Tag Archive

So many great blogs to choose from…hmm…

Feministe has an interesting blog on Christian Bale and the accusations against him

Unapologetically Female asks: does advertising show us men want breasts, or not?

And posts this awesome video:

Brownfemipower looks at the plans for a new Disney film

Courtney Martin assesses the idea of marriage

Today’s Big Thing has a video of some women kicking the girls-are-bad-at-sports stereotype where it hurts

And feministing has made my life complete by introducing me to this wonderful, wonderful woman:

Seriously, MAN CRISPS? Fucking MAN CRISPS?

How can they get away with this kind of advertising?

I actually hate the world.

How can people do this?

In Suffolk on the 14th, a woman was forced into a car and raped. The rapist was in his 60s and had asked for help with heavy bags…

I just can’t understand it. I don’t see why someone can think that that is an ok thing to do, I cannot fathom how someone can justify raping someone. As with the man who raped and tortured the student in Columbia, there is a thought process that these men go through that I cannot begin to comprehend.

I suppose it’s the same with all criminals - it would be strange if you could understand them, understand the reasoning behind their actions. You would have something in common with them. But this isn’t like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family, this isn’t like bank fraud. This is such a serious, terrible crime, this is a crime against womankind and yet still, so many people, all over the world, can find it in themselves to rape. Can justify it to themselves, can live with themselves having done it. Would do it if they could get away with it (as seen in Malamuth and Check’s research in a uni in the US, where 1/3 of the all male participants said that they would rape if they could get away with it).

Part of me seems to think that if we could understand, maybe we could stop these men. Prevent them from terrorising women, from torturing and raping women.

Ultimately though, I suppose, it comes down to the education of men (because, strangely, it shouldn’t be the case that women have the responsibility of defending themselves, it should be the rapists that are being stopped) and the efficiency of the enforcement of law…

Either way, it’s highly depressing that this is still such a frequent occurrence, not only in our country but all over the world. It’s disgraceful that people think that it’s an ok thing to do, and that women so often get the blame. It’s disgraceful that people think you are making up statistics if you tell them what they don’t want to hear, that a woman can be penalised for what she was wearing or for her relationship history or indeed just for being a woman, it’s disgraceful that there isn’t a bigger effort to prevent this from occurring. It’s disgraceful the amount of men who get away with it, and the amount of women who have to live with the memory of such a horrific experience.

Really, how can we ever be proud of a country where there is so much disgrace?

…or at least, that is what one is led to believe by the promise of many new ‘Hooters‘ bars cropping up all over England. Hoorah, another way of normalising the objectification and degradation of women.

I’ll link you up to the criticisms on The F-Word, and the relevant Facebook group and petition, but first have a look at what Hooters have to say for themselves:

The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants, and the company believes the Hooters Girl is as socially acceptable as a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, or a Radio City Rockette. The Hooters system employs over 25,000 people - over 15,000 of which are Hooters Girls. The “nearly world famous” Hooters Girls are the cornerstone of the Hooters concept, and as part of their job, these all-American cheerleaders make promotional and charitable appearances in their respective communities. Hooters hires women who best fit the image of a Hooters Girl to work in this capacity. The chain hires both males and females to work in management and host, staff, service bar, and kitchen positions. The Hooters Girl uniform consists of orange shorts and a white tank top, short-sleeve or long-sleeve T-shirt. Pantyhose and bras are required.

Claims that Hooters exploits attractive women are as ridiculous as saying the NFL exploits men who are big and fast. Hooters Girls have the same right to use their natural female sex appeal to earn a living as do super models Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell. To Hooters, the women’s rights movement is important because it guarantees women have the right to choose their own careers, be it a Supreme Court Justice or Hooters Girl.

Women occupy management positions all the way from Assistant Manager to Vice President of Training and Development, Kat Cole, who started her career at Hooters as a Hooters Girl.

The chain acknowledges that many consider “Hooters” a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy. Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning’s intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate. In the end, we hope Hooters means a great place to eat.

Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children’s menu.

Oh I could continue quoting, but you might as well read the page if it interests you. I’ll just add this one bit:

Sex appeal is legal and it sells. Newspapers, magazines, daytime talk shows, and local television affiliates consistently emphasize a variety of sexual topics to boost sales. Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal, along with its commitment to quality operations continues to build and contributes to the chain’s success. Hooters’ business motto sums it up, “You can sell the sizzle, but you have to deliver the steak.”

Lovely. It’s one of those ‘the majority is always right, therefore the perceived majority is always right, therefore the media is always right and therefore we are’ decisions. Pretty questionable if you ask me. What they don’t seem to understand is that their company reduces women to mere ’sex appeal’, and normalises the view of women as constantly sexually available, as there for male pleasure and as subservient. As Laura Woodhouse from The F-Word puts it,

Some women may have no problems working there or dealing with the customers. But some women choosing to work there doesn’t mean that the Hooters’ view of women is OK. As long as women are primarily valued and viewed as sex objects for male pleasure/entertainment, all women suffer, because that status allows us to be discriminated against and “justifies” male sexual harassment of women, the myths about rape (she asked for it because she had her breasts out, she wanted it really etc etc), paying us less or barring our access to certain jobs. We will not be seen or treated as equals with equal rights as long as the culture of which Hooters is a part insists that our greatest asset is our breasts, and that these exist for men to look at and make money out of.

Other women have to take any job going, and they shouldn’t have to put up with the Hooters uniform and sexual harassment in order to make a living. Callers on the show last night who claimed that no one has to do a job they don’t like are naive. You think people CHOOSE to empty bins or clean toilets day in, day out for years on end? People have to make ends meet, and they should not have to put up with the Hooters environment in order to do so. I don’t think the women who choose to work there should have to, either.

Here are the anti-hooters links: Both blogs at The F-Word , Facebook group, PETITION, Guardian article.

And here’s the agreement that all of the ‘girls’ have to sign - read paras 2 and 3.

I’d be intrigued to know what you think about this. Personally, as you may have gathered, I’m astonished that this should even be suggested, let alone accepted, as a new branch of restaurants, pleasantly titled ‘breastaurants’ by one of the lawyers for Hooters (which, really, says it all), in England.

Goodness, that’s a bit of a long sentence, sorry. I hope that there is some way of stopping them, really I do. The fact that they are celebrating their 25th Birthday in America is depressing enough, let’s hope they never get to celebrate their first one here.

[Edit: It would appear that actually they have been successful in getting permission for a Hooters in Southend on Sea. Damn damn damn damn. But that does not mean (obviously) that we just give up and accept their existence in our country. Or indeed anywhere. Keep fighting the good fight, my friends. And on that note, as ever, adieu.]

Cos we’ve never heard that one before.

THIS isn’t, apparently, a touchy-feely, “women are more emotional in the workplace” kind of argument.

No, instead it’s a ‘men are just emotionally incapable and LIKE to see others fail, while women make a good judgement not to get involved with aspects of business that require more commitment time-wise’

. . . .

Male performance is boosted simply by having to compete, while female performance is automatically lowered by competition, according to studies that tested fourth-grade schoolchildren under different running scenarios in gym class.

Because, of course, fourth-grade schoolchildren are perfect examples of working women and men. And anyway, why o why o why the generalisation?! Some women perform better when they have to compete (I sure as hell do), and some don’t. The same goes for men.

“More women than men think they’ll do poorly, even when they perform very well,” Dr. Pinker says in the book. “In the competitive sphere this can look like discrimination, when in fact women may be withdrawing from the race of their own accord, based on their faulty self-assessments.”

This, of course, is natural. Women expect to do badly. This couldn’t possibly be a learnt personality trait, could it?

Oh no, let’s not even suggest that. That’s crazy talk. Women just think like that, ok?

To be fair, I’m judging from the article rather than reading the actual book. But really, Dr. Pinker, shouldn’t we have learnt by now that all people behave/think/process information differently? What can we possibly gain from such ‘research’ other than a confirmation of this, which has been gendered? Surely the only thing that this book does, then, is promote the idea that it’s ok for there to be so few women in the higher jobs in business because some women don’t want it, and that men are incapable of real emotion/compassion?

Thus, the power of patriarchy is yet again affirmed - we’ve even got women saying that it’s natural for women to not want to be promoted/paid more! And while we’re at it, let’s confirm that idea of the RealMan - he’s masculine, he’s strong, he likes to compete and WIN, oh yeah, and he just doesn’t do any of that girly compassion bull.

Perleeease. Give me a break.

…when you ought to be sleeping.

Two videos for you to watch. The first - men being asked what feminism means to them. The second - women being asked. I think they’re from about a yr ago, but still pretty telling.

I’m off to bed now

at an open mic night in Brighton. I’m quite pleased with it…

It is based upon this picture…from post secret =]

Yesterday (Inspired by a postsecret postcard)

Yesterday I tried to find god

I started deep within myself because

it’s as good a place as any to begin.

So I settled down

and looked within.

In a time of loneliness and sorrow

when my very being seemed to be hollow,

I hoped a god on side would help me through

when I was feeling low and blue.

So I tried my best to understand

how within me there resides a man

who is everything and everyone,

but I must confess that it did not take long

for my mind to wander way off track:

I was lost and there was no way back

from my thoughts of emptiness and love.

There was no voice to captivate from up above

Crying “you’ve found me now it’s your turn to hide”.

There was no answer, no shining light to guide,

No bingo! There was no grand revelation.

But determined to discover my salvation

I decided to look

in a so called holy book

hoping therein would lie the answer that I sought.

Some time later I emerged, distraught

to find misogyny had found a base

in the most vulnerable, hopeful place

within so many searching for an explanation,

longing for a perfect destination

to the journey that our lives begin.

Yet finding gods that reprimand our ‘sin’

and seek confirmation of our ‘true’ belief,

although for some it may provide relief,

seems like a faith that I can do without.

So when I look on with a sceptic’s doubt,

and see ‘gods’, husks of our imagination,

that seem to have a hold upon the nation

I cannot help but disagree

that god can tell me what to do and who to be.

And while I watch the faithful wistfully

and wish I could find consolation in the guarantee

of a life after death, that’s rich and rare,

if I’m honest I can’t say I really care,

when to find this hope I must give up my reason

and my logic and all I truly believe in.

As I value values more than what I’m taught

my beliefs held out against the god I’d sought

and revealed a passion unbeknownst to me

So yesterday I searched for god,

but my failure set me free.

And on that note - adieu.

…is the name of this article. It was written by Alex Gibson, a modern history student at Magdalen College, Oxford. Apparently, “He is very proud to add feminism to a list of ‘isms’ he cares passionately about, and is quite fond of making his friends uncomfortable in the pub by talking about it”. Go him - I’m glad that there are men out there that identify with feminism. But while I’m happy for him that he can add feminism to his impressive list, I had a few issues with his article.

In essence, it was fair enough. Men have to face gender stereotypes and that sucks for them. Poor things. But right from the title, I was perplexed. “Why Men Should Care About Gender Stereotypes”…well, why should they? The message is clear - because it affects them, too. In fact, some stereotypes about men are “allowed to flourish in - dare I say it - a much more brazen way than the stereotypes about women”. Of course, if it only affected women then, one is led to assume, men shouldn’t care about gender stereotypes.

While I agree with him over several of his points, this overall principle, that the reason men should care is because it affects them too, marred my opinion of the whole article. Not only this, but also his attitude to feminism as though it were purely for advancing women. While there is a clear focus upon women within feminism, as it is, more often than not, about equality and women being treated equally to men, his article seemed to suggest that feminism only rejects the ludicrous ideas held about women and that, indeed, there is nothing that addresses the issue of supposed ‘masculinity’.

The problem is, while women are encouraged to reject the ludicrous ideas that are held about them, men are supposed to embrace them.

The idea of all women rejecting gender stereotypes is a wonderful one. What bliss, when all women are raised by feminists who ensure that they shed gender stereotypes and consider themselves as individuals. But that is not reality. When so many women and men are brought up in the clutches of gender stereotypes, it is not right to say that women reject gender stereotypes while men are expected to embrace them. Both ‘genders’ are expected to conform to the stereotypes that are rife in modern society, but I would never go so far as to say that stereotypes about men are allowed to flourish more than those about women. When the ‘worst’ swear word in England, cunt, describes the female anatomy, when women are portrayed on tv, in programmes and adverts and films and in books, cartoons, and games as conforming to ’stereotypes’, when there are still ‘girls mags‘ which expect women to only care about make-up, clothes, shoes, and, of course, men, when feminism comes under ‘life & style‘ if acknowledged at all in national papers, when to ignore the advances of other men makes you a ’slut’, how can you say that stereotypes about men flourish more?

I’d love to know.

Yes, Alex isn’t an anti-feminist. And he wouldn’t want to undermine the wrongs done to women - I appreciate this. However the way that he has approached the issue is deplorable, as he not only sees it as an issue for men just because they are also victims of it, but also seems to think that men have a harder time than women when it comes to gender stereotypes

I would never dare to suggest that men have a harder time than women in general society, because that’s just patently untrue, but in terms of stereotypes we fail utterly.

Yes, he has some good points. The main one, of course, is that men also suffer from patriarchy.

Men are often characterised as spoiled, helpless brats utterly unable to perform simple household tasks, too stupid to remember anniversaries and appointments and completely unable to understand these strange female creatures and their hysterical emotions. We’re base brutes ruled by our overactive sex drives who simply can’t help being crass and immature, because that is the way God made us. Basically, we are mentally deficient lumps who require a female carer to function in society.

But to then say that

This is precisely the kind of ridiculous stereotype that, if applied to women, would be torn to shreds in intelligent debate.

seems rather naive. Yes, in intelligent debate it would be. But so would ridiculous stereotypes about men. However, more often than not we aren’t dealing with intelligent debate. We’re dealing with one-sided views, we’re dealing with people who have grown up being told what girls do and what boys do, so have been socialised into accepting these stereotypes. We’re dealing with anti-feminists who believe the stereotypes that they have been fed with.

Also, to assume that the stereotype of men as ‘mentally deficient lumps’ is the prevalent one could also be misguided. There are a great deal of stereotypes that say that men are more intelligent, more capable of achieving, better at academic studies while women are supposed to flourish creatively. However, Alex clearly hasn’t experienced these as he believes that male academics aren’t celebrated.

Let’s stop putting sports stars on a pedestal and start celebrating poets, writers, scientists and artists.

Actually, male poets, writers, scientists and artists are celebrated widely. Hell, the new freebee with the Guardian is ‘Great Poets of the 20th Century’ and guess how many women poets were great?

One.

Out of seven.

Of course, Plath was amazing. But anyone would believe she’s the only woman that’s ever written decent poetry.

Anyway, I feel that I have dwelled on this for too long. Basically, I agree that gender stereotypes are wrong, both logically and morally. But to suggest that male stereotypes are almost worse than female? I have an issue with that. Also, to suggest that the only reason men should care is because they are affected by it is ridiculous.

I’d be interested to hear what y’all think of the article, and, to balance it, look at this un:

Yay

She talks about supposedly ’sexist’ feminism, and about the ideas put forward by Alex about male stereotypes. And there are some good links to male ‘movements’ at the end

And on that note - Adieu!

The Gender Mirror - pretty interesting way to approach modern issues - invert them! It certainly makes you think…

Feminism is bad for your health. This is from last year. Gah.

And, unrelated - uk teenagers may have to, among other things, pledge allegiance to the queen. Um - no. It’s a rather mixed article actually…

Some laughs :

The style and content of the events should be “re-energised”, perhaps with a rendition by schoolchildren of the pop song We Are The World, last year’s report said.

(Seriously, I laughed a LOT…just picture the teenagers you know in the UK. Now picture them singing We Are The World while declaring their joy to be a British citizen and their love of the Queen. Please.)

Some ideas that are almost good:

Lord Goldsmith has also hinted at updating the national anthem by removing verses which are rarely performed.

I’d just change it altogether though, tbh. It doesn’t reflect England properly and it is such a tuneless piece of crap.

Some realism:

People born and raised in this country are often far too cynical about being British and it seems to be a national pastime to put down British institutions and our way of life.

Aaaand…some SHOCK:

It has been reported that laws, such as sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which carries life imprisonment, would be scrapped or reformed because they are regarded as outdated.

What, outdated?? You mean, like, life imprisonment for adultery isn’t still the norm? And heirs to the throne don’t have to be married? Or men? Never. *Sigh*

And on that note - adieu!

…is the origin of ‘Good Friday’ (see, I said I’d be referring to ye olde Who Cooked The Last Supper =] )

See, in the days of the Mother Goddess, when matriarchy was in place and men were suppressed (which, I will not hesitate to point out, was wrong just as the suppression of women nowadays is wrong), the day which is now regarded by the vast majority (apparently) as ‘Good Friday’ was regarded as Blood Day. It was a celebration (or memorial? not 100% sure) of the sacrifice of either the Mother Goddess’ lover or her daughter/son, and involved baking cakes for the Mother Goddess as an offering.

So there’s loads more I need to find out about this, among other religious festivals taken from ‘paganism’, but this one has stayed with me particularly. I’ve started, as a result, questioning people when they say ‘on Good Friday’ - but I’m learning [the hard way], that correcting them and saying ‘actually, it’s blood day’ isn’t always wise.

While it has sparked some interesting debates (and the belief that as it’s recognised in most calendars is MUST BE GOOD FRIDAY!!!! has resounded), it has also offended (more so than I’d anticipated, in my naivety) some good, albeit rather religious, friends. I put it like this not because I disagree with their religion (although, in all honesty, I disagree with its very foundations and so my respect for the religion today is…not exactly substantial), but because the friends in question are often more fundamentalist in their views, rather than the self-professed ‘pick n mix Christians’ I usually end up befriending. Perhaps, then, my insistence on recognising the origins of this festival (of sorts) has been foolish, as it provoked a reaction that should have been seen as inevitable. But it has surprised me, that there are so many that just accept what the majority say, and that there are so many that will not argue their point, but rather insist that you are wrong because their religion says so. That is no argument. Give me proof.

Also rather interesting and Easter related:

Not all Easter traditions are Christian in nature. Many are pagan “imports” and, even then, many pagan and Christian traditions have been secularized over time. The Easter Bunny, for example, derives from the worship of the Anglo-Saxon goddess of fertility Eastre (hence the name Easter) whose natural symbol was the rabbit. Use of the Easter Bunny was brought to America by German immigrants - non-German Christians ignored the rabbit until some time after the Civil War when the celebration of Easter became more widespread.

Easter Eggs also predate Christian Easter celebrations. Pagan groups long exchanged eggs at some point near the beginning of Spring as symbol of fertility and the hope that the coming summer crops would be good. These eggs were also often painted with bright colors to represent the colors of spring, from the blooming flowers and the bright sun (remember that in the northern regions there is much less sunlight during the winter). Different cultures today color their eggs in different ways. For example, in Greece it is common to exchange eggs which have been colored crimson to represent the blood of Christ. Slavic countries tend to decorate their eggs with gold and silver and in parts of Germany and Austria, people exchange green eggs on Holy Thursday.

Found here=]

Myeah anyway, intrigued as ever to hear any views on the blood day/good friday debate and also feedback on the coherence of this blog…I fear I am losing the ability both to speak and to type of late!

And on that note - Adieu.