The big business of a culture of stupid girls

They dance and strip for free while some jerk-off makes a fortune selling videos of them. Looking dumbfounded when she learned that the girls don't get paid for their exposure, Oprah remarked, "Okay, that really is stupid." No kidding.

But, wait! It gets worse. It is not just that women are exploiting their bodies "for free", they are forking out tons of money to look like all the women they see on television. Oprah had four teenagers from Florida on the show. These young girls spend thousands of dollars to imitate celebrity styles and one is already planning on getting breast implants. Are these young women just a rare exception? Come on. Who hasn't spent a ridiculous amount of money on highlights, or bikini waxes, or some other please-make-me-be-sexy type thing?

We are literally buying into our oppression. People are profiting off the exploitation of girls and women, and then taking our money as we each try to add up to the narrow formula of sexy that bombards us.


— Polly Jones, blogger
Marginal Notes: Stupid Girls, Big Bucks


liza's picture

| | | | | | | | | | | |


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Nance Confer's picture

But, you know,

when you continue reading here at the wonderful culturekitchen, and you click onto a different page, the little advertising box at the left-hand top of the page has this enticement to do something-or-other to make your blog look better. Why? Because "being attractive makes money."

I'm just saying. . . Smiling

Nance -- trying to raise my daughter to enjoy being pretty but to have self-respect and not waste her time and money on trendy or inappropriate junk, but the mixed messages are everywhere.


JJ Ross's picture

You Got a Point, Sigh

. . .when the all-time Number One viewed post even here, is that provocative picture of the Uncanny Valley of the Pussycat Dolls . . .

OTOH, isn't it a whole different thing when we help our daughters think of creatively shaping personal appearance as part of the larger expressive art of creating a self, rather than mere sex-peddling ploy? -- then isn't it more like (hopefully!) their writing, photography, politics, friendship, study, sex and reproductive creativity?

Of course in a stupid girl, all her creations will reflect that stupidity no matter how she looks.

I can't help but remember reading about Dolly Parton so thoroughly creating a "self" she could make millions with, but also music and warmth and even an example to look up to (past?) despite all that exaggerated feminissimo stuff on the outside.

It makes me feel actually fond of her somehow -- is that stupid of ME, maybe? More sighing . . .
Smiling


JJ Ross's picture

And What About Brand Oprah?

Let's face it -- she's spent a ton trying to lose a ton. Her fortune came from the visual medium and if you watch the clips of her career from weathergirl on up, she's had more looks than a peep show and most of them painful. The great style she finally bought and paid enough for after reaching her forties, with personal dressers and trainers and chefs, and all kinds of endorsement freebies and from exposing others -- so didn't her successful appearance and her successful self come to her through obscene sums of celebity money in a "culture of exposure" too?

Plus, she has bared a LOT over the years even if it wasn't flesh. Makes me wince sometimes at what she's exposed in return for fame and fortune.

Definitely NOT a stupid woman. Just exposes her "self" for money and is very smart about it. . .


Polly Jones's picture

For, Alongside and Against the Culture

Certainly, Oprah has learned the Brand game well. But, I would say that she built her career in spite of her appearance and not on it. Like her or not, she has a powerful voice. My blog entry was about the cultural marginalization of women - the one dimensional portrayal of women.

I would also argue that anyone who criticizes culture (especially those in the media spotlight themselves) are necessarily hypocrites. But, we can participate in and challenge our cultures at the same time. Can't we?


JJ Ross's picture

Let's hope so

since no good alternatives occur to me.
Smiling

But I participate from Florida rather than superstardom, so I guess I'm more likely to challenge the superstar's perspective than the "stupid" Florida girls on her show. It's challenging for me to not see such a show as buying into the exploitation.


JJ Ross's picture

Dancing Daughter, Sexy Apes

Polly and all - thinking more about this (and checking out Polly's blog, looks like nice work!) because it occurs to me now that my 16-year-old daughter is a dancer.

(The Duke lacrosse "dancer" is horribly in the news - probably connects to the Oprah show too?)

But she has little common experience with the Oprah-featured and culturally exploited "dancer" Karinne. Her study and preparation/performance work has been professional, classical, almost sheltered. Exploitation is fully recognized by all concerned as the enemy at the gate.

Oprah never danced yet like Karinne, she was sexually exploited while young, demeaned and dismissed as a one-dimensional sex object (odd, why don't we say "subject" rather than object, as in subject to someone else's desires and control?)

Apparently she's turned it to cultural advantage in later life. Is this really stupid, or really smart? Both, neither?

I don't know what to make of this, all thoughts welcome.
Right now I'm remembering Our Inner Ape and other scientific observations, about the peaceful and highly sexy bonobos versus the fierce but frustrated chimpanzees, how culturally smart the bonobo females are and how they survive, thrive and dominate. The young females purposely exploit their own sexual appeal to "exploit" in turn the strongest males they can entice, to gain protection and pecking order power which they accumulate so that, as they become mothers and grow older, they can rule BY sex without using sex. Smiling

. . .if a male tried to harass a female, all the females would band together to chase him off. . . At the center of a traveling party, one usually finds high-ranking females close together. Their sons are allowed to enter this aggregation, but adult males without mothers tend to stay at the periphery. . .female-centered society, in which even the male rank order is largely dictated by mothers."

Or maybe (Liza, advice?) I should blog separately about such cross-species cultural connections, and we could take this tangent there for more discussion?
Smiling

"Ask MisEducation"


Visit our sponsors

Upcoming events

Fill up our coffee fund

BlogAds

Buy it!


Visit our sponsors

Get our Digestifs du jour

Nibble daily on our brainy goodness with our daily syndication digest. You'll receive an email with a list and links to the previous day's posts.



Powered by FeedBlitz

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers

Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network

BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.


Member's articles and stories

More stories

Google Ads

The Big Dialog


Who's online

There are currently 2 users and 1259 guests online.

Online users

Instant Congress

Don't know your Senators or US Representatives' phone numbers?
Enter your street address and zip code and find out right now.
Street number and name only:
Zip Code (5 digits):


Words to live by

To WILLIAM H. HERNDON, Esq. February 15, 1848.— LETTER TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848.

Dear William :

Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit some reflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuates you. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is that if it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, without violation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory of another country and that whether such necessity exists in any given case the President is the sole judge.

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not your position. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their only positions are— first, that the soil was ours when the hostilities commenced ; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound to defend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as you can prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress did not annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him Î You may say to him, " I see no probability of the British invading us "; but he will say to you, " Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. Write soon again.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN.


— Abraham Lincoln (while a Congressman)


Subscribe Buttons

Feed IconGoogleDeliciousYahoo!BloglinesNewsgatorMSNFeedsterAOLFurlRojoNewsburstPluckFeedFeedsAdd KinjaMultiRSSrMailRSSFwdBlogarithmSimplify