women on this list? Because one makes fun of a political incumbent? Because one plays off of an artificial woman stereotype? Because one strips the mask off of the underlying fake woman, proving that we are a gullible society and are capable of being fooled by a veneer of false femininity? Hm.

Would the readers of Ms. also find images of transgenders or cross-dressing men objectionable? These could be considered fake females… in imagery anyway. How insulting. What am I to make of the opinions expressed by exposing these three ads as objectionable? That strong women are offensive? That because a female is fake, or can pass when she's faking, that she is against the grain or flaunting the standard? I SOOO do not agree. What kind of a stereotype are you promoting, Ms. - women have to fit within certain parameters to be acceptable?

Whoo boy, I’m about tapped out. I’m emotionally drained and it’s late. I’m tired of ranting and to spin a bit of fairness in the direction of Ms. Magazine, I appreciate the opportunity to send their last page editor my nomination for objectionable ad. When I find one.