Andrea Dworkin's Pornography: Men Possessing Women

Everyone's got an opinion on Andrea Dworkin and it's frequently one based in myth. I love Dworkin's writing. I don't always agree with her (and she's sometime historically inaccurate) but she was an utterly brilliant polemicist. Her gift was amazing. She was a truly brilliant woman.

I've collated some quotes from the text here and here but the full text is available on the online Andrea Dworkin library.

Read More

The Daddy Rat : Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender, The Real Science Behind Sex Differences

It's a standing joke in the Mumsnet Feminism/ Women's Rights section that we should all be receiving royalties for Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences. I must recommend it at least once a week on threads about gendering children or men being too stupid to see dirt so they, consequently, stink at housework. This, of course, is the same men who are so "visual" that they need to look at porn in order to get off. How, precisely, one can be simultaneously visual and non-visual is beyond me but that's the argument always put forward by those who believe in innate gender differences.

I'm a neuroskeptic. I don't believe in innate gender differences. I certainly don't think we can "scientifically observe" gender differences when our culture is so seeped in woman-hating that anything constructed as "female" is immediately wrong. I have no tolerance for people who claim that boys are physical and girls are emotional. Or, that boys are better at math and spatial awareness than girls because their brains are hardwired that way. All the neuroscience I see insisting on innate gender [and never sex which is what they actually mean] differences has been about supporting the status quo of women's subordination. 

Cordelia Fine deconstructs all the major "research" on innate gender differences and demonstrates what unrelenting twaddle it is. She is equally snarky, funny and downright angry at the misuse and falsification of "scientific evidence" to support fallacious constructions of gender [which fail to acknowledge the historical and cultural situations in which they were created]. I can not recommend this book enough for anyone who thinks that its totally normal for boys to be violent and girls to be nurturing. This is by far one of my most favourite feminist texts, despite not being advertised as such.


This is my favourite quote from the book: The Daddy Rat

Male rats don't experience the hormonal changes that trigger maternal behaviour in female rats. They never normally participate in infant care. Yet put a baby rat in a cage with a male adult and after a few days he will be caring for the baby almost as if he were its mother.  He'll pick it up, nestle it close to him as a nursing female would, keep the baby rat clear and comforted and even build a comfy nest for it. The parenting circuits are there in the male brain, even in a species in which paternal care doesn't normally exist. If a male rat, without even the aid of a William Sears baby-care manual, can be inspired to parent then I would suggest that the prospects for human fathers are pretty good. (88)

It makes me snigger every time I read it.


Some interesting Discussions on Mumsnet: 

Cordelia Fine Webchat

FeMNist Non-Fiction Book Club

Gender-Neutrality? 

Feminism and Natural Sex Differences

Read More

Circus Freak Shows: Bullying Culture, Mass Media and Personal Responsibility

This past Halloween, I watched the film Monster House with my children. It is one of the unnecessary DVDs that we own but one that I had not actively watched before. It is a children’s film about a haunted house. I expected puerile jokes and unnecessary references to films that no one cares about anymore. I was wrong.

The basic plot of Monster House is that a house is possessed by the spirit of a dead woman, Constance, who steals children's toys, which land on the grass around it. Before being “rescued” by the man she marries, Constance had spent her life as an unwilling freak show act in a circus where children paid money to laugh, belittle and humiliate her. Constance dies falling into the foundations of the house she was building with her rescuer-husband, after, once again, being belittled by a group of small children, and the house thus becomes both Constance’s grave and her avenger.

Possessed by the spirit of the abused Constance, the house is portrayed as insane, evil and violent. There is no discussion of whether or not she was justified in her paranoia following years of intense bullying. The house is angry and frightened because Constance was angry and frightened. But, no one listened when Constance was alive and no one listened when she died. Instead, the climax of the film is the complete destruction of Constance.

It is easy to dismiss Monster House as just another poorly executed children’s movie but this film is simply a reflection of our culture. We may no longer have circus freak shows designed to bully and humiliate those who do not fit our gendered dichotomy of human bodies, but our bullying culture still exists in the form of reality television, shock-jock radio programs, the ubiquity of  “lifestyle” and celebrity magazines, and mass media coverage of “news”. Much of our “entertainment”now rests on the same constructions as the circus freak show, we are simply unwilling to acknowledge our own personal responsibility in consuming these forms of “entertainment” and the harm that they cause.

Just as we now blame Mel Greig and Michael Christian for the death of Jacintha Saldanha, we blame Constance for her actions without looking at the context. I do not want to minimize what Greig and Christian did, since anyone who is no longer 15 should know the potential consequences of ‘pranks’, but they are not the only ones who are guilty in the death of Saldanha. Focusing our blame on Greig and Christian is a convenient way to minimize our collective guilt as a society that actively encourages the same bullying experienced by Constance.

Greig and Christian would not have made the prank call if there was not an audience for it. We cannot simply blame the two, although their culpability is without doubt, we also need to examine our own behaviour. We need to take personal responsibility for perpetuating and perpetrating bullying culture. Without an audience of consumers buying magazines like Heat and Grazia or newspapers like the Sun and the Daily Mail or watching/listening to shock jocks like Howard Stern and Matthew Wright, there would be no financial incentive for these people to behave in a crass and offensive manner. Before we start blaming others, we need to check our own behaviour, examine our own privilege, and stop financially supporting an industry based on the abject humiliation of others. The harm caused to vulnerable people who participate in reality television is obvious, yet millions of people watch shows like Big Brother and X-Factor and laugh at the judges’ vile comments. Millions of people take to Twitter to insult the physical appearance of contestants.

We shouldn’t need the Leveson Inquiry to regulate the media. We should be holding the media accountable through our financial power. We can change print media simply by refusing to consume misogynistic, racist, disablist and homophobic stories. We can change talk radio by switching off Greig, Christian and Stern. We can change the culture of bullying traumatised families by refusing to purchase newspapers or watch television newscasts that show images of traumatised parents mourning the loss of their children. We can stop buying newspapers that doorstop grieving parents. We can stop consuming media that suggest that women and children are somehow responsible for their own deaths at the hands of violent men for just exisiting.

Monster House is a film, which uses the emotional and physical abuse experienced by a vulnerable woman and then blames the woman for her behavior, whilst excusing the children, and their parents, who bullied her during her life. In fact, the film never makes the direct correlation between the long-term abuse experienced by Constance and her quite justified paranoia. The blame is entirely Constance’s despite the fact that society had conspired against her for cheap entertainment.

Contemporary mass media from reality television to celebrity culture, from talk shows to shock jocks, together form a 21st century freak show, only now the phenomenon is 24/7 and shows no respect for private boundaries or personal space. We are invited to laugh and jeer at vulnerable people, like Constance, and we pay to financially support their exploitation. We continue to exploit the most vulnerable members of our communities for our entertainment: in reality television, in “traditional” and online media, in the music industry and in pornography.

Life isn't a circus freak show. Lets just stop acting like it is.

Read More

The New Minnie Mouse: Just Reinforcing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test

I was fairly creeped out by these "sexed up" Sesame Street character costumes for women. I can't think of anything worse than women dressing up as "sexy" versions of children's cartoon characters. Turns out I'm really naive because there is a whole industry of selling these kinds of costumes. I don't get how this is even remotely sexual and I would rather scrub these images right out of my brain. The thing is lots of retailers, including Amazon, sell these kinds of costumes. If you google search Minnie Mouse costumes, you will get links to these kinds of outfits. They are easily available for all kids to find. It's just another way sexualise childhood for girls.

I also don't think it's difficult to over-emphasise the problematic relationship between these kinds of costumes and the "new" Minnie Mouse campaign of Barneys New York. She is ultra thin, tall and glamorous. She is everything that Minnie Mouse, and the other Disney characters, were not. Despite quite a lot of activism to get Disney and Barneys to stop running this sexualised Minnie Mouse campaign, the companies have dismissed concerns: 

"We are saddened that activists have repeatedly tried to distort a lighthearted holiday project in order to draw media attention to themselves," Disney and Barneys said in a joint statement to the News. 

"They have deliberately ignored previously released information clearly stating this promotion is a three-minute ‘moving art’ video featuring traditional Minnie Mouse in a dreamlike sequence set in Paris where she briefly walks the runway as a model and then happily awakens as her normal self wearing the very same designer dress from the fashion show."

Neither Disney nor Barneys want to acknowledge the problem of the sexualisation of young girls. They see only a 3 minute video where Minnie Mouse pretends to be a model. I see a culture which punishes women who don't conform to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. I see a culture which prevents little girls from being children by focusing on their appearance rather than their person. I see a culture which tells women they aren't important unless they are pretty. 

Disney and Barneys might think it's just a silly video. I see the increasing pornification of society. It breaks my heart to see little girls being taught that they are worth nothing unless a man wants to fuck them.

There is a petition here requesting that retailers stop selling sexy Halloween costumes for young girls. I don't know what it will change but I signed. Because I wanted my voice to be heard.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: It's Boots. Again

I hate the Boots Here Come the Girls ads. I think they are misogynistic twaddle and glorify the objectification of women's bodies, the fetishisation of "girls" and construct women as shallow, narcissists with serious addiction problems [notably shopping which can be self-destructive when compulsive]. I try not to let the kids watch ads so we record things before we watch them. Unfortunately, Boots has now taken to advertising before the Kids Club movie at Vue Cinema. And, they have surpassed themselves with the misogyny in their new campaign, although not with creativity since they have liberally "borrowed" from Galaxy's "women have to hide chocolate bars around the house so no one knows they eat chocolate" twaddle. 

Boots' pre-movie Here Come the Girls ad now features a woman staring with glee into a locked box full of chocolate bars. As I said with the Galaxy ads, 

Hiding food isn't the sign of a woman with a healthy relationship to food. Its quite a serious red flag for eating disorders. This ad simply fetishises eating disorders as something that all women should aspire too. ... I turn off the TV every time I see this ad because it makes me sad and utterly fucked off with a society that treats women eating as a social taboo.

The old Boots ads are bad enough. They feature women with compulsive behaviour problems and women trapped in marriages with men who are selfish and rude. They reinforce the idea that women's bodies are inherently ugly and that we can not be seen in public without covering ourselves in make-up and expensive skin creams, all the while getting our daily vitamin intake from pills whilst we stop eating to desperately lose that extra 10 pounds so we won't be fat too. But, now, we are not only ugly and fat, we are being encouraged to fetishise chocolate. No doubt, so that we will then be back at Boots buying weight loss products. The entire campaign is degrading to women. 

And, don't get me started on the word "girls". God forbid we get to be strong, intelligent, resourceful, and kind women with real needs and desires. Nope, we get to be infantilised and demeaned whilst hiding chocolate in locked boxes.

Read More

Sesame Street Goes Porn

Well, it's not actually Sesame Street who have joined the porn industry but some enterprising Dude, and it's always a Dude, has decided that Halloween is not complete without women dressed up in pornified versions of Sesame Street characters.* Even creepier is the fact that these are ostensibly all male characters. I mean, I know, Sesame Street is a male-dominated show but they couldn't think of a single female character to pornify. Not that I want any Sesame Street characters pornified. It is just way too creepy. And, yes, I am over-using the word creepy, but, come on, this is quintessentially creepy. There is no other word to describe this level of porn.

Also, whoever came up with this idea is pretty much a pervert. I don't like making snap judgements about people's sexual preferences but looking at Oscar the Grouch and thinking tits is perverted. And creepy. And, probably in need of some serious therapy. 

I do wonder about copyright laws. Don't Sesame Street have to approve the use of their images for commercial purposes or does Yandy get around this by selling the masks separately? I really, really hope this isn't something that Sesame Street approved but nothing would surprise me now.

* If you aren't already following the Reel Girl blog you should be. It is brilliant.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Jean Paul Gaultier Does Diet Coke

Jean Paul Gaultier is designing limited edition Diet Coke bottles. Because, obviously, Diet Coke has run out of ideas on misogynistic advertising and has gone the desperate route of  paying a fashion designer to paint their bottles. After all, it is so uber-cool to show a man's face on a women's body. That isn't at all creepy:

And, there is nothing weird at all about painting the naked body of model Daisy Lowe to look like a beverage:

Oh, look the launch features burlesque and the women as Barbie dolls trope. Gosh, that's ultra exciting and has totally never, ever been done before:

This isn't the first campaign Gaultier has designed for Diet Coke. He is also responsible for the creepy doll commercials. That would be the campaign which officially stopped me drinking Diet Coke. Because, they were creepy and not in a Chuckie kind of way but in a porny, women are nothing more than fucktoys kind of way. I have to say I was not aware he was also responsible for this shite but it doesn't really surprise me. After all, the fashion industry is noted for its general hatred of women.

Diet Coke have done this before. This was the effort of  Karl Lagerfield, the quintessential misogynist who is forever labelling women fat and therefore unfuckable: 

Would it be too much to ask for a product aimed at women not to be women-hating bullshit designed to make us all feel like failures in the Patriarchal Fuckability Test? Really?

Read More

Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism

I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's read a single post on my blog that I am most emphatically an anti-porn feminist. I believe that Robin Morgan was correct when she said "pornography is the theory, rape is the practise."* I support Dworkin's thesis that porn isn't just the representation of VAW but that the very existence of pornography is VAW.** I believe that people who buy and/or watch porn are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture.*** I believe people who go to strip clubs, burlesque clubs and lap dancing clubs are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe men who buy "Lads Mags" are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe that people who argue that pornography is an issue of free speech are deliberately obfuscating the violence committed on women's bodies in the porn industry and the violence to women outwith it. I do not believe that the existence of so-called feminist porn is anything but an attempt to obfuscate the hegemonic construction of porn which privileges the male orgasm at the expense of women's bodily integrity and existence. I believe the porn serves only to reinforce the hegemonic construction of heterosexuality within the capitalist-Patriarchy. I believe the language of "choice" and "empowerment" are lies perpetuated by the capitalist-patriarchy in order to deny culpability for VAW. I believe that women's liberation will only come with the complete destruction of the capitalist-Patriarchy and the eradiction of pornified rape culture.

I think it should come as no surprise that I love Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism. Long is a radical feminist, anti-porn activist who is an active member of the London Feminist Network and Object. It's a brilliant thesis. It's both a critical analysis of the representations of anti-porn feminism, pro-porn feminism and the pro-porn campaign within the media and culture; as well as a history of the anti-porn movement within Britain. It is an academic text full of theory but is incredibly easy to read as Long doesn't allow the jargon of academia to obfuscate her message. Long outlines the numerous factors in the ongoing pornification of society, which include but are not limited to, lads' mags, strip clubs, and the normalisation of the Playboy empire.

But, most importantly, it is a radical feminist critique of the debates surrounding pornography [and prostitution]. Far too often the "debates" on porn within the media focus on porn as an empowering tool for women [conveniently ignoring the fact that men are the ones getting rich from porn] and porn as an expression of human sexuality [and ignoring just how much porn dictates a hegemonic, heterosexual, racist sexuality which, in and of itself, is incredibly limited]. Long traces the feminist activism against pornography and illustrates some of the more successful feminist activist anti-porn campaigns: from Object's Stripping the Illusion to UK Feminista's Eff Off Hef. Long has given a voice to both the survivors of the porn industries and the grassroots activists fighting against pornographication. She has contextualised the anti-porn feminist movement in the UK within diverse factions of feminism.

It is a brilliant book and everyone should read it; especially those still trying to argue the libertarian assumptions of the total lack of harm caused by porn because some men like it.

Julia Long has a book reading  Sheffield October 15 at the Quaker Meeting House at 7:15

*Robin Morgan, (1974) Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicles of a Femininst, New York: Random House

**Andrea Dworkin, (1979) Pornography: Men Possessing Women, London: Women's Press

***Susan Brownmiller (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Vagenda Knocks Them Down

These images are taken from a blogpost on Vagenda. I think they've brilliantly deconstructed the misogyny. But, sometimes, you just need to look at the images a second time to fully understand the WTF?  bit. [Or, a third time in this case].*

**

***

*Between, Kookai definitely don't sell yogurt. I googled just in case there were two companies called Kookai. There aren't.

**Surely, PETA should be starting a campaign against French Connection now. That way, we can admire the misogyny squared.

*** Pot Noodle: The Lynx Effect of Food. Only eat them if you have a penis and are stupid****

****Not everyone with a penis is stupid so please don't bother posting that level of nincompoopery as a comment.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Estee Lauder

Sophie Barnes has already written an excellent critique of the unrelenting stupidity and just all around arrogance of this product in the New Statesman. Estee Lauder's new Advanced Night Repair comes with the tagline: "The revolutionary repair formulas millions of women can't live without." As Barnes says:

Turns out the one thing that women require as a basic need the world over is anti-aging cream. No, not clean running water or access to electricity. Not even the oxygen we breathe is as crucial or as life-sustaining as holding off those wrinkles, ladies. This isn't just that we'd quite like healthy, younger-looking skin - no, it's not that flippant. We NEED a youthful, bouncy complexion - our very lives depend on it. 

Who knew? Women could actually die from having wrinkles. I'm so glad Estee Lauder has brought this to my attention. Now, I know the secret to eternal life is some over-priced anti-aging cream. All those centuries alchemists spent looking for the Philosopher's stone trying to turn base metals into gold and live forever were wasted. All we need is some anti-aging cream because being old is, well, practically a crime. Next thing, women with wrinkles will be imprisoned for failing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. 

So, I'm adding Estee Lauder to the boycott list for being offensive, stupid and totally lacking in an understanding of the real problems we face as humans.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Eurostar's Tedious Twaddle

These are some of Eurostar's Post-Olympic ads which "invite customers to bring a little something back" with them. Granted, these aren't quite as horrific as the MyCheck ad starring Bar Rafaeli but they are so utterly tedious with the monotonous sexism. The second one definitely comes with an undercurrent of slut-shaming; just to be extra exciting.

Read More

Bridezillas and Vaginas: Hello Misogyny. We Have Missed You.

No, seriously. There hasn't been enough misogyny in my life this week so I'm incredibly grateful to the Huffington Post for running no less than two misogynistic, women-blaming pieces of vileness yesterday. Without them, I might have become confused and forgotten we live in a Patriarchy. I'm so glad Ashley Hames was available to tell me that women spend too much time talking about their vaginas. Because men never ever talk about their penises. Nope, it's only women boring men senseless by talking about a subject that men aren't really interested in [unless they are sticking their cocks in one and even then we aren't supposed to talk about it]. 

Hames is apparently bored rigid by feminists banging on about their vaginas. Weirdly, I'm not bored by men talking about their penises. I'm angry about men talking about their penises. I'm angry at the proliferation of pornography which prioritises the penis above all else. I'm angry about the rape and torture of women and children by men who think their right to orgasm is more important than women's bodily integrity and health. I'm bored by men who think that any topic of conversation which does not revolve around them or their desires isn't worth having. On the other hand, I do agree with this statement by Hames: "(b)ut this constant reinforcement of The Vagina smacks of insecurity"; except, I'd replace vagina with penis. Because that's what Hames is really talking about: his own insecurity about his penis and it's status in society. Why else would he claim to be "bored" by women having conversations without him? It's not like he's been kidnapped by a bunch of Feminists and locked in a cupboard whilst they recite the Vagina Monologues at him. Unlike women, who have to live everyday with snide remarks and pornographic images delineating the 'woman as fucktoy' trope.

And, an even bigger thank you goes to Kate Thompson for reiterating the woman are all hormonal, insane crackpots in desperate search for a penis to cure of us any attempts at independent thought in her ode to Bridezillas; which should have been called Bridezilla: Women-Shaming Wrapped Up in a Shiny Tiara. There really is no excuse for such women-blaming misogynistic nincompoopery. God forbid, we actually hold men accountable for the consequences of their behaviour; instead it's always the fault of women who are just trying to survive in a Patriarchal society which devalues everything we do. It's always the fault of women for wanting too much or, you know, actually wanting to get their basic needs met. It's women's faults that they are insecure or jealous or irrational because, hey, that's what happens when you have a vagina. Men are never irrational. Possession of a penis prohibits irrationality.

What really fucks me off about the Huffington Post publishing such misogynistic shite is that they also published a searing critique of the abuse and violence directed at Kristen Stewart over an alleged affair she had with a married director. Rupert Sanders, of course, is completely unresponsible for the affair. It's all Stewart's fault. Nico Lang's article is the antithesis of the misogyny perpetuated by Thompson and Hames and I'm so very glad it was published because the situation is appalling. But, it's actually quite sad that Lang's defence of Stewart sits along side such unmitigated twaddle. Does the Huffington Post have an editorial policy which requires two pieces of vacuous nincompoopery to combat any pro-women articles?

Oh, and if we're going to play the "teams" debacle, I'm on Team Stewart because NO woman deserves the treatment she has received. 

Read More

Dearest Vagina, Once Again I have Failed You.

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

Turns Out Freeing Your Muff is Actually a Good Thing

I may actually have laid down in shock after reading this article in the Independent suggesting that, contrary to pornographers and other over-entitled male narcissists, pubic hair probably serves a purpose. An actual purpose which isn't just to annoy men who watch way too much porn [which, between, not so good for sexual performance]. Okay, it's only anecdotal evidence by Emily Gibson identified as a family physician and some director of a random student health centre at a large American university, but, still, its a discussion about the harm caused by the pornographication of women's bodies rather than a celebration of vajazzling.

The removal of pubic hair, and the gluing of sparkles, is about forcing women to fail in striving to meet the extremely harsh Patriarchal Fuckability Test. It's just another way to make women feel shite about their bodies [on top of the whole being too fat, too old, and too smart shite]. We need to get over this idea that vaginas and vulvas are intrinsically dirty and need to be shaved and plucked and douched and bleached and cut and glittered to make them worthy of the All Mighty Penis.

Gibson may only be able to prove that pubic hair can decrease abrasion and injury caused by friction as well as protection from bacterial infections and not that pubic hair can decrease the transmissions of STDs but the point is women, in positions of power, are asking these questions and getting major international newspapers to carry the articles. Women are taking back ownership over their vaginas and vulvas; from pornographers, plastic surgeons, and men who aren't very good at oral sex. We need to start normalising and celebrating the differences in women's bodies. Because we do our children immense harm by allowing them to grow up thinking menstrual blood is disgusting and childbirth makes vaginas unfuckable. We need to start recognising that labiaplasty, like female genital mutilation, is a harmful cultural practise as outlined by the UN. We need to start loving our bodies.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: It's PETA. Again.

Look, it's PETA being misogynistic. Again. Anyone else shocked by this? No? 

I'm an animal rights supporter. I don't buy from companies which test products on animals. I genuinely don't understand people who buy mascara which is tested on rabbits and I support the proposed EU ban on testing cosmetics on animals. However, I don't understand why PETA insists on perpetuating rape culture in order to save rabbits. Are they that stupid that they can't tell the difference? I think the celebrities who endorse PETA are hypocrites; yeah Naomi Campbell, I'm still looking at you.

There is NO reason why PETA has to advertise its campaigns by objectifying women. They perpetuate rape culture because they choose to. That is fundamentally the problem of PETA. They just aren't intelligent enough to critique capitalist practises without supporting patriarchal conformity.

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

Pimp my Whatever is Vile Misogynistic Twaddle

I can not express just how much I hate this expression. I genuinely can not believe that people blither on about "Pimp my ride" and don't get just how offensive it is. The origins of the term "pimp" are obvious. It originates in patriarchal-capitalist discourse. The term refers to the prostituting and sexual abuse of women's bodies. Pimps make money from the rape and abuse of vulnerable women.

I don't buy into this theory that we can reclaim the words of our oppressors. The meaning of pimp is the practise of rape. The increasing use of the verb "pimping" to mean promote or decorate an item is beyond disrespectful to the women's whose bodies have been abused, tortured and raped because of pimps. Language has power. The word pimp is misogynistic. It should not and can not be used in a "positive" manner. The excuse of "evolving" language should not apply to words whose origins are in racist, disablist, homophobic or misogynistic language. The women and children whose bodies and souls have been harmed by prostitution deserve better than to hear their experiences obscured by minimising language.

Read More

Liz Jones: The Quintessential Handmaiden?

I don't buy the Daily Fail for the usual reasons of it being utter hypocritical, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and disablist twaddle. Just seeing Liz Jones' name makes me twitch. I consistently dislike what she writes as it is inevitably pro-patriarchal handmaideny nincompoopery. Problem is, I don't think Jones is the quintessential handmaiden. I think she's a very unhappy and angry woman who is [ab]used by the editors of the Daily Fail. She is a caricature of "woman" and, as such, is an object of mockery. We are supposed to hate Jones and everything she stands for, which, in Daily Fail terms, is pretty much anyone with a vagina. A responsible editor and friend wouldn't allow someone they care about to make such a public spectacle of themselves but the Daily Fail sets Jones up weekly. And, we buy into this woman-blaming discourse by insulting and denigrating Jones at every opportunity.

Jones isn't her own worst enemy; although she certainly seems to try very hard at doing this. The patriarchal arsehats who pay her to be publicly humiliated are her enemies. Like with Samantha Brick, it is those that give Jones the space to publicly humiliate herself who are the main problem. But, standing up to contribute to the vilification of Jones is also inherently unkind and perpetuates women-blaming culture. She is, at best, an unhappy woman whose self-loathing is played out daily in the press. We need to stop giving platform for anti-feminist diatribes written by women who are fundamentally unhappy with themselves. We need to stop reinforcing the women-blaming culture which gives a platform to women like Liz Jones who deserve our compassion and not our ridicule.

Yes, I get that Liz Jones writes a lot of stuff which is unbelievably unkind and hateful about other women. What she writes pisses me off [and I've not linked to any of her work because I don't want to increase the Daily Fail's advertising revenue]. However, Liz Jones is part of the 21st century version of the 19th century circus freak show. Like with all reality TV, from the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Towie to X-Factor and the Voice, our society gets off on the public humiliation and denigration of those deemed "unworthy". We are raising a generation of children who think they only have value for being a "celebrity" irrespective of how they become famous. How do we expect anyone to be happy in a culture that privileges humiliation over self-worth? Frankly, I think reality television meets the UN definition of a harmful cultural practise and all of it should be banned. We need to stop mocking those who are different and start celebrating those differences.

Read More