Nikita Reboot: One Step Forward for Asian-Americans, Two Steps Back for Women

Thanks to the CW's fairly aggressive marketing campaign, its pretty hard to not be aware of new Nikita reboot airing this fall. While I will admit that the television network is to be applauded for casting Maggie Q., an Asian-American woman, as the title character, this show looks to be yet another edition of the objectification of women under the guise of empowerment. (I also would not get too excited about the racial casting of the show - of the seven other actors listed on wikipedia for the series, six are white).

The show is essentially about a thin, attractive woman that kicks butt while wearing tiny and/or tight clothing. I know there is an actual plot buried somewhere in the explosions and gratuitoous clevage shots, but as far as you can tell from the promo clips, it is clearly not that important for you to understand in order to enjoy the show.

I honestly should not critique this show so harshly; after all, I did enjoy watching such shows as Dollhouse and Terminator: The Sarah Conner Chronicles, both of which sexually objectified the "strong female characters" in some manner or another (though I would argue that for the Sarah Connor Chronicles, the objectification landed solely on the character of Cameron, leaving Sarah Connor to portray a more realisticly strong and gritty woman, who wasn't going to wear tight leather pants to a shootout). That being said, the poster for this show is what really makes my blood boil:

Beyond simply being dressed in a sexually provocative manner, (and in an outfit that is certainly not the most practical for fighting, or the most comfortable), Maggie Q. is shown with a large tattoo of a phoenix on her hip. Admittedly, the tattoo is real and not just a photoshop job, however combined with the revealing leotard outfit and loose, fan blown hair, the tattoo leaves me with the impression that the CW is showing off a prized wild horse that has been branded, but not entirely tamed. If the CW had chosen to portray the actress in, say, loose cargo pants, and a tank (even if it showed significant cleavage), I might believe that this show was about an empowered woman. Instead, I cannot help but feel that I'm watch yet another version of the Fighting Fuck-Toy - a woman there to be aggressive, only so far as it is sexually pleasing to men and the male gaze of the camera.

Soft Porn Plane Commercial

Release earlier this week, this advertisement from Russian airline Avianova shows a group of men living out what college humor would have us believe is every man's wet dream - getting to watch a handful of hot women wash something (an airplane) clad only in skimpy bikinis:

In case you needed help deciphering why this advertisement is problematic, here's my top five reasons why this commercial is horrific:

1) Flight attendants don't wash planes - that job goes to someone else, and presumably is not done by hand with a bucket and sponge. That is simply not time or cost effective.

2) Not all flight attendants are models. Or female.

3) Flight attendants give you drinks, peanuts, and scold you for not wearing your seatbelt. They do not perform sexual services, or perform in a sexual manner (except maybe the girls on Hooters Airlines, I assume their job is based on somewhat sexuality just as much at 10,000 feet as it is on the ground).

4) This commercial is not actually selling the services of the airline, but the objectification of the female body under the male gaze (quite literally, considering the creepy COMPLETELY CLOTHED men watching. Got to love power dynamics).

5) The advertisement deprives the flight attendants' of their personal power, and undermines any of their desire to be considered professionals in their business, not simply objects of lust. In fact, thanks to the camera work, these women are pretty much just reduced to their body parts.

edit: Hooters airlines is not actually in existence anymore, having ceased public operation in 2006.

Don't Steal That Yard Sign!

What better way to start up this blog than to showcase some awesome political propaganda. For those of you who reading my blog of campaigns and elections, you know know that there are few things I like more in politics than well done or unique tv campaign ads, regardless of who they are for/what they are supporting. (For those of you who did not read that blog and wish to, you can do so here). So today I give to you an ad released by Dale Peterson, a former candidate for the GOP nomination for Alabama's Agricultural Commissioner. Peterson placed third in the GOP primary, thus putting him out of the running for the position, but he still managed to release a bad-ass ad endorsing John McMillan, as only a Southern, gun toting Republican can.

Now, I do not profess to know much about Alabama politics, but I have to think that is the last we'll be seeing of Dale Peterson - why else spend money on an ad after you've dropped out if not to keep your name in people's minds? After all, there is that relatively creepy line, "Don't you wish you had Dale Peterson watching your back?" Sounds to me like we'll be seeing him again...