I’m feeling despondent.
October 28, 2012
Again, it seems I’ve hit another moment where it all feels a smidge overwhelming.
I’m a bit low about it all.
I keep seeing – hearing – absorbing – feeling – more and more examples of horrible behaviour, greedy behaviour, hateful behaviour…
…and I just don’t understand.
I don’t understand why intelligent men and women sit back with a desensitised indifference or, worse still, defend certain elements of our society – making us tip out of balance. I feel like we’re sitting on the side of the balance that’s just started its descent…and it’s going to reach the bottom at an accelerated and unstoppable pace…
Or have we reached that ‘point of no return’ already?
I’d like to think not. I’d LOVE to think not. But am I being naive to think we can put on the brakes?
Because I’m starting to doubt that it’s possible because there seems to be a lot who defend the need for cesspools in different pockets of our existence.
It’s depressing to entertain this thought. It is.
For me, this is the crux of it:
The world is going down a slippery chute – because of money and power.
And it doesn’t matter how you look at it – proven statistically – whatever the culture around the globe, whatever the economic status…
…the true victims of any society, are women.
And the ones who wield the power and dominate, are men.
Not ALL men – but most of those who are in positions of power, are – however they came to be there. They’re the ones ruling this planet. Fact.
But I’m wondering, if there are so many of you out there – and I know in my heart you are out there (regardless of gender) – who feel like a lot of the things being brought to light are wrong:
Question #105: Where are you?
I see women like Melinda Tankard Reist and the phenomenal team at Collective Shout, who are doing wonderful, extraordinary work. They have won so many battles against things that seem inconceivable, to have been allowed to be put in our society in the first place. Inconceivable. They have little money and are flying by the skin of their teeth. But they keep going because it simply has to be done.
Where’s the equivalent loud male voice – a face – who also thinks things are very, very wrong?
Where are the voices of ALL of us, regardless of gender?
In a previous post Feeling a bit ineffectual I listed how women are the victims of this world.
Women are raped by the thousands in places like Africa – used as a weapon of war – DAILY. Women infected with diseases from it.
Women / baby girls around the planet – who are raped, molested, sexually assaulted, trafficked – DAILY
Countless countries forbidding girls from being educated. Shooting a targeted girl, point blank, in the head for wanting one. These are the countries that like war. They have their women – who could stop them if they were in decision-making positions along side them – submissively kept at home.
The poverty, the pain…
And here? In the capitalist world? Here we only reward one thing;
Making money – at whatever cost.
Most of us do it the right and honourable way – with our ethics and morals intact – but the thing I don’t understand is why we actually stand back and let the soulless monster loose in big business – to OUR detriment. OURS.
We are creating a MINDLESS culture by allowing men – yes men – the ones in power who hold 97% of clout positions in Advertising, Publishing, Tele-communications and Entertainment – to feed on all our weakest and most vulnerable points..to make money. To make a LIVING.
With their fellow men it’s done through sex and with women it’s done through vanity.
Except for the men it’s a dominant weakness and for women it’s a submissive one.
Men are happy with their vice – by indulging in the world of hyper-sexuality and porn…but women never are! Which woman actually believes they’re beautiful enough? Good enough?
What the hell’s THAT about ladies? Seriously!
We’re allowing companies to target and condition our youth to become MINDLESS.
Our silence and indifference gives them permission.
WHY are we doing this? Because it’s good business? The more we say that, the more we pave the way for another to push the ethical frontiers. I’m beginning to wonder if there are any left.
Seems like a free-for-all.
The infuriating part is that we could ALL sell-out and make a quid the fast way.
We ALL have the capacity to steal. We ALL have the capacity to cheat. We can be unkind, selfish, greedy, hateful – but for the majority of people – we’re decent.
Question #106: So, why are we letting the men in power dictate how they will feed off ALL of us – men, women and children – in this detrimental way?
All’s fair in love, war…and capitalism, it seems.
I wonder, with a heavy heart, if the line above does encompass the general attitude amongst the masses…
Again, I hope not.
This is a worthy cause, isn’t it?
Deep Breath.
Pass it on. Speak up. Anything to help create change.
Ad I’ve noticed – #1
October 21, 2012
Before I start waging my war on the ads we’re seeing, I’d like to do a bit of research – with you. I’m going to quickly discuss ads I’m seeing now – airing across the country, into family homes – and then (hopefully) gain some insight from you – see if there’s a reoccurring pattern in what our media outlets are unveiling to us and what messages they’re circulating.
I’d like to use you as a gauge. I – like everyone else – am not immune to seeing things a little less-of-centre at times and willingly admit this. It is all about perspective, after all, and I am deeply curious to learn whether we’re on the same page about this issue, that is deeply concerning to me.
Before I start, I want to explain that I don’t have cable TV, just free-to-air. I don’t turn on the telly until the evening, but really (especially in this ‘down season’) – I don’t watch much. This isn’t to say that the TV is switched off. It’s generally left on, in case we stumble upon something engaging to watch.
This means that as I’m cooking or writing, I do, on occasion, notice the ads. Obviously, when we think about ads, we automatically think of product selling, but there are also the ads for the TV shows themselves…and it’s the content in these ads that are also of great concern.
I’ve written previously about how TV is dumbing us down and how – as a capitalist, obsessed society – we’re possibly heading down a path towards The Seven Deadly Sins.
Well…isn’t it possible? If the answer is, “Yes” then what do we need to do?
I think the ads we’re being exposed to (children and teens especially) – together with a WHOLE smorgasbord of other factors and contributors – are changing the neural pathways of our brains. Conditioning us. More urgently, conditioning the way our youth perceive reality.
Ad #1. TV show – Glee.
Now, I’m not a fan of this show – ever since it started to drip in the hyper-sexualised behaviour of the girls; on top of knowing that their main fan base are young girls. I wrote a post about another ad for Glee a while back (with the clip attached). They are not promoting healthy messages, which is a shame considering the reach they have.
The new season is apparently about to start and we are, of course, getting bombarded by the promotional tsunami that seems to come with the start of new television show seasons.
I wasn’t able to find the clip of the ad that’s being aired in Australia, so I’ll just describe the simple, yet dangerous, messages I think the ad is delivering to young girls and women.
Two things.
One: Kate Hudson plays a new character in the series as a dance instructor at what appears to be a high end place in New York (NY Ballet?), that the main girl Rachel now attends. Kate’s character appears fearless, bellowing how the majority of them are going to fail etc. etc.
She walks up to one of the new students and says:
“Hi. What’s your name? Muffin Top?” (when some fat sits over the top of your pants)
“No, my name is-”
“No. You’re name is Muffin Top. From now on it’s rice crackers and ipecac (a drink that makes you vomit). Cut off a butt-cheek. You have to lose a few pounds.”
And the girl is slim. Plus it really bothers me that it’s a fellow woman being so callous.
Message: If you look at that girl and they’re saying she’s fat (which she’s not) – what am I?
Subliminal message received. Neural pathways are now shifting, due to negative self thoughts about weight and self esteem. Check.
Many will argue that that’s the way it is in these sorts of high pressure dancing institutions and the show is representing realism. Oh, now they’re calling the realism card? That’s a tiny morsel of ‘realism’ compared the heightened misrepresentation that oozes from other issues within shows such as this.
Two: In the grand old tradition of building a female star (whether it be an actress or a singer) as an innocent, wide-eyed virginal type of girl – there comes the time when she must toss all that aside, along with its innocent followers and admirers, and become ‘nasty’.
Rachel now has to be taken ‘seriously’ and must shed her chaste appearance and prove she’s someone to be reckoned with. So we hear Rachel singing, not once but twice during the ad, the following line of the song she will perform on the show (once with a visual showing a tough and sexy Rachel):
“I’m not that innocent”
A line from a Britney Spears song. How apt – a fellow innocent-turned-nasty girl…along with Christina Aquilera, Miley Cyrus…and the list goes on.
Message: Noone will take me seriously unless I sexualise myself to gain attention.
Subliminal message received. Neural pathways are now shifting, due to negative thoughts about not looking sexy and hot enough to gain attention and recognition – the only way to get it. Check.
Why do they do this to one famous, female young star after another? To add to the fan base.
In the documentary, Missrepresentation, we were informed that the main people who watch TV are women…so it doesn’t matter what you show them, as it seems they lap up everything that’s presented to them – especially the younger ones.
However, the ones who watch the least TV, are males between the ages of 18-mid/late twenties? Something like that. So shows are predominantly motivated to getting their full attention – and how else can you get a young, hormone ridden boy/teen/male to watch your show?
Sexualise the girls.
So the bottom line is that they don’t care who watches, just as long as they are.
Anything for a buck, right?
Question #104: Do these examples set off alarm bells, no matter how small, as to what’s being subliminally taught?
Here is a lovely image of the actress who plays Rachel (Michele Lea), contributing her efforts to collecting that new fan base for the network and share holders, by posing for GQ magazine.
We have a long way to go, ladies. Can’t have a picture like this without the woman’s consent.
And consent they do.
Deep Breath.
x
That’s not misogyny. THIS is misogyny.
October 18, 2012
The following is one of many issues that has me livid – more at the apathetic attitudes of society, than anything else.
There is true misogyny in our culture – and it is malevolent. It has always existed towards women of all ages, but as it steadily moves down the ranks, it just makes me wonder at what point we’re all going to kick-start our protesting voices and do something about it. Misogyny is now targeting our Tweens or, as my high school students inform me, ‘Twelvies’.
Last week the disgusting Facebook Page, 12 yr old Slut Memes – a site that used photos of ‘Twelvies’ already on the net (or sent in by others), to then make degrading and sexist comments – was finally closed by the two 19 year old Queenslander men/boys/creators, studying at QUT.
But not by Facebook – they defended it to stay live and still do. The end truly came for these guys, when reports the Federal Police would investigate were heard. So they pulled the plug (although they vow to be back) – but Facebook still thinks sites like these are just fine and dandy.
This is evidenced by the fact that many copycat pages have sprung up in its place and are not only staying, but spreading – like venom – by supporters and perpetuators of this way of thinking.
It pains me and fills me with despair to see this type of behaviour unfold – with permission. Doesn’t it stir the same indignation in you?
Melinda Tankard Reist wrote this great post covering this atrocious state of affairs. Its title is a quote from the men “As long as there are sluts we will put them in their place“.
Sluts. That’s misogyny.
Now, last week I heard outrage and FURIOUS anger over the Speaker of the House, Peter Slipper having sent lewd text messages to another bloke. The pitchforks have well and truly been pulled out by our purer-than-driven-snow, holier-than-thou, fellow Australians and they are being kept handy by the front door – but only when it’s connected with politics, it seems.
Question #103: Are you willing to put those pitchforks to good use and stop pages like 12 Yr old Slut Memes, that do SO much more damage than text messages that were sent by one man to one other?
There is a virtual library of photos out there (taken by an obsessed younger generation) – pictures of young girls looking hyper-sexualised – that these men are exploiting because it’s just. so. funny.
But all those girls are someone’s daughter…and more often than not, come from good parents; parents who are fighting a battle against a media campaign that is breeding boys who become men like these 19 year olds…
…and girls, of course, who participate in their own exploitation. This look is the fashion, after all.
How do we do what’s right?
1. We channel our outrage where it’s needed, by stopping misogynistic sites – whatever and wherever they are – that have Internet reach and;
2. Teach our girls that their worth has NOTHING to do with their fervour to look a certain way to gratify boys’ sexual preferences (based more and more on porn), possibly gain their approval and therefore attain some sort of validation.
In terms of the text messages sent by Slipper (which were filth, by the way), I’m pretty sure that if you checked the mobile phones – hell, even just the Facebook Pages and statuses – of maaaany men, you would find much, much worse.
How about fighting them? This Facebook page had over 200,000 ‘likes’ (followers). Surely that’s more damaging and alarming than the texts between two men.
Ironically, last week’s incensed reaction from the public, turned a searing spotlight on those text messages – that were also leaked and given a massive amount of importance, fuelled by the media – messages with content that, should it be heard coming from a band of guys at the pub, would not have made anyone bat an eyelid.
The definition of misogyny is: a hatred of women.
But yesterday, the Macquarie Dictionary added a definition to the word:
– a deep prejudice against women.
This article from the Financial Review, Macquarie misogyny definition change reignites gender debate discusses the change.
I believe most men fall somewhere on the sexism spectrum and only men know where they themselves sit on that particular fence.
Wherever it is you sit – guys – will determine whether you think sites like the 12 Yr old Slut Memes deserves your action or whether you think it’s funny.
Do you think it’s funny?
How about channelling some indignation towards helping liberate our world of the endless and ATTAINABLE hatred of females infecting our world – especially on women and young girls like these. It is the sphere in which our kids and teens are developing and it’s an emergency.
Do you think you could rise up against that?
Start writing emails – start taking your business elsewhere – anything.
It worked against Alan Jones…keep going.
Deep Breath.
x
On the first International Day of the Girl (yesterday 11th Oct) – we’re reading about a 14 yr old girl who has been shot in the head by the Taliban for speaking up; wanting education for girls. She was labelled an infidel.
An INFIDEL.
Educating girls is the answer. Studies have shown that the more war-mongering nations, are the ones that restrict girls attending school.
This post from Crates and Ribbons is great.
Deep Breath.
x
The 11th of October is International Day of the Girl. Today, we raise our voices in support of girls worldwide, and pledge to double our efforts to invest in their future. Not only will today go down in history as being the first ever Day of the Girl, it is also made especially poignant by the case of Malala Yousafzai, who lies unconscious in hospital, having been shot in the head by the Taliban for speaking out about the importance of girls’ education.
Reading about the tragedy two days ago, I kept thinking of a picture I had seen a while ago, and I decided to look for it again:
And that’s what the Taliban’s actions have revealed in the end – fear. Because Malala is not just any 14-year-old girl. By publicly condemning the actions of the Taliban and advocating for the education of girls, she represents an…
View original post 238 more words
Another response to a comment.
October 10, 2012
Sorry, I’ve felt like a rabbit-in-headlights with what’s gone on over the last 24 (or so) hrs.
I got a great comment that had a nice mix of argument – without delving into the pits of horrible name calling and highly emotional, negative regurgitation.
Gravitar wrote:
I kinda agree. The comments re: Julia’s father are disgraceful that is true. Abbott and Jones have won no friends, nor votes, from it. However, this is politics and it is a dirty, grubby game (don’t forget Alan Jones comes from the political sphere) and you need a thick skin to survive. I can think of other ex-PM’s who have been on the giving and receiving end of unjustifiable sexist, racist and inappropriate comments and while this is not excusable, it is a reality of modern politics. Julia’s speech was largely valid, but she is a smart woman who should have buried Abbott by now based on his policy vacuum. Use theatrics by all means, but her speech themed on “what offends Julia” is not what will make her memorable or electable. Admittedly, Julia has the uncertainty of a hung parliament haunting her which would make it difficult to be an effective leader, however she needs to have a significant policy debate with Abbott and she needs to win… repeatedly. That’s how she will win more support within her own party and with the general public.
My response:
I saw a woman who had simply had enough – and it was invigorating. I didn’t see a politician – I saw a person, a woman, who stood up and said E.NOUGH.
Look at her controlled pacing – she is pissed.
And then to have Abbott put forward a motion to get rid of Mr Slipper, KNOWING that Parliament shouldn’t be influencing the court case that must ultimately pass judgement, was a dirty blow because he knew Julia Gillard was damned either way. The court case is also now completely flawed due to the leaking of those texts. A government can’t sway the court case as that would be grossly unfair. Anyone would feel completely betrayed by the system if they were about to face a court case in the spot Mr Slipper is in now.
So Tony Abbott put her, again, in a very difficult position.
This last point, as to why Julia couldn’t express her great dissatisfaction with Mr Slipper’s sexist behaviour in THAT way, is interestingly ABSENT from popular news reports – so the reaction to Julia’s ‘double-standards’ is based on misinformation.
Do you know what I just noticed as I was writing this? That I keep referring to Mr Slipper – with a Mr, because that’s how he’s continuously been refered as, by the media. This is also true to a lot of comments I’ve read on the Internet about this issue – women included – lots of women, actually. It’s a Mister for the disgusting misogynist – but Julia and ‘her’ (and much, much worse – including ‘cunt’) for our Prime Minister.
Julia Gillard had been set up – and she let rip. Wouldn’t you?
So I say, “You go, girl!”
Julie Bishop said that Julia Gillard had set back the women’s movement by decades.
Shame on her.
When in fact, it is she who has set us back, by standing side by side a sexist boss and turning her spite on the woman on the receiving end, who said, “Enough!”.
So much for the sisterhood.
Why would ANY woman want to go into politics? Where we are so DESPERATELY needed.
The sad part is that a whole lot of women will listen to Julie Bishop.
Our female Prime Minister stood up to the behaviours that were targeted towards her as a woman and she said “No, I’m not having it.”
She just propelled women forward in a wonderful way. Why would it get such global attention if it weren’t?
If people don’t like a leader, don’t vote for them. Speak with intelligent argument about them, not signs that say “Bitch” refering to our PRIME MINISTER.
It’s so pedestrian. Such an unintelligent way to debate…if you can call signs, debating.
Is she perfect? No. Who is?
Did she find herself with her back against the wall with the Carbon Tax? Yes.
What would you have done in her position – male or female?
Do we know deep down that this is a good tax? – that it has its heart in the right place? Yes.
And yet we subject this woman to such venom.
And for who? Abbott?
The man, who as you say (and agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY with), has a ‘policy vacuum’?
A man who has demonstrated unprecedented behaviour, that has only reared its ugly head since a woman has been voted in as Prime Minister?
You say you can recall ex-PMs being subjected to unjustifiable sexist comments. I’m only focusing on this one because yes, of course, there have been racist comments made.
But sexist?? I really can’t recall an equivalent – say, a woman opposition leader…oh, there hasn’t been one. OK, ANY female politician of influence standing in front of signs with the word “Prick” or doing an equivalent action. That would have made equally big news because it would have been a rarity…seeing as there’s hardly been any women in upper politics in the past.
The truth is that men have done it to each other because that’s the gender that’s always saturated parliament.
To say Julia ‘should have’ buried him by now, is not a reflection on her – it’s a reflection on our nation – a nation that swallows every bit of sensationalist (and sketchy) reporting, that’s starting to liken our news to a cheap soapy.
I wish Australia could just gain a little more sophistication in its conversation about politics. But the question I pose to everyone is:
Question #102: How did you expect Julia Gillard to respond – as a woman – knowing our daughters are watching?
Funnily enough, the WORLD has noted the significance of her speech. But not the journalists of Australia – ie the anti-Julia bandwagon that’s ‘popular’ with the general populace.
What a pity. Because yesterday, she was a legend.
Here is the transcript of what Ms Gillard said.
Thank you so much for your comment. As always.
Paula
PS This blog is 8 months old today! Woo Hooo!
x
Two Images.
September 19, 2012
1. This is what we’re capable of – but can’t seem to fulfil.
2. Now, read the above quote and then look down at the following image.
Click here to see a previous post, ‘A visual presentation…’
Question #99: How can we honestly expect to be taken seriously?
Deep Breath.
x
Incredible.
September 15, 2012
Yes – we’ve come far.
No argument.
But, on the other hand, we haven’t.
1897
Same demands, though – including ‘FREEDOM for BOTH sexes’.
It’s time.
Deep Breath.
x
Perfectly asked – Abortion #3.
September 13, 2012
The image above comes from an article called – Pro-birth, pro-life or pro-choice; a very simple question – and it states:
Once a child is born, it has needs that can include anything from medical care, food, shelter, adoptive services, various support services and clothing. Cuts in support systems for low-income women and children seem to contradict the pro-life belief system. Cuts in many programs that help provide care for these children have come under attack as the GOP pushes for “no new taxes” and cutting current spending. It seems that those who are the most vulnerable are not exempt from the pending cuts and this ties directly to the quote made by Sister Joan and begs the question: If you are pro-life, shouldn’t your concerns exist beyond the womb?
It is extremely hypocritical to pro-choice advocates to see pro-life advocates pushing for restricting a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body in one breath, then pushing to restrict tax dollars from being spent on necessary services to the poor in the next. It appears on the surface as if a woman who is forced to bear a child – whether conceived from rape, incest or other causes – she is then left struggling to find a way to care for the child with no help from the GOP.
Pro-life advocates have decided that in order to push their personal agenda on poor women, they will prevent them from having access to birth control, possible life-saving services and medical care by restricting and sometimes even defunding family planning. This leaves these women with no options. This has created rage and anger.
This leave only one final question: Are you pro-birth, pro-life or pro-choice?
Question #94: Which one are you?
Deep Breath.
x
PS – Actually, I’d like to end this post with a giggle. My friend Jacquie and I, were having a laugh about this Monty Python clip from The Meaning of Life, earlier today – because sometimes, you’ve just got to laugh!
WANT MORE?
HAHAHAhahahaha!! Good stuff.
Question #92: What do you think?
September 13, 2012
I saw the following segment when I was flicking channels. The sports part of the news came on and…well, you understand. Ellen was on and I saw Reece Witherspoon was coming up…and I like her and so I thought I’d stick around.
But it wasn’t an interview with Ellen, she was having ‘Tea with Sophia Grace and Rosie’.
I thought, on one level, it’s ‘cutish’ BUT for the most part I thought – This is sort of imagery and behaviour that is making our problem worse.
It’s cute, but ALL the compliments, from both the girls and (mainly) Reece, are about what they’re wearing and their attractiveness.
There is a moment where one of the girls breaks into singing a few lines of Adele’s song (Rolling in the Deep, I think it was)…and it’s wonderful. She’s amazing, actually.
So why the circus show?
Question #93: Why can’t we showcase every girl’s wonderfulness, without those narrow, fickle images where girls can only talk about how pretty they are?
I’d love you to watch it and tell me what you think…
Question #91: Doesn’t this infuriate you?
September 10, 2012
The following information comes from The Sydney Morning Herald (September 2 – Fathers’ Day):
“Women must work an extra 64 days each year to earn the same as their male colleagues, new figures show. The pay gap has also widened in the past year, prompting calls from the trade union movement for legislative change…
…On average, men earn 17.5 per cent more than women in comparable jobs.”
Come ON…
This information appeared next to an article about Alan Jones’ comment:
Alan Jones let rip a tirade on 2GB against Prime Minister Julia Gillard. This time it was about her promise to help get more women in the Pacific into parliament and other decision-making positions. Gillard argued raising the status of women was the best way to reduce the appalling domestic violence statistics in the region.
Jones didn’t agree. He claimed that, “Women are destroying the joint – Christine Nixon in Melbourne, Clover Moore here. Honestly.”
He then said, “There’s no chaff bag big enough for these people.” He has also previously said our Prime Minister should be put in one and thrown out to sea.
Such malice – and for what?
Let me just say – GOOD ON YOU, JULIA! There is nothing wrong with that wonderful vision for our sisters in the Pacific.
How interesting that a man like Alan Jones – who has the luxury to spread his poison over the airways, should find offense to this. How exactly is HIS life affected by this promise?
Does Alan Jones really give a rat’s bum about any of us? Obviously not, ESPECIALLY if you’re a woman…Oh, unless you listen to his show.
Federal Attorney-General Nicola Roxon responded by branding the Jones comment “good old fashioned sexism”.
Well it is.
But as the film Miss Representation pointed out – why would girls want to become a voice in our governments, when they are treated with SUCH contempt?
Fortunately, Jane Caro (awesome activist who wrote the above article) has started a small stir by creating the hashtag #destroyingthejoint – there’s also a FB site of the same name, although I’m not sure who started that one.
Who cares. It’s a chance to say that it’s simply NOT. ON.
More women in government – equal representation! Equal pay!
But as I’ve always said, it starts with us because men vote for men and women predominantly vote for men too. That’s not to say just vote any ol’ gal in – but our mindset has some changing to do.
You may not like Julia Gillard, but this promise is a wonderful one and we should all acknowledge it – not just oppose everything.
Deep Breath.
x
PS I posted this on my Questions for Women Facebook Page but it wouldn’t hurt to put it here too. There is a petition with Change.org asking for Alan Jones to apologise for his mysoginist and sexist comments.
Click here and have your voice heard!
Questions for Us 
