Over the past few months, I’ve really enjoyed blogging. Sending my thoughts into the blogosphere for any and everyone to read was a lot fulfilling than I initially thought it would be. I have always been a lover of words, more in love with fiction and the blank verse than structured writing. What I love about this is knowing that write you write can and will make a difference in someone’s life. While your words might not change the world, they can change how someone’s day is going.
In four days, I’ll be graduating from college. Walking across the stage, I’ll look back at this semester with both appreciation and nostalgia. It wasn’t until these past few months that I’ve felt like journalism could possibly be for me (I said, possibly, don’t smile yet).
I hope to continue this blog in the future, despite how busy I will be. But if this blog should wither away, don’t worry. My voice will be heard something, my words will be etched into some magazine’s digital archive.
Okay, so I’m obviously being super dramatic. What can I say, it’s the theater kid in me. In all serious, having this blog is made me more comfortable with letting my opinions out of the closet, so to speak. So until then, blog on and speak up!
If you can’t wait until my next blog posts for interesting and relevant issues/causes I fight for, you can follow me here and here.
Last night, the Oscars took a turn into the political realm. From Neil Patrick Harris’ jab at the lack of diversity to John Legend & Common’s acceptance speech, celebs were making bold statements. However, there was one actor whose speech stood out among the rest.
When Patricia Arquette highlighted the unequal pay and rights among women, supporters such as Meryl Streep & Jennifer Lopez visibly showed their solidarity. Women nationwide could have applauded her efforts of bringing income inequality to the forefront of public conversation. The only problem?
Arquette marginalized gay, trans and women of color.
During a press room interview, she made it clear that “it’s time for… all the gay people and all the people of color that we’ve all fought for to fight for us now.”
Whether she intended to or not, her thoughts opened up a can of worms that depicts two larger issues within mainstream feminist theory: the notion that all women share the same experiences AND the undertones of “I Am Savior.” Not only are these lines of thought dangerous to the validity of feminism, but they invalidate the varying experiences of women who are not white, middle-class women.
Gay, trans and women of color earn far less than their white counterparts. For every dollar that a white man makes, white women make 78 cents to the dollar, followed by black women with 64 cents, Native American women with 59 cents and Latinx women at 54 cents. While income equality is a very real problem in the US, Arquette’s net worth sits somewhere between 24 and 25 million dollars, far more than $49,398, the average yearly earnings of American women. Mentioning the need for a living wage would also been a step in the right direction.
As well-intended as Arquette’s answers aimed to be, the “I Am Savior” sentiment reared its ugly head. Throughout history, women of color, gay and trans women didn’t have the luxury of focusing strictly on women’s issues. To say that mainstream feminists have fought for the rights of marginalized women is woefully inaccurate. If that were the case, there would only be ONE feminist theory, not multiple highlighting the need for inclusivity. The “we helped you through your issues, so you should return the favor” undertone only serves to pin marginalized groups against mainstream feminism. Nothing about the way Arquette worded that line shows solidarity within the community of women.
Until we can include the voices of all women, I will respectfully hold my applause.
The world of ladies and gentlemen has been surrounded by allure since its invention by the Victorians. Being regarded by these titles illustrated one’s social status and prestige.
The online fashion company Parisian Gentleman has maintained that same, age old sentiment. With the help of ad agency DLV BBDO in Italy, the company has aired its first commercial in late January. The spot was one that garnered a lot of attention and people have taken notice of its premise: a world without gentlemen is a world without ladies.
Note: The following video is NSFW for brief nudity.
I have a few thoughts about this, but because I’m an advertising major, I’ll divide my thoughts into two categories.
The Advertising Standpoint
This next sentence is about to alienate a lot of feminists, so beware. With the warning out of the way, I can see the idea that Parisian Gentleman was attempting to portray. While this ad is completely gendered, it’s important to keep in mind that the message is directed TO men, FOR men. With that in mind, I think the ad was successful in that regard. However, I didn’t get the connection between the ad’s message and the purpose of the company. The ad did not inform me of what Parisian Gentleman is. Before looking them up, I thought it was probably some upscale “gentlemen’s club” looking to boost their consumer base.
Now, of course, the whole idea behind ladies and gentlemen is heavily rooted in appearance and behavior to begin with. So, again, they nailed that on the head. I would have just liked to see men at least interacting with the women in the ad instead of having an all-women cast with a tagline at the end speaking to men.
The Feminist Standpoint
Before I get into the issues that I have with this commercial, I will start by saying that it was refreshing to watch a depiction of women that strayed away from the perfectly-polished, makeup-wearing robo women that are all too prevalent in mainstream media. I’m sure the shock value was high for those who aren’t used to seeing women in a more ‘natural’ state.
The only real issue that I have with this ad is the premise itself, that women would be less “ladylike” if there were no gentlemen. Now, it’s easy to get into an argument about semantics, so I’ll do my best to not even go there. If you asked 10 different people on the street what they thought “acting like a lady” means, you’d probably get 10 different answers. However, no matter how you personally interpret the premise, it leads back to the same thought process: that men set the stage for women’s behaviors.
So…what do you think? Did you enjoy the ad or not?