|
Sexy or sexist? A conversation
By Liz Allen
Asheville, North Carolina, Mar. 9, (AGR)—Filmmaker and
front man for the 11-piece funk, soul, rock cover band the Sexpatriates,
Chris Bower, also known as Dirty Martini (DM) has insisted on being
referred to as such henceforth in this interview. The objective of the
interview was to discuss some often uncomfortable and ambiguous subjects
pertaining to sexuality and oppression.
AGR: Tell me about the concept behind the Sexpatriates.
DM: To induce mass hysteria and total fun by basically being hysterical
ourselves and delivering a very entertaining show.
AGR: Why do you think a Sexpatriates show appeals to people?
DM: We have no inhibitions when we play. We give it our all and when
I say we give it our all, we give it our all.
AGR: You look at the flyers and it’s seems like it’s
about fun because it’s about sex and sexy ladies.
DM: It is fun because it is sort of sexual in nature, because sex is
fun, but I don’t think it’s really about the ladies. [The]
flyers are more like classic flyer art. Music is an audible aesthetic
and most bands find imagery that manifests the spirit of their music.
For us, the two main things backing us up is being sexy and feeling
sexy. That’s the reason we chose the art we do. And I love Vargas
[painter, Alberto Vargas]. This is classic 1941 Vargas. It’s fun,
light and sexy.
AGR: How do you respond to the idea that it’s not sexy;
it’s not realistic that women look like this?
DM: Obviously yes, this is a fantastical work. This particular
piece, it’s a sculpted body, but look at her -- she’s bashful
and she’s sort of innocent. But it’s just sexy, because I
personally feel that it’s sexy. I’m not trying to tell the
world what to believe in.
AGR: You’re locally famous, being on the cover of the
Mountain Xpress, interviewed at the thong contest – how do you
respond to women feeling like [promoting this image is] oppressive —
it’s using imagery of women for personal gain.
DM: Yeah, well really it’s not for personal gain; it’s
really for expressing a musical aesthetic. I’m not a chiseled man.
You take beefcake painting from the same time period, and that’s
obviously not what the majority of people look like.
It has no effect on me one way or the other because I know who I am,
and I like my body; and it might not be perfect, but it’s mine
and I have to love it. I don’t think sexual energy is oppressive.
It’s really the viewer who makes it oppressive or not.
AGR: Do you think that women would have the same type
of experience if they didn’t look like that (woman on the flyer)?
DM: Totally. I’ve been in a room with a 40-year-old overweight
woman in her underwear, dancing, getting down, feeling sexy, and it
was one of the greatest things, because no matter you look like, when
you’re feeling sexy, you are sexy.
That’s one of the greatest pleasures in life is to feel confident
in yourself and love yourself enough to expose yourself to people intimately
in a fun, clean, innocent way. I’m not talking about flashing people,
I’m just talking about having a good time, dancing and being free
enough to say: ‘Hey, here I am. I’m feeling sexy. Dig on it
baby.’ You know what I mean, totally empowering.
I think our society is way too puritanical in a lot of ways. As much
sexual imagery that we do get and that is used in commercial medium,
so many people just feel really uptight about their own body, and I
think that’s wrong.
AGR: Why do you think that happens?
DM: Everyone has personal experiences they go through, that make
them perceive themselves in a bad light.
The human race would be totally enlightened if we could figure out why,
how these things effect us. Who knows? These are very, very deep questions.
AGR: In my personal experience, observation, going to college
and so on, I think a lot of reason women feel oppressed and not comfortable
with themselves, is seeing themselves presented in mass media as sex
objects, as needing to be skinny or blonde or innocent, and that’s
the judge of their self worth. I feel like seeing what the Sexpatriates
promote could play a part in that same system. How would you react?
DM: I would personally react to that. For the most part, people
come to our shows and have a great time because these are all issues
I’ve dealt with myself. I think we all see images that we have
to look up to.
I think it’s a part of your personal emotional evolution that you
get to a point where you just have to decide to love yourself and I
don’t think a sensual piece of art is really the issue. I think
it’s really more or less a person’s emotional trials in their
life.
I’ve seen people at our shows getting down and having a total blast,
that usually on a day to day basis seem very uptight about themselves.
The image – this is a neutral object right here, but the intent
from the band is not to be oppressive. It’s 180 degrees away from
that. It’s meant to feel totally free with expressing your sexuality
and yourself.
AGR: Why do you have the Dirty Martini alter-ego instead of
just being Chris Bower?
DM: I think alter-egos and personas are very important. In the
human experience if you look at all kinds of cultures, especially ancient
cultures, there’s always in rituals where they’re trying to
evoke either a mass hysteria, sometimes an out-of-body experiences,
various kinds of experiences for people to really sort of transcend
to another level, there’s always a change in persona.
AGR: So do you consider your motives political at all?
DM: We’re all pretty politically literate, but that’s
not the bottom line of our band. We do politically-charged songs, because
we live in a time where people need to get politically charged, I mean
this is fucking scary.
AGR: In your film “Brother Cellophane” one of the
main characters dealt with bulimia — how do feel about how a lot
of women deal with bulimia to achieve this promoted notion of skinny
women?
DM: I think it’s a tragedy, again how imagery affects people
so deep, it’s really hard for me to try and dissect that in an
interview. I also think that those problems probably have other sources
as well within our culture and within the family.
AGR: But you don’t feel like promoting skinny women
as sexy contributes to it?
DM: Well, I think that first and foremost, the images that we
use are neutral images, and I would hope that it would not contribute.
With these kinds of questions, we all have blood on our hands in some
way. The only thing you can go by is my intent in my heart, and I am
not using this imagery in a hurtful way. I’m using it in an expressive
way.
AGR: To me going to the Hanger to do an interview at thong
night is something fucked up that’s kitschy, just imagining the
situation of the women that participate at thong night.
DM: I think it’s a personal thing to say it’s fucked
up because it’s judgmental towards those folks and as a person
who finds great pleasure and finds it powerful to get out in front of
people to strip down to my underwear — to have that thought of
as bad is upsetting.
There’s no difference between me and the women at the thong night,
as long as they are empowered by the actions that they are doing. It
can also be a degrading experience. That’s the responsibility of
the dancer and the person who is participating in such an activity.
AGR: Do you feel there are any environmental (factors contributing
to women) feeling like to be validated as a person, they need to have
their sexuality approved by men?
DM: I don’t think so. I can only go by my experience. I
do it to have fun and yes it definitely helps when people don’t
boo you off stage.
AGR: Or try and rape you afterwards. That’s really not
a concern for men, having someone follow them home.
DM: That crosses the line into criminal behavior. That is not
what I’m talking about. I’m not trying to deny that exists,
but I have no sympathy for any such individuals.
AGR: Do you feel like the mindset of judging women on their sexuality
can contribute?
DM: In a more natural, tribal truly human setting, people tend
to go around naked and openly exposed. In our culture there is an oppressive
spirit and guilt around sexuality that can effect the brain so that
people become fanatical about it, and basically just explode by committing
a sex crime. Whoever dances has free will and chooses to dance. In the
end, they are responsible for what happens.
AGR: For if they’re followed home at night?
DM: No. That’s a huge ethical question, almost too complex
for me to deal with. If I get in a car and get into a wreck that is
not my fault — I did totally fuck myself up driving the car. It’s
one of those mysteries of humanity that I don’t think we’ll
ever really be able to tack down 100 percent.
Are we going to censor imagery? For me it’s really a freedom of
expression thing.
In defense of weeds -- the edible kind
By Marcela Valente
Buenos Aires, Argentina, Feb. 24 (IPS) — Imagine an incredible
variety of nutritional plants growing abundantly everywhere without
the need to even plant, water, or fertilize them, while people go hungry
nearby.
The scenario might sound unlikely to some, but it is real — there
are thousands of species of edible wild plants, although few are aware
of that fact.
A team of researchers in southern Argentina has been working for years
on getting the word out about the great abundance of edible plants,
but the idea is just now catching on, as chefs in exclusive restaurants
begin to incorporate in their cuisine wild-growing plants normally looked
down on as “weeds.”
In the Ecotono laboratory at the National University of Comahue, which
is located in Bariloche, an Andean ski resort town in the southern Argentine
province of Río Negro, scientists have been classifying edible
wild plants and providing instructions on how they can be cooked and
prepared.
The head of the project, biologist Eduardo Rapoport, who has a doctorate
in natural sciences, said in an interview with IPS that none of the
campaigns aimed at raising awareness on the easy availability of edible
plants was as effective as the one in which he was shown on a local
TV program preparing a meal with wild-growing plants.
“After I appeared on TV, I started getting calls to give talks
and conferences in poor neighborhoods and at meetings of chefs. Some
of the chefs, who work in exclusive restaurants in Bariloche, began
to include wild plants in their recipes,’’ he said.
Experts in the culinary arts now offer novelties based on wild plants,
for demanding palates, like lamb flavored with creeping woodsorrel (Oxalis
corniculata) or lasagna stuffed with yellow dock root (Rumex crispus)
— a plant that is known locally as “cow’s tongue’’
and is so common in the countryside and grassy areas that few even notice
its presence.
The campaign turned out to be more effective than more formal attempts
to explain the nutritional value of wild plants. “We have knocked
on the doors of 130 national and international institutions, only six
of which have expressed an interest,’’ complained the biologist,
who at least has developed new cooking skills as part of the project.
International registers identify more than 15,000 species of edible
plants, and experts believe there could actually be as many as 50,000
wild-growing edible species.
But the best-stocked supermarket in any given country will offer a maximum
of 150 kinds of cultivated vegetables and fruits, and perhaps a handful
of herbs and other wild-growing plants.
Biologists define a weed as any plant that is growing in a place where
a human wants a different kind of plant or no plants at all, or a plant
out of place not intentionally sown.
Webster’s dictionary provides a less neutral definition: a weed
is “a plant of no value and usually of rank growth; one that tends
to overgrow or choke out more desirable plants.’’
Many wild-growing plants are dried and sold for use in herbal teas or
as spices, but they are rarely offered fresh in the produce department.
In Argentina at least, when they are found at a greengrocer’s,
they are often marketed as exotic products “discovered’’
by some modern-day chef.
But today’s “weeds’’ were providing sustenance to
hunter-gatherers in the remote past, before agriculture even existed.
The research project led by Rapoport in Bariloche has found that in
that part of the southern region of Patagonia alone, there are 200 native
species of edible wild-growing plants and around 100 edible exotic plants,
many of which are eaten in other countries and are even exported for
use in the food industry.
In one single hectare, it is possible to find an average of 1,300 kgs
of edible wild plants that grow without having to be cultivated, irrigated
or fertilized. And in some rural parts of Argentina, up to 7,000 kgs
per hectare of ‘’weeds’’ fit for human consumption
grow despite the use of powerful herbicides.
White clover (Trifolium repens), plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides),
dandelions (Taraxacum officinale), and creeping woodsorrel (Oxalis corniculata)
are a few of the wild plants that are slowly making their way into the
Argentine diet.
Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) can be used to make green noodles,
and miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata) is delicious in salads.
In most cases of edible wild plants, the entire plant, including the
root, leaves and fruit, can be used.
However, ‘’Edible only means ‘can be eaten’, and
information on nutritional quality is not always available. But what
we do know is that there are wild species that have greater nutritional
value than cultivated plants, with the advantage that they grow on their
own,’’ said Rapoport.
To top it off, “They are tasty and free of cost,’’ he
added.
The dandelion, for example, a yellow-flowered weed that invades lawns,
gardens and fields, is six times richer in nutrients than lettuce.
It has three times more protein, seven times more fat, four times more
carbohydrates, five times more calcium, four times more iron and a much
greater amount of vitamins B1, B2 and C than lettuce, the biologist
explained.
The leaves of wild plants can be used in soups, salads, soufflés,
dressings, sauces, and croquettes; the stems can be breaded and fried;
the seeds can be ground up into flour; and even the roots, thoroughly
washed, can be used with the addition of spices.
“We haven’t invented anything new. There are few new edible
species, even if they are presented as new discoveries,’’
said Rapoport.
Many native growing plants formed part of the diet of the Mapuche Indians
in southern Argentina and Chile, although the tradition of eating them
had been virtually lost.
’”Our motto is simple: let’s salvage what was good about
the Paleolithic period of the Stone Age, when our ancestors were nomads,
because since agriculture emerged in the Neolithic period, we have forgotten
what nature provides for us,’’ said Rapoport.
The procedure for finding out if a plant is edible is simple. “If
we have already registered it in our databank, we cook it and taste
it, always starting out with a small portion,’’ he said. If
it is not on the list, a tiny portion is also tasted, to verify whether
it is toxic or causes indigestion.
“It’s just basic trial and error,’’ Rapoport admitted.
Since the team began its work with weeds over a decade ago, it has published
four illustrated pocket manuals, as well as posters and videos, with
financing from local and foreign academic institutions. The group also
gives chats in schools, soup kitchens, and churches.
Soup kitchens have mushroomed in Buenos Aires and around the country
in the past few years, since a recession that had dragged on for several
years led to all-out economic collapse in late 2001.
Since then, more than 50 percent of the population of 37 million has
slid into poverty, and many Argentines have been forced to turn to soup
kitchens run by community social organizations and churches to survive.
Rapoport also explained that it has been an uphill battle to convince
people to experiment with new tastes. “We have had to fight hard
against habits that are deeply ingrained since childhood, especially
among families who do not venture beyond beef and pasta,’’
staples of the Argentine diet, said the biologist.
Fashionista peels off the mask of the US glamour mafia
By Paul Harris
New York, New York, Mar. 7— They are the sorority of spin
-- the media queens whose perfectly coiffured heads and pencil-thin
bodies dictate the fashion and lifestyles of millions of women. Through
their magazines and TV shows they dictate what American women should
wear, eat, and do in the bedroom.
But now one of them has turned traitor and written a tell-all confession,
sending shockwaves through US media circles.
Myrna Blyth, former editor of Ladies Home Journal, has launched a scathing
attack on women’s magazine editors and the top female broadcasters.
In her book, Spin Sisters, Blyth accuses them of ruining the
lives of women with constant exhortations to be thin, beautiful, career-minded
and still raise a family.
She also says they pursue a “liberal” agenda out of touch
with many women’s beliefs and frequently use scare tactics to keep
women afraid and stressed. The sub-title on her book says it all: “How
the women of the media sell unhappiness and liberalism to the women
of America.”
Blyth aDMits she once practiced all these dirty tricks herself. “I
was a Spin Sister, too,” Blyth said. “I wrote this book for
the women of America to tell the truth about the business I know so
well, about its power and influence, its manipulations.”
Blyth targets the very women she spent her entire career socializing
with as they ruled Manhattan’s media scene. She picks off her main
opponents ruthlessly. Top of the list is Katie Couric, doyenne of US
TV interviews. She says Couric’s trademark “just another working
woman” style is fraudulent. Blyth paints a picture of someone who
makes $16 million a year and spends $500 on a haircut. “Katie loves
to play up the fact that she’s a typical frazzled working mom...
with, I guess, a typical $3 million East Side Manhattan apartment,”
Blyth wrote.
She was equally scathing about TV presenter Rosie O’Donnell: “I
suppose it’s possible to find something phonier than Rosie’s
relentlessly upbeat on-camera person -- Pamela Anderson’s chest
comes to mind -- but it’s not easy.”
Blyth also slams television figures Diane Sawyer and Connie Chung, but
her main attacks are reserved for the editors of America’s leading
magazines. She paints a picture of out-of-touch women leading pampered
lives whose magazines make their readers feel insecure and inadequate.
She picks out former Talk editor Tina Brown and Glenda Bailey, British
editor of Harper’s Bazaar, and also attacks Kate White of Cosmopolitan,
Cindi Leive of Glamour and many others, “Magazines and TV tell
women over and over that they are frazzled and frumpy and that there
are so many things they should be frightened about,” Blyth said.
The counter attack has been swift and brutal. White called the book
“boring” and accused Blyth of just wanting to become a conservative
TV pundit. “This is someone over 60 who wants to create a big enough
stir to get on TV,” White said.
Ellen Levine, editor of Good Housekeeping, said Blyth had not been a
good editor herself. “If she knew how to produce a better magazine
she could have done it,” she said.
Blyth has also been accused of self-loathing and looking back with anger
at a disappointing career. “I thought she would be trying to shine
a light on some of our faults, but she was trying to burn down the whole
category of magazines,” said Leive.
Some believe that Blyth has a point. “She has come out of the closet,
and good for her,” said Robert Kubey, director of the center for
media studies at Rutgers University. Kubey said that women’s magazines
clearly peddled ideals of women’s health, looks and lifestyle that
could be harmful. “There is an obsession with self-improvement.
I opened an issue of Vogue once and if that wasn’t an advertisement
for anorexia then I don’t know what is,” he said.
Women’s magazines in America are famous for a working environment
of women obsessed with their looks and each trying to outdo the other
in fashion. Freelance journalist and beauty specialist Rachel Weingarten
told The Observer that at one job interview for a leading women’s
magazine she was escorted down the stairs by the editor. “She told
me I would never fit the image if I did not lose 20lbs. It was like
being punched in the stomach.”
One reason Blyth’s book has provoked such a strong reaction is
that she has lifted the lid on the dirty tricks magazines and TV stations
use to get celebrity interviews, slant a story or touch up a picture.
She chronicles in exhaustive detail the gifts showered on potential
interview subjects and the promises made to PR executives to secure
front cover pictures of their clients. She tells how the “Access
Police” of PRs and lawyers surround celebrity clients, forcing
magazines to agree to outrageous demands and suck any hint of journalistic
value from their interviews.
“When they get a celebrity to pose for a cover or sit for an interview,
editors and interviewers tend to give them a free ride,” Blyth
said.
Blyth claims that virtually every photo in women’s magazines has
been airbrushed or retouched. Models are made thinner and taller at
the click of a button until their body types would be medically classified
as emaciated. No wonder, Blyth says, that women feel insecure. “Of
course, these models and actresses don’t look like their pictures
either because their pictures are airbrushed to perfection,” she
said.
It seems unlikely that Blyth will be receiving any more of her once
regular invitations to wine and dine with the powers of Manhattan’s
media universe. But she says she has no regrets about coming forward
with her message that American women have never had it so good. She
said they are healthier and happier than ever before - no matter what
their magazines tell them. “In truth, this is a marvelous time
for women... that’s really the biggest, the most important story
about women today,” she said.
Source: Observer (UK)
|
