Last fall she organized a hugely successful Miss Representation event at her school, and we recently had the chance to ask her how she managed to find the time and resources (in between classes) to make it all happen.

Miss Representation: We were so impressed by your ability to organize and raise the funds for a screening at Miami University of Ohio, primarily through your own volition. What inspired you to take on this project?

Liesel: I saw the trailer last year, and that’s what sparked my interest. I was really empowered by the trailer, and watched it over and over. After seeing it I wanted to spread that message to others so that they would have the same feelings I did.

MR: What was the first step?

Liesel: I just went on missrepresentation.org, found the education section and then contacted the production company ro*co films to discover how I could become involved. We discussed the option of hosting a screening and they also brought up the opportunity to bring Ms. Newsom to campus.

MR: So once you realized the cost and logistics, how did you go about making it happen? Have you done anything like this before?

Liesel: I had never organized anything this large before. I loved doing it. I started by thinking of organizations and departments on campus that would be related to and interested in supporting Miss Representation. I contacted places like The Women’s Center, Women’s Business Department and Women’s Gender and Sexuality studies, and sent everyone the trailer.

I was able to garner some interest and kept corresponding with them – eventually some of these groups signed on. We were fortunate enough to get plenty of support for bringing Ms. Newsom to campus. I continued to meet with quite a few people, sending e-mails to chairs of departments, presidents of organizations – telling them about Miss Rep, explaining how it was relative and why it was important/significant to bring to campus. I stressed why our University needed exposure to this.

All total I spent about two months getting sponsors for the event.

MR: Once you had this interest, what was your strategy for actually planning such a large event?

Liesel: First thing I did, which I thought was really important, was having a representative from each sponsor be on a planning committee. It was seven individuals, including myself, and from there I would distribute tasks on a weekly basis. A lot of the tasks were promotion based.

For instance the Panhellenic Council (Greek Life office) had representatives attend all the chapter meetings to make connections with the presidents. Women in Business, which was another sponsor, made the event mandatory for their women. They also took charge in making promotional materials – posters, flyers and postcards. We used the design provided by Miss Representation and modified it with our own information and posted those around campus.

An interactive bulletin board advertising the screening at the University and encouraging participation.

Liesel: In early January we started online marketing – we made a Twitter account (@MissRepMiami) and a Facebook event, and I was really active in maintaining those. The planning committee needed some more time to design and create the posters, and there are some campus regulations around flyers, but we started putting posters up about two weeks in advance of the event. We also ordered a large poster to be framed throughout campus.

We appeared in a lot of newspapers and blogs before and after the event, as well as on the local television station. I was either contacted or I contacted newspapers directly to get this press.

MR: Tell us about the event itself. How did it go?

Liesel: It was a fantastic turnout. The room seats about 300 and it was at full capacity – and this was a public event – and actually we had to turn people away. I’m hoping to have another screening in the fall for those that didn’t get to see it, and a lot of people have already contacted me about co-sponsoring that, which is wonderful.

There was a moderated discussion and Q+A in addition to the film screening. I led the discussion – came up with most of the questions ahead of time, and asked the planning committee for some too.

MR: What was it like seeing the film amongst all of your peers at an event you had put together?

Liesel: Being around others who were affected by the film changed the way that I viewed it. There were gasps in the audience. And that definitely affected me – made me feel even stronger than I did when watching it alone. I also felt more inspired and I was really pleased that others saw what I saw the first time. It made me love what I was seeing more.

Liesel: The message of Miss Representation resonates with me now more than I thought it would. I think every single day I’m fully conscious of things going on in the media and society. I now unconsciously notice things in the media all the time and I’m always using my media literacy skills. I think it impacts me in my classes, in my decisions – even my personal decisions.

I think that the more exposed to all of the things Miss Representation points out I am, the more I realize how much society needs to change. I would like to be a catalyst for that change. Because it’s really scary to see peers of mine buy into that culture – it’s dangerous. I’ve tried to maintain being a good influence and representation of the message of the film.

Personally, just leading the whole event, I developed as a leader. In leading the planning committee I had to make a lot of big decisions on my own – not always having an advisor to run it by. Miss Representation really encouraged me to not have any doubts in my dreams and all the things I’ve desired, and to just go after it.

MR: Are there specific dreams or goals that you now feel more empowered to pursue?

Liesel: Like I always wanted to go into law and have a desire to go into politics, and I think because I have this awareness from Miss Representation now, I’m very confident about doing those things.

MR: What was the number one thing that helped you pull this off?

Liesel: I think just the support and diversity of support from all of our sponsors, female peers, and female administrators at the University really helped make this a success. Because Miss Representation has such a strong message and because the film is so appealing, it really took off with my peers and the administrators and from their it just grew. So I really give a lot of credit to them.

Follow Liesel on Twitter @lieselmschmader, and @MissRepMiami

—-

While she is uniquely skilled, Liesel’s story is one that is being replicated by Miss Representation advocates at universities and schools across the country.

You can organize your own event today! If you’re at an educational institution like Liesel, contact kristin@rocofilms and visit this page for more information. If you’re hoping to hold a broader community event, just fill out this form to get started!

Two weeks ago, at the White House Correspondents Dinner in Washington, D.C. my husband and I sat in a room with the some of the most powerful political and media minds in our country – including the President of the United States of America.

Yet afterwards, to my surprise, I was sent email after email from friends appalled at how often the cameras and commentators focused on celebrities like Kim Kardashian instead of the many other successful men and women in the room.

Coupled with the recent news that the Kardashian family’s reality TV show has been renewed for another three years, I am especially worried about the message the media is sending my daughter, my son and their generation. Who are their role models? Why are we rewarding reality TV’s exploitation of women’s bodies? Are looks, for women, more important than their brains or their talents? Is hyper-sexualization and self-objectification now a legitimate path to success in America?

These aren’t rhetorical questions, but part of a real conversation we want to have with you – because each of us plays a role in healing our culture. This Tuesday, at 4 PM PT, we’re calling a Twitter party with hashtag #WhyKardashians to get to the root of America’s increasing fascination with superficiality and the objectification of women in popular media. It’s not an individual attack, but an attempt at sparking a broader conversation around reality television and women.

We’ll discuss, together with experts, what we can do to better value ourselves, change this culture and elevate the way our society treats women and girls everywhere. Join us by following hashtag #WhyKardashians next Tuesday at 4 PM PST and take part in an international action-oriented conversation around the misrepresentation of women in the media!

UPDATED: Check out this summary of the #WhyKardashians Twitter conversation.

A version of this post originally appeared in our Weekly Action Alerts. Sign-up to receive all of our alerts by taking the pledge today!

by Leanne Westrick

Miss Representation addressed the culture of overtly sexualized images of women and their impact on our how we are perceived in the media. A new documentary, Sexy Baby, delves further into the issue, asking: what does it mean to grow up in a hypersexual climate? What does our culture look like with pornography pushing its way from the peripheral into the mainstream?

The exposure of young girls to a hyper-sexual culture is a relevant topic. The documentary rings especially true for parents attempting to navigate raising their children in a climate where the female body is treated as currency. Daughters are taking their cues on how to act from a “pornified” culture and sons are learning how to treat women from the same script. The media’s efforts to push harder in an effort to be noticed are pushing their way straight into our homes. This is a simple fact of our new world.

The digital age has been upon us for quite a while; Sexy Baby takes note of the fact and explores what it means to be a part of a generation that has grown up with pornography at their fingertips. Several books have been published in recent years that express concern over what this kind of reality means for our culture as a whole. The trailer highlights this with its attention to the 12 year-old-subject of the film.

It must be remembered that pornography isn’t new – but the ways in which we access it are. Pornography, and a culture that increasingly imitates it, have repercussions beyond just the sexual aspect. Studies have found that “kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender — boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond.” The kids in question are growing up and wondering what social scripts should be followed. Young adults naturally become curious about sex and their particular relationship to it with the onset of puberty. Put this curiosity into the context of a culture that simultaneously applauds the risqué and condemns the same behavior in our youth. The younger generation finds itself at a pretty confusing crossroads. Everything in the media is saying to push farther and risk more. The truth is that sex is a premium in the media driven world that most of us grow up in.

The generations that are growing up (and that have grown up) in this climate can’t simply be seen as victims. These kids know far more about what is available to them through the internet than their parents can imagine. Even if they aren’t aware or actively seeking out pornography or more sexually aggressive content, it has trickled its way into mainstream advertising, movies, television, and magazines. Kim Kardashian was rewarded with celebrity status after her sextape was leaked, S&M subcultures are making their way onto bestseller lists, and leaked nude photographs barely raise an eyebrow on the scandal-meter.

This isn’t a call to stifle or police emerging sexuality, but rather to call attention to the connection between sexual development and the underlying messages about women that exist in our culture. Young girls are witnessing the value that is placed on women for their youth and physical appeal. The climate we exist in perpetuates “myths of women’s unconditional sexual availability and object status, and thus undermine women’s rights to sexual autonomy, physical safety and economic and social equality.”

In short, the images that we’re selling young girls are selling them short.

Leanne Westrick is an intern with MissRepresentation.org and a student at the University of San Francisco

The first time I remember someone discussing my appearance was in my early childhood. The discussion was centered around my ethnicity, and more specifically around “what I was.” This was not a traumatic experience, but it was confusing as I had not labeled myself in that way and had not actually seen that as a defining aspect of my self. Then I remember, in fifth grade, being teased about what I was wearing. And it escalated from there, both in a positive and negative way. I also participated in this labeling. I saw people who wore a lot of makeup and objectified them as shallow or frivolous. Why? I think it was pretty simple in a way: it made me feel better, more secure, less alone. At least for that moment.

When I think about how women are represented in the media, I feel very much like I did when I was a kid. But as an adult woman, I can think critically and I can choose how to take in these images or stories. I can reflect on why they affect me. I can choose to purchase only certain publications or watch certain shows. I can choose to create stories that I feel reflect my experience as a female more truly. Through my actions I can affect change. And if I am consuming product or media that is in contrast to what I say is important to me, I can seek to discover what compels me to do this and change it.

Women in the public eye are very important in this current system. Many young women and girls are very influenced by those in magazines, videos, movies or on TV. As one of those women, albeit on a much smaller scale than many, I see certain responsibilities. What kind of a world do I want to live in? What do I want to aspire toward? What would the world be like if girls grew up to be powerful, holistic women? How do the roles I choose, the photo shoots I participate in, and the stories I produce affect others? What kind of world am I promoting with these choices?

As for those of you that are in elementary, middle and high school who are being teased or bullied, it is hard to say anything to make it better. All I know are these things: your worth is not determined by your appearance, and your worth is not determined by what others think of you. I know those are easy words to say, and hard to feel. I am still working on this myself. But I am here working on it alongside you.

As Ashley Judd stated in her recent article, we must “leverage strong female-to-female alliances.” Let’s work together to change how we experience ourselves and our femaleness.

Check out Kristin’s GirlsByDesign site made especially for teen girls.

What are you doing in April to spread the truth about sexual assault? Let us know in the comments below or create your own video response to Melissa (@rev_melissa) and post it on YouTube!

Get all of our weekly action alerts by Taking the Pledge today!

Last month’s blow-up surrounding a Geeklist video ad, and the subsequent Twitter battle, got a lot of people talking. What does it mean when we say that tech culture is male-dominated? What does it say about the climate of the tech industry and women’s place in it?

The Geeklist controversy got ugly quickly and it left many feeling more than a little confused. People were clearly uncomfortable with the way that the co-founders Chritian Sanz and Reuban Katz engaged with their critic Shanley Kane on Twitter, but it was almost hard to pin-down why. While the co-founders of Geeklist didn’t call out her gender, the way that they responded to her criticism of their ad exploded commentary all over the internet.

There’s been a lot of debate as to whether the exchange can be read as sexist. Perhaps the co-founders of Geeklist were just being too thin skinned, but the original point that Kane was raising had to do with the objectification of women in the tech world. The way her critique was responded to and the way that she was treated is a whole debate in and of itself. Taking offense to her “tone” started a slippery slope in which they were more personally offended than they were professionally responsible. Bringing her employment into the matter elevated the incident to another level of thinly veiled threats. Their subsequent apology didn’t seem to go down very well either.

Perhaps more interesting than the Geeklist controversy, are the comments that followed. The majority of the comments, much like the Kats and Sanz, seemed more concerned with Kane’s tone than what she was attempting to point out in the first place. The original concern, regardless of how it was framed, was directed at the perceived objectification that the ad portrayed. Her initial critique got a lot less attention than the offense that the co-founders took about being called out in a public way and the drama that ensued.

How did this all happen in the first place?

To be frank, the tech industry is still mostly seen as a boy’s club. Women are present but they make up a smaller percentage and they certainly don’t get as much attention as their male-counterparts. All of these factors combine to creating a highly male-orientated climate that spawned the controversy in the first place.

This kind of advertising isn’t new where the tech industry is concerned. Men are, quite frankly, all over the start-up scene. In the last week there has been a lot of discussion around women encountering the heavily male-dominated sphere of the tech. The fact that women represent a smaller percentage of tech and engineering fields has long plagued the sciences. It isn’t a matter of women being any less competent or capable, it’s the fact that our culture tends to gender the sciences as male fields.

The American Association of University Women (AAUW) has a whole presentation on their website called “Why So Few?” which addresses the lack of women that exist in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM fields). The answer isn’t that men are better suited for these fields; it’s that they’ve been socialized to excel. Gender bias exists, just not in the blatant Mad Men ways (which in all honesty is a little easier to cry out against). Rather, it’s a subtle assumption that pervades our culture, in which men are more capable of excelling in these fields.

Here’s a graph that AAUW provides in their presentation to give some perspective on just what certain fields look like for women:

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009, Women in the labor force: A databook (Report 1018) (Washington, DC), Table 11.

What is occurring in reality is that girls are less exposed to the sciences, especially computer sciences and engineering fields, early on. This translates into less women in the largely science-based tech industry. Fewer girls are exposed or encouraged in these fields and as such, there are less of them in the workforce, creating the heavily male-dominated climate that we have today.

If girls are told that they don’t statistically excel in these fields, they internalize it and don’t expect to understand it. The stereotypes adversely affect their performance. We’re creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Maybe this is why the majority of the back-and-forth debates concerning the Geeklist controversy miss the point as much as Katz and Sanz did. It shouldn’t have been about her tone and it most certainly shouldn’t have involved her employment. It should have been a discussion around objectification in relation to their company. The resulting initiative that Geeklist is assembling is an attempt to soothe over their PR nightmare, but it addresses a very real issue. Something about the tech industry has to change. Motivating more women into the field to begin with is certainly a good start.

Leanne is an intern with MissRepresentation.org and a student at the University of San Francisco.

guest blog by Anea Bogue

Most people are stunned to learn that according to recent studies, the self-esteem of the average girl in our society peaks at the age of 9 and then plummets. What’s worse is that many (and I dare say most) women will tell you that their 9 year-old self-esteem never fully returns and that they have spent the better portion of their adult life trying to find and reclaim the confidence and self-value they knew as little girls.

Why do we all need to know about what effectively constitutes a crisis of self-esteem among girls and women in our culture? Because multiple studies have drawn strong correlations between low self-esteem and eating disorders, drug abuse, depression, risky sexual behavior, low academic performance and general performance levels that are well beneath one’s potential.

For those of us who have daughters, it’s a no brainer that this is cause for great concern. For those who don’t, you might want to get concerned because the consequences of this reality can be dire and costly, on many levels, particularly given the reality that 51% of our population is female. Indeed, at a time when this country needs all hands on deck, we should be figuring out how to support girls and women in reaching their highest potential so that as a team we are as strong as possible.

Unfortunately, in the midst of Women’s History Month, a harsh reality is being pulled into sharp focus: in spite of more than 100 years of dedicated efforts to create a collective awareness of the innate, sacred value of women, everywhere a girl turns she hears messages to the contrary. In fact, over the last few weeks alone, girls and women have gotten the message loud and clear about how little valued and respected they actually are.

Here are just a few of many recent messages that will continue to perpetuate the devastating lack of value collectively held for girls and women and that which they hold for themselves. My hope is that these will inspire you to become fierce and determined to challenge and actively counter these messages. As women, we must embody our power and speak up. If you are a man who truly loves, values and respects women, you must speak up. It is the only way to ensure that our daughters will know their extraordinary value, in spite of all the messages they hear to the contrary and it is the only way we will be the strong team we need to be.

1. Men in positions of authority have ultimate authority over women’s bodies. Although this is by no means a new message, the reality of a predominantly male congress and an all-male panel of religious leaders and professors making decisions and testifying at a hearing on women’s access to contraception (and abortion in other legislative discussions) makes it one of the most blatant examples we’ve seen in a while. The message, as Elijah Cummings appropriately criticized, is that ‘the views of millions of women across this country are meaningless, or worthless, or irrelevant to this debate.’ It is little wonder that so many girls defer to what boys want or need in a variety of contexts rather than being their own authority on everything from the smallest daily decisions to those directly related to their bodies and well-being.

2. Speaking up on behalf of yourself and other women will lead to shame and ridicule of the highest order. It should have been a no brainer and a powerful example of democratic citizenship when Sandra Fluke attempted to speak at the House oversight committee hearing on the requirement that health plans provide contraception coverage with no co-pay. Instead, she was initially denied the right to speak before an all-male panel and when she was allowed speak at a subsequent hearing, she was punished with being called a ‘slut’ and ‘prostitute’ over the course of three days of attacks by Rush Limbaugh. This kind of behavior is not new and is intended to shame women so harshly that other women will take note and choose to remain silent rather than protect themselves, thus maintaining the status quo. It may help a little to make your daughter aware of the multiple sponsors who have pulled their advertising dollars from Limbaugh’s show in protest. However, you will still have to address the fact that three of the presidential candidates who were asked for their thoughts on Limbaugh’s behavior all but blatantly condoned it and the Missouri House Speaker has declared he will move forward with plans to erect a bronze bust of Rush at the State Capitol.

3. It is shameful for women to be sexual creatures. On the ignorant assumption that Fluke’s testimony about access to oral contraceptives had anything to do with frequency of sex or number of partners, Limbaugh took it upon himself to make a statement, via Fluke, about women who do have sex. He called Fluke ‘a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman…[who] wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior.’ And so our daughters hear that a woman who desires sex and chooses to have sex (part of being a healthy human being, by the way) is baseless and immoral. Please see Deborah Tolman’s Dilemmas of Desire for an excellent analysis of and assistance with this one.

4. Women who serve in the military should expect to get raped. Somehow it seems even more egregious when messages like this come from women. Fox News contributor, Liz Trotta’s ‘what do they expect?’ response to the question of the increase in rapes in the military sends a strong message to girls and women about rape being acceptable in certain contexts. In fact, it perpetuates the notion that at least some of the time, rape is a woman’s fault and that women are not valuable enough to make rape abominable under any circumstances. On top of the hit to her sense of value within her culture, a message like this one will deter girls and women from reporting rapes when they do happen and with this mentality, they most certainly will.

5. Religious freedom trumps a woman’s right to personal freedom. The recent diligent efforts to pass legislation that would reinstate restrictions on the rights of a woman to make decisions related to her own body and well-being send a profound message – that the decision-making abilities of women cannot be trusted nor respected and thus, they are not worthy, as full citizens, of the right to personal freedom. These efforts have been driven predominantly by the religious beliefs of some. Fortunately, the law of the land provides for individual freedoms (liberty), including the freedom of religion. The two can co-exist as long as everyone is committed to making individual choices that do not restrict or infringe upon the freedoms of another. One’s religious beliefs are one’s own. They are not to be imposed on others. Period. It’s just not that complicated. As Thomas Paine, one of this nation’s Founding Fathers said, ‘Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself – that is my doctrine.’

6. The word ‘vagina’ is too shameful to be spoken – even by those passing legislation that relates to VAGINAS. In something that resembled casual banter between guys in a locker room, Virginia Politician Dave Albo shared his experience of how his plan to seduce his wife was thwarted by a television spot discussing the proposed bill that would have required women who want an abortion to first be subjected to a transvaginal ultrasound. However, although a supporter of the legislation, Mr. Albo couldn’t once bring himself to say the word ‘vagina.’ There are many aspects of this example that are problematic, including the fact that this man is co-creating legislation related to something he is so disconnected from he can’t even name it. But the most blatant and damaging message is the message that is sent when something is so shameful that it is unmentionable. Having a vagina is one of many basic defining characteristics of being female. It also happens to be the entrance to the world for most human beings and thus deserves absolute reverence, not shame. Until this, and not Mr. Albo’s message lives solidly in the minds of our female population, our self-value will continue to suffer.

7. Men beating the crap out of their female partners just isn’t that big a deal. As if all the messages in the political realm weren’t enough, equally damaging commentary on the value of women was presented via the music world when Chris Brown was featured with not one, but two performances at the Grammy’s, a Grammy win and days later his latest musical collaboration with Rihanna was released. In case a re-cap is needed, in February 2009, on the way home from a pre-Grammy party, Chris Brown brutally beat his girlfriend Rihanna and was subsequently charged with felony assault. To be clear, this beating included excessive punching to her head and body, biting and threats to kill her. The good news is that some actually expressed their disdain for the message it was sending to have Brown featured at the awards show. The bad news is that most people clearly have no issue at all with what he did. They’ve continued to listen to and purchase his music and even the victim herself has invited him back into her life both personally and professionally. The most obvious statement about how trivial it is perceived to be for men to beat women and how little young women value themselves? Multiple tweets they sent from all over the country in support of Brown. This one from Sarahleighlove says it all: ‘I’d let Chris Brown beat me up anytime #womanbeater’.

8. Menstruation is evil. Although it breaks my heart to include ABC’s Modern Family as a perpetrator of negative messages about girls and women, I have to. A recent episode made my stomach sink when Phil Dunphy referred to his wife and two daughters, who were experiencing the magic of entrainment and thus all menstruating at the same time, as ‘Satan’s Trifecta.’ REALLY?! This trailblazing, courageous show driven by apparently conscious writers is going to perpetuate the myth of ‘the curse’? The sooner we stop communicating to girls and women that menstruation, the powerful cycle that is uniquely female (and by the way, allows for the continuation of our species), deems them evil, crazy and fear-inspiring, the sooner they will begin to value themselves as extraordinary beings who are worthy of respect and I dare say reverence.

9. Women are not to be trusted. While we’re on the topic of menstruation, I have to include the disturbing ‘gem’ that is still ringing in my head, courtesy of TNT’s seemingly real cop drama, Southland. Keep in mind that I consistently tell the girls and women I work with that the ability to bleed for 7 days and not die is part of what makes them magical, powerful creatures and is that which led many ancient cultures to revere women as the closest thing to the creator. So…you can imagine my dismay when I witnessed a scene in Southland with a group of cops sitting around the lunch table talking about women and one of them says, ‘Never trust anything that bleeds for a week and doesn’t die.’ With statements like this one swirling in their heads, girls and women will continue to internalize shame, self-disgust and a lack of trust for themselves. Disempowered people do not function at their highest potential. Period. Let’s stop the madness and collectively work to become a stronger team.

Anea Bogue, M.A.: Anea Bogue is an acclaimed self-esteem expert who specializes in working with women of all ages, including adolescent girls. The mother of two daughters, Anea is absolutely passionate about the empowerment of girls and women and has dedicated more than half her life to this cause. She brings 20 years of experience to her work as an educator, certified life coach, consultant, writer and speaker. Anea is also the creator and director of REALgirl™, a revolutionary empowerment program for girls ages 9 – 16, yielding incredible transformations in girls. Whether through her upcoming television special, featured articles or speaking engagements, or as a highly-credentialed coach, confidant and consultant, Anea is committed to helping each girl and woman discover her authentic self and reach her highest potential. To learn more about Anea please visit www.AneaBogue.com.

March 27, 2012

Comcast Inc.

To Whom It May Concern:

On behalf of parents who use Comcast cable TV services, I am writing to implore you to please provide parental control options over the Preview Box that appears in the upper right-hand corner of the TV screen when selecting from “On Demand” options.

I am a mother of three young girls. We are grateful for the plethora of educational and appropriate programming available through Comcast’s On Demand services. However, I am disturbed daily by the often violent and sexually provocative content that my children are subjected to as I navigate my way through Sprout On Demand (and the like) in order to select age-appropriate shows like “Barney”, “Caillou”, and “Dinosaur Train.” It has come to the point where my two year-old says, “That’s terrible!” every time the preview box appears. She is echoing what she has heard me say every time I am frantically trying to select a program for her—doing so as quickly as possible so that she does not have to watch the inappropriate scenes appearing before her while I choose her preschool-targeted show.

Providing the option to filter content is common practice now across all media. I urge you to offer your paying customers the ability to control what previews are forced into their homes via the Preview Box. Ideally, paying customers could opt out of seeing the Preview box all together. At a minimum, we should be able to request only G-rated content. Frankly, catering your preview content to target children could boost On Demand usage in homes with young children since the kids would likely see other shows/movies that interest them—and their parents would more likely approve of them.

Within my local mother’s group there has been great discussion and deep concern over this issue of Comcast’s Preview Box. It is unfair and wrong for our young generation to be exposed to the poison seen in much of popular media today. Concerned parents like myself hope that the large media companies like Comcast will be more sensitive to issues such as these. Or, at least, provide concerned parents the options to control and decide for themselves what sort of media is appropriate for their family.

Many thanks for your consideration of this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Lesley —–

UPDATE: Reader Laura A. has started a petition to call out Comcast, sign it here.

I am originally from Sweden but have now lived in the United States for almost four years. I originally came here to do research in economics and I just love this country! The people, the energetic society, and the countless opportunities all contribute to my fabulous experience here.

However, I would lie if I said that everything is great here. Because it isn’t. One thing that certainly isn’t so great is that it is much tougher to be a woman in the US than to be a man. Of course, this is true in most parts of the world, to some degree. But when I compare what I see in the United States with the situation in Sweden and in other Scandinavian countries, I realize that it is much harder to be a woman here than it would have to be.

I came to the United States in 2008, in the midst of the presidential election campaign. I was surprised at how little attention the candidates paid to issues regarding gender equality. I therefore decided to look into the American system and see what the status for women’s rights was like – maybe the reason that the presidential candidates didn’t talk about these issues was that all was already fixed?

It turned out to be the contrary. I was stunned when I learned that the US is one of only four countries in the world without a law mandating paid time off for new parents (the other three countries are Liberia, Papua New Guinea and Swaziland). I was equally shocked when I realized how much the parents (who cannot be at home with their babies because of the lack of parental leave) have to pay for childcare. Compared to Scandinavia, the pre-school tuition is about 12 times higher in the US.

A classic Swedish ad for parental leave from the 70´s. Photo: Reio Rüster

These things did upset me as a women – but also as an economist. I am the first to admit that the United States has been doing many things right over the last decades in order to promote entrepreneurship, economic growth and prosperity. But I am at loss when it comes to women’s issues: why hasn’t the United States paved the way for women? In what way is it economically sound to make it hard, or even impossible, to combine family life and a successful, well-paying career? Better conditions for working mothers and fathers would not only benefit the parents and their children – but the whole economy.

Now it is 2012 and there is again a presidential election underway. This time I am less surprised when I see what a non-issue women’s rights in general, and parental leave and subsidized childcare in particular, is in the United States. But I cannot for my life understand why all you strong, smart and accomplished women who make up 51 percent of this country accept this. Why don’t you demand more?

When I discuss these issues with people here in the United States I am sometimes told that things are just “different” here. That parental leave and subsidized childcare may be a good idea in Scandinavia and Europe but that it just “wouldn’t work” here. However, no one has so far been able to explain to me why this is, and in what way the US is so different. After all, women give birth to children here in the same way as in the rest of the world, and as everywhere else these children have to be taken care of in one way of another. The Scandinavian countries all place in the top when it comes to women’s issues and they all have very generous conditions for working parents. At the same time, these very same countries are top performers in economic terms. In what way is the US so different that it wouldn’t be worth trying this out?

Johanna Mollerstrom is Ph.D. Candidate in Economics at Harvard University. She is a former Deputy Member of the Swedish Parliament and the author of “Freedom and Feminism” and “Mine Yours or No one’s“

If womanhood looked the way advertising portrayed it, it would go a little something like this:

• Being 20 through 35
• Being anywhere from a size 00 to a size 6 (keep in mind the definition of a plus-size model starts at size 6)
• Being defaultly white and if not white, than qualifying as an exotic sort of pretty
• Being attached to, or looking for, a man (sorry lesbians)

In this definition of womanhood, a good deal of the female population does not meet the requirements.

It is almost impossible to escape the fact that we, as women, are consumers in a culture dominated by our media. Advertisers are locked in a struggle to appeal to women as an economically independent powerhouse. However, the ways in which go about it leaves many wondering how well equipped advertisers are at appealing to a diversity of women, when they are holding an impossible number of requirements as the standard. In particular, there has been a lot of debate as to what significance the bared female midriff holds. Academic journal Feminism & Psychology has featured two articles, one from 2008 and another from 2011 specifically discussing just what the image of the midriff is supposed to mean to women.

Apparently, advertisers have intended for the bare midriff to be synonymous with empowerment. A woman with a bare midriff knows her sexual appeal and owns it. She is portrayed as a dominant master (mistress?) of her fate. Perhaps most importantly in this interpretation, this woman reads as desiring as much as she is desirable. She is not intended to just be an object of the male gaze. She is active in her own desire. This vein of logic is similar to viewing Lara Croft of Tomb Raider as a feminist icon. Ideally, if she desires something or someone, it is hers for the taking.

This is the image that women are being sold. Why? Because a woman accessing power through her own sexual agency is somehow less threatening than if she pursued power through other means. The part of the “midriff model” that tips its hand as exploitation rather than empowerment is the complete lack of other options in our media. While there is a lot to be said for the power that comes with understanding and owning sexuality, it cannot be our only understanding of female power. And yes, male bodies are often hyper-masculinized and therefore idealized, but a man can still rise to a position of respect without regard to his body.

Our media is far more receptive to a man’s access to power through his intelligence or his financial success. Three of the four provided requirements that legitimize womanhood regard the female body. Can the same be said for men? The media’s definition of a man, while nowhere near the spectrum that exists in real life, is still far broader than the media’s definition of a woman.

Women are aware of the disconnect. They aren’t just passively consuming the images that are being provided. In a 2011 study, women were asked to look at a “midriff model” ad and respond. While they agreed that she seemed powerful, her power had less to do with her and more to do with how she appealed to a male-dominated power structure. The model wasn’t dressed for herself as much as she was dressed for validation. In the end it’s men – who have been conditioned by an impossible image of beauty – holding the power of validation.

So the sexually dominant, independent, midriff-bearing model isn’t necessarily the beacon that women can follow into equality. In fact, rather than feeling as though they were empowered by such images, women reported feeling distanced from the woman used in the ad.

As much as advertisers claim that they are only using what works – what women “want” to see – what they are really using is what men have been told to want. Advertisers aren’t selling what women want to be, they’re selling what they think women should want to be. Arguably the goal of advertising is to sell, and the current model is indeed pretty successful, but it leaves women – especially young girls – striving and failing to reach an impossible goal. And the price of this continues to take its toll on our culture.

Sources:
Gill, Rosalind. “Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring Female Sexual Agency in Contemporary Advertising.” Feminism & Psychology 18 (2008):35-50.

Malson, Helen and Halliwell, Tichner, Rúdólfsdottir. “Post-feminist Advertising Laid Bare: Young Women’s Talk About the Sexually Agentic Women Woman of ‘Midriff.’ Advertising.” Feminism & Psychology 21 (2011): 74-99.

Leanne is an intern with MissRepresentation.org and a student at the University of San Francisco.