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

FeMEnism: Netmums Re-Invents "Choice" Feminism

Netmums, the other British parenting website, has undertaken a survey on feminism. In it, I have learned that I am aggressive, undermine motherhood, oppress men and I need to use Botox. Needless to say, this is not my feminism. My feminism is about the liberation of women as a class. It is about women’s rights legally recognized: our right to reproductive freedom, employment, and the freedom from violence. Feminism isn’t about individualism and personal choices. I am white, middle class and have 2 post-graduate degrees with several academic articles published. I have "choices" that many other women will never have. To pretend that racism, classism, homophobia, disablism and misogyny don’t limit the “choices” of other women is hypocritical. It is a lie perpetrated by the Patriarchy designed to isolate women. 

According to the Telegraph , that noted hotbed of Radical Feminism,

(s)ocial commentators have dubbed this new movement 'FeMEnism' as it gives women the right to live very varied lives without judgment from their peers - rather than be dictated to by the 70's-style 'sisterhood' with a solitary viewpoint.

Now, I've had a quick google and I can't see anything, which suggests that anyone is using the term feMEnism. And, really, who would? It sounds rather pretentious; although I'm not sure I'm a good judge on this since I use ‘FeMNist’ to denote my membership of the Mumsnet Feminist board. We are a collective. FeMEnist implies that the only person who counts is the individual woman, which is utterly silly. It is also disingenuous at best. Choice feminism has been around for more than 15 years. It is called Third Wave feminism. It is odd for both Netmums and the Telegraph to be buying into a discourse, which is false. However, since Netmums founder Siobhan Freegard also buys into the idea that “traditional” feminism is “aggressive, divisive and doesn’t take into account (women’s) personal circumstances”, it’s not surprising that they are trying to advertise themselves as a new form of feminism.

Freegard doesn’t understand Second Wave feminism; at least, I think she is referring to Second Wave Feminism with the word “traditional”. It’s entirely possible she means the Suffragettes. Either way, I don’t know any feminists who hate all men or who view them as the “enemy”. I know many who hate the men who have physically, sexually and emotionally abused them. I hate them too. I think that’s a rational response to being violated. There has never been “a battle of the sexes” on the part of feminists. That is a story spun by the media who are too invested in the Patriarchy to actively challenge the myths surrounding violence against women and feminist political theory. Heck, in the case of the Daily Mail, they actively perpetuate the myths in order to sell their own brand of woman-hating to those unwilling to give up their privilege. In fact, and I know some will find this truly shocking, feminists actually have fathers, brothers, and sons. If you find this a surprise, do feel free to take some deep breaths, because it gets worse: some feminists are even married. To men. Actual men. With penises and everything.

There are so many things wrong with this survey that I don't know quite where to begin. Obviously, the refusal to acknowledge the political structures in which women live is, well, stupid. It is the failure to understand that other women's lives, even in the UK, are fundamentally different from one another whilst at the same time recognising women's oppression as a class. Feminists do both. We seek the liberation of *ALL* women whilst simultaneously supporting and campaigning for the specific needs of communities of women who are Othered within a white capitalist-Patriarchy.

Feminists also don't judge women for their appearance. We are critical of the patriarchal constructions of beauty which force women to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test in order to be considered worthy of notice. Communities of women who reinforce patriarchal standards of beauty like assuming that being feminine and glamorous was once a barrier to being taken seriously aren’t challenging anything. The problem is that women aren't taken seriously unless they are "feminine". It is the performance of gender which is a barrier to women's liberation. If an individual woman having breast implants is a "choice", how can we assess women's choices? We live in a society which privileges very young women who are thin, with fake breasts and long blonde hair. This is without even considering the issue of race which works on the presumption of white = beautiful. The number of creams designed to lighten the skin of Women of Colour is incredible. The pressure on Black women to have straight hair is immense. Hell, even Chris Rock noticed and made a documentary about it. If a man can see it, why can't other women? This isn’t to say that women who have breast enlargements should be judged or bullied. You won’t find a feminist who actually argues that. You will find feminists who believe that “choice” is a word used to limit women’s ability to make decisions for themselves. It removes everything from the political context. Feminism is about the political context. It is about women as a class. 

I'm quite surprised that 82% of the women who filled in the survey "condemned prostitution". What do they mean by that? Do they mean the men who believe they are entitled to access women's bodies whenever they want and think nothing of buying another person's body for their own sexual gratification. If that's what they mean, then I'm with them. I think prostitution is nothing less than the state-sanctioned rape of vulnerable women; many of whom will have started prostituting themselves as children. Most women involved in prostitution have histories of child physical, psychological and sexual abuse. Many were victims of rape. Many are currently trapped in the self-harm of substance misuse. Many prostitute themselves because they have no other options to support their children. But, I suspect this isn't what was meant by "condemning prostitution". I suspect it is more to do with blaming the vulnerable women who are trapped than it is acknowledging the problem lies in a capitalist system which views women as commodities to be bought and sold. It's notable that 77% also felt that marrying for money was wrong. I wonder who they were blaming there: the women trying to survive the best way they can? Or, the rich men who think they are entitled to buy women. 

The chart labelled "Which of these activities are acceptable for feminists" is just utterly pathetic. FFS, they have "baking cupcakes" down. I must have missed the part of the feminist movement which bans women from baking. I think they got confused there with the Patriarchy who don't like women to eat because fat women are unfuckable. A lot of feminists have a problem with pole dancing. That's because we view as part of the continuum of violence perpetrated by the "sex entertainment industy"; an oxymoron if I've heard one. Again, this isn't about critiquing the women involved. It's about questioning the entire industry and why men feel entitled to treat women like objects. That is what is missing from this survey: the men. The men who abuse and rape women. They are who feminists are fighting; not women who vajazzle.

And, if 51% of teenage girls have never heard of the feminist movement then their parents may want to check what else their daughters aren’t learning at school since feminism appears in both the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland and in numerous places in the English/Welsh curriculum. It’s also in the media ALL the time. I genuinely don’t know how anyone can’t have heard of it; even if it’s just to buy into the Daily Mail’s “feminists are all evil, man-hating lesbians” crap. I wouldn’t expect a 7 year old to have heard the word feminist, just as I wouldn’t expect a 14 year old to be up to date in feminist theory, but a 16 year old who has never heard the word, well, I find that really problematic. 

This is the problem with both the survey undertaken by Netmums and the discussion in the media. The survey itself has inverted feminist discourse to push for a very specific end point: namely that feminism is not relevant. Now, I don’t want to cast aspersions but I do think it’s quite telling that this survey came from Netmums and not Mumsnet, which has both a very active feminist community online, as well as grassroots activists. The Mumsnet “We Believe You campaign” and the Miscarriage Code of Practice campaign came directly from Mumsnet members. Not all would self-define as feminist, but they all understand the importance of sisterhood. If I were cynical, I might think that this is part of a policy to discredit Mumsnet, which has been much maligned in the press recently for daring to be political. The Netmums version of FeMEnism challenges nothing, but celebrates choice at the expensive of collective political action.


Also, Dudes, I can count. 1300 women took your survey. That's not really represenative of anything but a self-selecting group of women who post on Netmums. Let's not get over-excited about "representing the voice of young women". 

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: 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

How to Identify a Misogynist: Neil Wallis takes a Tour through Narcissism.

Otherwise entitled: Reason 347 why I don't follow men on twitter: unrelenting levels of nincompoopery. Really, no one should be bothering to read anything written by a man so dense but, unfortunately, Neil Wallis is also a former deputy editor of the Sun. You know, one of those aresholes responsible for the Page 3 phenomenon. Suffice it say that I had never heard of Wallis until I read his self-righteous, utterly narcissistic defence of the Page 3 in the Huffington Post complete with unbearably smug quotes of tweets which make him sound like a Hugh Hefner wannabe .

Normally, I wouldn't even bother responding to the whinging twaddle of misogynists being called on their misogyny but this is such a brilliant piece of mansplainin' twaddle helpfully called: "Why the Self-Serving Wimmin Who Want to Ban Page 3 Are So Wrong". Anytime a man uses the term "wimmin", you know he's going to be a misogynistic areswipe. When men use words like "hysteria" and "shrill" to describe women they disagree with, you know they are misogynists. 

Anytime a man suggests there is something more important in the world for feminists be focusing on, you know he's a misogynist. And stupid to boot. Apparently, Wallis is unaware of campaigns on FGM, white slavery , sexual stereotypes, forced marriages and under-age sex. I'm guessing at that rant that Wallis has never actually met a feminist. Apparently, the people who read The Sun are the ones who worry about feeding their kids and paying the rent; not those of who think that Page 3 is nothing more than the objectification of women's bodies. Yep, that's us crazy feminists. Worrying about how to pay the rent AND the increasing pornographication of our society. Gosh, it's like women might be able to think about more than two things at once and that would never, ever do. We get actual opinions backed up by real research and then where would we be? Armageddon perhaps?

Clearly, I missed the memo where feminists are one of the Four Horses of the Apocalypse. I will undertake riding lessons soon so that I am fully prepared for our battalion. After, I manage to make enough money to pay the rent, feed my kids and pay for those pesky riding lessons. Possibly, also after someone finds a cure for horse allergies.

Do feel free to sign the petition against Page 3 here.

When you are free in between learning to ride horses and saving white women from slavery.

Read More

"My Elegant Gathering of White Pussies"

This appears to be quite a popular search term for my blog. I don't want to disappoint my readers so here are some images of white pussies for your enjoyment: 

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Apparently, Rape is Funny via MyCheck

I'd like to think this is a joke. That no one would be so utterly stupid as to think rape and murder are acceptable advertising campaigns but we all know that's precisely the kind of shit that gets advertising execs all hot and horny. After all, MAC only pulled the Ciudad Juarez limited edition make-up line after customers complained. Apparently, no one at MAC quite understood that naming make-up after a Mexican border town imploding due to drug violence and the systemic mass murder of women might be considered, well, in poor taste. Probably they all failed kindergarten or never saw Sesame Street. Even Oscar the Grouch could have worked out that naming make up after systemic VAW was just a little bit rude.

A campaign for an App, of all the stupid shit possible, which includes the use of a date rape drug and ends with the a man sharpening a knife in a room full of unconscious [or already dead] tied up women really is scrapping the barrel of indecency. Jezebel has already called MyCheck on its misogyny; as has the Israeli Times but do we really need advertising campaigns to get to this point before they are pulled. Surely, someone in advertising somewhere gets that systemic VAW isn't funny or clever. 

This is "edited version" of the video. The article in Jezebel contains a link to the original video in its entirety: 

I'm sure someone will be along soon to inform me that I can just not purchase the App but that really isn't the point. I'd like the entire advertising industry to remove their collective brains from wherever they have stored them and just stop making this shit. Is that really too much to ask?

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Jezebel Remembers It's a Feminist Organisation

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

These are some of my favourite highlights:

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

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

Jezebel can be freaking hilarious when they're ranting. They just need to dump the celeb shit and rant more.

Read More

Brilliant Circus for Kids if it didn't have a Faux Pole Dance in the Middle

I took my youngest to see a travelling circus last week. It was, for the most part, a great kids' circus. Lots of acrobatics, no animals, and an utterly ridiculous clown who didn't feel the need to go in for any sexist jokes but rather focused on the old routines of dropping plates and throwing popcorn on people. Yes, I've seen that a million times before but it's still funny. More importantly, kids love it and circuses really are for kids. This wasn't the best circus I've ever been too but small loved it and that's what counts the most for me; although, to be fair, I quite enjoyed it too.

There were, however, two twitch-inducing acts. The first was an acrobatic act involving 3 Black men. They were fucking brilliant and the one who limboed basically bent backwards was incredible. I felt my usual spell of jealousy of people who are that athletic and flexible. I am neither. But, they were dressed in "African" prints and were doing "African" dances. Now, I have no idea of their ethnic origins since I didn't speak to them but I really do find it sad when I see incredible Black artists reduced to using stereotypical [but usually wrong] constructions of "Africa" in order to entertain white audiences. They were a great act but the reductive "othering" of it was uncomfortable to view.

The other was an act featuring a young woman in a very "sexualised" outfit performing what was basically a pole dance without the pole [since she was standing on a large disco ball rather than the pole]. Now, this is was an acrobatic circus. Most of the women were in tight or revealing clothes but weren't dressed as pole dancers. This particular act involved lots of standing on her head and doing the splits whilst stroking herself. She was an incredible athlete so the stroking was nothing more than an attempt to pander to the pornographied sections of society who can't go to an event with their children without having their cocks virtually stroked. What was a real piss-off was the climax involved this athlete [and she was an athlete] standing on her head, facing backwards and shooting an arrow at a dartboard. Now, I'm dyspraxic and couldn't shoot an arrow in a straight line whilst standing upright and facing the right way so the whole shooting whilst standing on your head and facing the wrong direction was pretty fucking amazing. It didn't need to be "sexed up". It's just so disgraceful and depressing that a circus aimed at kids feels they need to add a routine like this in order to appeal to the pornographied masses.

What happened to just being able to take our kids to the circus, pay obscene amounts of money for popcorn to watch real clowns and real athletes perform amazing acts without the need to make lions jump through hoops which are on fire or have women trussed up like sex toys?

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

#BuyingOnlyMusicByWomen

I know very little about music. We don't watch reality TV in this house and the teenager is far more likely to be caught listening to Debussy as she is anything on MTV. The music we do own is very male-centric. After all, I like the Red Hot Chili Peppers; hardly a beacon of Feminist-friendly music. I've been making a conscious effort to combat cultural femicide in the music industry by only buying music written by women. I did start several threads on Mumsnet asking for suggestions but, after the annoying stalkery-horseshit by a certain nameless organisation, I had most of my old posts on Mumsnet deleted. I forgot to copy some of the incredible threads about women's music. Every year I make my daughter a women-only playlist for International Women's Day and the last two years this has been with the help of the women of Mumsnet This year the list never got finalised as my laptop had an unfortunate encounter with some tea the week before. Technically, I've finished the list but I keep adding to it and haven't actually made a copy for my daughter yet. 

I'm expanding my feminist activism of #readingonlybookswrittenbywomen into #BuyingOnlyMusicByWomen. So, I'm looking for more suggestion of music written, produced or performed by women who aren't part of the hyper-masculinised music industry and who are controlled and manipulated by men for the sexual pleasure of men.

Some of my Personal Favourites are [in no particular order or strength of love]:

Beth Jeans Houghton
Polly Harvey
Hole
Lucy Ward
Thea Gilmore

Amy Winehouse
Big Mama Thorton
The Slits
Viv Albertine
No Doubt [but not Gwen Stefani's solo stuff]
Marianne Faithfull
Lucinda Williams
Isobel Campbell [with and without Mark Lanegan]
Heather Nova
Imelda May
Diana Ross
Dusty Springfield
Ella Fitzgerald
Alanis Morissette
Aretha Franklin
Gladys Knight
Whitney Houston
Tina Turner
Janis Joplin

This is the suggestions via Mumsnet:

Patti Smith
Emmylou Harris
Pearl Bailey
Karine Polwart
Nanci Griffith
Corrine Bailey Rae
Dinah Washington
Michelle Shocked
Suzanne Vega
Lucie Silvas
Roberta Flack
Le Tigre
Bikini Kill
The Donnas
Wild Flag
Sleater-Kinney
Skunk Anansie
L7
India.Arie
Kristen Hersh
Tanya Donnelly
Throwing Muses
Aimee Mann
Beth Orton
Cowboy Junkies
The Cranberries
Edie Brickell
Elastica
Kathryn Williams
Leftfield
Leslie Feist
Portishead
Tracey Thorn
Liz Frazer
Sandy Denny
Chrissie Hynde
Bjork
Alison Moyet
Lykke Li
School of Seven Bells
Buffy Sainte-Marie
Warpaint
Veruca Salt
Lana del Rey
Nancy Sinatra
Oh Land
Curve
Miranda Sex Garden
Daisy Chainsaw
Mediaeval Baebes
Diamanda Galas
Ute Lemper Alisha's Attic

Some Suggestions from Twitter last week:

Melody Gardot @ClareTwirler
Luscious Jackson @Charitydelux
Cornshead Sisters @Charitydelux

Read More