OK Magazine: Still Hates Woman

OK Magazine: continuing it's policy of woman-shaming.

I'm not surprised OK Magazine ran this cover. 

I'm angry. Sad. Depressed. Mostly angry. How dare they treat a woman like this. It doesn't matter what woman because none of us deserve this.

I am surprised at how many people seem shocked by OK Mag running this as their cover. It's not like OK Mag ever write anything positive about women.  All of their articles are about women being too fat fat, too skinny, too promiscuous, too orange, too stupid, too smart, too woman. Just like most women's magazines.

Women's magazines make their money making women feel insecure. They don't care about women's health or happiness: just the money.

We need to boycott them all.

We need to start developing magazines aimed at women which don't engage in women-blaming and women-hating. 

No woman should ever be shamed for her body. Ever.

Read More

Eat Battery Farmed Chickens and Save Women: Challenging PETA's Reinforcement of Rape Culture

I know that this flies in the face of common sense and compassion but bear with me here. PETA’s campaigns are based on the idea that the objectification, sexualisation, and torture of women's bodies are a great way to raise awareness of animal rights. They glamorise, romanticise and eroticise Violence against Women because they refuse to either acknowledge the construction of “woman as object” within the Patriarchy, or take responsibility for the harm they cause to women by their campaigns. PETA usually uses the bodies of young, thin, blonde, white women as a canvas for their protest. Whilst their protests garner public attention, it isn’t because people are interested in animal rights. PETA have become a spectacle; their message lost in medium of their protest. PETA also seem to have completely forgotten what exactly they have been campaigning for and instead have become obsessed with out-porning the porn industry in their objectification of tortured women’s bodies.

PETA’s newest campaign is called “Fur Trim is Unattractive” and it has been getting considerable amount of press for both the level of misogyny and the generalised nincompoopery within it. It isn’t a new campaign though. It is yet another recycled campaign designed to shock; despite being neither original nor interesting. It's the normal "women with pubic hair are unfuckable" motif, as evidenced by the entire porn industry. One would have thought that an organisation who campaigns against the cosmetic industry's animal testing practises might be aware of the links between pornography, the fashion-beauty complex, and the unnecessary torture of animals. One would be wrong. The very last thing PETA is, is self-aware. Nor do they care that they are supposedly campaigning to prevent the torture of animals by financially profiting from the torturing the bodies of vulnerable women in porn.

Whilst it is undoubtedly unpleasant, the “Fur is Unattractive” campaign is actually rather tame for PETA. Over the past few years, their campaigns and street protests have become increasingly violent and quite deliberate in their use of Violence against Women. They are no longer content with using the bodies of naked women or even carving up women’s bodies as if we were meat. This year alone they have had one advertisement, developed for the Superbowl, banned for having women simulate sex with vegetables; an ad which was only marginally less offensive from Voina’s ‘protest’ art involving women having sex with frozen chickens. Their second ad campaign this year, entitled ‘Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom out of Me’, should have been called An Ode to Violence Against Women: The Romance Period. It features a physically and sexually assaulted woman wearing a neck brace and covered in bruises because her boyfriend, newly vegan, has pounded her in every way possible. Apparently some of the unfortunate consequences of veganism and the subsequent “mind-blowing intercourse” are “sex injuries such as whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.” That isn't sex. It is rape.

A third campaign developed this year to celebrate World Vegan Day involves a large number of men gyrating, in increasingly more violent ways, with vegetables in place of their penis. Surprisingly, nothing makes me want to give up bacon like a Dude with a cucumber for a penis, or so I'm lead to believe. I'm not entirely sure what PETA was aiming for with this but this is pretty much the definition of creepy:

“A cucumber has never looked so good – or so wicked. In honour of World Vegan Day, watch this spicy video that gives a wink to the sexual health benefits of going vegan by showcasing men enthusiastically and proudly showing off some healthy protrusions from their trousers.”

PETA have pretty much become a parody of themselves. It would be amusing if it weren't for their constant perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture.

So, I say we start eating battery-farmed chickens to raise awareness of the objectification, sexualisation and torture of women's bodies. After all, PETA doesn't care how it raises awareness or who funds its campaigns, so why should feminists? PETA have gone so far as to develop their own porn channel to supposedly raise awareness of the abuse of animals. You don't see feminist groups raising funds by offering to kill rabbits live on the web; perhaps we should.

I believe PETA's advertising campaigns buy into the hyper-sexualised and hyper-masculinised culture in which women are treated as no more than Patriarchal fucktoys. PETA support, perpetuate, and perpetrate rape culture.

So, if PETA wants to reduce the discourse on animal cruelty to simply objectifying women as an advertising tool and encouraging rape culture, I'm going to start buying battery-farmed chickens.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Samsung's Smart TV's Seductive Emotion

Because the only way to sell a TV to men is to have an advertisement, run before the Kids' Club Movie*, starring a woman in her underwear being stared at by a building full of men incapable of thinking with anything other than their cocks: 

Because it is not at all frightening or creepy to find a couple of hundred men, some old enough to be your father, show up at your door salivating with lust. It's what every girl dreams of at night: some middle-aged arsehole who you've never met rocking up at your door with an erection. Nothing says desperate loser more.

No doubt, if one of them turned out to be a sexual predator, it would have been her fault for getting raped because she "enticed" them with her sexiness. Whilst watching the fucking TV. Because no woman is safe in their own home from predatory men. I mean, Reddit's proved that women's bodies are fair game in public. Why not in private too? God forbid, women think they are entitled to any privacy. 

Does Samsung realise women watch TV too? That I'm definitely not going to buy a TV whose entire ad campaign is based on perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture? Cus, it's not happening. 

Also, why is this commercial appropriate for an audience of small children? Does Samsung think 4 year old boys are so obsessed with tits that they are going to make their fathers run and buy a new TV so they can see a pair? 

And, why don't more men find this kind of advertising offensive? It's just said that all men are sex-obsessed losers with no self-control? Do none of you find that a tad rude? Or, objectionable?

*Okay, this is a bit a theme recently. I can safely say, bar an outbreak of the plague, I will not be taking small to see anymore kids' club movies because I clearly can not handle the rage-inducing levels of misogyny. At least, I won't until the get rid of Aquafresh's Nurdle World which is just the most appalling gender stereotyped shit that even Disney would struggle to match. After that, I might reassess the situation but only because it's raining. Again. 

Read More

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

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

Misogynistic Walk of Shame: Hooters. And, Not Just for the Name.

This is the bit where I admit to reading Jezebel; a magazine which claims to be feminist whilst writing some of the most misogynistic, anti-woman twaddle I've had the misfortune to read. If you don't believe me, look at their posts on breastfeeding or any post on celebrities. In between the gobsmackingly sexist posts about women, Jezebel manages to produce some utterly brilliant rants about body image, patriarchal fuckability, and stupid arsewipe advertisers. So, I have to give them props for their rant on this piece of misogynistic arsehattery: 

The entire ad is about how fat, ugly and utterly unfuckable most women are; cause that isn't offensive or misogynistic at all. Apparently, the only subhumans with vaginas who are even remotely fuckable are "girls". I do wish people would actually read Nabokov's Lolita and realise it's about the rape of a child and not some guide to fucking barely legal 18 year olds. [I'm also fairly creeped out by 40 year old men wanting to fuck 18 year olds. Just gross. Really, really gross].

Hooters remains the quintessential example of the normalisation of the objectification and pornographication of women's bodies. FFS, Hooters is classed as a "family restaurant" and not  a sex entertainment venue. You can have your child's birthday there. Granted, you have to be a pretty piss-poor parent with some serious common sense problems to think that a venue featuring half-naked women being objectified is a good place to go for chicken wings. But, lots of parents do this and, in doing so, help perpetuate rape culture. So, I'm going to be loud and proud about my judgy pants here: If you take your kid to Hooters, you really do need some basic critical thinking skills and parenting classes to boot.

I can't possibly improve on this rant in Jezebel: 

This commercial is just a stank bundle of cheap, hacky, antique jokes that prop up the patently damaging notion that women's societal value declines drastically with every cellulite dimple. Oh, thanks, guys. Thanks a lot. Now that I'm too embarrassed to go to the pool and exercise because some dickhead lifeguard and the voices in his head are going to be horking over my body, I guess I'll just cloak my shame in sweatpants and gorge on fried chicken all night! 

So, what they said and I'm adding Hooters to my Misogynistic Walk of Shame Boycott. [Not that I have ever eaten there. Obviously.]

Oh, and in case you are clinically stupid and wanted to pretend that that was a one-off example of extreme misogyny by Hooters, here's another ad charmingly entitled More than a Mouthful.

Read More

Harrod's "Degenders": In the Stupidest Way Possible.

I'm not actually sure why the Guardian ran this piece since its basically an unpaid advertisement for Harrods. And, even then, it's not a very good advertisement; after all it's not really degendering to 'theme' rooms whilst still dressing employees in pink and blue. Apparently, staff can "choose" to wear the colour of the opposite sex because the colours were only "chosen" because they are "pretty". But, they are cut "differently" which, I assume, means blue t-shirts on a woman will make them look like aliens and the men wearing pink will turn immediately into fluffy bunnies or something equally heinous. Or, Harrods staff think their customers are really, really stupid. I'm leaning towards the really, really stupid bit.

I nearly fell of the chair laughing when I read this bit:

"We felt it was a bit of a risk, when that formula traditionally works, to turn around and break the mould," said David Miller, director of Harrods Home, who said the store was aiming to create "retail theatre" and attract the customers of the future.

Dude, in no way shape or form, is pink fairies and blue trains a 'risky' business decision. It's the same old shite just packaged slightly differently. Frankly, you'd have to have been raised on a cave on Pluto not to get the pink fairies = girls and blue trains = boys. And, you aren't "trail-blazing" in making this decision. Feminists have been banging on for years about how dangerous the colour-coding of children actually is. All Harrods are trying to do is capitalise on the work of Peggy Orenstein and Pink Stinks. Plagiarising the work of women isn't a new thing for men. After all, D.H Lawrence, Thomas Hardy and William Wordsworth weren't pioneers of the cultural femicide either. If you don't believe me, you should read Dale Spender's The Writing or the Sex?

I loathe being patronised by companies who assume that I lack all critical literacy skills. It's a marketing gimmick based entirely on the concerns of parents and activists. It isn't new or clever. Lying about your geniusness just pisses me off. And, it makes me want to boycott you even more for lying about degendering. I prefer my misogyny straight up. The pretence of the "we aren't misogynists, we're just giving customers what they want" makes me nauseous. I'd rather buy from Toys R' US who, while utterly horrendous patriarchal indoctrinators don't try to pretend they are anything but.

The gendering of children is a harmful cultural practise and should be treated as such. The Guardian is a news organisation. They shouldn't be running such utterly stupid free advertising for over-priced toys which harm children.

UPDATE: INTERESTING REVIEW IN NY TIMES

Read More

Sensationalising Male Violence for Entertainment

I've been debating writing this blogpost because I genuinely believe that the men who commit these crimes want the publicity and that that publicity is the last thing we should be giving them; as Helen Lewis points out in this article in the New Statesman. I dislike how the names of these violent men become part of the cultural landscape whilst their victims names are erased; only to be mourned by close family. At the same time, I find the media intrusion into the families of the victims to be utterly horrifying. I'm not entirely sure how we can ensure that the names of the victims become more important than remembering the name of their murderer without some intrusion into their privacy.

However, I can not believe it is legal for the media to start interviewing people who have just witnessed violence without even giving them a chance to breathe. I find the the jamming of microphones into the faces of injured people utterly hateful. I find camping on the lawns of extended family members distateful. This isn't about "reporting" a "newsworthy" story. It's about causing more hurt to an already distressed family. As long as we make violence our entertainment, we will continue to prey upon people who deserve our compassion; not our ignorance.

The numerous, daily examples of male violence are elided from the media in favour of sensationalist stories which make folk heroes of other violent men. We need to start acknowledging the systemic and endemic violence perpetrated by men against their partners, children, extended family, acquaintances and strangers. But, we need to start tackling this issue without glamourising the violence or using the pain of the victims for our collective entertainment.

The current media representations of the mass shooting in Aurora have been the same old sensationalist shite designed to cause further hurt rather than any attempt to deal with the social, political, and cultural reasons as to why mass shootings are increasing. That is the real story; not one in which the murderer becomes more important than those he hurt. We need to hold the media more accountable for sensationalising pain. However, those who consume these stories are just as guilty as those who write them.

We need to start boycotting all forms of media which sensationalise violence in society. We need to start making formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. We need to start getting our media coverage from sources interested in justice rather than profit.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Continuing Nincompoopery of PETA [TRIGGER WARNING]

I've always thought that PETA were a bunch of misogynistic nincompoops too stupid to understand that a person can care about the abuse and torture of animals without objectifying and torturing the bodies of women. This image of Pamela Anderson exemplifies everything that is wrong with them; and it's not even the most misogynistic image they've ever come up with:

Every time I see a new PETA advertisement, I think they can't possibly be anymore misogynistic or hypocritical (see Naomi Campbell and the "I'd rather be Naked than Wear Fur campaign). I am consistently wrong. PETA gave up all pretence of humanity when they decided to launch a porn channel in order to raise awareness of animal rights. Because torturing rabbits to test eye make up is more important than the rape and torture of women's bodies. Here's a hint: no one should be testing mascara on rabbits. It's torture. Double anal penetration of a woman's body: also torture. PETA are the quintessential misogynistic hypocrites with no redeeming features.

Yet, again, I was wrong in the PETA can't get any worse stakes. I came across the link to PETA' Superbowl misogynistic bollocks on a Mumsnet thread. I genuinely can't articulate just how offensive, vile and stupid the [thankfully banned] ad was. Simulating sex with vegetables in order to make vegetarianism look cool is really just pathetic and sad. And horrible and misogynistic. What kind of person converts to vegetarianism after seeing a woman faking an orgasm on a piece of broccoli? Is the animal rights movement so devoid of intelligent members that they have to trawl for support from the clinically stupid? Or, do PETA just not care that their ads are targeted at the sexually inadequate or hypocrites like Naomi Campbell?

I do not buy any beauty products which are tested on animals, including soaps and shampoos. I believe ALL animal testing should be illegal and people who wear fur as a fashion choice are dingbats [although, I do exclude here communities like the Inuit who eat, use, and wear all products from animals they hunt]. I do not believe in any factory-farming or battery caged hens and I do believe that the European/ North American & South American diets are far too dependent on meat which is part of the cause of famines in other areas of the world. I believe everyone reducing their meat intake to no more than once a week while have the benefit of increasing sustainable food production for all. I believe in this despite PETA's best efforts to the contrary.

I believe PETA's advertising campaigns buy into the hyper-sexualised and hyper-masculinity culture in which women are treated as no more than Patriarchal fucktoys. PETA support, perpetuate and perpetrate rape culture.

I do wonder how many people PETA put off the animal rights movement with their misogyny? And, how many have joined their cause because it reinforces the construction of women as sub-human?

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Domino's Pizza Now Served with a Rape Joke

Rape jokes are never funny; unless you're a rapist. Rape jokes simply continue to perpetuate our rape culture. It doesn't matter if you aren't a rapist. If you laugh at a rape joke, you are telling a rapist that rape is okay. That rape is funny and totally normal. Like pornography, and to seriously badly paraphrase a famous feminist quote, laughing at rape jokes is the theory and rape is the practise. This blog is precisely why rape jokes are harmful and the comedians who make them are just stupid, vile misogynists.

So, I'm adding Dominoes to the Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame for their "No is the New Yes" campaign for their new range of "artisan pizzas" [which in and of itself is a pretty stupid campaign for multi-national fast food company]. Using a very well-known anti-rape campaign to sell pizzas is just fucking despicable. Dominoes and the advertising company they hired should be ashamed of themselves. They can not undo the harm they have caused by approving this campaign and I, for one, will be boycotting them. Permanently.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Aquafresh's Stupid Fecking Nurdle World

I took Small [aka my youngest child] to see Stockholm Syndrome: The Movie [aka Disney's Beauty and the Beast] the other day. It was pissing with rain. We have run out of soft plays, swimming pools and museums to visit with the several thousand other families struggling to entertain small children during school holidays when it hasn't stopped raining. In what feels like forever. So, I'm making excuses for taking her to see a Disney Princess film. She likes them and it gives me a chance to rant about them. I think my objections to Beauty and the Beast are the routine feminist critiques: violent, abusive man who "heals" through the loving, kindness of a beautiful, sweet woman. Even better, Belle can read. And, she turns down a proposal from the village violent abuser to marry the rich abusive prince. Cus, that's a good thing right, especially if you ignore the subtext of rape throughout most of the first half of the movie? #facepalm

As if it weren't bad enough sitting through the twaddle of Beauty and the Beast, I also had to sit through Aquafresh's oh so subtle attempts at marketing toothpaste to children via the pretence of being educational. It's a short "film" called Nurdle World. It was patronising and the actress hosting it was, frankly, appalling. Really, the whole thing was appalling. But, they surpassed the appalling shit with their reinforcing of some seriously stupid, offensive and damaging stereotypes. Turns out, girls talk too much and boys are cool because they solve problems and fly spaceships. But girls, they just talk too much and do nothing. Just like Disney Princesses who have to be rescued constantly from "real men", Nurdle World girls [and sisters in real life] just sit around yakking and missing out on all the fun.

Just how fucking stupid was the marketing team that came up with this patronising shit? We are so boycotting Aquafresh now.

Read More

So Saudi Arabia is Sending 1 Female Athlete to the Olympics

Clearly, Feminism is no longer needed if intense international pressure and lots of media speculation are all that's needed to convince a misogynistic government that, yes, in fact, they do have to have women on their team. Since, the freaking Olympic guidelines require all teams to field male AND female players. Yep, we can all hang up our banners, put down our tambourines and stop singing "I'm a Feminist. A Mighty, Mighty Feminist" because Saudi Arabia is sending a woman to the Olympics. This is clearly the heralding of The Dawn of Post-Feminism.

Course, they're only sending ONE woman. In the entire wealthy nation of Saudi Arabia, they could only find ONE woman capable of competing in an athletics competition at the international level and they weren't even going to send her. But, still, we are supposed to celebrate this one, pathetic little attempt at not being banned for being misogynistic. Frankly, the IOC should have acted as an organisation of adults and banned them at the beginning of this farcical debate. After all, South Africa only started taking anti-apartheid protests seriously when their rugby and cricket teams were banned from playing internationally. And, its not the first time the Olympics have been used for political purposes.

Hitler was embarrassed by the African-American athlete Jesse Owens destroying his team of "Aryan" athletes after other nations threatened to boycott if Germany didn't allow Black or Jewish players. Germany fielded one Jewish woman. Just the one Jewish woman. Erm, can anyone else see the irony in that? Threatened ban, so they send one token player? Maybe the IOC might want to review its own history. And, perhaps the media can stop pretending this is some great victory because it isn't. It's just another piss-poor attempt at pretending women are human too.

UPDATE: Apparently, Saudi Arabia aren't fielding any women athletes because the only women who could compete at the international level can't because her horse is injured. Dalma Rushdi Malhas trains in Italy. For obvious reasons. Even if her horse weren't injured, Malhas would have been a controversial choice because she hasn't actually competed at a high enough international level and the IOC would have had to make a special case for her. So, we're back to the original position. Saudi Arabia is apparently fielding an Olympic team with no women athletes in direct contravention of IOC regulations. And, no one gives a shit. We should be boycotting any sport with countries which don't allow women to compete [and those committing human rights abuses like Sri Lanka].

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Compeed Blister Pads

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read More

Louis Theroux Utterly Stupid View of Porn

WARNING: TRIGGERING

To be clear, I am anti-porn. I think its harmful, reductive and destructive. It destroys women's bodies through abuse and objectification. It reinforces rape culture by perpetuating the myth that women are ALWAYS in a constant state of consent. It destroys sexuality by delineating and prescribing "acceptable" sexual practises which, inevitably, privilege the male orgasm at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy [never mind their desire to orgasm]. I agree with the radical feminist philosophy that: Porn is the Theory and Rape the Practise. I have no time for the arguments of "choice feminism" which suggest we should support the rights of individual women to "choose" to engage in any activity which then, necessarily, become feminist [with no mention the issue of poverty, abuse and substance misuse which push women into the porn industry]. Feminism is a political theory which examines structural power. It is not about individual "choices"; especially when those "choices" involve serious consequences on the physical and emotional body of the woman involved and longer-term consequences for the objectification and abuse of other women. Porn is your basic woman-hating, Patriarchy-approved establishment.

Usually, I am a fan of Louis Theroux's work. I like his ability to play the foppish Englishman and ask awkward and inappropriate questions which elicit answers that others couldn't. Twilight of the Porn Stars, a return to a 1997 documentary by Theroux, though was, simply, quite embarrassing. Theroux's failure to challenge the myth that porn is in financial difficulties is incredibly harmful. Yes, I get that he's more interested in the performers than in the money but still, his refusal to even attempt to tackle one of the most pervasive myths of the sex industry is telling. He could have challenged the myth in his conclusion without impacting on his interview technique. Theroux seems to have taken the information he received from employees in the industry without question. It just wasn't good enough as a documentary or responsible enough for a man with his reputation. It also shows a remarkable lack of research into the topic and some serious cognitive dissonance.

I would have just clenched my teeth and assumed that bad editing was responsible for the problematic documentary but the article Theroux wrote for the Guardian to advertise the documentary destroyed my optimism. The article is really quite appalling and distressing. There is so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start. Basically, Theroux's premise that the porn industry is in decline is just wrong. He completely misunderstands how "free" porn works on the internet or how the "sex entertainment industry" uses the word "amateur". How can you produce a documentary without understanding the mechanics of the industry; especially one which operates on obfuscation? Porn is a profitable industry because it followed the rules of capitalism and has concentrated the power and the profits in the hands of a few men. Gail Dines and Dana Bialer have written an excellent critique of Theroux's failure to understand the industry in the Guardian. Frankly, ten minutes googling would have demonstrated just how fallacious the premise of a porn industry in decline really is.

Whilst Theroux's failure to understand the economics of the porn industry is interesting, I found his refusal to really question the effects of the porn industry on individual performers quite intriguing. Theroux does return again and again to the suicide of a performer called John Dough that he interviewed in the 1997 documentary but Theroux seems to have a "romantic"view of the industry. At least, his view of the industry has some seriously rose-coloured glasses involved. He does get Francine Amidour to make some seriously unpleasant comments including the fact that she wouldn't want her children to be involved because she doesn't want to be the mother of a "whore". The fact that Amidour is "whoring" out other people's children is, apparently, so insignificant that isn't even worth mentioning. Amidour also says that "fucking someone on a camera isn't as hard as working 16 hours a day in an office." I've worked in offices. It's never given me an STD, or stretched my anus so that I suffer permanent anal leakage or resulted in my gang rape. And, that's without getting into Robert Black, who actually served a prison sentence for obscenity, who says that he doesn't regret forcing women to engage in multiple anal penetration but that it seems "silly" now. The women whose bodies he tortured might feel differently about that. I know I do. It's actually quite lazy journalism.

Theroux does focus on the suicide of the one male model, 'John Dough', that he interviewed in his  original film is interesting but very odd considering the irreparable harm caused by the industry on women's bodies daily like double anal penetration, gang-bangs and men ejaculating in women's eyes. Theroux asks everyone he interviewed about Dough's suicide and tracks down Dough's wife. Monique DeMoan suggests that her husband committed suicide because of "his cocaine addiction and the instability and sense of failure that went with it, not because of the pressures of the industry". Whilst the interview with Dough's wife is definitely one of the most important parts of the documentary, interviewing her daughter on camera was a step too far for me. She is a child. She could have been interviewed without her face being shown. I know Monique could have refused the interview but it's Theroux's documentary. He could have shown some consideration for the child and chosen not to use her; especially because she is used as a foil to belittle her mother. That made me so very uncomfortable and angry. More importantly, Dough didn't commit suicide because of the "decline of a media format" as those interviewed by Theroux suggested. And, that's certainly not what the people Theroux interviewed thought. They have been saying it but its a clear case of cognitive dissonance. After all, no one working in the industry is going to admit that the industry is harmful and kills people. Theroux just didn't push hard enough on this issue.

I don't even know where Theroux was going with this bit in his Guardian article:

It's an open secret in the porn world that many female performers are supplementing their income by "hooking on the side". It's also called "doing privates", as in private bookings. The official industry line is that it's dangerous (because clients aren't tested the way performers are) and irresponsible (because the women could then infect the closed community of professional performers). But the women can make far more money having sex behind closed doors than doing it on film and, in fact, the practice is widespread. For many female performers nowadays, the movies are merely a sideline, a kind of advertising for their real business of prostitution.

Male performers do not have the same options. For a tiny subsection of top talent, there is still a regular pay cheque, albeit a shrinking one. But work has dried up for many of the journeyman-performers in the lower ranks and there is a great deal of anxiety across the board.

Because men aren't financially "compensated" in the same manner as women, we should feel sad for them? "Doing privates" is prostitution. The models, male and female, do so because they need the money. That's hardly a "free choice"; especially in an industry which has no health insurance and causes serious physical damage to bodies. Using "adult movies" to advertise your body to be prostituted is not a good thing. It just shows how strong the links are between the "sex entertainment industry" [approved by Wall street] and the prostitution and abuse of women's bodies [approved by Wall Street in all but name]. The fact that we live in a society where women and men are required to sell their bodies to pay their bills is not a society I want to live in.

And, frankly, this bit is just stupid:

Where the industry will end up is hard to predict. Clearly there is still a market for softcore movies made by companies such as Penthouse and Hustler, available on subscription channels. The parodies may continue for a while, too. But it is difficult to see how a business selling hardcore movies and even internet clips is sustainable when most people simply don't want to pay if they don't have to. To many people, when it comes to porn, not paying for content seems the more moral thing to do.

I know where I want the porn industry to end up: consigned to the rubbish bins of history and every piece of pornography destroyed so that the abuse of individuals is no longer the fodder for men to wank over. The morality of people who masturbate over the abuse of women's bodies is questionable but its not because they don't like to pay for porn. It's because they are masturbating over the rape and torture of women; vulnerable women. That is the morality issue.

And this bit just made me want to vomit:

And there is also the wider question: do those who use porn not, perhaps, owe it a little something? Should those who download it not be ready to pass on a little cash incentive to the business? And if not, why not? Does the stigma attached to porn make it OK to steal it? These questions underpin a much bigger dilemma being faced by all media: how do you sustain an industry that provides a certain standard of product – be it journalism, music, or mainstream movies, or X-rated movies – when more and more consumers are in the habit of downloading content for free? In the world of porn, the answer is: you can't.

I'd like to see the BBC do a real documentary on pornography and the real effects of it on individual performers and the larger effects on the objectification and sexual violation of women. The obfuscation in this documentary is just depressing.

Theroux is better than this. And, the women and men abused daily in the "sex entertainment industry" deserve better than this documentary.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Always and their Seriously Stupid "Have a Happy Period" Shite

The Always ads are stupid. They have always been stupid. They will always be stupid. And, they are so clearly designed by men because no women would think up "Have a Happy Period" as a slogan. I don't care about their dry-weave or pretty patterns on something designed to collect my blood. I'm not planning on displaying my used pads on youtube. I just want something practical to deal with the blood. Periods may be natural but they ain't an afternoon tea party. At least, I've never been to a tea party involving diarrhea, cramps, heavy bleeding, bloating, migraines and mood swings. I may be leading a somewhat sheltered life though.

I did try to find a link to one of these ads on youtube but mostly I found pisstakes of the "Have a Happy Period" bullshit. I didn't quite feel the need to watch any but it was enough to make me not bother searching further. Frankly, if you're desperate to see it, the ad runs on TV constantly.

The only thing I can say that is positive is that Always finally made me take the plunge into buying a mooncup. Probably not their intention but its made me happier. No more monthly purchases supporting the ultra-stupid P&G and their utterly bizarre "P&G is Proud to Sponsors Mums" crapola which just makes me want to vomit.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Pepsi Max's End of the World Pro-Rape Bullshit

This is an old advertising campaign for Pepsi Max and one that I complained to the ASA about. Needless to say, the ASA didn't see the misogyny inherent in "tricking" a woman into a sexual relationship by "pretending" the world is about to be destroyed by a giant meteor. But, then, the ASA isn't exactly renown for understanding or spotting misogyny even when its handed to them on a platter.

I think Pepsi Max crossed the line with this ad. Simply put, it encourages rape culture wherein a woman's consent is nothing more than a game. With the rape of a woman's body as a prize. The fact that Pepsi Max used this as part of a viral campaign entitled "Tell Us Your Max Experience" just makes it worse. Women's bodies are only for male pleasure and men get to use a woman's body even after she has said "no". Because women aren't allowed to say "no".

So, thank you Pepsi Max for reminding women, once again, that bodily autonomy isn't a privilege women have. In a capitalist-Patriarchy, we are simply fucktoys. And, rape, just another marketing tool.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Durex uses Sexual Violence to Sell Condoms

A dear friend tweeted me to suggest that Durex needed to be added to the Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame because of an image of sexual violence they used on their FB page. Since I started writing this blog post for its usual Monday morning slot, it appears that Durex has realised the massive PR mistake it made in allowing the photo to be used in the first place. Whilst this is a positive response to the massive criticism they received, its not actually good enough. Sexual advertising is harmful and destructive. It reduces 50% of the consumer base to nothing more than plastic blow-up dolls which is actually a pretty stupid business practise since women make up the vast majority of consumers in terms of household items and groceries. Purchasing condoms ends up "wifework" simply because its a chore. And, we all know women are the ones who do chores.

Taking down the photo also doesn't excuse Durex's reply to my friend Kim's letter of complaint:

Dear Kim,Thank you for your comment on the Durex UK Facebook wall. We appreciate you feel strongly about us removing the image but this will delete all the comments as well and we feel it is important for the conversation trail to remain visible. We don’t want our fans to feel their voices have been hidden.We hope you understand and please take our sincere apologies once again.Kind regards,Durex UK

Kim replied to their obvious bullshit with this:

Firstly, thank you for the email. However, I feel the decision to leave the content standing is a misinformed one. Durex has a public image, which is reflected in the content it posts on it’s public profiles, including its Facebook and Twitter feeds. It is not silencing to remove posts which offend a large number of people because of a strong link to sexual violence against women. It wouldn’t be silencing to remove it, and follow this up with a further apology. It would be showing that Durex hold a zero tolerance policy against sexual violence, and are committed to upholding their promotion of safe sex; safe sex doesn’t stop with using condoms. It extends to promoting healthy, consensual sexual relationships. By allowing this image to stand, you’re telling numerous survivors of sexual violence and their allies that their pleas not to see offensive media promoting violence against women, from a brand that is supposed to promote sex in a positive light, are unimportant, and unworthy of being responded to in a sensitive manner. You are allowing yourselves to further be associated with violence against women. As a result, I shall be boycotting Durex until the offending image is removed. I shall also be encouraging my friends to do the same. It may be time that Durex reconsider how “safe” their view on safe sex is.

Even though Durex has apparently pulled the ad, I will be joining Kim's boycott because, as she says far more eloquently than I, "My money will be going to condom brands who recognise that safe sex doesn’t stop at the use of a condom". We need to start holding more companies accountable for lazy sexist advertising so that ads which use sexual violence simply don't get made. Ever again.

Read More

Scholastic: Reinforcing Harmful Gender Roles for Profit

I loved Scholastic book fairs as a child. The monthly catalogue full of crappy books you just HAD to have [and the chance to buy great books at discounted prices]. I still have lots of the books I bought via Scholastic: the complete Judy Blumes and Beverly Cleary books; The Chronicles of Narnia; Lord of the Rings; Laura Ingalls Wilder; Roald Dahl;  and Jean Little. We have many Junie B. Jones and irritating books about unicorns collected by the teenager. The Book Fairs were always the highlight of Parent-Teacher interviews. And, yeah, as a child I didn't quite get that they were merely a capitalist enterprise exploiting a captive audience and that our schools sold us out in an attempt to deal with their chronic underfunding. As they do.

Scholastic always did gender its products: pink butterfly erasers for girls and football keyrings for boys. But, this gendering, whilst all kinds of stupid, is nothing like the extreme gendering Scholastic is pushing now in their How to Survive Anything Books. I genuinely can not believe a company with the reputation Scholastic has for its educational materials is so desperate to sell books that they've come up with this as an acceptable way to market to kids:

Boys Only: How to Survive Anything! Table of Contents:

1. How to Survive a shark attack
2. How to Survive in a Forest
3. How to Survive Frostbite
4. How to Survive a Plane Crash
5. How to Survive in the Desert
6. How to Survive a Polar Bear Attack
7. How to Survive a Flash Flood
8. How to Survive a Broken Leg
9. How to Survive an Earthquake
10. How to Survive a Forest Fire
11. How to Survive in a Whiteout
12. How to Survive a Zombie Invasion
13. How to Survive a Snakebite
14. How to Survive if Your Parachute Fails
15. How to Survive a Croc Attack
16. How to Survive a Lightning Strike
17. How to Survive a T-Rex
18. How to Survive Whitewater Rapids
19. How to Survive a Sinking Ship
20. How to Survive a Vampire Attack
21. How to Survive an Avalanche
22. How to Survive a Tornado
23. How to Survive Quicksand
24. How to Survive a Fall
25. How to Survive a Swarm of Bees
26. How to Survive in Space

Girls Only: How to Survive Anything! Table of Contents:

1. How to survive a BFF Fight
2. How to Survive Soccer Tryouts
3. How to Survive a Breakout
4. How to Show You’re Sorry
5. How to Have the Best Sleepover Ever
6. How to Take the Perfect School Photo
7. How to Survive Brothers
8. Scary Survival Dos and Don’ts
9. How to Handle Becoming Rich
10. How to Keep Stuff Secret
11. How to Survive Tests
12. How to Survive Shyness
13. How to Handle Sudden Stardom
14. More Stardom Survival Tips
15. How to Survive a Camping Trip
16. How to Survive a Fashion Disaster
17. How to Teach Your Cat to Sit
18. How to Turn a No Into a Yes
19. Top Tips for Speechmaking
20. How to Survive Embarrassment
21. How to Be a Mind Reader
22. How to Survive a Crush
23. Seaside Survival
24. How to Soothe Sunburn
25. How to Pick Perfect Sunglasses
26. Surviving a Zombie Attack
27. How to Spot a Frenemy
28. Brilliant Boredom Busters
29. How to Survive Truth or Dare
30. How to Beat Bullies
31. How to be an Amazing Babysitter

The ONLY thing these lists have in common is "How to survive a Zombie" attack. Now, I've not bothered to check out anything past the table of contents but I'm guessing the advice isn't the same.

I can not state how much I loathe this essentialist gender bullshit. I really can't. It's not like there is no one with a vagina wandering about Northern Canada who might get attacked by a polar bear and boys are equally likely to suffer sunburn as girls. FFS, girls are being taught how to survive a "crush" and its pretty fucking obvious that this book isn't aimed at teenage girls. It's aimed at children and its telling girls that they have to have "crushes" and "be in love" in order to be a "real" girl. And, frankly, the "How to be an Amazing Babysitter" bit is just unbearable tedious and reinforces the belief that the one true desire of girls is to be a mother otherwise they just aren't girls. The real answer to "How to Play Truth or Dare" is to NOT play it. Someone always gets hurt because its an invitation to bullying [which is hilarious considering surviving bullying follows on the list].

Really, the girls list is an how to guide on surviving being a teenager in a capitalist-patriarchy whilst the boys list is a guide to having fun. How utterly despicable is it that we are already conditioning girls into being Handmaidens whilst allowing boys the freedom to be as creative and imaginative as they want. What better way to spend a long summer day than climbing trees and pretending to be a guerilla army destroying zombies? Or being an astronaut in space? Or living in the jungle and fighting crocodiles and snakes?

And, what about the boys who don't like hanging about in trees? Are they not "real" boys? Hyper-masculinity and the Patriarchy damages boys too. It creates a construction of masculinity which requires boys to be physically aggressive and never take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Shame on Scholastic for selling our children out and reinforcing the Patriarchy's policy of cultural femicide.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: National Homebuyers

Okay, so the National Homebuyers Ad is animated but seriously a male superhero/ football surrounded by half-naked cheerleaders is so utterly, pathetically obvious that I can't even get angry about it. It's the same derivative bullshit as normal with the added bonus of a seriously shit song.

So, I'm adding them to the boycott and hoping someone fires whoever is responsible for their theme-song.

Read More

How to Tell If You Should Be Allowed To Run About the Planet With Weaponry

If you think two women breastfeeding their babies whilst in military uniform is "disrespectful", then you are, frankly, too stupid and ignorant to be let loose on the planet with weaponary. In fact, if you think there is a problem with this picture, then you probably shouldn't be having sex with anyone. Just in case. Or allowed access to any form of social media. Or vote. Or run for public office. Or be in the military. And, yeah, if you can't take your commanding officer seriously after seeing her breastfeed a baby, then you have no business being in the military because you clearly aren't competent to be a soldier. I'm fairly sure you aren't competent to be a human being.

Here's a brilliant blogpost on the issue complete with a number of supremely stupid comments by people with their heads permanently rammed up their backsides. There is nothing like watching an MRA smack-down to get the blood pressure going in the morning.

Read More

#RadFem2012 Redux: Manchester's Women Up North Conference

Two days ago, I blogged about the (successful) campaign to prevent Sheila Jeffreys from speaking at the #RadFem2012 conference. The campaign itself was unpleasant with some very serious threats made against the conference as well as an unnecessary amount of misogynistic abuse levelled at the women organising the conference. Here's a hint: if you want me to take you seriously as a Feminist, you do not call other women cunts. Ever. That term is nothing but misogynistic. It can not be reclaimed to be used as a term of abuse.

I was so very sad to hear that the venue, Conway Hall, had ceded to the demands of a vocal minority of aggressive people and banned Sheila Jeffreys. I do not see the need to have inclusive to everyone feminist conferences all the time. If the activists were so concerned about the silencing of transwomen from the conference, they could have organised a simultaneous conference. Or, gone for peaceful counter-protest. Violent threats and silencing tactics help no one. They only serve to cause ructions within the Feminist movement which is what the Patriarchy wants.

Today, the first thing that came up on my Facebook feed was this blog stating that the activists who have silenced the women from RadFem2012 are now targeting Manchester Feminist Network's Women Up North conference because it is holding one session closed for FAAB survivors of sexual violence. The conference is trans-inclusive except for this one session so I am not sure why it would be targeted. It also has a space for Black-women only and I don't see anyone campaigning against that deliberately excluding people.

This is the response by the Manchester Feminist Network to a question as to whether or not the conference is trans-inclusive:

We don’t see it as transphobic to have some seperate space for born women. Some of the women in our group are vocal advocates of trans-women’s rights. Some of us advocate for trans-women’s human rights but still want to be in born woman space sometimes and don’t see the 2 as mutually exclusive. Many of us have trans-women as family members, friends and work colleagues. As a feminist network of different women we struggle with these differences and yet try to still work together. The compropmise that we came to for Women Up North was that it would generally be open to trans-women but that the sexual abuse survivors and sexuality workshops could be designated born women only as the facilitators requested this. 

The vast majority of sexual abuse is committed on women by men. Most women seek out women only services for support and recovery e.g. rape crisis centres, survivors groups or women counsellors. This doesnt mean that all male counsellors or support services are rapists, but that unfortunately under patriarchy women are understandably sometimes fearful of and uncomfortable around men (just think how differently it impacts on women when having a man or woman walking behind them when alone out at night). Sadly, some of us would not feel as safe/uninhibited in the presence of people who have lived some of their lives as men, however those individuals feel/see themselves and whether they too are survivors of sexual violence. Blame patriarchy for this, not feminist survivors of abuse. Please work with us seperately when requested, and together at all other times to challenge male violence and patriarchy. We have alot of common ground and alot of work to do! Some of us like this article by Jenny Roberts, a trans-woman who used to run the lesbian bookshop and arts festival Libertas http://www.annelawrence.com/buildingbridges.html 

This is our response on the matter and we are unlikely to respond to individual comments, apologies.

It makes me very sad when women's voices are silence because of political lobbying. As I said in my other blogpost, all women [whether they be FAAB or transwomen] have the right to safe spaces to discuss issues which are personal. Lesbian women should not have to discuss domestic violence with heterosexual women if they don't want. Transgendered people have the right to close spaces so they discuss issues of "passing" or surgery without feeling the need to "educate" an audience with no personal experience on the issue. In this, a little bit of kindness and listening to the needs of others wouldn't go remiss. Personally, I think the obvious compromise is to run a second session on sexual violence which is trans-inclusive for those who choose to attend it.

Read More