feminist blogs

Original Target logo. 1962. Image via Wikipedia Recently, Change.org‘s Michael A. Jones covered a “public relations” misstep by the highly-recognized corporation, Target. It was revealed that the chain had donated $150,000 to a known antigay political figure in Minnesota (home to Target HQ). The matter of whether or not Target officials will work on rebuilding [...]

Read more global feminist posts at Gender Across Borders.

I saw this on Feministing, and thought it was pretty interesting. This domestic violence awareness campaign from London puts a specific emphasis on the responsibility of those who might hear or witness this type of violence to call 911 (or 999 in England) for someone who might not be able to.

They also use an interactive video to convey this message -- depending on if you "choose" (by clicking) to call the police or not, you will get a different ending to the video.

Trigger warning.

The way medical professionals talk to women about weight makes me so angry sometimes. The conversation never seems to be about nutrition or fitness when we talk about women- even in a doctor’s office. It is about weight loss, weight management, and weight control. My doctor never asks me if I exercise regularly or if I eat my 5 fruits and veggies a day- he just weighs me, like that reveals all there is to know about my overall fitness level.

This obsession with weight is not only a reductive way to look at overall health, but it can be dangerous. Eating disorders are on the rise in the U.S., partly due to our culture’s obsession with weight. If you are a young person who is at risk for an eating disorder, the last thing you need is your physician reinforcing the attitude that weight is everything.

Of course, like with most bad things, women suffer from our health care system’s obsession with weight more acutely than men do. A recent study revealed that doctors “recommend greater weight loss to female patients than to equivalently overweight male patients.” It is unclear why this is, but the study’s authors suggest “societal bias is one possibility.” I understand that doctors are just people, and that they internalize the same impossibly thin images of women that we all do. But, really, if doctors can’t be objective about what is a healthy weight for a woman, who can?

I am particularly upset about this tonight because of an experience I had in doctor’s office waiting to be tested for strep earlier today.

I had waited for four hours when a young-ish physician’s assistant called me in. He took my temp (I still had the fever I had that morning) and asked me to step on a scale.

He asked me how much I weigh as I stood on the scale and I gave him a rough estimate. As the numbers got larger he said, “Well, someone has been eating some barbeque.” As the numbers got even larger, he said “Well, someone has been eating a lot of barbeque.”

I let him know, in words only someone with strep who has been waiting four hours can, that he should shut up.

Later, the asshole came in again. As he was putting the cotton swab down my throat he remarked, “For someone so uptight, you don’t have much of a gag reflex.”

I reminded him that there are laws against sexual harassment, finally got someone else to help me, and later filed a complaint.

When he made the first comment about barbeque, I thought maybe he was just an asshole, not necessarily a sexist one. When he made the crack about my gag reflex, I knew he was sexist and suspected that might have been the reason he thought it was okay to insult my weight.

When I heard from the other room that his response after weighing an obese man was “Alright, step down, please,” my suspicions were confirmed.

So what have your experiences with medical professionals been? Have you ever experienced them making inappropriate comments about your weight or seen them treat women differently than men?

Come on; don’t leave me ranting here alone.

I just saw a commercial on TV for Kotex's line of menstruation products, called "U." I have to admit: normally, I tune out during commercial breaks, but this completely got my attention because it expressed basically every single qualm I have with your average tampon/pad ads:



I did some YouTube'ing, and not only do their commercials address how obnoxious tampon ads are, but they also address how uncomfortable people, particularly men, get when women talk about their periods:



And this one, again addressing the ridiculousness of most tampon/pad ads, made me laugh:



I also noticed that one of their ads posted on YouTube was tagged with "feminism." All of this was a bold move on Kotex's part, and although I don't use disposable pads/tampons (not since I bought my LunaPads), I'm intrigued.

Visit their YouTube channel or their website to learn more. Their website even has a pledge you can sign that starts out with:

Yeah, I have a period. And a vagina, not a va-jay-jay. It's what makes me a woman. But society and the media aren't being straight with me. It's like there's a code of secrecy and it makes me feel uncomfortable when talking about these topics.

Is this too good to be true?

Wow, just when I thought Mel Gibson's existence couldn't get anymore appalling, the internet gets ahold of his latest disgustingly misogynist and racist rant. It was recorded by his girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva. "Horrific," "offensive," and "repulsive" are all understatements.

Here's a part of it, from AlterNet, where Gibson yells at Grigorieva for looking like a "Vegas whore." SERIOUS TRIGGER WARNING.

You go out in public and it's a fucking embarrassment to me. You look like a fucking bitch in heat. And if you get raped by a pack of niggers it will be your fault. Alright? Because you provoked it. You are provocatively dressed all the time with your fake boobs that you feel you have to show off. I don't like it. I don't want that woman. I don't want you. I don't trust you. I don't love you.

Even though this is absolutely detestable language, I'm posting this here because this is an unfortunately common sentiment today: dress like a "whore," and you're asking for it. Not too long ago, I was out at a bar with some friends, dressed in my usual jeans, boots, and a tank top with a cardigan over it. Some charming gentleman tried to hit on me, I took him I was married to get him off my back, to which he responded, "If you were my wife and you went out looking like that, I would smack you around." Nice.

The Sexist actually recently posted a really nice PSA from Scotland that dealt with this issue.



Seriously, this shouldn't be such a hard concept to grasp. Women NEVER "ask for it," and even if a woman does go out in public wearing a short dress or whatever and ends up getting raped, the fault ultimately lies with the rapist. To say otherwise is preposterous.

Something that often strikes me about the progressive left within the UK is its surprising ignorance regarding the need for a progressive movement to tackle the increasing objectification of women. The ‘ideal’ woman pushed in everyone’s face daily, undermines women’s rights. Yes, women who get involved in the sex industry have the right to do so, but equally, all women have the right to be able to walk into their local shop without several pornographic magazines being shoved in their face, or to open up a tabloid like The Sun (some people still buy the Sun I am told) and not to have to turn to a Page 3.

This issue was covered well by Clare Short’s Page 3 Bill, something I support whole heartedly after reading her book. Recently both Labour and the LibDems committed themselves into looking into whether Page 3 should be banned (so a reopening of what was a very popular Bill by Short), only the Tories (Theresa May) defied the request. The difference with Page 3 to pornographic magazines is that it is in newspapers that everyone can buy and their direct purpose is to inform people of the daily ongoing – these are not catered magazines such as FHM – which should be still sold, but face cover blanketing. If you then say, well women don’t need to buy these newspapers if they don’t want to look at it, well you are then saying that women can deny themselves these news sources as frankly we can’t be bothered to go and buy a pornographic magazine. It is utter ignorance.

The sort of arguments I am purporting now are often branded as radical feminist loony ramblings - if only we had a more Australian outlook we might actually see the government take a more progressive pro women stance in relation to key issues . Instead, the direction of this government, considering the increase in charity and voluntary obligations (women are more likely to be in these sectors), and Frank Field’s recent comments, is to undermine women’s rights even more. This is in marked contrast to Australia, which itself has just seen their first ever woman Prime Minister take office.

Whilst the code is voluntary, the Australian government has proposed a very progressive set of guidelines for runways and magazines – which includes (the following information has been taken from here):

• “Designers will be asked not to hire either models with a dangerously low body mass index (BMI) or excessively muscular men
• Diets for rapid weight loss and cosmetic surgery advertisements will phased out of magazines, and clothing labels will be asked to stock a wide range of sizes.
• Specifically the government will award a “body image approval rating” to magazines, modeling agencies, and fashion labels that meet the following criteria:

-Disclose when images have been retouched and refrain from enhancing photographs in a way that changes a person’s body shape, for example, lengthening their legs or trimming their waist, or removing freckles, lines and other distinguishing marks.

-Only use models aged 16 or older to model adult clothes – both on catwalks and in print.

-Refrain from using models who are very thin — or male models who are excessively muscular.

-Stocking clothing in a wide variety of sizes in shops to reflect the demand from customers.

-Not promoting rapid weight loss, cosmetic surgery, excessive exercising or any advertisements or editorial content that may promote a negative body image.”

Whilst the voluntary aspect of the code will pose problems, it can only be hoped that it catches on amongst the industry as they realise that it may actually gain them more respect and sales (capitalism, nuff said). Hopefully then we might see an international movement of progressive gender politics gain a greater momentum.

Over the weekend, the Australian government unveiled a new body image initiative, created in partnership with the Butterfly Foundation, an eating disorders awareness and prevention group. The initiative includes a voluntary code of conduct for magazines, designers, retailers and modeling agencies, who will be recognized as "body image friendly" if they adhere to the recommendations of the government's National Advisory Group on Body Image. Those recommendations include:

"disclosing and avoiding the digital enhancement of images; banning ultra-thin female models or overly muscular male ones, in addition to models under the age of 16 to advertise adult clothes; employing a greater diversity of ethnicities and model body sizes; eschewing editorial and advertising content that promotes negative body image through rapid weight loss and cosmetic surgery, and, for retailers, carrying a wider variety of clothing sizes that better reflects the demands of the community."

According to recent findings from the University of Queensland, 80% of Australian women are dissatisfied with their bodies, and 90% know other women who are unhappy with their own bodies.

Given the role of the fashion and magazine industries in shaping and supporting ideas about ideal body shapes, it's important that any strategy designed to combat poor body image include them. Without movement from the industry, our chances of seeing a wider range of shapes in clothes and in models remain, well, slim. That's why I'm pleased that this initiative has taken steps to involve the industry, even if it's on a voluntary basis.

That said, the implementation of an industry-focused code of conduct is only one part of the comprehensive, multi-pronged strategy that was outlined last year when the body image advisory group was formed. At the time, Julie Parker, General Manager of the Butterfly Foundation, called for schools to take a leading role in combating the problem of poor body image among children and adolescents. She suggested guidelines for creating a body image friendly school environment, which would include "body image specific statements in anti-bullying policies to prohibit appearance related teasing, and the training of teachers in the early identification of negative body image and eating disorders." She also recommended including community organizations and parents in the strategy.

Apparently, this new initiative is the first of its kind in the world, unique in its view of "negative body image and associated issues of low self esteem, poor self confidence and eating disorders as serious health and societal issues that need to be addressed in a comprehensive way across our society."

I'm interested to see what comes next, and I hope that we'll start to see movement from the fashion industry, as well as from other stakeholders like schools and community organizations, in the next few months.

There's more information about the initiative, including the Youth Minister's full statement, here.

Via Jezebel:

Today Spirit Airlines came out with this advertisement for coastal flights, featuring a greased-up woman in a bikini, with the header: “Check Out The Oil On Our Beaches.”

This ad is particularly tacky for multiple reasons– exploiting women as well as the oil crisis. This time, it’s not just the feminists who are upset. Spirit received so many complaints, it took down the ad and posted this apology on its site:

It is unfortunate that some have misunderstood our intention with today’s beach promotion.  We are merely addressing the false perception that we have oil on our beaches, and we are encouraging customers to support Florida and our other beach destinations by continuing to travel to these vacation hot spots.

I guess it’s really too much to expect from a company whose previous ad campaigns featured a game of “digging for Jimmy Hoffa” as well as the following tag line: We’re No Virgin! We’ve Been Cheap and Easy For Years!

What are your thoughts on this ad?

As a member of the Order of Fat Curmudgeonly Feminist Hermits, there are few months that I view with more trepidation than June. Not only am I deluged with invitations to social events I dread attending, but I’m also deeply immersed in the advertising that surrounds such social events.

I am referring, of course, to pool parties and weddings.

You’d think that I’d be fans of both of these events because they involve many of my favourite things, like water, free food, dancing, and opportunities to observe drunk people in their natural habitat. However, there’s a big elephant in the room at these events. The elephant in the room being, naturally, the lack of elephants in the room; if you plan on attending a pool party or being the guest of honour at a wedding, you had better be as svelte as possible.

Continue reading at Feministe …

Lordy lord lord these photos of Cristiano Ronaldo are nice, even if that underwear doesn’t look very comfortable. Thanks for lookin out, Aminatou.