Cross-posted at Audrey and the Bad Apples.
Those cheeky monkeys over at Zoo magazine have done it again!
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 response to those pesky (and, it has to be said, hairy) feminazis who got their big granny knickers in a knot over the Win A Set Of Big Ones For Your Missus competition advertised a few weeks ago.
Displaying the plucky can-do attitude we’ve come 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 women 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 look! Now even those amongst us who favour ‘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 search “for the hottest girl in sensible shoes” – promising the winner a year’s supply of deodorant and a sexy photo shoot.
“If you hate men, we want to see photos of you in sexy lingerie,” the ad reads.
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. What really gets me here is the predictable and tired joke that’s being had at the expense 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 believe 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 fantasy and desire.
There’s nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies that involve the complete submission of your partner. Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the floor waiting to service them all they like – I don’t think it’s any less valid a fantasy 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 complete and abject disdain for the rights of women to coexist outside of this fantasy world.
The message is simple – women are okay 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 want, but expect to feel the full 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 humour, a determination to ‘spoil it for the boys’ and a total absence of femininity and sexual attractiveness.
Indeed, “Feminist!” has become the rallying attack cry from the armies of men that refuse to acknowledge 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 serve to crudely mask the speaker’s own ignorance and disinterest in directly engaging with those he seeks to demonise.
Rebecca West really had it right when she said:
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.
Zoo’s latest stunt is designed not to, as it argues, appease its critics but to poke even 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 seem 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 bend them over and defile them six ways from Sunday.
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/germaine.jpg"
Real sexiness can’t be bought, and Germaine is smokin’ hot at any age…
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.)
great post, just a note to say that the rebecca west quote is pretty offensive to radical sex workers, who argue that you can be a feminist and a prostitute.
True – but I think there’s a difference between identifying as an empowered sex worker and being treated like a prositute – because most people’s conception of prostitution doens’t embody a lot of respect.
That’s true, 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.
for sure.
I hate this lame nastiness to Greer. The ageing thing is perhaps the biggest and most cruel double standard between men and women. Few people I enjoy reading more than Greer.
eeeh… i don’t like Greer, but there’s no denying her critics rarely engage with her ideas.
I lost respect for her over her transphobia, not her ‘manliness.’
Perhaps we could steer discussion onto the other points Audrey made into her post, before the usual suspects come along and sidetrack it into a discussion just about Greer?
oops, sorry!
No need to apologise!
V Good post, Mark, and pretty much sums it up, but…
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 sense of themselves). It is, after all, all about sales.
Don’t worry about it. Any woman with any sense and an ounce of self-respect would give this sort of bogan attitude the flick within 2 seconds, and if the b**n don’t get it, well then he won’t get anywhere will he?
Unless he’s into actual sexual assault, which is a whole other issue…
Just to clarify, CK, the post is by Audrey. It’s a guest post cross-posted from her blog, and I’m just putting it up using my posting account.
Germaine Greer has always been at the front. In the 60s when SUCK magazine in Amsterdam was (supposedly) trying to be non sexist (yeh, right) the editorial staff decided to publish their own nude shots in the interests of openness & freedom.
ALL the men copped out, only Germaine did it, with a memorable ankles behind the ears.
What is she now, mid 60s? Still is powerful person and looks good to me.
It might be about sales CK, but Merrill is the figurehead. He’s effectively enabling these 18-24 year old boys to treat women like commodities, and ones that should be grateful for the way they are objectified. People who criticise the action are decried as having nothing to offer other than a bit of rampant bitterness spawned from their own inability to make men hot. I’d say that’s a pretty good example of the worst kind of disregard for a woman and her intellectual objections to objectification.
Top post, Audrey! I agree with every word. Though other nodes of the hivemind may have variant views!
Ooh, I look forward to some spirited debate!
Fantastic post audrey!
I think the article which, for me, most incapsulates the the mentality of these magazines was this gem in Ralph a few years back: How to have a half-night stand
Absolutely fantastic post, Audrey, thanks very much.
What a lovely competition – if you are a “feminist”, go ahead and prove that you are nothing but a sexual object and degrade yourself by sending sexualised pics of yourself to a woman-hating mag. Only then may your “feminism” be deserving of attention/reward (in the form of deodorant and a further chance to degrade yourself in a sexy photo shoot).
I also love the stereotype that feminism means that “you hate men”. All us feminists are men-hating dykes, right? Which seems to be ok, so long as we dress up in sexy lingerie for the blokes’ viewing pleasure.
Look, Audrey and your little green apples, yer never ever gonna get rid of big boobs in the media. Even ones like Paul Merrill.
But it would be provocative and entertaining at least to start up a “measuring men’s mag editors’ man meat” competition as well. I mean, it’s just all a bit of fun innit?
I’m not a SNAG, as anyone who’s drank with me can testify (if they can remember), and I appreciate a shapely poitrine as much as the next person. I’m just into a fair go.
So therefore Merrill and co should have their views on society and sexuality equally judged by the display of their primary and secondary sexual characteristics. So flop it out Paul, and then we can all move on…after a good laugh.
-
“…so long as we dress up in sexy lingerie for the blokes’ viewing pleasure.”
Nothing wrong with that. And in return, I’m quite prepared to wear a black leather cummerbund and not much else except tight-fitting cavalry boots for the ladies’ eyes. Though I’d suspect they’d probably prefer Colin Firth in a wet dress shirt.
Reciprocity, respect and high quality art direction, that’s the key here I think.
I have no idea who the f Colin Firth is. But yes I’d prefer him. No offence nabs old chap etc etc
Just what is the demographics of zoo? I’m guessing it’s not just 18-24 year old boys but more 30 – 40 ?
Not me, I thought it was fabulous. if there’s one thing I love more than passionate writing, it’s passionate writing by a young feminist. Yee har.
Audrey, this post is bound to attract hostile, smartarse trolls. Ignore them, except to note that if they object then you must have been doing something right.
The idea of someone like Merrill mattering in any possible way to someone of Greer’s intellect and influence just cracks me up, but Audrey’s right to be concerned about the influence he has over young men of an impressionable age. Then again, if they’re reading Zoo they are probably a lost cause in any case.
Re boobs beautiful and otherwise: can anyone enlighten me about what sort of boobs actually won the “prize”? What was the criterion? If they were tiny then I can’t imagine the Zoo inhabitants giving them a prize for anything, yet if they were pneumatic then presumably they needed no additional cosmetic boost by way of a couple of rock-hard fantasy-shaped plastic lumps. So what sort of girl won? This “competition” makes about as much sense as most of the other Zoo compost.
Nabs, I think most of us would prefer that even to a bottle of Moet or a full-body massage or a generous Victoria’s Secret gift voucher. It’s no disgrace.
No offence taken me old china. I have no urge to see you naked except for leather cummerbund and boots either. At least not without a full body wax.
Thanks Dr Cat. As far as I’m aware (and according to Zoo’s site) the breast competition is still open. I’m guessing the winner will be a perfectly beautiful woman with natural C cups that wants them pumped up to a D or DD – the bigger the better, eh old chap?!
FXH, I’d say the demographic of Zoo is anyone that wants a lad’s mag for a cheap price – but it probably does cater for a slightly younger audience. I can only imagine that they’re the ones who are more desperate to see photos of deformed children.
Also, apparently ‘sexy nude twins’ is every bloke’s dream. Bless their faces…
Big and dumb?
Speaking as a worldly if somewhat weird kinda bloke, I’d say the criterion for true gentleman in passing judgement on secondary sexual characteristics is not dissimilar to the preperation and consumption of excellent martinis. Firstly it’s about quality, not quantity, and then about who you’re with with rather than where you’re being served. And when it does come to quantity – well one is great, two are perfect, three are just a little bit too much, four and you’re seeing double, half a dozen and you’re hanging off the balcony exposing your man boobs to the world.
Feel free to make fun of our testicles in similar fashion. Provided it’s genuinely funny though.
It’s a bit by the by, but I’m actually surprised that mags like that have survived the advent of intertubes pr0n. Playboy Australia succumbed to it. I guess there is a market for the blokey text and framing of the soft pr0n pix, which I suspect is something akin to some sort of imagined initiation into a (slightly?) older “man’s” world… So I think the commercial success justifies the claim that Merrill et al do exert a real influence culturally in terms of shaping gendered attitudes. Anyway, I’m also thinking a young demographic.
I’ve never picked up a copy of the thing, but I imagine you could work out who the target audience are very easily and definitively from the advertising. Mags like this, in a biz sense, are just trash content chasing an audience for advertisers. The content itself is irrelevant, and very low cost, which I think reinforces the points being made about the lack of any sense of responsibility. And also the point about the cross promotion as “news” by News.
Testicles just are funny, Nabs. Face it.
Thinking about this thread theme a bit more, I reckon if the LP hive mind harpies and associated lady commentators want to pre-empt, defuse and derail the inevitable swarm of angry male commentators looking for an excuse to have a swing at women online in order to assuage certain things about their offline lives, then how about treating all penis owners and operators here to some of things that women really say to eachother off the record about men’s naughty bits. Go on, curdle a few scrotums and pre-emptively castrate a few trolls with some really frank observations.
I trust you used the term “face it” metaphorically. But yeah they are intrinsically ludicrious at least design-wise. If intelligent design was a reality, they’d be housed behind a thick layer of bone somewhere in our sternums and well away from accidently sitting on them halfway through a crucial meeting.
Nabs, you’re playing with fire.
And I like it!
Seconded: LE.
Mark, I HAVE bought a copy of Zoo before in the name of research (I wanted a copy of their article on ‘hot prison babes’ for posterity…) – it is packed with inane writing, tired metaphors and euphemisms and general crude comments about which way women like it. Like I said over at the Bad Apples, the eventual winner of their competition for the feminist will invariably have to field the question, “So, does being a feminist mean you always have to be on top? *yuks yuks yuks!*
In the same issue of zoo, they referred to Lindsay Lohan’s vagina as a ‘meat purse’.
Lordy!
In defence of Ralph, it did when it came out have a kind of freshness that men’s mags of the time – Detroit’s Best Diesels! Building Your Own Shortwave Radio! Vests! – sadly lacked. I, for one, enjoyed reading articles on ‘how to drive a haulpack’ and ’10 most dangerous jobs’ and cached in the blokiness were gentle advice on sex, eating and hygiene. And no more gratuitous celebrity shapeliness than say Black & White.
And there was always this balance of archness and knowingness that eventually gave way to people who took it seriously and imitators who were much less skilled at it. A bit like the difference between The Sex Pistols and the sad postcard punks in Picadilly. I think it was the editor of Penthouse a few years back that said to Ralph – “You will destroy us and then become us”. And here we are at Zoo.
If it’s consenting couples, then they deserve each other; otherwise a handy way of flushing out dickheads.
dribbly dick…. is about it
most of the women i’ve known don’t much discuss penises or testicles unless they have a new partner and/or there is an unusual shape/dimension/blah or there is some joke/story attached… they just dont rate.
sexual performance rates much higher conversationally and general physical beauty or unattractiveness/ and health/weight etc. even more.
and these topics are then usually overwhelmed by discussions about his personality…. or lack of…..
and for longer term couples – the overall useless-ness of many blokes around the house, and the lack of regard/respect – is probably topic numero uno.
penis and testicles are a means to an end for most women. and are about as interesting in themselves, as a steering wheel and accelerator when wanting to go for a nice afternoon drive.
…..worse than being talked about, is not being talked about at all.
MOMO or Sparco, Jo?
exactly anthony,
alot of blokes can’t back the ferrari out of the driveway, let alone cruise at 110 and turn off onto the winding backroads etc – they’d rather spend their time discussing which is the best model and looking at spare parts together.
& i’m really just playing with nabs’s
Bingo! Why are you wasting your talents Ants on a mere food rag when you could be editing a gentleman’s periodical instead? “Miss July infusing morel.”
Yes, the best men’s magazines at the their best (Esquire in the 60s, Playboy in the 70s, Maxim in the 90s) at least put real effort into to justifing the claim “I read it for the articles” and yes, Ralph for a while came up with some very entertaining if not particulary thoughtful pieces.
But nowadays, what with all the really explict stuff available online and the rising cost of paper stock, the Zoos and suchlike just seek the lowest common denominater of titillation that can still be distributed at newsagencies and through the post. And without even the egalitarian exberance of “The Picture” which in its heyday would also publish explicit pictures of its male readers.
All the downmarket print mags like Zoo and co are left with now as a niche in the 21st century media market is basic sneering smut catering far more to the anger of men left behind than the entertainment of blokes who still feel aspirational.
Go jo!
Nork ‘em!
I forgot the gear knobs.
oi! I can barely think of a more manly food mag this side of Manly Men’s Food Monthly for Men and besides, if we’re talking ’bout bun cakes – let’s just say double-muscle T E X E L – Pics!
i dont think you’re the first, but at least you might be able to locate them.
ok, enuff…
btw: what was that tv show that was on one of the commercials last year – men’s world?? it was a late night program – with the exact same content as zoo – hotrods, hottest pole dancer comps. & pig shooting etc
Wasn’t it Ralph TV or something? The ultimate in cross-media promotion between different branches of the (then) Packer empire…
“ingredients”
“Simmer”
“…peeled”
“Tongue”
“Stuffed”
“Egg”
“sauce”
“stir”
The concept of a smart, professionally-informed, witty and stylish media entity (with many commercial spinoffs) that deftly whisks together foodie porn and high-style erotica is out there just waiting to happen isn’t it Ants? Especially initially emanating from a country as pragmatic about sex, as world leading about synergetic cuisine and as as tongue in cheek as Australia. Plus we have excellent access to some really high quality raw materials.
That was “Blokesworld”, which was originally a show on CH 31 before they went commercial on Ch 10.
It now appears to be on the Aurora Community Channel via Foxtel.
http://www.blokesworld.com/
Blokesworld
It’s separated from Zoo et al in that it had a real sense of humour, a strong self-deprecating streak (ie: it took the piss out of itself) and why yes there were lots of hot pole dancer/swimwear model pieces but all the segment hosts were cheerful, genial blokes who politely and quite thoughtfully interviewed the talent (both male and female) without any sniggering purience. In short, there was a spirit of bawdy mutual good humour about it far removed from the simmering misogny of Zoo.
What else can you say about a show with a regular segment called “Burnout Love Dedictations”.
If you gonna do a late night no-frills TV show for Aussie blokes who like sexy women, booze, hot machinery and making cheerful dickheads of themselves with backyard shed inventions or hand feeding our more dangerous wildlife then you could do much much worse than Blokesworld. It was gonna happen anyway. At least it’s funnier and smarter in its own laconic way than all that MTV shit like Jackass, Pimp My Schoolies etc.
I caught an episode of Blokesworld about a month ago late one night. mr tog and I were anthropologically agape with fascination.
It’s a simple formula: muscle car with dog/poledancing babe/fishing trip in muscle truck/bikini babe/interview with larrikin and stirring mates holding beers/poledancing babe/lather/rinse/repeat.
Laconic larrikinism with cheesecake. The usual caveats about objectification apply, but as you say Nabs, at least it’s cheerfully appreciative rather than misogynistic. Definitely the world could do worse.
Onya Audrey, what a pack of silly sausages the boys at Zoo Weekly are.
One word, two syllables. “stuff ‘em”.
gotcha nabs, editorial meeting at noon.
Hmmm like this Darlene?
This really is a predictable response to ‘bad press’, I think, in terms of addressing and cultivating a particular audience. I’m not sure if it actually contains a message to feminists, or even to women, at least at an intentional level. Audrey is probably correct about the implied messages, though.
As a gesture towards a particular kind of homosocial relation (ie between men), Merrill is attempting to draw in ‘feminists’ (or rather, a stereotype of feminists) as a mediating object, and into the same economy of desire that many actual feminists would reject and critique. Within those terms, Audrey’s critique can only be read as confirmation of the stereotype, and will therefore feed back into the homosocial desire being cultivated here. There is little or no space for Audreys argument within that relation except in those terms. I don’t agree that this ought to be the case, but I suspect that it is.
Where are the men who are actually interpellated by Audrey’s critique?
Tee hee, that comment went up to eleven, Anthony.
Nabs and jo have scared them off….
They can’t read, Adam. They just like looking at the pictures.
Your high-theory language there is gonna get you into trouble, and I’ll give you three guesses with whom. [Grammar.]
I take your point if part of what you mean is that any judgement from outside the value-system of the Zoo World will be automatically rejected by said world no matter what terms it’s couched in, but you seem to be arguing that by saying something critical Audrey is just making it all worse. Surely the logical conclusion of that would be that nothing critical should be said, by anyone, ever?
But the fact that the editors and readers of Zoo will never read it, and even if they did it would only confirm their worst fears (operative word there, ‘fears’) about their fantasy of ‘feminists’, surely doesn’t preclude this kind of analysis? I would have thought observations like this post were crucial, if only to go on making sure there are women in the culture who understand exactly what, in the culture, is working against them, and are able to say so, and to say why. Women like Audrey who have the critical wherewithal to able to say ‘I see what you do there’ are the difference between now and the 1960s.
Of course the ‘interpellated’ men aren’t going to read Audrey’s post. But other men are, and are going to think about it, and are going to take those thoughts with them when they go out into the world to write or teach or negotiate their social and emotional lives.
(Also, surely this bizarr-o fantasy of body odour and ‘sensible shoes’ is not only a myth but also now decades out of date? How old is this Merrill dude?)
Jessica from Feministing enters the contest:
http://feministing.com/archives/007668.html
Which is perhaps the most frustrating thing of all. The power that Zoo has to function as a magazine with a huge readership means it doesn’t have to accommodate the arguments of objecting women. It’s archaic bullshit, and they’re demonstrating to younger guys (who may yet grow in other ways) that it’s okay to dismiss dissension from women because they’re probably not ones who’d be okay with you jizzing all over their norks anyway. Yet their antics are brushed aside by most people (and news outlets) as being the behaviour of raffish, red blooded young men with a sense of humour that feminists and do-gooder academics are too uptight to appreciate. The onus is on US to change. We’ve got to ‘lighten up’. It’s basically the same as putting out a magazine devoted entirely to portraying black people as our servants and telling them they needed to ‘find the fun’ when they got a bit uppity about it all.
The Uncle Tomming of the women involved only serves to justify their sexist, rank attitudes.
Such a delightful turn of phrase, Audrey.
Adam, If you want clearly defined utility, you’d be hard pressed to justify about 99& of blogs and political critiques. I do think analysis such as this has some practical trickle down effect eventually. It gradually develops a knowledge base that may help target political strategies. But even if it is simply the cathartic letting of legitimate anger, what’s wrong with that?
Greer certainly wouldn’t be running off to read Merrill, but he is just one link in a cultural chain of nastiness to her. Unfortunately, as I think a lot of autobiographies show, even great people eventually get jaded by incessant personal attacks, even if it comes from ants to a giant.
Interesting post, Audrey, and lots of food for thought. But I wonder if the level of purity, so to speak, of the mag’s readers and intentions, is as high as you’d have to assume it to be in order to start becoming truly worried. Do these sorts of magazines have dedicated repeat readerships, or are they more casual readerships, blokes who buy the thing only once or twice a year depending on who’s on the cover, flip through it for half an hour while watching a ball game, then chuck it onto the coffee table where it rests undisturbed for about a month, then finally consign it to a stack of various things-you’ll-get-around-to-reading-eventually in the guest bathroom.
I agree that the discourse you’ve outlined would be (is?) worrisome and toxic if it were indeed the dominant mode of a man’s inner and outer life. But I think it’s more likely for most healthy people that this kind of writing and publishing is just sort of a toy or a little mental vacation from the complexities of the world, rather than a map of existence. “Hey, look, they made a bad joke about feminists in between the two pages of cool car ads. Anyway, back to translating these legal documents.”
I don’t know any men, none at all, whose mental furniture is arranged in a way that’s congruent to what a ‘purist’ reader of Zoo/Ralph/Maxim etc. might look like. Just as I know plenty of women who enjoy flipping through Cosmo or the other women’s mags once in a while, but whose actual lives are constructed in a way that’s far too complex to worry about what’s in Cosmo for very long.
Then again, maybe I’ve just become a boring old fart, and I have no idea what the yoof are up to today, what with their crazy ipod machines and skating-boards.
Just an aside on Adam and Dr Cat’s comments, isn’t it ironic in a way that literary/cultural studies employs the term “high theory” when so much of its recent drift has been towards disrupting the distinction between “high” and “popular” culture? I reckon we could make a case for doing some “low theory”!
Any man with more brain cells in his testes than his skull cavity.
Refer to my previous comment. No brains.
I must admit I’ve often taken a second glance at the cover of these mags… not exactly my type of woman but still…. if they decided to put some nice photoshoots in
Foreign Affairs, I’d probably be happy.Oh no, Cliff! You’ve not succumbed to the Dolly disease of thinking Condi sexy? Say it ain’t so!
Amanda at Pandagon reproduces a photo of Simone de Beauvoir:
http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/09/04/6000/
In the short time I’ve been blogging on LP, I’ve learnt a couple of things. Now I’ve lear5nt there’s a girlie mag named Zoo. The last ones I’d heard of before this were Ralph and I think People or some other name. I must be on the industrial scrapheap, not keeping up with these things.
Condi wasn’t exactly what I had in mind. I didn’t necessarily mean that the women needed to have anything to do with foreign policy (although a certain CIA agent whose identity was unceremoniously leaked to the public would certainly get on the cover…).
JPZ, I really think it’s worse than that — a mag like Zoo is only one of many vectors through which these toxic stereotypes are disseminated.
Somewhere around the late 1980s I noticed that some of my young female students had begun to begin their sentences with the dreaded ‘I’m not a feminist, but …’
Why, I inquired gently, why do you feel the need to say that? They replied that all feminists were smelly, hairy-legged lesbians (the homophobia was completely unthinking, BTW) in overalls and combat boots and buzzcuts: awful people who hated men and who were usually visible when making trouble in the streets on Anzac Day or some other sacred moment. They knew this because they’d seen it on TV.
I reminded them that what we see on the news is only what someone decides to show us, and asked them to ponder the probable gender and possible motivations of the camerapersons, the copywriters, the directors, the producers, the station owners and the head honchos of the sponsor companies.
Oh, they said. Oh, right.
Kim, that is a fabulous shot of de Beauvoir. Makes one wonder yet again why such a woman would choose to make herself miserable hanging out with that oik Sartre for so long.
Indeed!
Cliff, you’re not helping!
“[...]but you seem to be arguing that by saying something critical Audrey is just making it all worse. Surely the logical conclusion of that would be that nothing critical should be said, by anyone, ever?”
Dr Cat, I don’t think that any such conclusion should be drawn from my comments, but if it seems that I implied that, then I should clarify that it was not my intention. No, what I’m saying is that it is unlikely that Audrey’s critique will disrupt that kind of relation, because there is already a place for it created by the stereotype ‘feminist’ at work in Zoo. In fact, Zoo seems to have already found a way to try and make these imagined ‘feminists’ desirable within its own terms.
“Adam, If you want clearly defined utility, you’d be hard pressed to justify about 99& of blogs and political critiques. I do think analysis such as this has some practical trickle down effect eventually. It gradually develops a knowledge base that may help target political strategies. But even if it is simply the cathartic letting of legitimate anger, what’s wrong with that?”
Absolutely nothing at all. What’s wrong with me supplementing Audrey’s analysis, or must it be either/or? I’m merely interested in the way that this will probably never emerge as an exchange or dialogue, and trying to explain why that might be the case.
I’m not sure how much of an explanation that requires – people aren’t usually interested in critiques of their own practices, and I doubt the Zoo crowd are especially reflexive, or that they care enough about/are smart enough to comprehend the analysis.
Kim, I’m still waiting for an answer to my question about whether there was a good Willow.
I don’t think I’ll sleep tonight unless I find out the answer.
I stand corrected. Clearly this is just a case of knuckle-dragging morons, whose thoughts, feelings and motivations are totally irrelevant.
Now even those amongst us who favour ‘sensible shoes’ (feminist = lesbian) and are too busy battling inequality to buy deodorant (feminist = smelly) …
As a lesbian feminist, I don’t take it as an insult to be relegated to the sensible shoes brigade – I’ll be having the last laugh* when the stiletto-wearers of today have to spend a fortune on podiatry and osteopathy tomorrow.
I would, however, recommend crystal deodorant – now available even in most mainstream chemists.
[*I won't really be laughing - the sight of women hobbling down the street makes me unutterably sad. It's the modern Western version of footbinding.]
I’m firmly in the sensible shoes camp, speaking as another lesbian identified feminist. With one leg, so I’d be very silly to be wearing heels! But what suz said…
I recommend Campers btw…
<img src="http://www.intuitivedesigns.net/shoes/camper-twins.jpg"
Oh sorry, Darlene, yes there was a good Willow! After her girlfriend was killed by Warren (he wasn’t a good shot), she succumbed to the temptation to use her wicca powers for teh evil. There was also an earlier evil Willow – vampire Willow – and a time warp was involved.
I strongly recommend some dvd purchasing!
I think it maybe possible to do something about this mag,if it really offends,by simply giving a copy to a police officer male or female,and if it offends their sense of law and self.Not laws based on morality but offensive expression,that could litter the place if thrown away.I had a whole stack of Picture Magazines,and well it seems this Mag is a constipated version of that for even cheaper competition.The twins in the Zoo look like a pair similarly named in Picture.On matters of comparison Picture was pretty unsophisticated,but, sometimes hilarious depending on untried or unseen photographic interpretation of reality. Certainly I cannot pretend to say I dont like beauty,and comments at other blogs about whose problem it is and responsibility if one is just male is probably true from the female side,but a bad deal from the male side.That is how did these cards end up with a crosswired understanding. So if some female stirs me up on looks alone,I think to myself, I am still alive.And ,if by chance the admiration is sort of reciprocated, shit, back to being a teenager.Nothing learnt. I didnt by the Picture Mags ,but collected heaps of them at the tip, thinking they could end up as collectors items,or ways to embarass people by recognition in the future. I got rid of them a rats tale if you were able to read it. Zoo is essentially sexless, because the formula doesnt really have anything going for it,accept to target the already offended.And be offended,it a womans right, maybe the only worthwhile morality, when men are failing themselves and badly.
Oh cute! I love my Naots. Can buy new innersoles separately (because the actual shoe is virtually indestructible).
Have you seen some of the stupid shoes some of these women wear?
Ridiculous. What’s so sexy about looking like you’re going to fall in the mud. They seem to be getting worse as well. Have you gals seen some of the ridiculous shoes for summer? Crikey.
As a feminist who identifies as not a straight and not a lesbian, I always wear flat sensible shoes. Mary-Janes, I think they call them.
No update on evil/good Willow. I guess I’m just going to have to watch Buffy.
“Oh sorry, Darlene, yes there was a good Willow! After her girlfriend was killed by Warren (he wasn’t a good shot), she succumbed to the temptation to use her wicca powers for teh evil. There was also an earlier evil Willow – vampire Willow – and a time warp was involved.
I strongly recommend some dvd purchasing!”
Oops, I was obviously writing while you were posting.
Thanks.
They called their magazine “Zoo” after all — they must have a smidgen of self-awareness. Maybe.
Something I find interesting about the way this particular market has changed over time is the split in tone between the old-style “men’s magazines” like Playboy and Esquire, which had a sort of “your eccentric uncle who was in the Marines and married a countess in Surabaya is taking you out for your very first bourbon-and-branch at a hotel bar to teach you about the Ways of Men” air about them; and the crass, semi-literate tone of the “lads” magazines.
My guess is they’re doing it on purpose, not because they can’t figure out how to write with a bit more flair and basic table manners. I don’t think they’re looking at their audience eye-to-eye, expecting them to mimic the boors in print. My guess is that they’re deliberately pitching themselves in a lower, mud-spattered range, so that the reader can feel superior to them. I don’t think they want you to actually emulate their rudeness, or even really agree with it; I bet instead they want you to secretly laugh, but then roll your eyes and congratulate yourself on your superior perspective. I honestly don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone spend more than about 10 minutes looking through Maxim or Ralph, and it’s almost certainly deliberately designed to be consumed that way.
What the market reason for that would be is anyone’s guess, but one guess is that it’s actually part of a complex (and I’d emphasize ‘complex’) response to some of the here-to-stay prevalence and acceptance of many feminist ideas, believe it or not. The public vectors of feminist thought are not perceived only by women, after all. It’s gonna be an interesting century.
I also favour sensible shoes, as the opposite of these would be insensible. Which is of course exactly what wee women are, little insensible poppets with nary a logical thought floating about it in their dreamy brains.
Tell me why it is that women get lambasted for being irrational yet one of the most unattractive things we can do (according to Zoo types, obvs) is wear sensible footwear?
PS Looooove those campers!
j_p_z, as someone who’s engaged in a spirited amount of internet dating, I can tell you from experience that many men list Zoo, Ralph and FHM amongst their ‘reading’ likes.
“Tell me why it is that women get lambasted for being irrational yet one of the most unattractive things we can do (according to Zoo types, obvs) is wear sensible footwear?”
The apparent contradiction here is in the image of ‘essential’ femininity versus the required performance of femininity. So women are expected to wear ‘insensible’ shoes because they signal femininity, and shape the body into that image, but a successful performance also leads to the confirmation that, yes, women are irrational, otherwise why would they wear those uncomfortable shoes? I’m simplifying the chain or reasoning, but it seems to be a circular logic at work that functions as a kind of snare.
“Have you seen some of the stupid shoes some of these women wear? Ridiculous. What’s so sexy about looking like you’re going to fall in the mud. ”
Im a feminist who identifies as straight but likes to entertain the possibilities of Rich’s notion of the continuum of lesbianism.
….but, crap, I must have been seriously interpellated by the patriarchy in the womb or summat cause I cant stop wearing high heels – have carried an obsession for them since I was 11!!! A question!!: am I a bad feminist cause I choose the highest high heels I can get and wear em all the time???? You should see my platform suede wedges!! I call them my own little towers of babel. My own way of getting close to God you know. Yes, one day i will tumble down, and have to sit in the mud of my own vanities, as you point out with your usual acuity, Darlene. You would all hate em I think.
Anyway, I was most impressed by your campers Kim and so I went in search of them on the net. Check out the bizarre sight at the Camper site. Woman in (very nice) sensible shoes with a big BAG on her head. But what does that say I wonder?
Casey, I have two pairs of fabulous heels. One set is purple and one set is red. They’re completely hot and I love wearing them and they make me feel super dooper sexy.
I don’t think they’re insensible either.
heels are alright, but there’s nothing like a pair of black leather and metal headkickers. powerful and sexy.
Ohhh, but they are bad for your legs and feet, Casey.
I’d never want to tell another sister what to wear, but health-wise those things are just not good. Crikey, I’m in a bind, now.
I just can’t wear the things. Can’t. Look utterly ridiculous.
“Im a feminist who identifies as straight but likes to entertain the possibilities of Rich’s notion of the continuum of lesbianism.”
Don’t know about Rich’s continuum, but the continuum exists, and most of us are not on one end or the other (as the Bishop said….etc etc).
Sad that the best mainstream Men’s mags are the US Esquire and Men’s Journal.
Forget the p87n and sexism, how bad and boring is the WRITING in our local trash?
We must have watched mutually exclusive portions of the series because I had no idea there was an evil Willow.
Women in Art
Women in Film
Thanks, Steve, that is stunning. What a beautiful antidote to Zoo.
“heels are alright, but there’s nothing like a pair of black leather and metal headkickers. powerful and sexy”
Yep, can’t beat a good pair of steel cap Blundy’s
my fav winter shoes for work are black character shoes from dance shops with the smaller cuban heel – great with black stockings and skirt or pants. you can walk for miles.
full leather, hand made in the back of the shop, you can get rubber put onto the heel. about
$70-$100 dollars, always in stock – classic, comfortable and you never know when you might want to tango or rhumba, after presenting the annual report.
btw, great post audrey, forgot to bung that in last night – zoo’s circulation was around 85,000 in 2006 and about number 30 on the top 100 oz mags.
http://www.magazines.org.au/files/Top100CircJanJune06.pdf
audrey — thanks for the link, very funny story. The spelling some of those chaps resorted to has got me worried for the future, though. Perhaps we’re all headed back to the days of Bede, when spelling was a form of individual style choice. Kinda like shoes. (just thought i’d bring it full circle.)
well, i meant more the goth style boots, but Blundy’s have their own charm.
I had some positive feedback on Facebook about wearing my blue docs again. They’re very insensible shoes. But go for Redbacks over Blundstones any time if that’s your thing – cheaper and a genuine workboot and sturdier and more comfortable! When I was a poor student I used to buy a pair about every 3 years (I was a poor student for a long long time) – $60 for my first in 90, I think and round about $80 for the latest pair I got in 98 (don’t wear them much anymore…) – you can find them in army disposal stores if nowhere else…
Actually, sadly, casey, I don’t own those particular ones. I was google image searching for a file of the right size! But they’re all great – unfortunately only a limited range are sold in Oz and you can’t (yet) order here via the net. Hadn’t been to the website lately for that reason – I think it’s actually a shoebox on her head, but what does it say indeed?
Naots are also brill, su!
Really good orthopedic shoes – as in groovy ones – are well worth the money (maybe $200 or $300) because they’ll do wonders for your feet and back and joints. In my own case, whether I’m wearing a prosthetic or not, it takes me considerably more energy to walk than for the average human biped, and I’m prone to all sorts of foot (singular!) and spine woes. So they’re a necessity, but that shouldn’t stop bipedal folks!
Ecco also make very good shoes.
And maryjanes rule!
These are the latest campers I’ve bought:
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/28/45550795_9e2289604f.jpg"
Zappos are a cheaper imitation, but not bad at all:
<img src="http://www.zappos.com/images/727/7278571/4998-329962-d.jpg"
<img src="http://www.zappos.com/images/727/7278513/5007-329806-d.jpg"
Beautiful shoes Kim!
Do you mind me asking how it is you only have one leg? If it’s a sensitive topic, forget I asked. I’m rather nosy that’s all. My best friend had a friend in Japan who didn’t have a hand, and she was so concious about not ‘noticing’ it when she first met her that, two years later, she’s embarrassed to ask her about it. We are trying to brainstorm ways for her to find out. The lates suggestion was that she get drunk with her and start telling a random person how her friend’s hand was bitten off by a shark. When she gets uppity, she can say, ‘FINE. You tell the story then.’
Heh! That might be the go, Audrey, but most people actually welcome the question. I lost my leg when I was 14 because I had bone cancer. I’m 34 now so I’ve been a monoped for almost two decades! I wrote a post about it, in an attempt to answer the puzzling question “what’s it like to have one leg?”:
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/04/28/reprise-whats-it-like-to-have-one-leg/
Thanks Kim. That was beautifully written xoxo
Thanks Audrey!
xxoo
Also, Audrey, she may have been born without a hand. Does there appear to be scar tissue?
I haven’t seen it, but from the description I’m guessing she was born without it. I told mtk she should just ask her outright. It’ll be embarrassing for about three seconds. She’s too shy though.
Mark
Of course feminists can be sexy! Remember there are many types of feminism. You have the puritanical Presybterian old-Boiler feminazis of LP, then there are the pro-sex feminists, who are much more open to art, sex, and life.
Evidently discussion of male genitalia only has a partial prophylactic effect…
Hey Kim, my wife has a pair of Campers exactly like yours! She also has a great pair with red hearts embroidered on one shoe and yellow question marks on the other.
The male versions are more sombre, but just as comfortable, I imagine.
Yeah, they’re all good adrian!
You have the puritanical Presybterian old-Boiler feminazis of LP
John, I’m eager to see an oil painting of you appear as your gravatar.
Yes, I believe it’s suggested somewhere that Zoo Mag could strike a blow against teh feminists by calling for naked photos of anti-feminists – I’m sure Mr September, John Greenfield, would cut a dashing figure in all his glory holding a pint glass and sneering at the luvvies. Art! Eros! Love! Bleh!
suz
None of my comments has anything to do with your physical charms. I merely comment on your ideology.
No, not a painting. If we were going to go for a gravatar for JG, this would be my pick.
Kim
The ladies employed by Zoo magazine are far more pervacious than I, and besides, you lot would simply censor it anyway.
That’s cruel, Liam!
By the way, John, the post is a guest post by Audrey. Do you ever read anything before you jump into the comments box?
And you are telling me this because……?
Cruel but fair, athough this would be my choice for him.
They are in principle Johnny, but I wouldn’t get your hopes up for your own particular opportunities.
Anthony
Don’t worry sweetie, I wouldn’t fuck you for practice.
See how this goes? For 104 comments we have a really interesting and good humoured conversation with interesting byways and segues, and now we get our resident troll, JG, turn up with his standard flip and ill informed dismissive and abusive stuff and suddenly… It’s a case study in the attention seeking nature of the troll. We’re all talking about him. I suggest we stop.
Because you addressed your comment to Mark as if he were the author of the post.
I’m another Camper fan – nothing sets off my boiler suit quite so charmingly I find
For more sensible shoe extravaganzai, check the Camper Meme…..
Those ones are ace!
And thanks for the link, Laura!
Has anyone worn Camper boots? Any comments? Comfortable?
If I may be permitted just one more tiny comment on the highjacking, aren’t you all being a bit mean? I’d like to believe that JG’s motives were of the highest: he was offering a practical demonstration of how the antifeminist fantasy stereotypes of misogynists are a self-perpetuating closed circuit with no relationship to reality. Which is the central point of Audrey’s post. Well illustrated, JG.
Also, he has finally learned how to spell “Presbyterian”, and for this we should all be grateful.
Getting back to important matters: much as I love those grassy shoes of Laura’s, I think these are my faves.
Nope, Dr Cat, sadly, the spelling of Presbyterian is still beyond JG – look more carefully:
I hereby authorise him to cut and paste the correct spelling from this comment in future.
I also love the ones with the cow. Although on leather shoes that could be considered poor taste, I suppose. And would I then cry at the sight of my own feet? Like the Walrus when he scoffed the oysters.
OMG!!!!111!11!
So much form y budding career as a prooofreader, n’est-ce spa?
Anyway, back to shoes. Not only do campers go well with a Presbyterian boiler suit (what exactly does one look like?) but also with a spring dress. You can wear red campers with a red dress but black ones make a nice contrast as well, as illustrated in this photo of someone or other counting her loot:
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/campers.JPG"
Note the matching black bra strap.
Sorry Kim, low hanging fruit and all.
Anyway, back on topic – my wife looks especially fabulous in her retro Italian dirt bike boots.
Yes, sorry Kim, I’ll try not to be tempted by the low hanger.
Hey Kim
nice pin
xx
Also, this would be a nice gravvy for someone.
Hey thanks Zoe!
You gotta make the best of whatcha got left, I always think!
xxoo
Not me, I thought it was fabulous. if there’s one thing I love more than passionate writing, it’s passionate writing by a young feminist. Yee har.
What she said.
Audrey, this post is bound to attract hostile, smartarse trolls. Ignore them, except to note that if they object then you must have been doing something right.
Again, what she said.
Yee har!
Here’s the competition we’re looking for.
Have you seen this? Nice work from Crimitism
http://crimitism.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/crimitism-searches-for-the-worlds-sexiest-mens-rights-activist/
I find the mens’ Campers a bit disappointing in terms of style, just quietly.
I’ve personally found that it’s hard for a bloke to go wrong with a pair of RM Williams Macquaries, a pair of Clarks Desert Boots in black suede natch or for those more informal moments, Dunlop Volleys from Target or kung fu slippers purchased from some Smith St, Collingwood, Asian emporium. Between ‘em, you can walk from the court to the beach to the boardroom to the boudoir in effortless and very comfortable and timeless style. Oh yes, and a nice handmade pair of leather pumps to sport at tango classes.
And yes Kim, a well turned and shapely ankle there. Good enough for two.
I’m all for the Greenfield comments. The man does a great service by providing a sense of continuity in a chaotic world. That’s something that’s really missing from my own casualised existence. I shan’t be dwelling on his comments, of course, except to say: bring on the puritanical ‘Presybterian’ old-Boiler feminazis.
“She was on her feet instantly, glaring at him from her full height, hissing: Leave me alone! All right, he said. At the door he turned and looked back at her. When you’re angry, he said, you look like a goddess.”
But now, in a way, I’m lapsing into Zoo-isms. Oh well. Good night…
Why thank you, Nabs!
Shoes? **is want**
Though money is a fictional concept at the moment, so if anyone knows 799 people who are willing to chip in a share…
But they are gorgeous shoes, Kim. Though in this weather I’m happy with my big, plastic, pink, stripy gumboots. And platforms are very useful for stepping over puddles.
That’s a fab website amazing kim!
Show me the other one and I’ll tap out a haiku about how and why the taunt and promise of a shapely ankle carries taut and promiscuous resonaces well beyond Frank Harris on heat in Edwardian pool rooms.
The other what, Nabs? Only have one ankle to show!
Well me too Adrian. It’s very eighties onwards central casting and a stylish move by the proprietors of LP. The unlikable character that maintained this enormous sense of pride despite their own compulsive ineptitude and lack of social skills – Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons, Rimmer, Newman… basically the anti-Fonzie. Well done writers!
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/campers2.JPG"
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/campers3.JPG"
I think I’ve got your meaning now. I’m not the brightest spark after 2am.
Where’s my haiku then?
Sorry Adam, not Adrian
Nice gam Kim!
Cheers anthony!
I do of course have an ulterior motive – I am trying to goad JG into posting either the requested portrait in oils or nude snap taken with a camera phone. But, knowing our luck, he’ll just cut and paste some Pierre et Gilles god and claim it’s him.
Hey no worries, if I get a haiku chant going, do you think the weary glass polishing staff will kick me out?
HAIKU
HAIKU
HAIKU
The piano is drunk. Not me.
I’m still waiting for the pictures of Nabakov in leather.
It’ll all be a terrible misunderstanding I’m sure.
WOT? Go Home? I *am* home!
Isn’t everyone?
Probably not Nabakov.
I’m settling for Nabakov in stereophonic sound.
That may be so. We’ll have to secrete some sort of Emma Peel invented minicam in his bottle of Laphroaig.
Well, you’re gonna have to settle for vinyl Vladimir.
Oh, no need for that. Secreting a bit of Peel into the Bison vodka I’m absorbing right now will do just fine.
OK, time to shake a leg about ankle haikus.
Breeding stock well wrapped
An ankle glimpsed in passing
I saw head to toe
Press all the buttons
Linger longer in the lift
Look down fron shoes up
Arrrgh! I’m tregetting
pissy prettiedpretty pissed now and teetering on the edge of lapsing into limericks or even worse clerihews!I think I may lie down with a moistened copy of Jurgen pressed to my brow.
“I do of course have an ulterior motive – I am trying to goad JG into posting either the requested portrait in oils or nude snap taken with a camera phone.”
Quite apart from that Kim, I really like those gorgeous dresses. They look lovely with the shoes and the bra strap. Stylish. And cool looking. The white one is really nice. You wear them well!
Thanks casey!
Kim:
You got that right!
*a-boom tish!*
Unfortunately Miss Hathaway’s claim to speak on behalf of women in general rather than her own minority of passe feminazis is laid bare in her use of “misogyny.” Sweetie, my comments are not directed at women in general, but a small dreary (and quite often misogynist) ideological clique.
Also, I have noticed a lapse in your proof-reading skills of late. I am afraid that unless you lift your game I will have to withdraw my offer to throw some work your way no matter how good your shorthand is.
One word.
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2007/09/04/guest-post-by-audrey-hard-to-believe-but-apparently-even-feminists-can-be-sexy/#comment-399937
I never leave home without my fetching boiler suit complete with:
Feminazi patches.
We have ways of making you read The Women’s Room.
Ha ha ha ha ha (evil laugh).
PS – Beware when you link to Feminazi patches that your comment isn’t presumed to be spam.
Huh. Missed the fun. N, I’ve always quite liked the idea of RM Williams boots but always flinched at the price. These ones, though, I’m quite enjoying.
My ankle-ku for Kim:
…
One knee, one ankle
Quality beats quantity
Besides, who’s counting?
Sweet, Liam!
I have not seen Mr Nabakov in leather but can confirm that he looks very well in a tight white trouser.
(And we are also enjoying the Bison vodka, particularly in a bloody mary. Not this morning obvs, more generally).
Popsicle, you are, as usual, addressing yourself to some fantasy strawclique in whose existence you need to believe in order to justify your own ignorance and resentment. If you had actually read Audrey’s post instead of just mindlessly trolling around the thread, you might realise that you have again demonstrated the truth of her point.
Z:
The singular noun
Trousers turned into a pant?
Take your breaths shallow
Twin curves of manhood
Split by crisp linen seamwork
Only in spray-ons
Feminazi patches!!! ROFLMAO. That ones made my day, doll face!
I think you need a Bex and a good lie down, moppet. You’re evidently prone to over-excitement.
This thread shouldn’t die. Surely shoes and spring dresses (and sexist boy stuff) can generate more discussion than Missy Higgins and lipsniggery?
Quite!
Props to Audrey for an excellent and passionate post and to all the commenters (with one obvious exception) for a fun and interesting thread!
absolutely kim,
i’m still working out how i can cancel the school band/choir/nipper/soccer blah fees and buy some campers….
i havent managed to get up to the sales this winter (big bummer), but will be putting campers on the must do sale list. Thx.
with JG’s fixation for boiler suits & after some on-line window shopping – i reckon this is the one that would suit him best – the Dickies Flame Retardant Fire Cadet Overall XXXL
http://www.dickiesstore.co.uk/dickies-workwear/dickies-and-redhawk-overalls/flame-retardant-workwear/WD4869XXXL/0/
Heh! Guarenteed safety against blowback from even his lamest Presybterian flame war!
exactly mark,
& the ‘Proddie Orange Boy Orange’ is as attractive as JG’s comments also.
Boiler suits pshaw, he’s given the veil of ignorance for the cheap suit of stupidity.
I suppose this all depends on your streamline impressionism on what it really means to be “feminist” and to be “sexy”. Zoo magazines ideology of “sexy”, unfortunately, is the complete opposite to a “feminist” notion of “sexy”. To Zoo, sexy means to be submissive, passive, obedient, and the woman made object has to fit into an obligated criteria assessed by medial standards. In a sense, it both matters what you look like and how you present yourself. Analysing the magazine, I have seen women who, mainstream wise, would be considered very attractive, however, because they were neither posing nor were they barely clad, Zoo considered them to be average=not sexy. In Zoo magazine, there is only one type of sexy. Sexy is made into a commodity, rather than a real life subjective formula. It is packaged and sold. What’s most offensive about Merrill’s attitude is not nessessarily his ideology of what a feminist is, rather his ideologe on what a woman MUST be to be considered desireable, thus he evaluates a woman’s worth to be central to the size of her breasts. A woman is cunt with legs, not person with ideas, values and ambition. There is relative comparison to men’s mags and women’s mags, but I wonder if anyone passing judgement really understands the concepts of the male gaze, dominant-hegemonies, the interpellation of the critiqued, etcetera. These are key tools to understanding the differences between these two commodities. The main difference is women tnd to objectify themselves, however, as one thoerist said, the objectivity within herself is essentially male, it is conditioned rather than coming natural. This may not be relevant to what everyone appears to be discussing now, however.
Darlene
I was mainlining Feminazi Patches when I went clubbing on the weekend. Had a fab time. lots of ladies in dresses, lippy, shaved armpits, even deodorant!
Polystergirl
Unfortunately you are making the same mistakes as Miss Hathaway. This judgement is not yours to make.
Bit late to start worrying about relevance now, Poly.
John Greenfield, I want in on that racket.
Relevance in response to posts is an interesting thing. I just had a post where the comments managed to veer from misery memoirs to Bold and Beautiful. Since I am interested in both topics, it didn’t really trouble me. I trust people know when to button up and leave the light stuff for another time.
Says the boilersuit fancier…
Something else as well, I’d wager.
Oh come now Kimberella, no need to be snarky here. I’m sure you were equally as excited as mini-J is now about the first time you went to a nightclub, took controlled substances and stayed up all night.
Wait till he gets laid. We’ll never hear the end of that one.
I don’t know who Audrey is but pleeease … get a book out, and soon.
We live in an era which gives us news updates every five minutes that feminism is dead … again … and again. But writing such as this gets my pulse racing and my hopes rising that we are on the cusp of a major feminist comeback. After eleven years of stifling conservative rule, Lord (Goddess) knows we need one.
Audrey, you have Greer’s pizzazz, passion and genius for words. Go grrrl ….
Polyestergirl,
Nice post – especially the second half. I wish people could step back and see that we are all part of a very dysfunctional dominator system that, to paraphrase the writings of Riane Eisler, depends for its continued survival on an in-group always dominating an out-group – whether it be gender, race, class, nation or something else. It’s a tiresome script that desperately needs rewriting or we’re all dead meat.
I don’t know, Nabs.
JG may find that prospective partners demand manscaping. Goose, gander, etc.
Gotta grow it before you can cut it. In every possible sense.
There is that.
Thanks JAL!
Not to flog my blog, but based on what you’ve said you may be interested in my most recent post.
Not with a bang, but a whimper
It’s all about the latest declaration that feminism is OVAH. Pttthbt I say!
Pttthbt indeed, Audrey!
John Greenfield:
Oh, I think I speak for the vast, vast, vast majority of feminists when I say that Johnny! And what would you have it? There’s no point in initiating debate without specifying what it is you disagree with. ZOO magazine believes “sexy” is objective, rather than subjective. What feminist would ever concur “sexy” as an objective state of mind? Miss Hathaway, eh? YOW!
FDB:
Ain’t worrying dude! Just making a statement based on my analysis of the discussion. Ofcourse, if I were worried over the relevance of my comment in relation to how the discussion had progressed, I’d have posted pictures of my extremely non-sensible but goth-tastic shoes. Plus I didn’t want to confuse anyone who had forgotten what the initial discussion was about. Chill-out man!
JAL:
Thanx.
Dude, I’m like, chill as. What I meant was that meandering around the boundaries of relevance was well underway before your contribution, which was considerably more pertinent than much of what preceded. To which I modestly contributed my own inimitable brand of quasi-humorous irrelevance. No criticism implied. Chill out, girlfriend!
FDB:
Like I said, I was merely reminding people that they had completely gone off the topic, and incase they got confused. Always thinking about others, are the Goths! Nice to see you’re chilled too. Am totally smoking some pot right now. Can’t get any more chilled than that. Boyfriend.