Facebook and misogyny – just kidding!
February 21, 2013
I have a love / hate relationship with Facebook.
I love my private page as I have family and friends around the world and this fantastic tool affords me the opportunity to stay in contact, see precious photos, share articles and funny memes etc. etc. etc.
I also love my Questions for Women FB page – I can put up articles and quotes to inspire and give a different perspective to life, as well as put up my blog posts.
What I hate, is how Facebook instills a feeling of insecurity and untrustworthiness.
I do not feel like they have our back.
They are always skulking around for your info – to share or sell to the highest bidder. We’re constantly having to change settings – which have been automatically been set to ‘Public’ as a default – when they reshuffle the way their site works.
Always leaving us none the wiser and exposed.
What I hate the most, however, is that they also do not have our back in protecting us from hateful and misogynistic content being posted. Horrible sites and images just being permitted to spread – their toxic nature infecting; normalising. And why?
Because it’s just a joke, crazy lady! Relax.
Sshhhhhhh….
The thing is, though, who exactly IS the person (or people) who make the final call?
I picture a bunch of young guys in a smoke-filled room, eating fast food, surrounded by empty food wrappers, snorting at all the crazy things that are being posted.
Haawww Haawww Haawww!
The reason I say that is because they don’t permit photos of breastfeeding mothers (eeewww – gross!) – but allow pages called ’12 year old slut memes’, which I wrote about in a previous post – That’s not misogyny. THIS is misogyny.
Yesterday Karen Pickering posted the following passionate rant about Facebook:
She writes about an abhorrent image she saw on FB (it’s in there *Trigger Warning*), which she reported – twice – but was ultimately deemed appropriate for viewing, by FB.
Karen wrote the following, which struck a chord with what I feel:
I reported it despite being fully aware of a number of truths:
- that the internet is full of this shit
- that the world is full of this shit
- that this shit really happens
- that we can’t stop it from happening
- that we can’t stop people joking about it
- that people laugh because they’re conditioned to dehumanise women to the extent that they do
- that the people posting it feed off the persecution complex they get that feminists are out to get them
- that you’ll get one taken down and an even more hideous image will take its place
- etcetera ad nauseum
Yes, yes and YES! to all the points above…etcetera ad nauseum.
The image, as of today, has FINALLY been removed – but as Karen says, the world is full of it.
It’s hate. It’s misogyny. And Facebook thinks it’s OK.
Facebook must be a man.
So, if women are labelled as a bunch of hysterical banshees, who need to chill-out when they protest misogyny and violence against women, then –
Question #145: What label do the men inherit?
Let me know what you think of the quote below. My interpretation below.
In what way do I think men are stupid?
By seeing what’s happening and keeping silent.
That makes me crazy.
Deep Breath.
x
PS I know many of you would suggest that we all get off Facebook and be done with it. I think that’s easier said than done due to established connections…but if everyone I know and love switches to Google, I’m IN!
Mila Kunis on Ellen
February 17, 2013
While I was sitting in an empty hospital room, waiting for my husband’s return from his surgery – I turned on the TV and I stumbled upon Ellen.
I have to say, that although I don’t really watch the show (don’t watch much TV at all), I do really like Ellen and what she does – yes, very similar to Oprah.
What I like about these women is that they spread a message of happy and that’s not a bad thing. We need more of it.
What makes Ellen different, of course, is that she is who she is and dresses comfortably – leaning towards a more masculine look – which I love.
Her female guests, however, are different. In the past, I’ve seen many (not all) come out wearing the ‘uniform’ – cascading locks of hair, over made-up faces, skimpy, barely-there outfits, very high platform shoes etc etc.
On this particular day, Mila Kunis was the announced guest and I watched with interest.
1. Mila came out looking stylish – pants and a white top. Nice.
2. Ellen’s first words to her are: “You look fantastic” and launches straight into the fact she must feel pressure now that Esquire has named her the ‘Sexiest Woman Alive’ – pulling out the magazine which dons the following cover image of Mila:
After a bit of banter, Ellen says that there must have been a lot of pressure to pose for the cover of the sexiest woman alive.
Mila’s response was gobsmacking: She said,
“The only reason I did it, was so that when I’m 80, sitting in my little chair, I can say – SEE, Grandma was really hot one day!”
Ellen responded with, “That’s why you did it?”
A pocket of women in the audience started to yahoo and cheer – of course – and with that validation Mila continued, saying that she was sure her grandmother was a “sexy little thing, but there was no photographic proof.” (???)
She holds up her cover and says, “Look grandkids – PROOF!”
Dear me.
Ellen then guides the talk towards her outfits in everyday life saying she appears to be down to earth and doesn’t seem to ‘worry about what she looks like when she goes out’ (?????) and a whole minute dedicated to her use of cargo pants.
After tediously trying to get Mila to admit she’s dating Ashton Kutcher – the topic FINALLY turned towards her craft – the movie she’s in.
However, in the 8 minute interview – the discussion of her movie lasted 30 seconds.
I have to say, it was disappointing – again – to see how this interview fixated on and perpetuated society’s (women’s) obsession with the physicality of women such as Mila, and how we applaud and revere them.
More disturbing, however, is how Mila herself – a young and beautiful girl – needs to find validation through men voting her the sexiest woman alive, hyper-sexualising herself and slapping it on a cover for all to see…
…including her future grandchildren, no less – topless and with a provocative finger over her lips.
What hope do our daughters have with self-esteem and empowerment, when women’s looks are the only topic of interest?
Question #144: How can what girls do with their minds be in the forefront of discovering who they are, when noone cares enough to represent it?
Remember: “You can’t be what you can’t see”
We’re certainly seeing a lot of young, hyper-sexualised women like Mila, which does nothing for the sisterhood and the true empowerment of our girls.
Deep Breath.
x
PS Hubby’s operation lasted four hours and had five surgeons. It seems to have gone well.
Use-by date by 40? Or Best Before?
January 20, 2013
Question #138: Why is ‘young’ the only flavour on offer for women?
I am a 42 year old woman, just shy of my 43rd birthday, and I have a huge problem with the way females negatively discuss their age around the start of this decade. There is little doubt that the money-crunching wheel out there has had a lot to do with this toxic epidemic, as it’s at this time where a woman’s invisibility occurs in her representation – once she hits her ineffectual use-by date. 40.
Even if women see themselves as ‘Best Before’ 40 – it’s still a completely disheartening state of affairs. That’s a lot of sad females not reaching their amazing (and needed) potential in this crumbling social world, at the midpoint their lives.
From the article – The mysterious case of the disappearing women – comes the following:
“Try climbing through higher education, motherhood, self-employment, years of self-improvement, gyms, diets, abstinence of everything enjoyable – from ciggies to Magnums to suntans – to selflessness, to finally reach the summit of womanhood, fit, exultant and ready to fly – to find . . . a generational wipeout,” she ruminated in a column in The Sun-Herald.
“Visibility: zero. Scream ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’ all you like, but don’t look to the movies, the media or airwaves because, aside from Gillard, Germaine on Adam Hills in Gordon St Tonight the other week, glimpses of Jenny Brockie and Jennifer Byrne, Kristin Scott Thomas and Juliette Binoche buried deep within the bowels of a French film festival, there’s barely anyone out there who represents my age group.” Ouch.
Ouch indeed.
The documentary Miss Representation, disclosed statistics showing that although women aged 40+ comprise a large chunk of our gender, we are microscopically misrepresented in the media – especially in film.
What we are being saturated with, are images of women in their 20s – generally looking perky and ‘hot’. The damage this does to our developing young girls alone, is something that should inspire us to act in a more positive light towards our aging bodies. But no.
Even though women in their 30s are still attractively visible – there’s no denying that it’s the decade when it all starts to trickle down to being transparent. The irony is that many women who are in the limelight, struggle through that decline kicking and screaming, disfiguring their faces with injections and surgery, only to still end up on the ‘too old’ scrapheap. Double irony? Their male counterparts are doing just fine in their (generally) natural, greying and lumpy selves. And they don’t look freakish.
It’s been said a million times (which just imbeds that frustration in a bit further) but this is happening because a woman’s true value and efficacy is being packaged to solely be attached to her youthful glow and, in turn, her sexual allure. Can’t be older AND be sexually attractive! Goodness me. That’s simply not possible.
My eyes! My eyes!
Doesn’t it infuriate women to know that even though they spend billions on ‘improving’ themselves (just like they tell us to), it hasn’t afforded them any more airtime?
How sad that for many females, in this time when they are truly coming into their own skin and really start to understand who they are; where they want to run out onto the street and toss their hat up in the air like Mary Tyler Moore – is the exact moment society doesn’t want to know. I found myself feeling vital and energised when I turned 40, in many areas of my life and I know that there are many, MANY women who feel the same – so where are the tales of my fellow sisters in the same proverbial boat?
It would be simply marvellous to actually hear the stories of women’s life experiences – with a spectrum of what’s possible – not just witness the same narrative over and over again, where the story is about the male and his destiny and the young and ‘gorgeous’ girl chases guy for love (or support), or worse still, we actually DO see the wonderful achievements of women, only to have them be overshadowed by her outfit or cellulite issues.
We’re ever so much more.
I would also like to strenuously point out that if, on average, we live to the age of 80:
Are we really saying we’re going to be depressed for HALF our lives about our age?
>>>> Half our lives?? <<<<
Surely NOT!
Embrace the magnificent being you are and get out there and enjoy those next 40 years! That’s an order.
Deep Breath.
x
A Woman’s Thoughts about Women (1858)
January 14, 2013
For Christmas, I received the truly magnificent, original book I called: A Woman’s Thoughts about Women by Dinah Craik – published in 1858.
The cover is barely holding it together (I feel like Indiana Jones handling a priceless artefact), but the words are strong and beautifully expressed. I find myself raising my eyebrows and shaking my head a little as I read her thoughts, confirming the notion that little has changed in at least 150 years.
This is disconcerting, to say the least. I have always intimated that people have essentially stayed the same ‘on the inside’, but is that changing now with our ever-shrinking world? One that has lost its ability to protect us against the saturation of opinion?
At least this is one person’s opinion I am interested in.
There are so many issues that I want to share form this book and lifestyles from a bygone era, that’s it’s hard to know where to begin. Flicking through, I landed on the chapter title that resonated with me: Women of the World.
Dinah writes:
‘What will the next generation come to? What will they be – those unborn millions who are to grow up into our men and our women? The possible result, even in a practical, to say nothing of a moral light, is awful to think upon. Can it not be averted? Can we not – since, while the power of the world is with men, the influence lies with women – can we not bring up our girls more usefully and less showily?
Can we not teach them from babyhood that to labour is a higher thing than merely to enjoy; that even enjoyment itself is never so sweet as when it has been earned? Can we not put into their minds, whatever be their station, principles of truth, simplicity of taste, helpfulness, hatred of waste; and, these being firmly rooted, trust to their blossoming up in whatever destiny the young maiden may be called to?’
A woman after my own heart.
Better still, her words can equally be applied to our young boys – all people, really.
What simple, logical and fantastic guidelines to live by.
Question #135: So what does the future hold for us, knowing the same questions were being asked 150 years ago?
If we envision dark days – can it not be averted? Evidence seems to point to the gloomy fact that no, it can’t. I long for a time when we can look back at our ridiculous notions of gender roles and see that they have (in the long run) made us worse and more pigeon-holed than ever. Males in power; females on show and all that’s in between.
I wonder what Dinah would think of today’s state of affairs…how intriguing would that conversation be?
Deep Breath.
x
Dinah Craik
The Kardashians – a representation of what’s wrong today.
January 31, 2012
If there is a group of women who have been wrapped up in plastic packaging, sold to the world and subsequently gained unfathomable wealth – it’s the Kardashians.
I find it infuriating and a complete enigma, that these women are given a pedestal in our society for being ‘savvy business women’, but who are in fact being rewarded for their uselessness.
On a recent report, when Kim and one of the other coat-tail sisters came to Sydney, it claimed that the Kardashians made 70 million dollars the previous year. 70.million.dollars.
How is this possible? What is it they contribute to society to justify such wealth?
Let’s see…
# 1: Kim became ‘famous’ from a sex tape, which was conveniently leaked just before the start of their first season of ‘Keeping up with the Kardashians.’
#2: As the family demonstrate nothing but their insatiable appetite for money and fame – we respond by giving it to them.
#3: Now they slap a label on and sell everything, including themselves. The same report claimed Kim asks for $150,000 an hour to make an appearance at an event.
With all that money, they can only swim laps in their greed – a greed on such a grand scale, that we seem (as a society) to admire it and reward it.
Isn’t Greed one of the Seven Deadly Sins?
The worst part is that rather than have some substantially significant impact on the world with that wealth, they just spend it all on their gross vanity – clothes, cars, a nip and a tuck – only further pushing young girls to revere a falsehood.
Here’s a picture of Kim crying…
In my Drama class yesterday, we were talking about how hard it is to laugh and cry convincingly when acting. When we were dissecting what makes a good cry, we agreed that there’s one common denominator – you look ugly….really ugly. That’s what a cry is. The image above shows a frozen face. Cover the mouth – she could be expressing ANY other emotion – because that top part ain’t moving.
What are these women, predominantly Kim, teaching to our girls?
This is where I’m stumped.
When the two sisters came to Sydney, the news reports showed gaggles, flocks, SCORES of young women and girls, going to shriek greet them. It was like the Beatles were in town.
Seriously.
On two separate news reports, hysterical (I kid you not) girls were asked what they loved about Kim. They both responded with equally breathless, squeals of, “She’s…SO BEAUTIFUL!!” When asked what else they liked, the reporters should have run the audio of the crickets chirping in the background because they had no other answer. None. One girl kept looking around, trying to think of something inspirational to say – probably hoping someone would feed her the answer…any answer.
Zip.
So there you have it – she’s beautiful. Fake beautiful. 70 million dollars.
Now we can feel relieved to know that our girls will now know exactly what they need to do – what to aspire to – to make money. And it all starts with selling themselves; selling themselves short.
Forget educating our girls – giving them a mind to make change – it’s all for nothing if all that’s important (regardless of what she’s achieved) is how she looks; sexy, hot and fake.
And that’s the message saturating our children’s world.
Boys used to have to sneak a magazine (that would have possibly been a little difficult to get), to see a bit of boob – now both boys and girls can simply to go to the shops because now we’re selling jeans like this:
Thanks girls. You look hot. I hope you got the validation you were looking for.
Question #9: Have these sorts of women become our girls’ new role models?
Questions for Us 