I need new sneakers.
Fear not, this post isn't going to revolve solely (ha!) around my need for new athletic footwear but the fact I'm still wearing a pair of sneakers with a giant hole in the bottom of the left one *is* what inspired this post.
I don't generally care for sneakers. I only wear them to and from work and when I go to the gym. Truth be told, I hate footwear in general. Have you ever heard of bras being referred to as "boobie zoos"? That's much how I feel about shoes. Foot zoos. Hate 'em. But much like math, it's a necessary evil. So, I buy sneakers.
Over the years, I've mainly purchased Nike sneakers because when I spend the good hour or two it takes me to purchase one lousy pair of shoes, I simply wind up feeling the most comfortable in their shoes. But there has always been that nagging little voice in my head telling me to buy a different brand because of Nike's alleged repeated asshattery, such as their piss poor child labour laws and the likelihood that little Tommy and Tammy were paid $.05 for every eight pairs of shoes they produced while I'm forking over close to $100 a pair. But I have a really difficult time with boycotting.
Everyday, companies are in the news for one reason or another, often with bad press. Most recently, I gave up Starbucks for a bit because of their lousy-ass handling of a teenager's sexual assault claim. What did I get this morning on my way into work? A tasty little nonfat white mocha with raspberry. Back in 2006, the Marriott Hotel chain was in the news for claiming a woman who was raped at gunpoint in front of her children was to blame. Have I stayed in a Marriott since then? Indeed. Is it fairly likely I'll stay in a Marriott again? It is. Obviously, there are far more instances of companies using questionable practices and my continued patronization of those companies. But if I boycott every company whose practices I disagree with, I'm going to be left on the Wells St. bridge asking for change right alongside the guitar playing homeless guy. Although, I *will* take this opportunity to let you know, Mr. Polanski, that I very much would enjoy seeing The Ghost Writer. But I'm going to take that entertainment hit and let your film fall into the "ain't never gonna happen" category because I can't stomach even a penny of my money finding its way back to you.
But back to Nike. After everyone's favourite hoops-throwing rapist had his case dropped, Nike was the first company to 'take him back.' The only people who know what happened in that Denver hotel room are Kobe and his accuser but my default is to believe a victim. But no matter whether he raped that woman or not, his first post-rape case commercial for Nike was this:
In it, we see him shooting hoops and hear his voice telling us, Love me or hate me; it's one or the other. Always has been. Hate my game, my swagger. Hate my fade away, my hunger. Hate that I'm a veteran. A champion. Hate that. Hate it with all your heart. And hate that I'm loved for the exact same reasons.
Feel free to call me a humourless prude of a feminist but that shit just rubs me the wrong way. If you were, to say, Google some of his earlier commercials, you'll (hopefully) notice quite a difference between those and the latter ones after his case was dropped.
And there's Tiger's new craptastic commercial.
Cue Tiger looking all sad and lonely while looking at the camera and listening to his dead father say, "Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive. To promote discussion. I wanna find out what your thinking was. I wanna find out what your feelings are. And, did you learn anything?"
While I don't believe Kobe had consensual sex with the woman who accused him of rape, from what's been told to the public, Tiger *did* have consensual sex with his mistresses. Sure, he's a massive asshat with a serious Madonna / Whore complex (Tiger, if you're reading, here's a tip: the women dudes want to fuck? They can be the very same women dudes also want to marry. They need not be separate.) but I don't give a flying golf ball what or who Tiger sticks his dick in, provided it's a consensual act. Even so, I think Nike's ad is in piss poor taste and it gives me the creeps.
And now, we've got this Major Douchenozzle, Ben Roethlisberger. Yet again, he's been accused of sexual assault (that's three times, for those who are keeping track). Even if I allowed for the "bitches always put out, feel regret and then cry rape" argument (which I don't), exactly how many women is it going to take before it's acknowledged this guy has a serious entitlement complex? No criminal charges does not equal innocence and in the very least, Roethlisberger is a fratboy-esque jock who spends his free time drunkenly pawing at women. But it's no surprise that Nike continues to stand by him.
Once, twice, three times you've proved yourselves to be a company of jagoffs, Nike. Remember when you suspended Michael Vick because of his love of vicious dog fighting? Yeah, me too. I'm no marketing executive or genius business woman but wouldn't it just be cheaper to put out a press release stating "Nike believes 100% that dogs are man's best friend. Cruelty and abuse toward animals will be taken very serious and the abusers will be punished. Abuse and disrespecting women? Eh, we're gonna go ahead and let those slide."
I hope Adidas foot zoos are comfortable.
Showing posts with label sexual assault. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexual assault. Show all posts
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
a pet peeve
Shortly after I moved to Chicago, I was on my way to the gym one Saturday morning when a man who was walking toward me held out his hand in one of those, "excuse me, Miss?" gestures. It wasn't at all rude and he didn't encroach upon my personal space, which is why I took off my headphones. He proceeded to tell me how good he thought I looked (apparently, the 'just rolled out of bed' look really does do it for some people) and asked for my phone number. I politely told him I couldn't do that; partly because I wasn't about to prove right any of the 'naive small town girl in the big city' stereotypes but mainly because it caught me entirely off guard. That shit just doesn't happen to me.
The first couple times his number showed up on my cell phone, I ignored it. Eventually, I picked it up, we chatted for a bit, and he asked me out. Strike that, he asked me what kind of wine I liked and if I wanted to come over to his place. Um, yeah...a world of no. We eventually agreed to meet at T's Restaurant & Bar for lunch that weekend. We ate, we chatted and we had a perfectly fine time. He was really quite attractive and perfectly polite and very obviously made a genuine attempt to get to know me during lunch. But for several reasons, at that point in time, I just wasn't having it so we went our separate ways after our meeting, with me having no intention of seeing him again. Obviously, he didn't feel the same way because he called again. And again. And again. Not in an obnoxious, every-half-an-hour way...he called maybe every few days or so. Eventually, I talked to a male friend about it because Clueless Me had absolutely no idea how to simply tell someone I wasn't interested in him and I remember him telling me, "unless you explicitly tell a guy you're not interested, chances are he's going to hang on to the hope that you are interested until you either are interested or you tell him otherwise."
So, I went with the latter. I answered his call one day and at first, told him I just wasn't ready for any kind of relationship, to which he responded with asking me when I thought that might change. No idea, pal. So, I told him I simply wasn't interested and that if that should ever change, I'll give him a call. And that was that.
I told you that story in order to give a little background as to why this one pisses me off as it does.
Woman Beaten After Rejecting Man's Advances
My biggest pet peeve is people with a sense of entitlement. People who believe they simply deserve whatever it is they want because they want it. I don't know how this woman told the man she wasn't interested but it doesn't matter. Because she said 'no' in whatever form in which she said it, he beat the piss out of her. He was under the assinine assumption that because he's a man, he's entitled to the woman of his choice. I've come to realize over the years why it is I feel so strongly about doing something, no matter how big or how small, to combat sexual assault. And toward the very top of that list is because I feel so strongly about people with an entitlement complex.
You can read all the books, articles, blogs, new stories there are out there involving violence against women (and for that matter, violence, in general) but it really boils down to this one, oh-so-simple fact.
The first couple times his number showed up on my cell phone, I ignored it. Eventually, I picked it up, we chatted for a bit, and he asked me out. Strike that, he asked me what kind of wine I liked and if I wanted to come over to his place. Um, yeah...a world of no. We eventually agreed to meet at T's Restaurant & Bar for lunch that weekend. We ate, we chatted and we had a perfectly fine time. He was really quite attractive and perfectly polite and very obviously made a genuine attempt to get to know me during lunch. But for several reasons, at that point in time, I just wasn't having it so we went our separate ways after our meeting, with me having no intention of seeing him again. Obviously, he didn't feel the same way because he called again. And again. And again. Not in an obnoxious, every-half-an-hour way...he called maybe every few days or so. Eventually, I talked to a male friend about it because Clueless Me had absolutely no idea how to simply tell someone I wasn't interested in him and I remember him telling me, "unless you explicitly tell a guy you're not interested, chances are he's going to hang on to the hope that you are interested until you either are interested or you tell him otherwise."
So, I went with the latter. I answered his call one day and at first, told him I just wasn't ready for any kind of relationship, to which he responded with asking me when I thought that might change. No idea, pal. So, I told him I simply wasn't interested and that if that should ever change, I'll give him a call. And that was that.
I told you that story in order to give a little background as to why this one pisses me off as it does.
Woman Beaten After Rejecting Man's Advances
My biggest pet peeve is people with a sense of entitlement. People who believe they simply deserve whatever it is they want because they want it. I don't know how this woman told the man she wasn't interested but it doesn't matter. Because she said 'no' in whatever form in which she said it, he beat the piss out of her. He was under the assinine assumption that because he's a man, he's entitled to the woman of his choice. I've come to realize over the years why it is I feel so strongly about doing something, no matter how big or how small, to combat sexual assault. And toward the very top of that list is because I feel so strongly about people with an entitlement complex.
You can read all the books, articles, blogs, new stories there are out there involving violence against women (and for that matter, violence, in general) but it really boils down to this one, oh-so-simple fact.
Friday, June 19, 2009
it is NOT a weapon
A bunch of safe sex advertisements
Most of these, I like. If MTV is looking to turn me one while reminding me of the importance of being safe, consider it done! And the one with the girl at her computer makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
This one, on the other hand, does not:
Image #1:
I loathe "penis as a weapon" imagery but whatever. It does have the ability to become a deadly weapon. Fine, I get it.
Image #2:
Right, yes. If I take precautions, it's less likely said penis will become a deadly weapon.
The problem I have is with Image #3, which I'm providing in a link because of the main problem I have with it: The copy reads, "Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom."
Really? Did nobody in the marketing group responsible for this ad think it could possibly be triggering to someone who has been a victim of sexual assault or gun violence? Hell, I haven't been and it still makes me cross me legs and cringe to see a gun pointed at some random woman's snatch. Then again, it's really not some random woman. It's some random headless, humanity-free hole because let's face it...nobody wants to look at a face when they're thinking about fucking (or hurting) a hot, naked chick, do they?
Which leads me to the second point. This woman is very obviously shaved or waxed. So not only is a gun pointed at her, it's pointed at the oh-so-pretty-every-woman-must-have-one-so-she-looks-like-a-little-girl bald bajingo. I've got absolutely nothing against keeping the nether regions nice and tidy but for the love of 70s porn, can I please see a stray hair somewhere? And the hairless images never come with tips about the pros and cons of shaving or waxing. It comes along with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle implication that dudes dig it so we should be digging it too. Apparently, even with a gun pointed at it, it needs to meet the socially-accepted standards of beautiful.
Now, the copy. Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom. I'm all for that. As every person does, I have every right in the world to decide how someone comes into contact with and touches my body. Every woman absolutely should take it upon herself to make sure she (and her partner) are protected. But who's making the demands here? If you're the one sans gun power, you're the one without the ability to make demands. The goal of any safe sex ad should be to empower the people looking at it to realize they have the right and responsibility to ensure their safety and sexual health. I see no female empowerment when a gun is pointed between one's legs.
I asked a male friend for his opinion and what he thought when first seeing the ad. His response was:
I'm almost done reading The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women and this ad reminded me of the tools abstinence supporters use to get their silly little point across, which are almost always rooted in fear. And it drives me absolutely batty when sex is portrayed as something terrifying.
Scaring people into not having it is not the way to get people to start subscribing to your idea of morality. Shaming those who do is not the way to show them the error of their ways (especially since it's neither shameful nor sinful). Withholding it is not a way to punish a nagging spouse. Using it as a bartering tool is not the way to get what you want. Manipulating, coercing, forcing someone to do it is not the way to assert your misplaced feelings of dominance.
It is NOT a weapon. It's sex.
Most of these, I like. If MTV is looking to turn me one while reminding me of the importance of being safe, consider it done! And the one with the girl at her computer makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.
This one, on the other hand, does not:
Image #1:
I loathe "penis as a weapon" imagery but whatever. It does have the ability to become a deadly weapon. Fine, I get it.Image #2:
Right, yes. If I take precautions, it's less likely said penis will become a deadly weapon.The problem I have is with Image #3, which I'm providing in a link because of the main problem I have with it: The copy reads, "Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom."
Really? Did nobody in the marketing group responsible for this ad think it could possibly be triggering to someone who has been a victim of sexual assault or gun violence? Hell, I haven't been and it still makes me cross me legs and cringe to see a gun pointed at some random woman's snatch. Then again, it's really not some random woman. It's some random headless, humanity-free hole because let's face it...nobody wants to look at a face when they're thinking about fucking (or hurting) a hot, naked chick, do they?
Which leads me to the second point. This woman is very obviously shaved or waxed. So not only is a gun pointed at her, it's pointed at the oh-so-pretty-every-woman-must-have-one-so-she-looks-like-a-little-girl bald bajingo. I've got absolutely nothing against keeping the nether regions nice and tidy but for the love of 70s porn, can I please see a stray hair somewhere? And the hairless images never come with tips about the pros and cons of shaving or waxing. It comes along with the subtle and sometimes not so subtle implication that dudes dig it so we should be digging it too. Apparently, even with a gun pointed at it, it needs to meet the socially-accepted standards of beautiful.
Now, the copy. Girls, protect yourself. Demand your partner wear a condom. I'm all for that. As every person does, I have every right in the world to decide how someone comes into contact with and touches my body. Every woman absolutely should take it upon herself to make sure she (and her partner) are protected. But who's making the demands here? If you're the one sans gun power, you're the one without the ability to make demands. The goal of any safe sex ad should be to empower the people looking at it to realize they have the right and responsibility to ensure their safety and sexual health. I see no female empowerment when a gun is pointed between one's legs.
I asked a male friend for his opinion and what he thought when first seeing the ad. His response was:
That a man's penis can be seen as a weapon and some men see women as a place to use their weapon.Interesting. Sex (whether safe or not) wasn't the first thing on his mind...violence was.
I'm almost done reading The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women and this ad reminded me of the tools abstinence supporters use to get their silly little point across, which are almost always rooted in fear. And it drives me absolutely batty when sex is portrayed as something terrifying.
Scaring people into not having it is not the way to get people to start subscribing to your idea of morality. Shaming those who do is not the way to show them the error of their ways (especially since it's neither shameful nor sinful). Withholding it is not a way to punish a nagging spouse. Using it as a bartering tool is not the way to get what you want. Manipulating, coercing, forcing someone to do it is not the way to assert your misplaced feelings of dominance.
It is NOT a weapon. It's sex.
Friday, September 19, 2008
do NOT insert a smiley face here
On the bus the other night on my way home from work, I was sitting by a young girl who was obviously coming home from school or the babysitter's, along with her mother. Her mother was in the seat next to her and a guy was standing in front of her (rush hour bus = packed). For almost the entire ride, from when the guy got on and when I got off, he stared at the little girl. Now and then, he'd have to move aside for someone getting off the bus or the crazy-assed bus driver who went entirely too fast for having a full bus and every time, the guy's gut (he was a bigger guy with a belly) seemed to go directly in the little girl's direction. Every now and then, she kind of wriggled in her seat a bit or cozied up to her mom. That's when he smiled the most.
It was fucking creepy. I came super close to saying, "hey asshat, do you think maybe you could not stare at this 6- or 7-year-old girl for the entire fucking bus ride?" but I didn't because I had no idea what stop he was getting off at and if it was mine...not a desireable situation.
So when I got off the bus, I very obviously must have looked disusted because two additional asshats were walking toward me and stopped and asked, "damn baby, why you look so pissed? Who you pissed off at?"
To which I replied, "fuck off" and went along my merry way. I think the next time, I'm going to say something along the lines of, "the next time I find out my mother just died, I'll slap a smile on my face for ya!" or "just found out I have HIV. Here's my cheery smile...hope it makes your day!"
I don't generally smile when I'm walking around. I generally look pretty much like a bitch. Most of the time, it's not because I'm in a particularly pissed off mood or because I'm constantly a bitch, it's just who I am. When I want to smile, I smile. But my default face isn't "everything's coming up roses."
Which is apparently a good thing because my smile may just be interpreted as provocative and cause someone to beat me to death with a fire extinguisher.
I don't care if this woman had a vagina or an obvious-to-the-world dong. Or two obvious-to-the-world dongs.
I hope this dude's ass rots in jail.
It was fucking creepy. I came super close to saying, "hey asshat, do you think maybe you could not stare at this 6- or 7-year-old girl for the entire fucking bus ride?" but I didn't because I had no idea what stop he was getting off at and if it was mine...not a desireable situation.
So when I got off the bus, I very obviously must have looked disusted because two additional asshats were walking toward me and stopped and asked, "damn baby, why you look so pissed? Who you pissed off at?"
To which I replied, "fuck off" and went along my merry way. I think the next time, I'm going to say something along the lines of, "the next time I find out my mother just died, I'll slap a smile on my face for ya!" or "just found out I have HIV. Here's my cheery smile...hope it makes your day!"
I don't generally smile when I'm walking around. I generally look pretty much like a bitch. Most of the time, it's not because I'm in a particularly pissed off mood or because I'm constantly a bitch, it's just who I am. When I want to smile, I smile. But my default face isn't "everything's coming up roses."
Which is apparently a good thing because my smile may just be interpreted as provocative and cause someone to beat me to death with a fire extinguisher.
I don't care if this woman had a vagina or an obvious-to-the-world dong. Or two obvious-to-the-world dongs.
I hope this dude's ass rots in jail.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
city livin' sexual harassment
Quick re-cap:
1. MTA gets set to launch an anti-sexual harassment subway campaign
2. Woman writes an op-ed piece regarding the upcoming ads
3. Douchebag, while entitled to his opinion, informs the woman of it in this delightfully offensive, sexist stupid ass letter:
Dear Courtney,
I read your opinions about the MTA raising awareness about sexual misconduct on the subways and found it very naive and written from a very white-middle-class-women-studies-privaleged perspective. You are correct that women have been dealing with this kind of stuff from guys for years, but what about how women dress in the subways? Today (after reading your opinion) while on the subway, I saw a woman sit near me with a very low cut shirt and very large tits...she looked hot! I totally stared at her tits any chance I could get...which is probably why she wore the shirt right? I also see scores of women with those cotton summer dresses on and just a thong underneath, so you see their asses bobbling around under the skirt. That sounds like blaming the victim right? Well when you leave almost nothing to the imagination, it doesn't take much for it to run wild. This is not to say you whip your cock out at any moment or press your boner on any tart that wears a hot outfit, but where they "asking for it"? I know you are probably fuming by now, but from the looks of your picture you probably don't get sexually harrassed much, so maybe you are jealous of all of the hot-ass bitches with the big titties, shaved snatches and round asses that get some action underground.
hells to the motherfuckin' yeah!!!!
ChanceNoble (snhca@exit3.com)
Typos and misspellings, of course, are his.
I was initially going to email this asshat but I decided he really isn't worth the personal attention and instead, I'll just respond in my own little piece of the internet.
A. Not all women get dressed in the morning thinking, “okay, what will draw the most attention from the most men?” You know why some women wear low cut shirts? Because they like how their tits look in them. Because they like the style. Because they like the color. Because they like the fit. Because it’s hot and they don’t want to wear a turtleneck in the middle of August. Because it makes them feel good. It’s hard enough having bodaciously bigger tatas because they’re just plain gonna be stared at, no matter what’s covering them. But to be made to feel like they have to be covered so as not to allow some stranger to assume their size automatically means their owner is a huge, always willing slut is ridiculous.
B. I don’t understand thongs, I don’t. I think they’re uncomfortable and I’m guessing they’re fairly problematic for women prone to unpleasant girlie infections. But that’s just me. I don’t give a tiny rat’s ass what women wear as underwear or if they wear underwear at all, for that matter. But a thong and a summer dress isn’t “leaving almost nothing to the imagination,” it’s “wearing what one is comfortable in.” This drives me batty because really, either way….we’re fucked. If we wear the thongs with a summer dress, we’re big, skanky whores. If we wear granny panties with the summer dress, we’re probably uptight prudes who like only the missionary position. Should we really not be allowed to make our own decisions when it comes to covering our asses?
C. And my personal favorite…”from the looks of your picture you probably don’t get sexually harassed much.” Sexual harassment isn’t a compliment. It isn’t a nice way for a guy to say, “hey, I find you visually appealing and I’d like to get to know you better.” It’s a way to objectify women, break them down into body parts, publicly humiliate them, and reinforce the misconception that we exist solely for men’s enjoyment. Not too long ago, I stayed after work and had a few drinks for a co-worker’s birthday, accidentally forgot there was a Cubs game that night and took the bus home that goes right by Wrigley Field. Thanks to several beers, I was about to pee my freaking pants and decided to get off the bus right at Wrigley Field, run into the McDonald’s across the street, and then hop back on the bus. So after I peed, I walked to the corner, waited for the bus, and proceeded to people watch the yuppie tools in the bar across from me. A few minutes later, a group of guys walked by; 2 of whom were probably about my age and 3 who were maybe in their late 30s, early 40s. They walked directly in front of me to a limo that was waiting for them and one made me the oh so polite offer of, “hey baby, how about you come with us instead of the bus (accompanied by grabbing what I can only assume was his tiny, little, insecure, 5-minute lasting cock)? I’ll be a better ride, I promise!” And you know what? I’m not 5’9”, with blond hair, blue eyes, and a size 6 figure. I’m 5’5” with brown hair and a size 16 figure. I’m by no means hideous but I’m not attractive according to society-accepted and supported standards. And get your surprise face out…I was still physically “assaulted” before I was really old enough to fully comprehend it (I use quotes simply because I’ve never really put a definition on it that I’m comfortable with). And I remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and even what I was wearing. And it wasn’t a thong, a push-up bra, and fishnets. It was jeans and a long sleeve shirt that in no way accentuated the girlie gifts that are my tits. Neither sexual harassment nor sexual assault is set aside for perfectly pretty girls. It’s set aside for every girl who someone wants to make feel…less than.
D. Contrary to what society and the media tends to throw in our faces the majority of the time, not all of us feel the need to have huge tits and naughty bits that look like they belong to a pre-pubescent girl. Life is not a porn set and not all of us walk out into the world everyday lookin’ to “get some underground action.” Because, ya know, that would equate to our wanting full-on consensual underground sex. For those who’d like to fuck in a dark corner of the subway, have right the hell at it. I hope it’s phenomenal for both (or all) of those involved. But groping and / or rubbing up against and / or strokin’ one off on your way to work in the morning and / or telling us you’d like to tap that or hit that or whatever other phrase equates to “hows about we fuck?”…that’s not full-on consensual sex. It’s sexual harassment. Most of us prefer iPods or books while going about our day on public transportation. We’re on our way to work or the park or the store or wherever we may be headed, just like you are. Those harsh fluorescent lights aren’t going to turn into flattering spotlights, you’re not gonna hear the “bow chica bow bow” music start up over the speakers, and the F train or the 6 or the Red Line isn’t going to suddenly morph into the set of Subway Sluts #23. The day is going to proceed just as it was. And mothers and sisters and aunts and friends and lovers are going to continue to go about their business, expecting nothing less than the respect and courtesy given to the fathers and brothers and uncles and friends and lovers sitting next to them.
1. MTA gets set to launch an anti-sexual harassment subway campaign
2. Woman writes an op-ed piece regarding the upcoming ads
3. Douchebag, while entitled to his opinion, informs the woman of it in this delightfully offensive, sexist stupid ass letter:
Dear Courtney,
I read your opinions about the MTA raising awareness about sexual misconduct on the subways and found it very naive and written from a very white-middle-class-women-studies-privaleged perspective. You are correct that women have been dealing with this kind of stuff from guys for years, but what about how women dress in the subways? Today (after reading your opinion) while on the subway, I saw a woman sit near me with a very low cut shirt and very large tits...she looked hot! I totally stared at her tits any chance I could get...which is probably why she wore the shirt right? I also see scores of women with those cotton summer dresses on and just a thong underneath, so you see their asses bobbling around under the skirt. That sounds like blaming the victim right? Well when you leave almost nothing to the imagination, it doesn't take much for it to run wild. This is not to say you whip your cock out at any moment or press your boner on any tart that wears a hot outfit, but where they "asking for it"? I know you are probably fuming by now, but from the looks of your picture you probably don't get sexually harrassed much, so maybe you are jealous of all of the hot-ass bitches with the big titties, shaved snatches and round asses that get some action underground.
hells to the motherfuckin' yeah!!!!
ChanceNoble (snhca@exit3.com)
Typos and misspellings, of course, are his.
I was initially going to email this asshat but I decided he really isn't worth the personal attention and instead, I'll just respond in my own little piece of the internet.
A. Not all women get dressed in the morning thinking, “okay, what will draw the most attention from the most men?” You know why some women wear low cut shirts? Because they like how their tits look in them. Because they like the style. Because they like the color. Because they like the fit. Because it’s hot and they don’t want to wear a turtleneck in the middle of August. Because it makes them feel good. It’s hard enough having bodaciously bigger tatas because they’re just plain gonna be stared at, no matter what’s covering them. But to be made to feel like they have to be covered so as not to allow some stranger to assume their size automatically means their owner is a huge, always willing slut is ridiculous.
B. I don’t understand thongs, I don’t. I think they’re uncomfortable and I’m guessing they’re fairly problematic for women prone to unpleasant girlie infections. But that’s just me. I don’t give a tiny rat’s ass what women wear as underwear or if they wear underwear at all, for that matter. But a thong and a summer dress isn’t “leaving almost nothing to the imagination,” it’s “wearing what one is comfortable in.” This drives me batty because really, either way….we’re fucked. If we wear the thongs with a summer dress, we’re big, skanky whores. If we wear granny panties with the summer dress, we’re probably uptight prudes who like only the missionary position. Should we really not be allowed to make our own decisions when it comes to covering our asses?
C. And my personal favorite…”from the looks of your picture you probably don’t get sexually harassed much.” Sexual harassment isn’t a compliment. It isn’t a nice way for a guy to say, “hey, I find you visually appealing and I’d like to get to know you better.” It’s a way to objectify women, break them down into body parts, publicly humiliate them, and reinforce the misconception that we exist solely for men’s enjoyment. Not too long ago, I stayed after work and had a few drinks for a co-worker’s birthday, accidentally forgot there was a Cubs game that night and took the bus home that goes right by Wrigley Field. Thanks to several beers, I was about to pee my freaking pants and decided to get off the bus right at Wrigley Field, run into the McDonald’s across the street, and then hop back on the bus. So after I peed, I walked to the corner, waited for the bus, and proceeded to people watch the yuppie tools in the bar across from me. A few minutes later, a group of guys walked by; 2 of whom were probably about my age and 3 who were maybe in their late 30s, early 40s. They walked directly in front of me to a limo that was waiting for them and one made me the oh so polite offer of, “hey baby, how about you come with us instead of the bus (accompanied by grabbing what I can only assume was his tiny, little, insecure, 5-minute lasting cock)? I’ll be a better ride, I promise!” And you know what? I’m not 5’9”, with blond hair, blue eyes, and a size 6 figure. I’m 5’5” with brown hair and a size 16 figure. I’m by no means hideous but I’m not attractive according to society-accepted and supported standards. And get your surprise face out…I was still physically “assaulted” before I was really old enough to fully comprehend it (I use quotes simply because I’ve never really put a definition on it that I’m comfortable with). And I remember exactly where I was, what I was doing, and even what I was wearing. And it wasn’t a thong, a push-up bra, and fishnets. It was jeans and a long sleeve shirt that in no way accentuated the girlie gifts that are my tits. Neither sexual harassment nor sexual assault is set aside for perfectly pretty girls. It’s set aside for every girl who someone wants to make feel…less than.
D. Contrary to what society and the media tends to throw in our faces the majority of the time, not all of us feel the need to have huge tits and naughty bits that look like they belong to a pre-pubescent girl. Life is not a porn set and not all of us walk out into the world everyday lookin’ to “get some underground action.” Because, ya know, that would equate to our wanting full-on consensual underground sex. For those who’d like to fuck in a dark corner of the subway, have right the hell at it. I hope it’s phenomenal for both (or all) of those involved. But groping and / or rubbing up against and / or strokin’ one off on your way to work in the morning and / or telling us you’d like to tap that or hit that or whatever other phrase equates to “hows about we fuck?”…that’s not full-on consensual sex. It’s sexual harassment. Most of us prefer iPods or books while going about our day on public transportation. We’re on our way to work or the park or the store or wherever we may be headed, just like you are. Those harsh fluorescent lights aren’t going to turn into flattering spotlights, you’re not gonna hear the “bow chica bow bow” music start up over the speakers, and the F train or the 6 or the Red Line isn’t going to suddenly morph into the set of Subway Sluts #23. The day is going to proceed just as it was. And mothers and sisters and aunts and friends and lovers are going to continue to go about their business, expecting nothing less than the respect and courtesy given to the fathers and brothers and uncles and friends and lovers sitting next to them.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Most of the time, I love words
Other times...not so much.
Let's take a look at this lovely CNN article today:
Victim or vixen? Contrasting views at R. Kelly trial.
#1: Let's start by remembering that in almost every article you read regarding this trial, at some point they say something along the lines of, "on the tape, Kelly is having sex with a girl as young as 13" or "Kelly's sex with a 13-year-old." Which is erroneous right there. You can call it whatever you'd like to call it, CNN, but a grown man doesn't have sex with a 13-year-old girl, he rapes her. He may not be dragging her into the bushes or beating her face in and he may not be a stranger who pulled her into an unsuspecting van off the street. But he's not having sex with her. He's raping her.
#2: Now, let's look at the definitions of vixen, since CNN seems to think vixen / victim is an "either / or" situation.
A. Vixen: a female fox
Okay, irrelevant since beasiality is an entirely different topic. Although, still, I'd like to point out that once again, here's an oh-so-handy comparison between women and a sly, sneaky animal who's out to trick you. 'Cause really, that's what all of us with tits are tryin' to do.
B. Vixen: an ill-tempered (argumentative, belligerant) or quarrelsome woman. A malicious woman with a fierce temper. Shrewish or malicious.
None of those things automatically put a woman into a "non-rapeable" category. I can be ill-tempered. I can be argumentative. I could be malicious, I don't consider myself to be, but I could be.
And you know what? I can still be raped.
And it still wouldn't be my fault. And I still wasn't askin' for it 'cause I had a short skirt or a low-cut top on. And it still didn't happen because I've had sex before and if I've had it once, hell, I'm ready and willing to have it anytime anywhere with anyone. And it still wasn't because I was sneaky and sly enough to snatch myself a guy who just wasn't strong enough to resist my feminine wiles.
It would simply be because despite all of those things, somebody made the choice to rape me.
Let's take a look at this lovely CNN article today:
Victim or vixen? Contrasting views at R. Kelly trial.
#1: Let's start by remembering that in almost every article you read regarding this trial, at some point they say something along the lines of, "on the tape, Kelly is having sex with a girl as young as 13" or "Kelly's sex with a 13-year-old." Which is erroneous right there. You can call it whatever you'd like to call it, CNN, but a grown man doesn't have sex with a 13-year-old girl, he rapes her. He may not be dragging her into the bushes or beating her face in and he may not be a stranger who pulled her into an unsuspecting van off the street. But he's not having sex with her. He's raping her.
#2: Now, let's look at the definitions of vixen, since CNN seems to think vixen / victim is an "either / or" situation.
A. Vixen: a female fox
Okay, irrelevant since beasiality is an entirely different topic. Although, still, I'd like to point out that once again, here's an oh-so-handy comparison between women and a sly, sneaky animal who's out to trick you. 'Cause really, that's what all of us with tits are tryin' to do.
B. Vixen: an ill-tempered (argumentative, belligerant) or quarrelsome woman. A malicious woman with a fierce temper. Shrewish or malicious.
None of those things automatically put a woman into a "non-rapeable" category. I can be ill-tempered. I can be argumentative. I could be malicious, I don't consider myself to be, but I could be.
And you know what? I can still be raped.
And it still wouldn't be my fault. And I still wasn't askin' for it 'cause I had a short skirt or a low-cut top on. And it still didn't happen because I've had sex before and if I've had it once, hell, I'm ready and willing to have it anytime anywhere with anyone. And it still wasn't because I was sneaky and sly enough to snatch myself a guy who just wasn't strong enough to resist my feminine wiles.
It would simply be because despite all of those things, somebody made the choice to rape me.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
a reflection of anger and sadness
Last night at the hotline, we watched Dreamworlds 3: Desire, Sex & Power in Music Video, which was fascinating in all sorts of ways.
The cover of the video on that page is a scene in a Limp Bizkit video of a song delightfully titled "Eat You Alive." In the video, Fred Durst has a bullhorn and is yelling at a girl who hasn't returned his lust and forces her to sit there and listen to him screaming out his anger at the situation.
Hey you, Mrs. too-good-to-look-my-way and that's cool you want nothing at all to do with me.
But I want you, ain't nothing wrong with wanting you cause I'm a man and I can think what the hell I want, you got that straight?
No doubt that (no doubt) I'd love to (I'd love) sniff on them panties now....
This is, of course, only up until the sweet part of the song where he romantically sings about just wanting to look at her until she gets a cute sparkle in her eye and is loving it. And then, we return to screaming at her. If you youtube the video and watch it, please take note of the beautiful flowers sitting next to the girl who is out in the forest with a band full of angry musicians and Fred Durst screaming in her face. Gives it a nice, romantic feel, don't ya think?
This is the part where I think, "I'd like to not listen to any and all music that is such complete shit." But holy hell, I'd have to boycott everything but Christian music. In the video we watched, from pop stars to country stars to hip-hip stars, each and every video revolves around the idea that women are:
a. unproportionately physically hot
b. there to please a man
c. incapable of functioning until a man swoops in and fixes things
d. nothing more than something with an ass crack that you can swipe an ATM card through for a laugh (there are a frightening number of videos in which this is done)
e-z: any and all of the other objectifications one can come up with for women
In one scene, we watched different women stand against the wall of a tour bas in either bikinis or entirely naked, while band members and roadies threw lunchmeat at them and laughed and giggled when they stuck to their asses.
Lunchmeat, people. It's apparently the hip rock 'n roll thing to do to open a package of bologna and throw it against some woman's bare ass. It's entertaining. And funny. And a good time. But really, all it is is taking something that's about as non-sexual as it gets and making it sexual in what you really can't argue is anything but a degrading way. Kind of like Led Zeppelin fucking a woman with a frozen fish. Whether the entire thing was shoved in her as some sources state, whether it was shark meat, whether it was just the nose of the fish, whether she was lovin' it or not...whatever happened, I've never nor will I ever, believe it was done for the sexual gratification of that woman. It was done because a bunch of coked out rock 'n rollers thought it'd be fun to use a woman and frozen fucking fish to get their rocks off.
But the point in the video that affected me the most was a single photograph, which I've managed to find online, taken in 2001 during Seattle's Mardi Gras celebration (something I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't even heard of until this video). I'm posting it here because it's been altered to at least protect her identify. And it's powerfully repulsive.
Check out the horror here
Then we cut right back to music videos where the people singing are doing the exact. same. thing. Sure, in videos, the women have bikinis on but really, the touching is exactly the same as in this photograph. It's amazing. Yet in the videos, it's overlooked. Nobody raises concerns when they see rap stars slappin' the asses of strippers and Snoop talkin' about "breakin' those hoes"? Where's the outrage there? In the Puerto Rican photos, a lot of them involve water and women being sprayed with hoses and water bottles, etc. Cut to music videos where women are constantly being sprayed with fire hoses or more often, champagne bottles. Seriously, music industry, I get it...your semen is the most valuable fucking thing out there and there are tons of things you can use in place of it since you can't actually cum on my face to music and sell it as a fucking video. I get it. The entire fuckin' world gets it. Knock it the fuck off.
This is the shit that baffles my mind and leads me to question those things like, "how do I do whatever I need to do to combat that?" What can I do other than write about it and maybe start ignoring most of any music even remotely mainstream (which I kind of do, simply because I don't listen to radio nor watch music videos). I can't boycott everything. And I can't shut myself off to the world nor do I want to. But if that's the case, how do I go about trying to fix it? What the hell can I do to even attempt to start chipping away at something that is so cemented into our culture?
I feel good after I hang up after taking a call at the hotline. I feel good when someone says, "thank you" before we hang up. Because I feel like I've helped, like I've done something. I can't look at that photograph without fighting back tears and I'm not really sure if it's purely because of the image and my inability to understand why the horde of men surrounding the woman look nothing but content and happy. Or because of how absolutely powerless it makes me feel.
The cover of the video on that page is a scene in a Limp Bizkit video of a song delightfully titled "Eat You Alive." In the video, Fred Durst has a bullhorn and is yelling at a girl who hasn't returned his lust and forces her to sit there and listen to him screaming out his anger at the situation.
Hey you, Mrs. too-good-to-look-my-way and that's cool you want nothing at all to do with me.
But I want you, ain't nothing wrong with wanting you cause I'm a man and I can think what the hell I want, you got that straight?
No doubt that (no doubt) I'd love to (I'd love) sniff on them panties now....
This is, of course, only up until the sweet part of the song where he romantically sings about just wanting to look at her until she gets a cute sparkle in her eye and is loving it. And then, we return to screaming at her. If you youtube the video and watch it, please take note of the beautiful flowers sitting next to the girl who is out in the forest with a band full of angry musicians and Fred Durst screaming in her face. Gives it a nice, romantic feel, don't ya think?
This is the part where I think, "I'd like to not listen to any and all music that is such complete shit." But holy hell, I'd have to boycott everything but Christian music. In the video we watched, from pop stars to country stars to hip-hip stars, each and every video revolves around the idea that women are:
a. unproportionately physically hot
b. there to please a man
c. incapable of functioning until a man swoops in and fixes things
d. nothing more than something with an ass crack that you can swipe an ATM card through for a laugh (there are a frightening number of videos in which this is done)
e-z: any and all of the other objectifications one can come up with for women
In one scene, we watched different women stand against the wall of a tour bas in either bikinis or entirely naked, while band members and roadies threw lunchmeat at them and laughed and giggled when they stuck to their asses.
Lunchmeat, people. It's apparently the hip rock 'n roll thing to do to open a package of bologna and throw it against some woman's bare ass. It's entertaining. And funny. And a good time. But really, all it is is taking something that's about as non-sexual as it gets and making it sexual in what you really can't argue is anything but a degrading way. Kind of like Led Zeppelin fucking a woman with a frozen fish. Whether the entire thing was shoved in her as some sources state, whether it was shark meat, whether it was just the nose of the fish, whether she was lovin' it or not...whatever happened, I've never nor will I ever, believe it was done for the sexual gratification of that woman. It was done because a bunch of coked out rock 'n rollers thought it'd be fun to use a woman and frozen fucking fish to get their rocks off.
But the point in the video that affected me the most was a single photograph, which I've managed to find online, taken in 2001 during Seattle's Mardi Gras celebration (something I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't even heard of until this video). I'm posting it here because it's been altered to at least protect her identify. And it's powerfully repulsive.
Check out the horror here
Then we cut right back to music videos where the people singing are doing the exact. same. thing. Sure, in videos, the women have bikinis on but really, the touching is exactly the same as in this photograph. It's amazing. Yet in the videos, it's overlooked. Nobody raises concerns when they see rap stars slappin' the asses of strippers and Snoop talkin' about "breakin' those hoes"? Where's the outrage there? In the Puerto Rican photos, a lot of them involve water and women being sprayed with hoses and water bottles, etc. Cut to music videos where women are constantly being sprayed with fire hoses or more often, champagne bottles. Seriously, music industry, I get it...your semen is the most valuable fucking thing out there and there are tons of things you can use in place of it since you can't actually cum on my face to music and sell it as a fucking video. I get it. The entire fuckin' world gets it. Knock it the fuck off.
This is the shit that baffles my mind and leads me to question those things like, "how do I do whatever I need to do to combat that?" What can I do other than write about it and maybe start ignoring most of any music even remotely mainstream (which I kind of do, simply because I don't listen to radio nor watch music videos). I can't boycott everything. And I can't shut myself off to the world nor do I want to. But if that's the case, how do I go about trying to fix it? What the hell can I do to even attempt to start chipping away at something that is so cemented into our culture?
I feel good after I hang up after taking a call at the hotline. I feel good when someone says, "thank you" before we hang up. Because I feel like I've helped, like I've done something. I can't look at that photograph without fighting back tears and I'm not really sure if it's purely because of the image and my inability to understand why the horde of men surrounding the woman look nothing but content and happy. Or because of how absolutely powerless it makes me feel.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
oy vey
Janelle's entry connecting the Michael Vick scandal with rape in general somehow made me think of the news stories about teenage boys and the hot teachers that have sex with them. Could we please stop calling this rape? It devalues the victims of violent rape, IMHO.
"Willing Participant" is the default value for most teenage boys (including myself, moot as it was). Women who are violently raped often don't report it out of shame (whether misplaced or not), whereas banging the 24 year old hottie teacher is bragging rights material. When we hear about the elderly English teacher with the horn-rimmed glasses having sex with teenage boys, then maybe "rape" would be a more appropriate term.
I know when he referred to "victims of violent rape," he was referring to those who walk away from the situation physically bloody and battered and bruised. But I think it still somewhat indicates the general idea a lot of people have that rape usually happens when some crazy man jumps out of the pushes, shoves a gun in your face, and pummels you while he rapes you.
Does it happen? Sure. Are most reported cases of rape that kind of rape? Nope.
I consider all rape violent. Any time a person takes away another person’s power and control over his / her own life, I consider that an act of violence. Power-reassurance rapists tend to consider themselves to be "lovers" of their victims and will often talk to the victim while it’s happening and won’t use an awful lot of physical violence. But to me, if someone shoves himself into me without my having asked for it…I don’t care how "nice" he treats me or that he’s not punching me while he’s doing it, he’s still being violent and I’ve been a victim of violence.
I’m also seeing two paragraphs full of words here but all I’m reading is "teenage boys are unrapeable."
Which I think is an entirely crazy and dangerous mentality. I think believing any group of people is "unrapeable" is dangerous. Hell, until the 1970s, most states believed wives were unrapeable. In some states, there are still specific requirements that need to be met within spousal situations in order for it to be considered a crime and in quite a few instances, the wife needs to have reported the rape within a certain amount of time. Because as we all know, rape victims usually run directly to the police station immediately after being raped so that they can get down to business re-living it and fighting the good and easy fight of punishing a rapist. How quickly do you think a woman in an abusive marriage is going to run to the police after her husband rapes her? Yeah. Not too quickly. Some people still believe men in general aren’t rapeable. If there’s no vagina, how can a person be raped? It’s simply amazing to me. It’s similar to the "but he was hard" or "she was wet" argument. How do you think sex works? Certain physiological things happen when two people are going at it…that’s partly what makes fucking so fun. A biogical reaction doesn’t equate to consent.
Teenage boys. Teenage girls. I don’t care who they are. And I don’t care how attractive the teacher is. If one takes advantage of the teacher / student relationship, breaking whatever laws the state may have regarding it, it’s a crime. It’s not something to be overlooked because of the "eh, boys will be boys!" mentality.
Bottom line: the "men have a penis and are therefore up for sex at any time" theory is completely retarded.
"Willing Participant" is the default value for most teenage boys (including myself, moot as it was). Women who are violently raped often don't report it out of shame (whether misplaced or not), whereas banging the 24 year old hottie teacher is bragging rights material. When we hear about the elderly English teacher with the horn-rimmed glasses having sex with teenage boys, then maybe "rape" would be a more appropriate term.
I know when he referred to "victims of violent rape," he was referring to those who walk away from the situation physically bloody and battered and bruised. But I think it still somewhat indicates the general idea a lot of people have that rape usually happens when some crazy man jumps out of the pushes, shoves a gun in your face, and pummels you while he rapes you.
Does it happen? Sure. Are most reported cases of rape that kind of rape? Nope.
I consider all rape violent. Any time a person takes away another person’s power and control over his / her own life, I consider that an act of violence. Power-reassurance rapists tend to consider themselves to be "lovers" of their victims and will often talk to the victim while it’s happening and won’t use an awful lot of physical violence. But to me, if someone shoves himself into me without my having asked for it…I don’t care how "nice" he treats me or that he’s not punching me while he’s doing it, he’s still being violent and I’ve been a victim of violence.
I’m also seeing two paragraphs full of words here but all I’m reading is "teenage boys are unrapeable."
Which I think is an entirely crazy and dangerous mentality. I think believing any group of people is "unrapeable" is dangerous. Hell, until the 1970s, most states believed wives were unrapeable. In some states, there are still specific requirements that need to be met within spousal situations in order for it to be considered a crime and in quite a few instances, the wife needs to have reported the rape within a certain amount of time. Because as we all know, rape victims usually run directly to the police station immediately after being raped so that they can get down to business re-living it and fighting the good and easy fight of punishing a rapist. How quickly do you think a woman in an abusive marriage is going to run to the police after her husband rapes her? Yeah. Not too quickly. Some people still believe men in general aren’t rapeable. If there’s no vagina, how can a person be raped? It’s simply amazing to me. It’s similar to the "but he was hard" or "she was wet" argument. How do you think sex works? Certain physiological things happen when two people are going at it…that’s partly what makes fucking so fun. A biogical reaction doesn’t equate to consent.
Teenage boys. Teenage girls. I don’t care who they are. And I don’t care how attractive the teacher is. If one takes advantage of the teacher / student relationship, breaking whatever laws the state may have regarding it, it’s a crime. It’s not something to be overlooked because of the "eh, boys will be boys!" mentality.
Bottom line: the "men have a penis and are therefore up for sex at any time" theory is completely retarded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
