The footballer & the anti porn campaigner: not cool as FCUK

6 May

On Melinda Tankard Reist’s website today you’ll find this article about AFL footballer Lance “Buddy” Franklin. Franklin has another job as well as football: he is co-director of clothing company Nena & Pasadena. This company apparently specialises in tee-shirts featuring women in exaggerated sexual poses, sometimes handcuffed, and partially clothed. There’s often a slogan or two, in case we haven’t managed to interpret the images.

Reist asks: “What message does this clothing send N&P’s target market of young men about women?”

What message does this send about women?

Reist’s answer is that the message conveyed by Buddy’s shirts is that women are sexual objects, not human beings. She feels the images degrade us.  I don’t read it that way. To me, the shirts say nothing much at all about women, and everything about the fantasy lives of those who design, produce and wear them. These shirts say nothing about who women are, and everything about what the men who wear them want us to be.

I don’t believe another person’s fantasies degrade me. They don’t reflect on me in any way at all. This is what we need to teach our young. You aren’t what somebody else imagines you are. As we’re never going to control anyone’s imagination and ought not to try,  we need to focus on educating children to refuse the imposition of other people’s fantasies on their sense of who they are. It’s not rocket surgery. It’s being proactive. It requires us to dump the language of victimisation and replace it with the language of empowerment. We are in dire need of this paradigm change.

At this point I’ll refer you to this horribly sexist vintage ads site. While there’s definitely less flesh and far less overt sexual imagery, the message is the same. These ads are also a reflection of the desires and fantasies of some men, and say nothing much at all about women. They do say a great deal about a dynamic that remains consistent. These ads, like Buddy’s shirts, cast women in an inferior and tiresome role. We may have our clothes on in the vintage ads, but they are only a variation of Buddy’s fantasies.

When we protest that these images degrade and objectify us, we give them the power to do exactly that. There are always two sensibilities involved in the interpretation of any text: that of its author and that of its reader. As a reader I’m free to conclude that the text is not about me. It’s all about the author. I’m free to refuse the author’s construction of my sexuality, a construct based on the author’s desires. Why should I grant anyone that power over me?

Personally, I’ve never been attracted to clothing featuring pictures and advertising: I’m not a billboard. Even if such clothing isn’t pushing a brand, it is self-revealing: by my clothes you’ll know me. There are occasions like demonstrations, conferences when it feels good to state my position through what I’m wearing, and cartoonist First Dog on the Moon’s shirts I’ll wear anytime.

That said I do have a couple of FCUK tee-shirts, one that says “Cool as FCUK” and another proclaiming “Lucky FCUK,” neither of which I would be caught dead in outside the house, but that’s just me.

Reist then asks: “What does it say about men and women when clothed men wear t-shirts of naked women?”

A man who feels the need to wear an image of a naked woman on his tee-shirt is making a statement or a series of statements about himself, about his opinions of women, about his attitude to women. Such clothing says nothing about “men and women.” It says some things about some men. Again, women are not obliged to join such men in their fantasies and desires. We are not demeaned and objectified unless we accept the wearer’s world view. Unless we allow that world view to construct us and so become complicit in our own victimisation and dehumanisation.

That being said, I have no problem with letting Buddy know his tee-shirts say everything about him, and nothing about women, and what he’s saying about himself is pretty crap. I’ve no problem passing that message onto the shops that stock his wares, either. That’s the easy part. The hard part is changing the paradigm from first accepting then protesting victimisation, to refusal of men like Buddy’s interpretations of women and our sexuality in the first place. We do this by giving our children the tools they need to resist believing they are what somebody else says they are, and that they have to be what somebody else wants them to be. We’re never going to stop the Buddies but we can disempower them. We refuse the victimisation in the first place, then we don’t have to waste our energies protesting it.

Buddy, your tee-shirts reveal some weird things about you. You might want to think about that, mate.

Advertisements

90 Responses to “The footballer & the anti porn campaigner: not cool as FCUK”

  1. Hawkpeter May 6, 2012 at 9:03 am #

    I’ve always loved the impulse of the conservative, “That’s the most outrageous and salacious thing I’ve ever seen….. let’s roll that tape one more time!”.

    I wouldnt have given Buddy Franklin’s shirts a second glance.

    Like

  2. doug quixote May 6, 2012 at 10:05 am #

    Exactly : If someone out there fondly imagines that black is white and “has the tee-shirt to prove it!” it does not make it so,
    If some fool wants to wear a tee-shirt with a woman in handcuffs on it, and is not a member of Amnesty International, that does not affect any woman, not even the one pictured; except to invite sympathy for his lack of mental acuity, or perhaps for her plight, if one is literal-minded enough.

    .

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 6, 2012 at 10:39 am #

      * Unless of course the handcuffs were made in a sweat-shop in The Philippines.

      __________________________________________________________________

      (By the way I passed by a protest in front of an abortion clinic the other day.
      It was surrounded by scores of religious zealots carrying placards.)

      Strangely, each and every one (ALL!) of the protesters was wearing the same kind of T-Shirt.
      Which had “I’m with Stupid” emblazoned across the front.
      Go figure.

      Like

  3. 8 Degrees of Latitude May 6, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Your last paragraph says it all.

    It is not cool as FCUK to be a dickhead.

    Like

  4. Linda May 6, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    its not cool to miss so many from directly in front either!

    Like

  5. Hypocritophobe May 6, 2012 at 10:18 am #

    Tankard Reist has only one theme.
    NO.

    (Just like Abbotts.Both behave like bullies who no-one will talk to-mainly because they won’t talk to anyone, actually)
    Sounds very Catholic to me.
    Other than the usual gullible religiously intoxicated puppets, the majority of us can think and choose for ourselves.We don’t need faux-feminist matriarchal bullshit.

    I’ll wear what I want Melinda.So go and get stuffed, and mind your own bloody business.

    Melinda should be more offended by ‘Choose Life’ T-Shirts.They confront her position head on.

    Buddy is a very popular AFL player AND indigenous.(And he’s only flogging shirts in a free market)I hope Melinda is prepared for the shit fight this is likely to bring to her doorstep.(That is her tactic of course.Push buttons,get a reaction and blame the other party.Ask McFadden)

    By the way Melinda how is the Catholic child abuse going these days?
    Closed it down, have you?
    And I have yet to see you rally to condemn the call to ,kick a female PM to death,.
    What’s the matter Mel, “Cath” got your tongue?

    Like

  6. Ray (Novelactivist) May 6, 2012 at 10:28 am #

    MTR is rather late to the issue. Dr Catharine Lumby is already doing good work on tackling sexism within ‘football’ culture, with a great deal more sophistication.

    ‘Football’ culture is a mystery to me, in both NSW and Vic. It’s a dickhead culture that seems to delight in the crude and insensitive. I appeals to brain dead men, with a coterie of brain dead women (WAGs and wannabe WAGs) hanging on. There are plenty of men and women who ignore this ‘blokey’ dickhead culture.

    Love the link to sexist ads of the past. It’s a good reminder that despite the apparent backlash from dickhead males, things have improved.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 6, 2012 at 10:44 am #

      I’m an AFL follower Ray and find your generalisations a tad sweeping.
      Brain dead??? Dickhead culture??? Not for all,thank-you.
      There’s no doubt sexism in many sports,(including football) but if Canberra can’t tackle it (and respect) first, Lumby is wasting her time.

      Like

      • Ray (Novelactivist) May 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

        I would suggest that you are not a part of ‘football’ culture as I define it. Do you watch the Footy Show? What do you think of Sam Newman?

        Like

        • Hypocritophobe May 6, 2012 at 1:26 pm #

          Ray,

          Answers:
          No
          What I think of Sam Newman is not ‘printable’.

          Like

        • Beste May 7, 2012 at 3:45 pm #

          Ray,

          Your blog is down

          Like

  7. helvityni May 6, 2012 at 11:22 am #

    Daughter had a hoodie with letters FCUK in navy on pink, and as someone interested in nice clothes, I only read it to mean the initials of the fashion house, French Connection United Kingdom….it’s good to be naive at times..

    Like

  8. Hypocritophobe May 6, 2012 at 11:52 am #

    FINALLY !
    Someone puts up a link to Abbott’s ‘state of the art’ coalition policies.

    http://www.bspcn.com/2010/05/27/25-horribly-sexist-vintage-ads/

    Like

  9. Ron Savage May 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm #

    Hi Folks

    I’d like to find someone who prints T-shirts, since I have a list of slogans which could adorn them. Oh, well, maybe next time.

    Like

  10. paul walter May 6, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    The real question is, why is it an issue.
    It’s tacky, but is it life threatening? The question I’d ask is, Is the Franklin generation the first generation to be out of control because of advertising?
    All previous historical instances of blokes acting badly or like young dickheads- what do we put these down to?
    I don’t know to what extent market researchers, ads people and the like have access to some sort of code of imagary; some sort of psychic genome already mapped out or not.
    Can you imagine them being able to cue us to the extent that we’d be like something out of Monty Python’s “Silly Walks” skit?
    Personally, I agree with Jennifer
    Wilson. I don’t think they’re quite up to mind control yet, if above is an example of state of play modern advertising, if it’s the most sophisticated approach an advertiser can come up with for a fringe business appealing to a rather ineffectual niche market, I’m not feeling threatened. If the advertising is that great, why has Franklin not retired from Aussie footy with his first $billion?
    Most intelligent people wouldn’t understand the appeal of the product and if advertising was that easy, it’d show in the sales figures.
    If Tankard Reist is unamused by the less than sparkling aesthetics, intellectual, ethics or sensibilities impulses that motivate this sort of production, or genuinely believes that with a large enough budget they will one day be able to brainwash us, I can sympathise.
    The last couple of Wilson’s sentences suggest to me that she is hardly enamoured of the antic, either. You could almost read the marker’s comment: “Try harder Buddy- a little imagination,next time,providing you have any”..
    Jennifer did us a favour clarifying where the border might be between advertising and brain washing and its not this instance.
    But I’m not laughing at Tankard Reist, if it is some future dystopia she’s sniffing. If she believes they would if they could, she’d get not much argument from me.

    Like

  11. Hypocritophobe May 7, 2012 at 9:39 am #

    The worst thing about this one trick,’ban all things which offend them’ brigade is the blatant recycling of effluent.(And statements based on rumour/insinuation/theory/wishful thinking.

    Here is the original MTR article on the very same subject at the Drum way back in Feb 2011.
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44142.html
    (Note how MTR drops the usual names and uses the article as self promotion etc)
    Here is her extensive list so you can see what topic will next be held up the lightning bolts, and brought back to life.

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/melindatankard-reist-28330.html

    A quick examination of the MTR site proves once and for all she only speaks for a mini minor load of prudes.
    it’s time the govt et al cast her aside, and all her mates profiting in this area who create myths for $$$$$$$$$.
    The women and child industry is an obscene scam.

    Like

  12. samjandwich May 7, 2012 at 3:01 pm #

    I think you’re getting closer to having this individual pinned.

    You say “we’re never going to control anyone’s imagination”. But it seems that’s precisely what [you know who] thinks is achievable.

    Maybe by pointing out to Mr Franklin how much of a pig he is she thinks she might change the minds of both Mr Franklin himself and the people who buy his t-shirts. Maybe by chastising you with the threat of a lawsuit she believes you will be brought around to adopt a more favourable disposition towards her. Maybe if we all pray to the designated deity of the day (DDD) for forgiveness of our sins we are engaging in a kind of lesson on how to control our wicked tendencies through the power of the mind. That’s one hypothesis anyway.

    But anyhoo, i’m going to stick my neck out and say that objectively I don’t really have a problem with these t-shirts – and in saying that I’d like to argue that they are conceptually quite different from those priceless vintage ads.

    Far from portraying women as “vulnerable” and “objectified”, as your counter-claimant would have it, I have to say that from the perspective of a heterosexual guy they appear as quite powerful, dignified, yes alph-female if you like, human beings with sharp brains and well-developed senses of self-awareness and abilities to make good choices. They look like women who know that they are desireable, and that they have the power to make men obscenely happy just by going through a few motions. but who are only going to do this with men whom they have an interest in doing so with… and yet are not averse to planting the fantasy into all and sundry, perhaps in the name of metaphysical fishing. And by wearing them, a man is saying “this is the kind of partner I’m looking for”.

    You could I suppose say something like “they depict an idealised, unrealistic idea of beauty”, and that the images make women feel (or so I’m told) inadequate, or feel pressure to conform. That’s arguable too, but again, in a world where we are all responsible for our own thoughts, I don’t think there’s necessarily anything wrong with being made to feel uncomfortable. On the contrary, confronting and dealing with such experiences (and realising that actually, they’re mostly quite harmless) is an important part of being a mature individual – that’s the whole point of the objection to conservatism after all: shielding people from confronting information leads to a diminished world.

    It’s a grey area of course (especially the “gracias” one…), and just a few subtle tweaks could easily plunge the images into misogynistic territory. There are cultural concerns: eg I wouldn’t wear them because for a man of a certain age they’re inappropriate, especially in my social context. But as it stands, I think they’re ok! I think they’d look pretty cool on a smart, good-looking, well-spoken bloke. And in that sense I would be quite interested to hear what a cross-section of 18-23-year-old women might have to say about seeing such a t-shirt on a hot guy. I think the results would be quite surprising to many of us.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 7, 2012 at 3:55 pm #

      Much to agree with, there.
      MTR is out of touch and probably fears being left behind or left out.
      Which with her narrow attitude is entirely appropriate.

      Like

      • Jennifer Wilson May 7, 2012 at 6:40 pm #

        Whoa! Everybody! Cardinal Pell has threatened Twitter & Catherine Deveny with defamation: http://www.catherinedeveny.com/columns/2012/5/7/pell-deveny-defamation-twitter-qa.html

        He’s called in the lawyers!

        Like

        • Steve at the Pub May 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

          Hmmm….. something for us all to reflect upon.

          Like

        • Hypocritophobe May 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

          Another reason why many victims of church sex abuse will not come forward.

          FEAR of the Churches power and reach.

          Like

        • 8 Degrees of Latitude May 7, 2012 at 7:33 pm #

          I’d have thought he’d have thought he could take his case to much higher court. 🙂

          Like

          • Jennifer Wilson May 7, 2012 at 7:44 pm #

            Funny that. Last thing you’d expect a big time Christian to do. Defamation law? What would Jesus do, Cardinal Pell?

            Like

            • 8 Degrees of Latitude May 7, 2012 at 8:08 pm #

              Jesus, I don’t know 🙂

              Like

            • hudsongodfrey May 7, 2012 at 11:58 pm #

              WWJD?

              http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.14757126

              Even Buddy couldn’t sell Mitt Romney’s Magic Mormon Underwear!

              Like

              • Jennifer Wilson May 8, 2012 at 6:52 am #

                Great link: Jesus on a thong. And not the kind you wear on your feet. Now what message does THAT send? Ahahahahahahhaa!
                Actually, I remember meeting an ex nun once who said she had been “raped by Jesus.” I understood her metaphorically but she insisted it was literal.

                Like

        • hudsongodfrey May 8, 2012 at 12:07 am #

          Something tells me Catherine would be almost revelling in that turn of events. It almost amazes me that Pell would be so out of touch as play to her strengths and simultaneously his weaknesses.

          I loved the link to the Louis CK thing and of course Tim Minchin’s one, and the fact that Twitter seem to be playing it with a really straight bat and giving them absolutely nothing!

          Like

        • samjandwich May 8, 2012 at 9:52 am #

          Fighting like a cornered hyena!

          Like

    • Jennifer Wilson May 7, 2012 at 6:45 pm #

      I’m thinking about this.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson May 8, 2012 at 7:13 am #

      Yes, your argument is reasonable and my discomfort with some of it is entirely personal. I feel a visceral twinge when I see images of women that imply coercion and violence. Given my history, that’s no surprise. However, my feelings don’t make it so, and if you were to approach these images without that kind of baggage, yes, they would appear as Sam and Hudson describe.

      As well, I don’t credit Buddy and his co directors with a lot of sensibility in these matters, so I interpret some of their chosen images as reflecting of conquering, mastering and subjugating. Not all the images, BTW. Some didn’t have any effect on me.

      However they are interpreted, my point is MTR always goes with the woman as victim discourse. The images don’t say anything at all about women, good or bad. They reflect what the creator, wearer thinks about women, and unless that’s spelled out, it’s subject to the viewer’s interpretation as well.

      The images clearly have multiple meaning, there is no way of determining that anyone of them is “true.”

      Like

      • samjandwich May 8, 2012 at 5:01 pm #

        I suppose I have a lingering visceral reaction as well to the claim that men “objectify” women when they make representations like those on Buddy’s tshirts. Essentially I see that as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and a drastic over-simplification. And yes in that sense I would say MTR not only casts women as victims, but actually contributes to their being viewed as such… mostly by the people who listen to her – which I think is what hudson is saying?

        And while I think that a lot of what can legitimately be called objectification does go on, I often find that when I look into the circumstances it is often a result of the immaturity or even “innocence” on behalf of the objectifier – ie traits that are readily changeable in an environment conducive to that.

        Ultimately, I’d like to be able to live in a world where we can have erotic images exist which don’t carry any connotations of conquering, mastering, and subjugating (though admittedly not enough to make a career out of it!), And for that to happen, we need to stop being so frightened of our own and other peoples’ feelings, because feelings are important, and the only way we’re going to understand the way each other feels is if they express it.

        er, hmmm I got sidetracked and lost my train of thought, so I’ll leave it there…

        Like

        • Jennifer Wilson May 8, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

          SBS Insight tonight is on how our children are accessing porn. Just thought you’d all like to know.

          Like

  13. Ron Savage May 7, 2012 at 4:48 pm #

    Re the DDD (designated deity of the day ): Of course, one of the main problems is the thugs who deem themselves the god-like entities who are thereby permitted to order us to worship their choice of god.

    Like

  14. hudsongodfrey May 8, 2012 at 12:47 am #

    Just in response to the article itself; I think what Ms Reist is saying here is actually terribly sexist and demeaning of women in itself. It assumes that women need protection in a way that becomes insulting on multiple levels.

    Even if we assume for the time being that her interpretations of these images are accurate and more widely agreed than is actually the case, then all that means is that women are show in some images in a way that might be viewed by some to be demeaning. But then, while the subjects of the images might be demeaned, then still neither the viewer nor the wearer of such a T-shirt should find it incumbent upon themselves to accept some kind of debasement on anyone else’s behalf.

    This may seem like a complex issue, but it is actually really easily understood in terms of comedy figures. Carl Pilkington is the central character of a Ricky Gervais comedy called “An idiot abroad”. Carl plays an idiot. Whether Carl is an idiot seems immaterial however to the fact that when anyone wears a T-Shirt bearing his likeness associated with the word “idiot” then nobody asks “what kind of message does that send”.

    So unless MTR means to have us all toss aside our treasured Three Stooges T-Shirts as well, what I’d propose is that neither comic characters playing idiots nor slightly smutty images of models emblazoned on various garments should be universally and unquestioningly accepted as reflecting any kind of social reality, malicious or otherwise. It just makes a helluva lot more sense to assume the opposite, because in most other aspects of media we know that circumstance to be the overwhelmingly greater likelihood.

    In short she’s either assuming that another women being portrayed as a sex object is worse than being portrayed as stupid, or that in being willing to believe their own worth is diminished by such images that her readership themselves are stupid!

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 10:30 am #

      Also,
      Is there not an implication/insinuation that all men(based on the lowest common denominator) cannot be trusted? That their judgement is dodgy and at any moment they will be consumed by the power of uncontrollable sexual desire?
      And that if the smutty T/Shirts are not banned all hell will eventually break loose..bla,bla,bla….?
      I’m sure my South park T/Shirt is more offensive,than Buddy’s, but all I have got so far is laughs and grins.
      (It has a picture of Jimmy with the words “I’m Special”)
      Go figure.
      No,not all men have a switch which turns them into a serial rapists at the first sign of female flesh.Nor at the sound of an inane pop song.
      If any of the women depicted on Buddy’s T/Shirts are/were offended they need to be heard.Otherwise the lady needs to either provide some proof of this alleged damage, or apologise to quite a few people.

      Like

      • hudsongodfrey May 8, 2012 at 11:43 am #

        Look, I’m not maintaining that nothing you could ever put on a T-Shirt could ever be offensive. I’ve a Stiff records T-Shirt somewhere in mothballs that used to offend people, but probably wouldn’t these days.

        But to me racist slogans are just one example of the kind of thing that can be really offensive. And I don’t think I lack to right to respond to that kind of unsolicited offence in kind. I once intimated to person who’d emblazoned themselves with “F–k of we’re full’, that their slogan seemed to be missing two additional words, “Of Shit!”.

        I later felt bad in the sense that the person I’d chosen to confront was my physical inferior, and wondered if they even realised how upsetting that sentiment could be to others. I quickly admonished myself for letting it get to me and moved on.

        So while I do wish that people sometimes wouldn’t express themselves in certain ways the fact remains that the ways MTR is targeting are trifling in nature to a degree that can and should be overcome by developing a better perspective. One that exercises some kind of control over how much of the ideas others express that we choose to identify with, take on board or indeed be moved by.

        I think that to exercise control over how other’s expression affects us in our right and privilege, where as MTR doesn’t appear to recognise that we even have the ability!?

        Like

        • doug quixote May 8, 2012 at 6:31 pm #

          Just be careful who you go ‘intimating’ to, HG. Your physical inferior might just have a flick knife – like the girl who once crashed into me in a busy city street, then when I said watch where you’re going pulled a knife . . . I went the other way in a hurry.

          In any event, the fellow might not have had any other shirt!

          Like

          • hudsongodfrey May 8, 2012 at 11:23 pm #

            You’re right of course Doug, not that I’m likely to be getting all paranoid about people with knives, and shirtless or not they still can’t have my Stiff records one!

            Like

            • Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 11:33 pm #

              Maybe indigenous people could wear FOWF T/Shirts,but written in their own language.
              Something poetic about that.

              BTW HG,
              Did Stiff records call their Gift Vouchers Stiff Bikkies?

              Like

  15. Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 10:42 am #

    OMG That site Hudson,
    Frikkin hilarious,
    “Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers,” Bumper sticker.

    Pure gold! And many more funny buggers.
    http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/52680

    Like

  16. paul walter May 8, 2012 at 12:20 pm #

    It was a censorious article.
    Tankard Reist ought to get upset about global economics and starvation and put up a post on inequality of resources and opportunity for the global poor. She says right about a lot of modern pop culture, but wont give the real reasons why it is rotten, where it is rotten and how.
    Wilson does a better job tracing examples of mass culture as manifestations of state of play as to social interplay, control and socio/cultural engineering. Photos of models on Tshirts portray abjection, but the actual abjection is located in miserable slums across the world, where human grist for the mill is churned out with its signs of pain and death, so that we may live according to our personal caprices.
    It’s not about sex and taste, that’s peripheral. it’s about justice and fairness. You cant protect people from life unless they have one in the first place. Feed them first, then worry about whether their sex lives “look right” or not.

    Like

    • doug quixote May 8, 2012 at 6:33 pm #

      Can’t help herself Paul. It’s all part of the banning and censoring wowser agenda (bacwa).

      .

      Like

  17. Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    I say!
    The web page layout has changed.
    Looks good,too.
    (on my old PC, anyway.)

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 9:26 pm #

      Bummer!
      It changed back again
      8-(

      Like

  18. Hypocritophobe May 8, 2012 at 11:13 pm #

    Will Melinda campaign against this too?

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-08/south-korea-cracks-down-on-baby-flesh-pills/3999028?section=justin

    Like

  19. helvityni May 9, 2012 at 11:06 am #

    I liked the black tee-shirt this oldish bikie was wearing the other day, it said : Old Guys Rule…
    I stopped to admire his gleaming Harvey and read on his number plate :OPA xx…
    Opa of course means grandpa in Dutch…

    Like

    • hudsongodfrey May 9, 2012 at 12:38 pm #

      That was probably a Harley Davidson rather than a Harvey Wallbanger that he was riding 😉

      Like

      • helvityni May 9, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

        …my mind was on Harvey, he too wears black tee-shirts

        Like

  20. Julia May 9, 2012 at 4:09 pm #

    Maybe MTR could explain why pics of women in handcuffs is offensive but not pics of blokes nailed to bits of wood??? Or is this too hard for her brand of feminism?

    Like

    • helvityni May 9, 2012 at 8:19 pm #

      Julia, being a woman and all that, maybe a feminist as well, what’s your take on things…do you find both cases offensive, one but not the other, or neither….just curious; what is your brand of feminism?

      Like

      • Julia May 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

        Helvi,

        I do not find either offensive. Indeed, while I’ve seen both representations I cannot say I’ve taken that much notice. I personally would never wear either. I do find it curious that a depiction of a man tortured & dying is somehow fine, while a picture of a naked female isn’t.

        Like Jennifer I am not attracted to clothing with pictures & slogans; and would never pay good money to become a billboard. If, for instance, a cola company tried to give/sell me a tee-shirt with their brand name on it, I’d also expect to be offered payment to wear it.

        Am I a feminist & which brand do I espouse…now this is why it’s taken me so long to answer.
        The quick answer is:

        I’ve never consciously “become” a feminist…however, many of feminism’s tenets I agree with…or they agree with my notions of equality & human rights & freedoms. I do not, however, think of men as the enemy nor of women as compatriots. War between the sexes is not my war.

        However, woe betide the fool who treats me as “just a woman”….male or female they will soon find out…I come from a long long line of matriarchs.

        As for the long answer it’d take too long to answer properly here.
        That would cost you dinner.
        🙂

        Like

        • helvityni May 12, 2012 at 8:25 am #

          DQ, the article was taken off quickly, I politely complained, in other words I asked why, but did not get an answer…

          Like

          • helvityni May 12, 2012 at 8:26 am #

            oops, wrong place…

            Like

        • helvityni May 12, 2012 at 8:30 am #

          Ok, Julia, let’s do lunch, as Ellis says 🙂

          Like

  21. Hypocritophobe May 9, 2012 at 8:26 pm #

    OMG
    Heather Ewart will surely end up ‘mysteriously’ dying under a runaway tram!
    Fancy NOT staying on song with the ABC mantra of bagging all things government.
    Silly girl.

    Like

    • helvityni May 9, 2012 at 8:39 pm #

      Julia was good tho tonight, the utterly ugly efforts of the unbelievale Uhlmann did not succeed ….is there a tram available for just for him

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe May 11, 2012 at 9:23 pm #

        I can’t won’t watch Uhlmann.I also missed agreeing with PK Drum article.It seems Uhlmann is universally hated.That’s what you get when you appear to be Abbott’s twin.

        Loser.

        Like

        • doug quixote May 12, 2012 at 7:37 am #

          We’ve turned over the mess that is Uhlmann before. The Keating article is excellent and overdue.

          Sales, come back, baby at your breast – save us from failed priests!

          Like

        • helvityni May 12, 2012 at 8:21 am #

          Hypo, what i found funny is that I (and you too) have expressed my dislike of Uhlmann for a long time now…and now, because Keating has come out with his concerns, EVERYBODY, agrees…

          Like

          • Hypocritophobe May 12, 2012 at 9:13 am #

            Agree with you both.

            There is well over enough evidence for the ABC to take notice and act,now.
            I doubt they will.
            The poison runs deep.

            However,Uhlmann will soon find himself the leading light of a Murdochesque operation soon enough.
            He is shallow enough to go straight to the top.

            Like

            • hudsongodfrey May 12, 2012 at 12:05 pm #

              Bring back Leigh Sales as soon as you can or just give the whole show over to Clarke and Dawe.

              Like

            • doug quixote May 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

              It is very suspicious that an article criticising an ABC staff member is taken down so soon, with an overwhelming response agreeing with the criticism. I did not get a chance to comment either.

              Uhlmann has never been much chop. The Canberra local news might be about his forte.

              Like

  22. Ron Savage May 12, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    Hi Jennifer

    When I commented (1st of 2) on this thread, I clicked Notify me by email. I have since then /un/subscribed twice via a link in the emails, but it hasn’t worked. Please disable the emails at your end.
    Cheers
    Ron

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 12, 2012 at 10:55 am #

      Ron.
      Go to the actual WordPress site which is your access point.
      There is a settings thing there.I had to muck around with mine a few times and click save settings etc.
      No problems since.It’s not this site,it’s WordPress’s clunky options.

      Like

    • Jennifer Wilson May 13, 2012 at 7:16 am #

      Hi Ron, You should only have to un-tick the Notify me box, but I’m assuming you’ve done that & it hasn’t worked. I’ve tweaked a couple of things, hope this works. Hate to think of you bombarded with notfications you don’t want!

      Like

  23. paul walter May 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm #

    Meditating on the point Julia made about people’s ability to be offended by some representations and not others, context comes into it.
    Seeing Christ on a cross is generally enough for people to get the “think again when you’re on an ego trip” aspect, because it’s the achetypal example of humanity’s inhumanity to another a human.
    If you ridicule Christ or make a hung up joke, you miss the point; little point at laughing at another’s misfortune, particularly when an injustice is involved, as to the events that have caused the misfortune. Although its a wonder ad-people have not found some bad taste way of employing the crucifixion, selling through shock as they’ve done with other products.
    And religious, be they Christian, Muslim, Jewish or anyone else, will not applaud you doing down their heroes, who are usually exceptional enough to to be trying to do right rather than wrong.
    With the tee shirt example, the models are varied and anonymous. Their employ occurs within a context of sales rather than intense and life changing politics and philosophy; there is no concern with the models as people, since they are merely adjuncts to sales rather than people genuinely victimised in the way Christ was and most onlookers have the sense to know it.
    That’s not to say people shouldn’t object to tendencies involved that advertising exploits through technique, that reinforces social stereotyping and gender behaviours, either of brainless butch masculinity or parallel Barbie cup cakery.
    All the plastic surgery etc ad-crap proves that people are gullible and manipulable and those who exploit them uncaring of any harm done, so I think its fair enough to question mass media, altho I would have picked a more relevant example than the one MTR used.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm #

      Going off on a slight tangent involving media portrayals, and the world of advertising and spin,comes the latest revelation that farmers intend to use social media to counter negative perceptions.(Namely the beef industry against animal cruelty and the live cattle export ban.(Ban now lifted) .

      here:
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-12/farmers-harness-social-media-to-quell-protesters/4006738
      That’s all very well,but has anyone told them that the issue is the values we have as a society,not the counter message they propose.(SPIN)
      The whole issue arose over obvious animal cruelty,so I think it is pointless that they try to sell another message, eg. beef farmers are the good guys.The point being missed is that their levy was used incorrectly to basically create a restraint ( A box with MLAs brand written loud and proud) for pain infliction prior to death.
      It’s one thing to fight fire with fire(use the same media) but it’s another to deny reality because in the end the truth and/or denial of it dented the bottom line.
      If farmers are pissed they should direct the full force of their anger at the people who misspent their levies, and damaged their brand in the first place.
      meat and livestock Australia was totally negligent, not PETA or any other animal welfare advocacy.
      Unless farmers can show legitimate footage of cattle willingly taking their lives for the purpose of converting themselves to meat,they need to ensure cruelty is stamped out,or slaughter here and export.Because these days, images of cruelty are only a phone app away, and we have limited control on foreign soil.

      MLA f*cked up,now all they are doing is trying to muster a backlash, instead of doing what their levy was designed to do.Fail.

      And then there’s live sheep export…….

      Like

      • Hypocritophobe May 12, 2012 at 3:10 pm #

        EDIT
        Please use your minds eye move the ‘fail’ to the end of this comment.

        Like

  24. paul walter May 12, 2012 at 6:52 pm #

    Hypo, the first thing I thought of after finishing the meat industry thing was to think of some current affairs on teev about Clive Palmer today. There is actually a very Ayn Randish home grown right living under the aegis of the QLD and Nat party Jo years.
    Think of a spectrum ranging from Joyce, through Hanson, Newman, some elements of bush baptism and a future for the sort of populist movement the Rineharts and co see as desirable and quaintly volkisch at worst . They also have strong links with Brit and American conservatism. Perhaps the worst of their victims has been discussion concerning rationality and the future of rationality itself.
    From the Koch bros down the cowboys of the fantastically wealth resources sector and Wall st allies like Goldman Sachs have happily financed think tanks to come up with false answers to real world questions relating to environment and the well being of the worlds poor alike. The climate change denialists are the last wave to have been abroad, slowing the adjustment process for the species and so much of law the last decade seems to have been about a narrow search for corporations and government (very often the in reality same thing) to avoid their obligations to others as they seek to avoid responsibility for dealing with objections to business practice that avoids over-much concern for collateral damage. Plenty of Bhopals and Chernobyls still out there waiting to happen let alone the less obvious but more pernicious stuff for too many people and the earth itself.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 12, 2012 at 9:03 pm #

      I hear you brother.Nothing like torrential climate change rain filling open cut mines to unsettle the shareholders.LOL.

      And then.

      Could Clive HAVE a more ‘apt’ surname?
      Could Twiggy (surname phonetic) have a more ironic one?

      I’m watching and waiting as the universe turns and things fall into place.

      It seems the Rinehart karmic kick back has begun…….
      Clive was right.One bed.
      I dare say his sleeping will get more unsettled as he ages, and strange, timeless songs waft into his ears.
      So be it, I say.

      Like

      • Jennifer Wilson May 13, 2012 at 7:19 am #

        I don’t know if you all are aware of this blog: it’s interesting speculation about why the PM is so against same sex marriage, by that erudite atheist, Chrys Stevenson: http://thatsmyphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/julia-gillards-de-evolution-on-gay-rights/

        I think she’s on the money with her analysis.

        I haven’t had time to read this one properly but it looks thought provoking, on Afghanistan: http://theamericanscholar.org/a-gathering-menace/?utm_source=LF+Newsletters&utm_campaign=bb0216f298-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

        And Andrew Elder on Costello: http://andrewelder.blogspot.com.au/2012/05/costellos-radetzky-march.html

        Like

        • doug quixote May 13, 2012 at 10:58 am #

          As regards Gillard’s stance on same-sex marriage, I’ve always been of the opinion that she made certain commitments to the Labor right wing power brokers to secure their support. That a commitment to socially conservative policy was among them should not surprise anyone.

          The nonsense being spouted about Gillard being a dangerous hard left socialist had to be put to rest, and it has been.

          I see nothing underhanded or untoward in any of this, it is just the way politics has always been played.

          I think Gillard is a fine politician, and one now ready to emerge from the training wheels phase.
          The opposition are truly desperate to get their trotters in the trough now; if they fail they will be out of power for a decade.

          Like

          • Jennifer Wilson May 13, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

            No DQ not fast asleep, I’ve been painting all weekend!

            I’m interested to see Gillard emerge from the training phase, I wonder how much of a chance she’ll have to strut her stuff?

            Another theory on her ssm stand I heard today is that it is her personal opinion, not political at all.

            And now we have rumours circulating about Shorten. We never used to do this in Australia, did we? I mean we used to leave pollies private lives alone. We become more Americanised every day. I hear Abbott is learning all his moves from the Republicans.

            Like

            • doug quixote May 14, 2012 at 7:27 am #

              I trust the painting was a success.

              But did you like :

              “Thee I’ll chase hence, thou wolf in sheep’s array.
              Out, tawny coats! out, scarlet hypocrite!”

              ?

              Like

              • Jennifer Wilson May 14, 2012 at 8:32 am #

                Yes! “Under my feet I stamp thy Cardinal’s hat!”
                I like it so much I’m repeating it for those who may have missed it first time around:

                “Duke of Gloucester:

                I will not slay thee, but I’ll drive thee back:
                Thy scarlet robes as a child’s bearing-cloth
                I’ll use to carry thee out of this place.

                Cardinal Winchester

                Do what thou darest; I beard thee to thy face.

                Gloucester

                What! am I dared and bearded to my face?
                Draw, men, for all this privileged place;
                Blue coats to tawny coats. Priest, beware your beard,
                I mean to tug it and to cuff you soundly:
                Under my feet I stamp thy cardinal’s hat:
                In spite of pope or dignities of church,
                Here by the cheeks I’ll drag thee up and down.

                Cardinal

                Gloucester, thou wilt answer this before the pope.

                Gloucester

                Winchester goose, I cry, a rope! a rope!
                Now beat them hence; why do you let them stay?
                Thee I’ll chase hence, thou wolf in sheep’s array.
                Out, tawny coats! out, scarlet hypocrite!”

                from Henry VI part one, by Edward De Vere (aka Shakespeare)
                (Via DQ)

                Like

      • Hypocritophobe May 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm #

        So the MLA get away with it and taxpayers bail farmers out YET again.
        Will Labor stop at nothing to convince themselves a farmer would ever actually vote Labor?

        FAIL.

        http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-14/government-facing-compensation-claims-for-live-export-suspension/4010600

        Like

  25. Steve at the Pub May 21, 2012 at 12:49 pm #

    The MLA is/was controlled by the federal government. It was/is not a body for which industry representatives had the final say.

    Not that that matters. The federal government closed off an industry on a whim, without any investigation, and harmed the livelihoods of some of the most self-reliant & hard working people in Australia. For this Gillard should (were justice to be served) face a firing squad. It is sickening to gut that instead she’ll receive benefits & pension.

    In a display of just how out of touch she (& her advisors) are, she was shocked when a day or two later she appeared in public at some function in Darwin & was greeted with abuse & jeers. What did the stupid cow expect? She was lucky to not be pelted with fresh cow pats!

    For the uninformed, which is most blog commenters, those affected by the live cattle export ban were not “farmers”. They are cattlemen.
    Closing the industry off (it remains effectively closed) was a national decision.

    Thus the WHOLE NATION should deservedly share the direct financial pain.

    As it is, the cattlemen miss out. The compensation claim is by big businesses, not by cattlemen.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 21, 2012 at 1:12 pm #

      “For the uninformed, which is most blog commenters”
      Self awareness pardner,self awareness.Nice Personification of.

      Not that you’d take advice,”Stevo’, but if I were you I’d spend a lot less time at the pub.
      The Bundy seems to have soaked in a tad.
      Not unlike sherry does in the sponge at the base of a trifle.

      Like

  26. Steve at the Pub May 21, 2012 at 1:30 pm #

    Once again your teminology sux Hypo. You only read about these things don’t you, rather than live them?
    In country where it supplants beer as the primary drink, the stuff is known as “Rum”. I’d never drink that brand though, for political reasons.
    Please, share with me your recommendation for my new career direction? I look forward to your rationale.

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

      I vote your new career to be journalism.
      You can be the next Glenn Milne.
      You will need an over inflated ego and dipsomania on your CV.
      (And astute observational skills,which you must completely suppress)
      Judging by the fact that you obviously live by your own creeds,
      “For the uninformed, which is most blog commenters”
      you may also branch out, online.

      The biggest hurdle may be your over qualification.

      By the way,I was Baghdad before you were in dad’s bag.
      Watch out for drop bears.

      Like

  27. Hypocritophobe May 21, 2012 at 2:40 pm #

    EDIT
    ‘in’ Baghdad

    Like

  28. Steve at the Pub May 21, 2012 at 3:12 pm #

    Hypo, ole buddy ole pal, a job as a journalist is one thing, but you fail to provide a rationale for the change. Amongst other considerations, I work for money. Why would I work for what journalists are paid?

    Why would I suffer the lifestyle downgrade by moving to the big smoke?

    Like

    • Hypocritophobe May 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm #

      You’re right to degree.Money is a plus.
      The old peanut monkey thing is certainly apt in journalism.
      Nowhere moreso than Aunty.Which gets us back to why your friend Mr Uhlmann behaves so much like a rag journo.He wants to prove he can be one.
      I just wish they’d pick up the phone and ring him, i think he has all the attributes and has gone above and beyond in many respects.
      As for any rationale for your own leap into Milneville ,perhaps the fact that the hours are good,the sleeping patterns could suit you and the workload is very thin on the ground may appeal.
      What are you like at making stuff up and repeating it till dogs ears bleed?

      Like

  29. paul walter May 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm #

    Hockey one, Hockey two…nothing like a good puck!
    Everyone gets fooled with Paddington Bear, the big bluffy neighbourly type that masks something to do with conservative instincts and a certain authoritarianistic nastiness.
    We recall he is only a figment of Grahame Morris’s stiited imagination, as are the other plasticine figurines in his glass menagerie that he, Textor and their ilk decree to be the straightjacketed extent and quality of public recognition sadly derived only of information reportage shortage and thus loss of the cognitive accessability that allows the citizen a working model of reality on which to base her decision making on social and personal issues.
    So it’s actually coming back to identity, consciousness and spatial integrity as components of actually occurring life. Why this will to control the lives of others and why is this project an interest of a minority of people like Hockey, Milne and the like when most of us turned our backs on
    Randist obsessions years ago. I need a simulacra like a three armed jacket, but they keep wilfully peddling tripe for truth.
    Btw Hypo, some pretty sore and sorry canines about after tonight’s Media Watch, involving the OZ’s loathsome Christian Kerr?

    Like

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Too Much Porn Is Never Enough, Not If You’re Australian | Turn Left 2013 - May 9, 2012

    […] – The footballer & the anti porn campaigner: not cool as FCUK […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: