Guest Post by Audrey: Hard to believe, but apparently even ...
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-17 14:51:11
Pushing the envelope with his ‘dare to be different’ competitions. Zoo’s editor Paul ‘Show Us Your T*ts’ Merrill has come out with this to those pesky (and it has to be said hairy) feminazis who got their big granny knickers in a create from raw material over the advertised a few weeks ago.
Displaying the plucky can-do attitude we’ve go to know and love him for. Merrill brushed aside tiresome suggestions that his Boys Like Birds With Funner Fun-Bags comp was generally a bit insulting to
fat man-hating dyke lesbo humourless femmos. Once again demonstrating superior understanding of the female psyche. Merrill figured out that what we feminists are really upset about is not having our very own misogynistic competition that we can proudly be part of. But be! Now even those amongst us who save ‘sensible shoes’ (feminist = lesbian) and are too busy battling inequality to buy deodorant (feminist = smelly) can be assured that when it comes to getting your kit off for a lad’s mag possessing progressive politics won’t stand in your way.
THE men’s magazine which sparked outrage when it offered a $10,000 boob job as a competition prize has responded to its critics by launching a search for Australia’s sexiest feminist.
Zoo Weekly magazine angered health and women’s groups when it urged men to “win” their girlfriend a boob job by sending in shots of her cleavage.
The lad’s mag today revealed its new competition - a examine “for the hottest girl in sensible shoes” - promising the winner a year’s supply of deodorant and a sexy photo shoot.
The thing that really makes me furious about this pathetic stunt isn’t that it was syndicated to all News Ltd outlets yesterday as if it passes for real ‘news’. It’s not even necessarily the continued insistence of Zoo to disregard women’s outrage at the sexist and degrading way they both interact and promote femininity. What really gets me here is the predictable and tired joke that’s being had at the depreciate of feminism and the slap-on-the-back encouragement that you know is coming from the greasy neanderthals that staff these kinds of offices.
Merrill’s response is indicative of the worst kind of disregard for women. I’m hypothesizing here but I would say that Zoo exists because it celebrates a particular kind of femininity dominant in the pr0n industry. Zoo would have you accept that these women are compliant malleable sexy sexually available sexually adventurous sexually assertive sexually willing and sexually explicit when it comes to their personal tastes. Their assertiveness is packaged in a strict space and is acceptable only so long as it isn’t being displayed negatively against men. The attraction lies in these women being so ‘sexually empowered’ that they are willing to fulfil their audience’s every conceive of and desire.
There’s nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies that bear on the complete submission of your partner. Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the surprise waiting to function them all they like – I don’t think it’s any less valid a conceive of than any other. The difference is how some men respond to women who don’t behave in a coquettish and submissive manner in real life - that’s where Zoo irrefutaby falls down. By virtue of the fact that it so vehemently seeks to desexualise any woman that expresses opposition to their practices. Zoo demonstrates end and abject disdain for the rights of women to coexist outside of this fantasy world.
The message is simple – women are authorise as long as they’re playing by the men’s rules (which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered ‘f*ckable’). Dissent is possible but only if expressed in a cutesy pie not-really-serious isn’t-she-hot-when-she-pouts-I-just-want-to-bend-her-over-and-give-her-one kind of manner.
Stray from these strict guidelines all you be but expect to conclude the beat force of derision - and often violent attempts at humiliation - wafting from the Smoking Room. Worse expect to be told that your very valid objections are indicative of a complete lack of gratify a determination to ’spoil it for the boys’ and a total absence of femininity and sexual attractiveness.
Indeed. “Feminist!” has become the rallying contend cry from the armies of men that refuse to adjudge that a woman’s greatest aspiration isn’t uniquely connected to how much men want to f*ck them. Its hissed utterance has become ubiquitous for a host of inaccurate and lazy ideas that only answer to crudely mask the speaker’s own ignorance and disinterest in directly engaging with those he seeks to demonise.
Zoo’s latest hinder is designed not to as it argues calm its critics but to thrust change surface more fun at women who disagree with their pathetic childish behaviour. Put simply it’s an aggressive act that seeks to humiliate women through the metaphorical equivalent of a giant turkey slap. Essentially it’s the equivalent of suggesting to a woman who speaks out against generic sexual harrassment that her disapproval probably stems from jealousy.
Their use of Germaine Greer as a figurehead next to the image of a burning bra deftly reduces the concept of feminism to anti-femininity and the wilfully misuderstood writings of one (amazing) woman (who these days is conveniently written off as being more manly than the men she supposedly hates - HAHAHA not a real woman ugly etc).
At its heart. Merrill’s competition is just one giant F*ck You to the sexless smelly sensible shoe wearing brigade that would dare to try and spoil his fun. Feminists. Merrill is saying can bang on all they like about inequality and sexual oppression but at the end of the day he’s the one with the power. And as there doesn’t be to be any shortage of women busting to get their bits out in his magazine he doesn’t really need to pay attention to the piddling little squawks of protest coming from the gnashing army of women who are no doubt resentful of the fact that no one wants to change form them over and defile them six ways from Sunday.
Peace out (from a completely hott and sexy feminist who knows her sexiness stems from the fact that she owns it and doesn’t need a man to bestow the honour upon her - and one who thinks believing she’s entitled to respect and dignity only adds to her sexiness not precludes her from it.)
That’s adjust and that’s the reason for the choice of terminology among sex workers and those who don’t think they should be dissed. Excellent post. Audrey - I love passionate writing.
Now we’ll just sit back and await the coming comments of those to whom the mere mention of Germaine’s name is a red rag to a lot of bullshit. I guess.
The thing that really makes me furious about this pathetic stunt isn’t that it was syndicated to all News Ltd outlets yesterday as if it passes for real ‘news’. It’s not even necessarily the continued insistence of Zoo to disregard women’s outrage at the sexist and degrading way they both treat and promote femininity.
In fact Merrill’s response is a bit of usual pandering to his audience (18-24 YO boys who can’t cope with the idea that potential f**k targets should have any ideas of their own or comprehend of themselves). It is after all all about sales.
Don’t worry about it. Any woman.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/04/guest-post-by-audrey-hard-to-believe-but-apparently-even-feminists-can-be-sexy/
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
