Starts Saturday May 4, 12am – 12 midnight

As published on Collective Shout

As a non-profit movement, our friends at Gifted Hands have generously offered to support us by donating all online sales made tomorrow to us!

Gifted Hands sells environmentally friendly bags, scarves, jewellery and other items, supporting projects benefiting women and girls around the world.

Check out the online store here. If you like what you see and would like to support Collective Shout, here’s what you can do:

1. Tomorrow, visit www.giftedhands.com.au

2. Place an order anytime tomorrow and Collective Shout will receive 100% of the proceeds.

3. Share this article with your friends and networks and invite them to take part.

This is a great opportunity to purchase Mother’s Day gifts – but remember, the offer is only available Saturday, May 4, 12am until midnight! If you’re on Facebook, please join the event and share on your Facebook page too.

It is because of your support – both financial and through your activism – that Collective Shout has been able to achieve real change. We have seen sexploitative ad campaigns halted and p*rnified products withdrawn from sale. But the success is not only in the products that have been withdrawn. Because of your willingness to speak out, our sources tell us that corporates have been turning away products before they even hit the shelves.

There has been much progress but we still have a long way to go. Supporting this fundraising initiative is one way that you can help Collective Shout to build on the success we’ve already seen.

If you don’t want to purchase any products but would like to donate to Collective Shout directly, you can make a donation here:

www.collectiveshout.org/donate

We are so grateful for your support. Thanks for being part of the ‘Collective’ in Collective Shout.

If Dolly wasn’t persisting with its Model Search competition, which returned last year having been sensibly done away with by previous editors, I could probably have given this issue the thumbs up. Lydia Turner, Managing Director at BodyMatters Australasia, and I have written before about why this competition – won in 2012 by a 13-year-old – is harmful to girls for re-enforcing global norms about perfect bodies in an era rampant with body hatred and eating disorders. (see also ‘Girls still getting the wrong messages about their bodies’). Dolly is trying to cover over the criticism with lots of body friendly rhetoric such as ‘beauty that is more than skin deep’, ‘beauty comes in all shapes and sizes’, ‘the winner will be selected for being a relatable role model for teen girls.’ But the fact remains, this is a modelling competition and unless the entrant conforms to body limiting stereotypes and conventions, she won’t make it. Girls continue to be taught what matters most is to fit some cookie-cutter mould of what women should look like and Dolly isn’t helping. Read more here.

As published on Generation Next blog. 

When disgraced AFL player manager Ricky Nixon attacked his then fiancée Tegan Gould, he grabbed her by the throat, pushed her against a wall, hit her in the head then fled police custody. In her victim impact statement, Gould said the assault left her suffering headaches, bruises, nightmares, panic attacks, and that she was intimidated, paranoid, introverted. She said she lived in fear of him hurting her again. With five serious offences against him – along with a pattern of inappropriate behaviour towards women over time – what sentence was applied to Nixon? A grand total of 200 hours community service. Domestic violence is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women 15-45 years in Australia. It costs this country $8.1 billion a year, estimated to rise to $9.9 billion by 2012 if appropriate action isn’t taken. But even where guilty verdicts are achieved – which is rarely – the consequences seem minimal. When will these crimes against women be taken seriously? Here’s what I had to say on the subject on Channel 10’s The Project last night (starts at 3.46).

Ricky Nixon pleaded guilty to beating ex-fiancee Tegan Gould to ‘protect’ his and her family

But women’s advocate Melinda Tankard Reist said domestic violence was too serious an offence for perpetrators to be let off lightly.

“My fear is that this will send a message to other victims that domestic violence isn’t that serious – that if someone beats you, they will just get a community service,” she said yesterday.

“This is a vulnerable woman being attacked by an older man in a position of power and authority. It’s a concern when he gets off so lightly.” Full story here. 

Girl Mag Watch

Important articles on the dangers of sexting and pressures on girls to deliver oral sex

There are two really important and timely articles in this issue. ‘The Sext files’, is straightforward and honest with readers about the risks of sexting. A recent GF survey found one in four readers have sent a sext. Personal stories are told of girls pressured to send sexual images, threats used to get a girl to send more pictures, images being shared with other without consent.

Kids Helpline, the Australian Federal Police, and Cybersmart all agree there is no safe way to sext, as once an image is sent, the sender loses control of it. “Girls can be embarrassed, bullied and socially outcast, which can affect friendships and grades at school, and can also lead to mental health issues”, says Gretchen Martins from Cybersmart. Readers are reminded that if a male pressures them to send a sexual image, this is not the kind of man who respects them, nor someone they can trust. They are also given a run down of where the law stands in relation to sexting – illegal if under 18, because they cannot legally consent. Taking and distributing images of under-age girls can represent the production or distribution of child pornography material which can carry a penalty of 15 years. Practical advice is given on what to do if you are asked to send a sext (“Remember the social and legal consequences and remind yourself that it’s just not worth it.”), If you’ve sent a sext (tell a trusted adult), and if you are sent a sext (delete the image, don’t forward, tell trusted adult).

The second significant piece is on the pressure on girls to deliver oral sex. A 2011 study by thefound 37% of Year 10 students and 57% of Yr 12 students had engaged in oral sex. Girls describe an unspoken expectation that they will deliver oral sex when asked. Some describe giving in after multiple requests, even though they don’t enjoy the experience. Jodie, 16, is one of them. She felt used and regretted giving in. “If I’d stood my ground, I would have been better off”, she says. “Whatever the reason, girls seem to be working off the assumption that they need to trade sexual favours to please guys. Girls deserve better than this,” says Girlfriend. Indeed they do and I commend GF for saying so. Read more here.

Published on Generation Next Blog

There’s been a ton of media coverage on the adultification and sexualisation of children lately. This program aired on Channel 7’s Today Tonight Monday. Click picture below to view clip.

And just a clarification re the KMart campaign. It wasn’t actually me who was instrumental in getting KMart to pull certain items – that win was the result of grassroots protests by a number of individuals and it happened pretty quickly. However I was encouraged to receive a call from KMart CEO Guy Russo personally apologising and a short time after, with Julie Gale of Kids Free 2B Kids, to meet Guy and his staff at the company’s Melbourne headquarters. KMart was invited to sign Collective Shout’s Corporate Social Responsibility Pledge which asks corporates to sign a statement of intention not to objectify women and sexualise girls in products and services. We hope to make an announcement soon.

And great to see this issue get Page 1 treatment in the Daily Telegraph this week.

“There really is a global backlash” – MTR

Netmums website finds parents believe modern life steals kids’ childhood

PARENTS believe childhood ends at 12 and blame pressure from friends, celebrity culture and social media for rushing kids into adulthood.

Almost 90 per cent of parents think modern children grow up faster than previous generations, while one in two parents admit their daughters worry about their Facebook popularity, a survey by the Netmums website has found.

Modern tweens prefer to play alone on iPads, with 83 per cent of their parents saying their favourite activity was playing outdoors.

Boys are under pressure to be “macho” and “good at everything” while girls are under “immense strain to be thin” and sexy before being mature enough to cope.

Do you agree? Tell us below.

The British survey found 54 per cent of parents were angry with retailers, saying clothing for girls was too sexual, provocative and short.

The anger against retailers who foster the “pornification of culture” was growing, said Melinda Tankard Reist, co-founder of campaign group Collective Shout. “There really is a global backlash about forcing children to grow up too fast and telling little girls they have to be thin, hot and sexy to be acceptable,” she said.  Read more here.

Oscar-nominated actor produces violent pornography documentary

*TRIGGER WARNING*

Today marks the national premiere of the much- anticipated Disney film Oz: The Great and Powerful, starring James Franco. James Franco’s past film credits include his Oscar-nominated role in 127 Hours, Tristan and Isolde and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, among others.

Now Franco can add a new credit to his name- pornographer.

James Franco is the producer of pornographic documentary Kink, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January. The title Kink refers to a BDSM porn website, where extreme violence against women and torture are the norm. Common acts include non-simulated actual footage of rope, metal and wood bondage, underwater suffocation torture, electric shocks, sex with machinery, gang rape, slave training and public humiliation.

Promotional material for the website:

 “In our videos you will watch as some of the best riggers in the business bind, torture and f*ck gorgeous women”

“paddled, caned and flogged until their bodies are marked and red”

“Pushing the very limits of their endurance and pain tolerance”

“a descending mob…leaves no chance of escape”

Gail Dines, sociologist and author of Pornland writes on Counterpunch:

”The women, like others who enter porn, are young and often don’t know the full extent of what will happen on the set, and cannot anticipate the lasting psychological and emotional effects. The ultimate lie of Kink is that it claims to do candid interviews with the women at the end of the scene so they can show how much they enjoyed the “sex.” This is like asking sweatshop laborers to talk about how happy they are to be working for some multinational corporation as the CEO films the interview.” Read more here.

Girlfriend February Review

Many girls and young women look to girl’s magazines for advice on life, relationships, bodies, health and sexuality. But too often they receive conflicting advice and mixed messages and even, sometimes, outright contradiction.

Take for example, information provided in the sealed section of Girlfriend this month, where, within four pages of each other, two medicos give different information about age of consent laws. A 15-year-old, in a relationship with a boy the same age, enquires about age of consent laws because the two want to have sex. Dr Philip Goldstone replies “generally, if you are both under the legal age of consent, it is still illegal for you to have sex.” However Dr Sally Cockburn, under the heading ‘What if you’re both under the age of consent?’ writes: “If two people are both under the age of consent, but are the same or similar age, and both decide to engage in sexual activities, it’s not a legal issue – as long as there’s no coercion, violence or power imbalance involved. Basically, as long as you’re both in control and making informed decisions, there are no legal problems.” So who is the reader to believe? Isn’t this important enough to get right? How does the editing process work at Girlfriend for a contradiction like this not to be noticed? Girls don’t need confusing advice about where they stand under the law.

Not a matter of legal confusion, but something that is consistent is that I have to comment on the ‘Project You Reality Check’ again like I have to on the equivalent in Dolly. The logo is used so inconsistently I have little choice. On the front cover the ‘Reality Check’ provides the vital information that a tag was removed from fashion girl Kylie’s top and that the water in the background was darkened. Seriously, why bother? Then inside, ‘Style School’ features four girls with the ‘Reality Check’ telling us “We haven’t retouched any of these images – we didn’t need to! All the girls look great just the way they are”. So if that’s the case, does it mean that when girls are airbrushed they didn’t look ‘fine the way they were’? Do some need to be airbrushed while others don’t? Also confusing is that the young women featured are specifically clothed to highlight and play down certain parts of their bodies. For example Alex, 15, is dressed to give “the illusion of longer legs” and a mix of large and small prints “also disguises any unwanted bumps”. Eloieese, 14, is lanky, so given curves and a defined waist and “fuller figured” Gemma, 18, is put “in a peplum top, as it draws attention to the slimmest part of her body – her waist”. No airbrushing – but they are still dressed to give the illusion of something other than what they are, and to hide unwanted bumps. I’m all for the disclosure…but it needs to be consistently applied and align with what else is in the magazine as a whole. Otherwise it loses all meaning.  Read article here.

As published on Generation Next blog

Girl Mag Watch

As always, I’m confused about teen girls’ magazines approach to airbrushing and photo-shop (see here for a past example of my confusion).

This issue contains an explanation of the ‘Retouch Free Zone’. “DOLLY is all about healthy body image – that’s why we only feature photos of girls that haven’t been altered or ‘perfected’ in any way. Whenever you see this stamp, you know the girls pictured are real and unretouched!”

Wonderful. But if only.

“Whenever you see this stamp”? What if you don’t see it? What does that mean? The declaration does not appear on every image of every female in the magazine. It occurs inconsistently, which raises doubt. Why ‘retouch’ free’ on this one and not this one? And what about the ads? They are never ‘re-touch free’.

Selena Gomes is on the cover. Not a ‘re-touch free’ logo in sight and Selena’s skin is as flawless as the day she was born.  Was she re-touched? Don’t readers have a right to know that?  A consistent approach would be helpful.

More helpful (though somewhat lightweight) is ‘The 7 deadly sins of facebook’, on online etiquette – how to avoid looking like a stalker, keep control of your online image by setting your privacy settings high (the context is avoid being tagged in ugly pictures of yourself posted by others prior to approval…not so helpful), taking it easy with the ‘like’ button and avoiding angry outbursts.

‘The downside of YOLO’ – the motto ‘You Only Live Once’ and LWWY, ‘Live While We’re Young’ discusses the risks to young people of living by these codes. Dolly asks: “Do these cute shorthand mantras really warrant their sometimes long-term effects?” Psychologist Gemma Cribb says these mottos attempt to justify crazy behaviour regardless of consequences. “When somebody tweets ‘Oh well, YOLO’ it means they’re already aware that their decision might not be sensible.” Another psychologist Sally-Anne McCormack, says YOLO can be used as an excuse to deal with peer pressure or embarrassment. “Girls might be pushed into situations that they don’t want to face and instead of saying no, they think ‘What do I have to lose?’”. Rapper Ervin McKinness and four friends were driving in a speeding car when the 21-year-old tweeted: “Drunk…going 120 drifting corners…#YOLO.” Minutes later all were dead.  Brain development is discussed. The frontal lobe – responsible for impulse control, problem solving and considering consequences – isn’t properly developed until 25. Girls are advised to think smart rather than by the YOLO mantra. Read more here

As published on Generation Next Blog

A name change and a few less frills might sound better to sponsors, but it does nothing for women’s sport

Jas Swilks

As published at Collective Shout

When the Lingerie Football League (LFL) announced that it was starting the year 
with some big changes, I wondered whether they were finally going to do
 something really radical. Perhaps like paying their players. Or could it be
that they were going to stop making the women sign ‘accidental nudity’ clauses?

But no, apparently not.

Last month LFL Founder Mitch Mortaza announced a name change: from the
‘Lingerie Football Club – True Fantasy Football’ to ‘Legends Football Club –
Women of the Gridiron’.

On the LFL website Mortaza claimed that all ‘sexy’ branding had been removed
 from their logos and the player’s lingerie had been replaced with ‘performance
 wear.’

“While the Lingerie Football League name has drawn great media attention 
allowing us to show case the sport to millions, we have now reached a crossroad
 of gaining credibility as a sport or continuing to be viewed as a gimmick. In 
the coming years we will further establish this sport in the US, Australia,
 Europe and Asia as the most known form of American football globally. In order
 to reach the next milestone, we feel the focus has to be the sport and our
 amazing athletes.”

Now before we go throwing our hands in the air to cheer for Mortaza, let’s have 
a look at exactly what these ‘modifications’ look like.

Before

After

Does Mortaza expect us to believe that a few less ruffles and fringing really change what the LFL stands for? Looking at the old and new outfits side by side, there appears very little difference. Gone are the garters and lingerie, but only to be replaced with what appears to be the same outfit – minus the bows – leaving the players still mostly unprotected and at risk of injury. The new official LFL video shows that the ogling the women is still their main tactic, as the camera operator slowly pans up the player’s bodies, from their feet to their crotch and breasts.

Here is what we know of the LFL so far:

Mortaza exploits college-aged women for little or no pay and refuses to provide protective uniforms.

Since 2009 the LFL has drawn much controversy for its treatment of the female players. As discussed in my article ‘The Lingerie Football League – Let’s not pretend it’s about sport’, I revealed how the LFL requires their players to sign accidental nudity clauses, doesn’t pay its players, refuses to provide injury compensation and fines the women if they put any protective gear under their lingerie.

LFL Chairman Mitch Mortaza has admitted to choosing image over athleticism.

Mortaza and his team have admitted on several occasions that image is central to his selection of players, and the majority of the women are college level athletes who would have no hope of playing on a national level without the LFL – a card which Mortaza plays expertly. I believe that Mortaza chooses these women with the express intentions of exploiting their desperation to be a recognised athlete.

“The women who play for the league are former college-level athletes that have few other alternatives if they want to continue to compete at a high level in women’s sport… These are competitive college-level athletes looking to tap back into a national stage”.(see here)

Despite Mortaza’s promise in 2011 that his players would be paid once the LFL became “financially stable”, we are still yet to hear any credible news of this happening. It would seem that even with all their success as the ‘Nation’s fastest growing sports league’ and airplay in over 85 countries, the only one that profits is Mortaza.

Some of the LFL’s biggest players have themselves revealed that they recognize the inequality within the league, but feel they have little choice if they want the chance to play on a national level. In an interview with CBC radio in 2012 Tampa Breeze Florida player Liz Gorman expressed her frustrations.

CBC: “You don’t get paid?
Gorman: “No…it does get frustrating.”
CBC: “It sounds like you’re doing it because you love to play football and you want to play, and you accept the other sacrifices that come with it.”
Gorman: “Yeah…(silent for some time)…Sex sells. It’s a business. We don’t get the same media as men… so it’s obviously not the players that are choosing this.”

Evidence of harassment towards women, physical violence, nudity, verbal abuse and the use of blow up dolls were all witnessed during LFL events.

Attending the Sydney event last year, Collective Shout’s Deborah Malcolm witnessed a contest named ‘chase and tackle the girl’ where men were invited onto the field to chase and grope the players; the humiliation of a female player who lost her bikini bottoms during a touchdown and then had the image replayed on a large screen for the viewing pleasure of the male audience; and the use of a blow up doll which was passed around the bleachers while men simulated oral sex on it.

Mortaza’s disrespectful treatment of the women was exposed firsthand when 23 year old student and athlete Tal Stone tried out for the games. Stone described how she and the other women were screamed at and abused by Mortaza, told to ‘pancake the shit’ out of each other, to ‘stop wasting his fucking time’ and repeatedly called ‘pussies’; all while the LFL players ran alongside the girls making ‘vagina’ signs over their heads. As Stone explained, this wasn’t a game built to showcase talent or athleticism. It was a gimmick that encouraged violence and humiliation towards the players, whilst making money from them.

The LFL preys on underage girls.

In 2011 Mortaza tried to recruit the then-13-year-old Paris Jackson as its official spokesperson for teenage athletes, in an attempt to draw younger girls into the LFL.

I fail to understand how a few less bows and ruffles on the players uniforms and the addition of thicker shoulder pads changes any of the behaviour we have seen so far from the LFL. So forgive me if I do not throw my hands in the air and applaud them for their supposed renewed focus on sports women’s performance.

In light of their poor sales at the 2012 Australian games and the storm of controversy surrounding the league, it is not surprising that Mortaza is scraping to find a way to rehash the LFL in Australia. However, the Legends Football League is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to make advertisers feel less uncomfortable. Nothing really has changed.

There is a positive alternative – Gridiron team the Western Foxes

These athletes are the real deal. They don’t discriminate and they don’t compromise on safety. Anyone who wants to support Women’s Gridiron in Australia should check out the Western Foxes in Victoria, the Female Gridiron League in Qld and Women’s Gridiron ACT.

‘The pornification of culture and the normalization of (increasingly violent) porn is contributing to a society where pornography, even the most brutal forms, are in many ways sanctioned, defended as well as protected’

By Hennie Weiss

Edited by Melinda Tankard Reist and Abigail Bray, Big Porn Inc: Exposing the Harms of the Global Pornography Industry is a compilation of essays by researchers, experts and activists concerning the harms of pornography. All and all there are 40 written pieces divided into five categories; pornography cultures, pornography industries, harming children, pornography and the state and resisting big porn inc.

Overall, the notion is that pornography has found its way into everyday cultures all over the world. The pornification of culture and the normalization of (increasingly violent) porn is contributing to a society where pornography, even the most brutal forms, are in many ways sanctioned, defended as well as protected through legislation. For example, in the United States the notion of freedom of speech (also called freedom of expression) helps protect the production, distribution and purchasing of porn. The stronghold that porn has tends to be contributed to the enormous profitability and influence of the porn industry. As noted in the book, it is difficult to resist and battle the porn industry as a whole, even though small grassroot movements opposing pornography have made significant gains over the last few years. Yet, more knowledge about the industry, the way it harms women and children (as well as men), and the lasting effects of the pornification of sexuality and culture are important (many articles discusses how porn is the same as prostitution).

Even though the many different contributions tend to deal with various aspects of pornography (within the five categories), there are some statements that are generally agreed upon and reiterated throughout the book. In one way or another all contributions contest the notion (most often used by those in the porn industry and those who are pro-porn) that porn does not cause harm and is a form of fantasy. When discussing prostitution, strip clubs, PTSD, sexual and physical assaults, rape, intrafamilial rape, the sexual objectification of women and the spread of child pornography, it should prove to be difficult for anyone to look at porn like mere fantasy, especially since real women and men are involved in the making of pornography. What the different categories of Big Porn Inc brings to light is the fact that the porn industry is not glamorous, as high-paying as many believe, and that women are sexually objectified, dominated, demeaned and degraded. Pornography has also become increasingly violent, and most scenes or movies include physical violence, rape, or the threat of violence. The notion that women are sex objects who like to be degraded and thrive on physical violence is based on a patriarchal backlash to women’s overall gains towards equality.

Besides stating that pornography is mere fantasy, proponents of pornography also often refer to a lack of evidence, or link between pornography use and overall behavior. But the book has that too. Pornography does not only lead to an increase in acceptance of rape culture, but people who watch pornography are less likely to view sex as an intimate act and more likely to engage in gendered violence. Diana E.H Russel writes in the article “Russel’s Theory: Exposure to Child Pornography as a Cause of Child Sexual Victimization”, that watching child pornography can help cultivate sexual interests in children in several ways. It predisposes men to objectify children, it intensifies already existing desires, undermines social inhibitions and internal inhibitions as well as undermines children’s abilities to avoid, resist, or escape sexual victimization.

It is important to note that many of the contributions include explicit language, profanities and words that describe various ways in which women are demeaned, humiliated and abused when discussing different aspects of pornography. Many contributions also discuss notions of rape, group rape, incest or intrafamilial rape, sexual assault, violence and even the killing of animals. Therefore, readers should note that the material might be triggering to some. Even though the language is often explicit in nature, it is easy to understand the links between harm, prostitution, the degradation of women, patriarchy, power and sexual assault made by the contributors. The personal accounts of Stella and Amy (Stella was a stripper and Amy the victim of intrafamilial rape) contribute to a greater understanding and awareness of the harm of pornography and how women are mentally, physically and emotionally impacted by porn culture.

The intended audience could be anyone, both women and men, who are interested in the consequences and harms of the global pornography industry. With its sharp analysis and research, the book can also contribute to changing, or challenging legislature in terms of discussing the harms of pornography, especially when using the findings that makes connections between watching pornography and overall behavior. The book can also be used in the classroom (even though it might be more suitable for students that are a little older) in gender studies, men and masculinity studies, women’s studies and sociology.

What the book does so well is to capture, discuss, analyze and provide evidence for the many ways that pornography is harmful to women and children. We know that pornography is based on profit, capitalism and a patriarchal worldview and is therefore complicated to combat, but when reading the book it becomes difficult to understand why pornography is legal in the first place.

© 2013 Hennie Weiss 

Hennie Weiss has a Master’s degree in Sociology from California State University, Sacramento. Her academic interests include women’s studies, gender, sexuality and feminism.

Published in Metapsychology Online Reviews, February 5, 2013

Big Porn Inc. available here