Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
The BUST Lounge > Forums > The F-Word
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33
You couldn't think that was funny unless you believe it. For the rest of us in the world trying to fight inequality, it's a slap in the face.

QUOTE(candycane_girl @ Jun 23 2009, 12:22 PM) *
I know a lot of people who don't like the Conservatives or the Liberals but they refuse to vote for the NDP because they know that there's probably no chance that the NDP would get in in their area. And if they vote NDP then that splits the vote up further and would make it so that the Conservatives get the biggest percentage of votes.

If only that was the reason people I know vote the way they do. I've talked to so many people who share my political and economic views (socially liberal, economically left-leaning) who turn around and vote PC because "everyone else will just steal all our money and muck around with our private lives" I've heard them say this right after they finish 20 minutes of complaining about how the (PC) government wastes our money and, um, tries to control what we do with our lives. They can't put 2 and 2 together, it's like they've been brainwashed. Just because the party calls themselves "conservative," doesn't mean they actually are!
Unfortunately, Angie's right.

The biggest problem with our electoral system is that 3/4 of the voters are fucking morons who will vote for:

- whomever their parents liked
- whomever they think might win
- "the other guy, not the one who's in now"
- whomever puts forward the folksiest image

All of this without paying the least bit attention to what candidates stand for.

I used to tolerate friends who said they didn't like to talk about their politics. Now I call them on it: nothing could be more fundamentally undemocratic. A true citizen, someone who cares that their country is the best (and not just says it's the best) possible place, is a person who engages in the civic conversation. That means voting, volunteering, and pressuring representatives.

But the fact is more people would rather vote for the "Next Hot Model." And those people are fuckwits.
What drives me nuts is how easily people swallow the bullshit the conservatives sell. My dad works with people who were quoting that stupid commercial about Ignatiaff living out of the country. I can't stand those attack ads, I want to hear about the issues.

Harper was driving me nuts last week and I had to turn off the radio eventually. He keeps making these speeches and acting like he has a majority government. It's so agravating. And people never seem to realize that the role of the opposition is to keep the minority government in check - they're really doing just what they're supposed to be by making sure Harper is following through.
I find the Conservative attack ads to be in very poor taste. What do they accomplish? Nothing.

There are far more important issues to be dealing with at the moment than pushing out attack ads.
Do you guys also get e new postcard in the mail every week, with a new attack ad headline each time? And it asks you to check the name of who is most fit to lead the country, with an arrow pointing to Stephen Harper's name? Is that supposed to be some kind of "random" survey tactic? What a waste of trees and money.

I'll keep the rest of my thoughs in check since this is getting off topic, but I sure do think the opposition could be a lot more effective right now than they really are. A whole country full of unhappy people and a bad economic situation, and they still can't get people angry enough to go out and hit the polls. I blame it as much on the leaders as Candian apathy. Look what happened down south once they got someone inspirational to vote for, for once. anyone with one iota of Obama's charisma whould sweep right past Harper and his stuffy old sweater vests.
I've always found it telling that the Conservatives will spend millions on attack ads when there aren't even elections underway. Not that an attack ad is ever timely or appropriate, but when jobs need to be created and people are massively unemployed yet not allowed to have access to employment insurance funds they paid into for the entirety of their working lives...spending money on ads to call the other guy a "fatso" or whatever is beyond insulting.

But then, people do parrot them back. I personally think making a big deal out of the fact that Ignatief lived elsewhere in the world (to teach at a university--we should be asking why didn't Canadian universities value him as much as American ones did, then? Didn't they have enough to pay him properly? Why would that be, Mr. Conservative Government/Tax Break/Funding Cut?) is no putdown. I mean, hell, Harper's international-law-breaking government includes a minister who reads the Bible and takes it literally enough to think the earth is 6,000 or so years old and created in seven days. I think Ignatief's worldliness and intellect is a sign of hope--someone is capable of independent and analytical thought in the government. No surprise he had to go out of the country to exercise it really, when you consider how little of that is actually taking place in the government in power. That doesn't necessarily make him a good leader or even a good politician or statesman...but Harper is so poor at all of these roles.

The problem is that no one in the opposition is doing all they can, they seem lulled. Or perhaps set to benefit in some way from not making waves. It is long past the time when things should have been forced.

Another big problem is that many voters have serious doubts about the electoral process in general: the whole constituency/representation voting system is skewed. When the largest groups are given the smallest amount of political power and they are unfairly underrepresented in government in terms which reflect their numbers, then a fair election is impossible. We need electoral reform in Canada, it's a massive problem, everyone acknowledges it and yet no one will ever do anything about it. The smallest backwaters are still given more representation in government (I won't say parliament because it's clear parliament is actively being phased out of the legislative process) than the largest cities. Until that changes drastically to fairly represent voters proportionately, a lot of people simply won't see the point of casting a vote.

It certainly bugs me that a candidate who is so widely despised as to only receive 35% of the vote could still win and become the Prime Minister. The vast majority voted against him, and yet there he is. That's my definition of "futile".
Here's new one to get this thread back on track to feminism. I haven't listened to this podcast because I don't know if I can handle it, but my boyfriend heard it on the radio a couple days ago.

CBC Radio Q podcasts - download Wednesday, June 24th

It's the part about sexual violence and video games. I guess some independent guy made a video game about raping women (is it really all that far off from Grand Theft Auto?) and they debate the legality and morality of selling and playing the game. but, and here's what pissed off my bf, they didn't interview a single woman for the show. Like, hey guys, let's talk about how women might feel about this subject, and how women feel about sexual abuse, without actually letting them say what they think. That's like a bunch of white guys getting together and debating the morality of segregation and lynching... um, well, how do you think the people being abused feel about it, idiots?

All of my comments are based on secondhand information, maybe sometime today I will try to listen to the show without getting too worked up about it and have something more useful or accurate to say. Anyways, I usually really like Ghomeshi, but it seems like he dropped the ball on this one.
I heard about that game...I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but that sounds absurd!
Oh, my dear God. Somebody truly created a video game about rape? What is wrong with our world? How has it become this bad, this hateful and violent? mad.gif

How I want to curl up in a corner of my room with a knife in my hand, barricade the door and windows, and cry. That would not help matters, I know... but sometimes I just cannot deal with people. Sometimes I do not want to deal with people ever again.

You would have to be absolutely deranged to create that game, or purchase it. God, humanity has really gone down the toilet. This makes me glad that I decided to never have children. I would worry about them constantly. No way could I handle the stress which would inevitably result from just letting my kids play outside or visit friends. There is always a sick man waiting to reach out and pinch or cat-call or offer candy. They are disgusting! Most of them only open doors for women so they can check us out, and just give a "friendly" hug so they can feel us up.

There are good men, I know... but they are becoming too difficult to find, and I honestly do not even want to seek them out. It is like digging through a pile of steaming crap to find a beautiful gem. By the time you find it (IF you find it), you are tired and so disgusted that you don't even care anymore.
There was a HUGE controversy over that game, Rapelay, several months (Even though it's been out since 2006.) ago because although it wasn't intended to be offered to a western audience (It's a Japan only release. Illusion, the company that makes it features several sexually violent games including the charmingly titled "Battleraper" & "Artificial Girl"), it was strangely available on It got yanked under much scrutiny.

The Culture of Rapelay from the Huffington Post.
i know that i talked briefly about it in the 'reel life' film thread, but the mention of rapelay can't help but remind me of a reprehensable film i saw at the seattle film festival a few weeks back, deadgirl. the premise is pretty simple, two highschool misfits find a girl chained to a table in the basement of an old building. soon, they discover that she can't die or be killed. one of the boys, boy B, uses her as a sex slave, raping her repeatedly, and violating her wounds,inviting other high school friends to do the same. then starts shooting her, strangling her, stabbing her in the head, and making jokes about it. while most of it is done off screen and revered to verbally, some of it is not. boy A, on the other hand, spends most of his time pining over his elementary school gf, he makes what can only be called feeble attempts, strike that, an attempt, to stop boy B with a faint comment, and then a half hearted attempt to release the dead girl. one thing leads to another, and at the end of the movie, boy A's ex gf is exchanged turned/exchanged for the deadgirl, i.e. she is chained to a table, and it is insinuated, (repeatedly) raped by boy A.

i stuck around for half the Q&A because i wanted to see what the filmakers had to say for themselves (precious little, they were too busy patting themselves on the back for making a "shocking" film). in talking to others who have seen the film, one woman and i agree, if we dated anyone who had something to do with this film, we would break up with them immediately. we just couldn't fathom why anyone would want anything to do with this sort of reprehensable shit, but what i found really shocking is how on some film forums how easily (repeated) rape was dismissed, because both dead girls "were zombies." it was as if guys were only happy to do so. i'm certainly not squeamish where film is concerned but this film was beyond the pale.
blink.gif ohmy.gif Wow. I don't know what else to say.
oh my god that makes me want to throw up.
I totally agree with what you said about people thinking they are incredibly organic and creative by making 'shocking' movies. I get so pissed off when people defend shit like that by saying I'm just offended by contraversy. complete BULL. And yes, thinking about that movie does actually make me feel physically sick.
Shouldn't that movie be classified as snuff, and kind of illegal? That's not controversial. Controversial raises questions and makes you think about things that are sensitive to our culture and usually not discussed or address. Controversial movies make you realise that your own cultural biases may be wrong, and that you should see the world more openly. Movies that are just physically disgusting, and that glamorize violence and objectification of women (and some movies that are big blockbusters should be included here) are just sad, pathetic attempts to make money and gain recognition by shock value, while attacking human rights and equality at the same time.

The girls being "zombies" does not change anything, especially because they turned the second girl into a zombie (or something like that???) just so that they would be able to do those things to her. How on earth did they convince the actress to participate in the movie, you'd think it would be pretty traumatizing.

thirteern, honey, most of the men I know would be more disgusted than I am at rapelay and deadgirl. I think because I'm more cynical than they are, but either way, they see women as beautiful & intelligent and would never, ever want to hurt a woman in any way, and they would think any man that would is a sick asshole. There are a few really disgusting men out there that actually like that shit, and a few more who think it's morally OK, but unfortunately these men make the most noise, and cause the most trouble. They're also a lot more prevalant on the internet where their perversions can be indulged anonymously. But the whole world isn't like that, not at all.
I notice that it's deadGIRL. Would it occur to the film makers to have a man/boy treated like that? Wouldn't that be more ~~shocking~~? Cause it's really all about the controversy, right? dry.gif
QUOTE(angie_21 @ Jun 27 2009, 12:17 PM) *
The girls being "zombies" does not change anything, especially because they turned the second girl into a zombie (or something like that???) just so that they would be able to do those things to her. How on earth did they convince the actress to participate in the movie, you'd think it would be pretty traumatizing.

Well most of the violence wasn't filmed so that might have made a difference in how it felt to participate in it. Less real than the illusion the audience is supposed to enjoy.

I know this is going to sound like it's from left field, but as an extreme fantasy, I do know women who could actually use it as fantasy fodder - based on the idea that someone could do anything to them without it injuring. It's viscerally hard and almost impossible for me to accept a movie like that as entertainment. I can't separate it from the things that women really do experience in this world and my own fears about violence.
QUOTE(girl_logic @ Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM) *
I know this is going to sound like it's from left field, but as an extreme fantasy, I do know women who could actually use it as fantasy fodder - based on the idea that someone could do anything to them without it injuring. It's viscerally hard and almost impossible for me to accept a movie like that as entertainment. I can't separate it from the things that women really do experience in this world and my own fears about violence.

The line between fantasy, reality, and storytelling will always be confusing, making it easier for people to get away with things like this. My boyfriend and I like to play the game in bed where I struggle ot get away while he gets on top of me. I find it fun and sexy, but does this mean I would want a stranger (or as is more often the case with real rape, male co-worker, friend, or relative) to do this to me in reality? NO. no, no, no. It's a game, and we both consent.

BUT - So maybe the people making this movie could say, well, this is the same kind of thing thing, it's fantasy. we're not saying anyone should do these things in reality, plus it would never happen anyways because there are no zombies. Good point. Or what about horribly graphic violence to make a social commentary, look at the violence against women portrayed in "Last King of Scotland" (wow, I will never erase that from my memory!). What about all the other crappy movies out there that portray and glorify all kinds of crimes, from drug trafficking to street racing to gang violence, murder, bank robbing, prostitution, the list goes on and on, how can you single out one crime and say you can't make a movie about it?

Honestly, I don't know. I think in our quest for freedom of expression we sometimes let people go too far. I think a lot of movies out there are already pretty borderline. I agree, g_l, that something about this particular subject gives me a really strong gut reaction that I can't put into words. Maybe because so many people get away with rape, and trafficking women and underage girls, I mean, look at the killing of prostitutes in Alberta, it's always a scandal but rarely is it pursued by the police. I often feel that society has condemned sexual violence and exploitation very strongly in theory, but not at all in reality. So when things like these games and movies come out, and they threaten to make it seem acceptable in theory and fantasy as well, that really scares me.
One of the commenters at io9 had this to say about "Deadgirl":
"Ah, the perils of trying to find a coherent message when what is essentially an exploitation movie tries to justify itself with its own incoherent message."

I saw the trailer for "Deadgirl" over on io9 and, yes, it is disturbing. I honestly find most horror films disturbing anyway. The genre doesn't appeal to me. Frankly, I find it hard to see what's different about this film. Why is it more disturbing for them to abuse a zombie-woman rather than the "normal" non-zombie women who are viciously killed in every other horror film out there? I guess the difference is that the makers of this film think they're making an important statement? Is that the difference? I'm genuinely curious.
angie, snuff is a term used for film of real deaths, not ones created for film.

lol. i like that comment, rose. i haven't seen the preview, so it's tone might be far different from the movie itself, which i have seen.

personally, i love horror as a genre, it can comment more forthrightly about things than most genres, and not come off as over the top. horror covers a lot of ground.

to my mind there are a few things that set deadgirl apart:

1)the amount of rape, the kind of violence and it's tone in the film
i really don't want to go into the details, but if memory serves, i would bet there are somewhere upwards of 8 rape scenes on screen, one of which is a gang rape. all the violence (shots, stabining/punching, rape, wound violation) done to the dead girl is matter of fact.

2) is it's rather neutral--if that-- view of (sexual) violence towards women.

i have never seen a movie that so consistently objectifies women, and makes no bones about it. there is a way to make film-- even about voyeurism-- that objectifies but implicates the viewer in the violence. psycho is a great example of this. it is about the viewer's idea of janet leigh, but even in her objectification, she is still 3 dimensional. that's what makes her death tragic. it is the way that film views the protagonist that tells us not what the players think, but what the filmmakers think. with deadgirl, it is utterly dehumanizing. if a film has violence but has some comment on it, that is one thing, but when it is "agnostic" or condones it, that's where i have a problem with it. most horror movies view violence as an equalizer. men and women are victims. deadgirl, however treats violence to the protagonist as tragic, and unfair, against the bully or female on male as comedy, and aimed at women as perfectly normal. nothing to worry about. boys will be boys. i went into it a bit further in the real life thread, but what bothers me is that there is literally no place for a three dimensional woman (or girl) in the their universe, what's more it's perfectly fine to treat them as sexual objects-- according to them, that's all we are. this point is made perfectly clear in it's poster: lips sideways to resemble a vagina-- quite possibly the most reductive view of women possible: sexual holes, nothing else. make no mistake, the starting point in reading any film is that this is the world view of the writer and director. this is their universe if they were god. the people who populate the screen during that two hours are little other than their proxies.

3) the directors' claims that dead girl is a coming of age film:

genre is what shapes our perception and expectation of what goes on inside that universe in interviews with the directors, they say this film isn't so much horror, but a coming of age tale. the reason i bring this up is that the expectations of coming of age films are much different than a horror movies, and with those expectations, come different implications. the basic outline of any COA film is that a child is at the cusp of puberty, or in the middle of it. they are exposed to adult sexuality, and do not quite understand it. thru several misadventures, they come to understand it, and are, at the end of the film budding adults, initiated into the norms of sexuality/adulthood. the classic after-school-special is an archetypal coming of age story. the implication of deadgirl's conclusion superimposed on a COA frame implies that normal in male adulthood IS rape and objectificaton. it says, that's the way it should be.
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 1 2009, 09:37 PM) *
angie, snuff is a term used for film of real deaths, not ones created for film.

Oops, right. Don't know why I got that mixed up. Maybe I just kind of wish it would be classified as the same thing.

I was going to pipe up with a list of movies that do pretty consistently and unabashedly objectify women as well.. but really in comparison to that, none of them seem as bad anymore. They often do try to throw in a phony massage about "equality" here or there, or at least have a single semi-intelligent female character to "balance out" the 20 or 30 girls in bikinis or strip clubs or making out of the dance floor that they've added to bring in the teenage boy audience.

I'm a fan of horror too, especially zombie movies. Not as informed or dedicated a fan, but I as sqeamish as I am, I don't mind the violence. Usually the horror aspect is used to show us a mirror of our society, exaggerating some aspect of it in an unreal situation, and asking us, is this really what people would do? The violence sometimes just makes the message hit home in a more visceral way. When the movie is done right, anyways. And yes, it is usually an equalizer, anyone can become a zombie, anyone can kill a zombie, that's why it's so terrifying and suspenseful.

My first thought was, really, coming of age story? They must have made that up when people started really coming down on the movie. But then I took a look at the poster. I definitely agree with gt's interpretation, it's really very sexual. For another movie it would be kind of neat. I've never been a fan of most "coming of age" movies, mostly because the ones I've seen (pretty mainstream, I'll admit) just follow stereotypes and funnel people into the traditional sexual roles our society expects. But anyways, where's the "learning" here? Based on your description, the message does seem to be, "a virgin teenage boy's first reaction to a helpless female will be to f*ck the shit out of her and then beat/stab/shoot the shit out of her." Nice. Done a different way, that could still really say something about society (when the movie is asking you, "would that happen, would you do that?" instead of saying, "yeah, we'd do that.") I can vaguely see how it could be the result of amateur film makers not really getting the difference, but really, do they deserve the benefit of the doubt when the most likely explanation is that they're sick and mysogynist, and made a film with such a sick and mysogynist message without any attempt to actually ask questions or put in any kind of message?
i understand why people might thing, it's a horror movie, what's the difference? i could rattle of a list of disturbing films too. shortly before the film festival i saw irreversable-- a film that's notorious for it's one take 7 minute rape scene in the center of the film. the scene was really difficult to watch, but in figuring out the film's complex construction, it seemed very clear to me, that the director was making a very sharp comment about male violence. and personally, if you are going to show rape on screen i think it should be as difficult and unenjoyable as possible. it is a horrific act and should never be glazed over, and it's reparcussions should be dealt with in full. irreversable does this, in a very unusual manner. deadgirl by contrast uses lots of gloss. while i wouldn't say that the scenes are shot like porn, (although shots of the girl's eyes rolling back in her head are used repeatedly as a visual euphemism for rape), it's rape and boy on girl violence done with the same sort of matter-of-factness that one would show playing a video game, or reading a book. what makes those scenes so shocking is that the film is so insouciant about it.

from the interviews, i almost believe that these filmmakers really are so dense as not to understand their own film. i thought the COA thing was kind of hokey too, angie, but in the Q&A i went to and the ones i've read about on line they seemed oblivious to any sort of horror life preservers that they audience would throw them in the hopes of salvaging the audience's opinion of the film-- or them. they would rattle off some other COA pictures, which only make the view of what deadgirl has to say more severe.
I've been following this discussion. Interesting stuff. It's making me think of Wolf Creek. While Deadgirl sounds a lot more fantastical (but none the less, disgusting), I found Wolf Creek so terrifying and disturbing because of its realism and the fact that all the onscreen violence only happened to the women. The only time the guy was shown after the beginning scenes was when he was (successfully) escaping. Both of the women were killed in horribly brutal ways.

I just didn't see the point of making something like that. The guy I was with thought I would love it because I like scary movies (like ridiculous formulaic scary movies). I told him I thought it was a piece of misogynistic shit and I couldn't believe he took me to it.

These are the kind of movies that don't need to be made, but since they are, they definitely deserve their own distinct trigger warnings. I couldn't even sleep after I saw Wolf Creek. Monsters don't scare me at all but I find a movie that was portrayed so realistically with so much hatred toward the female characters terrifying.
Yeah, I saw Wolf Creek at the video store and read the synopsis on the back and thought, what the fuck does a movie like this have to offer? Horror is supposed to comment on something or at least be creative. "True story" movies should present an interesting story that needed to be told. But a movie that only shows two women getting kidnapped, raped and murdered is nothing but rape porn. I can't believe we live in a society that thinks of that as entertainment.
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 2 2009, 12:16 PM) *
i understand why people might thing, it's a horror movie, what's the difference? i could rattle of a list of disturbing films too. shortly before the film festival i saw irreversable-- a film that's notorious for it's one take 7 minute rape scene in the center of the film. the scene was really difficult to watch, but in figuring out the film's complex construction, it seemed very clear to me, that the director was making a very sharp comment about male violence. and personally, if you are going to show rape on screen i think it should be as difficult and unenjoyable as possible. it is a horrific act and should never be glazed over, and it's reparcussions should be dealt with in full. irreversable does this, in a very unusual manner.

This is really apropos of nothing, but one of the things that has stuck with me about that particular scene is that at one point he tells her that his victims are usually men, that he's not very interested in women. Somehow that made me even more uncomfortable with it.
yeah. i think that made it seem even more malicious. it's like he went out of his way to hurt alex (the woman in the film). but there is an progression. the movie moves cinematically from a male/violent place to a female/peaceful space-- with "the scene" being the mid point/fulcrum. in "the scene" there is a transsexual who he is assaulting/harassing before alex arrives. gender/sex is crucial in understanding what goes on in irreversible. i think there is a whole undercurrent of male eroticism of violence and it's homo erotic component in that film that people miss. the key to the film is in it's construction. i posted my observations in my blog, but the way that that film looks at masculinity--- it's very sophisticated. it's not a pleasant film, by any means, but it does not normalize the violence or sit on the fence about it. but i've taken up too much space, this isn't the film thread. my apologies.
GT, I was browsing Oh No They Didn't today and somebody posted the trailer for Deadgirl. I found it interesting because if I hadn't read your review then I may have been interested in seeing it. What I find really horrifying are all the glowing reviews shown in the trailer. I know this may be better suited to the film thread but have we gotten to a point where just showing something horrendous and unimaginable without any real message or story is considered good film?

And as for the filmmakers trying to pass this off as a "coming of age" film, well, that's just bullshit.
Not to distract from the current line of conversation, and I'm not even sure if this is the right place to post this article, but the theory is just so infuriating.

Other than the fact that it's just another conservative trying to justify their own ignorant/hateful views, I guess it made me think about whether people are attracted to whatever sex they're attracted to because of the sex itself? It's a hard thing for me to answer because I consider my sexuality to be sort of fluid, with a lot of gray areas....but for someone who considers themselves only attracted to one sex, is it because they prefer the type of sex that comes with it? It's sort of a rhetorical question because I'm pretty sure I know the answer....but do I?

The Jezebel comments are pretty spot-on, though.
GT, I think your posts are completely relevant here! And very interesting.

Polly - aargh! My personal pet peeve in their insane little argument is the tired old idea that women are inherently chaste, while men are inherently sexual fiends at the mercy of their own penises. It's offensive to everyone. I find it especially odd, because for a lot of history, the opposite idea was considered true (women as wanton temptresses, men as noble and pure. again, just insulting to everyone) "Natural affinity for monogamy." Kiss my ass. I've always had to work really freakin hard at monogamy, not always successfully, and I actually think it's kind of a stupid idea anyways.

I also find it offiensive to just assume there are no monogamous gay couple out there. Please.

"I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman."
I really feel sorry for this guy's wife/girlfriend. Apparently his basic grasp of anatomy doesn't actually include, well, women's anatomy. What record is he talking about? You mean the one where men oppressed women so they couldn't get out much to have sex with anyone, male or female?

As far as I learned in my classics courses, Roman and Greek "homosexuality," at least the traditional socially sanctioned kind, was basically institutionalized rape. There was some kind of idea about manhood being passed on from the older man on top to the younger man below. Like Jezebel points out, it wasn't like men were having relationships, getting married, or many of the other things we are trying to make legally and socially accepted today.
i haven't had the chance to read polly's post yet, but already, i love your take on it angie. one thing i always find frustrating is the idea that sexuality is reduced to sex-- that is, body parts fitting into someone else's body parts. sexuality is about who you desire, even if you are celibate, you still have sexuality. it does not begin or end the second someone pushes something in or pulls out of a body part.

it reminds me of how sexuality is viewed in some latin and spanish cultures where a guy can fuck as many boys as he like, and is still considered het until he takes it in his own ass.

that was a good article, polly. the writer brought up many of the same points i would have, namely that het men tend to think there is no pleasure where a penis is not present, and cannot fathom lesbian sex; and pegging. what i find funny is the staggering ignorance klinghoffer and berman have about modern sexuality-- particullarly the homosexuality they are so obsessed with/afraid of. i think they need to come out of the closet.
if social censures are the only thing keeping men straight, why would they want to be straight in the first place?
why should it be a woman's responsibility to take that on, trying to make her husband straight? why would a woman want to stay in that kind of a relationship, where her husband may love her but has no real desire for her sexually? that's where his whole theory really leads. i would very much like to be a religious person and i consider myself a fair weather christian but when people with this fucked up misogynistic attitude say shit like this under the pretense of faith, well i don't know how the God i believe in, whom i consider to be a logical being, would create them, i really don't.

rant done.
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 3 2009, 07:26 PM) *
it reminds me of how sexuality is viewed in some latin and spanish cultures where a guy can fuck as many boys as he like, and is still considered het until he takes it in his own ass.

There's an old Turkish proverb: A woman for duty, A boy for pleasure, But a melon for ecstasy.
*spits her gimlet all over her puter*
Ew. interesting.

I got my boyfriend to read that article. Other than a lot of angry mutterings as he read it, I haven't gotten a lot of comments out of him, I think he's speechless. We do both agree that it's strange for a scoial conservative to have created an argument based strongly on the assumption that gay sex is biologically natural. So natural, in fact, that no men would even what to have sex with women unless society forced them to? Kind of goes against everything they've been preaching up to now, but it must all be another part of god's great plan that mortals are just too dumb to understand.
Aren't these the same people who like their women in a kitchen? To be 'seen not heard'? Why are we all of a sudden asked to 'oppose' something like homosexual conduct? To *gasp* have an actual opinion? Wow. The lenghts people go to demonize others. In the bible, Romans are not reflected on kindly. They stood for everything Christians were against. And now, when it suits them, these conservatives are pulling this kind of crap just to get their 'point' across? The mind boggles.

There are some quotations in the bible that are a lot easier to understand. What about 'love thy neighbour'? What about 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?
What about 'love thy neighbour'? What about 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'?

blasphemer! how dare you read, you Jezebel! you harlot! you...... tart!
Yesterday Coles supermarket (one of the two major supermarkets here in Australia) announced it would be paying the Tax of its range of feminine hygiene products.

About Fucking Time!!!

What I guess it actually means is that Coles will be dropping the price by the amount that the tax is, the tax is not actually gone, but it's a step and a really positive message! Before the GST tax overhaul about 8 years ago, the tax on pads and tampons came under the title of "Luxury tax", Can you believe it?

Never felt too luxurious to me!!!!
Since when do christians use science in their arguments? wink.gif

PS--there is some basis in biology for homosexual sex being a natural occurence--scientists have found instances of homosexual mating in pretty much every species, from insects to rabbits to great apes.

hotrod, luxury tax? On tampons? I would like to think that not having blood stained panties isn't actually a luxury. I went to the movies recently with my brother who works at the theatre and he pointed out to me that there was an entertainment tax added to the cost of the movie!
Hi guys,just wondering where the 'Go on Ask me about my abortion'thread went? Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong place?
Thanks guys.
I just bumped it in Our Bodies, Our Hells for you. I read the pregnancy thread and I know your situation. Please just think really long and hard before you make a final decision.

Thanks Candycane girl.I really appreciate it.
Ok, I need to rant... I didn't know where else to post this... I'm not sure whether I'm a feminist or not yet, since I need to do a lot of reading first, but anyway, I'm just pissed off right now.

I was doing a Google search, and found this gem of a website: Men are better than women. I know, I know, such a stupid website name should've given me the clue not to go in, but just like witnessing a horrible car crash, I couldn't help but have a look.

I hope it's a joke. I, really, really hope it's a joke. Especially since the guy is named Dick. It's got to be a joke, unless it truly is an unfortunate coincidence. And there's merchandising! And a BOOK. A BOOK!

That man should burn in Hell, dammit. Men like that shouldn't be allowed near women, ffs. I swear, I hope it's a joke. The worst part? There are men who buy into that bullshit!!!!

I sometimes tell chauvinist pigs who think women can do nothing right, "if women are so shitty and men are so great, then turn gay and get the fuck away from me". But then I realize I've just insulted gay guys, who I happen to like.

I just keep hoping that the majority of men in the world appreciate women for we are... just as we keep appreciating them. The one thing that I hope men understand one day is that feminism is not about the battle of the sexes... I hate that battle of the sexes crap... from what I've gathered, feminism is about accepting each gender's differences while living harmoniously in equity, not a conspiracy (or business like this Dick guy thinks) against men.

But that really ruined my mood, how can there be such stupid people around, who get published, nonetheless?! How can there be people who make money out of their stupidity? And people who waste money on said stupidity? WTF?!?!?!?

Sorry. Rant over.
chicaloca, i saw that website and it is a trainwreck.

as for not being sure whether you are a feminist, the way i see it if you are a woman or love a woman, then you are a feminist.

feminism is about women having a choice in the way that they want to live their life.

my aunt is a housewife and she raises her kids, and that is her job. she is a feminist because that is her choice and raising kids is an important thing to do.

my sister lives on her own, is not married and focuses on her job. she is a feminist because that is her choice.

in stitch and bitch, debbie stoller talked about how people thought she was odd because she was a feminist who started knitting, which they saw as such an antiquated and girly hobby. like if she played soccer that would be feminist because sports are a guy thing and a woman can only be feminist if she does something that was viewed as a traditionally male activity. that kind of thinking in itself is anti-feminst because it demeans the traditional roles of women.

it's obviously more complicated than that but i don't think you have to do a lot of reading to decide whether you are a feminist. feminism isn't a religon with it's own dogma. feminism is about having a choice, and being proud that you are a woman.

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman." - simone de beauvoir

but yeah that guy really lives up to his name, joke or not.
wow, apparenty women must have designed his website, because it is, as anabanada put it, a trainwreck. You'd think if men were better than women they could at least make a coherent blog. But anyways... This guy is a gimmick. He's doing it to make money. He clearly thinks he's funny but he's not that bright.

I think there needs to be a new word for feminism. It has so much baggage. I think we should all be equal, end of story. We should recognize that men and women may be different, but there are greater differences among men, and among women, than there are on the whole between men and women. We're all people. How is that so difficult?
angie 21, i sort of pushed this guy off, thinking the same thing you did, that he is a gimmick. he has several fan pages on facebook, and some of his fans are women, which makes me want to VOMIT!

exhibit a: a quote on said fan page from malin fink from sweden

"ha ha ha ha I am a women and I truly adore this man ha ha ha anestly, to date him would be a dream. HE does not expekt me to be good in bed, he does not nedd to relay on my opinion, he expekts me to live on his mony. he expekts me to be unfaithfull, that meens I can hang with my friends all day doing nothing, i dont have to take control of things, I dont need to make an effort in bed, I can fuck around as much as i want and he will still pay me for it,,, great I will marry him in a sec…"

i don't understand why any self-respecting woman would find him funny. I'm not saying that you do, but i am just saying that complacency toward this kind of "humor" is dangerous, because there are men who would take this neanderthal mentality seriously. there are women getting the hell beat out of them daily because there are men who think that way.

i have an urge to write f*** you all over his fan page but that really wouldn't make me any better than him.

There's no point in writing on the fan page, it's a triumph for people like that to know they're pissed someone off. And they can always pass of any woman with self-esteem as a "bitch." Yeah I know its ridiculous, but there's nothing you can do in the face of stuff like that when it's being passed off as humour, because any attempt to tell him what an idiot he is, only proves his point in his mind (and his fans). It also only gives him more publicity. If he's pissing people off, he knows he's getting attention and can think he's successful.

You can't fight fire with fire, but the thing is to try to make sure there aren't people out there who would be entertained by that kind of shit in the first place. With no audience, the guy is nothing. Look at the girl who IS a fan, she can't even spell. With better education and more knowledge about the world, girls can have better self-esteem, and their main goal in life won't be to "hang with my friends all day doing nothing." Also, the poor girl doesn't even want to have fun in bed, her ideal marriage is to just lie there and take it? The fact that girls grow up learning to be like this in the first place is what's so sad.
There's always the possibility that the woman's comments are meant to be sarcastic. And even if the message is meant to sound sincere, there's a chance that it wasn't written by a woman at all.

Terrific article. Hope you enjoy.
Good article. So many things make me so mad about that movie!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2016 Invision Power Services, Inc.