RihannaMyElegant

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts

Saturday, 17 November 2012

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

Posted on 08:12 by Unknown

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
Posted in #rapeculture, Boycott, Domestic Violence, fashion-beauty complex, Male Violence Against Women, Misogynistic Advertising, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA, Porn Culture, Pornography | No comments

Friday, 19 October 2012

Misogynisitic Advertising Walk of Shame: PETA Redux

Posted on 05:30 by Unknown

I bet everyone's shocked to read that PETA have yet another misogynistic advertising campaign out: this time featuring domestic violence. I know I was. After all, PETA have such a great history of working for the end to animal testing of make-up and preventing animal abuse within the mass farming industry without engaging in any kind of misogynistic nincompoopery. Or, erm, something like that anyway.


I genuinely don't get how anyone with an ounce of empathy can take these misogynistic arseholes seriously. Make no mistake, PETA is a deeply misogynistic organisation. This isn't them being sexist because we live in a patriarchal society and they don't have the critical thinking skills to see they harm they are doing. PETA actively campaign for animal rights by romanticising and eroticising violence against women. They did it with their banned Superbowl ad featuring women having sex with vegetables [which they ripped off from the misogynists of Voina before they came up with Pussy Riot] and they did it by carving Pamela Anderson into a piece of meat. Their comparisons with slavery are crass and the use of the Holocaust to make a point just vile but criticism of the hurt caused by their campaigns has never stopped PETA. If anything, their level of violent, abusive nincompoopery has served only to encourage stupid celebrity after stupid celebrity to join them, proving once again that the best way to be famous is to be an arsehole. There is a PETITION HERE. This is the text of the petition:PETA launched a new campaign encouraging people to go Vegan by promoting violence against women. Violence in any form is never okay. In its latest ploy to correlate being vegan with sex, PETA has over stepped every line in a campaign that would make anyone cringe. The campaign is called: BWVAKTBOOM: "Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom out of Me." Appropriately titled for a series of advertisements that not only display [without any trigger warnings], but highlight and romanticize sexual violence against women. In its latest ad, PETA portrays a disheveled and physically & sexually battered woman who is the “latest victim” of a boyfriend who went vegan and then “knocked the bottom out of her”. She is seen with bruises all over her body and even has to wear a neck-brace. PETA further proves its ignorance around violence against women by boasting a new website for the BWVAKTBOOM campaign where videos can be readily viewed, and there is a [intended-to-be] humorous “call” to prevent BWVAKTBOOM-related injuries. Violent messages are sent, such as: “For years, women have been open to the physical, emotional, and karmic benefits of veganism. But now, more and more men are discovering the perks of a plant-based diet. More specifically, a dramatic increase in their wang power and sexual stamina. Unfortunately, the consequences of all this mind-blowing intercourse can often lead to sex injuries such as whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.” PETA has clearly overlooked any regard for survivors of sexual and domestic violence in this new campaign, while making a mockery out of the seriousness of violence against women. In taking a stand that there is NEVER an excuse to promote or diminish the real-life impact of violence, I demand the full termination of the BWVAKTBOOM campaign.
PLEASE SIGN HERE
Read More
Posted in Domestic Violence, Male Violence Against Women, Misogynistic Advertising, Nincompoopery, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA, Rape Culture, Violence against Women | 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: 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

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

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

Posted on 10:07 by Unknown

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
Posted in fashion-beauty complex, Handmaidens, Harmful Cultural Practises, Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame, Misogyny, Objectification of Women, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA | No comments

Monday, 16 July 2012

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

Posted on 23:33 by Unknown
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
Posted in Boycott, fashion-beauty complex, Hyper-masculinity, hyper-sexuality, Misogynistic Advertising, Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame, Patriarchal Fuckability Test, PETA, Rape Culture, Sexual Violence | No comments

Free Speech: The Right to be a Jackass?

Posted on 09:04 by Unknown

Free speech is a fallacious construct which is designed to keep the masses in denial of their lack of power.

It doesn't actually exist. It never has, but, if it did, it wouldn't be the right to be a jackass.

There is no guarantee to free speech in the UK. There never has been. People who insist we do have free speech are confused or watch way too much American television. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is technically the guarantee to free speech, you know, in the United States of which the UK is NOT a part [in case anyone remains confused about that tidbit]:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Originally, it only applied to laws enacted by Congress but this changed with the Gitlow v New York case wherein the Supreme Court of the US applied the First Amendment to all states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Obviously, this is only interesting if you're a history nerd like me. The real point here is that the US, supposed protector of Free Speech, has enacted numerous laws which limit free speech. These are the obvious exceptions like child obscenity, incitement to hatred or violence and the much repeated axiom of not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Limits to free speech exist because some people are simply arrogant arseholes lacking both empathy and intelligence.

Even if we had the legal right to "free speech", [or believed that "free speech" actually existed] it doesn't mean we should use it. The right to free speech isn't the right to be a jerk. Free speech shouldn't mean that people get to use misogynistic, racist, homophobic or disablist language because they want to without any consideration of the hurt caused to others. It doesn't mean that comedians like Daniel Tosh should be allowed to make jokes about rape just because they can [and this is a brilliant critique of Tosh's arrogance]. The right to free speech is the right to criticise and challenge. It is not the right to be a jackass because you want to be a jackass.

I have to say the only people I ever hear going on about the right to free speech are those privileged self-entitled nincompoops who want to silence the opinions of others. It's the rape apologists who whine about the right to call rape victims liars who demand "free speech". It's the racists who insist on the right to use the words "Paki" and "Chink". It's the homophobes who think "Gay" should be an insult and those disablists who want the right to use "spaz" and "retard". Those of us with empathy and critical literacy know that the theory of "free speech" is something that is the preserve of the powerful and the ignorant; we know that it is used to control the people.

Those of us who use the social construct of free speech in order to critique and challenge do so without behaving like a bunch of abusive nincompoops. That is the real challenge in a civilised society: using the theory of free speech whilst recognising that we will always need to limit it because of the arrogance and ignorance of a few. We will always need to limit "free speech" to prevent the abuse and objectification of vulnerable people. We always need to limit "free speech" when there are nincompoops like PETA running about.

Turns out, the real theory of "free speech" is just the preserve of the powerful who use it to silence those who demand basic human kindness.

Read More
Posted in Disablism, Free Speech, Homophobia, Language, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Nincompoop, PETA, Racism, Rape Culture, Violence against Women, Women's Rights | No comments
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • #sorryfeminist
    As ever, I'm late to the party on this. By the time I came across the #sorryfeminist Twitter hashtag it was already dominated by anti-f...
  • A Night for Lewis
    [ Reblogged from A Night out for Lewis ] Tickets are now on sale at £20 per person and include arrival drink, buffet, disco. We have an amaz...
  • Snow White and the Huntsman: It was Pretty. And, Erm, It was Pretty.
    Snow White and the Huntsman is an interesting film attempting to play against the Disneyfication of the Princess genre. Supposedly, it'...
  • Monster house: Reinforcing VAW in a Children's Film
    My kids have watched this film a few times while I've pottered about around them listening but not really listening. It is incredibly di...
  • The Round-Up VI: Blogs That Have Inspired Me This Week
    Exotic Girl ... Privilege? via Bananas Are Not The Only Fruit Indigenous Feminism Without Apology via Unsettling America: Decolonisation i...
  • 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...
  • 2 More Family Annihilators Being Glorified in the Press
    There have been two murder-suicides this weekend: Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins before killing himself.  Keith John...
  • On Sisterhood: Kris Radish's The Sunday List of Dreams
    I've blogged incessantly about my love for Kris Radish's My Elegant Gathering of White Snows which is fairly obvious considering I ...
  • Why We Oppose Votes For Men
    This keeps getting retweeted through my feed. It makes me giggle every time.
  • Femen: Not Quite Buying This as a Feminist Protest
    I first heard of the Ukrainian Feminist group  Femen on a news report. Whilst the male journalists discussing Femen were all congratulatory...

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)
      • You keep using Humanism. I do not think it means w...
      • Silent Sunday Round-Up: Inspiring and Rage Inducin...
      • This is a hate crime:
      • #slanegirl and why this isn't about female sexual ...
      • Marks & Spencer's uses Womanism to Sell Knickers: ...
      • Proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activist
      • Silent Sunday Round-Up: Inspiring and Rage Inducin...
      • @misogyny_online : A Response
      • White Male Commits Sex Crime but We Should Feel So...
      • Hugo Schwyzer is not a Feminist Redux:
      • The attacks on @misogyny_online
      • A Night for Lewis
      • Silent Sunday: Round Up of Inspiring and Rage Indu...
      • Blame the perpetrator, not the victim:
      • White Dude Has Tantrum As Woman Behaves Inappropri...
      • Expose: David Cameron is the Everyday Victim Blami...
      • A 13 year old girl is a "Sexual Predator" because ...
      • Men Who Just Don't Get Misogyny But Think They Do
      • Twitter, Trolling and Misogynistic Abuse (trigger ...
      • Silent Sunday : Inspiring and Thought Provoking Bl...
      • Gradient Lair on Rape Culture
      • Fathers4Justice, Mumsnet and Me: #shoutingback
      • If you call another woman an "attention-seeker", I...
    • ►  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)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (4)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile