Aug

8

Greek Woman Allegedly Set Attacker’s Genitals on Fire

Filed Under Europe, International, assholes, courts, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexism, violence against women and girls | 32 Comments

A woman in Greece was out at a club. A man, a British tourist out at that same club, allegedly exposed his genitals and started waving them around and making obscene gestures and remarks. He then allegedly forcibly fondled the woman, including between her legs.

During the course of this alleged assault, the woman allegedly told him to stop harassing her, and when he did not, she poured her alcoholic beverage on him. When he still refused to stop harassing and assaulting her, she allegedly got out a lighter.

Stuart Feltham is in the hospital with second degree burns on his body, including his genitals. Marina Fanouraki is in court.

Fanouraki says that she did not light Feltham’s pants on fire, that she poured the liquid on him after he assaulted her, and he must have accidentally lit himself on fire while trying to light a cigarette. Feltham denies the sexual assault and harassment, with his parents defending him as a “kind-hearted, generous boy.”

I don’t know what actually happened. Neither do you. And there is so much to write about here — the common assault of Greek women by British tourists which has made Fanouraki a hometown hero, the government response that this is somehow a lesson about alcohol, and more.

But I do know what most people seem to believe happened. Most people seem to believe that Feltham harassed and assaulted Fanouraki, and that Fanouraki responded by pouring her drink on him, and lighting him on fire. I do know that most people believe that this is what has happened, and that Fanouraki is the only one who has been charged with a crime. (Note: Fanouraki’s lawyers apparently intend to take legal action against Feltham. But unless the court system is vastly different from the American one, I would assume that those would be civil rather than criminal charges.) I do know that most people believe that this is what happened, and are placing the blame entirely on one person. And it’s not the person who is alleged to have committed a sexual assault.

Time and time again, women who act in self-defense are charged with crimes while the man they were defending themselves against walks free and is treated as the victim. And the woman who defended herself is scolded and dismissed as overreacting, going to far, and being a crazy, vengeful bitch. The man, oh, he was wrong of course. But the woman — why the woman, she should have responded better! Why didn’t she more carefully analyze all of her options for protecting herself and choose the one that was the least forceful, regardless of expected effectiveness? Couldn’t she have just politely and quietly asked him to stop?

Read more

May

23

Target Women: Laundry

Filed Under feminism, fun, marketing, media, sexism | Leave a Comment

(Click here if you can’t view the embedded video.)

Oh Sarah, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways . . .

May

18

On Gender and Sexual Insults

Filed Under assholes, gender, misogyny, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, slut-shaming | 18 Comments

Yesterday, a piece by India Knight about the breakup of Katie Price and Peter Andre appeared in the Times Online (h/t Gauntlet).  It seems that these two are reality television stars in the UK.  I’ve never heard of them before in my life.  So let’s just get it out of the way that I have absolutely no dog whatsoever in that fight.

The argument in the article revolves around Price’s reported and repeated insults regarding Andre’s penis size and sexual prowess.  And if what is reported here is true, I agree that she certainly is an absolute, major asshole:

Having dissed on record everyone she’s ever gone to bed with, she even used an insult to reel Andre in. The pair met in 2004 on I’m a Celebrity. . . Get Me Out of Here!, the reality show on which C-listers are humiliated in grotesque fashion – bug-eating and so on – for viewers’ pleasure. Andre was a rabbit caught in Price’s headlights. She liked him, too, so she looked in his shorts and told him he had a tiny penis.

They eventually got married, even though she kept on telling him – and a million or so viewers every week – that he still had a tiny penis. I don’t mean once or twice – I mean repeatedly, for years on end. Recently, on The Graham Norton Show, following a complaint from Andre about infrequent sex, Price said he took “too long” (45 minutes, since you ask), and on a recent episode of their reality show she repeatedly trotted out her favourite line about her husband’s “acorn”. He dumped her shortly afterwards, although it is still unclear whether the dumpage will lead to divorce or to a lavishly remunerated reconciliation via the pages of OK! magazine.

My problem isn’t with Knight sympathizing with Andre, in the least.  In fact, it does indeed sound like he deserves some sympathy.

My problem is with the conclusions that Knight draws about men in general and women in general (who are all assumed to be heterosexual), and how they relate to one another in romantic relationships and in the aftermath of breakups.

Read more

May

9

Unfinished and Random Thoughts on the Politics of Female Anatomy

Filed Under misogyny, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism, women’s health | 29 Comments

I don’t remember the first time I heard the word “clitoris,” but I do know that the first time I heard it and it registered with me was sometime when I was in my early teens.  I didn’t know what it was.  Once I figured out that it was a part on a woman that gave her sexual pleasure, I was pretty sure that I knew where it was.

But I quickly realized that I must be wrong.  Because the only time I ever saw people talk about the clitoris was male comedians joking about how hard it was to find.  And that thing I thought was the clitoris, well it was pretty damn obvious.  I figured that my clitoris had to be something else, and sadly wondered when, if ever, I would manage to find it.  (Or, more accurately, when a man would find it for me.)

In my mid-teens, I remember watching that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry has a girlfriend whose name he can’t remember, but he knows it rhymes with the name of a female body part.  I didn’t get it when he finally realized that her name was “Dolores” because I didn’t realize that the word clitoris had more than one pronunciation.  And I sure as hell didn’t get it when he more ludicrously guessed “Mulva,” because I had still never heard the word “vulva.”  I gamely laughed along, but I felt ignorant about my own body, and you know, I was.

It wasn’t until I finally saw a diagram of female genitals in my late teens that I realized I was right about where the clitoris was after all, though for a while I still questioned if maybe it was around there somewhere only more difficult to find.  It wasn’t until I was closer to 20, and only then because I became interested in reading about sexuality and actively sought out information, that I learned the word “vulva” and what it meant.

Read more

Apr

9

Missing the Point on Teen “Sexting” Cases

Filed Under assholes, legislation, misogyny, objectification, paternalism, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sex and sexuality, sexism, sexual exploitation and harassment, slut-shaming, violence against women and girls | 46 Comments

You’ve probably seen a lot of media coverage lately around the phenomenon of teenagers sending nude or otherwise sexual pictures of themselves to each other, and the fact that a lot of parents, and more notably law enforcement officials, are really freaking out about it.

It wasn’t so long ago that I wrote about an outrageous case where a 15-year-old was arrested on child pornography charges for taking nude photographs of herself.  But these types of stories have since really taken off; and they’re even calling it “sexting” now, because what would a story about teenagers and sex be without more ways to make it inappropriately tantalizing?

Of course, the media seems to be taking notice not to talk about how girls are being exploited by law enforcement, and often the (usually) boys who they sent the photos to, but about how girls are Teh Slutty for taking pictures of themselves, and how poor boys are being punished for getting caught up in Teh Slutty themselves.  Like here at CNN, and in Thomas’ response to the article at the Yes Means Yes blog:

This article is not perfect, but it makes two really good points: First, that this is wildly and willfully excessive.

Should Phillip be punished? Yes. Should the six teens in Pennsylvania face consequences? Yes. But let’s kick them off cheerleading squads and sports teams. Make them do community service and take classes on sex crimes. Educate other teens on the dangers of sexting. Pay a price, yes, but these young people shouldn’t pay for this for the rest of their lives.

Second, that this ought to be a wake-up call that teen sexuality will develop, and that parents have a responsibility to shape it, which they cannot do by ignoring it

Now, what Thomas does here, again, is not new.  In the original article I wrote about, this issue also came up — the case of a girl taking photos of herself was compared with a case of a boy spreading photos of an ex-girlfriend without her consent.  And, in fact, he’s only agreeing with someone else presenting the problem.  So I could be accused of picking on Thomas here, but this upsets me precisely because I like Thomas, and because he wrote a really intelligent, much longer post on this topic recently.

This most recent post, on the other hand, totally misses the mark.  As Elizabeth says about a different but similar article: “it treats teens sending revealing pictures of themselves and teens sending revealing pictures of others without permission as if they were equivalent acts.”  And they’re fucking not.

Read more

Apr

2

Sarah Haskins Blow Out

Filed Under events and excursions, feminism, fun, marketing, media, pop culture, sexism | 6 Comments

In case you’ve missed them, below are two new Target Women videos for your viewing pleasure.

First up, Lifetime!

(Click here if you can’t view the embedded video.)

You know, I’m sure that the dogs reenacting scenes from famous movies is actually supposed to be a joke on the part of Lifetime (Right? Someone please tell me they’re not serious), but I really do have to agree with Sarah that it ought to be illegal, nonetheless. Somewhere. Soft-core dog porn = so not cool.

Read more

Mar

13

Target Women: Barbie

Filed Under feminism, fun, media, objectification, pop culture, sexism | 6 Comments

The latest from Sarah Haskins:

(If you can’t view the embedded video, click here.)

And for those of you who missed it, she also had a pretty awesome Op-Ed in the Washington Post on Barbie’s 50th birthday. (Yeah, I’ll admit it; that’s how I played with my Barbie, too.)

I so cannot wait to see Sarah at WAM!

Mar

3

Because What’s the Point of a Woman You Can’t Fuck?

Filed Under misogyny, objectification, sex and sexuality, sex work, sexism | 10 Comments

rolling_stone-logo

From contributing editor Mark Binelli’s otherwise decent Rolling Stone article Motor City Breakdown, about the dying automobile industry in Detroit:

At the show, the traditional rituals are still taking place. If you’ve never been to an auto show, the main ritual involves adults climbing in and out of vehicles they will not be allowed to drive, which always seems deeply unsatisfying. (For related reasons, I’ve never liked strip clubs.)

Well then.

What is with those women being so rude and short-sighted as to not allow Mark Binelli to fuck them?  I mean, they’re on display — like cars, so . . .

Just about every two issues, I find myself writing a letter, which always goes unpublished, castigating Rolling Stone for claiming to be so incredibly progressive while failing to reflect said values when it comes to many marginalized and oppressed groups.  Usually these letters are about the magazine’s regular unabashed sexism — though I’ve also written in letters about Matt Taibbi’s favorite insult “cocksucker,” and most recently I wrote in with regards to the decision to use the slur “tranny” to refer to transgender Real World cast member Katelynn.

This time, I’m not even sure what to say.  But considering the fact that in the same issue, the entirety of what they had to print on Chris Brown assaulting Rihanna was 200 words about how Brown can revive his career (seriously), it’s pretty damn much “fuck you guys, you can take that $11 40 year subscription I’ve been going off of forever and shove it up your asses, because I can surely find less insulting ways than this to read the latest tiny piece of Beatles-related news and see random photographs of Sir Paul.”

If you’ve got something better, send it to letters@rollingstone.com.

Feb

26

Jim Beam Ad Remakes Even Worse Than Originals

Filed Under Australia, International, marketing, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, pop culture, sexism | 12 Comments

You might have seen the extremely offensive and sexist Australian Jim Beam ad series last year at Hoyden About Town.

The Neighbours shows naked women sunbathing outside in their backyard, with men peeping on them.  The Girlfriend shows a doormat of a woman explaining how she likes when men neglect her.  The Tragedy shows a very attractive woman explaining how she’s sexually attracted to other women.

In all of these, the title of the ad is stated with the word “the” highly emphasized in order to indicate that a phrase like “the girlfriend” means “the ultimate, world’s best girlfriend.” And of course, what could be a bigger tragedy than a woman whose sexuality doesn’t revolve around men?

Now, Jim Beam is holding a video remake contest, where they encourage their “fans” to make their own versions of the commercials.  Obviously, with the ads so offensive in the first place, this was always going to be a disaster. But one particular remake of the Girlfriend is especially appalling.

The original ad:

And, the remake:

Get it? Because what’s better than a woman who doesn’t have any desires or feelings of her own, but only exists for men’s sexual pleasure without pesky little nuisances like consent getting in the way?

Thank fucking god I don’t drink bourbon.  Though, interestingly, I certainly could use a drink.  Perhaps this was their real marketing strategy all along?

Thanks to Jenny for the link.

Feb

16

Science Says Men Are Sexist Pigs! Except . . . Not.

Filed Under assholes, media, misogyny, objectification, patriarchy, sex and sexuality, sexism | 8 Comments

When I came across a headline this morning that read “Men really do see half-naked women as sex objects, scientists claim,” I felt that this had to be inherently untrue.

Though I certainly do not doubt the findings in the study that some men react to images of scantily clad women the same way that they would react to an object (rather than a human), I didn’t believe that this was something that could possibly be true of “men” in general. I also felt that rather than being used to point out how sexist images of women and sexist attitudes towards women do actually end up hurting men and women alike, as feminists have claimed for some time, that it would be used instead to make some argument about how men naturally behave and how we can’t change it.

I was right on both counts.

Actually, what the study says but the headline neglects, is that this reaction was seen in men who were determined to be in other ways sexist.  That’s right, “men” don’t see half-naked women as objects; sexist men see half-naked women as objects.

Which is something that, again, feminists already knew.

But while the Telegraph article does manage to point study author Susan Fiske’s analysis, which states that this reaction may indeed have something to do with how women are portrayed in the media, guess how the Telegraph also chose to illustrate their article?  That’s right, with a picture of a woman who just so happens to not be wearing any pants.

The article by the Guardian, a news source that we would generally believe to be a lot more reliable, also ran with a headline that says “Sex Objects: Pictures shift men’s view of women,” as though it’s some kind of universal response.  They don’t mention the whole aspect of how this response is predominantly seen among sexist men until the very last paragraph of the article.

Funny how what this study seems to say — and I say “seems” because of course no one bothered to include the title of the study so that I might be able to find a copy of it or even an abstract (help, anyone?) — is, “shockingly, sexist assholes are sexist assholes.”  But yet again, the media has decided to turn it into “sorry ladies, guys are scum who don’t see you as human and you’re just going to have to learn to live with it.”

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again.  Yup, us feminists are the ones who hate men, all right.

Next Page →