RihannaMyElegant

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Victoria Secrets Barcode Puzzle Box

Posted on 10:49 by Unknown
So, I'm way behind the times on these ads since they apparently date back to the summer of 2011. They have, however, just appeared in my FB news feed via Any-Body, who are an organisation well worth following. These ads are so disturbing that I'm not quite sure where to start. Victoria's Secret having been pushing the boundaries of television and advertising for several years now making the sexualisation and objectification of women's bodies mainstream in a way Hugh Hefner tried but didn't quite get. They used to air the annual Victoria Secrets Fashion show on TV in the US; a program full of nearly nude women with angel wings conflating sexuality with religious iconography. I have no idea if they still do and I really don't want to google it to find out. 



These interactive billboards bring Victoria Secret's misogyny to a whole new level. Granted we all know that if you click on the bar code, the pictures of the model sent to your phone won't actually be naked [although it won't be long before the violent pornographers join in with this] but the idea itself is just horrific. It further reduces women's bodies into parts for titillation. Its the 21st century version of the peep show on a bus stop for small children. That way we indoctrinate boys into believing women are nothing but fucktoys and teach girls they have no value except as fucktoys. 

The fact that women's bodies are a game, a puzzle to be solved in the view of children demonstrates just how little value we have. 

The fact that these ads, which are pornographic, are in the view of children and children are invited to play the game shows how little respect we have for our children. Instead of allowing them to grow up and discover their sexuality safely, we have constructed and constrained sexuality. We have narrowed it to women as object; men as subject.


Read More
Posted in #rapeculture, feminism, Misogynistic Advertising, Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, sex entertainment industry, Sexist Advertising | No comments

@Daniel Tosh: Perpetuating Rape Culture

Posted on 10:40 by Unknown

Rape jokes are Patriarchal silencing techniques. People who laugh at rape jokes are those who haven't thought about the consequences of their laughter on rape victims and rape culture and those who don't think rape matters. Increasingly, I'm beginning to believe that its the second group who are the most numerous.

So, here's a bit old hint: if you laugh at jokes about rape, you are perpetuating rape culture. You tell rapists that its okay to rape; that rape is nothing but a silly little thing that women whinge about. Every time you laugh at a rape joke, you tell a rape victim their trauma doesn't count. With every snort, you tell women that they have no right to expect to bodily autonomy. With every snigger, you tell a woman its her fault she was raped. With every giggle, you tell women that their bodies are nothing more than disposable fucktoys for men.

Laughing at jokes about rape is women-hating behaviour. It reinforces and perpetuates rape culture which results in 1 in 4 women being raped. It reinforces sexual assault and sexual harassment. It creates a society where women don't matter. It tells women not to bother reporting their rapes because no one will care.

There is a petition here to have Comedy Central stop airing programs by Daniel Tosh. Let's start silencing the perpetrators of rape culture instead of the victims.

The text of the petition letter is as follows:

Greetings,
----------------
Take Daniel Tosh off the air

Daniel Tosh, offensive jokester extraordinaire, crossed the line a few days ago in a comedy club. During a skit in which he made jokes about rape, a young woman stood up in protest of the offensive jokes. In response, Daniel Tosh "joked" about how "funny" it would be if she were to be raped by "like five guys" right then. His jokes continued and the laughter in the club grew so loud that the young woman had to flee in fear.

This takes offensive joking to the next level. Tosh did not simply make jokes about rape, which is bad enough as it is, but he used his jokes in a threatening way that a young woman ran away to maintain her safety. He used his jokes to silence a person who was concerned with the nature of them.

This is not a man that deserves to be revered and aired daily. He is tasteless, offensive in nature, and proud of it. There should be no pride in humiliating and scaring other people. His fauxpology on Twitter was hardly sincere and only serves to show us how much he cares about himself, but not for other people. Bad things do happen, and yes, you CAN make jokes about them, but that doesn't mean you should. And it certainly doesn't mean that you get to decide if anyone should be offended by them.

This petition is to get Daniel Tosh and his show, Tosh.0, taken off the air permanently. No new episodes, no reruns, no comedy specials. Period.

Our petition has already reached over 8,000 signatures. Is that something you can ignore?



Read More
Posted in #IBelieveHer, #IDidNotReport, #WeBelieveYou, Male Violence Against Women, Rape, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence, Violence against Women, women-blaming culture | No comments

Wednesday, 29 August 2012

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Sheba. You Know, The Cat Food.

Posted on 14:24 by Unknown
First of all, Eva Longoria should NOT be dancing in a cat food commercial. She's a talented actress and this is a pile of misogynistic pooh. But, seriously, who thought this up? She's basically doing a strip tease for her cat. I mean, I love my cat but I don't strip for her as a pre-dinner show. She's a cat. She just wants to eat. At no point, did she sign up for a lap dance. But, hey, if we can't objectify women's bodies during a cat food commercial, when can we? 



Welcome to the Patriarchy: where even cats deserve the right to objectify and dehumanise the bodies of women. 
Read More
Posted in Boycott, feminism, Misogynistic Advertising, Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame, Misogyny, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Conformity, Sexist Advertising | No comments

Look! More Offensive Clothing. This Time For Babies.

Posted on 13:20 by Unknown
I love Twitter. Where else would I come across such examples of sartorial elegance for babies. Well, I didn't find them. It was @OSLioness who found them on Amazon. 

Available here

Available Here


Now, I know Mumsnet has an undeserved reputation for judginess, but I'm going to have to hoick up my judgey-pants here. If you put your kid in one of these, I'm going to assume you're a nincompoop. 



Read More
Posted in #waronwomen, Child abuse, Misogyny, Nincompoop | No comments

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

Dearest Vagina, Once Again I have Failed You.

Posted on 08:33 by Unknown

Dearest Vagina,

Once again I have failed you. I have previous form for neglecting you. I neither shave you nor vajazzle you. I refused to purchase the completely bizarre "smoothethegroove" in order to make you look more fuckable to men who are stupid. Unfortunately, and I think this goes without saying, I will also not be buying the 18 Again cream which is supposed to make you "tighter" and resemble the vagina of a virgin. It doesn't matter if the cream is made of the natural ingredients of "gold dust, aloe vera, almond and pomegranate". You will not experience the pleasure of the cream anywhere near you. 

Weirdly, I like you just the way you are: having birthed two children. I don't want to "feel like a virgin" either. I like being me: a woman whose body has changed and developed through age and experience. I know this means I will continue to fail the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. But, really, when have I actually passed the PFT? And, who really wants to have sex with a man who is only aroused by the anorexic body of an only-just-not-quite-a-teenager? An adult male who dates 18 year olds has some serious psycho-sexual issues they need to deal with. Who really wants to have sex with someone like that? Who wants to be with a man who only wants to marry a virgin?

So, you will remain unshaven and unvajazzled and without your own special wardrobe or creams. You will just have to remain you. After all, isn't that the point of every Disney Princess movie ever? Or, something like that. I'm sure.

SGM
Read More
Posted in #waronwomen, Childbirth, Eating disorders, fashion-beauty complex, Harmful Cultural Practises, Misogyny, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, Slut-Shaming, Vagina | No comments

Some Brilliant Feminist Bloggers Smashing The Patriarchy

Posted on 06:10 by Unknown

I'm assuming that most people who read my blog have already read most of the blog posts I've collated below. After all, if you're reading my blog you're probably A) a feminist B) pro-choice C) have access to the internet. So, this is more about me not losing the links to these blogs than it is anything else. Unless you haven't read them, it which case you should. Huge triggering warnings though. If you do read, please be safe.

Mother Jones: Men Defining Rape History

Asylum for Assange. But What About the Women?

Sian and Crooked Rib: Thoughts on Sexual Assault and Naming Our Experiences
Feministing: Why Rape Exceptions and Abortion Stereotypes Are Harmful

Jezebel: 10 Things the GOP's Platform Hates About You

Femiste: The Republican Rape Problem

Glosswatch: My Bodily Integrity: It Was Never Yours To Grant

Glosswatch: Feminists! How About Shutting Up in the Name of Free Speech

Penny Red: It's Trigger Warning Week

Salt and Caramel: George Galloway, Assange and Legitimate Rape

New Statesman blog: George Galloway: It Was Only Bad Sexual Technique

Too Much To Say For Myself: Rape is Not

Frothy Dragon: Wikileaks, Assange and The Hero Worship Of A Man Accused of Rape

Hathor Legacy: Rape Culture and Male Entitlement to Sex

Too Much to Say For Myself: Assange and Feminism's So-Called Male Allies

On Consent:

Herbs and Hags: What's Wrong with Consent?

It's Mother's Work: When Can I Teach My Children About Consent?


UPDATE: Even More Brilliant Blogs and Media Reports:

Hathor Legacy: What About the Father's Rights?

The Nation: We Have Met Todd Akin and He Is Us


The Legitimate Children of Rape

Women Rise Up Now: Todd Akin Has Figured Out My Secret





Read More
Posted in #IBelieveHer, #rapeculture, #waronwomen, #WeBelieveYou, Abortion, feminism, Free Speech, Misogyny, Patriarchy, Rape, Rape Culture, Women Writers, women-blaming culture | No comments

The One Where I Publicly Thank Jeremy Clarkson For Proving My Point

Posted on 00:25 by Unknown

Who knew there'd actually be a day when I'd have to thank Jeremy Clarkson for anything? He is a misogynistic arsewipe of epic proportions whose "opinions" are merely abusive and arrogant twaddle. Why he's given a public platform for anything is beyond me. Nor do I get the obsession with cars in general. Yes, they are useful for travelling with small children and assorted paraphernalia, moving furniture and lugging groceries. Other than that, they are pretty much environmentally destructive and, frequently, unnecessary status symbols; especially the penis replacement versions favoured by Clarkson.


But, Clarkson has proved useful in one area. He's just withdrawn an injunction he took out against a former spouse preventing her from publishing statements about their marriage. Now, this is the self-aggrandising shite with which Clarkson came out as a "defence" for withdrawing the complaint: 

"I've overturned my own injunction – how cool is that? Injunctions don't work, they're completely pointless and unbelievably expensive. And due to a new interpretation of the law you might have to go to trial if you take an injunction out and that's even more expensive.
"I thought 'Just let her run about saying what she wants to say' and people can say 'I believe that or I don't believe it'. Either way it makes no difference to me, it's as simple as that. Frankly I've got more important things to worry about than a woman I was married to for five minutes 30 years ago. So now I have no stress of an injunction and I can look Ian Hislop in the eye." 
The one thing Clarkson has never been and never will be is cool but I think I can let that particular delusion of his stand. But, let's be honest here, he only withdrew it because social media has made injunctions and superinjunctions pointless. Whilst I am firmly on the right to privacy, I believe that injunctions [and confidentiality agreements] only protect those with power; usually that requires a penis. I don't believe that we can expand the current laws on privacy and free speech  to protect women. We need to completely eradicate and rebuild the legal system so that those who aren't white men are given equal protection without caveat or exclusion from the creation of the law rather than writing clauses to cover those excluded the first time round.

After all, does anyone really believe that Clarkson's ex-wife would have been granted an injunction to prevent Clarkson speaking about her publicly? I sure don't.
Read More
Posted in Free Speech, Injunctions, Language, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Patriarchy, women and law | No comments

Sunday, 26 August 2012

Normalising Rape Culture in Toddlers: The Lock Your Daughter Up T-Shirt

Posted on 14:00 by Unknown

I regularly get told I'm over-thinking things. Hell, my mother just told me so at dinner when I was holding forth about superinjunctions and confidentiality agreements. I think they are nothing more than Patriarchal tools to permit rich, white men to sexually abuse women whilst giving those women no recourse in law. Apparently, this was over-thinking the issue. 

Anyway, we were at the St Johns Craft Fair. I may have mentally spent about £18 000 pounds. Just so much beautiful furniture, clothing, jewellery, and art; most of it made by women. There are so few spaces wherein women's art has a chance to shine that being somewhere full of women's art feels so incredibly special. The jewellery company Eclectic Shock was my favourite new find of the day. 

It was all extremely lovely right up until the point I found a t-shirt for a toddler with the ever-so-lovely maxim "Lock Up Your Daughters". You know, because girls need to locked up and protected from would-be rapist toddlers. Erm, or instead of perpetuating rape culture in your baby sons, how about teaching them to respect themselves and women. How about teaching your sons that they are capable of acting like actual humans with empathy and kindness? How about teaching your sons that girls are humans too; that they are entitled to be treated with kindness and respect. 

The "Lock Up Your Daughters" t-shirt for toddlers is just the normalisation of rape culture. They aren't funny or cute. They are just the same old misogynistic shite. Just this time using toddlers as advertising. I've never understood why people would dress their sons up like would-be rapists. I mean, what the hell else is that t-shirt supposed to mean? Seriously, someone tell it's actually a silly reference to a TV show that I've never heard of or the name of some celebrities pet elephant or something.



Read More
Posted in #IBelieveHer, #rapeculture, #waronwomen, #WeBelieveYou, Free Speech, Injunctions, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Rape, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence, Violence against Women | No comments

Edinburgh International Book Festival: Still Reinforcing Cultural Femicide

Posted on 02:12 by Unknown

I think its fairly self-evident that I love reading; certainly anyone who follows me on twitter is bombarded daily with my witterings on my favourite books. I also love the Edinburgh International Book Festival but, every year, I am disappointed by how white male-centric the festival is. This year is no different. I complained here about the official catalogue which made it pretty self-evident how few women would be speaking at the Festival; and, of that small number of women, how many were children's authors. I love children's literature but women don't just write books for toddlers and teenagers. 

For a variety of reasons, yesterday was the first chance I've had to attend the Book Festival. I'd like to say I was surprised by the obvious display of cultural femicide but I wasn't. The vast majority of pictures of authors on display were male. In the bookstores, the vast majority of books on the special displays and tables were by men; including the children's bookstore. 

Now, I'm sure that the staff didn't consciously make the decision to prioritise men's writing but that's how insidious cultural femicide is.  The privileging of men's writing frequently happens at an unconscious level and is reinforced through the media and academia. The Book Festival's choice to hang mostly photos of male authors may seem a small point but it's the accumulation of such small decisions which harms women's writing. It is just as problematic as literature departments in universities only using one or two novels by women a course so as not to alienate male students. It's obviously not a problem to alienate the women students who, frequently, make up the majority of literature students in all languages.

The Festival's continuing privileging of male writers just reinforces the notion that women's writing is gender-specific and that fucks me off no end. As ever, I will fill in the comments box at the Festival [and the subsequent surveys] pointing out the erasure of women's writing but I don't expect things to change any time soon. After all, it would take someone seriously brave and radical to overhaul the Edinburgh Book Festival so it includes more than white men. I'm doing my part by only buying tickets to women writers and only buying books written by women.

These are the books I bought yesterday:

  • Lisa O'Donnell's The Death of Bees
  • Monique Roffey's With the Kisses of His Mouth: A Memoir
  • Pat Barker's Union Street
  • Scarlett Thomas' Popco
  • Scarlett Thomas' The End of Mr Y
  • Lisa Cacho's Slavery Inc. The Untold Story of International Sex Trafficking
  • Catherine Rayner's Sylvia and Bird
  • Catherine Rayner's Ernest
  • Sue Hendra's Barry the Fish With Fingers and the Hairy Scary Monster
  • Kristina Stephenson's Sir Charlie Stinky Socks and the Tale of the Terrible Secret
The only author of adult books I've read before Monique Roffey's The White Woman on The Green Bicycle which is a bloody brilliant book. We already own all of Kristina Stephenson's Sir Charlie StinkySocks books and have seen her at the book festival in previous years. They are fab books.






Read More
Posted in #culturalfemicide, #ReadingOnlyBooksWrittenByWomen, children's literature, Cultural Femicide, Edinburgh Book Festival, Feminist Activism, literature, Misogyny, Women Writers | No comments

Friday, 24 August 2012

Jezebel Remembers It's a Feminist Organisation

Posted on 02:26 by Unknown
I was complaining about Jezebel's bizarre understanding of feminism the other day. I was in a full-on righteous rage about their inability to understand the political and cultural context of the so-called sex entertainment industry. I questioned their feminist credentials. Well, actually, I rubbished them. Then they published Listen Up Ladies, Everything Real Men Think Is Wrong With You which is a fucking brilliant feminist anthem.

These are some of my favourite highlights:

First of all, I am neither an empty man-socket nor a fucking venus flytrap. I am not looking to "attract a man." I am just trying to do my stuff and then maybe meet a person who likes me because I am also a person. I didn't want to get all serious right off the bat, BUT SORRY: Women's grueling, lifelong, losing battle to transform themselves into magical, flawless creatures with Disney hair and 15-inch waists and massive ham-lips is not for the benefit of women. And when men say that they "love to see the woman underneath the makeup," they're not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they're saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.
...

First of all. I find it hard to believe that Shaun can even tell the difference between a salon manicure and an at-home manicure, unless his girlfriend has some sort of tremor-inducing palsy, or multitasks by combining nail maintenance with trampoline practice. Which means this whole thing is just about signaling—Shaun wants to be with the kind of woman who gets her nails done at a salon. Nevermind the fact that going out to get your nails done can eat up several hours a week (I presume he also wants his girlfriend to have a career and a social life and to take care of her family and do her taxes and maintain her home and feed herself and possibly sleep once in a while), and can cost hundreds of dollars a month (I also presume Shaun is not footing the bill).
...
Also, women: If you are single, it is not because your fake eyelashes are too bushy or Kevin doesn't like cucumber lotion. This shit is an oppressive waste of your time. Here's my new beauty tip for everyone on earth: Go read a book or something.

Jezebel can be freaking hilarious when they're ranting. They just need to dump the celeb shit and rant more.
Read More
Posted in Eating disorders, fashion-beauty complex, feminism, hyper-sexuality, Misogyny, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Conformity, sex entertainment industry | No comments

Thursday, 23 August 2012

Women Against Rape Seem To Have Forgotten We Are Supposed To Be Fighting The Patriarchy

Posted on 09:21 by Unknown

Twitter Feminists are doing a very good job of dismantling the anti-woman rhetoric written by Women Against Rape in the Guardian today. The article is a pile of victim-blaming, rape excusing twaddle from two women who should know better: Katrin Axelsson and Lisa Longstaff. Any woman who writes this is victim-blaming:
It seems even clearer now, that the allegations against him are a smokescreen behind which a number of governments are trying to clamp down on WikiLeaks for having audaciously revealed to the public their secret planning of wars and occupations with their attendant rape, murder and destruction.
They are calling the two women liars. It doesn't matter how much we want to pretend they aren't, suggesting the charges are a "smokescreen" is calling two victims of sexualised violence liars. That is the territory of MRAs and their handmaidens. Not Feminists. Yeah, they try to minimise the impact by saying this without a trace of irony:
... the names of the women have been circulated on the internet; they have been trashed, accused of setting a "honey trap", and seen their allegations dismissed as "not real rape".
WAR are also calling the two women liars. They are suggesting it wasn't real rape. By buying into Assange's paranoid fantasies, they have effectively silenced two rape victims and trashed the reputation of their organisation. They are arguing precisely the same thing as MRAs. All for what, to line up to defend a whiny little tosser because they think he's The Second Coming? Well, he isn't. I know her and she'd kick the shit out of Assange.


Yeah, it might be true that Assange is being pursued with more vigour than most rapists are in the UK or in Sweden, but that's hardly an excuse to dump the procedure against Assange. All rapists should be pursued this aggressively. Then, rape victims might actually get some justice. Instead, WAR have just made it a whole lot harder for women to get support. They have made it harder for other women to get convictions for rape.

 The whole article is a pile of paranoia and misinformation. WAR have just ensured that I won't ever use them for support or refer friends to them. Anyone who writes that Wikileaks is more important than the bodily integrity of two women is no feminist. Wikileaks is more than one man and, frankly, it's not like Assange's reputation in Wikileaks is all that brilliant what with the whole dumping an Iranian leak into the shit without a backward glance.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if it only applies to rich white men's rights to criticise governments. Supporting Assange at the expense of rape victims removes women's right to bodily integrity. It removes our right to free speech. If that isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.





Read More
Posted in #IBelieveHer, #rapeculture, #waronwomen, #WeBelieveYou, feminism, Misogyny, Patriarchy, Rape, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence, Violence against Women | No comments

Ode to the Doom Cats

Posted on 09:06 by Unknown
This is written by lovely friend Philippa Molloy. It refers to a joke on Mumsnet many, many months ago; a joke which still makes me smile.

Ode to the Doom Cats


I am a doom cat of cognative dissonance
Fuck off, fuck off you awkward feminists
I see its my right to be marginalised or terrorised
Just cos my genitals don't hang on the outside.
So what if I want to cook meals for my man
Ignoring the fact that if thats what I want
Feminism says I canI am a doom cat of cognative dissonance
Don't make me feel awkward you nasty feminists.
Read More
Posted in #culturalfemicide, #supportingwomenartists, Cultural Femicide, feminism, Women Writers | No comments

So, Prince Harry Got Naked in Vegas and I'm Supposed to Care about HIs Right to Privacy

Posted on 02:36 by Unknown
As ever, I think the media, and the all dipsticks in a frenzy over this, have got themselves mixed-up in some sort of David-Bowie-inspired-Labyrinth debacle. This isn't about the constraints on the British Press which prohibit them from invading the privacy of the Royal Family. This debate should be about everyone's right to privacy. No one should find pictures of themselves being drunk, stupid and naked on the web; even over-entitled white boys with some serious privilege issues. And, let's be honest here, the media sources making po-faced statements about not being allowed to show pictures of Harry's penis are actually whinging about not being allowed to. I doubt even channel 4 news would have managed to refrain themselves from showing all the footage of Harry's penis if they though they could get away with it.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about Harry. I think he's a buckethead and I have no time for him or the rest of the nincompoops in his family. I do, however, care about his right to privacy and that of ordinary people; especially those who are vulnerable. I think Paris Hilton is nincompoop but no one deserves to have their sex tapes available on TMZ [or whoever posted them. I'm not going to google this to double check which parasitic media outlet actually published them]. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted in this manner. And, here, I do mean sexually assaulted. Having pictures of your unclothed body posted about the net for others to sneer at or masturbate to is sexualised violence.

And, yeah, I'm sure some will read this and think I'm over-reacting; that Harry is just being a jack-the-lad and it's all a bit of a fuss over nothing. I would agree that Harry playing naked billiards with his mates is neither news-worthy or surprising [although, let's be honest here, possibly a bit unsafe playing it drunk]. But, it is sexualised violence to post pictures of his body naked without permission. Frankly, I'm not overly-fond of the issues around consent and naked pictures in general. I think far too many vulnerable people get pushed into both being photographed or filmed naked and then lose the rights to their images but are somehow led to believe they have "consented" through "choice" [and, seriously, do I loathe "choice" feminism and it's insistence on pretending to "empower" vulnerable women through their sexual exploitation].

There is also a gendered dimension to this issue which the press is conveniently obfuscating. Harry, age 27, running about naked is a bit of a laugh; Vanessa Hudgens, still pretty much a teenager, sending a man naked pictures of herself is a "slut". This is without even getting into the serious misogyny which has punished both Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. The old slut-shaming double standard always rears it's ugly-head in these situations. As @londonfeminist tweeted this morning:

Just imagining today's headlines if Prince Harry were Princess Helen.
We all know the Daily Fail would be running headlines about a Princess Helen being disgrace to the crown, a slut, a whore and a whole passel of nincompoopery. They'd publish the photos. They wouldn't care about a Princess's right to privacy; not in their desperate attempt to label her a whore.

Publishing photos of people either naked or in other sexually compromising positions is sexualised violence. This should apply as equally to bucketheaded princes as it does to vulnerable 17 year olds. And, the media aren't the only ones responsible for perpetuating this sexualised violence. Every time ordinary people google these images, they are buying into and feeding the sexual exploitation industry and helping to increase the number of sexually exploited people.

The whole reality television and "celeb" magazines industry need to die. Today.

People need to stop financially supporting the sexualised violence of others. This serves only to feed rape culture.



Read More
Posted in #rapeculture, #waronwomen, feminism, Hyper-masculinity, hyper-sexuality, Misogyny, Nincompoop, Objectification of Women, Rape Culture, Reality Television, Sexual Violence, Violence against Women | No comments

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Oh, More Rape Apologists Whinging About Poor Ickle Sexual Predators Lives Being Ruined

Posted on 04:31 by Unknown
I think Savannah Dietrich is a pretty incredible teenager. Having been sexually assaulted by two teenage boys, she took the very brave stand of publicly naming and shaming them despite the fact that it was technically illegal for her to do so. Now, I'm a huge fan of the juvenile justice whose entire purpose is supposed to be the rehabilitation and education of young offenders. I think many teenagers end up caught in the system due to the failings of the adults responsible for them. I think sealing juvenile records and keeping their names from public knowledge is, in many cases, the best way to ensure that those teenagers have the possibility to go on to become important members of our communities. But, I have two qualifiers: those who commit sexual violence and murder need to have exemptions made on a case by case basis. A fifteen year old who shoots their stepfather who had been molesting them for 4 years deserves the chance to heal in private. A fifteen year old with every advantage who chooses to get behind the wheel of a car whilst intoxicated which results in the death of a pedestrian doesn't necessarily deserve the protection afforded by anonymity [unless, of course, said 15 year old is also a victim of abuse]. I like to live in a utopia where our teenagers are nurtured and respected and not villified for crimes caused by the Patriarchy. 

The two teenage boys who sexually assaulted Savannah Dietrich don't deserve that protection. They had no respect for Dietrich's bodily autonomy. Then, they published photos of the assault on the internet. They needed to be held publicly accountable for their crime; particularly since they seem to be playing the victims of a smear campaign orchestrated by Dietrich. Here's a hint, if you commit sexual assault, your reputation isn't being smeared by being publicly named. Your reputation was smeared because YOU chose to do so by committing sexual assault. It is YOUR fault. No one else is responsible for your behaviour. Just you.


Judging by this article in the Huffington Post, I suspect the boy's defence attorneys might want to revisit the concepts of personal responsibility and free will.  Or, at least, contemplate not making public statements that make your clients look even more pathetic and guilty than they already are. Yeah, death threats were a tad OTT but suggesting that the victim of their sexual assault ruined the lives of the perpetrators by holding them publicly accountable is just stupid, rape apologist horseshite. Being kicked out of the high school you attend with your victim and being forced to move are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of sexual assault. NO ONE should be forced to live near or go to school with the person who sexually assaulted or raped them. The fact that the defence attorney of one of the attackers, David Mejia, thinks that the possibility that his client might lose a potential scholarship to an Ivy League university is worse than the sexual assault his client committed just demonstrates how fucked-up rape apologists are. His client should be in therapy. He should be in therapy as part of his legal punishment to deal with the fact that he's a sexual predator.


We never hold sexual predators properly accountable for their crimes.


We always excuse them by blaming their victims.


Savannah Dietrich has kicked off a public debate which seems to be changing the discourse around sexual violence and personal responsibility. I'm glad she's taking the very brave step of naming and shaming her attackers but how shameful is it that it takes a teenager to get the media to notice the vileness that is rape apologism? 


I also notice a real lack of left-wing right-on Dudes declaring Dietrich a hero for her use of "Free Speech" but that's because "Free Speech" protects the perpetrator's right to publish photos of their sexual assault and not the victim's right to publicly name them.




Read More
Posted in #IBelieveHer, #rapeculture, #waronwomen, #WeBelieveYou, Free Speech, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Rape, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence, women-blaming culture | No comments

Tuesday, 21 August 2012

The Hypocrisy of Left Wing Right-On Dudes.

Posted on 12:48 by Unknown
Left-wing men are the worst hypocrites for normalising violence against women. You expect misogyny from right-wing conservatives who are anti-abortion, slut-shaming arsewipes. But, it's those men who think they are the Dude who are the real problem in rape culture. It's celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio and Colin Farrell who hang out at the Playboy mansion who normalise the patriarchal construction of women as fucktoys. It's Hugh Hefner who thinks his financial support for Roe vs Wade makes him a Dude [cus, it had nothing to do with him being allowed to fuck as many women as possible without consequece]. Or, Rolling Stone magazine who have Charlie Sheen as their cover story despite his clear history of serial domestic violence and his abuse of prostitutes [not to mention glamourising his descent into drug addiction]. It's Roman Polanski and Chris Brown being given standing ovations despite taking no responsibility for the very serious crimes they committed. I never see mentions of Sean Penn's arrest for domestic violence mentioned in articles lauding his status as a Dude. PETA have given props to Tommy Lee for his financial support whilst conveniently ignoring his convictions for domestic violence against his now ex-wife Pamela Anderson. Anthony Kiedis, noted supporter of Barack Obama and PETA, isn't exactly boyfriend material with his personal history of VAW [not to mention the lyrics to The Adventures of Raindance Maggie are on the wrong side of the rape apologism debate]

Why do we only ever see female celebrities posing naked in Playboy and never male celebrities posing naked in Playgirl? Why do female celebrities have to ensure they look fuckable at 40 and have to pose naked to do so? When was the last time George Clooney, noted Dude, required to get his cock out in order to conform to the Patriarchy's beauty standards? Okay, PETA, misogynists that they are, do have male celebrities posing naked but the image of Dave Navarro in his "Ink not Mink" campaign is nowhere near as well known as the image of Pamela Anderson defined as chunks of meat by PETA. Yeah, I've been harping on about PETA here recently, but, really, they are the line in the sand. Supporting the rights of animals whilst helping to perpetuate rape culture is pretty much the essence of hypocrisy.


Really, though, the nincompoops who support Assange because he runs Wikileaks whilst insisting that he couldn't possibly be a rapist because he runs Wikileaks are the real hypocrites. The level of paranoia and serious congnitive dissonance [not to mention general stupidity] involved in their leaps of illogic are something spectacular. This was posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed this week:

WikiLeaks @wikileaks Despite not even being charged, Assange is the most rape-smeared man in modern history. 2x to 4x that of DSK, depending on how you measure.
It's just a #facepalm moment. Now, I haven't read the whole of this blog but the first bit was enough to make me think the author was a dingbat with some serious paranoia issues. And, I'm sorry, but hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London whilst having a tantrum about being questioned [and not arrested] just makes Assange look like a complete prick [not to mention guilty]. Assange supporters could join with Ched Evans supporters and form a supergroup of whiny-arsed, stupid nincompoops with serious delusions of grandeur. We could call them: The Quintessential Nincompoops.

It is perfectly possible to campaign against racism or investigate corruption in government or be an environmental activist and still be a misogynist and rapist. The Occupy Movement went out of its way to disassociate itself from the women who were raped in their camps in Glasgow, New Haven, London, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Dallas [and the list goes on]. These Dudes implied, rape after rape, that the women weren't actually "involved" in the movement or were "vulnerable" and shouldn't have been there, or were "prostitutes". Because, women who get themselves raped clearly brought it on themselves by being vulnerable or prostitutes or pretending to be activists. Or, some other fucking misogynistic horseshite. It just made it easier to for the right-wing arseholes in government to dismiss the entire movement.

It would be nice if those men who self-identify as "Right-On Dudes" got off the hypocritical bandwagon in behind the anti-choice, slut-shaming arsewipes and started taking the systemic violence against women seriously. Feminism needs more men who are willing to stand up in the fight against domestic violence and sexual violence. But, we need men who aren't hypocrites. We need men that understand the systemic nature of VAW and who are willing to start changing the misogynistic discourse which places all women on a spectrum of Patriarchal Fuckability. We need men who do understand that Hugh Hefner's "relationship" with his multiple girlfriends were abusive. We need men to understand that abusing the body of a prostitute is VAW; that pornography is VAW.

We need men who understand that misogyny is just as harmful to society as racism, homophobia and disablism are.

We need men who aren't hypocrites.



Read More
Posted in Domestic Violence, fashion-beauty complex, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA, Rape Culture, Slut-Shaming, Violence against Women, women-blaming culture | No comments

Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?

Posted on 11:19 by Unknown

BY HUB NEWSFEED
Please reblog this radical feminist analysis of the Pussy Riot controversy. [via RadFem Hub]
Recently there has been lots of noise around the arrest of three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian anarchist female punk band. The media almost unequivocally represented them as the modern heroines of our time, fighting for freedom, democracy, sexual liberation and peace against a dark and ruthless dictatorship (articles are to be found in the NYT, Le Monde. The Guardian, etc.) Feminist groups all over the Western world are sending links and petitions to “free pussy riot”, anddemonstrations have even been organised in support of the group by big institutionalised organisations such as “Osez le féminisme” (dare to be a feminist).
Now while I support without ambiguity the liberation of Pussy Riot’s members, it’s worth pausing for a minute to ask ourselves, as radical feminists, what the political dynamics are here. Why would Western media denounce so passionately the repression of feminists in Russia, when it usually only diffuses information that supports male supremacy and patriarchy? Feminism has long disappeared from any malestream media, except when journalists can turn it into male masturbation material, that is pornify either our suffering or our resistance to it. What’s going on here?
Before learning more about the case, the first thing that made me frown was the fact progressives were hailing Pussy Riot as the “new feminists”, despite that their name is fairly insulting to women. It is certainly not apolitical, since we are in a context in which pornography has deeply colonised our movement and the only groups that the media presents as feminist are those that either insult us or reclaim the very instruments of our subordination, that is, male sexual violence, PIV, pornified femininity and all the associated harmful cultural practices. These tactics of destroying the meaning of feminism form part of a general worldwide backlash against women.
I found it suspicious that Pussy Riot was getting so much media attention, even for pseudo feminist standards. You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?
Well, under closer inspection I discovered that the high level of coverage was related to – though indirectly – promoting men’s right to women’s sexual subordination and the pornification of our movement. The arrested women actually form part (and are victims of) a mixed anarchist group called “Voina” (meaning “war”), founded in 2007 by two men called Oleg Vorotnikov and Leonid Nikolaïev, who regularly engage the women in extreme and degrading women-hating pornography as part of their public “political stunts”. Some of Voina’s men have actually already been incarcerated in 2011 for hooliganism – which is punished for 7 years of prison in Russia, but their bail was paid for by an artist named “Banksy” four months after their imprisonment. (More information can be foundhere and here)
Included in their anti-government actions are a “public orgy” in the national museum of biology in a room full of stuffed bears, where several men anally penetrated their female partners in a position of submission, including one heavily pregnant women, as a metaphor to “bugger/fuck Medvedev”. “Medved” means “bear”, hence all the stuffed bears – this was meant to be symbolic, artistic and revolutionary according to the activists. Here the male anarchists literally used women as dead bodies or receptacles through which to make a political point to other men. Violating women as a means to offend other men is nothing else but an age-old patriarchal mechanism – behind which the intended target are us, for men to bond over our annihilation.
Another planned stunt in the name of “sexual freedom”, inspired by extreme forms of pornography such as zoophilia/ necrophilia, includes a member of Pussy Riot masturbating with a dead chicken in a supermarket under the watch and camera of the anarchist males, after which she inserts the dead chicken entirely into her vagina and hobbles with the chicken inside her out of the supermarket. This is how the male members themselves describe their act of “liberation”:
“How to Snatch a Chicken: A Tale of How One Cunt fed the Whole of the Group Voina… in honor of their hero, a 19th century political philosopher/prisoner, Voina’s president’s wife dubbed “Vacuous Cunt With Inconceivably Huge Tits,”smuggled a chicken out of a grocery store in said “Vacuous Cunt…”  [the journalist comments] : First, the troupe searched for a large and fresh enough chicken. Then, the store isles and CCTV cameras were blocked by the members of the group holding up banners with “FUCK WHORING YOURSELF!” smeared on them in I-don’t-want-to-know-what. The blockade allowed Vacuous Cunt to promptly stuff and smuggle the poultry out of the store, which was then presumably cooked and eaten.[1]
The president is presumably Oleg, and the woman in question, apparently his wife – a situation which would qualify as domestic abuse and sexual slavery given the level of violence, women-hatred and humiliation directed at the women involved. The woman is reduced to a corpse to be ‘stuffed’ in the most degrading and insulting way. No woman would desire such things as inserting a dead chicken in her vagina in public were she not under heavy control and terror. Also of note is the fact that one of their children was brought to this stunt, visibly no older than four. Sexual exhibitionism in the presence of children may also qualify as child sexual abuse. How deeply has women-hatred sunk into men’s minds, that they are incapable of imagining a riot without it being a by-the-book copy of a gonzo porn film? Here again, we see men instrumentalising women and using sexual torture of women as a means to communicate a political message (which if not totally vacuous, communicates nothing other than their hatred of women).
Perhaps the most saddening action of all consisted in filming one of the women naked, covered in cockroaches, meant to be understood as “sexy”. The association of women to filth and parasites to be eliminated couldn’t be clearer. This is women-hating, genocidal propaganda at its most dangerous form. Voina’s men give the world to see where women’s place must be, even when fighting against authoritarian regimes: head down, underneath men and fucked by them.
Now what does this mean for us, what can be understood from the media’s silence about Voina’s pornographic exploitation of women, when all the attention is focused on promoting Pussy Riot as our modern heroines? The effect and intent is political. While all the public eyes are set on the Russian representatives of the state and religion as the ultimate fascists, dictators and machos, we are made to forget that the primary oppressors and tyrants of these particular women are the men closest to them, that is, Voina’s men and their use of pornography to demean, oppress and enslave their female comrades. They are their everyday police, the fascists and colonisers breaking the women’s resistance, occupying their souls, sentencing them to public humiliation and subordinating them through sexual abuse. We are made to forget that these women are doubly victimised: first victims of the violence by the men of their own group, they are then punished and held responsible for the abuse committed against them.
By holding Pussy Riot as examples of resistance, being silent about the pornographic violence and denouncing the state and religious authority as the only oppressor, it follows that the media is complicit with the men from Voina. It protects the anarchist’s individual impunity, and more generally, furthers all men’s interest in promoting rape and women-hating propaganda. It also prevents women in general from identifying men’s sexual violence and the harms of the penis as the primary agents of our oppression. It distracts and disgusts women away from feminism. What kind of dignity and respect for our movement can women have if the only models of resistance given to us by the media are those to be seen by millions of men as humiliated, soiled and degraded in this way?  Even the most brave and valiant women, who fight bare handed and alone against Putin and the religious authority, must be shown by men to the world as surrendering and conquered.
If we want justice for the women imprisoned and to show true solidarity, we need to not only denounce the injustice by the Russian state, but also denounce the violence by the men from Voina. We need to recognise and openly denounce the pandemic levels of sexual violence present in most male-centric leftist or anarchist activist groups, whereby women are often pimped by the men of the group for pornography or expected to submit to extremely violent or degrading acts in the name of “sexual freedom”. What counts for these men is to fight for men’s total public access to women, especially militant women, because it really serves to put all women back in line. The weapon of mass destruction against women is the penis and this is why all men are focusing on making Putin look bad while they say nothing about the bastards of Voina.
For our sisters, for all women, we need to say out loud that this is not feminism.
–  HUB Newsfeed



Read More
Posted in #rapeculture, feminism, Handmaidens, hyper-sexuality, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Patriarchal Conformity, Pussy Riot, Radical Feminism, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence, Violence against Women | No comments

Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and "Western" Hypocrisy?

Posted on 05:12 by Unknown

I've been following the legal trials of Pussy Riot for several months now. I've been increasingly uncomfortable about the directions the press has taken with this case and with the level of celebrity endorsement, particularly on the issue of free speech. Whilst I do think this issue is fundamentally about the right to free speech, I don't think it is the right to free speech that the media suggests. I have always felt that the right to free speech only supports those in power or a very small group of those with no access to formal power but who can engage with the media. I don't think discussions about the right to free speech are ever supportive of marginalised groups; no matter how much left-wing men swear it is. Free speech is the rallying cry of pornographers, neo-Nazis, rape apologists, and racists who assert that their right to be a jackass is more important than the harm they cause. Hearing people defend the tenets of free speech always makes me twitchy. Free speech, like pacifism, is a position only available to people with privilege. After all, the right to free speech is irrelevant if you live in abject poverty in a place with no access to electricity and, subsequently, have no real medium in which to assert that right.

A couple of weeks ago the journalist Miriam Elder, who is the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian, tweeted this:
Curious: do you think there would be such a campaign against Pussy Riot if they were men? And such a campaign of support in the west?
I've been pondering this since she tweeted it but haven't quite been able to articulate my concerns about the way the media is constructing Pussy Riot. I'm a big fan of anarcho-feminist punk bands, or any feminist musicians,  and feminist performance art but there is something wilfully disingenuous about the uncritical way in which Pussy Riot are being portrayed in the "Western" media. This is not to say that I think Pussy Riot deserve to be convicted for hooliganism in this case. Far from it, I think arresting non-violent protestors is one of the Patriarchy's favourite power plays. It's a nasty silencing technique. The three members of Pussy Riot should never have been arrested; never mind convicted. However, I do have concerns about the media's treatment of Pussy Riot; particularly since Pussy Riot were not protesting the right to free speech. Free speech is somewhat of red herring here. The debate for "free speech" is just the same old "Western" hypocrisy and benevolent sexism pretending to liberate women when all it does is further constrain us.

Until last night I thought I was the only one with these concerns. Then, Rowan Davies tweeted a link to this article on RadFem Hub: A Radical Feminist Collective Blog. I had no idea about Pussy Riot's connections to Voina. To be fair, I hadn't actually heard of Voina either. A perusal of google suggests they are a political performance art group; that is usually code for general misogynistic pornography pretending to be "art". PETA has a similar policy and I think they are all misogynistic nincompoops too. Voina are, simply, quite vile, nasty misogynists. It would be very hard to argue the right to free speech based on their campaigns which is why the creation of Pussy Riot was both a necessity for publicity and a way of obfuscating Voina's misogyny.

The relationship between Pussy Riot and Voina disturbs me but it also explains why Pussy Riot are getting so much "Western" media interest. Generally speaking, the media's interest in Feminism is either to force women into accepting the pornographication and objectification of their bodies or to belittle, humiliate and denigrate feminists. I don't think Pussy Riot would have received media attention in the "West" if they were male. I don't know anywhere near enough about the internal workings of the Russian government so I can't really comment on whether or not I think a male punk performance band would have been arrested in similar circumstances. But, I do believe that Pussy Riot is only garnering support in the "West" because of the holdover of the anti-communist hysteria, anti-feminist discourse and because of "benevolent sexism". The inclusion of "free speech" is about the free speech of pornographers; it's not about the free speech of feminists.

Pussy Riot are getting support from male artists like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Paul McCartney, and Stephen Fry because of "free speech". I think their various personal histories of misogynistic discourse make their definitions of "free speech" both hypocritical and lacking in political analysis. I do truly believe a lot of their support is because Pussy Riot have vaginas and are young and pretty. It is benevolent sexism: the protection and support of pretty women whose personal voices are erased in order for the Menz to feel better about themselves [or ignore their own inappropriate behaviour]. Benevolent sexism is incredibly harmful to the Feminist movement because it gives the appearance of male support without acknowledging the conditions of that support; notably passing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test as Pussy Riot do.  I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious decision on the part of some of their male supporters but I think it is there. This is not to say that Pussy Riot aren't either deliberately using the PFT as a way of garnering support or that they aren't aware of being used in this manner. It's certainly not the first time women have used the benevolent sexism card to push through their legal demands.

It's also worth acknowledging that the only major world artist whose been attacked for their support is Madonna who was labeled a moralising "slut" by Dmitry Rogozin, a deputy minister. Madonna expressed her support at a performance in Russia; as did the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Paul McCartney. I haven't heard of anyone referring to members of RHCP as sluts. And, let's be honest here, Anthony Kiedis' sexual history isn't exactly that of a man who respects women.  I also don't see a group of celebs lining up to pay for the legal costs of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samustsevich as, apparently, Banksy did when he paid the bail of several members of Voina when they were arrested at a previous demonstration. Nor, do I see anyone really upset about the possibility of Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova's young children being taken into care. After all, the loss of their children into foster care isn't about the right to free speech for men. 

I also don't think Pussy Riot were just arrested because they were criticising the Russian government. I think they were charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred because they identified as Feminist activists. This case is as much about silencing feminists as it is about the right to "free speech". It is about patriarchal approval for the right kind of feminists: those who think that prostitution and pornography are valid "career choices" rather than the abuse and torture of vulnerable women. I doubt very much that the male celebs lining up to support Pussy Riot would be doing so if the women were also anti-pornography and anti-prostitution campaigners who refused to use the language of pornography in their campaigns. Similarities to the Ukrainian feminist group Femen, who have support in the "West" are striking.

I do believe the right to free speech is an important requirement in a democracy. But, we don't have it now and we never really had it. Free Speech is about rich, white men being allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want it. It's about allowing pornographers to abuse and torture women's bodies without taking any responsibility for the harm. So, whilst I have supported the campaign to free Pussy Riot, I have not been doing so uncritically under some misguided construction of feminism or free speech. 

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because no one deserves to be imprisoned for singing and dancing.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to change the discourse around free speech so that it applies equally to minority groups.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to stop using women's bodies as political tools.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because the #waronwomen is destroying women's lives everywhere.


Some interesting articles on Pussy Riot, "Free Speech", political protests and constructions of "Art":

Pussy Riot: Whose Freedom? Whose Riot?

Their Closing Statements

Pussy Riot Trial: "We Are Representatives of Our Generation"

Starting a Pussy Riot

Pussy Riot Trial Worse Than "Soviet Era"

The Pussy Riot Trial Court Documents

Pussy Riot Claims "Victory" in Letter to Supporters

Let's Start a Pussy Riot

Free Pussy Riot Comes to Ace Hotel

Pussy Riot Supporters being Arrested in New York

Associated Press Guide To Pussy Riot's Music

And, Viv Albertine, who is just cool:

Read More
Posted in Cultural Femicide, Feminist Activism, Free Speech, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA, Pussy Riot, Slut-Shaming, Violence against Women | No comments
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • My Top 50 Influential Women Writers!
    Apparently, the Guardian did some list of the 50 most influential writers last week. Shockingly it was mostly white men. I know, you didn...
  • Anthony Kiedis: Moving from Sexiest Rocker to Creepy Old Man
    A friend sent me a link to these images because they know I'm a fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Apparently, they are from the Russian ...
  • #DickheadDetox : David Bowie, Jimmy Page and that Small Issue of Child Rape
    I won't be buying David Bowie's new album today. I've been a fan for years. Right up until I read this blog post on the 70s rock...
  • Flavor Flav is a member of the #DickheadDetox
    Flavor Flav , one of the founding members of Public Enemy has been arrested, again, for domestic violence. I have to be honest here and say ...
  • My Christmas Books for #readingonlybookswrittenbywomen
    These are the lovely books I got for Christmas: Rose Tremain's The Colour Rose Tremain's The Way I Found Her Maggie O'Farrell...
  • I am going to #RadFem2013.
    When I first wrote that I was going to RadFem2013 two months ago I did so with trepidation and fear because I knew what the reaction would ...
  • The Netmums Survey: Mark 2
    I know I have already blogged about this but it has made me very, very cross. There is so much wrong with this survey. It's poorly word...
  • The Lorax: Would Have Been Funnier Without the Fat Jokes or the Misogyny
    Took Small to see The Lorax this morning. It was actually pretty funny in places and less patronising than Ferngully with the whole destru...
  • Beth Jeans Houghton: Brilliant Musician, Shame About the Album Cover
    I discovered Beth Jeans Houghton a couple of months ago when trying to find music by women that wasn't misogynistic twaddle for an Inte...
  • #TeamBreezy: Or, How to Spot Sexist Bucketheads on Twitter
    Twitter seems to be running a competition this past week entitled: Spot the Best Misogynist. The competition has been fierce with Chris Brow...

Categories

  • #BuyingOnlyMusicByWomen (2)
  • #celebrityculture (9)
  • #culturalfemicide (64)
  • #dickheaddetox (21)
  • #EverydaySexism (38)
  • #EverydayVictimBlaming (3)
  • #FeministFriendlyFilms (5)
  • #IBelieveHer (33)
  • #IDidNotReport (16)
  • #IWD (1)
  • #ListeningOnlyToMusicByWomen (6)
  • #maleviolence (24)
  • #RadFem2013 (5)
  • #rapeculture (84)
  • #ReadingOnlyBooksWrittenByWomen (60)
  • #shoutingback (4)
  • #silentnomore (16)
  • #SilentSunday (19)
  • #supportingwomenartists (7)
  • #waronwomen (87)
  • #WeBelieveYou (36)
  • Abortion (17)
  • Abortion Rights (4)
  • amenorrhea (4)
  • Benevolent Sexism (7)
  • Birth Control (9)
  • Black History Month (1)
  • Body-Shaming (2)
  • Boycott (21)
  • Breastfeeding (8)
  • Bullying Culture (4)
  • Canadian Literature (2)
  • capitalism (1)
  • Caroline Criado Perez (1)
  • Celebrity Culture (28)
  • celebrity endorsement (1)
  • Child abuse (13)
  • Child Maintenance (2)
  • Child Neglect (5)
  • Child Rape (19)
  • Childbirth (4)
  • childcare (1)
  • Children's Films (9)
  • children's literature (6)
  • Children's Movies (1)
  • Compulsory Heterosexuality (4)
  • Cultural Appropriation (4)
  • Cultural Femicide (66)
  • Disablism (11)
  • Divorce (1)
  • Domestic Violence (77)
  • Eating disorders (6)
  • Edinburgh Book Festival (3)
  • Everyday Sexism (4)
  • Exited Women (1)
  • Facebook (2)
  • Fairy Tales (5)
  • Family (1)
  • Family Annihilators (4)
  • fashion-beauty complex (34)
  • Fat-shaming (2)
  • Female Artists (8)
  • Female Genital Mutilation (4)
  • Femen (6)
  • Femicide (5)
  • feminism (123)
  • Feminist Activism (91)
  • Feminist Theory (11)
  • Fertility (1)
  • fibromyalgia (1)
  • Financial Abuse (1)
  • Free Speech (19)
  • Gender Stereotyping (10)
  • Gendercide (14)
  • Gendering Children (11)
  • Genocide (3)
  • Girl Guides (1)
  • Gun Control (1)
  • Halloween (1)
  • Handmaidens (16)
  • Handmaidesn (1)
  • Harmful Cultural Practises (27)
  • Hate Crime (1)
  • Healthcare (3)
  • Heteronormativity (4)
  • Holocaust (3)
  • Homophobia (5)
  • Housing Benefit (1)
  • Human Rights Watch (1)
  • Humanism (1)
  • Hyper-masculinity (22)
  • hyper-sexuality (22)
  • IBelieveHer (1)
  • Infertility (3)
  • Injunctions (2)
  • International Boycotts (1)
  • International Women's Day (1)
  • Intimate Partner Violence (5)
  • JumpMag (3)
  • Language (6)
  • Lesbian separatism (1)
  • Lesbians (1)
  • Lesbophobia (1)
  • literature (6)
  • Louise Mensch (1)
  • Male Entitlement (41)
  • Male Violence (27)
  • Male Violence Against Women (143)
  • manplaining (2)
  • Mass Media (4)
  • Menstruation (1)
  • military-industrial complex (4)
  • Million Women Rise (2)
  • Misandry (1)
  • Miscarriage (1)
  • Misogynistic Advertising (25)
  • Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame (27)
  • Misogyny (193)
  • Misogyny in Film (7)
  • Misogyny in Music (4)
  • Misogyny in television (5)
  • Mooncup (2)
  • Motherhood (1)
  • Mumsnet (19)
  • Music by women (3)
  • Netmums (1)
  • Neuroscience (1)
  • Neuroskeptic (1)
  • NIA (3)
  • Nincompoop (18)
  • Nincompoopery (6)
  • Nobel Peace Prize (1)
  • Objectification of Women (56)
  • Olympics (2)
  • Parenting (1)
  • Patriarchal Conformity (35)
  • Patriarchal Fuckability Test (47)
  • Patriarchy (64)
  • PETA (7)
  • Petition (4)
  • Pink Stinks (2)
  • PIV (2)
  • Polanski (2)
  • Porn Culture (16)
  • Pornography (18)
  • Poverty (9)
  • Pregnancy (1)
  • Prostitution (11)
  • Pussy Riot (8)
  • Racism (21)
  • Radical Feminism (19)
  • Rape (53)
  • Rape Crisis Scotland (2)
  • Rape Culture (95)
  • Rape Myths (5)
  • Reality Television (7)
  • Reclaim the Night (2)
  • Reproductive Rights (4)
  • Right to Privacy (2)
  • Roman Polanski (4)
  • School Uniforms (1)
  • Scotland (1)
  • sex entertainment industry (12)
  • Sex Tourism (1)
  • Sex Trafficking (2)
  • Sexist Advertising (16)
  • Sexual Harassment (3)
  • Sexual Violence (59)
  • Silent Sunday (2)
  • Sisterhood (8)
  • Slut-Shaming (17)
  • Slutwalk (3)
  • Stockholm Syndrome (1)
  • Substance Misuse (2)
  • Sudden Infant Death Syndrome [SIDS] (1)
  • teenage pregnancies (1)
  • The Women's Room UK (2)
  • Torture (2)
  • transactivism (1)
  • Transgenderism (2)
  • Transphobic (1)
  • Trident (1)
  • Twitter (2)
  • UK Feminsta (1)
  • Vagenda (1)
  • Vagina (3)
  • Victim Blaming (24)
  • Violence against Women (142)
  • Violence Against Women in Scotland (4)
  • War on Women (81)
  • Welfare State (6)
  • White Supremacy (4)
  • Womanism (2)
  • women (8)
  • Women Academics (1)
  • women and law (2)
  • Women Artists (2)
  • Women Athletes (2)
  • Women Bloggers (23)
  • Women in Prostitution (1)
  • Women Writers (67)
  • women-blaming culture (53)
  • women-only spaces (3)
  • Women's Films (2)
  • women's health (1)
  • Women's History (18)
  • Women's History Month (6)
  • Women's Holocaust Testimonies (1)
  • Women's Liberation (8)
  • Women's Library (1)
  • Women's Literature (24)
  • Women's Music (2)
  • Women's Poetry (7)
  • Women's Rights (17)
  • Women's Stories (5)
  • World Breastfeeding Week (1)
  • World Wildlife Federation (1)

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (260)
    • ►  August (23)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (31)
    • ►  May (37)
    • ►  April (32)
    • ►  March (38)
    • ►  February (38)
    • ►  January (28)
  • ▼  2012 (240)
    • ►  December (28)
    • ►  November (34)
    • ►  October (50)
    • ►  September (28)
    • ▼  August (36)
      • Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Victor...
      • @Daniel Tosh: Perpetuating Rape Culture
      • Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Sheba. You...
      • Look! More Offensive Clothing. This Time For Babies.
      • Dearest Vagina, Once Again I have Failed You.
      • Some Brilliant Feminist Bloggers Smashing The Patr...
      • The One Where I Publicly Thank Jeremy Clarkson For...
      • Normalising Rape Culture in Toddlers: The Lock You...
      • Edinburgh International Book Festival: Still Reinf...
      • Jezebel Remembers It's a Feminist Organisation
      • Women Against Rape Seem To Have Forgotten We Are S...
      • Ode to the Doom Cats
      • So, Prince Harry Got Naked in Vegas and I'm Suppos...
      • Oh, More Rape Apologists Whinging About Poor Ickle...
      • The Hypocrisy of Left Wing Right-On Dudes.
      • Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?
      • Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism...
      • Jezebel: I'm Not Sure if We Should Be Celebrating ...
      • Assange: The Quintessential Example of White Male ...
      • Metro: Reinforcing Misogyny Through Piss-Poor Writing
      • Marge Piercy's Right To Life
      • Defining Misandry. Or, It's Whiny-Arsed MRA Time
      • Today, I Came Out as a "Privileged" Feminst. And, ...
      • Thankfully, Misogyny Returns to Live Another Day: ...
      • Misogynistic Walk of Shame: Hooters. And, Not Just...
      • The Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Co...
      • The Official Magnetic List of Acceptable Boy and G...
      • Turns Out Freeing Your Muff is Actually a Good Thing
      • Amazon: Supporting Child Rape or Just Really, Real...
      • I'm In The Market For a Nuclear Bunker.
      • Oh, Look. It's the West Mercia Police being Misogy...
      • Apparently, Evil Feminists Have Hurt Poor Wickle M...
      • The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too Shocker: Redux
      • World Breastfeeding Week
      • Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: It's PETA....
      • Child maintenance: Or, Why You Shouldn't Stick You...
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (4)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile