While I buy that the first part of the article is partially ironic, since it advises you to “[g]lance furtively over your shoulder with shifty eyes” and then later to “[u]se what you’ve learned to destroy someone else’s life,” the second part (sub-head “Catch a Two-Timer”) is relatively sober and informative, quoting “experts” and such. It’s not until the very last line that a little irony slips in again, and then I don’t really think it’s enough. Whether or not this is a “joke” to the Maxim editors, the problem is that there really are enough wishful tools out there to take this kind of stuff seriously. And we can’t escape the fact that there are plenty of men out there in the real world who, in fact, DO abuse and/or monitor their partners with the help of this sort of technology. As Ann at Feministing writes, “real-life stalking is, uh, decidedly not hilarious, to put it mildly, and we need to draw a bright line between a common joke of the personal-is-public-online era and the very real threat posed by stalking.” More importantly, we should never let the “how” of technology overshadow the “why.” The argument that “it doesn’t matter because it would never really work” or because the information is inaccurate is missing the point. Offering (or pretending to offer) technological information for this type of surveillance without examining why it is desired and whether it should be used in the first place is irresponsible. It promotes a culture that too often places women’s bodies (and others who do not fit the “ideal”) under surveillance and rarely reflects on why.

It’s bad enough that the government possesses incredible technologies to spy on us and that artists like Justin Timberlake and 50 Cent make videos promoting the surveillance of the female body. It seems, however, that mobile entertainment providers Jamba and Bob Mobile are not content to stick to their annoying cell phone animations (search Jamba on youtube and you’ll see what I mean), nor let surveillance remain in the hands of the rich and powerful, but have decided to package surveillance technology as “fun” cell phone applications. The applications, “Partner Tracker” and “Mobile Spy” respectively, have been getting a lot of ad time on MTV Germany recently. The “Partner Tracker” is marketed with the line “Verarsche deine Freunde!” (“Play a joke on your friends!”), but its “friendliness” is undermined by its title, which clearly implies a different relationship of tracker/trackee, and takes on sinister undertones. “Mobile Spy,” on the other hand, is advertised with the line “Gib Lügnern keine Chance!” (“Give liars no chance!”), which implies that it will help you to check if your friend or significant other is lying about their location.

However harmless these ads would have you believe they are, the practical implications of such applications are certainly disturbing. Every time I see one of these ads, I’m reminded of Anxious Black Woman’s post on “Ayo Technology.” In her comment, she writes that it’s “no accident, for example, that service providers working against domestic violence are creating awareness and survivors’ manuals for how to guard against hi-tech surveillance methods that batterers and stalkers now use to control women’s every move.” I can’t help but think how easy it would be for a would-be stalker/batterer/rapist to acquire the cell number of his target and use this sort of tracker to find her. I am especially dismayed that such technology is marketed to such a large, young audience in such a popular and accessible format.

If you read the fine print, of course, Jamba is quick to contend that “Diese Software dient lediglich zu Unterhaltungszwecken. Es findet keine echte Aufenthaltsortsbestimmung statt,” that is, “This software is only for the use of entertainment. No real location is determined.” This lovely disclaimer is remarkably similar to the one offered by MTV at the end of its surveillance dating show “Exposed,” which uses “lie detection software” to test the honesty of two candidates. And like the disclaimer for “Exposed,” this one is likewise rather ineffective in dispelling the claims of the product. Indeed, the promise of this technology to provide the ability for surveillance to MTV’s (young male) viewers is still there. The coupling of this promise in advertising content and the promotion of surveillance in programming content (like “Ayo Technology” or “Exposed”) may prove to be especially potent.

The ostensible meaning of the lyrics, however, is quite different. It is curious, for instance, that the chorus actually maintains that Justin (with the others) is actually tired of using technology, and wishes the addressed, female “you” to be “right in front” of him. At first glance, it could be that Justin is pining away for some “good old-fashioned stalking”- that is, it’s not enough to view from a distance through an image- he wants the up close and personal visual contact that only is possible without a piece of technology mediating between him and the desired object.

An added dimension is revealed, though, when one considers that the song was originally supposed to be called “Ayo Pornography,” then changed to avoid controversy and increases the chances of radio/television play (apparently, as long as misogyny and objectification is thinly veiled, it’s ok). So the protagonists are actually tired of using pornography; although the ready-and-willing pornographic woman is described and idealized by 50 Cent in the verses, she is rejected in favor of real sexual encounter in the choruses. On some level, there seems to be an acknowledgment that that woman, the one you find in most pornography, is just imaginary, that is, she is just an image. And the image itself is not stable; the women tremble Matrix-like, as if they are about to blink out of existence entirely. The technology is simultaneously fetishized and rejected as the ideal means of sexual contact.

What we also shouldn’t forget in all this discussion is the viewer/listener of this video. The viewer of the video is also made privy to the sexualized images of the women in the video and witnesses the use of technology to control and manipulate them. However, the viewer also observes the observers- the concept of the video, which would have you believe that the men can see without being seen, is undermined by the images of 50 Cent and his cohorts, which are placed in the same package as the others and distributed widely through technology as well. The images of 50 Cent, Justin Timberlake, and Timbaland are created, reproduced, and distributed far more often than any images of the women they hired for the video (a google search for any of these artists, for example, is bound to be much more successful than one for a bunch of mostly anonymous, not famous video girls). And these images of the artists are made available to practically anyone through mass media, to viewers who may of any gender or sexual orientation. Practically speaking, if anyone is sitting on someone’s lap, it’s most likely an image of Justin Timberlake on your laptop. So, despite the contradictory and/or violent messages about surveillance of female bodies being sent out by the video (which are definitely, blatantly there), the viewer (be it he, she, or it) is granted power through the very act of viewing the video.

It is up to the viewer whether or not to continue to consume the product by watching the video. And even for the woman who gets “tired of using technology” and hearing about men talking once again about their sexual fantasies and exploits (count me in), there’s always the possibility of closing the curtains and curling up with a good book.

I got the link to the test from $3.60, who in turn got it from brownfemipower (where there is also a good discussion in comments about the scale).

I have to admit, I’m surprised and maybe even perhaps disappointed that the level is supposedly so high, since that might translate to “obscure,” “overly complicated,” etc. As Kay commented at brownfemipower, “I got genius level. Is that good? I suspect it knows I am queen of the run-on sentence and user of obnoxiously big words where smaller ones will do, that I sometimes don’t know when to shut up and I also like to use long quotes by smart people.” I share the sentiment, because, although I’ve never quite had the ambition to create a “blog for the masses,” it is important to me that my blog is clear and accessible to a vast majority of my potential readers.

Then again, I probably shouldn’t put too much weight on a test that does not (and cannot) take into account other factors, like depth of content, stylistic elements, and what’s especially important to my blog, that is, the images. If they interest and inspire people to come to this site (which the incoming stats from google searches seem to indicate), then maybe I’m doing something right after all.

The video has been picked up by a number of blogs (over at Feministing and Diary of An Anxious Black Woman, for instance) and, rightly, been criticized for its all-too-easy, profoundly unnuanced portrayal of male sexual fantasy enacted through invasive, possibly violent surveillance. Chris Schonberger at Popwatch describes the video concept as such: “After defrosting from their cryogenic chambers, mega-billionaires 50 Cent, Justin Timberlake, and Timbaland have established an advanced Big Brother state to help them spy on lovely ladies in futuristic lingerie.” We see 50 Cent standing on top of a building, looking down through a weapon’s scope at the object of his desire, then later inside being served by multiple women (harem fantasy, anyone?). Justin spies on a half-naked woman through his binoculars. Timbaland acts as the mastermind, orchestrating and manipulating the images of these women with his hands, selecting whichever one he wants for viewing. The intravideo images (images of video within the video) are grainy and green-tinted, as if seen through a night vision scope or filmed by an amateur-quality camera (e.g. a phone camera), to further give the impression of “raw” authenticity.

And the lyrics aren’t much better. The woman 50 describes is more than simply willing to indulge her creator’s fantasies; she’s sexually voracious. We’re told over and over again that “she wants it,” which sounds disturbingly close to the all-too-common “asking for it” justifications for rape that circulate in our society. All this while the women in the video are being, so it seems, unknowingly filmed and observed. Which suggests that it doesn’t matter how you see her (or whether she sees you back)- a woman in lingerie is always to be interpreted as “wanting it.”

What’s more-the men in the video seem to be able to affect the women they are observing without actually touching them, that is, through the very act of looking and desiring, through the image itself. 50 strokes the image of the woman while driving and she, in the car ahead, suddenly gets hot and bothered. When Justin slams his hand against the doorframe, the woman on the other side acts as if she’s just received a powerful thrust. Meanwhile, Timbaland sorts and manipulates all these images. It might be that long-distance groping is simply “in” this year.* However, as Anxious Black Woman notes, it is certainly disturbing that “hi-tech video surveillance is being ubiquitously shown as ways to capture, frame, and control the female body.”

All in all, it’s not surprising that the video comes off, as Jessica at Feministing describes it, as an “ode to stalking,” in which case it’s just another entry in the grand tradition of “Every Breath You Take” and Enrique Iglesias’ “Can’t Escape My Love.” Or perhaps, as RayT at Popwatch supposes, 50 Cent and his collaborators have created a whole new genre- “Orwellian porn.”

In any case, the video, perhaps unwittingly, pulls its influences from many sources (elements of James Bond, Minority Report, 1984, etc.) so that it is capable of producing a number of responses and readings. I’ll be continuing to talk about these different elements and readings in the following Part 2 and 3 of this series, complete with Pop Culture Post Secrets.

*I refer you to the video for Will.I.Am’s “I Got it From My Mama” or, as I call it, William James Adams’ Treatise on Beauty through Maternal Genetic Transfer

Anyway, the important thing is that I’ve got a lot on my mind these days and a number of posts planned out, including an imminent one on some things that I’ve been noticing about my new home (and not just the recent neonazi attacks and threats of terrorism, either). I’m sure my change of location will have an impact on my blogging topics- naturally, I’ll be able to grasp more of German pop culture than US pop culture. However, since I have the benefits of the WWW and a great deal of German pop culture comes out of “die Staaten” anyhow (thanks to the Marshall Plan), I anticipate that I will still be approaching and analyzing many products of the US media, if from a different angle. Indeed, I look forward to observing the ways in which US media does or does not translate into a German context.

First, however, I’ve got some old business to take care of. Back in July I was in the US visiting friends in Massachusetts and I decided to utilize some time before a group showing of Transformers to wander around the mall. I ended up in a fairly average dollar store, the sort of place I always love to browse. Among the products offered were several very interesting ones, including a reserve of beat-up composition books displaying the twin towers of the World Trade Center . . . it seemed that they had become so pitifully, suddenly anachronistic that no one had bothered to buy them after 9/11/2001.

What really struck me, however, were the products aimed toward girls and women. And since gender is always a recurring theme on this blog, I decided to do an experiment, that is, photograph the things I saw and blog them later. After all, being a (pop) cultural critic isn’t just talking about celebrities or watching six straight hours of Making the Band 4 (although I gladly do both of these things)- it’s also about being open to making observations anywhere, even if it’s off the map of the commercial mainstream.

So, here we are.

The Modern Working Mother & Her To-Do List: Insert Your Face Here

The first product that caught my eye was this photo frame. Here we have the modern working woman. She’s professionally dressed and organized. She’s got her cell phone in hand, a paper under her arm (ostensibly the New York Times), and a few things in her bag (a book, bottled water, and a baguette). What’s more, she’s got her very own to-do list. The list includes a number of different activities, some denoting work (“conference call,” “finish market analysis,” and “client lunch”), one a personal goal (“start weight-loss program”), and the other two hinting at family or social caregiving duties (“make brownies for bake sale” and “recital”). She’s the modern superwoman. She’s got everything under control, seems to be successful, and yet there’s always something seemingly lacking; why else would she be planning to start a weight loss program? Furthermore, why is she starting a weight-loss program when she’s already attractive and apparently only carrying around bread and water in the first place? The most striking about this product is that it is a picture frame, that is, not just a depiction of the hectic lives working women lead but instead a direct invitation to every woman to adopt that body, those clothes, that list.

The Emptier, the Better

I took a look at these drinking glasses and thought they were pretty cute . . . then I really started thinking. Each glass, from top to bottom, has three stripes with three descriptive phrases which demonstrate a progression from most reserved/unconfident to most outrageous/self-confident, each accompanied by a change of font as well. They are the following:

Pink: goody two-shoes; feelin’ frisky; naughty girl!

Blue: a little bit shy; social butterfly; life of the party!

Purple: bad hair day; lookin’ good; damn, I’m beautiful!

So, when you start with a full glass, you are apparently shy, unattractive, and prudish, by the time you’ve finished you’re not only less socially inhibited, but you’ve become sexually liberated (code word: naughty) and beautiful, too! I don’t know what is meant to be drunk from these glasses, but I’m guessing it’s not your morning orange juice. Now don’t get me wrong; I have no objection to a little alcoholic libation now and then. And I won’t deny that alcohol often temporarily makes people loosen up and feel more confident. But that’s not to say that drinking more should be equated with feeling or becoming somehow better. What bothers me most about these glasses, actually, is that they are marketed specifically to women (triggered by the “feminine” pastels, the cutesy fonts, and of course, the evocation of “girl”), as if, through the magical powers of alcohol, our daytime worries are cast aside so that we may live out nighttime fantasies or, in other words, a woman needs some sort of substance to switch from that “lady in the street” to the “freak in the bed.” Which is, after all, more of a male fantasy.

Pressure & A Wedding to Remember

Here we have two of the books offered to girls. First, Girls Under Pressure by Jacqueline Wilson, a novel for adolescent girls (12 years old and up according to Amazon) about a teenage girl’s struggle to fit in and her flirtation with eating disorders (clearly evidenced on the cover by her overwhelming disgust for the piece of pizza). According to the glowing review by Jennifer Hubert on Amazon, “fabulous British author Jacqueline Wilson keeps her trademark funny bone firmly in place while simultaneously raising some sobering questions about issues like eating disorders and teens’ overemphasis on appearance.” While I don’t necessarily agree with Hubert that “[w]rapping serious messages in a sugary comical coating is always the best way to make the medicine go down”- after all, the sugary strategy is the same one employed by various media and advertising to convince young girls that they need to focus on their appearance- but I am certainly glad that the “medicine” here seems to be a positive message about body image.

That said, I am disturbed by the second book I have pictured here, Barbie’s A Wedding to Remember, which is aimed at an even younger audience (as you can see in the excerpt at this site, it’s practically a picture book). A synopsis for this gem: “Barbie’s best friend, Monica, is getting married! There’s tons to do before the wedding, from planning the surprise bridal shower to picking out the coolest wedding present to buying the perfect dress. Join in all the fun when you read Barbie’s bridesmaid’s diary!” Throughout the book, perfect Barbie writes to her ever-trusty diary about her predicaments, one of which is, much to her surprise, TOO MUCH SHOPPING. At the very end of the book there is a space labeled specifically for the reader to make plans for her future wedding. Although there is a certain ambivalence in Barbie’s evident stance toward marriage in the book (she seems to look forward to it, but does not see it as an imminent necessity), there is a sense that the potential readers of this diary (young girls) should nevertheless, like Barbie, be reverent before this miracle until, someday somewhere, they should be graciously chosen for the bestowal of its charms. A Wedding to Remember seems to both almost foretell and instigate the anxieties later expressed by the characters in Girls Under Pressure.

Supermans to the Rescue!

This is the one product I photographed that isn’t exclusively marketed to women. In that sense, it may seem out of place with the rest. However, these mugs DO tell a story about a specific brand of masculinity, which is also a story about gender told to all of us, and therefore one relevant to representations of femininity. Here we have three mugs depicting a determined, extremely chiseled Superman (who, on closer inspection, looks like he’s been doping). Alone, one of these mugs might not have caught my attention- we are so used to seeing these superbuff male figures that another rippling biceped Superman is hardly special- but something about seeing several of them in a row just struck me with its brute force and reminded me of Tough Guise, a film made by Sut Jhally about the image of masculinity propagated by mainstream media in the US (watch the trailer here). Alhough Superman has been around for many decades, his body has undergone a continuous process of muscularization, one that Jhally, among others, criticizes as a cause for an unhealthy image of masculinity in mass media. These mugs, depicting that all-American hero Superman, not only ascribe physical superpower solely to men, but also promote the worship of superdominant, superaggressive masculinity, a trend that is echoed in all outlets of pop culture, from baseball doping scandals to 50 Cent videos.

Impressions

The last thing that I photographed in the store was a number of mirrors. Not only is there an evident contrast between the mirrors from left to right in color and shape (“masculine” squareness and bold colors, “feminine” roundness and pastels), the mirrors on the right have something that the ones on the left quite obviously do NOT have- the sticker with the brand name “Impressions” and a woman’s face depicted as she applies lipstick, her mouth open in semi-ecstasy. This is apparently what we are supposed to see when we look in the mirror. From the very purchase of this item, an ideal of beauty- white, clean, cosmetic- is placed in the customer’s mind. As if it is the picture on the glass that reflects back on the customer and not the other way around. Like any product, this mirror is advertised as a status symbol that confers beauty and power onto the consumer while the other side of the transaction is masked- namely, the transference of money and influence to the company that has produced the product. The paradox is that, while these companies are marketing their products to women, they are not only often perpetuating unrealistic or unhealthy standards of “femininity,” but, all too often, excluding women from their own boardrooms and positions in which they could achieve real status.

First, there’s the confluence of fashion and politics. While we don’t usually ascribe political statements to our clothing, there are certain cases when fashion causes considerable controversy; the scandal caused by the dress of this year’s Mexican Miss Universe contestant is a great example. While one side defended the choice for the sake of fashion and a certain image of Mexico, others found it to contain incredibly offensive messages. The fact is, everything we buy and wear signifies something about us and contributes to our performance of class, race, gender, or any number of things. More often than not, our fashion decisions have a history and signification that we can’t comprehend (see this clip from The Devil Wears Prada). The potentially violent or controversial connotations of fashion are heightened because clothing, as we wear it, tells a story about our bodies. It shows or hides our form, reveals or conceals our skin. And unfortunately, it often sends messages we do not intend.

A few weeks ago, for instance, I was in a bar in Estonia which happened to be filled with rowdy male English soccer fans. I had bought a cute top just that day and had naturally decided to wear it out that night with my friends. As soon as I walked into that place, however, I became incredibly conscious of the gazes from the older men around me. I realized I was being unabashedly oogled and harassed because my clothing was sending a message about my gender and sexual availability/vulnerability that I had in no way intended. Of course, this is not an unfamiliar story; it exists in media products of all kinds and can be found in nearly every woman’s experience (much to our chagrin- see the films War Zone and Hey…Shorty).

In the case of celebrity, male or female, public scrutiny at an incredibly high level is to be expected. Their lives are photographed, analyzed, and offered to millions/billions of people for approval or disapproval. I don’t want to let Diaz off the hook for her mistake; certainly, her choice was in poor taste and offended a number of people, not to mention an entire culture, and it is her responsibility to consider what messages her clothing sends. However, it seems a little too easy to tear her down for a choice that many of us, admittedly, would make. What worries me especially is the way that some have used this snafu to accuse Diaz of evil Communist sympathies or criticize her for other reasons. Over at The Free Republic blog, for example, Diaz is slammed for being unattractive without makeup and a “hollywood has been trying to get attention” while other user comments rant on everything from PETA to hippies, Hillary Clinton, Che t-shirts, and the Macy’s logo. Somewhere along the line, talking about the deaths of Shining Path takes a backseat to a vague notion of some perceived Hollywood liberal (Jewish?) communist conspiracy . . .

Ironically, however, this whole incident should say more about the capitalistic, touristic way celebrities (and Westerners in general) approach travel in other parts of the world than any Communist tendencies they harbor. Diaz bought the offending bag a souvenir in China, and caused the controversy while vacationing in Peru. Truth be told, if she had taken that bag to the streets of the United States, not too many people would have been the wiser. And we wouldn’t be talking about Peru or the Shining Path insurgency at all. Sadly, it took a celebrity’s unintended political statement abroad to make that incident even a blip on the radar screen of our pop culture.

In the past 7 days, I have received 79 hits from people searching for terms including the word “bound.”

The vast majority of these entries are simply the word itself (variously capitalized), but others include “girls full tied” or “bound hilton” or “bound women.”

In the past 30 days, my post on Bound (Correspondence, Surveillance, and the “Riddle of Bisexuality” in Bound) has been read 9 times.

Something fishy is going on. Either a) people looking for information about the film just aren’t enticed into clicking “more” and reading the second half (fair enough) or b) people are simply searching for the movie poster which happens to accompany the article.

These are both interesting and reasonable theories. However, I am quite certain that there is a subset of people out there looking for something completely unrelated to the feature film when they come to my site. . . and they must be surprised with what they get when they come here.

That said: to all those out there coming to this page after searching for “bound,” I want you to know that I wonder what you’re looking for. I’m curious about you. And if you could comment and drop a line about what brought you here, I’d be very appreciative.

No pressure, no judging.

And while you’re here, enjoy my hodgepodge gallery of pics, all of which come up on the first page of a google image search for “bound.” Notice anything?

Oh, and as penance for inadvertently promoting anything coming from Starbucks, I’ll post this link.
.

As Marisa notes, the advertisement uses Angelou’s blackness as a verification of Clinton’s femininity. As if African-American women (by extension, all “women of color”) somehow have a greater capital of “femininity” at their disposal. I won’t deny that a black woman may be more likely to be interpellated back into her (female) body more often and more painfully so than a white woman- the long history of rape, poverty, and oppression in the US has always put darker female bodies at a double disadvantage. But I find it a bit problematic that Angelou boils this distinction down to the African-American woman’s superior knowledge of “multi-tasking.” And at the same time she excludes Hillary from this group of hard-working women via race, she includes her via gender. Moreover, I’m disconcerted that the makers of the ad are calling upon Angelou’s authority, purely as a black woman, to convince us that she can recognize femininity and assure us that, yes, Hillary is really, truly a woman. Which the ad, in turn, unabashedly plays up as an unmediated good thing. Now that the great mystery of her gender is solved, we can all breathe a sigh of relief…

As for the photos of Clinton that accompany the message (here she is with this minority group, here she is with that one, blah blah), they seem to rather cheesily and unapologetically tend toward fetishism. If we’re lucky, they’ll end up on Black People Love Us.

Interestingly, Elizabeth Benjamin at The NY Daily News’ blog contends that the ad has a “humanizing” effect. Which again suggests, strangely, that being “human,” or perhaps more likely “humane,” has to do fundamentally with being a woman. So, because Clinton “gives herself the authority to be in her own skin” and demonstrates the “honesty of being a woman,” she’s got a greater, bodily source of compassion which extends to all creeds and colors, etc. etc.

All in all, it’s a very weird message. I wonder who the intended audience is, since I’m guessing that, historically, most female politicians have spent their time proving the exact opposite of this ad- that is, “I’m so caring toward minorities because I’m a woman” is a little at odds with the typical “I can be as tough and competent as any man.” If anything, this pandering to both images indicates the double standard that successful women now face- play with the boys at work, but don’t forget to come home and take care of your family. If Clinton wants to project this new and softer look to get female votes, however, she’s got a lot of work to do. And that starts by connecting directly to women themselves, not getting her “ethnic” friends to provide testimonials.