SPARK! Summit Needs Girls' Votes!

We’re sparking a revolution and it needs a name! Well, we have a name (SPARK!) but need your input on what S-P-A-R-K stands for.

Hardy Girls, TrueChild, Women’s Media Center, ASAP, and the Ms. Foundation for Women are planning a summit to ignite a movement in protest of the sexualization of girls in media and in support of better images and messages about girls’ sexuality. So much of the media suggests that our sexuality is the most important aspect of who we are – that girls’ and women’s value comes from just how sexy we are – say nothing about our interests, talents, or rockstar personalities (see Gen Z Does Single Ladies and Stupid Is As Stupid Does).

You helped us brainstorm some great acronyms for what SPARK! could stand for. We’ve taken the top 4 options and now need your input. What do you like best? Take a look at the poll and let us know what you think. Voting closes on Friday at 5:00 pm so vote now and tell your friends!

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Written for the Feminist Psychologist by Lyn Mikel Brown, Ed.D


In 2008, the District Attorney of Wyoming County in Pennsylvania presented 16 teens – 3 boys and 13 girls -- suspected of “sexting” with a choice: either attend a 5 week, 10-hour education program designed by the District Attorney or face felony child pornography charges. Not much of a choice: if charged and convicted the teens faced a possible seven-year sentence and a felony record. They would also have to register as sex offenders for 10 years and have their names and photos posted on the state’s sex-offender website. Still, three girls refused the “voluntary education course” and instead, with the support of their parents and the ACLU, obtained a preliminary injunction barring prosecution under state child-porn laws. On March 17, 2010 the appellate court upheld the preliminary injunction, accusing prosecutors of violating the civil rights of the teens.


What had these girls done? A 12- and 13-year-old posed for pictures in their underwear at a slumber party; one was speaking on the phone, the other making a peace sign. The third girl, 14, appeared in a photo emerging from the shower wrapped in a towel, just below her breasts. There was no evidence that the girls had ever transmitted the photos; they were discovered when male students were caught trading the images over their cell phones. While both boys and girls were threatened and pressed to undergo education, only the girls were required to learn about sexual self-respect.


If you’re tuned into youth culture, it’s impossible to miss the hysteria around sexting. Research conducted by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy revealed that 20 percent of teens in the U.S. say they have sent or posted lewd photos or video of themselves. Given that one picture can make its way far and wide in minutes, it’s likely that most of this 20% represent those forwarding or receiving photos, not posting them. But just as with previous reports of rainbow bracelets and oral sex, there’s a Press Gone Wild reaction to sexting, almost always blaming girls for their “stupid” acts.


Outside the Pennsylvania appeals court, MaryJo Miller, the mother of one of the 12 year olds, said that when she saw the pictures of the slumber party, she thought the girls were "goofballs.” Her daughter was wearing a training bra. “You are going to see more provocative photos in a Victoria's Secret catalog." That’s an understatement. Quick to judge, rarely do the press, police, or school officials make reference to the obvious: the normalizing of sexual voyeurism and sex camming in media. Whether it’s expendable babes baring it all for celebrity on Entourage, Heroes character Tracy Strauss supporting herself and her young child by stripping online, or America’s Next Top Model contestants posing in sexually provocative ways for the camera, the message to girls watching is always, if you need or want something badly enough, you should be willing to sex it up for public consumption. In the VH1 reality show For the Love of Ray J, for instance, girls with nicknames like Cocktail, Chardonnay, and Danger will do anything to be chosen. In what sounds like a middle school dating game, in one episode Ray J asks the girls “to pretend I’m out of town and you have to keep me interested.” Of course the girls do everything from a strip tease to sexy raps to making a “human banana split” -- even Ray J is so shocked by that one that he can’t stay in his seat to watch.


One newspaper excitedly reports that teens are on to the legal risks of posting photos, and so they’re taking shots of body parts or being careful not to include their faces. Who really knows how many teen girls are this hell-bent on public nudity, but no doubt American Apparel had liability in mind when they developed their recent “best bottoms” campaign. Looking for the new "face" of AA, they invited girls (18+, but really, who’s checking?) to upload a “close-up photo” of their ass-ets to the website. I don't know about you, but I’m on the edge of my own perfectly adequate seat waiting to find out which porn-inspired fave will win -- Boom Boom, Luba, bOOtAAyliCiOus, or Cherry.


We can complain about the perfectly sexy angels in Victoria’s Secret Love Your Body ad campaign (please!), but there’s something particularly icky about American Apparel’s use of ordinary women in its ads, producing low-brow Polaroid-like pictures with a back room naughty feel that normalizes the acts teen girls are now threatened with arrest for imitating. Diesel Jeans adds their spin by capitalizing on adolescent rebellion. “Stupid” is crazy, fun, risk-taking! Smart is “the crusher of possibilities.” For girls, there’s just one way to prove you’ve got the balls to be stupid: show us your boobs!


Teen girls are comparatively measured in their response to sexting. When a blogger on Jezebel.com asked about this issue, girls were more likely to say it wasn’t something they’d seen or experienced personally. They sounded more thoughtful about the causes and more understanding about the outcomes than anything reported in the news. The real story, they say, is the unintended consequences of an impulsive act; the real concern is that girls are more likely to be judged, vilified and threatened with prosecution. As one girl said of the threats to girls like those in the Pennsylvania lawsuit, “it's hard to get my head around the fact that you’re making the victim the criminal.” Pretty smart.

American Apparel’s “best bottom” contest has concluded, butt…this is so not over

I don't know about you all but we’re on the edge of our own perfectly adequate seats waiting to find out what an ideal bottom looks like and who American Apparel thinks has the best ass-ets. Will it be boom boom? Luba? bOOtAAyliCiOus? Cherry? Wait, where are the boys? Oh yea, halfway through our protest American Apparel set up a site for the guys too, where somewhere close to five guys posted pictures of their bottoms amidst the 1368 girls. Turns out that fakery just didn’t fly. In spite of AA’s lame story, this wasn’t equal opportunity sexualization; it was the same old double standard.

We can’t thank you enough for spreading the word about American Apparel’s blatant and unapologetic sexualization of girls and women. Thanks for signing our petition and for blogging, Facebooking and tweeting the story. You’re all rock stars and we’re incredibly grateful.

We felt the love, but we also fielded a lot of criticism because of this campaign, some cogently argued and some not worth repeating. More than once we heard versions of: Aren’t you just giving AA more attention? Doesn’t your outrage serve to further the appeal of American Apparel to their target market? Haven’t you learned yet that the forbidden fruit tastes sweetest, especially to teenagers? Yeah, we know this. We talked a lot about the forbidden fruit idea, in fact. We work with teen girls, we know about marketing and resistance theory–i.e., saying no, bad, is standard practice for getting teens to say yes, want. In the end, though, our staff of young women and our high school girls advisory board felt CEO Dov Charney and American Apparel had crossed the line and we had a responsibility to act.

This is not just a capitalist marketplace, it’s a marketplace of ideas, and the onus is on all of us to speak up and take action when we see something egregious and harmful. The increasing media sexualization of girls has become a pandemic, reinforcing the sexualization of and violence (sexual, physical, emotional, material) against girls and women in the global arena. In the US, it has been linked to three of young women’s most common mental health complaints: depression, low self-esteem, and eating disorders. AA products may be made in the U.S., but they’re exporting the sexualization of girls and women around the world.

Sure, American Apparel gets more attention, but so do those of us who find their practices reprehensible. Every time we speak out, we find our friends, sister organizations, and allies. Every time we talk back, we create a little more space for coalition and resistance and we educate a few more people about the harmful effects of media sexualization. Why speak out? Because the alternative is to allow the Dov Charneys of the world to pollute our environment. Silence, doing nothing, is just not an option.

Plus, roughly half of our more than 3,000 petition signers pledged to use their wallet-power to protest American Apparel's crude ad campaigns.

So, here at Hardy Girls, we're going to continue to advocate with and for girls because we're determined to create a better world for all, one where women are valued more for their beliefs and brains than they are their butts. And, we're grateful to be doing this work in coalition with so many fabulous girls, women, and male allies. Thank you!

Help Name this Campaign!

Calling All Girls...We Need Your Vote

Hardy Girls is working with sister organizations across the U.S. and Canada on a full-scale, girl driven campaign to change media’s representation of girls. We want you to have the information, power, and support it takes to demand more real girls with real lives, real interests, and real bodies in media and fewer mean girl, pole-dancing, shopaholic fashionistas. This will be a fun, edgy, creative campaign that connects you with other girls across a variety of platforms, including social networking sites like Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, and Twitter.

So if you want to speak your mind and strut your stuff, if you want to join with other girls and start a new girl movement, help us NAME THIS CAMPAIGN!

Tell us which name you like best on the poll to the right. If you have a better suggestion, email us at lyn@hghw.org. If we choose your original name over one of ours listed below, we’ll send you a $100 iTunes gift card.

So, drum roll please...?

Here they are!

1. Get Real! A Campaign for All Girls
2. ROAR (Reclaim Girlhood; Organize; Assert Ourselves; Rescue Media)
3. G-WAVE (Girls With Active Voices Everywhere)
4. Girl Up! (as in Be Strong, Stand up, Speak up)
5. PBG (Powered By Girls)
6. That's What She Says (Turning a joke that makes girls sexual objects into a chance for real girls to talk back and making it an active statement of girls' voices!)
   
7. DissTheMessage

So, after some feedback from our friends and allies, we've restarted the poll and changed #6 from "That's What She Said" to "That's What She Says" It's an important difference to us and to the girls we're working with on this Campaign! We tallied up all the votes we received so far and will add those to the results from the new poll.

Vote Now! And tell your friends by emailing, sharing through Facebook and Twitter, and good old-fashioned word-of-mouth!!

THANKS!

An Apology -- Now That's Edgy...and Refreshing

After writing to The Maine Edge about their latest cover (see last entry), and with the help of our friends at the Packaging Girlhood blog and you, we've received an apology from publisher Michael Fern. We understand from others that Mr. Fern responded personally to everyone who wrote in to complain about the cover, addressing a variety of concerns.

After explaining how the image made it's way to the cover, Mr. Fern writes: "We do appreciate your feedback and take responsibility for our work accordingly - we certainly missed the boat on this one. I apologize for that and assure you we will show more due diligence for our future covers and story presentations. As a reader you deserve that from us, and I hope you'll forgive us for this error."

Mr. Fern tells us that the cover has been a teachable moment for his staff. "As part of the community and social fabric, we have a responsibility to do better."

In addition, the offensive photo has been taken down from The Maine Edge's online magazine site.

Thanks for the apology and the follow through, Michael Fern. Truly refreshing -- like a milkshake on a hot summer's day!

The Maine Edge Has Gone Over the Edge

The Maine Edge Has Gone Over the Edge

If there’s any question about the increased sexualization of girls and general pornification of the culture, check out the cover of The Maine Edge, a publication out of Bangor Maine that seems so desperate to be “fresh and edgy” that they’ll sell out your daughter and mine for sales. The current issue’s cover has a young teen girl in a bikini straddling a milkshake. Everything is suggestive about this image — her body position, the location of the whipped cream and the straw, the red cherries, the “Milkshakes aren’t just for kids any more. Beat the heat with a grown up treat” title of the article, and the online sidebar “Inquisition Survey” that makes it all so clear: Does your milkshake bring all the boys to the yard? Possible answers? Yes. No. Um...what?

More like “Um...what are the editors at The Maine Edge thinking? Why does edgy have to mean sexing up young girls? How “fresh” is a lame reference to a dated and cheesy rap song (Kelis’ 2007 song “Milkshake”) about breasts? Want to be really creative? Try putting your heads together and coming up with something clever and smart that doesn’t make teen girls into sex objects. These days using pornified images of girls to sell products is as common and lazy as it is offensive.

Tell the Maine Edge to use their imagination!

Contact:
Michael Fern
Publisher
Edge Media Group
PO Box 2639
Bangor, ME 04402-2639
Phone: 207.942.2901
Fax: 207.942.5602

Transforming Inner Pain to Public Outcry

Speaking of My Beautiful Mommy (see post below), in study after study we see the impact of a culture for girls so toxic that such a book is touted unapologetically on national news shows, ensuring the author millions in new clientele and books sales. A recent media survey of 3000 women found that appearance and weight trumped disease as cause for women's concern -- 84% of the women surveyed felt they were overweight and 56% were concerned about diet/weight, while just 20% express concern about heart health and 18% about diabetes. (Alas, we can be sure that the results of this marketing study won't be used to turn those figures around.)

Campbell Leaper and Christia Spears Brown studied 600 adolescent girls between the ages of 12 and 18 and found that 90% experienced sexual harassment in school, most often in the form of unwanted romantic attention, demeaning gender-related comments, teasing based on their appearance, and unwanted physical contact. As if girls don't have enough to deal with, along comes "bodysnarking", the blogosphere posting and dissection of unflattering pictures, usually of and by girls and women. Finally, as if to come full circle in the most terrifying way, a study of 818 adolescents (aged 11-19) conducted for a British health care provider reported that one in three girls surveyed had tried to harm themselves by methods including cutting, burning, punching and poisoning.

The connections among these various studies and reports aren't simple, but they speak to the distinction psychologist and eating disorder specialist Catherine Steiner-Adair made years ago, between the body pathological and the body politic. In a culture in which there is heightened control and discipline around body and appearance, ubiquitous experiences of sexual harassment, and a steady diet of sexualization and objectification, we shouldn't be surprised that girls exercise their own means of protection and control, using their bodies to speak their pain, release their anxiety and stress, and channel their resistance. In a world where girls are sold a fraudulent tale of "prettier" at all costs, they want to feel something, anything, real. Their protest reclaims the power of their own authority, their private refusal to be publicly "handled".

There are some positive signs. In the above-mentioned media survey of women and health, Gen Y women (those "millennials" born between 1980-1994) were more likely than Gen X and Boomer women to say they are at their ideal weight (29% vs. 9%, 7% respectively). Young women bloggers are now calling for a bodysnarking ceasefire. Most hopeful, Leaper and Brown found that the girls in their study who had a better understanding of feminism from the media, their parents, or teachers were more likely to recognize sexism and sexual harassment for what it is. The hope is in the feminist work we do with young women, transforming inner pain to public outcry-not for them, but with them.

Guest Blogger - Lyn Mikel Brown on Where the Girls Aren't

Counting is so simple, so basic, so important. In our book Packaging Girlhood, Sharon Lamb and I counted the numbers of boys and girls on sugary cereal boxes, on the covers of board games, in the action section of toy aisles, in Newbury Award winning books, and we reported studies that counted the number of boys and girls in G-rated films, and other forms of media. This was our way of showing where the girls aren't, sure, but more importantly we did this because numbers give a clear and present message to girls (and boys) about who should be doing, wearing, listening to, reading, and playing with what. The results can have long-term impact. Consider a recent article in the journal Psychological Science (Vol. 18, Issue 10) called "Signaling Threat: How Situational Cues Affect Women in Math, Science, and Engineering Settings," by Mary C. Murphy, Claude M. Steele, & James J. Gross. Turns out the kind of low numbers we reported seeing in movies, TV shows, books, and so forth give "situational cues". The researchers found that simply watching a conference video in which women were outnumbered by men made the women-all math and science majors--feel like they didn't belong and feel like not participating. It also made them vigilant of possible threats to their identity. The situation they observed gave the young women that intangible "in the air" feeling that they were unwelcome and might be ostracized if they participate.

If girls see only one girl in a cartoon about geniuses or just one woman in the race for presidency - this gives them a very real and tangible message: you aren't welcome here. It also discouraged them from wanting to do the things they see primarily boys do and to be anxious, isolated, and feel out of place when they break boundaries. This is the reason to care about how media depicts girls and boys. We can no longer accept the lame excuse -- Girls will watch boys, but boys will not watch girls - used to justify the 75% male character rate in G-rated films. Yeah, maybe they will watch. But at what cost to them?

Lyn Mikel Brown, Ed.D is co-author with Sharon Lamb of Packaging Girlhood: Rescuing Our Daughters from Marketers' Schemes. Check out their blog at packaginggirlhood.typepad.com.