lip magazine: for girls who think feel create speak out live

Hello all,

I am writing about the arts industry in australia for the next issue of lip. *Fingers crossed* I’m also doing a vox pop, and wanted to get the lip staff’s opinion too. So the question is: What’s your opinion of the arts industry, in Australia?

Do you think it gets enough funding, or not. Which sector does get more, or not enough funding? What’s going on with the film industry? Think about who makes up the arts industry: actors, film makers, artists, painters, photographers, writers and editors, curators, performers, stencillists, sculpters, etc…

Filed under: opportunities | No Comments »

The Pantene Young Women of the Year Awards are now open for nominations. These are an initiative of Yen mag. It’s all such a touchy-feely idea to honour inspiring young women, but get a load of the website: http://www.pywya.net. The logo is driving me crazy. It says to me these awards aren’t for the hard-working young geeks who really want to change the world but for beautiful girls who can market their new businesses with their sex appeal. To combine the idea of celebrating young women with that particular image is so…not helpful. And all the ads.

Am I too overboard these days?

Filed under: staff blogs | No Comments »

Have you ever finished reading a book that was so moving you had trouble knowing what to do directly after finishing it? You hold it a little bit longer and contemplate the fact that you can’t start another one right away because it seems like some kind of betrayal and you can’t really listen to music because that would be intrusive and you just need to sit on the couch a little longer and pay tribute to the book. You know in an hour you have to catch a bus and you’ll read your other book because you can’t bear to be bored on the bus but you feel it is a bit of a betrayal to the one you just finished because you shouldn’t be letting it go so soon? That’s just happened to me. I recommend without qualification Saturday by Ian McEwan.

Filed under: staff blogs | No Comments »

Hi Nicole,

Yep, your phone conversation was a spark.

>We think Ms. USA has accomplished less than say a >similarly aged woman who has a PhD. Even though I can >make the argument that Ms. USA has probably spent as
>much time and effort into looking like she does as the doctor has in studying and honing her skills…

It’s because we are valuing other things over time and energy, such as intelligence and ethics and intellectually vigourous work. I just find it
difficult for someone to take credit for beauty, when it was the luck of the draw. I suppose people are inherently born with intelligence as well, but generally it seems to take the whole force of a person(ality)to make that intelligence into something. I can appreciate that a model who makes a career out of being beautiful has more going for her than simple
beauty - business acumen, ability to pose for a camera, networking skills, persistence - but for a woman (whose career isn’t to be beautiful) to wrap up her whole self-esteem and sense of accomplishment in something that is ultimately external to her and who she is seems bad. It ultimately doesn’t have anything to do with her.

What’s not fair is not beauty versus brains in women but that fact that men are not judged for their beauty in the same way. Why is it that a woman’s best asset is often seen as her body/beauty but men’s best assets are
almost never seen as their body/beauty? Of course we all privately like the look of a cute guy, but our world in no way revolves around the way men look. It certainly revolves around the way women look. Looked at in this way, a woman who promotes her beauty above other assets is playing into a patriarchal paradigm of female power being narrowed to encompass only one
thing (beauty) that is hard for most women to achieve and largely assessed by men. And then it is used against them when they achieve other sorts of
power. You should see how the young, attractive female Parliamentarians are treated here. They are trivialised by people/politicians/media going on about their hair colour or shoe choice or weight. Beware the woman who is beautiful and intelligent. Such a threat!

>And maybe they are insecure, but maybe they’ve earned >it just as honestly as we’ve earned our insecurities >about our looks… And maybe putting on that bikini is >their way of sticking it to all those smart kids.

That’s a good point, but I’m sure those girls had other things to stick it to us with besides beauty if they had been treated well, encouraged and given the opportunity to discover their talent. Surely everyone has some sort of intelligence or talent that can be nurtured (I don’t consider beauty an intelligence or talent).

I don’t think anyone is saying there’s anything wrong with being sexy, only that women need to be able to exercise choice in when/how/where/for whom to be sexy. And for women to acknowledge their place in the broader social context and their effects on other women. That takes intelligence.

Rachel

The discussion keeps going in further emails but I won’t post them here unless anyone is interested.

Filed under: staff blogs | No Comments »

My sister and I have been debating about beauty as a means to power. She emailed me after reading the raunch culture article I wrote in the mag. I thought I’d post our first two emails here as a way to continue the discussion. First email from Nicole:

R,

I am slowly making my way through lip. I would like to take some credit for helping out with the article Prudish or Powerful based on our phone conversation. One thing I “remember” (remember in quotes because I think I though it but I’m not actually sure I said it) from the conversation about bikinis is that one problem with our reaction to women who are happy about their looks and like to show them off is that we see this as inferior. I’m not entirely sure who the we is in this scenario, but certainly at least you and me. We think Ms. USA has accomplished less than say a similarly aged woman who has a PhD. Even though I can make the argument that Ms. USA has probably spent as much time and effort into looking like she does as the doctor has in studying and honing her skills, one seems the far more worthy achievement than the other. Ultimately, poring that much time into one’s looks seems morally unjustified.

But is that fair? Are we right to judge a woman who seeks to promote her best quality as somehow not as good if her best quality is her looks? Intellectual pursuits are not necessarily any more heroic, so why look down on women who choose beauty over brains. And maybe they are insecure, but maybe they’ve earned it just as honestly as we’ve earned our insecurities about our looks. Maybe they stayed in class and watched while all the smart kids got to go somewhere else year after year. And maybe putting on that bikini is their way of sticking it to all those smart kids.

Anyway, the debate over this stuff has gotten huge in America thanks to Pink. Her song “Stupid Girls” has put her on every single talk show in America talking about the over sexualization of her couterparts. I admit, when I saw the video, I thought, “who is she to criticize Jessica Simpson? Clearly, she cares just as much about being sexy—look at her abs.” But then, in one of her interviews, the interviewer said that a lot of people felt she was being hypocritical criticizing some stars for selling their looks. Her response was pretty awesome. She said, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with being sexy, my point is that sexy and smart aren’t oil and water. Ultimately, I agree with her that it doesn’t matter if she’s hypocritical or right; what matters is she’s finally got people talking about female exploitation. We’ll see if has any lasting impact.

N

Filed under: staff blogs | No Comments »