Paris gets naked for clean water--that's hot

20% of sales of Paris' new champagne will go to organizations helping people develop clean sources of drinking water.

And, she gets naked and smears herself in gold to advertise.

whoa--just as I was planning to write on my views regarding the death penalty...

New Jersey will become the first state in the modern era of capital punishment to repeal the death penalty.
Nice move, New Jersey. While I am of the opinion that some people just need to be executed for stability and/or progress, I do not believe that the government should have the right to decide who lives and who dies (with inevitable warfare in the name of defense a separate matter). I guess you can say that my belief that some people are just too counter-productive to live is more theoretical and/or philosophical, because when it comes down to reality and implementation, I do not trust the federal or state government to regulate execution, nor do I wish to give either that power.

(Oy vey...I feel like some anti-choicer is going to parallel this to abortion, although the two are apples and oranges. I will address this in another post when I have some more time)

Plus, execution is not even economically feasible, given the appeals process...

speaking of enacting standards of efficiency...here's a watered-down Energy Bill

On Thursday evening, the Senate, by a vote of 86-8, passed an energy bill that will raise fuel-economy standards by 40% and dramatically boost production of ethanol and other biofuels. But it is merely a shadow of the bill Democrats wanted just last week, which would have required utilities to get 15% of their electricity from renewable power. They also had proposed a nearly $22 billion tax package that would have allowed Congress to extend existing production and investment incentives for wind and solar power, raising money from Big Oil to help offset the spending.

Earlier in the day, the Senate voted not to move debate on the bill forward. But after an afternoon of deal making, Democrats were able to win support for the measure by dropping the tax package, which would have raised taxes on BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell. The renewable electricity mandate was omitted after the Senate blocked the bill on a procedural vote last week.

Under the new legislation, the fleetwide standard will be raised to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from 25 mpg today.

The bill also includes a provision to increase biofuel production to 36 billion gallons per year by 2022. Of this amount, 21 billion gallons must come from biofuels other than corn-based ethanol. Last year, total ethanol production in the United States was about 5 billion gallons, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group. source

Bali talks extended to Saturday

Officials at the United Nations climate conference in Bali, Indonesia extended closed-door talks into Saturday, as they neared resolution in a dispute over targets for greenhouse-gas emissions cuts.

Of course, the United States (or should I say the administration representing the United States) does not think that the goal of reducing emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 should be binding--because that would mean that effective efficiency standards need to be enacted.

trjilhngldngfkdngfsd. what idiots.

Red, Processed Meat to Certain Cancers

"People who eat a lot of red and processed meats have a higher risk of developing several types of cancer, including lung cancer and colorectal cancer, according to a new study from the National Cancer Institute.

People who ate the most red were 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with bowel, liver, lung and esophageal cancer during the eight-year study, compared to those who consumed small amounts of this type of meat.

The researchers also found that people who ate the most processed meats, including bacon, ham and lunch meat, had a 20 percent higher risk of colorectal cancer and a 16 percent higher risk of lung cancer."

Okay people...eat more fruits, vegetables, and legumes

face transplant?

"A French woman who two years ago became the first person to receive a face transplant has recovered with remarkably good aesthetic results and has gradually regained normal skin sensation and control of her facial muscles, doctors reported yesterday in the first detailed account of her progress.

Isabelle Dinoire, who at age 38 lost her lips, cheeks, chin and most of her nose when she was mauled by her dog, now blends into crowds and attends parties comfortably with the face she got from a 46-year-old brain-dead donor. Surgeons attached the face like a mask in a landmark 15-hour surgery."

woman sentenced in baby swinging

Not like a woman swinging her four-week-old baby at her boyfriend, ultimately fracturing the infant's skull is good news--it is quite disturbing--but I do read this and think to myself, "yep, all that maternal instinct crap is bull shit."

Not that I am solely using this isolated example to make my greater point...but I do come across the same conclusion in one way or another virtually every day..."yep, all that maternal instinct crap is bull shit."

It's called: we-brainwash-daughters-to-make-them-think-they-feel-a
-maternal-instinct-because-it's-"natural"-through-socialization
-when-really-we-are-forcing-miserable -families-undermining-female-autonomy-and-facilitating-chronic
-overpopulation-and-consumption syndrome.

The Bald Woman in Mass Culture

Hair is ideologically loaded with gendered relations of power. The socio-political implications of the female shaved head are complex and nuanced, with no single reading available at any given moment. The presence of hair on women can indicate many characteristics, including age, economic standing, intellect, marital status or religious considerations (Koppelman); but more relevant to heteronormative female gender, it can represent beauty, “femininity”, and vanity (This Magazine). While hair is embedded with race-, class-, and sex-based significance, the absence of hair on the female body is a jarring upset to the white, heteronormative collective. Female baldness is largely perceived as a boycott of demands on beauty, but can also represent punishment, illness and/or rebellion (Koppelman). Cultural representations of women with shaved heads are rich with meaning, and changes in these representations over time indicate parallel shifts in social perceptions. In order to locate the most mainstream and widely held public perceptions of women with bald heads, mass culture—otherwise known as popular culture—serves as a critical tool in analyzing values that drive mass consumption, and includes media such as radio, movies, comic books, detective stories, science fiction, and television (Macdonald). The films G.I. JANE and V for Vendetta will guide the discussion of changing portrayals and perceptions of the female shaved head, utilizing other supplemental materials from mass culture as well.

Although both films are highly political and militaristic, and respective female protagonists undergo intense periods of transformation accompanied by the loss of their hair, G.I. JANE and V for Vendetta assign different meanings to the shaved head, reflecting changes in mainstream perceptions that are, despite the possibility of progress over time, ultimately less challenging of traditional and gendered relations of power. In G.I. JANE (1997), Lt. O’Neil shaves her head to mark her transformation from feminine to masculine, highlighting her degradation as a female and access to military resources only as a man. In V for Vendetta (2005), Evey Hammond suffers the loss of her hair in a feigned prison bout, calculated to challenge her fear and political paralysis—undoubtedly commingled with her femininity—and although she is able to achieve fearlessness, she never achieves revolutionary agency. While in G.I. JANE, hair operates as an ultimate indicator of gender, in V for Vendetta, hair does not determine masculinity or femininity.

G.I. JANE

Viewed in harmony, the complexities of sex, gender, sexuality, and race unfold to highlight Lt. O’Neil’s transition from a white, straight, female to a white, straight man in the film G.I. JANE. O’Neil (Demi Moore) first arrives in SEAL training with her hair in a bun, is placed in separate quarters, and undergoes training as an “other.” Her frustrations culminate to a point of intolerance, where she demands equal treatment. It is at this moment the audience watches O’Neil shave her own head, do one-armed push ups, and share both private and public space with males. While in the beginning the other men were bothered by her tampons, later the audience watches as the doctor explains O’Neil’s onset of amenorrhea. While early on in the film, the audience understands white, male military power through the phallic cigar-smoking tendencies of men in uniform, by the time O’Neil is dismissed for being too successful—and therefore too masculine—she too smokes a cigar on the patio. Accordingly, this is a film about privilege—who has it, who does not, and why. G.I. JANE presents itself as a movie about men and women, but it is really about white, heteronormative men and women. It is a particular version of maleness that has the privilege and power of the United States military, and only a particular version of femaleness can dare take on a phallus, become male, and win inclusion. Abandoning her hair is the primary way in which Lt. O’Neil accomplishes this.

As soon as G.I. JANE begins, it both complicates and confirms traditional ideas of power and politics. The film revolves around the arrangements of Senator Lillian DeHaven, who is able to secure the spot of one female to undergo Navy SEAL training, with the understanding that if the trial woman passes, the training will become open to women in general. The Senator is marked by her strong personality, her tough politics, and her no-bullshit demeanor—culturally hailed as male aggression. Thus, her whiteness and her masculine approach grant her access to power, but at the same time, the audience is constantly reminded that the Senator is a woman. In one scene, DeHaven primps her hair in the mirror, while in another she is getting it colored. Accordingly, the implications of female political power must be subdued by reminders that DeHaven is in fact woman and therefore, never a man. Interestingly, the trope for the Senator’s femaleness—her hair—operates to further dramatize the famous head-shaving scene of Lieutenant O’Neil and mark her transformation from feminine to masculine.

While gender and sexuality are dominant themes in the movie, the significance of genitals are powerful in Lt. O’Neil’s transformation and supplement O’Neil’s loss of hair in establishing her masculinty. After O’Neil makes her transition into maleness, she is able to shift the power dynamic with her superior in an intense physical fight by saying, “suck my dick.” Her previously disapproving comrades cheer her on, revealing two factors: primarily, O’Neil now legitimately has a dick, because she has lost her hair and become a man. Secondly, a man sucking another man’s dick is the greatest insult. After this triumphant moment of O’Neil’s enactment of brother humiliation, she is now invited out for beers with the men. Because hair can function as a source of identity among members of a group, O’Neil has physically won her way in with the guys (Synnott). Therefore, her hair serves as a critical precondition to her inclusion in male camaraderie, and O’Neil is able to manipulate her hair to achieve power (Weitz). Although the meaning of Lt. O’Neil’s hair is more traditional in that lack of her signifies masculinity, the message of the film in regard to gendered relations of power is ultimately more radical because O’Neil’s gender is not fixed and she is able to transcend her femininity and hold power as a male.

V for Vendetta

Released almost a decade after G.I. JANE, V for Vendetta is more traditional in its reading of female baldness, despite its image as a politically radical film with explicit critique of homophobia (while G.I. JANE merely accepts and perpetuates homophobic discourse). Setting the stage for the final message, Evey explains as the film begins, “It is not an idea I miss—it is a man. A man that made me remember the fifth of November”—alluding that Evey’s political awareness, participation in revolt, and belief in freedom are mediated through V. Thus, her access to resources of personal growth are channeled through the male. Her diction is relevant, as Evey does not miss a person—she misses a man, and her sex-based differentiation highlights the explicit division of men and women throughout the film, as well as the exclusion of women in positions of authority (except for one female doctor who, in the end, is the only person on V’s revenge list to have lived a life of misery and remorse).

While in G.I. JANE, Lt. O’Neil’s voluntarily shaved head marks her in-group identity and allows her to become masculine, Evey’s forced head shave is an act of punishment which characterizes a period of intense personal growth—but never stimulates any revolutionary autonomy in Evey herself. Unlike Lt. O’Neil, Evey does not become like a man wielding authority, she remains a woman who, although becomes fearless, holds no real power. More importantly, Evey’s portrayal as a heroine in the film is misleading because—while she does grow and learn that some things are more important than life, she does not understand that V’s plan to restore freedom is greater than his life. Evey is actually counter-revolutionary when she implores V towards the end of the film to escape with her rather than carry out his plot. Overcome with emotion and love, Evey continues to embody culturally praised, heteronormative femininity, despite her lack of hair. While she finally commits one empowering act—pulling the lever on a train to send explosives to parliament—this was all at the orchestration and request of V. Therefore, Evey’s only access to revolutionary agency is mediated through V. Furthermore, it is unclear whether Evey pulls the lever for the cause, or in honor of V, who is dead by this point. Although the film is progressive in that Evey can be a woman without hair, she is never a woman with power, nor does she become masculine to take it.

The juxtaposition of men and women create firm identities for each, with hair functioning as an accessory, but never an ultimate indicator of gender. Evey and V are introduced to the viewer for the first time in distinct sexual opposition to one another. The audience meets Evey in a black bra putting on lipstick, after which the scene switches to V who is adjusting his mask and weapon-related gear. As Evey makes her way through the city at night, she is confronted by fingermen (fascist police), who use their patriarchal power of state over Evey’s body, offering rape as punishment for her curfew break. Vulnerable to exploitation and void of measures of feasible resistance, Evey is paralyzed by her own “femininity,” soon to be rescued by the opposite of male tyranny, a male revolutionary. In either case, the power-brokers are men, and Evey is subject to their whim. Hair is not relevant to power, because while both V and Evey have long hair, only V is powerful. That is to say, masculinity and femininity are more than just hair in the film.

While hair is not essential in maintaining femininity, it is still very meaningful to Evey. Unlike Lt. O’Neil, who willfully shaves her head and takes ownership of her baldness, Evey cries as her hair is buzzed in an act of punishment and dehumanization (Sentient Developments). Throughout the film, the division of men and women, the emphasis on Evey’s femininity by portraying her as sexy and sexually desired, and Evey’s subsequent categorical belonging to “female,” creates such cultural meaning around her hair that, in response to learning that V orchestrated her torture, she questions in disbelief, “You cut my hair? You tortured me?” Her language and order of delivery are powerful because they posit the destruction of her feminine identity as more hurtful and ridiculous than the destruction of her physical body. Thus, despite her newly-gained transcendence of fear, the loss of hair remains a humiliating act, revealing just how deeply revered gender conformity is, as well as the gendered symbolism of hair.

V for Vendetta can be seen as a more progressive reading of the female shaved head because Evey is still feminine after she loses her hair, and thus femaleness is stretched to include more women. Watching as Evey returns to see V for the last time, the audience does not know where she has been or what she has been doing—only that she has survived. The viewer understands her strength, but sees her return in a skirt and delicate v-neck, button-down sweater. Despite her changes, the audience must not forget that she is female, and she is in opposition to maleness. V for Vendetta may be more progressive in its reading of the bald female head, but the ultimate message of the film is more traditional, because Evey is distinctly marked as female and never holds power—and she never transcends her femininity to gain power. Thus, her femaleness is still equated with powerlessness.

Public Reaction

Public reactions to the films are indicative of their ultimately radical versus traditional messages. Critic Jerry O’Brien claimed that G.I. JANE is an “insult to all of the men who achieved their SEAL badges when you imply a woman can do it,” and that training will be “lightened” because of the film (Twohy). O’Brien’s fear is telling because his concern blatantly contradicts the point of the film— O’Neil must compete with the physical capabilities of the men around her, and she does not accept differential treatment. His comments indicate a deep-seated phobia of women entering, and therefore jeopardizing and weakening, male space, the implication of femininity as insulting, as well as the belief that women are inherently weak and unable to compete physically with men. Natalie Portman reaps quite the opposite. Despite the profound socio-political commentary embedded in the film, Portman’s head is the main talking point, and in the process, became both tokenized and sexualized. What Portman’s head looked like was of larger interest than what it meant—perhaps because it really meant nothing in the film.

While G.I. Jane kindled anxieties revolving around essentialist views of men and women, V for Vendetta simply focused on Natalie’s head—revealing that G.I. Jane is perceived as a more radical film because a female usurps male power, not by virtue of a bald head alone. V for Vendetta is received more smoothly because, although it contains far-reaching political commentary, the roles of men and women are not challenged. Interestingly, although female power operates more radically in G.I. JANE, the meaning attached to the female bald head is more traditional in that a shaved head is automatically masculine. To the contrary, female power and gender roles operate according to a traditional script in V for Vendetta, but the meaning attached to the female bald head is more progressive in that it can still be feminine. Because of the latter in both instances, popular culture has become more tolerant and inclusive of female shaved heads, although the ultimate portrayal of femaleness as powerless remains the same.

What does this mean in terms of the female shaved head in relation to power in mass culture, and therefore in popular consciousness? Are there ways in which expanding femininity to include appropriately enacted female baldness can also expand female power? Both G.I. JANE and V for Vendetta portray femininity as ultimately without power—although being considered a legitimate female is a source of privilege, and therefore is a form of power in that it gives legitimate women access to powerful men. In so far as female privilege is accessed through sexuality and femininity, and the female shaved head under certain circumstances has now become sexual and feminine—V for Vendetta does imply more power for women. However, in so far as access to power remains contingent upon sexual appeal and femininity, and therefore does not challenge the pervasive existence of female power by mere virtue of sexuality and only in opposition to other male sources (the state, military, police, et cetera) of power—V for Vendetta does not reflect expanding power allocated to women through time. Based on the latter concept of power, V for Vendetta actually regresses from the cultural accomplishments of G.I. JANE, which grants women access to an alternate source of power—traditionally male (military) power. While the basis for achieving female privilege may be widened in V for Vendetta by proclaiming the bald head feminine, the source of female privilege and its roots in sexism are never challenged.

Beyond the Films

In so far as Lt. O’Neil actually becomes masculine and possesses power, G.I. JANE is more radical than V for Vendetta. V for Vendetta reveals more ways to look like a woman, but still gives the power to men. That Evey Hammond’s bald head is an acceptable form of femaleness is mirrored in the real life experience of actress Natalie Portman, who is heralded as beautiful with or without hair. The exotification of the female shaved head can also be seen on America’s Next Top Model, where Tyra Banks claims that bald women must use their facial features—and therefore not rely on their hair—to make them feminine and sexy (This Magazine). At the same time, most women, like Evey, cry upon undergoing the shave. Implicit in this cultural commentary is the fact that achieving femininity is compilation of performances and behaviors that can be enhanced by, but are not solely dependent upon, hair. Furthermore, if enacted properly, the female shaved head can accentuate a woman’s beauty. Cosmetologist Hosea Hicks concedes that while hair can be trendy, lack of hair can be a style in and of itself (Hicks). While a seminar offering beauty techniques for cancer patients concedes that bald women can still be fashionable, it also teaches women how to scarve their bald heads (Caustro). Therefore, a bare female head can be beautiful, but it is also still threatening for some women.

But the bald head is still not safe. Britney Spear’s buzz captivated the nation, with the public equating Britney’s shaved head with a psychotic breakdown. That Britney removed her own hair during a time of personal duress positions the female shaved head as a pathological, compulsive, or otherwise irrational and unsubstantiated action. Such cultural understandings are made clear in Allure Magazine’s May 2007 issue, which included shaved heads in a laundry list of “beauty breakdowns” (The Colonic). The cultural battle wages on, with allegations of feminine degeneracy being challenged and analyzed by informal cultural mediums such as blogs and Facebook groups, and by recent films and television shows in popular culture.

Bibliography

“Allure Magazine is Gravely Mistaken.” The Colonic. May 2007. October 2007<http://thecolonic.blogspot.com/2007/05/allure-magazine-is-gravely-mistaken.html

“Bald As I Wanna Be.” This Magazine. 2006. Oct. 2007 <http://www.thismagazine.ca/issues/2006/05/back_bald.php>

Caustro, Paddy. Seminars Offer Beauty Techniques for Cancer Patients. Los Angeles Times 24 Feb. 1989: 4

Hicks, Hosea. “What Hair Is.” Columbus Times 14-20 Sep. 2006: 9

“I’ve Seen the Future and the Future is Bald.” Sentient Developments. 2006. 26 Oct. 2007< http://sentientdevelopments.blogspot.com/2006/04/ive-seen-future-and-future-is-bald.html>

Koppelman, Connie. “The Politics of Hair.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 17.2 (1996): 87-88.

Macdonald, Dwight. Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America. New York: The Free Press, 1957.

Synnott, Anthony. “Shame and Glory: A Sociology of Hair.” The British Journal of Sociology 38.3 (1987): 381-413.

Twohy, David. “No ‘Gender-Norming’ in ‘G.I. Jane.’” Los Angeles Times 15 Sep. 1997: 3

PETA goes after the Olsen twins

PETA has launched a new campaign against "Hairy Kate" and "Trashley Trollsen"--who not only wear fur, but are including fur in their new clothing line. The site is very gimmicky and funny-looking, but also includes a traumatizing video on animals being killed for fur.

ah...the glory

I would just like to say that it is a glorious day when one is able to refer to one's own blog in an academic paper.

food and privilege

I am not feeling well at all today; I have a cold and little physical energy. This is all swell timing because this is my week to study for finals and complete final projects.

By 1 o'clock, I could still not effectively get out of bed, and I felt my weak body craving wholesome goodness so that I would be able to replenish myself.

So I got in my car and made my way to a favorite cafe, complete with extremely fresh and a lot of organic ingredients. Not to mention it is impeccably clean, has great ambiance, uplifting decor--the whole experience is just a very pleasant way to feed your body healthy food and lift your spirits.

As I ate my vegan vegetable soup, organic baked bread, and munched on my fresh and colorful salad...I really could not help but think about how fortunate I am that I a) am able to rest when I am sick--instead of dragging my helpless body to work b) can readily access incredibly healthy food to help me feel better c) can pay to sit in a great (and pricier) cozy spot to eat it--instead of say, spending energy I don't have to cook for myself.

Undisrupted access to healthy, organic, and fresh foods is certainly an extension of class privilege--not having to think twice about the availability and preparation of highly nutritious foods is a luxury. We should all know that; I am sure we do.

It's just that I could not help but think about this as I ate. Which is a good thing, because I am SO APPRECIATIVE that I have the luxury to be so selective about what I put into my body.

I owe a lot of my gratitude to adopting a vegan lifestyle. Surprisingly, minding the origin and health of my food has really forced me to have a deeper connection with my body. By paying attention to what goes into my body, I have a much greater sense and appreciation of it. I am so thankful to find, afford, and eat healthy vegan food. It really is a nice sense of awareness, although it makes me sad because mine is a minority experience, with deeply entrenched class relations (although you can find vegan and healthy eaters across all classes--it's just easier with more money).

the story of stuff: the materials economy

Although over-simplistic in many ways, The Story of Stuff is a very easy-to-follow and an informative explanation of the materials economy--how we get the things we have. From extraction, to production, to distribution, to consumption, to disposal, Annie Leonard describes how a linear system cannot operate indefinitely on a finite planet, and how in the process, we devastate our world, exhaust our resources, and diminish our health. I enjoyed watching it, and think you should as well.

But I would like to address the over-simplification.

Most importantly, there is NOTHING wrong with CONSUMPTION--the problem is with OVER-CONSUMPTION. Personally, I love consumption. If I had to craft my own tampons or knit my own warm clothing or harvest and grow all of my foods, I would not be able to live my life and pursue my own professional endeavors. Consumption creates jobs and time. Over-consumption hampers mindfulness, destroys the earth, et cetera, et cetera.

BUT JUST BECAUSE WE IRRESPONSIBLY OVER-CONSUME, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE ARE NOT WAYS TO SENSIBLY AND SAFELY CONSUME. Therefore, the argument needs to be qualified, and over-consumption must be addressed instead of irrationally waging a war against consumption itself--unless we all want to go back to colonial times or earlier--which I don't, nor do I have to in order to help the planet.

Secondly, there is the single view of the corporation as the big, bad, dollar sign. But I have news for you, corporations are highly problematic in many ways that need reform, but corporations still make contraception, tampons, nyquil, paper, pens, and every other essential everyday item and instrument of health care, education and communication needed to live in the modern world.

Thirdly, although there is incredible information on how ideologies of over-consumption are crafted and maintained, that is really only part of the explanation. A brief example (I have finals and cannot blabber): Women are generally larger consumers than men, given all of the cosmetic crap and services (hair, nails, etc.) they consume, and Leonard can talk all she wants about the Eisenhower administration's hand in creating the lifestyle philosophy of buy more more more--but that still does not explain why women would BELIEVE that they NEED these things to be BETTER, or why they would COMPLY to blatantly having to spend more resources than men on appearance--THIS IS WHERE SEXISM COMES INTO PLAY. Why are there different consumption patterns in different economic brackets? Classism can offer insight. After all, there are different cultures of spending that a single read of over-consumption cannot explain, nuance, or complicate.