Monday, March 05, 2007

vomit vomit vomit: the pussycat dolls are feminist??

Pussycat Dolls Present: The Search for the Next Doll - TV - New York Times

jeebus save me from totally ignorant hollywood folks who wouldn't know feminism if it bit them in the gonads:

When one reporter said his 17-year-old daughter looked at the group and their antics as a giant step backward for women, the Pussycat Dolls’ founder, Robin Antin, became defensive, invoking female role models who follow the Dolls.

“There’s a reason why people like Scarlett Johansson, Gwen Stefani, Cameron Diaz have all been so interested in what Pussycat Dolls is all about,” she said. “They feel that it is empowering to get up there and dress up like a Doll. It’s fun, and it’s something that every girl in the world — she may think one thing, but I think inside every girl in the world wants to do it.”


yeah, because scarlett, gwen and cameron are EXACTLY what feminism is about.

and in other news, how about a totally worthless discussion of 'hooking up' over at the today show? (incidentally, the women they showed for the story are all in their early 20s. so much for 'teenagers'.)

and why is the story worthless?
they don't talk about boys (what, these women are having sex by themselves??)
they don't talk about what this 'hooking up' is in reaction to
they treat an adolescent context the same as an adult context
and they link it to feminisam, which it's the farthest thing away from.

just my two cents.

7 comments:

JustMe said...

this is SO ridiculous!

He added: “Being a step backwards for women suggests it’s in the service of men. Under no circumstances is this in the service of men.”

right, the way they dress and their lyrics have *nothing* to do with men.

ding said...

didn't you know?

'loosen up my buttons, baby' is really code for 'i will advocate for wage equity until the sun goes down.'

ding said...

and when they straddle the chair and do that little bob fosse hip thrust action, and rip off their hoodies, it really means:

"To make oneself an object, to make oneself passive, is a very different thing from being a passive object."

JustMe said...

you crack me up. of *course* that's what they mean.

ding said...

i'm waiting for an interview when a really smart female reporter will ask them a question like this:
"some would say that the Dolls cultivate a very phallocentric vision of female sexuality; how would you say your work offers something along the lines of a pop cultural feminine ecriture?"

would someone please ask them this? please? i want to see their faces!

Molly Malone said...

who needs to wage equity when you can be "HAHT?" ... i will admit, the first time i heard the name pussycat dolls, i thought they were some riot grrl type band and that their name was ironic. imagine how disappointing it was to discover they were essentially barbie and the rockers with pole dance lyrics.

... as far as hooking up, i'm assuming this discussion was in relation to the new book "unhooked." i have no problem discussing young teens and the detrimental effects of casual sex, but i DO wish we would spill as much ink on the issue as it relates to boys. it always drives me nuts when people say shit like, "with boys, you only have 'their thing' to worry about; with girls, you have to worry about 'all the boys' things.'" fuck that. the idea that women are the "gatekeepers of sex" and that boys are somehow incapable of controlling their own physical actions and that it has no bearing on THEIR perceptions of relationships is ludicrous and undermines boys as much as it does girls.
... i really want to have kids, but when i do, i won't worry any more about my teen daughter getting pregnant than i will my teen son being the jerk who feels it his birthright to screw around and screw girls over.

ding said...

they are anything but ironic.

and you're totally right. i'm completely uninterested in all these discussions about how sex is bad for young women until people start being a little smarter about how 'hooking up' affects both girls and boys. until then, it's all just a bunch of hetero-sexist crap.

there's an organization here in the city that has an initiative called 'What Will it Take?' and it's about raising awareness about sexual violence against women. i think the way we leave boys and men out of these conversations about sexuality and how it's practised short circuits any plans we might have to stop violence against women or change the way our young people think about sex.

but if you look at how people talk about sex or sexual violence (check out any comment thread about a rape case) the level of discourse is pretty juvenile - it's like the 8th grade is where attitudes toward sex, sexuality, and responsibility got set and fixed.