Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘institutional sexism’

Trigger warning: references to violence (including sexual violence) against women

I am sufficiently enraged/inspired enough to post.

I don’t have anything particularly new to say, just a couple of observations to make.

First: why, in this article at the Gruaniad, which is a list of the columnist’s top 10 books about missing persons, are the majority of the missing persons women?

Second: why, on the DVD covers for the Forsyte Saga, does series 1 have the warning “adult themes”, and series 2 have the warning “low level sex scene”, when series 1 includes a scene where a character is raped? (The sex scene – very low level indeed – in series 2 is consensual.)

Cross-posted at Hoyden About Town.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The SMH is at it again.

This is what I’m getting at:SMH front page clip showing an article about eliminating bingo wings (for women) in the Life & Style sectionSMH front page clip showing an article about eliminating bingo wings (for women) in the Life & Style section
(more…)

Read Full Post »

… and it looks like Selleys doesn’t want my business.

I saw this ad on television this evening:

Transcript:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

A tale of two legal systems.

In each legal system, there is a woman has been sexually assaulted.

Each woman is subjected to some sort of abuse by the person who is supposed to be prosecuting the sexual assault.

The similarities end there.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Which can be found in the article linked here: the Australian MSM is not afraid to call anti-abortion groups by that name.

However, one disappointing similarity: an article about belief in myths about emergency contraception is in the “Life & Style” section. At least it’s in “Wellbeing”, ie health, but then, the top few articles in that section at the moment (other than the EC one) are: diet, diet, winter illnesses spread by food workers, diet, diet, let’s blame women who drink alcohol, adult anorexia (primarily about women) … now tell me, at which gender is this section primarily aimed?

Read Full Post »

As I understand it, the rationale for the much discussed burqa ban (recently instituted in France, but also considered elsewhere, as the linked posts and many, many others discuss) is to prevent people hiding their faces because hiding one’s face while talking in person inhibits communication.

That’s as may be. I accept that it is slightly off-putting to speak to someone when you can’t see hir face and in a situation where you would normally be able to see hir face. But I have two points to make. First we do speak to people all the time without being able to see their faces – on the telephone. This has not exactly caused a breakdown in society.*

Secondly, if you are concerned that the wearing of the burqa reduces your ability to communicate, why is the rational reaction to say “well you can’t come and see me at all?” That is the reaction of one Conservative MP in the UK.

Then again, I suppose that party is not known for logical or rational reactions when it comes to prejudice.

* Although having said that, research published in 2004 by researchers at Cornell (I couldn’t find any link to the actual paper, but the names of the researchers are Hancock, Ritchie and Thom-Santelli) did show that people were more likely to lie over the telephone than face-to-face or in an email. Still, my point holds (ie: no breakdown in society), especially since it’s not necessarily clear why people are more likely to lie over the telephone – it could be due to the difference in the psychological effect of someone’s actual presence as well as simply eye contact.

Read Full Post »

TRIGGER WARNING: This story sickens me. But can we please have some perspective on who to blame?

I repeat a VERY STRONG TRIGGER WARNING if you’re clicking through. If you’re not, there’s a summary after the jump, and I repeat the TRIGGER WARNING.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: