There is even a Change.org petition against the new Merida, which has gotten over 230,000 supporters. Such a vehement response to the portrayal of a fictional character seems a bit absurd, but the redesign essentially ignores the successes of Brave, and represents a step backward for Disney.

Left: The Original Merida, Right: The New Merida.

In Brave, Merida represents the opposite of the traditional princess. What’s wonderful about her character in the film is that ultimately, she is able to escape from the traditional princess requirements and yet still be a princess.

Instead of just being a beautiful object, Merida uses her political power to enact change, and she is able to maintain her independence, adventurous lifestyle, and carefree appearance.

What’s also unique about Merida is that she seems very human. Unlike most other Disney princesses, she has human flaws and looks very realistic. Merida has an average-shaped body, a flushed and often dirty face, and wildly curly red hair. Children, who are often dirty, mussed, and disobedient, can relate to this.

The movie tells little girls that they can be a princess just the way they are, without having to conform to a traditional idea of femininity.

Ironically, the new Merida is dressed like a traditional princess, with a sparkly, shoulder-baring gown, perfectly curled hair and noticeable makeup.

Merida’s new outfit is almost laughable when compared to a symbolic scene in Brave, in which Merida must literally break free from her constraining fancy dress in order to shoot an arrow.

The new Merida has also lost her bow, a critical aspect of her character that allows her to stand up for herself and “fight for [her] own hand”. Yet with a vapid, vacant expression, the new Merida seems to be perfectly content with representing everything the movie Merida is not.

On one level, it’s encouraging that Disney has officially inducted this unconventional Princess into their lineup. And truly, Merida’s makeover could have been a lot worse (her makeup seems minimal and her dress is fairly practical).

Merida’s makeover was part of a redesign of all the Disney princesses, seen here.

But in restyling Merida, Disney is essentially saying that the movie Merida wasn’t a “real” Disney princess, that she needs makeup and traditional feminine characteristics to have their stamp of approval.

Some say the Change.org petition is an overreaction. One blogger pointed out that the fact that a woman is dressed up and wearing makeup shouldn’t negate her actions and character.

Will little girls look at the new Merida and immediately forget all the positive aspects of the movie Merida? Probably not. But given the immense influence the Disney Corporation has over children’s toys and products, the representation of their characters is significant.

Disney’s Princess Merida will be emblazoned on t-shirts, backpacks, and bedspreads, and thousands of children will buy Princess Merida dolls, which will likely come with a brush instead of a bow if Disney continues in this trajectory.

Merida’s creator, Brenda Chapman, is against the redesign too:

“[Disney has] been handed an opportunity on a silver platter to give their consumers something of more substance and quality — THAT WILL STILL SELL — and they have a total disregard for it in the name of their narrow minded view of what will make money,” she wrote. “I forget that Disney’s goal is to make money without concern for integrity. Silly me.”

A Merida Barbie as part of Target’s “Ultimate Disney Princess” Collection.

Disney has taken notice of the negative response to the new Merida, and they’ve even taken the image off their website and replaced it with the original CG Merida.

Catherine Connors, blogger and editor in chief of Disney Interactive Family, defended the makeover, saying it wasn’t a character redesign but a special look for the coronation:

“That image doesn’t represent a ‘new’ Merida replacing an ‘old’ Merida: it’s just another iteration of Merida, who is much, much more than just red curls and a green dress, she wrote in a Babble post. “The gussied up Merida on the coronation invitation is Merida gussied up for one of the most important events of her princess career.”

Hopefully this is really the case, and we won’t be flooded with “gussied up” Merida products—because the movie Merida still wouldn’t be interested in dressing up for any occasion. And ultimately, thousands of children will still watch and love Brave, and Merida will always be a positive female role model.

It seems that Disney’s narrow definition of a Princess is unraveling faster than the seams of Merida’s corset.

Sarah Hansel is a 23-year-old human female. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English with a minor in Women and Gender Studies from UC Davis. In her free time she likes to read, play video games, draw, and garden.

NOW’s Love Your Body Campaign gives us a great example of how we should all feel about our bodies, regardless of what other institutions might say.

I soaked up those weight loss commercials like a sponge, ready to fit in with the images on the television. I decided to really get serious about my weight after I got engaged, telling myself that I would FINALLY slim down to become the skinny woman I deserved to be.

But then I decided to stop buying into all that crap.

I had always been a supporter of the body positive movement… for everyone but myself. I wanted every single person to feel good about his or herself, but I still made faces at myself when I looked in the mirror.

I still signed up for Weight Watchers for months at a time, swearing to myself that this would be the day that I stuck to it to be another success story. But by turning away from the narrow-minded beauty standards constantly being reinforced in all avenues of the media, I’ve learned that I am a success story.

We applaud people for losing weight, for having the willpower and self-discipline to cut out some calories, but what about applauding people just for being people? For making it through the difficulties of every day, for overcoming crappy attitudes and remembering to smile?

Can’t we be proud of each and every one of ourselves for accomplishments that have little to do with how much we weigh? Is that too much to ask? I don’t think so.

Just recently, we learned about why the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch isn’t interested in making or marketing clothing for those of us with a little bit of fluff. But instead of focusing on that, I think we all ought to hear about the responses to his hateful comments.

All of the people writing blog posts in response to his comments are reminding everyone that just because you’re fat, doesn’t mean you’re subhuman. My favorite has been Amy Taylor’s open letter, where she lets him know that there’s not a single thing wrong with not being able to shop at A&F:

And that’s the truth!

“…And while people like you are sitting at the cool kids table intent on holding others down, the ragtag team of not-so-cool kids is busy pulling others up… and we’ve become an unstoppable force driving the world forward.”

So yeah, it stinks when you’re surrounded with images of skinny-minis on TV, in magazines, and everywhere else in the world. But shouldn’t we focus on changing that, instead of worrying so much about changing our bodies?

How about we raise our own voices to make them louder than the negative, body-shaming voices that have been in charge for far too long? Let’s put body-lovin’ images in the forefront of our media so we can stop feeling bad about ourselves.

Hannah Seward is a graduate student from Maryland working on her Master’s in Sociology. She spends her days researching weight stigma, and her evenings cuddling with her catson. She wouldn’t have it any other way.

Ayn Rand, author and philosopher.

Imagine my surprise when one discussion leader stated his opinion of her philosophies: “I tend to agree with her, but I don’t take her seriously.”

“Why?” we asked.

“I can’t get past her face.”

And so I was reminded of an age-old injustice: women who are not considered “pretty” cannot be admired as much as women who are.

I thought back to another recent minor scandal: President Obama jesting about California Attorney General Kamala Harris, calling her the “best looking attorney general in the country,” as if it set her apart.

This was not strictly sexist (though this CNN-contributor disagrees), but it touches on a preoccupation in our society with the way women appear outwardly, even when their (very important) jobs have nothing to do with looks.

Certainly, those women with appearance-centric jobs don’t escape the scrutiny.

In an interview on Today, Anne Hathaway refused to tell Matt Lauer how she lost 25 pounds for her role in Les Miserables, saying, “I didn’t do it to get hot, I did it to look like I was dying,” and (referring to a Les Mis premiere wardrobe malfunction), “I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies sexuality of unwilling participants.”

Right on, Miss Hathaway.

Oklahoma City Thunder cheerleader, Kelsey Williams.

More recently, sports blogger Claire Crawford has been widely noted for her tactless article questioning the physical worthiness of professional cheerleader, Kelsey Williams.

The blogger muses about “what men like in women” and wishes Williams had “a little more up-top.” (The original source has since been removed, but here is a screen shot of the CBS Houston article.)

Somehow, I find this mindset even more alarming coming from another woman. We should not all have the same opinions, but shouldn’t we all be cognizant of the daily struggle where we, as women, are made noteworthy for our breasts first and our talents second?

Williams is a dancer and athlete. Harris is a top lawyer. Hathaway is an actress, who puts a great deal of effort into portraying her characters authentically.

So, why are society and media (and the president!) eaten up with their looks?  

Should I chalk it up to nouveau visual media and our penchant for all things sensational? In the case of my discussion leader, should I chalk it up to men being men? Or, in the case of Claire Crawford, women being I-can’t-even-say-the-word? I don’t think so.

It’s insensitivity.

It’s crassness.

It’s laziness—because it’s easy to look at a woman and pick her apart (or put her on a pedestal): Hooray for you, you’ve described what you see in front of your eyes.

But it takes someone who cares to look past a face to pay homage to what makes a woman truly worthy: her values, her talents, and, sometimes, the immense amount of confidence she has to have to wear an outfit this damn small.

Stephanie R. Lawson is a graduate of the Family and Consumer Sciences program at CSU Sacramento. She is interested in promoting healthy lifestyles and self-image to all people. She is passionate about all things literary, linguistic, and gastronomic.

Women, guilt, and food are constantly working together to sell products. But half the time, it’s hard to tell what those products are: the women, the guilt, or the food.

The great news? Dannon’s latest Light & Fit commercials have ‘em all, so you won’t have to figure out which one they’re selling.

A current Dannon commercial shows a woman going through her day while a man with a bullhorn follows her, shouting the names of foods she is avoiding.“Donut! Cookies! Chips!” etc. The woman responds by giving the man patronizing looks and telling him, “It’s not gonna happen.”

The fact that a man is representing the woman’s “guilty” thoughts is a bad sign. The fact that the man is labeling certain foods as “bad” is an even worse sign. And the fact that the woman is ignoring all of her cravings and eating yogurt instead? Well, bless her heart — that’s just going to end in disaster.

Dannon’s choice to have a male “guilt voice” is interesting. It likens the allure of men to the allure of food. Women in commercials have guilt over food because they view it as “forbidden” and “seductive,” just as they view men. The woman in the commercial is not only saying no to the man’s food, but also to the man himself.

The food the woman rejects is clearly being labeled as bad. But foods on their own have no moral values. People (like the man with the bullhorn) create them.

We see the woman be a valiant warrior in her fight against all those evil donuts and cookies in the world, but we don’t see the woman realize that yogurt does not provide the same flavor and fulfillment as actual meals. We don’t see her binge, then feel guilty, then diet, then binge, and repeat until epiphany: it’s okay to eat real food! In fact, several medical professionals actually recommend it!

How many times do companies have to make ads like this before there is a change? When will the day come when an ad shows a woman enjoying food, not because it’s low calorie, fat-free, or “guilt-free”, but because (heaven forbid!) it’s good?

I’ll leave you with this refreshing clip that hits the nail on the head.

Elizabeth is a Minnesotan who loves psychology, theatre, and anything related to horses. She seeks to understand why the world is the way it is through critical thinking, and when that fails, she just employs sarcasm.

Would you publish your diary from when you were a pre-teen on the Internet for the entire world to read?

From Facebook: “Working to undo the dangerous slut shaming in our schools, communities, media, and culture by sharing knowledge and experiences.”

This is exactly what 27-year-old Emily Lindin (pen name) is doing in the name of countering slut shaming, with a Tumblr blog she has named The UnSlut Project.

Emily says, “I was branded a ‘slut’ by my classmates and for the next few years of my life, I was bullied incessantly at school, after school, and online (this was 1997 in the days of AIM, and of course online bullying has only gotten worse).”

The term “slut shaming” has been popping up in media, especially on the Internet, for a little while now, but is recently making its way into mainstream conversations about young women, girls, and sexuality.

The term is used to describe the ways in which our culture criticizes and vilifies young women and girls for being sexual, having “too many” sexual partners, or perhaps not having sex in the “appropriate” way (ya know, for making babies—but only after your very heterosexual, traditional wedding).

Emily was “the 6th grade slut.” The UnSlut Project features unedited entries from her 6th grade diary (1997-1998 so far), including an entire cast of friends, enemies, and of course, boys, boyfriends, boy “friends”, and crushes… who are boys.

Emily’s diary travels through her on and off (and on, and off, and on, and off) relationship with Zach, it talks about various crushes, sexuality, jealousy, friendship, bullying, self-esteem issues, even thoughts of suicide, and all of the other ups and downs that come with adolescence. Her recollections of her daily life show us how quickly and dramatically rumors are spread and escalated in schools:

“Aaron said he had heard that Zach ‘ate me out.’ I wasn’t sure what that meant, but I said it wasn’t true, just to be on the safe side.”

End Slut Shaming.

Besides countering slut shaming, the publishing of Emily’s diary also rejects current assumptions about slut shaming and bullying—people often blame social media and technology for the bullying that is happening today.

While there is no doubt that bullying happens online and through text messaging, Emily’s diary shows us that it isn’t because of social media and texting; it’s because of the culture in which we live.

Whether we’re talking about Emily’s world in 1998 or another young girl’s world today in 2013, we are taught to follow very rigid, traditional gender expectations. These lead to dangerous double standards (such as “he’s a stud, she’s a slut”) that can result in cruel slut shaming and bullying that have even driven some young people to suicide.

No one, especially young people navigating their way through this crazy world, deserves to be bullied. No one deserves to be isolated and shunned for being a sexual being (or not).

I’ve definitely got my fingers crossed that this glimpse into a young girl’s mind, as well as the experiences shared by others on the blog, will help bring to light the problems in our culture surrounding girls and sexuality. I have even more hope that perhaps we can all work together to find solutions.

If you want to share your story with The UnSlut Project, you may do so here.

I’m speaking, of course, about the latest ad for the 2014 Kia Forte. Carrying on from the theme of their “Hotbots” Superbowl ad, Kia once again features a sexed-up robot and a slightly-nerdy man.

But in this ad, the robot goes beyond simply being sexy. She actually seems to be USED for sex.

In the ad, we see a man driving the car and smiling at his passenger. Cut to his passenger: a fembot. She is smiling back at the driver. The driver gives the car a command to navigate him back home.

They arrive at his house, showing off some features of the car along the way. When they park and get out of the car, they notice that there are some birds sitting on a lamppost over the car. So, using her robotic strength, the fembot rotates the post to move the birds away.

The couple smile at each other, the man running his eyes over the fembot’s form. Then they link arms and walk inside.

Um, dude? My robotic eyes are up here!

So, what are we supposed to take away from this ad? That men should be desiring robotic women? That the only woman who will be impressed by this car are robotic ones?

Or, that the only creative ad directors at Kia are idiotic ones…?

Left: Princess Peach from Super Mario Brothers, Center: Elizabeth from BioShock: Infinite, Right: Princess Zelda from the Zelda games.

From Peach to Zelda, the damsel in distress is a classic video game figure. Countless games have featured the helpless princess in need of rescuing, and despite its blatant sexism, the trope is still widely used.

When Irrational Games’ BioShock: Infinite was released March 26th, female character Elizabeth seemed to be just another damsel in distress. She has the wide-eyed princess look, she’s innocent and pure, and she’s locked in a tower waiting to be saved.

But after I played the game, it became clear that Elizabeth is far from a helpless damsel—in fact, she represents a major step forward for female game characters.

The interaction between the player (a male character) and Elizabeth represents an “escort mission” structure (the player must lead an NPC, or non-player character, to safety or to a goal of some sort). Damsels in distress are extremely common in escort missions, and game developers often characterize the damsel as stupid, annoying, and useless (largely because until recently the technology wasn’t advanced enough to create an NPC that wouldn’t get in the way).

An escort mission in Zelda: Ocarina of Time features the demanding and difficult Princess Ruto.

BioShock: Infinite’s escort structure is different. Elizabeth is far from baggage; she’s essential to the player’s success in the game. She picks locks, collects supplies, and aids the player in combat.

Instead of following the player around everywhere, she runs ahead, often indicating which way to go. Elizabeth can also handle herself in combat, unlike many NPCs that need to be protected.

It’s true that Elizabeth’s appearance is reminiscent of the damsel. Like most female game characters, her looks are exaggerated, and her cleavage is prominently displayed.

Halfway through the game, Elizabeth changes from her modest dress to an extremely tight corset. It’s certainly not the worst female game costume, but it is pretty uncomfortable looking.

Elizabeth’s costume change.

There has been a fair amount of criticism regarding Elizabeth’s appearance (one blogger called her “fetishized”), and some players were disturbed by Elizabeth’s cleavage because of her youthful look. (Really, when have male gamers ever complained about too much cleavage?)

Yet other than the corset, Elizabeth’s character is not overtly sexual. Yes, she’s beautiful, but her proportions and features are fairly realistic. Visible cleavage doesn’t necessarily equal objectification.

Elizabeth is never presented as sexually available and there are no sexual undertones in her relationship with the player. In fact, creative director Ken Levine said it wasn’t his intent to sexualize Elizabeth, and he was “disappointed” that players focused on this.

The most important way in which Elizabeth differs from the classic damsel is the fact that her character is well rounded. She has a lengthy backstory and complex emotions and flaws like a real person. As the story progresses, it becomes more and more clear that the main character is Elizabeth, not the player.

Though the player must save her from danger, she’s not just an object used to further the male character’s storyline—she is the storyline. This differs from many female game characters that are flat, uninteresting, and simply tools or goals for the player.

Bioshock: Infinite’s Elizabeth doesn’t completely escape the damsel in distress trope, but she does push its boundaries to a more equal, empowered place. The next step is for her to become a playable character and get her own game.

Sarah Hansel is a 23-year-old human female. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English with a minor in Women and Gender Studies from UC Davis. In her free time she likes to read, play video games, draw, and garden.

So there’s this new Dove “Real Beauty Sketches” ad campaign, and I’m finally ready to say my piece about it.

I watched the three-minute version and felt emotions swelling in my chest. I liked this cathartic feeling, so I immediately watched the six-minute version, which moved me to tears (they welled up in my eyes but didn’t fall. I now think my tears knew better than I did…).

Woman with her sketches from the Dove Real Beauty ad campaign.

My thoughts hadn’t yet sorted themselves out, but my emotional reaction was pretty straightforward; I’m pretty sure I reacted EXACTLY the way these videos were intended to make women feel: emotionally understood, connected to women of the world, and grateful to Dove for taking the time to do something so, so nice, just because they (make a shit-ton of money and therefore) could.

But something nagged at my conscience. The video made me feel soooo flipping warm and fuzzy that I didn’t trust it. I wanted to watch it over and over again, to revel in that bittersweet symphony, but instead avoided it like Jenny Craig.

Perhaps my contrarian skepticism stepped in, or maybe I just never got over the whole “real women” concept (read my last post on “real beauty” here). I’ve given far too many About-Face media-literacy workshops to allow myself to simply react to media without (over)analyzing both my reaction and the media itself.

My suspicions were validated when other body-image bloggers pointed out some major issues with the video. You MUST read these thoughtful and passionate critiques here, here, and here.

These essays rightfully describe the ad campaign as being a heck of a lot better than what we’re used to seeing in the media, but still falling short of our vision for inclusive body-positivity, in which being physically “beautiful” or “ugly” (or “real,” for that matter) doesn’t determine women’s paths in life, or feelings of self-worth.

This is all serious stuff, but I’ve got another bone to pick. Are the claims and assumptions characterizing this ad campaign scientifically supported? I’m a researcher; show me your data, and I’ll show you mine!

Below, I outline four science-y assumptions/claims that have been made in this campaign, along with my research-y assessments.

1) “Only 4% of women around the world consider themselves to be beautiful.”

Dove offers this statistic — a product of “company research” — in the paragraph explaining the video on YouTube. OK, fair enough. I’m actually tempted to believe this number, purely based on semantics. You see, most body-image researchers don’t ask research subjects whether or not they consider themselves to be “beautiful.” Why? Because “beautiful” is highly subjective (particularly if you’re asking women “around the world” who may have different cultural understandings of beauty).

I contacted my favorite body-image expert and co-author, Dr. David Frederick (who was the friend who came up with Mirror, Mirror… Off the Wall as my blog title!). I asked him to share some of his latest research from a 2013 paper titled Understanding Body Dissatisfaction: Social Comparison, Objectification, and Sociocultural Factors. I asked him for insight on this 4% number. He offered the following:

“In a sample of over 24,000 men and women, we asked, ‘How satisfied are you with your overall physical appearance?’ using a 1-7 scale. (1 = very dissatisfied, 4 = neutral, 7 = very satisfied)”

Here are the results:

• 28% of women are dissatisfied with their appearance.
• 15% of women are neutral about their appearance.
• 58% of women are satisfied with their appearance.

If you’re wondering how 4% became 58%, it’s, again, a matter of semantics. David explained, “There are studies that find most women want to change their weight, but this doesn’t mean they necessarily are feeling ‘dissatisfaction.‘” If we follow the same logic for that 4% number, we can imagine that even if 96% of women don’t consider themselves to be beautiful, many still (gasp!) manage to be satisfied with their appearance.

Dove: not wrong, but not quite right either. I’ll let you decide!

2) Other people view us as more attractive than we view ourselves: “We are more beautiful than we think.”

This statement encapsulates the entire “point” of the video, if it is possible to do so in one sentence. The sketch artist’s “social experiment” seemingly “proved” this statement to be true. But can the finding be generalized? Let’s look at the numbers. I couldn’t find one single study that answered this question, but have found several that, when combined, help give us the full picture.

In Dave’s 24,000 person study, women ranked their own attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 10. In another large sample study, participants were asked to rank the attractiveness of others, pictured in photos, using an almost identical measure of attractiveness (1 to 5 instead of 1 to 10). Here are the results, side-by-side:

• 65% of women consider themselves to be “above average”
• 32.5% of women were rated by others as “above average”

• 25% of women consider themselves to be “average”
• 52.1% of women were rated by others as “average”

• 10% of women consider themselves to be “below average”
• 15.4% of women were rated by others as “below average”

Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Even if we give some wiggle room between these two studies, the pattern above suggests that our positive illusions lead us to view ourselves as more attractive than others view us.

Does this mean we’re all delusional? No, we’re actually illusional. Psychologists use the term “positive illusion” to describe our tendency to view ourselves and the people closest to us as more spectacular than objective reality (if there is such a thing). Yes, this means that most of us believe ourselves to be above average in attractiveness (and intelligence, and kindness, and honesty), even though this is mathematically impossible.

Yet this also means that our romantic partners view us with similarly “positive” illusions (warm fuzzies again!). Oh, and another great concept, the “mere-exposure effect” predicts that the more time we spend with a person (i.e. “mere exposure”), the more we like that person. Thus, strangers are likely to view our looks more favorably simply by spending a few minutes chatting with us… kind of like the women in the Dove ad who were asked to “get friendly with” the women whose portraits they were about to describe!

Dove blew it on this one. Big time. Which brings me to the next core assumption:

Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

3) Dove’s “social experiment” is experimentally sound.

No. Not in my opinion, at least. Why? I have a few reasons, but the major one is this: From what I could see from the videos, this social experiment was set up in such a way that the “findings” were almost certainly biased in favor of what they set out to prove. Here are three issues I noted (and there may be more):

a) The “real women” being drawn seemed primed to provide negative statements about their bodies. For example, one woman was asked, “If you could change anything about your looks, what would you change?” She responded by saying, “Wow, I’ve never thought about this before…” before deciding she’d like fuller lips.

Later, the same woman is asked to describe her chin and remarked, “I guess I haven’t really compared it to anyone else’s chin….” before deciding that her chin stuck out too much. How might the results have been different if she had been asked to name her favorite features?

b) The presence of cameras and interviewers likely caused heightened feelings of self-awareness. This, in turn, would have increased the likelihood that the women participants acted in gender-conforming ways.

In other words, the women being drawn were more likely to be properly self-deprecating ladies, and the women recalling the others’ features would act like properly sweet and kind ladies. We were basically watching an over-dramatized version of plain old everyday fat talk discourse. Boooooring (and predictable).

c) Finally, and most damning, the “real women” chosen to be drawn were reportedly selected based on fairly exacting criteria. Here are some choice phrases from the Craigslist ad used to recruit them: “FLAWLESS SKIN, NO TATTOOS OR SCARS!” “FIT Not too Curvy Not too Athletic,” “Beautiful HAIR & SKIN is a MUST!!!” “Well groomed and clean,”BEAUTIFUL ARMS AND LEGS AND FACE”.

If this report is true, then the social experiment wasn’t poorly planned, but strategically rigged. Want to make sure the women sketched won’t be described as ugly? Pick “flawless” “real women” with “beautiful hair and skin.” BRILLIANT!

(FYI – Dove has released a “blame the intern” cop-out by claiming that the Craigslist ad “wasn’t approved.” In other words, the ad came from within Dove’s walls, even though somebody is about to get fired for it!)

4) Women are their own worst beauty critics.

OMG NO! THIS IS A BOGUS CRAPPY ANGERING LIE! Turn on the TV! Open a magazine! Watch a movie! Walk through a mall!

We face a multi-billion dollar beauty industry that DEPENDS on women’s insecurities. We don’t come up with this insanity ourselves. There is nothing inherent to womanity that destines us for insecurities. Instead, we’re force-fed it through the onslaught of media we encounter every single day of our lives.

Hey Dove, do you still sell that cellulite cream that doesn’t work? No? How about the “firming” body lotion, or that deodorant that reportedly reduces my “underarm dark spots”? Yeah. That’s what I thought.

I’m still trying to figure out what all of these varying data points and interpretations mean for me. On the one hand, I think it’s good news that so many women are satisfied with their bodies. And I also love knowing that positive illusions are probably boosting my husband’s view of my attractiveness.

Do I like the idea that I probably view myself more vainly than “reality”? I’m not sure! I know it’s good to HAVE positive illusions about yourself, but is it good to know about them? (Is this blog post going to make you wonderful readers feel more insecure about your bodies?!? Scary!)

Does it matter if Dove’s ad campaign is a biased social (non)experiment? I think it does matter (Frankly, I feel suckered and resentful. That damn mood music!), but I’d rather see it replicated more scientifically, rather than dismissed.

As much as I complain about Dove’s “real women” campaigns, I think they do more good than harm. Yes, they reify ideologies that make women focus on their looks and buy more stuff, but nobody else is coming anywhere close to encouraging women to love their bodies, and certainly not with as much energy or commitment. But I need to stop rambling…

What do YOU think of all this?
What’s more compelling to your psyche: scientific research or emotional experiences?
Tell my why you love/hate/tolerate Dove!

Kjerstin Gruys is a PhD candidate in the UCLA Department of Sociology. Six months before her October 2011 wedding, she decided to live without mirrors… for a year. Her blog began as a way to document her no-mirrors project, and has since evolved into a place where she muses, rants, and reports on her colliding worlds of sociology, social psychology, contemporary feminism, body image, and beauty culture. Her book Mirror Mirror… OFF the Wall: How I Learned to Love My Body by Not Looking at It for a Year will be released in early May 2013.

Well ooooh wee, did I ever back the wrong horse! Because as you might have heard, her new book My Foot is Too Big for the Glass Slipper advocates an “old-fashioned” marriage dynamic and that women take on a submissive, serving role in romantic partnerships and in the home.

Dude looks a little smug in this photo. But frankly, Gabby’s giving him good reason.

In the past few days, Reece has been making the rounds on TV and in the blogosphere to explain herself. On NBC’s Rock Center, she said:

“I’m clearly the female, Laird is clearly the male. I’m willing and I choose to serve my family, which means dinner and laundry and organizing his schedule as well as mine. And I’m choosing this because it works well for us.”

To top that off, she threw in that “To truly be feminine means being soft, receptive, and — look out, here it comes — submissive” and that “the language men understand is food and sex.”

This was a point she underscored in an internet he-said-she-said “Secrets to a Happy Marriage” list where her #5 is “Put out” and her #9 is “Did I say put out?”

Yeah, you did. And it made my skin crawl the first time. Because while these might be her choices—they are just that. Something that works for her and her (very possibly Neanderthal) husband. Which is why I’m bummed that they’re being framed as solid advice for young women.

I mean, ’80s supermodel/the former Mrs. Mick Jagger, Jerry Hall, famously said keeping a man requires women to be “a maid in the living room, a cook in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom,” but she didn’t hawk it as a blueprint for marital success (which, might I add, it seems to have turned out not to be in her situation anyway).

Y’know, I get it. Everyone wants to preserve that sexy spark from the early days of their relationships. Plus, no woman wants to become the drudge who’s more about menial tasks than making out. But is going retro really the way to make that happen?

Way to go, man! Not only did you nab the hottest hottie in Hawaii, she cooks and cleans, too. Gnarly!

Ultimately, the person I really want to hear from right now is Reece’s husband, famous surfer dude Laird Hamilton, whose #5 in the aforementioned Happy Marriage list is “Don’t tolerate too much s**t” and his #8 is “Don’t treat her like your wife or your mom, treat her like your chick.”

If he’s so busy treating her like some hot chick instead of a wife or mother, what the heck is Reece doing slaving over loads of family laundry, menu planning, and booking his haircuts/doctor appointments?

And how does he feel that his wife, who has been an undeniable icon of strength and independence, is publicly talking about the sacrifices she’s making so that (it would seem) he can continue to top out in his career?

Maybe he’s fine with it. I mean, I guess I’d be fine with having someone standing by to satisfy and help me, too. But in this moment, when we’re all figuring out just how much we should be Leaning In in our lives and professions, Reece’s advice seems more out-out-touch and unpalatable than ever.

In every situation, no means no, no matter what a song suggests.

All of this news about rape is making me sick.

But what makes me even more sick is the fact that media also seem to promote rape. Take these two songs that have recently been on the Billboard Top 100 charts: Lil’ Wayne’s “Love Me” and Rick Ross’s “U.O.E.N.O”.

It makes me sick to even link to those lyrics here, but I know from personal experience that if you don’t actually read what they’re singing, it’s nearly impossible to separate the music from what is being said.

Look carefully at those lyrics. Both songs promote rape in one key way: They say that depending on how a girl dresses or where she is, she is asking for sex. This attitude is completely wrong and horribly damaging.

Rick Ross’s song even goes as far as bragging about a date-rape scenario: “Put Molly all in her champagne, she ain’t even know it/I took her home and I enjoyed that, she ain’t even know it.”

Just think about all of the times that you may have listened to these songs and not paid attention to the lyrics. Or think about all of the people who listen to these songs, and songs like them, over and over again until somehow they learn that no doesn’t mean no in every case. It’s time to stop listening to songs condoning rape.

Rapping about date rape is never cool.

In real life, no means no. Every time.

No girl gets dressed for a party thinking to herself, “I’m dressing to be raped tonight.” They’ll never walk into a party and exclaim, “Someone please rape me.”

Yet with songs like these ones, people get the idea that somehow it’s okay to have sex with a woman against her will. That even if a woman says no, or if she is passed out, that she really wants it.

Let me repeat: In real life, no means no.

Unless she coherently and enthusiastically says that she wants it, she doesn’t want it. Don’t assume that she does just because she can’t say no.

Men, when you see a woman drunk at a party, take her home without any stops. If you don’t know where she lives, check her into a hotel, and leave a note and cab fare. Don’t make a move, even if in her drunken state she makes you think she wants it.

You’re better than that. If you’re interested in her, leave her your number on the note and ask her out on a proper date. There is no excuse for taking advantage of her. None. No matter what kinds of messages about women media attempt to ingrain in us.

David Pearson is a recent graduate of Brigham Young University in Media Arts. He studied media, religion, and gender and how they’re all related. When he’s not writing at www.experimentalcriticism.com, he’s trolling the Internet for discriminatory memes and wondering where the closest pizza place is.