Both Tennessee Guerilla Women and The Confluence have posts up about rumors taht Favreau is dating Campoverdi, and focus on the fact that she modeled for Maxim, reducing her to nothing more than a pretty body in order to make the connection to Favreau's misogyny. Which makes them little different from all the other sexist reporting on the gossip.
A few select headlines (all linked above):
Ali Campoverdi: Obama Hottie, Feminist Paradox (Gawker)It's almost a side note that Campoverdi has education and has been pursuing graduate level education, something not even mentioned by the two feminist bloggers who oh so helpfully provide a picture of her from the Maxim shoot. The posts both seem to imply (as do many of the sexist headlines coming from such upstanding organizations as Fox News) that Campoverdi doesn't deserve to work at the White House because she posed for Maxim. If it's true she has no qualifications, then talk about that. Don't slyly imply it just because she's worked in a profession you don't approve of.
Ali Campoverdi: White House Maxim Model (Right TV)
Report: Girlfriend of Obama's Speechwriter Is a Maxim Model (Fox News)
Meet the new girl at the White House (good job Clinton's not still President!) (Daily Mail, UK)
Meet Obama's sexy Maxim aide (Metro, UK)
As TinfoilHattie commented in response to The Confluence:
I don't know. This doesn't sit well with me. First of all, why the lingerie shot? To show that Campoverdi was an underwear model? Then talk about that. Should she have been one? Are underwear models "bad"? Does Ms. Campoverdi purport to be a feminist, making her career selection as an underwear model fair discussion fodder?
Or are you trying to show that someone like Favreau would OF COURSE date an underwear model, because … underwear models are … fill in the blank for me, please. Do you object to his dating an attractive woman? Do you object to his dating an underwear model? Because I don't think you can object to Favreau's choice here without maligning the woman. The message seems to be, "Look what kind of woman HE dates! Doesn't it figure! HE dates a (slut? bimbo? what?)"
ETA:
Been going around and around with a few people who seem to think that this is appropriate because certain women who participate in the patriarchy should be condemned. ("She's asking for it," anyone?)
Funny thing, though, those women who deserve to be condemned and criticized (even 5 years after their supposed offense) happen to work in - go on, guess - the sex industry (which includes sexy modeling of the Maxim variety)! However, this is apparently not slut-shaming because the word slut does not actually appear.
5 comments:
It's a little insane that they think they can prove JF is misogynistic by using sexism against his girlfriend.
Good for you for calling it out. As you said elsewhere, women aren't to blame for the patriarchy. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp.
--megankay
First of all she wasn't an underwear model & you & tinfoil hattie seem to like to pretend -- this was a pictorial for Maxim -- similar to Playboy pictorials just with some lingerie on because they don't go all "nude" at Maxim. You all should really get your facts before you go around spreading disinformation. Get it? She wasn't an underwear model -- she purposefully posed for a sexy spread in Maxim to garner attention, movie roles, etc.
You really lose all credibility when you can't get the facts correct.
angie, it's a cute and snarky headline. My point really has nothing to do with exactly what kind of modeling she did.
She wasn't an underwear model -- she purposefully posed for a sexy spread in Maxim to garner attention, movie roles, etc.
So the fuck what? It was years ago. I don't like that women are pressured to be sexy to get ahead, or that
But I really don't give a shit about one woman's decisions, and I sure as hell won't sit back while people suggest that her current job performacne and qualifications are irrelevant because she's maybe not a feminist or not the right kind or whatever. Without even knowing anything about her except that she posed for Maxim.
That is sexist no matter who it comes from.
First of all she wasn't an underwear model & you & tinfoil hattie seem to like to pretend -- this was a pictorial for Maxim -- similar to Playboy pictorials just with some lingerie on because they don't go all "nude" at Maxim. You all should really get your facts before you go around spreading disinformation. Get it? She wasn't an underwear model -- she purposefully posed for a sexy spread in Maxim to garner attention, movie roles, etc.
You really lose all credibility when you can't get the facts correct.
Actually, no, tinfoilhattie and Astraea are dead on the nose here. I am against the patriarchy and its institutions such as prostitution, pornography and other sex work, but I can criticize them and the men who exploit women without turning my ire on the women involved. I believe something like 80-90% of women who work in prostitution and/or pornography were sexually abused or assaulted at some point during their lives; life has been hard enough on them without my judgement, or my advocating that they should somehow be punished for operating rationally in a patriarchy where women are often faced with the option to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Jon Favreau is an asshat, and a sexist asshat at that. That his taste in women (overtly sexy patriarchy-friendly types) tends to be as typically "fratty" as everything else we know about him is no reason for The Confluence and their posters to demean and belittle the woman herself.
Hi Astraea, it was good joining forces with you trying to inject some logic and, frankly, oxygen, into the conversation this afternoon. I couldn't join you on your foray into the Confluence, because no matter what I write (pretty much on the same lines as you saw this afternoon, I am banned from Confluence. It is heavily censored, with junior-high-school giggling (moderator! cleanup on aisle 3!). Serious discussion is impossible there and on PUMAPAC, the other "refuge" from reality these "feminists" favor. Your question cut right to the heart of the matter: Is it OK for a "feminist" blog to belittle and objectify a woman to score political points, yes or no?"
You got it. The Confluence is devoted to one thing: hating Obama to the last particle of his being. That includes the girlfriend of his stupid speechwriter. BTW, I do not agree with the position that we can know Favreau is irredeemably foul based on that one incident. Not that I wasn't offended, not that I don't think he needed to learn a few things. I do think that having a talk with him is preferable to trying to ruin him. A potential teachable moment vs creating a man who will be bitter, defensive, and angry for the rest of his life. Dismissing him as "frat boy" is as reductive as dismissing the young woman as no more than a hot bod. (On the other hand, I hate the guy with the backwards baseball cap with every fiber of my being. But I know it's a semi-irrational hatred of backwards baseball caps)
I also want to say a word about Rumproast: it is full of smart, funny, women, and men. They have a genuine regard for each other, and for differing opinions, as long as they're intelligently argued. There is no censorship.There's a lot of politically incorrect snarking, but there's also serious discussion. It's mostly pro-Obama, but his faults are scrutinized (we find fewer than you do, I'm sure, but we find them. We also find wonderful plusses. More than you do, I'm sure).
Pardon the too-long post. I do want to say, well done, and if you wanted to check out RumpRoast, you would be welcome.
Post a Comment