Chris Brown denied visa to enter UK for scheduled shows

Chris Brown had to cancel several shows that were scheduled to be performed in the UK after being denied a visa to enter the country. He was refused admission because he had been found "guilty of a serious criminal offence." Last year, Brown pleaded guilty to assaulting his ex-girlfriend Rihanna.

In a statement, the Home Office said: "We reserve the right to refuse entry to the UK to anyone guilty of a serious criminal offence. Public safety is one of our primary concerns."

My first thought after reading this was to be glad that officials in the UK Home Office were taking violence against women so seriously.

What do you think?

Violent mating habits of certain invertebrates

Two days ago I was watching a show on Animal Planet called "Monsters Inside Me" and one of the cases on the show was of a woman who was being infected with bed bugs. That's when I first heard of "traumatic insemination."

Traumatic insemination is a mating practice that takes place among some species of invertebrates (including bed bugs and even some spiders). The process apparently differs slightly depending on the species, but generally involves the male piercing the female's back and injecting sperm into the abdomen.

Of course I had to do more research on this topic and came across this piece (including pictures that may be NSFW) about male seed beetles whose penises are covered with spikes that injure the females. It also discussed the violent sexual practices of some other species which made me cringe while reading.

Despite explaining how the female seed beetle has developed some defenses "so that the damage inflicted by the males doesn't affect her too badly," my new knowledge of the violent mating practices of some species was rather disturbing because it seems that females of many species are no strangers to sexual violence.

FIFA to keep condoms out of World Cup games in South Africa

Soccer is the only sport that I watch with any regularity, so I am very excited about the FIFA World Cup games that will be taking place in South Africa from June 11 - July 11 2010.

However, I was disappointed when I heard about groups expressing concern about not being able to distribute condoms during the upcoming games.

South Africa has the world's largest number of HIV carriers, with an estimated 5.7 million people infected – about one in every five adults. There are around 1,400 new HIV infections every day and nearly 1,000 AIDS deaths.

FIFA has strict regulations that only allow official sponsors into venues, which means that fans will not be able to gain access to condoms or health information that non-sponsors are looking to provide. This is a huge problem, because the World Cup is a huge opportunity to distribute important information and condoms to a large audience in a country with such a high number of people impacted by HIV and AIDS.

If you want to voice your opinion about this situation, contact FIFA.

h/t to CaitieCat at Shakesville.

Music Monday

Just thought I'd share this music video for "My Secret Friend" by IAMX (featuring Imogen Heap) with our readers.

All of IAMX's videos are creative, but this one is probably my favorite because of the gender play.

Enjoy!

A screen shot can be considered a post, right?

Because I have a research design to write (among other things), and only 12 days until my summer break, I'll share a screen shot I took yesterday of the Female Impersonator Site Meter log. I thought it was pretty cool.

Thanks to all our readers who make blogging so worthwhile.

Celebrating law firm diversity!!

One of these things is not like the other ones...


Oh, wait. Nope.

via The Deets

Bill O'Reilly is concerned about the American people, naturally.

Solicitor General Elena Kagan's* nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court on May 10, 2010 has sparked much debate.

I am still reading up on Kagan myself. It's a bit difficult for me to stay fully informed while the last term of my junior year of college is winding down. However, Melissa at Shakesville wrote an informative post before the nomination was official, and here's a link about some of the lesbian rumors that have been coming up around her nomination. If you have any additional links that might provide other useful information about Kagan's nomination, feel free to leave them in comments.

So, while I admit that I am still in the process of learning about Kagan, one thing I can comment on is Bill O'Reilly assertion that knowing the sexual orientation of a nominee to the U. S. Supreme Court is important to the American public. The following quote is one I found yesterday on Shakesville (the video can be found here, also via Shakesville).

"Americans have a right to know if their Supreme Court justice has an orientation that may or may not dictate which way she votes on a vital issue. … Don't Americans have a right to know, on something as important as gay marriage, all right, if there is a Supreme Court justice nominee who is in that world?" - Bill O'Reilly

My analysis of this quote goes in line with what Melissa said on her blog. The Supreme Court does not make its decisions based on the personal preferences of the justices. Yes, personal differences in political ideology among justices may impact how they interpret the Constitution when applying it to cases the Court hears, but sexual orientation has nothing to do with that.

It is also important to note that while cases that make it before the Court may end up influencing public policy (such as whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed), creating that policy is not the end of the Court. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the Constitution. The particulars of a case must have the backing of that document for the Justices to make a decision.

Cases heard by the Supreme Court are brought before the Court on very narrow terms, and the only job of the Court is to determine if those terms constitute a violation Constitutionally guaranteed rights. As Melissa noted, Roe v. Wade was decided not based on the fact that the justices liked abortion. It was a matter of the guarantee of privacy and due process that just so happened to make abortion legal in the United States.

And really, it's just annoying for Bill O'Reilly to make such a big deal out of the possibility that Kagan is not heterosexual. If he honestly believed it was such an important thing for the American people to know (as opposed to just a reason to put doubts about her in the minds of those people), then why does he seem unconcerned about the orientation of the other sitting justices?


*This link is to the page for the Solicitor General. While that currently means that the information here is specifically about Kagan, the information found here may no longer be relevant to this post in the future.

Thanks for bringing people to our blog!

Dear owner of the MRA blog whose link lovin' has been sending people our way,

I appreciate the new readership. Did you know that a hit on this blog is a hit against the Patriarchy (as Kate once said)? I hope people return here to read more, even if they are finding us on your blog, where your tactics for challenging one of our co-bloggers are (to me) extremely distasteful and do a disservice to the cause you support.

Love,
Amelia, who stricly moderates comments according to the Female Impersonator comment policy not because she's a misandrist, but because she believes in tact.

Blogger Appreciation

**This is the first post of a new series I am starting in order to share some positivity for the bloggers I truly admire. Blogging can be hard work, and these people deserve to have that work acknowledged. I will link to the sites of all these bloggers, and I highly recommend you check them out.**

This week's letter goes out to Melissa, founder and manager of the blog Shakesville.

Dear Melissa,

Thank you for running one of my favorite feminist/progressive blogs ever. I have consistently read Shakesville since I first began identifying as a feminist back in 2007 and have never ceased to be impressed with the quality of posts that are published by you and others at your place. You have also fostered an impressive community that any progressive blogger would be lucky to have.

It is obvious that you work hard to cover many of the bases that should be touched upon in a progressive blog, and you handle yourself in a professional and caring manner that I admire deeply.

Not to mention, your blog, while covering some serious and important issues, is fun. My life would not be the same without "OMG Shoez," "Pathetic Anger Bread," or the "Boob Pistol of Disdain." These things help remind me that I am not alone in dealing with personal insults and general ignorance and hatred for speaking up about my politics, and if you can handle yourself in a constructive manner, so can I.

You are brave, authentic, and you do good work so well. Thank you for starting a blog to which I make sure to send all new feminists that I meet, as well as your continuing efforts to make the world a better place.

Fondly,
Amelia

Arizona immigration law prompts bigots to come out into the light of day

So I haven't blogged about this yet, but it has been a topic of many conversations in my daily life for a good few days now.

I'm talking about the Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, signed by Gov. Jan Brewer.

The law is the strictest immigration law in the country, and even before it was signed into law, the proposal received heat from critics about its potential impacts. According the The New York Times:

The law, which proponents and critics alike said was the broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations, would make the failure to carry immigration documents a crime and give the police broad power to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally. Opponents have called it an open invitation for harassment and discrimination against Hispanics regardless of their citizenship status.

Well, in further news about why Arizona fails, read here (Arizona legislators try to pass bill that says Obama must prove citizenship), here (Arizona grades experienced teachers on fluency), and here (legislators take issue with ethnic studies programs). Feel free to debate these topics thoughtfully and carefully in comments. I'll be moderating the thread pretty closely.

I have had people debate with me about whether or not this law and its implications are racist. They have all been debates with white people. For example, on May 1 I posted a status on my Facebook account that read: "Do I look 'illegal'?" and quickly I had a white friend of mine respond. I debated with him for a time, and eventually he said, "Also, as cliche as this may be... STEREOTYPES EXIST FOR A REASON!"

To put it briefly, it was his justification for racial profiling. And it disgusted me. He has always held problematic, racist beliefs, but generally he keeps them to himself. It was as if he took this status of mine as an opportunity to let loose all of his hatred.

For this reason, the Arizona law, at the very least, is prompting racist individuals to be loud and proud about their bigotry in a new, heightened manner. As an Hispanic American (born in the states) whose father was born in Mexico, and an individual who is deeply against racism directed at any people, this disturbs me deeply. Go ahead and argue the legality of the law. What can't be denied is that this has prompted a fresh wave of attacks against a group of people based on their legal status as related to their skin color.

And that's called racism.

EDIT 4:17 pm, 5/4/10: via Feministing, "The Far-Right Movement Behind Arizona Copycat Bills"

EDIT 5/5/10: I'm going to put a trigger warning in effect for the comments. I had moderation off and some got through before I was able to get back at my computer. They will stay up because people have responded to them.

Monster-ous Advertising: Monster Energy and violent masculinity

As some readers may know, two of my biggest interests as a feminist are gender and advertising. The messages advertising sends are important to understand. They help reinforce our understanding of the world, especially the gendered aspects. These messages are everywhere and they can hardly be ignored.

I work at a convenience store on my college campus, and a few weeks ago I was stocking a cooler of Monster Energy drinks when the violence associated with their drinks became unavoidable. To start with the name Monster and their logo which is the letter "M" made out of three claw marks. Both the name and the image convey a certain level of animal aggression that carries through to all the products that they market. I took some pictures on my phone to post here.

Notice the product name above (M-80) and how the zero resembles the cross hairs on a sight of a gun (the Khaos drink also uses this tactic).

I think the Monster Assault* was the most disturbing to me. I know that part of my strong reaction was due to the fact that sexual assault has been a very hot topic at my college, so seeing the word assault automatically put some very troubling ideas in my head. I will not say that Monster's choice of drink name in any way was intended to imply anything relating to sexual assault, but that does not free them from the consequences of the choice.

At a very practical level, what is the point of calling an energy drink "Assault"? Not only does it give no indication of the drink's taste, but it is a word with numerous bad connotations. What are we to think about this product? That it helps prepare one for assault?

No. Monster is playing a typical advertising game in which a very aggressive, even violent, masculinity becomes as much of a product as the drink that the company is actually trying to sell.

I make the assertion that the violence being marketed here is masculine for several reasons.

First, violence and aggression are generally viewed in this society as masculine traits. In the gender dichotomy we are taught to think in/live by, women are associated with a timid femininity. Men, on the other hand, are associated with an assertive, agressive, and even acceptably violent masculinity.

Second, if you view the Monster Energy Drink website you will find a section entitled "Monster Girls" that showcases the type of women that men are supposed to find attractive (thin, big boobed, hardly dressed, sexually available -- look at the bios).

Clearly, these drinks are meant to be masculine. They are meant to appeal to men.

The problem, therefore, lies in the violent aggression in the words used on Monster products. Buying into the masculine = violent stereotypes to sell products only perpetuates troubling ideas about gender. If boys and men are taught to believe (from TV, family, friends, magazines, and even energy drinks) that in order to be real men, they must be violent, or at least be interested in violence, the implications are frightening. Such beliefs can manifest themselves in numerous, problematic ways. Verbal violence, domestic violence, sexual assault. All of these are very real problems that are added to when violent masculinity is sold to boys and men everywhere they turn.

In a society where only one kind of masculinity (that is agressive and has no room for compassion or other off setting characteristics) is accepted and being taught to our boys and men, it is no wonder that violence is such a problem.


*On the back of the Monster Assault can is printed the following: At Monster we don't get too hung up on politics. We're not for "the War," against "the War," or any war for that matter. We put the "camo" pattern on our new Monster Assault can because we think it looks cool. Plus it helps us fire up to fight the big multi-national companies who dominate the beverage business. We'll leave politics to the politicians and just keep doing what we do best - make the meanest energy supplements on the planet. Declare war on the ordinary! Grab a Monster Assault and Viva LA REVOLUTION! www.monsterenergy.com. That's their side of it. I'll leave that without comment, except I wonder what they say about their Monster Hitman energy shooters?

NOT a win, FAIL Blog and Cheezburger.

(trigger warning on image at the link)

NOT a win. Jesus, how many times do we have to talk about this?

I'm utterly, utterly tired about women's bodies being used as fodder for jokes, much less sexual assault jokes. You spend so much time and energy trying to enact real difference in people's attitudes and interactions with others, and then one image can suck all the air out of any sense of progress. The fact that the core of the image is focused around one simple idea - that women aren't people. That it's funny to see women's bodies assaulted.

Sometimes it just feels suffocating.

Here's the contact page for the people at FAIL Blog and Cheezburger.

Have a nice weekend, I guess.

Quote of the Day

“I recognize that the allegations in Georgia were disputed and that they did not result in criminal charges being filed against you. My decision today is not based on a finding that you violated Georgia law, or on a conclusion that differs from that of the local prosecutor. That said, you are held to a higher standard as an NFL player, and there is nothing about your conduct in Milledgeville that can remotely be described as admirable, responsible, or consistent with either the values of the league or the expectations of our fans.”

-Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, in a letter to Ben Roethlisberger suspending him for 6 games

via Speaking of Faith Observed

RIP Dede Allen, innovative film editor

When you watch action, comedy, romance, foreign, well, pretty much any type of film, you owe the pace of the film and the cuts from shot to shot to one woman - Dede Allen. She virtually changed the way movies are edited together, including shock cutting and overlapping audio (playing the beginning audio over the last second of the prior scene).

One of her greatest film accomplishments was Bonnie and Clyde (1967). The editing subtly contributed to the themes of the movie, infusing the film with an overtone of sexuality through it's cuts. Additionally, the final shoot-out that kills Bonnie and Clyde is fast-paced with 50 cuts in less than 60 seconds. It was the first film where an editor received solo billing in the credits.

"The skills of a great film editor are almost always invisible, and when Allen's work on Bonnie and Clyde is discussed, the focus tends to be on her split-second cross-cutting in the shoot-out that ends the movie or the breakneck robbery getaway scenes. But Allen's contribution was far more nuanced than the creation of a couple of showpiece sequences. Allen, who has called herself a 'gut editor - intellect and taste count, but I cut with my feelings' - was almost peerless in her ability to focus on 'character, character, character'...

Allen knew just how long she could hold a shot of Beatty to reveal the insecurity beneath Clyde's preening; she seemed to grasp instinctively that sudden cuts to Dunaway in motion would underscore the jagged, jumpy spirit of Bonnie Parker and that slow shots of Michael J. Pollard's C.W. Moss would mimic his two-steps-behind mental processes. And Allen cut Bonnie and Clyde with an eye and ear for the accelerating pace of the story, making the building of its panicky momentum her priority."

Mark Harris, Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood, pgs 286-287

Besides Bonnie and Clyde, Allen edited The Hustler, Reds, Dog Day Afternoon, The Breakfast Club, The Addams Family, Wonder Boys, John Q and more.

Dede Allen, groundbreaking film editor, died this weekend. Thank you for all of your work in revolutionizing film editing. Rest in peace.

Link Lovin'

So, I've noticed lately that some blogs have been directing traffic to Female Impersonator because they've linked us. That's awesome, and we all appreciate the love very very much.


Well, if you are one of those bloggers who is showing us some love and we're not linking back to you, go ahead and leave a comment here (including a link to your blog) and I will return the favor.

Also, just out of curiosity, how did you find Female Impersonator?

Know what I hate?

When you're trying to co-host a feminist radio show and some guy calls up and asks if he can request a song.

This is not unusual. People call to request songs on the radio all the time.

But when you explain that you host a feminist radio show and that you only play female-positive (or neutral) music and the guy says that he'll call back...and then he calls back asking you to play this song by Ludacris (warning - the lyrics are horribly sexist). Well, I hate that.

When that song was requested by a guy who clearly knew the criteria that Kate and I use to judge what music we play on our feminist radio show, it was annoying. It was clearly an attempt to try to cut us down. Either that, or that guy was really uneducated and had no concept at all about what "female-positive" means. But I don't buy that at all.

This isn't even the worst of what Kate and I have experienced during our three years of hosting the Female Impersonators Radio Hour at Knox College, but it never ceases to be annoying.

Ever.