The Mysteries of Mudflap Girl

She's everywhere. Gas stations. Bumper stickers. Belt buckles. Jewelry. I can't count the number of times I've stood at a rest stop cash register, staring at those ridiculously huge breasts with nipples that could cut a block of ice, wondering what the heck it's supposed to mean. Is it just a sexual symbol, created to celebrate the love of objectifying women everywhere? Is it supposed to be any woman in particular, or a porn star, or what? I don't get it!

Finally, after poking around on the internet and finding just the right Google Image Search keywords, I discovered that she has a name. Ladies and Gentlemen, meet Mudflap Girl.

According to Wikipedia,

The mudflap girl is an iconic silhouette of a woman with an hourglass body shape, sitting, leaning back on her hands, with her hair being blown in the wind. The icon is typically found on mudflaps, clothing, and other items associated with trucking in the United States. The image is sometimes also known as trucker lady or seated lady.

This famous design was created in the 1970s by Bill Zinda of Wiz Enterprises in Long Beach, California, to promote his line of truck and auto accessories. It was modeled on Leta Laroe, a famous exotic dancer at the time.

Rob Tendick, author of the article Mud Flaps Are A Classic Auto Accessory, claims that

Classic mud flap characters have become such a part of pop culture, that they've moved out of the arena of car accessories, and started appearing in commercials and on TV. One such commercial appeared during the 2006 Superbowl, and featured the Mud Flap Girl and Yosemite Sam driving off in a Honda Ridgeway.

Arizona officials were apparently not amused, and have proposed legislation banning both cartoon creatures due to a perceived political incorrectness, regarding sex and guns. Currently, the legislation about truck and car accessories has been thwarted. This means that auto accessories and mud flaps can be embellished with the image of your choice. And this will remain to be true, as long as that law doesn't pass.

Self-expression isn't a reason to sacrifice quality auto accessories anymore. You can find many manufacturers who can produce a mud flap to your vehicle and personality type. Whether you want a skull and crossbones or the Ghostbusters logo, mud flaps can be created with top-of-the-line materials to let you "keep on truckin'".

I'm sorry, but does having the same symbol of a naked woman that you see at every gas station in the country really qualify as "self-expression"? This character has been created as an advertisement for auto accessories. It expresses nothing except that you've fallen prey to yet another advertising campaign that has nothing to do with what it's actually selling. Even if it weren't created by Wiz Enterprises, what messages do you intend to express with that? Your love for porn stars? Pardon my french, but seeing that symbol on anyone's truck, belt, hat, or mudflaps does nothing but make them look like an asshole. The Ghostbusters logo is one thing. A symbol of a naked woman is another.

"Dude, you hit a cripple!"

Ever since we started talking about media's portrayal of the disabled, I haven't been able to stop thinking about the television series Malcolm in the Middle. I used to love that show back in the day, and all the talk about disabled characters reminded me of Stevie Kenarben, Malcolm's best friend.

Not only is Stevie in a wheelchair and assumedly paralyzed from the waist down, he also wears extremely thick corrective glasses, struggles with asthma, and has only one lung. (Did I mention he's black?) Because of his respiratory condition, Stevie can only say one or two words with each breath, which is a source of comedy for most of the scenes that include him. Although Stevie has a great sense of sarcasm and can usually say a great deal with very little, Malcolm usually cuts him off before he can finish a sentence, as do most other characters on the show. Stevie thrives off of other people's pity, and in the clip below, milks an accidental punch from a bully for all it's worth.

Although some of the scenes involving Stevie allow us to laugh with him, many of them encourage us to laugh at his expense as well. Sometimes the only humor in the scene stems from the painfully long time it takes for him to say anything, which seems to have become more and more emphasized in the later seasons. This is a great example of a character who is more often identified by his disability, rather than his personality. While Stevie may get into some conflicts of his own, they all stem from or focus on his disability. It's difficult as a viewer to pinpoint the problem at hand when the character takes fifteen minutes to finish his sentence.

Malcolm does very little to actually get to know Stevie during the show. Even though they are supposedly best friends, Stevie is usually silent or close to it while Malcolm goes through everyday life. Malcolm usually responds to the things Stevie says with a pitying aside to the audience, such as when Stevie mentions that his parents won't let him watch TV.

"My parents say... watching TV... makes you... stupid," he explains to a bewildered Malcolm.

"No, watching TV makes you normal!" Malcolm replies, and with a side glance at the viewer, "How can they do that to him? He's in a wheelchair!"

While the jokes the show makes at the expense of the disabled (calling them "crippled," for instance) are intentional, and perhaps ironic, the messages that result seem pretty conflicted. Does the sarcasm the writers use to confront these issues present a positive or a negative representation of the disabled? What does this tell viewers about kids that have health problems like Stevie?

Mother Theresa's Makeover

In class a few weeks ago, we briefly touched on makeover shows such as "What Not To Wear" and others in relationship to the messages about gender being sent by the media. Although I personally don't follow these shows very often, I felt I had seen enough to get a general idea of the pros and cons in terms of theme.

Tonight, however, I decided to catch a new episode of Style's "How Do I Look?" and reached a new level of offended.

This particular episode victimized Kristen, a slender twenty-something with a penchant for tiered gypsy skirts, secondhand t-shirts, and patterned headscarves. Unlike most victims of the show, however, Kristen didn't lack style because of apathy or poor taste. To the contrary, Kristen gave up her passion for shopping when she began sponsoring impoverished children in Uganda. After meeting and falling in love with the children, Kristen explained, she began denying herself luxuries such as new clothing and haircuts in order to save the money for charity.

Kristen was volunteered for the makeover by her sister, who claimed she liked Kristen a lot more before she began "letting herself go." Also in support of the change was Kristen's husband, who seemed embarrassed of taking his wife of nine years on dates because of the way she was dressed. Both parties were convinced that Kristen would be a more successful employee, spouse, and woman if she took more time with her appearance and went back to dressing with style.

Personally, I found the whole confrontation to be extremely painful to watch. Kristen seemed like an educated, compassionate, selfless young woman with her heart in all the right places, but the message of "still not good enough" was resounding miserably from the entire program. She expressed fears of "losing herself" to materialism again if she went back to dressing nicely, and explained the difficulty of the sacrifices that she had chosen to make by prioritizing others' needs over her own wants. But with her "supportive" husband and sister by her side, she submitted to the makeover and allowed herself to be dressed the way everyone else wanted her to. To me, it felt like a giant failure.

The only point this show seemed set on proving was that the value of any woman's actions, no matter how noble, is horrendously affected by her physical appearance. I couldn't help but think that a man who had embarked on the same journey as Kristen would have received much more approval and significantly less critique, if any at all.

Which brings me to my point. Obviously there is a direct correlation between a woman's appearance and her determined worth in our society. On the other hand, men performing the same deeds but slacking off on their personal wardrobe are seen as generous and altruistic, unconcerned about something so petty as fashion. Where is this double-standard taking us, and is it really cursed, as it appears, to continue to get worse before it gets better?