A friend of mine, who is a smart and attractive young woman, was sitting at a bar, when some guy came up to her and offered her a drink. He started chatting her up, and eventually asked what she did for a living.
She replied that she was working on her PhD in Neuropsychology. The guy did not answer and simply took his drink elsewhere.
This, people, is 2008. "Smart women are scary." Boo.
Happy halloween. (Sort of.)
Showing posts with label WTF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WTF. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
At least that's the appropriate use for "bitch"...
I stumbled upon this while I was surfing the web in search of ideas for a Halloween costume for my dog...
Not only can modern, post-feminist, empowered women dress like slutty schoolgirls/nurses/prison wardens this Halloween, but they can also dress their pet as a slutty [insert chosen variation on the theme of sexual objectification here] girl-dog!
How lucky are we!
*sigh*
I don't know what's more disappointing:
a) the mere fact that someone thought this was a great idea
b) the fact that some women - and men - will actually buy those costumes; or
c) the fact that they felt the need to remind their audience that women are human beings, just like the men who objectify and commercially exploit them, by naming that section of the website "matching costumes for female dogs and female humans".
Ugh.
***
*Surprisingly*, this website didn't seem to have a similar section of sexy matching Halloween costumes for men - even though they are sensitive enough to gender differences to distinguish between "male dog costumes" (such as the pimp dog, the cowboy dog, the astronaut dog...) and "female dog costumes" (such as the "doggie bride", the fairie princess dog, and the dog cheerleader costume)...
***
This, on the other hand, is cute.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
The WTF moment of the day, brought to you by Playboy...
... yet another good reason to "bin the bunny"!
And yes, this is supposed to be some creative form of advertisement... *sigh*
Via Feministing.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Newsflash: PETA confirm they're anti-fur, anti-women
Actually, it's no news that PETA has frequently resorted to objectifying women as a medium to get its message across.
To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.
But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.
As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."
Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)
***
Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).
To my eyes, this blunt and often quite gory objectification of the female body, and the distasteful sexualization of violence against women could already be characterized as pornography.
But now they've officially crossed the line between the radical feminist interpretation of what constitutes pornography, and that of the mainstream public.
As a matter of fact, PETA has teamed up with Suicide Girls, a so-called "alternative" pornography website for its new campaign against fur. Seemingly nubile, skinny pornography models strike falsely coy poses, and are tagged with the slogan "I'd rather go naked than wear fur."
Please do complain to PETA if you feel shocked by their exploiting women to promote their ideas. (And prepare yourself to get a patronizing, "you should know that there's nothing shameful about the female body, you should learn to love yourself", touchy-feely kinda crap of an answer.)
***
Just a few quick facts about Suicide Girls (no, I won't link to their website).
- Although they flatter themselves for allegedly featuring "alternative porn" and models, they mainly feature very young, skinny, conventionally beautiful, able, hairless, White women (though apparently, some of the models are "alternative" to the extent that they've got tattoos, piercings or still a little pubic hair left);
- They objectify women for money;
- Suicide Girls is - no shit - run by men;
- The company's managers have been accused of exploiting their female employees - yes, the very same people who are being objectified in such a progressive way;
- And please, what's with the name? Since when is suicide considered as sexy? Since when one's self-destruction gets people off? WTF.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Updates...
I've just realized that I've been writing this blog for a year. Cheers to me.
I was going to write about depressing matters.
(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)
However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.
...
(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)
I was going to write about depressing matters.
(E.g. Michel Veillette who pleaded not guilty today to charges of stabbing his wife to death and of killing his four children by setting his house on fire, on account that he had a fight with his wife and that he was provoked. *vomits*)
However, I can't commit myself to write anything remotely thoughful, so here's some good old abstinence humour.
...
(This skit reminds me of the brilliant folks at Iron Hymen and their sister site, Sex is for Fags.)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Blog for Choice - Part Two
As you already know, tomorrow will mark the 20th anniversary of the decriminalization of abortion in Canada.
Today, a small group of pro-choicers proudly walked in downtown Montréal to remind their fellow citizens of this important date, and show that they want abortion in Canada to remain legal, safe, accessible and free.
Despite our numbers, the event was a success because the participants responded individually to this call for action. They walked in the cold, not because they're part of some group or organization that told them to be there, but because they believe in reproductive freedom.
Secondly, it was also a success because approximately one third of the participants were men who are equally concerned about the issue of freedom of choice, and who don't dismiss it as a "women's issue."
Finally, our little, spontaneous march received some excellent media coverage, thanks to our wonderful volunteer publicist, MJ.
***
However, I was disappointed by the abysmal apathy of the people that we had contacted over the last few months. Most of them either did not give us any answers, or told us that they were not interested in participating. In addition, some people who had said they would attend the event never actually showed up.
But above everything else, I was extremely disappointed by the blatant lack of support of women's organization (namely, the Fédération des femmes du Québec and the Fédération pour le planning des naissances du Québec), and of student associations.
Despite having been notified months ago that we wanted to organize an event to celebrate the anniversary of R. v. Morgentaler, it was only until recently that the FFQ contacted us to inquire into our actions.
To my knowledge, no FFQ member or representative attended the march today.
Although the FFQ, along with other Québec pro-choice and women's groups, is to hold a press conference tomorrow to commemorate this anniversary, this initiative suspiciously looks like a last minute attempt to show that they're still on top of their things and that they care about reproductive rights.
Well, big effing deal.
The FFQ had other plans, months in the making. As a matter of fact, they'd been planning another event for January 26th, 2008. That is, this protest for peace in the Middle East and the preservation of environment. Though these are important issues as well, I can't help to have the uneasy feeling that the FFQ somehow forgot to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Morgentaler ruling, or that they *just* thought that it was more important, this January 2008, to celebrate something else.
I can only wish that this administrative decision will be explained shortly, and that the people responsible will be held accountable.
Our freedom of choice is a right that can't afford being kept in the dark by the very people who should be upholding it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Quote of the Day
A Christian website on how to deal with porn-addicted Christians:
"The church needs to expose this snake and cut off its head before more lives are ruined. "
By "snake", they mean "penis", right?
"The church needs to expose this snake and cut off its head before more lives are ruined. "
By "snake", they mean "penis", right?
Rant of the Day
"If I had a cock..." - A rant on pornography by Oni Baba
It's no secret for those of you who read this blog that I'm deeply opposed to pornography.
From an ideological point of view, I think it's at odds with the egalitarian and non-exploitative values that feminism - in my opinion - stands for.
I also think that it is morally - and should be treated as legally - wrong. It's wrong because it's about making objects out of women - you know, those uppity female human beings. It's about using women, and trying to make them fit into the mold of unrealistic fantasies. It's also morally wrong because the goal of pornography is to use static interactions with representations of women as a way to reach sexual arousal/satisfaction. This necessarily entails that such arousal of satisfaction is not conditional to the male pornography consumer's negotiating the terms of the sexual act with the woman. The static nature of pornography make her consent entirely irrelevant. The women featured in pornography are always willing partners. We find the same attitude towards women in men who consume porn to get off, and those who rape women to achieve the same end.
And on a personal level, I really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman.
Maybe my female upbringing didn't teach me that it was OK and socially acceptable to get off on unknown persons of the opposite sex because I want instant, easy sexual gratification, or just to boost my self-confidence.
Maybe it's just that I don't have a cock, where, as everybody knows, male self-confidence resides. If I had one, maybe I'd be tempted to exercise my god-given right to use women without their consent to satisfy my personal needs.
Maybe if I had a cock, I'd feel so lousy about myself that I'd rather play with myself and fantasizing about my virtual sexual performances than have real, consensual sex with an actual human being, with *gasp!* feelings, an *gasp!* intellect and even an *GASP!* ability to criticize my pathetic performances.
Maybe if I had a cock, no life and a fast Internet connection that allowed me to access loads of porn on demand, I'd do society a huge favour and I'd shoot myself.
It's no secret for those of you who read this blog that I'm deeply opposed to pornography.
From an ideological point of view, I think it's at odds with the egalitarian and non-exploitative values that feminism - in my opinion - stands for.
I also think that it is morally - and should be treated as legally - wrong. It's wrong because it's about making objects out of women - you know, those uppity female human beings. It's about using women, and trying to make them fit into the mold of unrealistic fantasies. It's also morally wrong because the goal of pornography is to use static interactions with representations of women as a way to reach sexual arousal/satisfaction. This necessarily entails that such arousal of satisfaction is not conditional to the male pornography consumer's negotiating the terms of the sexual act with the woman. The static nature of pornography make her consent entirely irrelevant. The women featured in pornography are always willing partners. We find the same attitude towards women in men who consume porn to get off, and those who rape women to achieve the same end.
And on a personal level, I really don't get it. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman.
Maybe my female upbringing didn't teach me that it was OK and socially acceptable to get off on unknown persons of the opposite sex because I want instant, easy sexual gratification, or just to boost my self-confidence.
Maybe it's just that I don't have a cock, where, as everybody knows, male self-confidence resides. If I had one, maybe I'd be tempted to exercise my god-given right to use women without their consent to satisfy my personal needs.
Maybe if I had a cock, I'd feel so lousy about myself that I'd rather play with myself and fantasizing about my virtual sexual performances than have real, consensual sex with an actual human being, with *gasp!* feelings, an *gasp!* intellect and even an *GASP!* ability to criticize my pathetic performances.
Maybe if I had a cock, no life and a fast Internet connection that allowed me to access loads of porn on demand, I'd do society a huge favour and I'd shoot myself.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Thursday, December 6, 2007
A very good reason not to support the Ottawa Senators
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Almost "Dateline" - Incestuous quote of the day
Picture this. A fifty-something man takes a teenaged girl out on a date to a formal event.
Feels awkward, doesn't it? (Not to mention blatantly illegal if the girl is under 14...)
What if the man is the girl's father? And what if he says things like this:
"This was a great event to teach your daughter how a gentleman conducts himself with a young lady."
Eewww... Doesn't that scream "incest" or what?
***
The statement above was made by one of the thousands of Conservative Christian American fathers who took a daughter to a "Purity Ball" over the last few years.
For those who are not familiar with the concept, it's a formal, high school prom-style of gathering where girls as young as 7 pledge their virginity to their fathers until the day they marry, and where fathers pledge to "war" for the hearts, purity and honour of their daughters.
Yuck. Many things ire me about purity balls.
First and foremost is the fact that it basically indoctrinates very young girls with the idea that she will never own her sexuality. These events effectively tell girls and young women that their sexuality is something that first belongs to their fathers, and that will be, upon marriage, passed on to their husbands.
The older girls at the Broadmoor tonight are themselves curvaceous and sexy in backless dresses and artful makeup; next to their fathers, some look disconcertingly like wives. In fact, in the parlance of the purity ball folks, one-on-one time with dad is a “date,” and the only sanctioned one a girl can have until she is “courted” by a man. The roles are clear: Dad is the only man in a girl’s life until her husband arrives, a lifestyle straight out of biblical times. “In patriarchy, a father owns a girl’s sexuality,” notes psychologist and feminist author Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. “And like any other property, he guards it, protects it, even loves it.”
...
“When you sign a pledge to your father to preserve your virginity, your sexuality is basically being taken away from you until you sign yet another contract, a marital one,” worries Eve Ensler, the writer and activist. “It makes you feel like you’re the least important person in the whole equation. It makes you feel invisible.”
Secondly, Purity Balls in particular, and abstinence-only sex ed in general convey the message that virginity has a material value. They speak in terms of "value," "treasure," and "gift." When you think about it, this is not so far from such backward practices of being sold into marriage, or of arranged marriages.
And guess what? That's exactly what those wackos do.
When I point out to Christy Parcha’s father, Mike, that experience with relationships, bumps and all, can help young women mature emotionally and become ready for sex and marriage, he warily concedes that’s true. “But there can be damage, too,” he says. “I guess we’d rather err on the side of avoiding these things. The girl can learn after marriage.”
...
“I am not worried about that. She is not even going to come close to those situations. She believes, and I do too, that her husband will come through our family connections or through me before her heart even gets involved.”
[Emphasis added.]
Again: yuck...
***
(Thanks to MJ for the links!)
Feels awkward, doesn't it? (Not to mention blatantly illegal if the girl is under 14...)
What if the man is the girl's father? And what if he says things like this:
"This was a great event to teach your daughter how a gentleman conducts himself with a young lady."
Eewww... Doesn't that scream "incest" or what?
***
The statement above was made by one of the thousands of Conservative Christian American fathers who took a daughter to a "Purity Ball" over the last few years.
For those who are not familiar with the concept, it's a formal, high school prom-style of gathering where girls as young as 7 pledge their virginity to their fathers until the day they marry, and where fathers pledge to "war" for the hearts, purity and honour of their daughters.
Yuck. Many things ire me about purity balls.
First and foremost is the fact that it basically indoctrinates very young girls with the idea that she will never own her sexuality. These events effectively tell girls and young women that their sexuality is something that first belongs to their fathers, and that will be, upon marriage, passed on to their husbands.
The older girls at the Broadmoor tonight are themselves curvaceous and sexy in backless dresses and artful makeup; next to their fathers, some look disconcertingly like wives. In fact, in the parlance of the purity ball folks, one-on-one time with dad is a “date,” and the only sanctioned one a girl can have until she is “courted” by a man. The roles are clear: Dad is the only man in a girl’s life until her husband arrives, a lifestyle straight out of biblical times. “In patriarchy, a father owns a girl’s sexuality,” notes psychologist and feminist author Carol Gilligan, Ph.D. “And like any other property, he guards it, protects it, even loves it.”
...
“When you sign a pledge to your father to preserve your virginity, your sexuality is basically being taken away from you until you sign yet another contract, a marital one,” worries Eve Ensler, the writer and activist. “It makes you feel like you’re the least important person in the whole equation. It makes you feel invisible.”
Secondly, Purity Balls in particular, and abstinence-only sex ed in general convey the message that virginity has a material value. They speak in terms of "value," "treasure," and "gift." When you think about it, this is not so far from such backward practices of being sold into marriage, or of arranged marriages.
And guess what? That's exactly what those wackos do.
When I point out to Christy Parcha’s father, Mike, that experience with relationships, bumps and all, can help young women mature emotionally and become ready for sex and marriage, he warily concedes that’s true. “But there can be damage, too,” he says. “I guess we’d rather err on the side of avoiding these things. The girl can learn after marriage.”
...
“I am not worried about that. She is not even going to come close to those situations. She believes, and I do too, that her husband will come through our family connections or through me before her heart even gets involved.”
[Emphasis added.]
Again: yuck...
***
(Thanks to MJ for the links!)
Monday, November 26, 2007
Ode to creepy men in lingerie stores
Let's face it: our collective lingerie/pyjama shopping experience would not be complete without them...
***
A man was paying his purchase, a pink peignoir, and asked the (female) clerk to gift wrap it. He then notice a Christmas lingerie catalogue on the counter, and asked the clerk that she put one inside the folded garnment. (Quite a classy way to drop a hint, don't you think?)
A really interesting thing is that the man made the following lapsus: he asked for a calendar instead of a catalogue.
(At this point, you start to see a clearer picture of the type of man in question.)
He then went on rambling about the Christmas decorations in the store, pointing how appropriate it was to decorate a lingerie store with "plein de belles boules." He also found wise to add: "moi j'aime ben ça, des petites boules."
Then, nodding towards a table covered with panties, the man said to the clerk: "There are a lot of things in here that would suit you well."
She kind of smiled back at him, with a noticeably annoyed look in her eyes.
*sigh*
***
Lingerie saleswoman #1 to lingerie saleswoman #2: "I used to work at La Senza on Ste-Catherine, but I couldn't stand the drunken men who would come into the store just to touch the clothes and the mannequins, and harass the female personnel."
(I find it really sad to think that we live a society where some men seem incapable to distinguish between an underwear store and a sex shop/strip club/porn booth.)
***
A man was paying his purchase, a pink peignoir, and asked the (female) clerk to gift wrap it. He then notice a Christmas lingerie catalogue on the counter, and asked the clerk that she put one inside the folded garnment. (Quite a classy way to drop a hint, don't you think?)
A really interesting thing is that the man made the following lapsus: he asked for a calendar instead of a catalogue.
(At this point, you start to see a clearer picture of the type of man in question.)
He then went on rambling about the Christmas decorations in the store, pointing how appropriate it was to decorate a lingerie store with "plein de belles boules." He also found wise to add: "moi j'aime ben ça, des petites boules."
Then, nodding towards a table covered with panties, the man said to the clerk: "There are a lot of things in here that would suit you well."
She kind of smiled back at him, with a noticeably annoyed look in her eyes.
*sigh*
***
Lingerie saleswoman #1 to lingerie saleswoman #2: "I used to work at La Senza on Ste-Catherine, but I couldn't stand the drunken men who would come into the store just to touch the clothes and the mannequins, and harass the female personnel."
(I find it really sad to think that we live a society where some men seem incapable to distinguish between an underwear store and a sex shop/strip club/porn booth.)
Violent Porn: Now in a Lingerie Store Near You
The British lingerie retailer Agent Provocateur has recently opened a store in Vancouver, and is apparently planning to open new locations in Toronto and Montréal.
Well, this can only mean one thing, ladies: Get your torches and pitchforks ready.
But what, you might be wondering is so wrong about Agent Provocateur? Or is it just me, you know, the no-fun anti-sex, ever-frustrated feminist?
If you don't know the company yet, let's just say that it sells very expensive (i.e. between $140 and $160 for bras, and between $70 and $90 for thongs and panties) "exotic" lingerie. And by "exotic", we're talking porn/escort services-grade underwear.
Like, for instance, bras with no cups that expose the breasts, nipple pasties and tassles, and the like.
You know, the kind of delicate and impossibly uncomfortable stuff that are not made to be worn all day by real women, and that are solely designed to be put on shortly before coming into the bedroom, only to be removed and thrown on the floor by one's drooling partner seconds after.
***
(Side note: Do men really know the difference anyway between average female underwear and the really expensive kind? That is, when they're not buying it as "presents" for their girlfriends?)
***
I know, I know... Isn't that just precisely what the business of any lingerie retailer consists of?
Maybe it is, although it's not my personal opinion. But in any case, what differentiates Agent Provocateur from other lingerie brands is its absolutely disgusting attitude towards women.
First, it uses porn as a form of publicity. If you go on their website (at your own risks - it might trigger very upsetting feelings), the first thing you'll see is three naked females bathing together and lascively posing for the camera. If you enter the website and actually check out the products, you'll notice that they can't just show you the picture of a bra, or even the picture of a fashion model wearing said bra. No, Ma'am. Every single product is displayed via pictures of models shot in soft porn postures or attitudes.
As a woman, I find the suggestion that I can't distinguish between bona fide lingerie advertisements and gratuituous online porn incredibly insulting.
The further you go, the worst it gets. The misogyny is extreme, and its everywhere. On the website, you'll find shoes that will suit you from the "boardroom to the bedroom" (seriously: WTF?!?) and, in the "jewellery" section, you'll find that the only proposed item is a metallic dog collar, complete with a fancy leash and matching (optional) handcuffs. There's even a blindfold with the phrase "Treat me like the whore that I am" written across it.
Classy, I know.
***
As a matter of fact, violent sex and sexual domination/submission seem to be a recurrent theme in the Agent Provocateur imagery. The website namely features "Adventures", i.e. pornographic stories illustrated by pictures and videos, in which L.A. debutantes and 1920's French maids are confined, exploited (in terms of the work they do and in terms of the sex acts they have to perform), disciplined and "taught" to "enjoy" sex.
Yuck. (And this is just a mild one, from the few that I've seen. Yet, it sends a chill down my spine.)
My point is not to make an argument against "rough" sex, certain types of fantasies or erotic scenarios, or even S&M practices.
I just don't like sexual violence against women and the sexual exploitation of women being used in a pornographic manner as part of an advertisement.
Even though there's not a hint of penetration of any kind, and that Agent Provocateur's pornographic advertisements are - mostly - confined to (fake*) lesbian sex, it's not just "soft" porn to me. It's violent and degrading porn, where women are humiliated, hurt, thrown to the ground, and whipped like beasts.
To a certain extent, I can tolerate the ambient sexism and misogyny of our culture, for the simple reason that otherwise, I'd probably shoot myself. But I can't tolerate the mere suggestion that violence against women generally is acceptable, and that sexual violence in particular can be branded as sexy for base mercantile purposes, turned into incredibly violent and degrading - yet easily available - porn and marketed towards women as "luxury" or "empowerment."
For these reasons, I will boycott the Agent Provocateur brand, and will protest by all means (legally) available to me the opening of a Montréal location.
***
* Fake as in "not just some guy's wacky patriarchical, sexist, androcentric view of lesbian sex..."
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Happy Sexual Harassment Season!
It's snowing outside and it can only mean one thing: the Holiday Season is coming, and along with it, the traditional office parties, where co-workers have fun and exchange mundane presents.
So, you ask, what's an appropriate present to give to a co-worker/your boss/a subordinate?
What about something sexy and fun? Like, for example, lingerie or lubricant?
I notice the ad below in today's Metro.
If you want to complain to Boutique Séduction, please do so at the following number: (514) 593-1169, or by mail, at:
Boutique Séduction
5220, boulevard Métropolitain Est
Montréal (Québec)
H1S 1A4
Make sure to CC your letter to Metro... :
625 Avenue du Président-Kennedy
Suite 700
Montréal (Québec)
H3A 1K2
Phone: (514) 286-1066
... and to la Commission des normes du travail:
Commission des normes du travail
26e étage
500, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest
Montréal (Québec)
H2Z 2A5
You can also write an opinion letter to Metro, at: opinions@metronouvelles.com.
***
A recent Canadian study, sarcastically called "The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women", shows that women who don't conform to feminine stereotypes in the workplace are twice as much likely to be sexually harassed than their "traditional" counterparts.
As left-clicked, at F-email Fightback, explains:
"[S]exual harassment is motivated by a wish to punish women who blur gender distinctions. Women coming up through the ranks or entering a traditionally male work environment may threaten some men's sense of security and status. The dynamic is similar to harassment of minorities who threaten a majority group's dominant position in the workplace.
"Jennifer Berdahl, at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, found that women who behaved independently and assertively and spoke out were more likely to be sexually harassed than women who fit feminine ideals of deference, modesty and warmth. Ms. Berdahl noted this was especially true in male-dominated workplaces."
So, you ask, what's an appropriate present to give to a co-worker/your boss/a subordinate?
What about something sexy and fun? Like, for example, lingerie or lubricant?
I notice the ad below in today's Metro.
In this ad, Boutique Séduction, a Montréal sex shop, is suggesting upfront that its merchandize constitute appropriate gift ideas for office parties, and that such "sexy" gifts are just fun and playful.
You know, because somehow, being given lingerie by your boss or one of your coworkers is not sexual harassment around Christmas time, when everybody's drunk and happy.
The picture on the ad is pretty disgusting in and of itself. All the people picture look drunk, and all the men are either looking down someone's décolleté or grabbing a female coworker. The mere fact that it suggests that this sort of behaviour is acceptable in a work environment is unacceptable.
***If you want to complain to Boutique Séduction, please do so at the following number: (514) 593-1169, or by mail, at:
Boutique Séduction
5220, boulevard Métropolitain Est
Montréal (Québec)
H1S 1A4
Make sure to CC your letter to Metro... :
625 Avenue du Président-Kennedy
Suite 700
Montréal (Québec)
H3A 1K2
Phone: (514) 286-1066
... and to la Commission des normes du travail:
Commission des normes du travail
26e étage
500, boulevard René-Lévesque Ouest
Montréal (Québec)
H2Z 2A5
You can also write an opinion letter to Metro, at: opinions@metronouvelles.com.
***
A recent Canadian study, sarcastically called "The Sexual Harassment of Uppity Women", shows that women who don't conform to feminine stereotypes in the workplace are twice as much likely to be sexually harassed than their "traditional" counterparts.
As left-clicked, at F-email Fightback, explains:
"[S]exual harassment is motivated by a wish to punish women who blur gender distinctions. Women coming up through the ranks or entering a traditionally male work environment may threaten some men's sense of security and status. The dynamic is similar to harassment of minorities who threaten a majority group's dominant position in the workplace.
"Jennifer Berdahl, at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, found that women who behaved independently and assertively and spoke out were more likely to be sexually harassed than women who fit feminine ideals of deference, modesty and warmth. Ms. Berdahl noted this was especially true in male-dominated workplaces."
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The End of Real Women
I'm not making this up. The signs are everywhere. Real women - of the thinking, feeling, natural kind - are facing extinction.
We are being replaced. We are being replaced by pictural and mechanical versions of ourselves that are better than we'll ever be. The pornography industry is more powerful than ever on its own. In addition, it is fueled by the creativity of misogynistic inventors from all over the world, and by the fierce marketing of products that target to women.
Slowly but surely, real women are being replaced. The notion of genuine womanhood is being replaced, with a more aggressively marketed, manufactured femininity ideal, that is impossible for real women to compete with, let alone attain.
Real women are facing a choice: they can either try to run with it and try to commit to the rules of this pornified femininity, or disappear.
Or rather, the notion that it is acceptable to call ourselves women when we cannot or do not want to conform to these norms will disappear.
***
After all, the utility and likeability of rea women is so limited. We don't come anywhere close to being acceptable, porn-grade women.
Real women think, feel and express themselves. We are not silent, passive and cannot be shut down at will by our male owner.
Real women are complex sexual beings. We do not orgasm at the mere push of a button, and we don't have knobs and switches that make us moan.
All real women don't moan.
Real women don't always want to have sex with their partners. Nor can they follow their husbands wherever they go just so they will be sexually available if and when he feels like getting off.
Real women have a mind of their own, a life and a history, with which their life partner necessarily has to cope.
Real women don't have "perfect," plastic bodies. Real women have hair, wrinkles, and uneven skin. Real women don't wake up in the morning with their hair done and their make-up on. Real women don't perpetually look like they're 14. Real women age.
We are being replaced. We are being replaced by pictural and mechanical versions of ourselves that are better than we'll ever be. The pornography industry is more powerful than ever on its own. In addition, it is fueled by the creativity of misogynistic inventors from all over the world, and by the fierce marketing of products that target to women.
Slowly but surely, real women are being replaced. The notion of genuine womanhood is being replaced, with a more aggressively marketed, manufactured femininity ideal, that is impossible for real women to compete with, let alone attain.
Real women are facing a choice: they can either try to run with it and try to commit to the rules of this pornified femininity, or disappear.
Or rather, the notion that it is acceptable to call ourselves women when we cannot or do not want to conform to these norms will disappear.
***
After all, the utility and likeability of rea women is so limited. We don't come anywhere close to being acceptable, porn-grade women.
Real women think, feel and express themselves. We are not silent, passive and cannot be shut down at will by our male owner.
Real women are complex sexual beings. We do not orgasm at the mere push of a button, and we don't have knobs and switches that make us moan.
All real women don't moan.
Real women don't always want to have sex with their partners. Nor can they follow their husbands wherever they go just so they will be sexually available if and when he feels like getting off.
Real women have a mind of their own, a life and a history, with which their life partner necessarily has to cope.
Real women don't have "perfect," plastic bodies. Real women have hair, wrinkles, and uneven skin. Real women don't wake up in the morning with their hair done and their make-up on. Real women don't perpetually look like they're 14. Real women age.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Bad analogies
Bad pro-life analogy #1 - Women as broodmares:
"Carl Gunter Jr. (deceased) - 'Inbreeding is how we get championship horses'.
"Louisianna state representative, explaining why he was fighting a proposed anti-abortion bill that allowed abortion in cases of incest."
***
Bad pro-life analogy #2 - Women as cardboard boxes:
... *sigh*
"Carl Gunter Jr. (deceased) - 'Inbreeding is how we get championship horses'.
"Louisianna state representative, explaining why he was fighting a proposed anti-abortion bill that allowed abortion in cases of incest."
***
Bad pro-life analogy #2 - Women as cardboard boxes:
... *sigh*
Sunday, November 18, 2007
The WTF Highlight of the Day
Don't tell me we don't live in a pornified society.
This toy stripper pole (below) - yes, you've read correctly: a toy stripper pole - was available in the UK up until recently.
The £49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves."
(If, after reading the above, you still think that the Peekaboo stripping pole is just good, harmless, tongue-in-cheek fun, and that it's suitable for your 10 year-old, click here.)
This "toy" was removed from the shelves after Tesco received numerous complains of outraged parents and health profesionals.
Predictably, Tesco attempted to justify itself:
"Tesco last night denied the pole dancing kit was sexually oriented and said it was clearly marked for "adult use".
"A spokesman added: 'Pole dancing is an increasing exercise craze. This item is for people who want to improve their fitness and have fun at the same time.'"
"Exercise," eh?... Yeah, right... *rolls eyes*
Is it just me or that statement doesn't really convince me that they weren't trying to market sex work to grade-school kids?
Tesco's attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the parents who complained and of the members of the general public who are offended by this toy. Do they actually expect us to believe that a toy, called "Peekaboo" was "clearly marked for adult use"?
This toy stripper pole (below) - yes, you've read correctly: a toy stripper pole - was available in the UK up until recently.
Seriously: Who are you supposed to play this "game" with? In what outfit - let alone the garter thing - are the little kids supposed to "dance"?
"The Tesco Direct site advertises the kit with the words, 'Unleash the sex kitten inside...simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!
"'Soon you'll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars'.The £49.97 kit comprises a chrome pole extendible to 8ft 6ins, a 'sexy dance garter' and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves."
(If, after reading the above, you still think that the Peekaboo stripping pole is just good, harmless, tongue-in-cheek fun, and that it's suitable for your 10 year-old, click here.)
This "toy" was removed from the shelves after Tesco received numerous complains of outraged parents and health profesionals.
Predictably, Tesco attempted to justify itself:
"Tesco last night denied the pole dancing kit was sexually oriented and said it was clearly marked for "adult use".
"A spokesman added: 'Pole dancing is an increasing exercise craze. This item is for people who want to improve their fitness and have fun at the same time.'"
"Exercise," eh?... Yeah, right... *rolls eyes*
Is it just me or that statement doesn't really convince me that they weren't trying to market sex work to grade-school kids?
Tesco's attitude is an insult to the intelligence of the parents who complained and of the members of the general public who are offended by this toy. Do they actually expect us to believe that a toy, called "Peekaboo" was "clearly marked for adult use"?
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Please tell me this isn't for real...
The name speaks for itself: "Monopoly Pink Boutique Edition"... i.e. a game on how to handle money for girls.
You know, because the fact that it's pink makes it easier for our tiny, mathematically-challenged lady brains.
Bleh.
Give the taxman a hug...
... because he deserves it for not taking this anti-choice bullshit.
"November 10, 2007
"Fredericton -- A New Brunswick man who refuses to file tax returns as a protest against abortion has been found guilty and ordered to file the returns and pay $3,000 in fines.
"David Little, 62, of Fredericton says he won't comply with the order because he maintains the religious belief that abortion is murder and the federal government funds abortions.
"Judge Leslie Jackson has given Mr. Little until March 31 to file his tax returns and must return to court April 4 if he hasn't paid the fines."
Of course, the CRA just really enjoys collecting our hard-earned money, but I'm relieved that nobody is buying into this guy's civil disobedience argument.
I also hope that the next guy this guy shows up in an emergency room, or takes his kids to school, somebody will kindly (or not) remind him that individual taxpayers can't pick and choose where our tax dollars go.
It's called society...
***
More comments on this case from the Unrepentant Old Hippie and Feministe.
***
More information on the difficulties of access to abortion services in New Brunswick.
"November 10, 2007
"Fredericton -- A New Brunswick man who refuses to file tax returns as a protest against abortion has been found guilty and ordered to file the returns and pay $3,000 in fines.
"David Little, 62, of Fredericton says he won't comply with the order because he maintains the religious belief that abortion is murder and the federal government funds abortions.
"Judge Leslie Jackson has given Mr. Little until March 31 to file his tax returns and must return to court April 4 if he hasn't paid the fines."
Of course, the CRA just really enjoys collecting our hard-earned money, but I'm relieved that nobody is buying into this guy's civil disobedience argument.
I also hope that the next guy this guy shows up in an emergency room, or takes his kids to school, somebody will kindly (or not) remind him that individual taxpayers can't pick and choose where our tax dollars go.
It's called society...
***
More comments on this case from the Unrepentant Old Hippie and Feministe.
***
More information on the difficulties of access to abortion services in New Brunswick.
Friday, November 2, 2007
A very romantic bloodbath
Lately, there has been much comment on this Russian promotional article about hymenoplasty, that is, the surgical procedure by which a woman's virginity can be "restored". The procedure basically involves sewing back together the remaining pieces of a woman's hymen. Since is it performed with absorbable ("melting") sutures, it necessarily implies that the patient will "lose" her virginity, once again, within approximately 2 weeks.
The article lists 5 reasons why a non-virgin would like to go through (1) a surgery and (2) the wholesome fun of being in pain and covered in blood once again in her life. They range from "you can deceived your husband on your wedding night" to "men will pay more to have sex with you if you're a virgin" to the heinous "it's the nicest thing a girl can do for her emotionally-challenged boyfriend":
"Hymen repair surgery aims to enable a patient’s sexual partner to have “that thrilling conquest” normally associated with the wedding night. As a rule, patients are warned straightaway that they are likely to bleed more and feel greater pain during the subsequent intercourse, compared to blood loss and pain caused by the original act of deflowering.
"Indeed, Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it."
[Emphasis added]
Yuck. I find this whole thing really disturbing, not to mention extremely physically hazardous.
As Lauredhel puts it:
"Say, is anyone making virgin-porn? Cos you could just shove a pint-bag of pig-blood up there and have at it. The special effects guys could have a ball.
"'Though the risks of infection and fever are minimal, a patient must pay special attention to personal hygiene for at least two weeks after the operation. She must refrain from having a bath, visiting a sauna. Swimming is under a temporary ban too, especially in the outdoor bodies of water or a swimming pool.'
"But feel free to have some rape-deprived asshat ejaculate all over it."
***
What sort of psycho gets off on seeing his "loved" one suffer like this? What sort of psycho gets off in circumstances where he is aware that his partner is in pain and definitely not enjoying herself?
Surely not someone who cares about his partner's sexual and bodily integrity. I think Cara has it right when she suggests a link between this very literal form of parthenophilia and the rape culture:
"This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.
...
"What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.
"Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period."
[Emphasis added]
I couldn't agree more. If you're a male whose kink is to painfully and bloodily tear up one's hymen, then you're a sexual psychopath. On the other hand, if you're a male with a virgin fetish who limits himself to (fake) virgin porn or who likes to pretend play with his (non-virgin) female partners, then you're a budding pedophile.
Quite a charming picture.
***
Some of the people who have posted comments here and there about that promotional article have rightly pointed out that the mere fact of having an intact hymen does not in itself make you a virgin.
For a thorough discussion on how to define virginity and on the medical and cultural treatment of virgins and virginity through the ages, I encourage you to read Virgin - The Untouched History, by Hanne Blank.
It covers just about you ever wanted to know about virginity, from centuries-old methods to fake it, to season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
The article lists 5 reasons why a non-virgin would like to go through (1) a surgery and (2) the wholesome fun of being in pain and covered in blood once again in her life. They range from "you can deceived your husband on your wedding night" to "men will pay more to have sex with you if you're a virgin" to the heinous "it's the nicest thing a girl can do for her emotionally-challenged boyfriend":
"Hymen repair surgery aims to enable a patient’s sexual partner to have “that thrilling conquest” normally associated with the wedding night. As a rule, patients are warned straightaway that they are likely to bleed more and feel greater pain during the subsequent intercourse, compared to blood loss and pain caused by the original act of deflowering.
"Indeed, Marina’s second “wedding” night was a rather painful experience for her. On the contrary, her boyfriend enjoyed every minute if it."
[Emphasis added]
Yuck. I find this whole thing really disturbing, not to mention extremely physically hazardous.
As Lauredhel puts it:
"Say, is anyone making virgin-porn? Cos you could just shove a pint-bag of pig-blood up there and have at it. The special effects guys could have a ball.
"'Though the risks of infection and fever are minimal, a patient must pay special attention to personal hygiene for at least two weeks after the operation. She must refrain from having a bath, visiting a sauna. Swimming is under a temporary ban too, especially in the outdoor bodies of water or a swimming pool.'
"But feel free to have some rape-deprived asshat ejaculate all over it."
***
What sort of psycho gets off on seeing his "loved" one suffer like this? What sort of psycho gets off in circumstances where he is aware that his partner is in pain and definitely not enjoying herself?
Surely not someone who cares about his partner's sexual and bodily integrity. I think Cara has it right when she suggests a link between this very literal form of parthenophilia and the rape culture:
"This is absolutely one of those things that we can file under rape culture. Not because a woman losing her virginity to a man is akin to rape, or because purposely breaking a hymen is the same as rape. First penetrative sex can certainly be painful (whether or not you have a hymen in tact, which in fact many if not most women these days do not). But your sexual partner (in this case, your husband, of course) is supposed to care when you’re in pain, slow down, be gentle, ask if you’re okay, ask if you want to continue, and STOP if you don’t. He is not supposed to see that you’re in pain and then pound it in harder, or get off on the fact that his oh-so-impressive erection is making you bleed. I can’t even imagine what it would be like to have sex with such a man, and I don’t want to.
...
"What the fuck? I don’t care what kind of kinky fetish you’re into, getting off on the fact that you are actually hurting your girlfriend during sex is wrong. This is, in fact about rape. It’s our rape culture that tells us women feeling pain during sex isn’t something to avoid, it’s something to get off on. It’s rape culture telling men that they have a right to the bodies of their female significant others — apparently extending to the right to cause her physical pain. It’s the rape culture that tells us men’s sexual pleasure comes first, at the expense of female sexual pleasure, in spite of female sexual pain and the expense of the female right to sexual autonomy — and that a “good” woman will accept this happily. Without rape culture, the kinds of views espoused in this article (as though they’re benign!) would not even exist.
"Encouraging men to look forward to breaking their sexual partner’s hymen, not only in spite of her pain, but in fact very much because of it, is promoting violence against women. Period."
[Emphasis added]
I couldn't agree more. If you're a male whose kink is to painfully and bloodily tear up one's hymen, then you're a sexual psychopath. On the other hand, if you're a male with a virgin fetish who limits himself to (fake) virgin porn or who likes to pretend play with his (non-virgin) female partners, then you're a budding pedophile.
Quite a charming picture.
***
Some of the people who have posted comments here and there about that promotional article have rightly pointed out that the mere fact of having an intact hymen does not in itself make you a virgin.
For a thorough discussion on how to define virginity and on the medical and cultural treatment of virgins and virginity through the ages, I encourage you to read Virgin - The Untouched History, by Hanne Blank.
It covers just about you ever wanted to know about virginity, from centuries-old methods to fake it, to season 2 of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
