At Alternet, Tana Ganeva reports on Gigi Durham's new book, concerning the corporate media's sexual objectification of girls. Durham characterizes the overall problem as the "The Lolita Effect," which is the media's sexual objectification of young girls. Here's an excerpt: In 2006, the retail chain Tesco launched the Peekaboo Pole…
We have a nice brewery run by the Schlafly family in our town. A town already renowned for beer. But a relative by marriage is more famous than the beer because of her stance against women's rights and against progress through knowledge. Yes, Phyllis Schlafly is in the local news…
The "American Life League" is putting out this silly garbage. They are trying to make it illegal for anyone to purchase birth control pills. This would put us back to the 1965 case of Griswold v Connecticut. Consider some of the this wacko group's talking points: Q: Is it OK…
Jon Stewart takes a close look at some of the basic tenets of "Abstinence Only Sex Education" and finds this approach deficient.
What are we to make of this latest flap over a teen icon revealing herself as a potentially sexual being?
I was only dimly aware of Hannah Montana till the Vanity Fair scandal (if scandal is the word). Now it seems I can’t get away from her, which is, of course, the goal of marketing—to make something inescapable for the general public. There are elements of the incident that require less froth and more examination. The accusations of “whose idea was it in the first place and how was Mylie Cyrus manipulated?” are loud and in many ways naive.
First off, Hannah Montana is a Disney product. I don’t think we’re yet quite comfortable with the idea of a person—even a fictional one—being a “product” like a box of soap or a car, but this is indeed what the character is. Designed, engineered, and road tested, Hannah Montana is a money-making machine for Disney and the various participants in the show and franchise.
Pause for a moment and consider: Disney.
It is difficult to imagine a marketing machine that is better at what it does. Which means the chances of something being done with one of its properties that it (a) doesn’t know about and (b) doesn’t approve are next to zero. Especially when you add to that:
Vanity Fair.
Big magazine, famous magazine, a magazine people in show business lust to get into. In the vernacular, Lot A Bank there.
So we’re talking about two major corporate entities, …
