Log in

strange little girls' Journal [entries|friends|calendar]
strange little girls

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ calendar | livejournal calendar ]

star no star

[16 May 2005|06:43pm]

hey I'm Sarah. I'm doing a degree in gender studies and I'm writing an essay on the functions of rape in war and I wondered if anyone had any information on it. I'm focusing on the former Yugoslavia....What I've found out so far is really shocking.

star no star

anti-feminism [15 May 2005|08:12pm]

hello :)

i'm trying to do some research on anti-feminist groups in the UK and US.

was just wondering if anyone had any interesting web resources? the only thing i can find really is 'ladies against feminism'

thanks x x



[13 May 2005|11:09am]

I'm starting a Feminist Cultural Theory & Practice MA in the autumn, and I'm looking for summer reading. What feminist text would you recommend? I've already done a lot of reading, but what should I read or re-read?

star no star

[21 Feb 2005|10:16pm]

[ mood | content ]

Hello. I've just joined. I'm really interested in women's rights and I couldn't help but join. My name's Emily, I preferred not to be called by my screen name. Anyway, I'm exited to come here and chat.

I find it completely ignorant that it was even thought of to ban abortion. I myself, have never been in that position, but it's all about woman's choice. My sister's friend was raped at the age of 11, and was impregnated. At that time, her parents didn't allow her to get an abortion, and by the time she had held her son she couldn't give him up for adoption. That's beside the point. If I was ever to be raped and turn out pregant. I would want a choice for something that wasn't my fault.


Maureen Dowd hates women [31 Jan 2005|10:03am]

[ mood | annoyed ]

Op-Ed Columnist: Torture Chicks Gone Wild

Bug me Not

As if the title of the article doesn't already speak volumes about Ms Dowd's point of view...

She pretends that she's writing from a liberal standpoint, and then all she does is denigrate women and hint that Bill Clinton's a pretty bad guy too.
She's making it sounds as though torturing the men was all the women's idea. She's making it sound as if those poor officers were somehow wrapped around the finger of the vicious women interrogators and that's why they couldn't manage to stop the "women gone wild." And she's claiming that Bush lost his integrity but there's no teeth behind what she's saying but at the end she threw in that Bill Clinton is an idiot because he was seduced by a thong in the Oval Office. Note that Ms Dowd never hints that Mr Bush is being duped or seduced by thongs or wicked women - in fact you pretty much get the impression that she thinks he's a pretty stand-up guy and would look great if it weren't for these rogue female interrogators who clearly went off on their own scary tactics without permission or knowledge of the (for sure male) officers.


[25 Jan 2005|09:48pm]

Hello. My name is Greta & I just joined. I joined because I have some of the interests on the interest list in common & because I am into feminism & learning more about the different types.


what? [26 Jan 2005|09:42am]

[ mood | cranky ]

What's wrong with Planned Parenthood's condoms? Why are they worse than other condoms? (Why do I get the feeling that something is being said other than the quality of the rubber?)

"We can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women," Mrs. Clinton told the annual conference of the Family Planning Advocates of New York State. "The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place."

Leading anti-abortion campaigners, in both New York and nationwide, pounced on Mrs. Clinton as a suspect spokeswoman for compromise and common ground.

"I think she's trying to adopt a values-oriented language, but it lacks substance, at least if you compare it to her record," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council in Washington. "If you look at Senator Clinton's voting record on this issue, it's like Planned Parenthood's condoms - it's defective."

from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/nyregion/25clinton.html?th

star no star

Every once in a while, something is just over the top... [08 Jan 2005|01:39pm]

[ mood | angry ]

There's nothing on the internet about this at all, nothing that Google can find anyway. I'm shocked that I'm the first person to write about it. Surely, there are other feminists in Australia.

In Australia, Target is airing a commercial for a "Massive bra sale." Let me describe it for you:

Several women are playing soccer. A team scores a goal. The women on the team are so excited, that just as the announcer for the commercial says "Massive bra... (sale)," the women pull the shirts that they are wearing up in front of their faces so that their entire heads are obscured by their shirts and the bras underneath are exposed. In the plot of the commercial, this is supposedly how they are celebrating the goal that just was scored. Now the women are bumbling and stumbling into each other, and rightly so because they cannot see anything at all with their shirts over their eyes. There are no women with any faces left - all are headless, dancing with their breasts jiggling in their skimpy bras. At the end of the commercial, they have formed a congo line and are dancing, still jiggling, still with their heads covered by their shirts. One must only assume they grabbed blindly at each other to form this congo line...

This commercial disgusts me. Who is the intended audience? Certainly, it's not women, who are likely the potential purchasers of underwear and bras for themselves. This is Target we're talking about, not Victoria's Secret. So the commercial is there simply to create eye candy for men who want to see breasts jiggling?

I used to love Target. Target has been my favorite store to buy all manner of items, including clothing, for years, because their prices are in range with what I can afford and the quality is decent. Just so you know how I feel about Target, or did, before I saw this commercial...

Now I want to tell Target that I won't shop there any more. Now I want to tell them that I'm so offended and angry because of their "commercial" (soft porn) that I won't give them any more of my retail dollars. Will it even make a difference?

UPDATE: Contact information:
Target Australia Pty Ltd
(ABN 75 004 250 944)
12-14 Thompson Road
North Geelong
Vic 3215
Phone: (03) 5246 2000 (Outside Australia: +613 5246 2000)

Customer Relations Team
Toll Free (within Australia) on 1800 814 788 weekdays, between 9.00am and 5.00pm AEST. Or if you prefer, write to our free mail address:
Target Customer Relations
Reply Paid 11
PO box 41
Nth Geelong VIC 3215
Or alternatively click here to download a PDF (184kb) of our Reply Paid Customer brochure.

star no star

*sigh* [22 Dec 2004|01:17pm]

[ mood | blah ]

there is a video game company called topheavy studios, which has released a game called the guy game. it's supposed to be a bit like you don't know jack (a trivia game) except that the guy game is "a trivia game that rewards your trivia knowledge with live footage of college girls' breasts." (their emphasis). (gotta love that article, btw, with its comparing this game to other recent games by saying "none are as hell bent on showing you the female mammary gland as much as this new one" and headings such as "Gameplay, Boobs and Sound").

another quote from the article. worth reading but longish, so cut...Collapse )

from a feminist perspective, it's obvious how much is WRONG with this game. we could take hours to discuss it. there's a new issue, though, that has arisen, and that's what brought my attention to this whole debaucle to begin with: a young woman who was 17 at the time the game was created is now suing topheavy studios, its parent company, Sony, and Microsoft. her lawsuit claims that since she was 17 at the time of the game's being filmed, she was legally unable to enter into a contract and therefore unable to consent to being filmed. a judge has filed a temporary injuction to stop distribution of the game.

according to the article,

The reasons stated for the lawsuit are that the plaintiff has suffered humiliation, embarrassment, and shame since the release of the game. According to the lawsuit the "plaintiff is still a teenager and wishes to attend college, develop her career and be active in her community and church."

should a teenager have the ability to sue a company because she was 17 at the time she participated in something embarrassing? what about all the 18 and up women involved in the game - unable to sue on this technicality. when the teenaged girl made the decision to sign the contract (which she either knew was not binding because of her age and didn't care, or didn't know but still didn't care), she gave permission. not that i agree with what she gave permission to do, not that i think it was a wise decision or one that particularly helps out the feminist cause, but she still made that decision.

what i'm wrestling with is my feelings about the age of consent with regard to sexual intercourse. i think it's absolutely appropriate to have strict age of consent laws and to prosecute offenders. i think the allowance many states have made for people of similar age (for example, i believe california states that adults within two years of a minor's age may legally engage in sex with the minor as long as the minor provides consent - in other words, if there was rape, it would not be statuatory rape) are appropriate as well - if a 17 year old and an 18 or 19 year old have a sexual relationship, the law should mind its own business. so if a 17 year old can choose to have sex with a person over age 18, and the 18 year old not be prosecuted for statuatory rape, shouldn't a 17 year old be allowed to give permission to show her breasts to people, should she feel the urge?

i'm wrestling with my feelings of wanting to protect children from being sexualized (and very much hating the idea of this the guy game in general) versus my feelings that this young woman made an informed decision and patriarchy may be bullying its way into protecting her based on masculine ideals that women need to be protected from themselves...

anyone have any more coherant thoughts than i do? (or any thoughts, i'll take any...) =)



can i get a "hell no" ? [01 Oct 2004|03:56pm]

[ mood | disgusted ]

do we really need to re-establish WHY there are age of consent laws in the first place? HELLO POWER IMBALANCE, for one thing. for another thing, psychology shows that young people's brains are not physically developed to make complex decisions. this is an ability that forms late in teen years. at any rate, why ANY island would want to have a "tradition" of 12 and 13 year old girls being subject to sexual behaviour up to and including intercourse is beyond me. we're not talking about "native people" with 1000s of years of traditions that mean white people are being ethnocentric towards and imposing their culture upon, either - we are talking about people originally from england.

i'm referring to the issues on pitcairn island, a small island in the south pacific, where 1/2 the adult male residents now stand accused of rape or other sexual "indecency" charges. another group of men, former residents of the island, are supposed to go to trial next year for the same accusation.

i was reading about this here in case you wanted to see a news story.

[x-posted to my personal journal, feministsanon, sexlessdemons]

woman-friendly company [29 Sep 2004|05:39pm]

[ mood | accomplished ]

hey all,

thought you might be interested in the following company as it has all-natural products and is woman-friendly. (i've ordered from them before and have had a good experience). if you're not interested, just disregard. =)


wtf... [06 Sep 2004|01:16pm]

[ mood | angry ]

But only if 3 Secret Service Agents are holding her down.

Watch him do it.

He is still unidentified. Have you seen him?
If so, reply here.


damn those women!! tempting men is EVIL!!!! [03 Sep 2004|11:12am]

[ mood | annoyed ]

this feels to me like the first step in the continuum that blames women for rape... (she dressed sexy therefore she gave up the right to choose whether or not she wanted sex)...

according to BBC News, china has banned women from wearing "sexy" attire if they hold jobs as civil servants. from the article:

Women have been asked to refrain from wearing revealing tops and leggings as well as too much jewellery at work, state media report.

They should "dress in a serious, proper, simple and natural way".


The clothes must not be "avant-garde and ostentatious", the regulations announced by the Zhejiang provincial archives bureau say.

Nor should they be "too thin and tight or showing the under-garments".

damn those women! too much jewelry attracts too much attention. being fashion-conscious (wearing something "avant-garde") is JUST PLAIN WRONG! women should be subserviant, and in fact, barely noticed, because they are there to perform a JOB not attract any sort of undue attention!

what about the men? why aren't the men being asked not to be too "avant-garde" in their fashion choices? what if they wear really garish ties - that is not a problem, i guess. and you certainly don't have to worry about men dressing in a way that is "too sexy," because, well, other men don't find it bothersome.

now. i can understand cracking down and ensuring that everyone dresses *professionally* but why are only women the focus of this effort?

don't even get me started on the second half of the article. oh, too late, i'm already started.
The report also recommended women should adopt manners in line with their professional positions.

"They should use elegant language, avoid rude words and must not in any case use dirty or strange words," it said.

"When they receive guests or speak on the phone, they must say 'please' and 'thank you'," the report said.

again - i agree that all people should be professional at work; all people should avoid rude words when dealing with the public, and should be aware of using the words "please" and "thank you." there is entirely too little politeness and civility in the public service domain. HOWEVER... why are only WOMEN being asked to be aware of these things? shouldn't men also avoid using nasty language, and ensure their use of polite words? can anyone honestly believe that the men have been behaving and dressing professionally this entire time, never so much as the slightest infraction, while the women have been slutting it up and talking like sailors?

my argument with the reported rules of this article is that the implication is that women are supposed to be very narrowly inside their correct "gender role"... they should be polite and never act like a man by cursing, but they shouldn't go too far with the feminine stuff and start dressing in a provocative manner.


[x-posted to my personal journal, feministsanon, sexlessdemons.]


Intro... [19 Aug 2004|01:26pm]

I've been a member of this community for quite a while & haven't really introduced myself, so here goes my attempt to do so. My name's Greta. i_am_ruined Tells ALMOST everything about me. If your still interested about me, AIM me: mysacredheart66 or go to my 'myspace' profile it tells EVERYTHING: http://profiles.myspace.com/users/4334237 Oh and this might or not be related to the community, but this is my 'riot grrrl online' site: http://riotgrrrl.girlsvomitcandy.com/ I have 7 other sites as well & more journals, check out my user info for more info. Anyhow, I'm glad to be a member of this community...this community is awesome!

star no star

& exactly how pissy should i be? [10 Jun 2004|11:32am]

[ mood | annoyed ]

my post about the woman's death being set aside over top billing for the chopped off penis was reposted elsewhere and a random person commented, "His penis must have been really big if we can't get past it."

put this together with my earlier post today, and i'm just so frustrated. here, a man minimizing my anger at the minimization of the death of a woman, by making a PENIS SIZE JOKE.

yeah, let's all focus on how big this poor guy's schlong was INSTEAD OF THE DEAD WOMAN.

maybe i'm overreacting, or getting too caught up in my feminist rage or something... but it's all building, it's all making me so much more frustrated...

star no star

oh no... [10 Jun 2004|08:50am]

[ mood | infuriated ]

it seems not meant to be that i can get through this day without becoming EVEN MADDER.

i subscribe to the BBC america version news updates, and see on my livejournal friends page little snippets of news... a headline, a URL, and a quick abstract of the story.

here is one i just saw:

Penis severed in domestic quarrel


A woman cuts off her estranged husband's penis during a row before being stabbed to death, in the German city of Kassel.


and i clicked on the link, and i read the story.

what really steams me about this? the MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THIS STORY (which is what the headline is intended to convey, no?) is that a man's penis was cut off. it was subsequently reattached but THE WOMAN DIED because the temporarily castrated man STABBED HER TO DEATH. that's just incidental, though... the big deal here is that DEAR LORD A MAN'S PENIS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FUNCTION PROPERLY EVER AGAIN.

can we get past the penis, please? a woman is DEAD! that's less important than the severed penis?!

star no star

free me from misogynism! [10 Jun 2004|07:38am]

[ mood | angry ]

can't i go anywhere, can't i do anything, without being exposed to images and descriptions of women being inferior to men, women being taken advantage of by men, women's purpose for men suggested to be sexual objects to be looked at and taken? i get SO TIRED OF IT.

this morning on the way to work, i was listening to the radio, and i heard two commercials back to back that made me want to scream.

the first was for mcdonald's. a man was talking, saying that he was going to head to "mickey d's" after work today, because anything they had was better than his wife's leftovers. thanks, mcdonald's, for disparaging the unpaid work that women are just expected to do every day. it's unpaid, it's thankless, and now it's not even as tasty as fast food.

the second was for molson beer. they've had a series of commercials that have pissed me off lately, and this latest one really got me steamed. (previous commercials have involved a bunch of women being read a "bedtime story" by one man, and the women sound all sexual, frisky, and state innuendos about what they are going to do with each other and the man...) this commercial practically endorsed date rape. there was a male announcer, saying that there are "friends" and there are "friends" and he is going to explain the difference between these, because molson beer helps create the latter kind. of the former kind, these "friends" will play ping pong or have dinner together, and the woman of this pair of "friends" sounds extremely bored. of the latter kind of "friends," the woman and her "friend" play "doctor" instead of ping pong, and the woman says in a very seductive voice, "doctor, i am feeling very hot, maybe you can take my temperature..." later, the woman and her "friend" have breakfast instead of dinner, and the woman, again in a seductive voice, says "oooooh, scrambled eggs," and her male "friend" replies, "and my famous sausage!" and the woman giggles and says, "ooooh..." in a very sexually interested tone of voice. then the male announcer again stressed that molson is intended to turn "friends" into "friends". i guess that just proves the old "truism"... get a few beers into a woman, any woman, hey especially one who trusts you to just be her "friend," and she will turn into a sexual animal! or at least someone who wants to have sex with the likes of you, you horny man....

it was just too much for me this morning to hear these two commercials in a row...

star no star

Riot Grrrl [27 May 2004|06:22pm]

My riot grrrl site is now up & running. Go here to visit it.


were you under the misconception that you are ineligible for the selective service draft? [04 May 2004|12:38pm]

[ mood | worried ]

from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/171522_draft01.html

The chief of the Selective Service System has proposed registering women for the military draft and requiring that young Americans regularly inform the government about whether they have training in niche specialties needed in the armed services.
The proposal, which the agency's acting Director Lewis Brodsky presented to senior Pentagon officials just before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, also seeks to extend the age of draft registration to 34 years old, up from 25.

The Selective Service System plan, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, highlights the extent to which agency officials have planned for an expanded military draft in case the administration and Congress would authorize one in the future.

"In line with today's needs, the Selective Service System's structure, programs and activities should be re-engineered toward maintaining a national inventory of American men and, for the first time, women, ages 18 through 34, with an added focus on identifying individuals with critical skills," the agency said in a Feb. 11, 2003, proposal presented to senior Pentagon officials.


Some of the skill areas where the armed forces are facing "critical shortages" include linguists and computer specialists, the agency said. Americans would then be required to regularly update the agency on their skills until they reach age 35.

please, please, please keep an eye out for this kind of legislation. if you hear about it being discussed in congress or suggested by the president, etc., please make your views known.

[x-posted to my personal journal, feministsanon, sexlessdemons, michaelmoore]


why do male prisoners rape each other more prevalently than female prisoners rape each other? [29 Apr 2004|12:19pm]

[ mood | contemplative ]

via alas, a blog [highly recommended reading for anyone who's interested in feminism], i saw a link to an article about rape of men in prison. alas quoted from the article the following:

The traditional rationale for prison rape is the lack of women, but most psychologists consider this facile. They see prison rape mainly as a means by which people who have been stripped of control over the most basic aspects of their lives—when to eat a meal, take a shower, or watch TV—can reclaim some sense of power. As one Louisiana prisoner, Wilbert Rideau, wrote, "the psychological pain involved in such an existence creates an urgent and terrible need for reinforcement of [a prisoner's] sense of manhood and personal worth." Others believe that prisoners become rapists out of fear of becoming victims themselves; it's a choice between becoming predator or prey. The psychologist Daniel Lockwood, in his study Prison Sexual Violence, calls this strategy "pre-emptive self-defense."

this got me to thinking about the theory's possible application as a way to explain why it is that male prisoner to prisoner rape happens much more prevalently than female prisoner to prisoner rape, and i came up with the following:

perhaps this article might help explain why men are more likely to rape or be raped by other prisoners than women are. (there's a fair amount of rape of female prisoners, but it tends to be done by male guards and not by other female prisoners. not to say that female prisoners raping each other is non-existant, just much less prevalant than male prisoner to prisoner rape).
meaning: since women's socialized role in society creates feelings of powerlessness, there isn't as urgent a need to try to take power when put into a total institution like a prison, because it's not as much of a transition from "little power over one's own circumstances" to "almost no power over one's own circumstances"... whereas men, used to having nearly total control of their circumstances, can be shocked by the transition and desperate to repair the shock by trying to gain some small control.
please note also i'm not saying anything about all women's agency [capability to make changes and choices affecting their destiny], i'm just generalizing that society still tends to teach women that they are not the authors of their own destiny, and that they should be comfortable with decisions affecting their lives being made for them.


any thoughts?

[x-posted to my own journal, feministsanon, sexlessdemons.]

[ viewing | most recent entries ]
[ go | earlier ]