Just for the record: I’m not particularly fond of the latest PETA2 ad featuring Khloe Kardashian. However, it’s not Kardashian’s state of (un)dress that bothers, rather, it’s the way in which PETA’s photographers have posed her that irks my feminist sensibilities. Though not as bad as, say, the Suicide Girls series, Ms. Kardashian is somewhat pornified in this ad: here, her body is turned away from the camera, so that it appears that the audience is following, ogling, stalking, sneaking up on her from behind. (From a racial perspective, I also find it interesting that PETA chooses to depict one of their few women of color models with a teased, “wild” hairstyle; while I know little about Khloe Kardashian, it doesn’t appear as though she normally wears her hair this way.)

Now, if this were just one of a handful of PETA ads that resemble a Playboy layout, I’d dismiss it as inevitable; PETA recruits a number of celebs to pose for their print ads, and no doubt some of these women (and men) will prefer more sexualized poses (in our pornified society, after all, women do trade on such images in order to get ahead; and I’d much rather criticize the culture which makes such compromises necessary, as opposed to the women doing the compromising). Yet, the ad fits a larger pattern wherein

women are more likely to pose in the nude than men; and, if you were to objectively compare the PETA print campaigns which feature nude men and women, you’d see that the portrayals are drastically different. Strip away PETA’s logo and slogans, and the women’s photos look like they were pulled straight out of a recent edition of Playboy. Young, white, thin, feminine, (conventionally) attractive women are displayed on all fours, backs arched, gazes vacant, faces and torsos turned away from the camera, submissive in posture, ready for a good fuckin’. In contrast, the men’s shots are fun, funny, inspiring, humorous, and full of personality.

So yes, I do think there’s more than enough room for a feminist critique of PETA’s ads, print and otherwise. That said, I don’t at all trust feminists who objectify non-human animals (by eating, wearing, gawking at, or otherwise exploiting them) to offer an unbiased critique of an animal advocacy group’s objectification of women. Assuming that PETA is indeed sexist*, speciesist feminists are no better: both objectify a group of living, sentient beings based solely on group membership.

Furthermore, these women have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo vis-à-vis their relation to (i.e., domination of) non-human animals: if they were to accept PETA’s premise that non-human animals have rights and interests equal to those of human animals, they’d have to reconsider their meat-eating, leather-wearing, dog-buying ways. In short, they would have to acknowledge (and thus, renounce) their human privilege.

So, how do the women at Feministing (et al.) claim moral superiority, again? While they may sometimes be correct in their interpretation of PETA’s campaigns, this veg*n feminist finds them no more trustworthy than an openly, unabashedly racist white feminist criticizing civil rights leaders for their misogyny. While their conclusions may be correct, their reasoning and motivations are forever suspect.

Just as they insist that PETA needs to lose the sexism before feminists will take them seriously, they need to lose the speciesism before they can expect veg*n women to give a damn about what they have to say.

* Which is a gross generalization, considering PETA’s vast membership numbers; better still to say that president Ingrid Newkirk and/or other higher-ups is/are sexist, and the organization is sexist to the extent that Newkirk/those in charge influences their hiring and PR policies.

(Crossposted to.)

——————

Tagged: animals animal rights animal welfare peta people for the ethical treatment of animals peta2 sexism misogyny fur Khloe Kardashian flickr photos pornified women feminism speciesism

This FSMas marks the third holiday season since the Mr. and I eloped in June of ’06. As time grinds on, it’s become obvious that some relatives – mostly the older and more conservative of the bunch, but not always – are a-ok with foisting their values on me, vis-à-vis the way(s) in which they choose to address me. Inevitably, we receive more than a few x-mas cards made out to “Shane and Kelly Brady” or – more odiously – “Mr. and Mrs. Brady.” This despite me never having changed my last name upon marrying Mr. Brady – and being extremely vocal about my choice: he and I have separate address labels, with different last names; when we send out joint mail, particularly those FSMas cards, we always sign them with both our surnames; and, for fuck’s sake, I’m the weird hippie librul veg*n feminist heathen in the family – so of course “Mrs.” isn’t gonna fly with me, ya? And yet, certain relatives still insist on referring to me as – blecht! – Mrs. Brady.

And it’s not just on the joint x-mas cards – the worst offenders of the bunch will address birthday cards and other pieces of mail meant specifically for me to “Mrs. Brady” or “Kelly Brady.” You can’t even pretend to use the “timesaver” excuse there, nosiree – it’s only two extra letters, people.

Perhaps most tellingly, the reverse never occurs. I have a few random, extended family relatives who have never met the Mr., and aren’t even sure of his last name. Even so, they are cautious not to commit the egregious faux pas of referring to a man by his wife’s last name – because that would simply be rude and emasculating. Heaven’s no, can’t have that! Mail from these folks arrives addressed to “Kelly Garbato and Shane,” rather than “Mrs. and Mr. Garbato” or “Kelly and Shane Garbato.”

So I wonder, maybe I should start a little experiment wherein I address all my mail to the women – using their maiden names, of course – and their husbands: “Ms. and Mr. Garbato.” (An obvious stumbling block is that there is no male equivalent of “Mrs.”; men are simply men, Misters, no matter their marital status. But, you know, work with me here.) Addressing women, men and couples with no regard for how they wish to represent themselves to the world. Addressing the menses as though they’re just nameless, faceless, unimportant appendages or pieces of property; things without purposes or identities apart from their wives or their children.

How do y’all think that might go over, huh? But, what’s the big deal? It’s “just a name,” right?

Naturally, my lil’ sis is excluded from the above rant; I know she purposefully calls me “Mrs. Brady” just to get a rise outta the hackles on my hairy feminist calves. That’s what little sisters do, no?

By the way, sis, remember when your turtle Henry bit you on the chin and, dangling there, refused to let go, despite your comical levels of hysteria? Good times.

———————

Tagged: feminism feminist surname marriage fsmas cards mrs. mr. language

(More below the fold…)

Update, 11/29/08:

Dear misogynist fuckwits,

Rather than being “bullshit,” the Bechdel test is the minimum fucking standard that (most) movies should be held to. It’s pretty simple: two women, who utter at least two sentences to one another during the course of 90+ minutes, about something other than teh menses. Like, seriously: two women, two sentences, not revolving around men. That’s a low bar, especially when you consider that almost every damn movie ever made in the history of the world features two+ men, talking to each other, about something other than women. And yet, somehow it’s a huge fucking ordeal for Hollywood to make a film that features two women whose lives do not revolve around men.

I say “most” because, obviously, there will be the odd exception; movies set in all-male spaces, such as an all-male school or such, can be excused for not featuring (m)any female characters, just as movies set in all-female spaces may not have equal male representation.

That said, women do make up a full half of the population – so no, I don’t think it’s unrealistic to expect to see one woman for every man in movies which take place in gender-neutral spaces, such as a public square in Spain. Perhaps our representation in traditionally male fields such as the Secret Service will be unequal, and perhaps such inequities can be forgiven inasmuch as they represent actual, real world statistics. However, I have higher hopes for films; just as our values shape pop culture, pop culture shapes our values. It would be nice to see so-called liberal Hollywood act in a forward-thinking manner where women are concerned. If you’re threatened by that, perhaps you should build a time machine and regress back to the Dark Ages.

Also, I should point out that I quite enjoyed Vantage Point – if you bother to read my post, I gave it an A. Usually, we feminists have to leave our “PC” ideals at the door when dealing with tv, movies, video games, etc., because we still live in a highly misogynist society. If I were to forgo every film that violates my feminist (let alone atheist and vegan) sensibilities, then I’d probably be stuck with feminist documentaries. So yeah, I liked Vantage Point, and in terms of action films, I give it props for being better than most in terms of female representation. It still falls short, though; doubly so when you hear from the director himself that the second-largest female lead was initially a man. Off the top of my head, I also liked Get Smart, Alien 3, Oceans 11-13 and Paycheck, even though none of these pass the Bechdel test. (Actually, Alien 3 is a good example of a film wherein the Bechdel test may not apply, as it’s set on an all-male penal colony.) Complicated concept, I know, but I can enjoy a film on its cinematic merits while simultaneously finding myself disappointed by its lack of female characters.

And please, before commenting, go here. My blog, my discretion. I pay my own web hosting fees, and I don’t do so in order to give misogynist fuckwits a platform to spew their hatred of women. You’ve got more than enough spaces of your own – this one’s mine.

- A movie-going feminist.

——————–

Last night the Mr. and I watched Vantage Point while we chowed down on our Thanksliving Day feast. (Yes, I realize that Tofurky Day was actually two days ago, but therein lies the beauty of not being married to a holiday – if you choose to “celebrate” it, you can party any mofo day you want. More on that later, though. I have FSMas decorating to do this weekend!)

Without throwing in any spoilers, Vantage Point chronicles the assassination of the US President and the subsequent series of terrorist attacks during an anti-terrorist summit in Spain. The same sequence of events is viewed through the eyes of various characters, including the media, the Secret Service, an American tourist, the local police chief, the President, and the terrorist group. Each “vantage point” offers a different piece of the puzzle, so you’re kept guessing until the final point of view is presented. Clocking in at 90 minutes, it’s a tight, action-packed film; just when the rewind-replay gimmick starts to feel repetitive, the vantage point switches to that of the terrorists, and the whole story is recounted from beginning to end. As long as I leave my feminist hat in the closet, Vantage Point earns an A.

From a feminist perspective, Vantage Point passes the Bechdel test, but barely.

While it’s largely an ensemble cast, most of the primary characters are male:

* All the Secret Service agents are men; Dennis Quaid (as Thomas Barnes) and Matthew Fox (Kent Taylor) are the main “eyes” of the Secret Service, and as the source of the Secret Service’s “vantage point” and the hero of the movie, Quaid can be considered the film’s lead. Another pair of agents share a lesser role, chasing down the local police chief after the assassination and explosions, and there are several additional agents with bit parts.

* Forest Whitaker (Howard Lewis) is the American tourist who captures most of the action on his video camera. He figures prominently in several of the character’s POVs, and is one of the “secondary” heroes of the story.

* Enrique (Eduardo Noriega), the local police chief, is a man. While a bit of a patsy, he also acts heroically, both before and after the attacks.

* Four of five of the terrorists are men. Of these, three of the terrorists have what I consider prominent roles: Édgar Ramírez (Javier), Saïd Taghmaoui (Suarez), and Ayelet Zurer (Veronica). Of all the females in the movie, Veronica is most integral to the plot (and she also commands the most screen time of all the women); however, she’s not given a backstory or her own “vantage point,” since the terrorists share a POV as a group. The only terrorist whose motivation is examined is Javier’s.

* President Ashton (William Hurt) and Mayor De Soto (José Carlos Rodríguez) are both men. (Though, to be fair, the Mayor is only seen introducing the President.) The President is a likable guy, while his staff (again, two men) is most certainly not.

(More below the fold…)

Being a narcissistic nerd, I check the stats on my Flickr photos on a near-daily basis; the referring URLs, of course, are of particular interest. I must know who is discussing me, dammit.

My Animals & Women and Misogyny sets have proven especially popular. Usually, people – by which I mean fellow feminists and/or veg*ns – agree with the ways in which I’ve tagged, filed and otherwise categorized the photos.

Few people seem to concur with my assessment of these ads from Harley Davidson, however. Browsers of the interwebs do not like that I filed these in the Misogyny set.

So I ask you, dear readers – Harley Davidson’s Bikes for Women ads: Sexist/homophobic or empowerful?

My initial reaction when spotting this series at Ads of the World was laughter. The thought of some biker dood, stuck at home doing the cooking, cleaning and childcare, while his “old lady” was out cruising the town on her “hog,” struck my fancy. “Damn skippy!,” I giggled with glee.

And then I considered what Harley Davidson’s core demographic – biker doodz – might think of the ads. I realized that they, too, would get a good guffaw at the thought of one of their own stuck at home doing womanly chores…but probably not for the same reasons I do.

(More below the fold…)

…if one more Obamabot trolls my Flickr photostream in order to call Sarah Palin a bitch, a cunt, a whore, etc., and/or call for her murder. Doubly so if they defend their misogyny by saying “I don’t hate all women, I just hate this woman.” Because, um, we’ve all heard that before.

Besides, it’s over, people! What’s the point of all this hate when it’s fucking over!?

I guess misogyny is a Jeanie Kingmaker that’s harder to cram back in the bottle once you’ve encouraged it to run free for the past 21 months, eh?

Oh, and McCain campaign: fuck off. Palin may be as dumb as a box of rocks, but your boss is the one who chose her. What does that say about his intelligence (not to mention, concern for country), hmmmm? And you don’t think his angry outbursts qualify as diva-like temper tantrums? Oh wait, of course not. Silly me, he has a penis, and thus a license to act like one. My bad.

—————

Tagged: 2008 elections indecision ’08 elections sarah palin john mccain obamabots misogyny sexism flickr

Just, no.

Firstly, I’m not a “girl.”

Nor am I bait, a prop, or an object to be used for your political ends.

It’s nice to know, though, in a historic election year that nearly saw the first viable female presidential candidate, and did bring the second female VP candidate on a major party ticket – well, it’s nice to know what I’m really good for: fucking. It’s all about the lady bits, am I right?

And yes, I realize that the ad was produced by four girls women; that doesn’t make it any less sexist. Because, um, women can be sexist, too.

This sort of misogyny – emanating from the left, and directed at all women, be they conservatives (Palin), Republicans, Democrats (Clinton & the so-called PUMAs), or progressives (non-Obamabots, i.e., me) – is one of many reasons why I won’t be voting for Obama on November 4.

Or renewing my Bust subscription.

This election cycle cannot be over fast enough.

——————

Tagged: 2008 elections politics barack obama john mccain sarah palin sexism misogyny political ads bust

A “real” feminist wouldn’t employ such a silly argument in defense of PETA’s campaigns, whether sexist or not:

MJ: One question I did have. I really do appreciate the work PETA has done but it has gotten a lot of criticism for using women in some of its ads. A lot of times in bikinis, or scantily clad, I think there was a striptease campaign that came online recently. What do you say to people who criticize PETA and say that it’s not women-friendly, that it denigrates women?

IN: Well, it’s rubbish because the organization is run by a woman, who is me. I marched in the earliest of rallies, I am an adamant feminist, but I’m not a prude and I think you can go to the beach and see people who are in less than you can in a PETA ad.

Let me guess: you also have a Black Friend ™, such that none of PETA’s campaigns could possibly be racist, either?

Seriously, this is such a ridiculous argument that I need only two words to refute it: Ann Coulter. Women are not immune from misogyny, you see. Sometimes, they’re even more vicious in their hatred of other women than are their male peers; because of the common (mis)perception that “women cannot be sexist,” women are oftentimes granted license to act in an even more misogynistic manner than their male counterparts. It’s not often that you hear a man argue that women’s suffrage was a mistake – yet Ann Coulter has posited as much, and she still manages to get speaking gigs.

You go on to say:

Our people are all volunteers, no one has asked a woman to take off her clothes. I’ve done it myself, we’ve all marched naked if we want to, and I think that it’s very restrictive and in fact wrong. I would expect someone in, say, Iran to tell us that we should cover up, but I don’t expect women or men in this country to criticize women who wish to use their bodies in a form of political statement, to tell them, you need to cover yourself up. There’s this idea of ‘naughty bits’ and I just think it’s funny more than anything else. It’s not sexist, it may be sexual, but no. No woman has ever been paid to strip. She has decided to use her body as a political instrument. That’s her prerogative and I think it is anti-feminist to dare to tell her that she needs to put her clothes back on.

Certainly, I agree that it’s “anti-feminist to dare to tell [a woman] that she needs to put her clothes back on”; however, there’s a difference between allowing your supporters to use their naked bodies as “political instrument[s]” and taking advantage of your [female] supporters’ willingness to get naked for the animals by playing into cultural stereotypes regarding gender roles, beauty, sex, class, race, etc. As I noted in my defense of your “Breast is Best” campaign, PETA does have a despicable habit of pornifying women in their photo/print campaigns while simultaneously portraying men as full human beings, complete with agency and personalities.

In PETA’s world, women are more likely to pose in the nude than men; and, if you were to objectively compare the PETA print campaigns which feature nude men and women, you’d see that the portrayals are drastically different. Strip away PETA’s logo and slogans, and the women’s photos look like they were pulled straight out of a recent edition of Playboy. Young, white, thin, feminine, (conventionally) attractive women are displayed on all fours, backs arched, gazes vacant, faces and torsos turned away from the camera, submissive in posture, ready for a good fuckin’. In contrast, the men’s shots are fun, funny, inspiring, humorous, and full of personality.

Yes, you can be sexual without being sexist; just look at these campaigns featuring naked men as proof:

(More below the fold…)

This is part nine in a nine-part series on Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. A full TOC, complete with links for easy navigation, is included at the bottom of each post.

Spoiler alert: Danger ahead, oh the horra! Plot spoilers abound! If you haven’t yet read the book, consider yourself warned. In fact, back away from this blog asap, go borrow The Handmaid’s Tale from your local library, and come back when you’re done. We’ll still be on the internets, promise.

The Handmaid’s Tale, The Dramatization (BBC Radio 4, 2000)

The dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale produced and aired by BBC Radio 4 in 2000 is more than a direct reading of the novel. Rather, it’s a full-cast performance, complete with sound effects, that puts the film version to shame.

In direct contrast to Volker Schlöndorff’s 1990 film effort, the producers of the 2000 BBC 4 radio dramatization of The Handmaid’s Tale succeed in creating a moving reenactment of the novel – without sacrificing any of Margaret Atwood’s vision. Granted, the BBC audio recording is a bit lengthier than the film; it spans three CDs, totaling no more than 4.5 hours (the film clocks in at 109 minutes), allowing extra time for Kate’s narration to unfold. Still, even the producers of the BBC dramatization had to cut several prominent sequences in order to condense the story. Unlike Schlöndorff and company, they chose wisely, and also reworked other aspects of the dramatization to compensate for the lost pieces of the novel.

(More below the fold…)

Last week, after receiving the umpteenth “Obama is a secret Muslim/chain smoker/Communist/reverse racist/serial liar/anti-Christ” from my father – all of which are easily debunked via Snopes, which he claims to do before forwarding to all – I asked him not-so-nicely to please stop with the racist/sexist/homophobic emails already; and, while we’re at it, please to stop sending me anything even remotely political, as we clearly have radically different views, and I’m not even planning to vote Obama anywho, as he’s not progressive enough for my hippie socialist ass.

A few days later, this arrived in my inbox.

—– Original Message —–
To: Kelly Garbato
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:03 PM
Subject: FW: VIRUS WARNING!

—– Forwarded Message —-

Email Warning! –

If you get an e-mail with ‘Nude Photos of Sarah Palin’ in the subject line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.

If you get an e-mail with ‘Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton,’ do not open it.

It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton.

You know, the man has two daughters. I wonder if the thought even crosses his mind that this sort of misogynist garbage – i.e., that a woman’s worth lies solely in her fuckability – applies to us just as much as it does public figures such as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Oh, but wait, it’s just Hillary Clinton he has a problem with; I’m sure he doesn’t hate all women. And clearly this was meant as a compliment to the “lovely” Mrs. Palin; in fact, she should be flattered!

Not.

———————

Tagged: kiss my right buttock hillary clinton sarah palin my right wing dad misogyny