The Great Underarm Campaign.

Last summer, the NY Times published an article prompted by Mo’Nique lifting her dress at an awards ceremony to reveal her unshorn legs. It was entitled "Unshaven Women: Free Spirits or Unkempt." I am a bit of a free spirit and I am definitely more than a bit unkempt; I remember this article speaking to me on a very personal level. I have always disliked shaving. The process forced me to stay in the tub for longer while my fingers and toes turned to prunes, and it usually ended with me nicking myself and developing ingrown hairs. The article caused me to question my involvement in this arduous undertaking. The more I questioned, the more unnecessary it seemed. So I stopped shaving. But I soon became self-conscious around others who informed me that "not shaving is a signifier for being lesbian" and asked if I had begun identifying as 'butch' or 'ftm' (really!) but nope, hairy pits or not, I identify as a female and a (begrudgingly) heterosexual one at that.
Julia Roberts circa 1990-something, lookin' sexy and hairy
There is no denying the pressure on women, from men and each other, to be hairless.
Recently I did some research and found that King Camp Gillette (if your first name is 'King' you're bound to be at least a little bit of a douche) patented his first safety razor in 1901, thus beginning the creation and domination of the shaving market. Gillette teamed with the U.S. Army in a large and profitable marketing venture, and handed a razor to every enlisted man in the army during World War I. During the same time, Gillette was trying to find a way to expand his reach. He was motivated by the same thing that motivates any corporate campaign. Greed. That coupled with a seemingly mundane development in fashion - sleeveless dresses - marked the beginning of "The Great Underarm Campaign.”
In 1915 Harper’s Baazar published the first advertisement featuring a woman with shaved “underarms.” From this point the campaign turned female body hair into something “objectionable" because, as the ad read, “the woman of fashion says the underarm must be as smooth as the face.” And, by 1922 (two years after women won the vote), Gillette and the advertising barrage had won the underarm hair fight. They didn’t win the leg hair fight as easily as the length of skirts didn’t mandate shaving. However, by the 1930′s we’re not only shaving it all off we’re waxing it off!
Okay... so almost 100 years later why are we STILL shaving? Why do so many women shave, pluck, wax, burn, trim, bleach, dissolve, laser or otherwise remove every inch of body hair? "Being hairless is a patriarchal beauty standard that works toward infantilizing women and making them men's property and decorations," wrote an anonymous poster on a Yahoo! board. While this comment wasn't received too favorably, I have a hard time disagreeing with it.
Having body hair is not dirty, unsanitary or unfeminine. Underarm hair is there to protect your skin (note: your skin doesn’t develop those annoying little red bumps for nothing.)
This may seem counterintuitive due to all of the bad press your body hair gets! It has become such an ingrained, unconscious part of our culture that it’s an assumed responsibility as opposed to a choice. The first time a former boyfriend of mine commented on the fact that I hadn’t shaved my legs in a couple of days: it hit me. How ridiculous! And also, how dare you!
I’m not going to sit here and tell you that you have to be hairy to be a feminist. You don't. Wake up every day and make your decisions... But make sure they are informed, conscious and entirely your own.
Amanda Palmer being a badass

Feminist and...anti-choice?

Earlier this morning, I came across a webzine called Zelda Lily: Feminism In a Bra. As if its title, a thinly-veiled jab at the 'bra burners' of the second-wave movement, wasn't irksome enough, Zelda Lily's mission statement reads: "[we aim] to redefine feminism... A woman can run a hospital. A woman can run a salon. A woman can play football. A woman can host a dinner party. A woman can be a single mother. A woman can be pro-life... "
Of course women can (and do) execute all of the above roles, but reading Zelda Lily's mission statement gave me a strange feeling in my stomach. Is it possible to be feminist and be pro-life (read: anti-choice)? Plain and simple, no.
Self-determination is the cornerstone of third-wave feminism. You can absolutely be a feminist, be pro-choice, and believe that you personally would never choose abortion for yourself. A feminist understands that a decision such as whether or not to bring a child into this world is not theirs to make for someone else. It is inherently sexist to force a woman into mandatory motherhood.
You cannot be a feminist and be anti-choice. This is non-negotiable.
My favorite definition of feminism was written by bell hooks: "feminism is a movement to end sexist oppression." This sexist oppression is entrenched in patriarchy. Patriarchy, the cultural-social-political system within which our culture is rooted, is a powerful entity that does irreparable damage to both women and men. It has the ability to convince those it subordinates that it knows what is best for them. Groups such as Feminists for Life and the Susan B. Anthony List promote a patriarchal agenda, preying on women who find themselves in a situation that nobody wants to be in: pregnant and unsure of what to do.
To call yourself "pro-life" is to, in effect, call yourself "anti-feminist". Zelda Lily fails to recognize that the self-determination feminism promotes is not about having the freedom to label yourself either "pro-life" or "pro-choice". It is about understanding that women deserve agency without fear of retribution from a patriarchal culture, and the ability to choose what is right for us in our lives, individually, free from shame, free from judgment, and free from the shackles of patriarchy.

Why NOT to shop at Urban Outfitters.

Listen up, lovers of ironic t-shirts, skinny jeans and faux-vintage apparel. Your beloved hipster mecca, otherwise known as chain outlet Urban Outfitters, has a few skeletons in its pseudo-bohemian closet. Superficially speaking, UO could pass for an independent retailer - its target base is young, educated urban consumers; its products cater to an 'indie' niche; its speakers blast Pitchfork's 'best of'' playlist on repeat - morally, however, the store is aligned with massive corporations like The Gap and even Walmart.
With over 75 stores in the United States and roughly 150 stores globally, Urban Outfitters is a multimillion-dollar operation that outsources their clothing from sweatshops in countries like China that utilize child slave labor. LongView Funds, a mutual fund company with a stake in Urban Outfitters Inc., urged the company to adopt international labor standards in 2008. UO declined to adopt and disclose a code of conduct based on basic, internationally-recognized human rights. They instead released a statement saying they "expect[ed] suppliers to adhere to child-labor laws."
If Urban Outfitters is getting its apparel mass-produced in factories across the sea, how does everything look so cool? For starters, the styles are often stolen from local designers. Lillian Crowe, a Brooklyn-based jewelry designer, sells necklaces featuring a rib cage, a spine and the skull of a bull. She recently discovered shockingly similar pieces in the UO catalog. John Earle, graphic artist and creator of online t-shirt vendor Johnny Cupcakes, gladly obliged when Urban Outfitters asked for a few sample designs to be considered for placement in their stores. UO chose not to carry Johnny Cupcakes' products: they instead stole Earle's original art, remaking two of his designs into extremely similar t-shirts under their 'Urban Renewal' label. Urban Outfitters solicited t-shirts from an artist, then stole his concepts after choosing not to license his work. To think that UO panders to an 'artsy' demographic. Urban Outfitters v. Johnny Cupcakes
Moreover, the political bent of UO President Richard Hayne would likely dismay the young, progressive crowd that his company attracts. Richard Hayne, whose net worth is $1.8 billion, donated tens of thousands of dollars to former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) - the same politician who compared homosexuality to beastiality in a 2003 interview with the Associated Press.
Urban Outfitters is just one example of a company that projects an image completely different from what its executives are really all about. This incongruity represents a common, troubling phenomenon in retail.
The Gap and Lord & Taylor are widely regarded as classy merchandisers with high-quality apparel, yet BehindTheLabel.org, an online news magazine that covers sweatshop issues in the global clothing industry, cites them as "responsible for the global sweatshop crisis." Starbucks touts itself as a "responsible" company that has a "positive impact on the communities [it] serve[s]", yet similarly exploits foreign labor and has been additionally attacked for using genetically modified ingredients. In an ideal world, companies would wear their hearts on their sleeves; their products would reflect not only what they believe, but also their actions.
If goods are manufactured in a locale where the wages paid are significantly lower than US minimum wage, it's sweatshop labor. If the workers manufacturing those goods would be considered minors and subjected to US child labor laws, it's sweatshop labor. How to begin your life as a conscious consumer? Checking the tag for that 'Made in the USA' affirmation is a great first step.

(Or try consuming less. There's an idea worth considering...)

Burn The Earth! Leave It Behind!

Pat the Bunny was a transient: a freight train hoppin', pill poppin' anarcho-punk. He was as pissed off as he was intelligent, which is to say very. Pat left his hometown of Brattleboro, Vermont as a teenager to live the life of a vagabond and share his acoustic punk rock songs with anyone who gave a shit. Pat, née Patrick Schneeweis, performed as both Johnny Hobo & the Freight Trains and Wingnut Dishwashers Union. While he has all but disappeared since entering year-long treatment for addiction, his music found its way into my life rather recently.

Burn the Earth! Leave It Behind is an album that will slowly scratch itself into your psyche, and your soul. His songs are both clairvoyant and caliginous: he expresses and articulates his anger at unjust social norms, while remaining cryptic about his own personal life. After my first listen, I felt as if I knew Pat the Anarchist. But it wasn't until my upteenth listen that I began to understand Pat the Human. An anxious, sensitive, whip-smart fuck up.

Pat's music makes me question myself, my beliefs and values. But it's also really fun and catchy as fuck. The anarchistic rantings of a homeless man never sounded so good.

Download Burn the Earth! Leave It Behind

Jihaaaaad

Andrew Jackson Jihad sound like Woody Guthrie's bastard son.
And that's a damn good thing.
AJJ play straight up folk-punk: earnest and unplugged yet gritty and raw. Its two core members, Sean Bonnette (guitar / vox) and Ben Gallaty (bass), have worked with a slew of constantly alternating musicians since the band's 2004 inception. Bonnette, who strums his acoustic axe with string-popping intensity, has a knack for writing confessional songs about his love / hate relationship with Parliament cigarettes and his antipathy towards hipsters, as well as the abusive stepdad who fucked up his childhood. He admittedly sounds a lot like the dude from Neutral Milk Hotel - which kinda make sense, considering AJJ released a pitch-perfect cover of "Two-Headed Boy". Sean's songs tightrope-walk the line between personal and political - exploring both intimate and far-reaching topics with intelligence and humor. The Arizona-based band decries Immigration SB 1070 Law on their excellent "Lady Liberty".

Needless to say: their latest release, 2009's Can't Maintain, is pretty killer.

Download their magnum opus: People Who Eat People Are The Luckiest People In The World

Heaven Is Hold Steady.

Craig Finn ain't much of a singer, but the man sure spins a mean yarn. And for those of you naysayers who claim his songs rely far too heavily on brawny rock rhythms and Daedalean wordplay: Heaven Is Whenever, his band's fifth LP, will surely put your naysayin' to rest. Over the past few years, The Hold Steady has become synonymous with chugging guitars and earnest tales of "boys and girls in America". But after 2008's comparatively dull Stay Positive, fans couldn't help but wonder what the future held for the Brooklyn band. Were they destined to become another Springsteen-sound-alike: frontman Finn singing of mill towns and motorbikes with the same puffed-chest clout as his Jersey hero? Nah, dude. Finn is, for all intents and purposes, a nerd! He's a chubby thirtysomething with a nasty bout of male pattern baldness. Wendy isn't going to wrap her legs around him! Hell, she'd more likely laugh in his face then throw her diet coke on his freshly pressed button-down. And he got the memo. "You can't get every girl. You'll love the ones you get the best," he comforts a younger version of himself on the excellent "Soft In The Center", adding in, "I know what you're going through. I had to go through that too." The Hold Steady has returned to their Almost Killed Me roots. Screw concept albums – the only concept tying this album together is the concept of human experience. Their mustachioed keyboardist Franz Nicolay is notably absent. And while his fills and riffs were certainly an integral part of the group's sound, there is no mistaking the fact that this is their freshest sounding release since 2006’s Boys And Girls In America. That slide guitar on "Sweet Part of the City"? Dope. Finn's finest moment, however, comes in the form of a simple love song. "We Can Get Together" is about sitting on your beloved's bedroom floor, listening to a timeless record that stirs up the most wonderful kind of nostalgia. Heaven Is Whenever could easily become said timeless record. Saturated with warmth, humor, honesty - it is truly an album for the ages.

Live At Massey Hall 1971

Sifting through Youtube videos of Neil Young, I noticed one user's sage comment: "Neil never smiles." But with the topical themes of his songs and the haunting timbre of his voice, who can really blame him for an often-neglected sense of fun? A few weeks ago I stumbled across Young's Live At Massey Hall 1971. In addition to two never-released songs (the entrancing "Bad Fog of Loneliness" and the pulsing romp "Dance Dance Dance"), the album features stunning live renditions of his most poignant numbers. "Ohio" is all the more powerful in its acoustic incarnation; the defiant political rocker is elevated to a new level of stripped-down emotional vulnerability. "How can you run when you know?" sings Young, his fear and indignation audible. Live At Massey Hall 1971 is a remarkably rich collection of songs, so full of Young's essence: the social consciousness, the sensitivity, the sweetness. His mumble is modest and sincere, if somewhat somber. Maybe Neil Young wasn't such a smiley guy - but the breadth and depth of his emotional palate make smiling seem all-together irrelevant.