I found this piece by Dr Helen Pringle, ‘Killjoys, Wowser and The P-rn Wars’ in New Matilda so inspiring. I hope my fellow women’s activists will draw strength and renew their commitment to our cause, after reading it.

“Justice is an element of beauty as much as colour and outline on canvas.” – Mary Richardson

Were the Suffragettes puritanical? Hardly. As the debate over p*rn rages, the history of feminism is being mischaracterised as the terrain of wowsers and killjoys. Helen Pringle responds to Eva Cox

Eva Cox tries to portray feminists who have concerns about what she characterises as “tasteless porn” as simply being in the grip of “current anxieties about the dominance of markets”, and as linked to “puritanical” strains in the history of feminism. In the process, Cox has rewritten that history to police the boundaries of feminism so that it does not include women who have a concern with the power of images and words in pornography.

Cox also slips in a characterisation of some of the Suffragettes who campaigned for the vote as wowsers and killjoys. She laments, “Women members of the Christian Temperance Union fought for women to get the vote in the hope that women would vote to ban alcohol”. In fact, those women and others knew only too well the dangers that alcoholism posed to women’s safety and equality when it was linked to male entitlement.

The Suffragettes more broadly are often portrayed along Cox’s lines as delicate creatures asking for protection from “evil masculinity”. But when Christabel Pankhurst coined the slogan “Votes for Women … and Chastity for Men”, it was a call for an end to sexual subordination and damage of women often caused by the spread of VD through the prostitution of women. It was not a sexually puritanical claim. There is no evidence that Suffragettes, or in fact feminists, appreciated intimacy, love or beauty any less than anyone else. Read more>

Updating...

By Renate Klein and  Susan Hawthorne

Since the publication of Rachael Hills’s article “Who’s Afraid of Melinda Tankard Reist” (and see her reflections two weeks later) at least ten on-line and print media articles have joined in a public dissection and commentary along the lines of, “she’s a conservative religious fundamentalist” and “she’s pro-life and can’t be a feminist.”

The subliminal context of the attempts to bring Melinda Tankard Reist to her knees and destroy her work is of course the elephant in the room: if her considerable impact on educating the public about the harms of the sex industry could be reduced, the pornography and prostitution promoters and profiteers would rejoice.

As her publishers at Spinifex Press, Australia’s only feminist publishing house (and secular), we take issue with these portrayals of Melinda Tankard Reist. It is easy to try to dismiss someone by smacking on a “fundamentalist” (whether Christian or Muslim, Hindu or Jewish) label and thereby dismiss the arguments that a person makes. What is less easy, but more ethical and intellectually rigorous, is to examine Tankard Reist’s views – which are shared by many feminists and other advocates for social justice and human rights – and to see what the factual arguments for those views are.  Read more>

“Pussy is great by itself, but you know sharing with friends, it’s nice to experiment and I would recommend sharing pussy with friends…”

Where did I find these quotes? Comments posted on a porn site? Men discussing their sexual preferences perhaps?

No, they’re found in this promotion for an energy drink called Pussy. These words were uttered through the dazzling teeth of Sam Branson and filmed at the Kensington Roof Gardens owned by daddy Sir Richard Branson.

The video’s opening frame states the company’s mission is for “Global Pussyfication.”

It appears they are succeeding.

Three thousand retailers in the UK alone can’t get enough of it. It’s even in Tesco. And Selfridges. And on Virgin trains (maybe the planes are next – surely Richard Branson will see the cross-promotional opportunities in combining the company names?). 

The beverage is now in 18 countries worldwide, including Australia where it can be found in Brisbane and on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast.

The energy drink was created by Johnnie Shearer. The title came to him in his bedroom (no surprises there) and now he has reached such dizzying heights of success as to be described as: “The new king of pussy”.

Shearer has a photo of porn mogul Hugh Hefner drinking Pussy at his 80th birthday. Shearer has now joined entrepreneurs Sam Branson and sister Holly in their corporate sexualisation mission.

While smothered in porno references and online pics of women naked from the waist down and in sexual acts illustrating the brand, Pussy’s marketers tell us: “The drink is pure. It’s your mind that’s the problem”.

The Australian distributor also thinks we are idiots, parroting the line in the Courier Mail on the weekend.

Their drink “challenges the consensus” and is “spontaneous, entertaining, optimistic and fun. It’s a starting point. A moment when something happens and when things begin – Pussy starts conversations. It believes in having a good time as often as possible”.

At the expense of women. Because this drink contributes to the second class status of women and girls. How is it that appropriating porn industry terminology is seen as cool bourgeois sophistication? It’s happening every day, as I’ve documented so many times (including here recently).

The product is so mainsteam that an online vocational training institute has established a new distribution business for the energy drink in Australia, in a move described by the CEO of the Dymond Institute of Business, Russell Dymond, as a “giant leap forward”. The brand, says the cool and sophisticated Dymond, is “exciting and progressive.”

“This is a golden opportunity for Dymond Institute’s Business and Marketing students to apply their learning, knowledge and skills, to a real life business, as opposed to simulated business scenarios,” Dymond says proudly.

“The Pussy Drinks option…will enable our students… to develop product, pricing, promotional and distribution tactics, as well as strategic direction.”

So even our educational institutions are getting in on the act. Female students will be expected to market and promote a symbol of their own objectification.

Marketing Sexploitation 101: enroll now at the Dymond Institute of Business.

Thanks to the Pussy wunderkinds, boys are encouraged to crack sexist jokes and harass girls. If Pussy is in the fridge at their local milkbar next to the milk, what’s the harm in using the term in interaction with each other and with girls?

The drink and the advertising that goes with it entice boys and men to jest about ‘drinking pussy’ or ‘needing pussy’ or ‘getting pussy’ (you can enquire about the drink through an email whose address begins ‘Get Pussy’). Fuelled by the porn-inspired references, they will ask their mates if they ‘would like some pussy’ or tell them it’s ‘BYO Pussy’.

The porn-inspired name encourages boys and men to dissect women and see them only in terms of their sexual body parts. “Pussy is great by itself,” as Branson Junior informs us, as though it is an inanimate object not connected to a real flesh and blood woman. All women are collapsed as pussy, to be shared and consumed by men.

This product is part of the widespread sexploitation of women and girls. The mainstreaming of the drink treats women and girls as objects and is part of the sexual harassment of women and girls, especially given plans to saturate Queensland with the product.

The young woman serving behind the counter is asked by a male where he can find some “pussy”. It’s not hard to imagine what she could be subjected to while going about her work. Pussy has provided yet another tool for multiple harassment scenarios.

Of course many girls will joke and laugh along. Certainly, that is what they are expected to do. Girls are taught to put up with sexist crap from the earliest of ages, even to embrace it as liberating. And if they are upset, or distressed, or uncomfortable, well that’s too bad, they just need to lighten up. And don’t they know that even Holly Branson thinks Pussy is great and has one every morning?

The Pussy energy drink is just another example of the mainstreaming of porn-inspired themes. It pretends to be cool but really it’s just Big Sexism in a can. And that doesn’t “move us forward” as the drink’s masterminds claim. It sets us back. Again.

As I read Jennifer Wilson’s article, I couldn’t help thinking that the pro-porn crowd must be producing a list of talking points that they endlessly circulate among themselves. They trot out the same old arguments without a shred of empirical evidence to back them up, and then they suggest that it is the anti-porn feminists who are lacking in rigor and theory.

Let me be more specific. I had the misfortune earlier this month to attend a conference in London called “Pornified: Complicating debates about the ‘sexualisation of culture’,” but it did anything but complicate. On the contrary, the complex, global, maturing porn industry was simplified right down to the point of disappearance: they made the argument that there is in fact no “it” – meaning the porn industry – because there are so many producers of porn and just so many types of much porn on the internet, that it is impossible to locate any actual industry.

It’s like being at a conference on food and the researchers argue that because we have fast food, gourmet food, independently owned restaurants, chain restaurants and even people cooking their own food at home, well there is just so much food that there is no such thing as a food industry.

I want to suggest to those people who make bold statements about what porn people are watching, that they do some basic research on the “it” – the industry, that is. When I was in Australia, the echo chamber from the pro-porners was that because there is just so much amateur porn and free porn, it is a mistake to focus on the hardcore gonzo porn that the industry produces. Read more

See also: Misogynists are under no illusions about what porn says.

MTR on Mamma Mia, Sky News

Interview starts 15 mins, 20 seconds, followed by panel discussion.

If sexual images are inappropriate in the workplace, they are inappropriate at school

Simon Kennedy

I have spent the last two years working at a multi-billion mega-project construction worksite in regional Western Australia. Every day I walk amongst a bunch of men that resemble a merry band of desert vikings who are building prosperity for their community and their country. They come in all shapes and sizes, tall, short, hairy, dark, light and in desperate need of a shower by 5pm (at least those who aren’t scared of a hard day’s work). These are the boys you would want by your side in a catastrophe – they can get it done.

Whilst their language can be lacking in imagination, and using repetitive adjectives (predominantly beginning with the letter F), not one of the 2,450 workforce would consider bringing this pencil case to our worksite. It is not because the graphics are not arousing or stimulating enough (exactly the opposite). It is because they would understand that in this day and age, it is inappropriate material for the workplace. Should they want to keep their well-paid employment, all racist, sexist, ageist and every other potentially offensive material is not to be brought into the workplace. It is not worth losing your job over.

How can a school principal be so blind in their ways as to set this student up for future failure solely based in a lack of basic understanding that women, like men, come in all shapes and sizes? If nude and semi-nude pictures of women which are commonly presented in mainstream marketing (but really representing a tiny fraction of the total population) are inappropriate in my workplace, they are not appropriate in primary or high school.

This sort of marketing by City Beach is about weaning our young men, our future hope, onto a pornography habit that costs plenty and yields nothing but broken relationships and despair.

Use that $19 to help pay for his footy fees, his wrestling trunks, a new basketball, his piano tuition, his dance class, his favourite hobby, his favourite charity, his best mate, flowers for his girlfriend’s mother, a unitard because you don’t want to dispel his dream of lead guitarist in the new Kiss! Just don’t sell his future down the road of self-gratification through the visualisation of 2-dimensional imagery that even if he could snare such a perceived beauty, would only last a relatively short season – what is he supposed to do for the next 40 years?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder – pornography is in the eye of the captive.

I hate this pencil case – at 14 years of age, it should be skateboards and motorbikes that fathers have to contend with, not a hyper-sexualised mini-me.

See:  ‘Provocative images on pencil cases cause furore in schools’

Magazines aimed at teen boys condition them to pro offending attitudes

Are sex offenders and lads’ mags using the same language?

Far from being harmless or ironic fun, lads’ mags could be legitimising hostile sexist attitudes, according to new research.

Psychologists from Middlesex University and the University of Surrey found that when presented with descriptions of women taken from lads’ mags, and comments about women made by convicted rapists, most people who took part in the study could not distinguish the source of the quotes.

The research due to be published in the British Journal of Psychology also revealed that most men who took part in the study identified themselves more with the language expressed by the convicted rapists.

Psychologists presented men between the ages of 18 and 46 with a range of statements taken from magazines and from convicted rapists in the study, and gave the men different information about the source of the quotes. Men identified more with the comments made by rapists more than the quotes made in lads’ mags, but men identified more with quotes said to have been drawn from lads’ mags more than those said to have been comments by convicted rapists.

The researchers also asked a separate group of women and men aged between 19 and 30 to rank the quotes on how derogatory they were, and to try to identify the source of the quotes. Men and women rated the quotes from lads’ mags as somewhat more derogatory, and could categorize the quotes by source little better than chance.

Dr Miranda Horvath and Dr Peter Hegarty argue that the findings are consistent with the possibility that lads’ mags normalise hostile sexism, by making it seem more acceptable when its source is a popular magazine. Read more

Wet t.shirt comp, simulated sex, ‘best tits’: young women as sexual fodder at end of school celebrations

Scarlett from Victoria, wrote to me about her experience of Schoolies. I thought what she wrote deserved a wider audience and asked if I could reprint her letter. She agreed.

After meaning to read your book Getting Real for a while now, I just finished after arriving back from schoolies. I loved it. I felt as though all the contributors including yourself articulated exactly how I feel about the sexualisation of women and girls and what I have been unable to express myself.

I don’t want to use my full name because I want to share with you some of my personal experiences which I thought of when reading Getting Real. I’m 18 years old and I’ve just finished Year 12 and all I’ve done is kissed boys. I’ve never done anything more, not because I don’t want to, just because I haven’t found the right boy.

While on schoolies at the Gold Coast, I heard numerous stories of girls I go to school with having sex in club toilets with complete strangers before schoolies to ‘get it over and done with’ because most of their friends have already had sex. They feared that if they went on schoolies as virgins, they would be deemed ‘losers’ and wanted to gain experience so they would be ‘experienced enough’ to have sex on schoolies, if they chose to.

While on schoolies, some of my closest friends had sex or gave oral sex or hand to complete strangers as they felt it was ‘expected of them’ by the boys and because ‘it’s schoolies!’. I noticed so many things about the treatment of women that really frustrated me and reading your book reminded me how wrong they were.

At clubs and bars we went to boys chanted ‘tits out for the boys, tits out for the boys’, I was left wondering why no girls were singing ‘dicks out for the chicks’. There was also a ‘wet-shirt competition’, prizes for lesbian kisses with friends and games which included partners miming a blow job and lying on top of each other as well as girls as partners if there were no boys left who had to take off items of clothing to stay in the game, we ended up watching two girls in bras and underwear lying on top of each other or pretending to have oral sex (which a guy filmed and took photos of on his phone). There was also a ‘best tits’ competition at one of the bars, in which girls got up on the stage and squeezed their breasts together to receive a reaction from the largely male audience, the girl that one kissed another girl on stage causing the largest noise from the audience ending in her winning.

None of the girls I stayed with or saw while I was there, thought any of the treatment of girls was abnormal, all of them thought it was completely normal. Some girls even joined in the chant ‘tits out for the boys’ as though they saw it as ‘empowerment’. A lot of girls did show their breasts, while others (including me) just laughed it off or pretended to be ‘above it’ or in deep conversation with the person next to them. If boys came up to the girls and chanted it, the girls would take their tops off or show their bra, because a massive group/club full of horny boys chanting at you is pretty forceful.

Many of the girls were definitely under the influence of alcohol and yes, boys did prey on drunk girls – I even overheard two boys saying to each other ‘let’s get these girls drunk on goon and take them down to the beach’. Apparently (according to rumours) one girl was raped in a club toilet while we were there.

We had a pool at our place and after arriving home from going out at about 2am, two of my friends wanted to go swimming, but when they got to the pool area boys staying in the other apartment (around 5) were already in the pool. They dared my friends who had been drinking to skinny dip with them and after shedding their clothes together the girls got in the pool with the boys only to be felt up and one was fingered by a boy while another held her down. The girls were really confused and upset when they came back to the apartment and told us the story.

If all of what I described isn’t objectification of women, I don’t know what is. Those situations lumped together like that would put anybody off sending their child to schoolies and that’s not what I’m suggesting. But not enough is said about the negative side especially for girls. So I’m sharing with you what I experienced and the fact that I didn’t like it…all my thoughts were articulated in your book. So thank you for opening my eyes. And reminding me that we live in a male-dominated society and men often think they can treat women as ‘objects’ because of pornography and advertising.

Did you attend Schoolies this year? Feel free to tell me about your experience by posting a comment or contacting me through the ‘contact’ tab at the top of my web page.

Dr Michael Carr-Gregg: Students need alternatives to schoolies

Schoolies as David Penberthy wrote in his column in the Herald Sun has become the ‘byword for the worst elements of Australia’s teenage binge drinking culture.’ My patients returning from the Gold Coast often describe it as a bacchanalian orgy of excess, drinking, drugs and often unprotected sex . Read more

City Beach selling sexism to 12-13 year olds

Collective Shout supporter Amy Fletcher notified Collective Shout today of a pencil case her teacher boyfriend came across in his classroom.

While City Beach has a long history as a misogynist corporate offender – which is why they feature on our ‘Cross ‘Em off your Xmas list’ blacklist of corporate sexist offenders  – even we were surprised that the store was now flogging porn-inspired pencil cases to 12-13 year olds. Keep your pens together – and promote sexism! – for only $19.99.

Imagine what would happen if a teacher downloaded or decorated his office wall with the same images. But hypersexualised images on student’s school items are apparently exempt. These images are a form of sexual harassment for schoolgirls and re-enforce a message they receive daily from media, advertising and popular culture that they are merely objects for male gratification and pleasure.  They are also harassing to female teachers.

Collective Shout has details on where to complain.

See also ‘Does the Human Rights Commission really care about gender equality?’

If policewomen have the same ‘power, confidence and authority’ as policemen, why can’t they be dressed like them?

This is a sculpture that Melbourne artist Frank Malerba wants The City of Port Phillip to install outside a hotel in Fitzroy Street, St Kilda.The sculptural pieces are each 2.4 metres high and depict three policewomen. Titled ‘Under Arrest’, they are created by local artist Frank Malerba.

Says Frank Malerba of his sculpture: “In this work I aimed to create a cool iconic edgy sculpture which depicts the women behind the uniform…depicting how women have the same power, confidence and authority as their male counterparts but with a touch of glamour. Behind the uniform there is a softer more obviously feminine aspect of the contemporary female.”

Malerba depicts the women behind the uniform alright: as the stuff of dominatrix and bondage fantasy. Fishnets, stilletoed leather boots, breasts revealed, the one piece leather ‘uniform’ and the tools of policing, such as the gun, baton and handcuffs, represented as part of S&M fantasy.

Female police officers are reduced to sexual playthings, which mocks the position of authority they hold. ‘Getting arrested’ becomes the equivalent of getting off. This sculpture has the potential to contribute or even increase the sexual harassment of female police officers.

If policewomen have the same ‘power, confidence and authority’ as their male counterparts, then why can’t they be dressed like them? Would we see a proposed sculpture of male officers depicted the same way? I doubt it.

The authority of policewomen – and their ability to uphold the law – is diminished by this sculpture. Their office is reduced to male fantasy about women in uniform.

According to its website, “Council recognises the value of public art that enhances public space, has aesthetic appeal, reflects community values, and is supported by the local community”.

On these grounds, approval should be denied.

The size and colour give a “sense of fun” to the sculpture and to Fitzroy Street, says Malerba.

If by fun you mean objectifying female policing and potentially increasing their sexual harassment.

Policing authorities and unions should speak out against the proposed artwork. Council should not allow it to go ahead.

You can have your say here by December 16.

It’s that time of year again. The time of year when companies ramp up their advertising in order to compete for your Christmas dollar. There is nowhere you can go without companies placing their product and logo in your face.

Now is the time to recall which companies used sexploitation to sell and promote their products over this past year. You can make a difference by voting with your dollar against sexploitation this holiday season.

Following the positive response to our inaugural ‘Crossed off’ list of 2010, we have compiled an updated list of corporate offenders, who we have selected for specialising in sexism, objectification and sex industry themes in 2011. These companies do not respect women and they have not responded to complaints nor changed their ways, so they do not deserve your patronage.

Beside each logo you’ll find a link to more information about why we encourage you to boycott this company. And don’t forget to let them know why you won’t be buying from them – we’ve included their contact details as well.

Diva

For pimping Playboy porno chic to girls and women. Our Change.org petition – currently over 7000 signatures – was recently hand delivered to Diva stores. Some staff refused to accept it, saying they had been instructed not to. Diva is owned by BB Retail Capital, which also owns Adairs and Bras N Things, where the signature brand of the porn industry gets centre spread in linen and underwear, and where women are told to ‘Be a Bunny.’

Contact Diva: contact@diva.net.au. Sign the petition here.

Bras n Things

Bras n Things sells and proudly advertises the major brand of the porn industry, Playboy. We’ve written about this here and here. Bras n Things also sexualises girls. For example, the Teacher’s Pet ’dress up’ outfit is advertised with the words ‘This school girl needs to be taught a lesson!’

Contact Bras n Things: here.

Adairs

Like Diva and Bras n Things, Adairs proudly sells and advertises the major brand of the Porn industry, Playboy. Along with Bras N Things, Adairs hosted a ‘Playboy Club 50th Anniversary party’. 50 years of objectification, sexism and degradation is nothing to celebrate.

Contact Adairs here.

Supre

For sexualised ad campaigns aimed at young girls. Supre advertised using an image of a topless young woman on the back of buses and trams and on their website. A television ad featured a young woman gyrating around her bedroom before falling onto a bed. Supre has a long history of sexploitation with their slogan t-shirts including ‘Santa’s Bitch’, ‘Pussy Power’ and ‘High Beams’ to name a few.

Contact Supre here.

America Apparel

For importing its porn inspired representations of women to Australia. Check the label of t-shirts, tights and underwear. If you see this logo, put it back.

Contact American Apparel here.

Unilever

Unilever claimed to care about ‘real’ beauty and the worth of women through its Dove label while using demeaning advertising promoting women as sexual recreation through ‘Lynx.’ Lynx’s most recent offering was banned by the ASB. Unilever once again defended its sexist ads. Unilever owns a variety of different brands, but there is no need to try and remember them all. Just look on the back label of personal care, food and cleaning products for this blue ‘U’ logo. If you see the ‘U’ put the item back and choose another one.

Contact Unilever here.

General Pants

General Pants uses objectification and sex industry themes to sell and promote their products. Large posters of topless women – with only tape covering their breasts – were used to advertise a new fashion line called ‘Sex‘ in shop front windows. Young staff at General Pants were required to wear badges that said ‘I love sex.’ Other promotions have featured topless models and live pole dance shows in their shop front windows. Change rooms at General Pants have featured floor to ceiling ads for prostitution and strip club venues.

Contact General Pants here.

City Beach

City Beach continues to sell pornographic themed t-shirts to a young market. Collective Shout supporter Caitlin Roper challenged City Beach directly through the Equal Opportunities Commission. City Beach were uncooperative and continue to sell items like this.

Contact City Beach here.

Other logos for stores, which stock ranges of t-shirts depicting women in porn-themed poses and subjected to eroticised violence are shown below. Sixty high-profile people put their names to an open letter calling for removal of these t-shirts for normalising violence against women and exposing children to sexualised images. Click on each logo for contact details of each store.

Rivers

Rivers began objectifying women on the front cover of their catalogues. They then used an image of a dead woman on the front cover of their catalogue ’10 Deadly deals’, which attracted complaints and significant media attention. Rivers remains unrepentant.

Contact Rivers by emailing them at q@rivaus.com.au

Nando’s

In a clear reference to the sex industry Nando’s used a burlesque/stripper model in the ‘Little Hotties’ campaign. Nando’s marketing director Kim Russell described the ad as “sassy not sleazy”. We disagreed. Stop off somewhere else for take away these holidays.

Contact Nandos here.

McDonalds/Fuelzone, Caltex

Not the place for your holiday fuel stop, selling extreme porn titles promoting rape, incest and sex with young girls. While BP, Shell/Coles Express and Mobil withdrew these titles after a campaign led by Julie Gale of Kids Free 2B Kids, McDonalds/Fuelzone and Caltex have remained intransigent.

Contact Mcdonalds here (regarding Mcdonalds co-brand with Fuelzone).

Contact Caltex here.

Your turn

Now it’s over to you. Are there any other brands that should be included on this list? Are there alternatives to these brands that others might like to know about? Please share your suggestions below.

Crossed Off in the media

SEX SELLS AND ASB CAN’T STOP IT CAMPAIGNERS WARN

By Madeleine Ross on 15 November

Grassroots campaigners Collective Shout have lashed out at a fistful of brands for sexploitation in advertising and lamented the lateness of the standards watchdog in dealing with demeaning material .

The advocacy group, which encourages individuals to boycott brands which sexualise females in advertising, yesterday released a list of offending brands which included Lynx, Diva and Nandos.

The collective has called on consumers to boycott the brands this Christmas and accused them of using sexism, objectification and sex industry themes to sell products. Read more

Porn identity puts Diva on top of list of shops to drop

Clare Kermond

November 16, 2011

TWEEN jewellery store Diva tops the list of brands targeted by a campaign calling on shoppers to boycott brands that use sexual exploitation in their marketing.

Lobby group Collective Shout says that as brands step up their advertising in the lead-up to Christmas, consumers should vote with their wallets by avoiding those brands that use ”sexism, objectification and sex industry themes” Read more

Collective Shout reveals list of ‘sexploitative’ brands to boycott this Christmas

An Australian organisation has called on the public to boycott brands this Christmas that it believes sexualise and objectify women and girls.

According to Collective Shout, the companies on its list have been the worst at objectifying and sexualising women and girls through advertising and marketing in 2011. Read more.

Also see MX Newspaper