Found this on Daily Kos. Feel free to mosey on over there for blogger dhonnig's take and the reader comments, some of which are gut busters.
For my part, all I can say is, that this ad in Woman's Day magazine, is for one of those products women can live without but for giant corporations creating needs and then selling crap to satisfy them.
I mean, every woman considers her genitals before she weighs her professional options, right? But please, judge for yourself:
Which is why I just can't resist blogging this. I think it's brilliant but, I caution you, it's not for everybody. It's definitely not for the kids.
It's called 12 Years, and it's four minute, 3D computer animation written and directed by Daniel Nocke and designed and produced by Thomas Meyer-Hermann, Studio Film Bilder.
Speaking of pit bulls, about 1,000 people are expected to turn out this weekend for a massive demonstration in Toronto marking the fifth anniversary of Ontario's cruel and stupid ban against them. More info here, on Facebook.
Too often, sports pages and programming are dominated by men -- men reporters and columnists, men colour commentators, men team owners, men coaches, men players. In fact, if you think about it, you rarely hear the term ''male athlete.'' It's a given.
Meanwhile, when it's a woman at play, it's often qualified with ''female'' or ''women's'' or something similar.
It's never ''men's hockey,'' except maybe at the Olympics. It's always ''women's hockey.''
But, hey, I am all for celebrating women athletes. The more, the better. It's just that, when it's done, it's all about celebrating the good-looking ones, or celebrating them in a sexual way.
The article itself, How Power has Transformed Women's Tennis, is a rather dry analysis of how women in the sport today not only have more clout, on and off the court, but also have more physical strength, more muscle, more back in that backhand.
“When Chrissie and Martina were winning 36 majors,” Billie Jean King, the tennis legend, talking pure performance, not personality, recalled of the Chris Evert
versus Martina Navratilova rivalry of the late ’70s and early ’80s,
“everyone was complaining about only two good players, no depth. Now,
that was supposedly the golden age, and there’s no depth and only the
Williams sisters today? Give me a break. My lord, what I would give to
hit one ball like them.”
So far, so good right?
Except for this, an accompanying video/slide show showing sparkly, flowy,slow-mo shots of tennis champs such as Serena Williams, in action. Now, I am no prude as regular readers know, but I take exception to how these images are more shwing than swing.
Consider the video of Australia's Samatha Stosur. It barely shows her face, but spends plenty of time on her tubetop, in which she is clearly braless. Yes, I know. She chose her own outfit but, like most of the other videos, it has a vaguely soft-porn feel to it.
It explains how and why women have suffered through ages of ages -- and says something about so-called ''honour crimes'' which, by the way, happen in most religions.
"She was barren."
In the Bible it's always the woman that are "barren", never the men. And
when God "opens their womb," the resulting babies are always little
Dinah's brothers, to justify the massacre of a town for the rape of their sister, say:
"Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?" To the author of Genesis, rape is a
crime against the honor of men rather than against a woman. 34:31
Rachel dies in childbirth; but at least she had another son. And in the Bible, a
woman is expected to die happily as long as she has a son. 35:17-18
"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, ... nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." In the Bible, women are the
property of men; they are his possessions -- like an ox or an ass. 20:17
God explains how to go about selling your daughter -- and what to do if she fails to please
her new master. 21:7
When "Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord" he was told to count "every
male from a month old and upward." Women and girls didn't count as persons. 3:15-16
There's more. Go forth and readeth the whole thing.
Illustration: ''Lot and his daughters'' by Lucas van Leyden (ca. 1490-1533)
I thought it was just me but, judging from comments on my Facebook page, it's not.
There is indeed a lot of victim-shaming going on in the alleged domestic assault case involving Belleville, On. Police Chief Cory McMullan.
To recap quickly, two weeks ago, Chief McMullan, whose arm is still in a cast, admitted that she was the
victim of domestic violence. The small town was rife with rumours of the incident and, basically, she had no choice but to come out.
Without going into specifics, she said, “I do wish to let the citizens of Belleville know that the incident did result in injuries which required medical treatment.”
Her husband David McMullan, a 53-year-old retired police officer, has been charged with assault and released on a promise to appear in court Sept. 30. The couple has two teenaged children.
Residents in this city of 50,000 were busy trading tales on Wednesday about what triggered the incident last Friday.
Mayor Neil Ellis lashed out at those who would spread “gossip and innuendo.”
“We have a victim who needs community support and that’s where this should be going,” he said during an interview in his office.
Gossip is common in any politician’s life, he said. “I don’t pay attention to rumours.”
Surrounded by pictures and mementoes of his wife and three children, Ellis said he doesn’t know McMullan well and only “as the chief of police.” The 24-year policing veteran has held the position for just over a year.
“It is shocking,” he said of the attack. “No one can really make sense of any type of abuse, especially if it causes physical injury. This shows it can happen in any household.”
“The important thing here,” he added, “is Cory, er, the chief and the chief’s family. We have to support her and stand behind her.”
Now the buzz is Chief McMullan and Mayor Ellis were doing the horizontal mambo -- which could have been what, for lack of a better word, provoked husband David. Here's one account:
Mayor Neil Ellis admitted he was with Chief Cory McMullan the night she was allegedly attacked by her husband, but said it was completely innocent.
After two weeks of rumours circulating the town, Ellis said he had to speak out because it was starting to take a toll on his family.
Ellis, who shows no signs of having been attacked, admitted he was with McMullan the night of the alleged assault, but that she was just giving him a ride home.
On Aug. 6, a Friday night, he said he took his daughter to the movies and returned home shortly after 9 p.m., before driving his car back to the theatre and leaving it there for his son who works at the mall.
He began walking to a friend's house, when the chief pulled up and asked if he wanted a ride. He said she wanted to discuss city business.
The mayor said as they were driving, he looked in the rearview window and "someone just came flying in at about 90 miles per hour."
Ah yes, the proverbial loaded question. Here's what I mean: When headlines say somebody ''denies'' doing something, the implication is that the somebody was doing it -- ''doing it'' being the operative phrase in this case.
Now, I ask you. What was the point of these stories? Titillation? Justification?
Judging from some of the discussion on my Facebook page ... well ... here ...
Sounds to me like the Mayor was crewing (sic) the Police chief behind her husbands back, he found out, she pushed his buttons causing him to do something stupid and now they pretend nothing happened. What am I missing here?
And my response, expletive and name deleted:
Ah so she deserved to have her arm broken, xxx? She ''pushed his buttons?''
She ''caused'' him to do something stupid?
And you ask what you are missing?
The old crime of passion line. The one that justified murder once upon a time. She supposedly is responsible for having her arm broken because he presumably thought she was cheating on her.
Rather than conduct some real journalism, or delve into the very real problem of high rates of domestic violence in police families, the media preferred to get into that were-they-or-weren't-they scenario, as if it was in any way, shape or form relevant.
Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 2-4 times more common among police families than American families in general. A police department that has domestic violence offenders among its ranks will not effectively serve and protect victims in the community.5, 6, 7, 8 Moreover, when officers know of domestic violence committed by their colleagues and seek to protect them by covering it up, they expose the department to civil liability.7
The female officer is under intense pressure to conceal any trouble in her personal life, especially domestic violence. There is a strong cultural stigma against an officer being a victim. It may be rare that advocates receive a request for assistance from a female officer. When they do, however, they should see this as an indication that the abuse has escalated to an extremely volatile point, as many police officers would approach an advocate only as a last resort....
Let's face it. Police work can be highly stressful, and it can also be very violent. Cops can develop some very bad coping mechanisms.
Would that not have been better reporting?
Or am I just overly sensitive to how violence against women gets brushed aside, or to the back pages, unless there's a celebrity element to it?
While we're on the subject, Here's a brand new campaign in the U.K. It urges people not to ignore domestic violence but to call the police.
When you think about it, the issue of domestic violence has been ignored this month -- by the media.
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: I suddenly remembered where I found all that research about violence in police households. My friend Jude posted on my Facebook profile two weeks ago. Thanks GF!
Journalist Sheryl WuDunn, co-author with her husband New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof of Half the Sky, says it all at a recent TEDtalk.
H/T to my longtime -- from high school! -- friend Mark Takefman, who walks the talk in India.
UPPITY WOMAN DATE: Almost forgot. Under PM Stephen Harper's ''maternal health'' plan, women in these countries are not entitled to the reproductive freedom, including contraception, they would need to achieve equality.
Crazy right wing lady conbot Phyllis Schlafly, self-styled as America's ''leader of the pro-family movement
since 1972,'' exhausted from her travails against gays and lesbians, uppity women, healthcare advocates, liberals, anti-gun activists, etc. etc. etc., has now set her sights on that scourge of western society ... the single welfare mother!
Unmarried women, 70 percent of
unmarried women, voted for Obama, and this is because when you kick
your husband out, you've got to have big brother government to be your
Thursday, in an interview with Talking Points Memo, Schlafly repeated
her link of single women, Obama and welfare, and added.
"Yes, I said that. It's true too. All welfare goes to
No, there are no single welfare dads. No welfare disabled. No welfare elderly. No welfare veterans. No welfare gun victims. No welfare anything except Single! Welfare! Mothers! and their bastard babies (but Heaven forbid that they have abortions, eh Phyllis?)
Longtime readers -- and I do appreciate your loyalty and patience during my absence from the blogosphere
-- know that I have bitched loud and often about how US/Canada/NATO have used and abused women and their (human) rights as an excuse to continue the war in Afghanistan.
Oh, it's never about the oil, the pipelines, the mineral rights, the regional hegemony, or anything like that. No no. It's always about the women. Save the women. Think of the women. Even though Afghan women themselves have decried the current corrupt regime as well as the continued oppression of women which appears to have been stepped up because of the war.
Even though there have been numerous occasions when NATO has allowed women to be sold out.
The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband's house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn't run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose...
Now you would think I would be all for the exposure of the terrible treatment of women in Afghanistan, and that I would be cheering on the NATO foot soldiers who are dying because they believe they are fighting to make things right in that blighted country.
The thing is that I am all for these things and more. Much more.
But here's the other bigger thing. If the west gave a rat's tail about women's rights, it would also be in the Congo where women are being gang-raped daily in the fight for, among other things, the minerals that go into our iPods and mobile phones. It would not be in bed with the Saudi Arabian sexist apartheid state where women are chattel. It would not be bombing Afghan women and children, making the occupation worse and worse for them everyday.
And besides, wasn't the ostensible real purpose for going there in the first place to find the terrorist masterminds behind 9/11? (And let's not forget Prime Minister Stephen Harper's March 2006 speech about how our soldiers were also there to halt the drug trade.)
I don't know what the answer to Afghanistan's problem is but I do know that it doesn't come in the form of drones, tanks and fighter jets.
My principle -- and principal ;-) -- objection to this cover story is how it EXPLOITS the mutilation
of a beautiful young woman to promote the continued war that really,
let's not kid ourselves, has nothing to do with women's rights. I mean,
come on. And I am not the only one who says that.
... worth mentioning: the girl on the cover was attacked not in long
ago days of Taliban rule but with tens of thousands of U.S. troops in
I have to ask: In Time's mission to really "illuminate
what is actually happening on the ground" has it ever put on its cover
close-up images of 1) a badly wounded or dead U.S. soldier 2) an
Afghan killed in a NATO missile strike 3) an Afghan official, police
officer or military commander accepting a bribe from a Taliban war
lord. Alison Kilkenny has her own examples here.
No one makes light of the plight of women and children in Afghanistan
under the Taliban--and, contrary to (Time editor Rick) Stengel's claim, many Americans do
know about it. Indeed, liberal women's groups in the U.S. have raised
the issue often and expressed mixed feelings about staying (or even
escalating) in Afghanistan because of it. It's a serious issue. And
please see the response to Time by the Feminist Peace Network. Jezebel with another good take here.
Something tells me that no one at a the magazine's editorial meeting suggested a "What Happens if We Stay in Afghanistan" cover headline, which would have been accompanied by a photo of the corpse of an Afghan child killed in an airstrike or a house raid.
This is the same type of justification that the Soviets used (among
others) to explain why they should remain in Afghanistan: to save Afghan
women from the 'backward' fundamentalists. Foreign armies have always
sought to protect Afghan women from violence by fomenting violence
themselves. But in the end, just like the Soviets did backroom deals
with radical misogynist groups, the U.S. has been empowering non-Taliban
misogynist fundamentalists since the start of this war. There are
incidents happening every day in Afghanistan of women and girls being
harassed, raped, flogged and killed by pro-U.S. warlords and local
commanders that are not working with the Taliban -- these incidents are
rarely covered by the Western media. In many ways the U.S. occupation
has actually made things worse for Afghan women. Afghan women activists I
work with prefer to resist two threats to their security (the Taliban
and the U.S.-backed central government) instead of three (the third
being the U.S./NATO occupation) and have long called for U.S. forces to
leave. Time magazine is playing to age-old racist stereotypes: that
brown women need a foreign white army to save them from their men.
What a difference it would make in Afghanistan if, instead of spending hundreds of billions on bombs, we just gave all the money to the women and let them build a better society for everybody there.
The latest statistics show that 29 per cent of men admitted being distracted by short skirts
and low-cut tops in the Summer weather, leading to record numbers of accidents on the roads.
And according to car insurance company Sheilas' Wheels, the summer smash phenomenon is getting worse each year - in 2009 men made 16.4 per cent more claims during the Summer than in any other month.
Behavioural psychologist Donna Dawson explained: "Research shows that men are far more easily distracted behind the wheel than women.
"Men are more visually orientated and so distractions such as an attractive woman walking down the street can quickly take their attention away from driving and the job in hand.
Ah yes. If it's not those ''women drivers'' it's those ''women pedestrians.''
But what's this?
"Testosterone also plays a part, as it makes men more prone to aggression, especially when frustrated by a confined space such as a car - and men are quicker than women to expose such irritability in hot weather."
Except, of course, if it's a woman's ''time of the month,'' of course.
Antonia Zerbisias has been a Star columnist since 1989 but has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth. Her career ambition as an opinionator dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her "rude, obstreperous and bold." Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay. And, because she can take it as well as dish it out, she wants to hear what you have to say. Fire away!
Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Toronto Star or www.thestar.com. The Star is not responsible for the content or views expressed on external sites.
Distribution, transmission or republication of any material is strictly prohibited without the prior written permission of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. For information please contact us using our webmaster form. www.thestar.com online since 1996.