One episode, you have a woman taking back her ex-husband and accepting his son as her own – even though, seven years earlier, he divorced AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLONED HER when she refused to relocate to Eureka for his job and further told him that she didn’t want to have children. (What remains unsaid is that he probably had to create several clones before he found one sufficiently amenable to his desires. What became of the others, I wonder?*)

The next, we meet a genius scientist who habitually subverts her desires to those of her (supposedly) slightly-more-genius husband, all for the greater good – only to discover that she’s the true intellectual superior in the relationship; he’s merely been stealing her ideas all along! (And their marriage is most likely an ongoing kidnapping/rape situation, built on his theft of her short-term memories…using a device he stole from someone else, to boot.)

So which is it – are you feminist-friendly, or not?

* You can call it “over-analyzing”; I consider it “taking a story line to its logical conclusion.”

Pass this one along the the libertarians and “small government” conservatives in your circle who equate money with bodily autonomy – and taxes with rape – mkay?

Direct link: Wednesday February 2, 2011 | Daily Show: Schaal – Rape Victim Abortion Funding | Kristen Schaal doesn’t think hard-earned tax dollars should go to women who have only been rape-ished.

Yes, there are debates to be had about Hit Girl and Kick-Ass. There are always debates to be had about violence and vigilantes, and what they say about us. But I’d prefer the conversation also turn to why preteen girls don’t have a movie like Kick-Ass that they could see. Let’s ask why Kick-Ass was the only script option Ms. Moretz had if she wanted to play, in her own words, “an Angelina Jolie-type character. You know, like an action hero, woman empowerment, awesome, take-charge leading role.” By now, she should have had a lot more superhero and fantasy options to pick from. There are young adult genre books that center on something other than vampires. There are comic characters who are teenage girls. It’s ridiculous that they languish on the shelf while Spider-Man goes back to high school. Again. You might even ask why Millar thought no one could relate to a teenage girl, and insisted on centering the story around Dave and his girlfriend problems.

- Elisabeth Rappe, The Geek Beat: Hit-Girl Hysteria

and raise you several millennia of gender-based oppression.

The message reads,

Attention

If you are currently being stalked or abused, it may not be safe for you to view this site.

Why? Because your abuser can track your online actions.

We suggest going to the library to use a public computer, or calling the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799 SAFE.

It’s followed by three buttons: ENTER, LEARN MORE and LEAVE.

I can’t help but wonder if it took a death or two before the webpeoples thought to post a warning.

Sigh.

——————-

Tagged: domestic violence abuse violence family violence misogyny screenshot flickr photos

If you consume meat, eggs or dairy, this is what you support. The alienation and separation of mothers from their children. The reduction of the female body to a meat- and/or milk-producing machine, wherein babies constitute the “meat,” and the milk meant for them is stolen and sold to humans who have absolutely no need for the stuff. Rape, murder and ecocide.

Parents: how would you feel if someone abused your child in such a cruel manner? If someone tore her from your side, and denied her all but the most basic of maternal comforts?

Women: have you really no sympathy for your animal sisters, singled out for especially brutal abuse and exploitation – all because they’re capable of giving rise to new life? Some miracle.

100 million pigs. 100 million mothers, daughters and sons. 100 million reasons to go vegan.

Photos via Animal Rights Advocates Inc.

(Crossposted from.)

——————–

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare meat food pork factory farming intersections parallel oppressions animals and women Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson the pig who sang to the moon pig sow piglet ethology animal behavior flickr photos farm sanctuary books farmed animals

While I’m rather ambivalent when it comes to PETA’s nude “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur,” (and similar) campaigns, I quite like anti-fur ads which depict fur as the bloody, murderous mess that it is. (In theory, anyway…hence the forthcoming caveats.)

For example, this recent series from IndyAct:

Each ad features a thin, white, conventionally attractive, stylishly dressed woman, decked out in a fur coat which once belonged to various animals. The knife-wielding women are covered in blood spatters – bright red blood, everywhere. The woman in the first ad is, inexplicably, rubbing the knife along her chin, as if in contemplation of fellatio (?). Needless to say, I prefer the other two ads in the series.

The text on each photo is different, depending on what type of fur the woman’s wearing.

Top to bottom:

A rare SNOW LEOPARD cat:
Outer: 5 back skin pieces stitched
with 7 neck skin pieces for maximum comfort.
Inner: 13 chest skin pieces for silk-soft feel.
Bring out the real you, for
JUST 9,999 pounds

A lavish RED FOX coat:
Outer: 31 small black skin pieces to give you a constant color.
Inner: 11 chest skin pieces for maximum softness.
Reveal your inner self, for
JUST 5,999 pounds

A beautiful sleeveless BOBCAT coat:
Made of 16 – carefully chosen – quality
black skin pieces.
Bring out the wild side of you, for
JUST 7,999 pounds.

The slogan on each ad reads: “Stop the Carnage; Support our endangered species campaign.”

PETA has produced similar ads, such as their “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” series featuring Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Shirley Manson, Persia White and Christine Dolce, as well as “fur trim” ads with the likes of Simple Plan.

Interestingly, the “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” ads with Sophie Ellis-Bextor, Shirley Manson and Persia White are notably bloodless – even though the celebs are are holding up skinned animal corpses (i.e., the rest of your fur coat). Christine Dolce and a Simple Plan’s ads are more fitting, as they appear covered in blood.

Also interestingly, PETA’s “I’d Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur,” “Turn Your Back on Fur” (and similar) nude anti-fur ads outnumber their “Here’s the Rest of Your Fur Coat!” ads by a huge margin. Could it have anything to do with the T&A, I wonder? But I digress.

The thing I like about these anti-fur ads is that they’re arresting and controversial – without resorting to gratuitous-yet-predictable displays of T&A. Instead of putting a woman’s naked body front and center, these ads focus on the bloody, murderous business of making a fur coat (or a similar product). Whether the ad’s models are drenched in blood or brandishing the skinned corpses of previously living creatures (or both), the audience’s attention is drawn to the victims of this (should-be) crime, the fur-bearing animals – or rather, what’s left of them, now that the furriers and fashionistas/os have had their way. The viewer’s gaze is where it should be – on the blood and guts and corpses – instead of lingering on a woman’s body parts.

Additionally, this ad concept offers the potential to “sell” the anti-fur message without objectifying women or otherwise displaying their naked bodies. I say “potential” because the woman celebs and models are still glammed up a bit; Christine Dolce, for example, displays ample amounts of cleavage, while her chest is covered in blood. This, too, points to a possible pitfall of the “fur is murder” ad concept: imposing murderous imagery on a sexualized woman runs the risk of conflating violence with sex, and making violence against women seem sexy. And, um, today’s advertisers certainly don’t need any encouragement in that arena.

That said, anti-fur ads such as those above still irk me. As with the cruelty-free cosmetic campaigns I discussed earlier this year, anti-fur ads (whether produced by PETA or another animal advocacy organization) tend to target women to the exclusion of men, thus reinforcing the gendered stereotype that only women care about frivolous, superficial and vapid matters like fashion and makeup. News flash: men wear fur and fur trim (and leather and wool and silk…), too! Yet, looking at these ads, you’re likely to come away with the impression that only women are cruelly narcissistic enough to kill fuzzy wuzzies in the name of fashion. Cruella de Vil, anyone?

Granted, full-length fur coats are more likely to be found in a woman’s closet than a man’s. Excessive and ostentatious furs – when draped on an American male body – can even be the butt of a joke; cue images of David Puddy and his “man-fur.” Even so, many men do wear fur – just in a different fashion than women. Men should, at the very least, comprise a strong minority of the models featured in (and audience targeted by) anti-fur ads.

Yet, with the exception of PETA’s “Ink, Not Mink” series, men very rarely make an appearance in anti-fur ads. “Ink, Not Mink” strikes me as a weird slogan, anyhow, as tattoos and clothing aren’t really comparable products. While each can function as means of self-expression, fur coats (no matter how odious) also serve a more functional purpose, that is, to keep you warm in cold climates. In fact, this is often an excuse used by fur apologists (who among us haven’t heard the red herring “But Eskimos neeeeed to wear fur!!!!1!!!1″?). A tattoo isn’t a substitute for a coat, fur or otherwise. The whole series seems like a reach – a transparent attempt at coolness by finding any and every reason to highlight naked celebrities and their ink. Either way, though, the “Ink, Not Mink” series represents a small portion of PETA’s anti-fur advertising; most features and targets women, and naked ones at that.

So what are the practical consequences of such gendered advertising? By implying that women and women alone are concerned with such fluffy, silly things as fashion, animal advocacy organizations (and others) disempower women – including the very women who constitute the majority of their activist force. Through the selective use of women models, such ads reinforce gender stereotypes which hold that women are vain, shallow, inane, “girly,” overly concerned with appearance, and wasteful (inasmuch as they spend obscene amounts of money on extravagant baubles). If you believe these ads, women are more concerned with appearances than with more important matters….such as politics and ethics. Likewise, men are assumed to be free of such vices, owing to their near-absence in such ads. All of this serves to objectify women – to tell them that how they look is more important than who they are. Add PETA’s gratuitous – and sometimes pornified – nudity to the mix, and the result is toxic.

These hundred or so ads might not seem like a big deal – but when considered in context, they’re yet another small part of a very large and harmful pattern. We live in a culture steeped in misogyny; certainly, there’s no need for animal advocacy organizations to pile on women as well.

———————

* I actually started this post in early February, hence the lengthy gap between the two posts. I got sick and then sidetracked, and yada yada yada. You know how it goes.

(Crossposted from.)

———————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peta people for the ethical treatment of animals marketing psa advertising fur anti-fur fur trim fur free faux fur wildlife conservation environment fashion feminism misogyny sexism women and animals intersections parallel oppressions IndyAct violence photos photo blogging flickr

No, it’s true. Well, kinda sorta:
 

 
Apparently the Constitution only protects the rights of the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the cisgendered, the faithful and the non-pregnant – and only when they’re in complete agreement with all opinions O’Reilly, natch.

Well done, Jon, well done.

——————

Tagged: Bill O’Reilly fox news The O’Reilly Factor faux news msm constitution right to privacy paparazzi the daily show jon stewart videos video blogging

KYRA PHILLIPS: It’s a chilling photo involving a story that’s getting tons of buzz and reflecting a growing crisis. But we’re not going to show it to you. And I’ll tell you why in just a moment. LA police are trying to find out who leaked a picture that apparently shows singer Rihanna bruised and battered after an alleged attack by her boyfriend, the singer Chris Brown. It showed up on a celebrity website and you can choose to see the photo at any time. We’re just choosing not to show it to you. And here’s why.

The face on that photo is one of millions of battered faces. Men and women, all races, all classes, all victims. We can’t show you all their faces, but we can push this story forward and try to help you heal the scars. Let’s get past the headlines and straight to the heart of domestic abuse. At the bottom of the screen we’re showing numbers for the National Domestic Violence Hotline where you can report abuse or get help. Also here to help, our guest, Sheryl Cates, CEO of the National Domestic Violence Hotline which has taken millions of calls. Good to see you, Cheryl.*

Oh, what a difference a day makes! Today, during the 1 o’clock hour,** CNN backtracked and aired the photo – while explaining that law enforcement policy usually precludes releasing the identities of (alleged) victims of domestic violence, let alone releasing photos of their injuries. They go on to speculate that the paparazzi must have bribed someone in the department in order to illegally obtain the photo(s)…as a photo of an obviously bruised Rihanna occupies the top 1/6th of their video screen!

No fucking shame.***

* This is but one example; you can check out the rest of the day’s transcripts for more.

** EST, with Fredericka Whitfield; sorry, but the transcript isn’t up yet.

*** As to why I still watch CNN, I ask you: if I want news during the off-hours, what else am I gonna watch? Fox News? MSNBC? Tony Harris ain’t got nothing on Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann, I tell you what.

—————–

Tagged: cnn the media rihanna domestic violence violence abuse lapd tmz misogyny paparazzi celebrity