From time to time I find myself browsing music videos on youtube. Usually it happens because I've heard a particular song on the radio that's stuck in my head, so I find my way to youtube to watch the related video, and then end up clicking the recommended links along the side of the page. I started out last night by finding the fantastic video for Rihanna's "We Found Love," which if you haven't seen or heard is definitely worth checking out. The video explores the complex emotions of being in and ending a harmful relationship, recognizing the validity of being in love with the person who is causing hurt, and the pain of letting them go even when you know it's right for you.
But soon after watching this video (which has gotten a lot of press on certain feminist blogs I read), I randomly clicked on to LMFAO's video for "Sexy and I Know It," which I find to be perhaps more worthy of discussion. A recent Jezebel article called attention to an increase in male obsession with body image, a topic which is frequently overlooked in conversations about sexual and mental health. This is in part because it is a newly-developing trend, but the truth of the matter is that it is much overshadowed by media conversations around representation of the female body. While there is a lot to be concerned about with how the media portrays women, there is also a lot to be concerned about with how the media portrays men. Yes, I've said it. Even though the media is PERHAPS more accepting of different body types for men, there are still certain body types that can be sexualized, and other body types which become comical if there is any attempt to sexualize them whatsoever (for example, the Vanity Fair cover featuring Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, and Jonah Hill).
While at first glance, the video for "Sexy and I Know It" (FAIR WARNING: although technically this video is SFW, it may be frowned upon by stodgier coworkers) seems to run along similar lines: the male body, if not well-muscled and perfectly formed, is hilarious when sexualized. But the video itself seems to subvert this idea. Brazenly sexualizing themselves by wearing skimpy Speedos and thrusting about on the beach and at a bar, the men in this video (including cameos by Ron Jeremy and Wilmer Valderama!) confidently expose their bodies and ARE NOT ASHAMED OF HOW THEY LOOK. In fact, by revealing their own confidence in themselves, the men in the video manage to incite other men and women to confidently strut their stuff down a makeshift catwalk in the middle of the bar. These men and women represent all body types from the skinny woman wearing skinny faux leather pants to the obese gentleman performing what can only be described as the Truffle Shuffle. And you know what? Not a single one of them is ashamed of his or her body. Although it may have never been the intent, I can only give the creative director for this video kudos for producing such a body-positive music video.
Tell me in the comments! Do you know of other music videos that share a similar body-positive message? (And please don't link me Christina Aguilera's wonderful but overused "Beautiful"!)
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Questioning Movember
No, that's not a typo in my title. If you haven't already heard about the Movember movement, I encourage you to check out the official website (http://us.movember.com/about). Every November, the movement encourages men everywhere to grow a moustache in order to raise awareness of prostate cancer and other men's health issues. While I love the idea behind the cause, I have to wonder whether the movement reinforces gender stereotypes that may alienate or harm.
My first concern is for men who cannot grow facial hair despite their best efforts. The ability to grow facial hair can be genetic, and is often affected by biological race. Does the movement suggest that the inability to grow facial hair make one less of a man? This perception can influence racial and ethnic stereotypes by associating a certain racial background with effeminacy.
A second concern that I have is for transgendered persons, both M-to-F and F-to-M, who may be affected by prostate cancer. Unlike breast cancer, which can be experienced by all biological sexes and is therefore not limited to biological sex, prostate cancer only affects those persons who actually have a prostate. What this means in terms of transgendered patients is that some females can develop prostate cancer, whereas some males cannot. It is also a disease which can affect intersexed persons. By encouraging all men to grow moustaches in order to promote the awareness of prostate cancer, the Movember movement may run the risk of ignoring certain sectors of the population that may be affected.
A final concern is how the movement may affect those who actually have prostate cancer. Various treatment measures for prostate cancer, including hormone therapy and chemotherapy, actually affect the patient's facial hair growth. A person who is unable to grow facial hair because of his (or her) treatment may find themselves in a place of woundedness when seeing seeing persons growing facial hair to raise awareness of the disease. The same would be true for patients who experience excessive unwanted hair growth because of their treatment.
I find fault with the Movember movement for the same reason I find fault with many "awareness" campaigns. The focus is on raising awareness of the disease, but in many cases that is all that happens. People are made aware of the fact that the disease exists, but remain uneducated in how to monitor their own health in order to prevent or reduce the likelihood of developing the disease. In that vein, I recommend anyone who is reading this blog post to check out this article on prostate cancer for an overview of what it is and how it affects your body (WARNING: link includes graphic images of a medical nature that may be considered NSFW). Early detection and prevention are what we should strive for, not "awareness!"
On a final note, blueberries, besides being a superfood, are very important for prostate health. I encourage anyone and everyone to incorporate more fresh or frozen blueberries into your diet!
EDIT: I have had comments suggesting that I am too critical with the Movember campaign without offering viable alternatives. This is a wonderful critique, partly because I have not given enough thought to alternative approaches. My main frustration with the movement is that it does little to provide knowledge about detection and prevention of prostate cancer. I merely wonder about the other implications of growing moustaches as a way to promote men's health issues... there is an inevitable subliminal message that says that growing moustaches is something a man does, and I worry about that message. I myself am totally in support of raising awareness in terms of men's health issues, especially with regards to detection and prevention, but I can't grow a moustache! So I am looking into alternatives. My two main thoughts are to invest in a moustache-shaped lapel pin that I can wear, or perhaps using indelible ink to draw my own moustache on! If you have other thoughts with how to help the movement, please share in the comments section!
My first concern is for men who cannot grow facial hair despite their best efforts. The ability to grow facial hair can be genetic, and is often affected by biological race. Does the movement suggest that the inability to grow facial hair make one less of a man? This perception can influence racial and ethnic stereotypes by associating a certain racial background with effeminacy.
A second concern that I have is for transgendered persons, both M-to-F and F-to-M, who may be affected by prostate cancer. Unlike breast cancer, which can be experienced by all biological sexes and is therefore not limited to biological sex, prostate cancer only affects those persons who actually have a prostate. What this means in terms of transgendered patients is that some females can develop prostate cancer, whereas some males cannot. It is also a disease which can affect intersexed persons. By encouraging all men to grow moustaches in order to promote the awareness of prostate cancer, the Movember movement may run the risk of ignoring certain sectors of the population that may be affected.
A final concern is how the movement may affect those who actually have prostate cancer. Various treatment measures for prostate cancer, including hormone therapy and chemotherapy, actually affect the patient's facial hair growth. A person who is unable to grow facial hair because of his (or her) treatment may find themselves in a place of woundedness when seeing seeing persons growing facial hair to raise awareness of the disease. The same would be true for patients who experience excessive unwanted hair growth because of their treatment.
I find fault with the Movember movement for the same reason I find fault with many "awareness" campaigns. The focus is on raising awareness of the disease, but in many cases that is all that happens. People are made aware of the fact that the disease exists, but remain uneducated in how to monitor their own health in order to prevent or reduce the likelihood of developing the disease. In that vein, I recommend anyone who is reading this blog post to check out this article on prostate cancer for an overview of what it is and how it affects your body (WARNING: link includes graphic images of a medical nature that may be considered NSFW). Early detection and prevention are what we should strive for, not "awareness!"
On a final note, blueberries, besides being a superfood, are very important for prostate health. I encourage anyone and everyone to incorporate more fresh or frozen blueberries into your diet!
EDIT: I have had comments suggesting that I am too critical with the Movember campaign without offering viable alternatives. This is a wonderful critique, partly because I have not given enough thought to alternative approaches. My main frustration with the movement is that it does little to provide knowledge about detection and prevention of prostate cancer. I merely wonder about the other implications of growing moustaches as a way to promote men's health issues... there is an inevitable subliminal message that says that growing moustaches is something a man does, and I worry about that message. I myself am totally in support of raising awareness in terms of men's health issues, especially with regards to detection and prevention, but I can't grow a moustache! So I am looking into alternatives. My two main thoughts are to invest in a moustache-shaped lapel pin that I can wear, or perhaps using indelible ink to draw my own moustache on! If you have other thoughts with how to help the movement, please share in the comments section!
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
MS Initiative 26
Choosing to be theologically pro-choice was not a difficult decision for me. To me, it seemed self-evident. There are really two lives that must be considered when it comes to the issue of abortion: the life of the woman who is already living and breathing and working in the world, and the potential life of a child not yet born. Although my position is typically referred to as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life,” I claim the title of pro-life. I am not anti-life. Instead, I argue for the life of the woman whose body has become a moral battleground. I argue for the life of the victims of sexual abuse and sexual assault. I argue for the life of the woman suffering from an ectopic pregnancy. I argue for the life of the woman who cannot afford the expenses associated with child-bearing and who refuses to bring a child into a world of poverty and suffering.
However, I can understand the perspectives and values of persons who claim a more orthodox pro-life stance on the abortion debate. Abortion is always a difficult decision, and never to be taken lightly. The truth is, most women who have abortions are not JUST having an abortion. It is not a minor chore for them in between washing the dishes and doing a load of laundry. No, abortion is a Big Deal. We want women to be thinking long and hard before choosing to have an abortion. It is a hard decision. But once that decision is made, we want women to have the freedom to pursue their choice without being made to feel even worse.
At this point, you have probably heard about the amendment being voted on right now in the state of Mississippi, titled Initiative 26. This initiative proposes adding a new section under Article III of the State Constitution, which is the Bill of Rights, defining “personhood.” The text of the amendment reads:
The implications of this seemingly innocuous definition are significant. The intent, as advertised by the “Yes on 26” campaign (http://www.yeson26.net), is to outlaw abortions. However, this is not the only outcome of this bill. Birth control, in vitro fertilization methods, and cryogenics may be affected, not to mention any number of other more complicated and possibly absurd implications (is a woman who miscarries guilty of involuntary manslaughter?).
The debate right now seems to center on the issue of moral law, but almost inevitably includes a tangential debate about the authority of the Bible and God in the “law of the land.” As a person of faith, I find this particular debate to be both frustrating and harmful, if not primarily because the Bible has absolutely nothing to say regarding abortion. Misinterpretation of the Bible aside, the question of religiosity influencing constitutional law within a country founded on the idea of separation of church and state is much more troubling.
The problem comes when the argument for banning abortion is founded on religious “truth.” The assumption made by such an argument is that there is a dominant religious view regarding the issue, and that particular religious view has the authority to govern the lives of people who may or may not agree with the particular issue at hand. Outlawing abortion because of religious zeal becomes a statement against any faith or non-faith that disagrees with that viewpoint. Being anti-abortion does not mean that you have to make it illegal to have abortions. Instead, you can choose to not have an abortion yourself, or you can choose to talk openly and honestly with a woman who may need help. Understand that your personal beliefs may not be shared by all.
The particularly troubling thing about Initiative 26 is that it’s only the first of several similar amendments. Six more states are already preparing similar amendments to go on the ballot in 2012. If Initiative 26 passes, it will be only the beginning in the fight against a woman’s right to choose. As a person of faith and a future minister, at this point I can only pray that Initiative 26 does not pass, and if it does, I will pray that it does not ignite a fire that spreads across the nation. Mother God, protect your daughters from the tide of hateful anti-abortion fervor, and welcome them into the safety of your loving embrace.
However, I can understand the perspectives and values of persons who claim a more orthodox pro-life stance on the abortion debate. Abortion is always a difficult decision, and never to be taken lightly. The truth is, most women who have abortions are not JUST having an abortion. It is not a minor chore for them in between washing the dishes and doing a load of laundry. No, abortion is a Big Deal. We want women to be thinking long and hard before choosing to have an abortion. It is a hard decision. But once that decision is made, we want women to have the freedom to pursue their choice without being made to feel even worse.
At this point, you have probably heard about the amendment being voted on right now in the state of Mississippi, titled Initiative 26. This initiative proposes adding a new section under Article III of the State Constitution, which is the Bill of Rights, defining “personhood.” The text of the amendment reads:
SECTION 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.
The implications of this seemingly innocuous definition are significant. The intent, as advertised by the “Yes on 26” campaign (http://www.yeson26.net), is to outlaw abortions. However, this is not the only outcome of this bill. Birth control, in vitro fertilization methods, and cryogenics may be affected, not to mention any number of other more complicated and possibly absurd implications (is a woman who miscarries guilty of involuntary manslaughter?).
The debate right now seems to center on the issue of moral law, but almost inevitably includes a tangential debate about the authority of the Bible and God in the “law of the land.” As a person of faith, I find this particular debate to be both frustrating and harmful, if not primarily because the Bible has absolutely nothing to say regarding abortion. Misinterpretation of the Bible aside, the question of religiosity influencing constitutional law within a country founded on the idea of separation of church and state is much more troubling.
The problem comes when the argument for banning abortion is founded on religious “truth.” The assumption made by such an argument is that there is a dominant religious view regarding the issue, and that particular religious view has the authority to govern the lives of people who may or may not agree with the particular issue at hand. Outlawing abortion because of religious zeal becomes a statement against any faith or non-faith that disagrees with that viewpoint. Being anti-abortion does not mean that you have to make it illegal to have abortions. Instead, you can choose to not have an abortion yourself, or you can choose to talk openly and honestly with a woman who may need help. Understand that your personal beliefs may not be shared by all.
The particularly troubling thing about Initiative 26 is that it’s only the first of several similar amendments. Six more states are already preparing similar amendments to go on the ballot in 2012. If Initiative 26 passes, it will be only the beginning in the fight against a woman’s right to choose. As a person of faith and a future minister, at this point I can only pray that Initiative 26 does not pass, and if it does, I will pray that it does not ignite a fire that spreads across the nation. Mother God, protect your daughters from the tide of hateful anti-abortion fervor, and welcome them into the safety of your loving embrace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)