I'm watching Cyrano again (today the Jose Ferrer version) because this October I'm finally going to see it live. And coming on the heels of having re-watched Malcolm X, I'm thinking about this passage again:
Je ne sortirais pas avec, par négligence, Un affront pas très bien lavé, la conscience Jaune encore de sommeil dans le coin de son oeil, Un honneur chiffonné, des scrupules en deuil...
"I keep my elegance to adorn my morals. I would not go out through neglect, leaving an insult not washed away, with my conscience still yellow from sleep in the corner of its eye, my honor crumpled....
I think it may certainly be the case that many people give more thought to their appearance during the course of a day, than they do to their morals, or their ethics, or their beliefs.
Malcolm X is one of my fave movies, I've seen it many times, and read the autobiography it was based on. And I've wondered before why I'm so interested in the man. It was probably around that same time that I was into John Singleton movies and Arrested Development (the band, not the current TV show) and Franz Fanon and Paulo Freire. Why all this afro-philia?
Then recently I was watching the "making of" the movie, and Spike Lee was explaining why he knew the movie would have to be long: He wanted it to have 5 separate parts, because Malcolm was a man who was always trying to improve himself--his life was in constant evolution--and Lee wanted to do justice to that. (Hoodlum, leader in the Nation of Islam, global ambassador and fighter for human rights, etc.)
And that's when it finally crystallized for me why I'm *into* all these things--because of this idea of evolution, of always growing, and always trying to be a better version of yourself. And a lot of the "black pride" type music like Arrested Development used to make is the same way; the themes are about empowering yourself, being whoever you want to be, taking pride in yourself, choosing your own definition of your best life, seeking out your own truth, and always growing.
Malcolm X was converted to Islam in prison, and the main idea the man converting him tried to teach him (in the movie) is that you're not free, until you're free in your mind. (Viktor Frankl came to similar conclusions after his time in a concentration camp.)
And that's what I hope this blog is about. It's not that I think makeup is wrong (except when tested on animals), or that it's wrong to care about what you wear, or to be interested in fashion, or to buy fashion magazines--but I want encourage people to be themselves. Don't care about these things because you think it's the only way to be Acceptable to Others. Or even worse--Acceptable to Yourself. Don't buy into someone else's idea of a good life. Don't buy into someone else's idea of what's beautiful.
"Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to so much so that you don't want to be around each other? No... Before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask yourself who taught you to hate being what God made you." (Malcolm X - May 22, 1962, Los Angeles)
Arrested Development "Pride"
The beginning of Malcolm X -- Malcolm conks (straightens) his hair. (You seriously need to see this movie. It's so well constructed, directed, acted, filmed, scripted...)
A Time article proposing the idea that too much exercise might not help you lose weight--in the sense that you feel you can eat more afterwards. As opposed to the kinds of everyday exercise people used to get by walking, biking, having manual labour jobs, etc. So in other words... take the stairs, eat controlled amounts, and don't go for a congratulatory muffin right after your workout.
Could pushing people to exercise more actually be contributing to our obesity problem? In some respects, yes. ... It's likely that I am more sedentary during my nonexercise hours than I would be if I didn't exercise with such Puritan fury. If I exercised less, I might feel like walking more instead of hopping into a cab; I might have enough energy to shop for food, cook and then clean instead of ordering a satisfyingly greasy burrito.
...The problem ultimately is about not exercise itself but the way we've come to define it. Many obesity researchers now believe that very frequent, low-level physical activity — the kind humans did for tens of thousands of years before the leaf blower was invented — may actually work better for us than the occasional bouts of exercise you get as a gym rat.
I've inserted a bit from a NYT article, "When Cancer Changes Your Appearance" -- his head can't drain fluid well, as a result of his particular kind of cancer and treatment. ...And I hate the way baddies in movies are usually so identifiable. It's ridiculous the way beauty is so consistently equated with good. Even features might mean you're better at reproducing, but I'm pretty sure there's no correlation with Nice Personness.
How does one deal with someone whose appearance has changed from the dashingly handsome (O.K., I’m taking some poetic license) to totally disfigured and, one might say, grotesque? We’ve been trained by movies and TV to worship perfection. After all, the bad guy is always either bald, short, limps, is missing an eye, scarred or has some other abnormality to distinguish him from us, the perfect audience. My close friend recently told me he was “shocked, I tell you, shocked,” by my appearance when he saw me again after six months. I’m shocked sometimes too.
It’s as much a learning curve for me as for others. I am not sure how people will take me: whether I will make them uncomfortable, whether they will be able to overlook the changes and look for the person who still inhabits this misshapen head. I have to talk myself into going out now. A little pep talk reassures me that, whatever others may think, I must not quit trying.
I gather there was a broo-haha when Michelle Obama wore shorts, while descending from Air Force One, recently. And then there was a second broo-haha over the broo-haha (as in: why are talking about such foolishness?)
Time has a really interesting take on the whole thing: [the Vogue reference is to a documentary about the making of Vogue, where you can see the Vogue staff dressed in Normal Clothes]
But the truth is there was a conflict. It is within each of us. While nobody would make Mrs. O wear couture in Arizona in August, the truth is, she just didn't look particularly good in shorts. Her arms are much admired. Her legs are just, you know, legs. ... Mrs. Obama was elevated to fashion-icon status way before last November. She has gone along with it, appearing on the cover of magazines and dressing up for big occasions. But it's not in her personal or political interest to hew too closely to that image. It's too limiting. It's exhausting. ... For women, Michelle's shorts were long on significance. They give accomplished, glamorous people license to do what the power brokers at Vogue do, and that is to wear whatever the hell they like sometimes. So, ladies, get out your least flattering outfits — your terry shorts, your oversize T-shirt, those extra comfortable arch-supporting shoes — and wear them with pride. All the fashionable women are doing it.
Clutch: You have such a “free spirit” and a wonderful eclectic style…how do you maintain this in an industry that tends to put women in specific box (i.e. sex sells)? Janelle Monae: My mind was made up way before I got into the business. I grew up in Kansas City, and as a child, I was witness to women prostituting and selling sex to get the things they wanted. It was a big turn off for me! Million dollars or not, I don’t want to glorify the idea that “sex sells” because I’ve seen the negative reactions that are a result of it. Not only that but I am a role model for girls out there, and I don’t want them thinking that they have to sell sex in order to succeed.
... Clutch: As a young woman, what advice can you give to other young women who are interested in pursuing their dreams? Janelle Monae: I always go by the saying: It’s the things that you DON’T do that make you who you are. So it’s about being open-minded and willing to learn. Also make sure that you have core values: things that you strongly believe in and won’t compromise for anyone. Write these down and commit to that. I also believe in community. I know that it’s bigger than music, bigger than my life…I know that I’m a leader and at all given times, so I make sure that I lead by example.
Clutch: And, of course, what do you carry in your “clutch”? Janelle Monae: I rarely carry a clutch, but when I do I usually have my cell phone, some lipgloss…and Swedish Fish! I love Swedish Fish. It’s my favorite candy. But that’s about it. I stay out of the mirror. I’m trying to change the world so I don’t have time to worry about what I look like.
I came across an article at clutchmagazine.com about whether, when a black woman wears he hair "natural" (as opposed to straightened or permed or weaves), she attracts a different sort of guy. It's an interesting read, at least because I'm white and am therefore Out of the Loop on the beauty issues faced by non-look-like-me women.
Here's one response to the question, that is probably true for most people:
IntlNC aka Andrea, says that she attracts men depending on how she feels about herself. She doesn’t know if it really has anything to do with hair, but says attraction is internal. When she feels insecure, she attracts men who are insecure; when she is confident, likewise, she attracts confident men. Andrea says that going natural was an internal process which changed her into a more confident person, and therefore “the quality of men in my life have definitely improved.”
By the way, Chris Rock has a documentary coming out on hair, which he started because his daughter one day said to him: Daddy how come I don't have good hair? It looks good.
With the current popularity of the Julie & Julia book and movie, it seems like a good time to take a look at her--young and old.
Well, looks to me like she managed to keep her Girlish Figure after a lifetime of creamy French cooking. Jacques Pepin too...
Not that I have anything against portly cooks. Just saying... shitty tasting low-fat food isn't the only road to slenderosity (as Georgia might call it.)
From a Michael Rowe interview at the Huffington Post:
MR: Mrs. Child, what deprived times we live in. We are at the mercy of low-fat this and high-fiber that, and it is impossible to ingest a bite without someone counting each calorie aloud for us. What are we to make of this grim landscape?
JC: I think if it continues, it may be the death-knell of good cooking. It has nothing to do with the enjoyment of food, or the pleasure of food, or the taste of food. I think it's a very dismal concept, and it's not necessary.
MR: It's certainly lacking in sensuality.
JC: There's no sensuality in it. And I think this fear of food is misplaced. If people use their heads sensibly, what they want is a well-balanced diet and small helpings. Then, have a good time and enjoy it.
One of the panels my husband went to at Worldcon was about a sci fi fantasy editor, famous for his mammoth tie collection and purposely crazy way of dressing. They had his tie collection on display, and posted his rules of fashion, but I didn't have time for a good look since that was my Morning Before Work Connie Rush Job day. But Fernando went to this panel, and then they took a tour of the ties, and he took tons of photos. And now I'm reading the fashion rules on the nets.
It's a good posting, worth reading in its entirety, but basically this is the guy who would give Stacy and Clinton the chills... except this is the sort of person who would never go on What Not to Wear. Because his trick is to know "how" to dress in fashion, but then choose to dress how you want instead. (Ahhh the story of my high school years. Tragedy. And I was SO misunderstoodio, until grade 10 when what I wore started to be recognized as Style.)
Here are the laws:
Hartwell's Three Laws of Fashion
by David G. Hartwell
To Dress in ignorance of Fashion is to Dress badly.
To Dress knowingly in Fashion is to become invisible.
To Dress knowingly in opposition to Fashion is to have your own style.
Now high style is about as complicated and subtle as a Happy Meal -- and about as unique as well. Instead of celebrating those who pushed the limits of taste in pursuit of originality, fashion has taken on a sort of Waspy appropriateness that elevates so-called good taste at the cost of unusual or unique personal style. While outrageous and downright weird designs were once the hallmark of the fashion world, now predictable fashion "icons" like Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Gwyneth Paltrow are embraced for their "simple" or "timeless" looks.
There's a kind of cartooning and editorializing that... I'm not crazy about. I guess I feel like it too much preaches-to-the-converted, and not just any converted, but the slightly-more-to-the-radical-than-most-converted. And I find them to be about as clever/subtle as being hit in the face with a hammer. I guess they're not meant to be subtle... or maybe that small audience segment just has a difference sense of humour? ...Or it's just moi?
A good example is the cartooning of Mikhaela B. Reid, whose stuff I randomly came across. I read a bunch of her political/editorial cartoons. This was the only one I kinda liked. She has a bunch of these "Your Yucky Body" cartoons, and they don't even appeal to make-up-less-hairy-un-dieting little me.
I was holding a little mini competition for the cashiers tonight, and offered "a handful of mini chocolate bars" to each one who accomplished the task. One of them was the girl who, back in Feb, was watching what she ate (no octopus shaped gummy candies) so she'd look good in a bikini this summer.
When she came in, she chose one chocolate bar. I said--you're allowed a handful! She was all "Oh no, I shouldn't!" but took her handful. I said: Oh you were preparing to get into the bikini this summer, weren't you. She: Yes. I: Well just take one if that makes you feel better. [I refuse to be one of those people who try to make everyone else fat along with them. She is GORGeous and supa-thin as most 19-somethings are.] She takes the handful anyway, but mentions her upcoming trip to Europe and how she doesn't want to look at photos after [of the bikininess] and not like what she sees. I then just tried to say one hopefully reassuring thing: Just remember this--no matter what you think of those photos this summer, remember that in 10 years you won't see them in the same way, or in 20 years, and so on! Believe me. You will be amazed at how great you look.
[PS: And in case anyone thinks this post means I hate women... Ms. Bikini is a fantastic, intelligent, hard working, funny, and gorgy girl who I've worked with for years. ...I does not hate her.]
I don't have any food-related story today--I'd rather talk about Neighborhood Appearance.
There are some municipalities in the Montreal suburbs that don't allow temporary carports--plastic structures that many people put up in their driveways in winter, because in Quebec, you know, it SNOWS a lot. And I think it's ludicrous that some municipalities have outlawed them because they're ugly. That's all. Forget about convenience and winter safety... they're ugly, so they gotta go.
Now one of these municipalities is going after a woman who installed a plastic dome over her swimming pool. She has mentally and physically disabled tenants whom she doesn't want to accidentally fall in the pool, so she installed this structure. Now... I do believe she knew it was against the city (she's applied for other permits in the past) but I agree with her taking Beaconsfield to court over it. First, because a study came out this summer showing that 50% of pool fatalities happen in Quebec (we is pool junkies--it's the first thing I noticed when I moved here.) Second, everyone keeps saying it's better to just put up a fence, but since when can't a mentally handicapped person open a fence? We're not talking about protecting babies, here.
And in the end, it all comes down to... it's ugly. The neighbours don't like it... when they stand on the second floor of their house and look over her 6 ft high hedge. And I just lurv the response from Beaconsfield's mayor: "He criticized citizens who don't like certain bylaws and 'just go to the media to bully us to change them.'" [Montreal Gazette]
O.M.G. !!! So now constituents (who pay your salary) expressing their opinions is bullying?
I forgot to post this back when a friend first told me about it. A story came out in June about an Abercrombie & Fitch employee, with a prosthetic arm, first being told to cover it with a cardigan, and then being told she wasn't allowed to wear a cardigan and had to work in shipping. (You can read more details at the above link.)
I think the part that particularly disturbs me about this kind of thing is the idea of staff members as decorations. I understand having a dress code, but the A&F rules are much more about being the sort of person whom shoppers can aspire to be. They're models. In other words... the assumption is that if people don't look a certain way at A&F (white, ultra thin etc.) then their key demographic won't shop there.
Who is this demographic? Because they are kind of messed up... or A&F (like Self magazine) are underestimating their audience.
So if you haven't heard already, there's been some complaints about Self magazine this month, because they airbrushed their cover model, Kelly Clarkson. As a basis of comparison, people are looking at a recent appearance on ABC.
The real interesting story, though, is Self magazine's response. The editor said yes, we retouch, it's done on every celebrity; and a lot of internet peeps are all "come on, we all know they photoshop, what's the big deal" etc. But read this, from an article on the editor's blog:
(1) She notes how in postproduction they "mark up the photograph to correct any awkward wrinkles in the blouse, flyaway hair and other things that might detract from the beauty of the shot." I see, I see... body fat detracts from the beauty of the shot.
(2) But more interesting is what the editor says about herself:
"When I ran the marathon five years ago, I was so proud of myself for completing it in under five hours and not walking a single step. But my hips looked big in some of the photos (I was heavier then), so when I wanted to put one of them on the editor's letter in SELF, I asked the art department to shave off a little. I am confident in my body, proud of what it can accomplish, but it just didn't look the way I wanted in every picture."
She compares this to going through your vacation photos and deleting the ones where your family looks grumpy, and keeping the ones where you look happy. She goes on:
"I realized I could always edit, crop out and correct anything I didn't like later. So I did. But now I video blog (with my little Flip camera) about triathloning and you see me looking like a nearly drowned kitten after a swim, or prerace nervous, or unlit and unmade up. Half the time I am shooting on zoom (inadvertently) and up my nostrils (can't get the angle right, got to hold camera higher!) and guess what? Now I don't care. Because I've gotten more confident in myself."
So the woman defending this cover used to have her own thighs cut off in pictures. And that makes it ok? Or does it just show the effect that a magazine like Self has on many women (like the editor herself), and therefore reinforce the original argument--stop fucking with the body fat of your cover models, especially when they're not just models btu celebrities and role models to young girls. !! As one of her blog commentors said: "You ARE what is wrong with media." See below if you care to read other comments. Out of 85 comments, I've seen only 2 that defend the editor; and many of them say they're cancelling their subscriptions.
***
*I will no longer be frequenting this site/buying your magazine. As a woman who has worked hard to overcome years of eating disorders and horrible body image, you should be ashamed of yourself for promoting more self-body hatred. I would expect that of Cosmo/Glamour types, but not from your magazine. The fact that you ran a marathon and had your pictures altered after says all that needs to be said. What an embarrassment to your magazine.
*This issue would have sold like crazy without you editing her photo. I am a huge fan of Kelly and would have bought this issue (even though I never read your magazine) just because she is on it. My problem is your explanation of why it was done. It is not a shock to us that a celebrities photo is airbrushed and touched up to make them look nearly flawless. What is a shock, is that you practically gave her someone else's body.
*there is a big difference between retouching to smooth out skin tone, etc. versus majorly altering the body of the person (especially when the article inside is about her body confidence despite attacks on her size).
*Mistakes are understandable; to defend one's mistake is not. No halfway intelligent woman is going to buy your "personal best" argument.
*What an unimpressive justification for your decisions. Makes me wonder what other messages you are spinning and feeding me in SELF magazine that are equally manipulative and false. Cannot support this.
*Yet more confirmation that whatever you achieve, whether millions of album sales or a marathon, it's the size of your bum that counts. I cancelled my Self subscription this morning - this was just the final straw. That your fitness articles aren't about sports (remember them?) or health but purely about size and shape got me to the edge, this just tipped me over. It's so against the message Self has been pushing your years, a message which has become yet more diluted with unrealistic celebrity work-outs, how to please a man tips and other silliness. Thankfully, Women's Health still has a brain alongside functional muscle. The only weight Self needs to lose is that of the Editor. Resigning is more dignified than being sacked - just a tip, mind.
Here's the thing. I've got the same eyebrows and pudgy nose and brainiac forehead and fat cheeks and skinny upper lip as I had as a child. So if it made me so darn cute as a bébé... I don't see why I should change any of those features as an adulte.
Reading the blog postings of one of the women I saw at the sci fi convention, I came across her description of this book her husband did the cover art for. It focuses on little girls of colour being able to look at themselves positively and see their beauty.
I was just commenting yesterday that a sci fi fantasy convention is probably the sort of place where you can be a bit odd, or funky, or overweight, and no one really cares. Well the husband came home from Worldcon today, and made just such a remark (and no, he doesn't read this blog.)
He said there were a lot of elderly people (zooming around on scooters, sci fi geeks since the early days of Hard SF), handicapped/paraplegic folk, overweight types, and just all-around odd lookers / dressers. He also said the women were "hot" (though all Odd Hot), friendly, and they all knit or crochet.
[he didn't see these at worldcon - i just pulled it from internets]
There was at least one "type" however. Fernando was describing to me one panel member he saw today (a fanzine editor or something), who had a HUGE beard and was in a polyamorous relationship. Sounds like Alan Moore. And like a whole host of other sci fi or fantasy or comic writers. The Big Bearded Sexually Liberated Working Class Dude is definitely a sub-gang in FantasyLand. I don't know where they got the beard idea from, but I'm sure the sex they got from Stranger in a Strange Land.
Today I pack off the husband to Worldcon--one of the biggest sci fi fantasy conventions in the world (where they give out the Hugos.)
So here's the thing about a sci fi fantasy convention. On one hand, you can be a super geek and be accepted. You can be overweight and play video games all day, and still be respected. You can dress in obscure costumes and speak non-existent languages, and be admired.
But I'm sure even within these Exalted Circles of Geekdom there are rules about who is deemed Acceptable. Apparently the Twilight fan table at Comic Con caused a lot of nose-turning-up among Serious Comic People. All those screaming girls.
All the same... I'm glad there's a spot in this world for people whose heads are full of dragons, or future technologies, or science questions, or ethical dilemmas about our societies, or Elfish languages. Where having a great imagination is more important than being a Svelty Sports God. (Though, possibly, NOT more important than being a barbarian babe in a fur bikini.)
Here's a gal whose style I like--Elly Jackson from the band La Roux. From an article about "pop's new wave" of quirky 80s style women artists:
"When you look at the way that women have been presented in the media over the last decade with the lads' mag boom, it's been diet, style, shave to increase your sexual availability to a male audience," says Mulholland [a pop critic]. "After a while, there was going to be a reaction and these young women are not going to play this game."
(Since I can't embed the official video of "Bulletproof", check out this one...)
I'm watching Cyrano again (today the Jose Ferrer version) because this October I'm finally going to see it live. And coming on the heels of having re-watched Malcolm X, I'm thinking about this passage again:
