So, Electronic Frontiers Australia launched an online campaign last week asking opponents of the clean feed to tell their mums about the filter. Quite a few mums found that patronising and sexist, and said so. Fair enough. Then Geordie Guy wrote a post that was really quite stupid. He tried to defend the ad by explaining sexism to his feminist critics. Yeah, not smart. However. Cluelessness when expressing an argument doesn’t necessarily negate the argument itself.
Mass communications involves speaking to many people at once. Advertisers and political campaigners often deal in stereotypes, reducing large sections of the community to a couple of beliefs or behaviours in order to refine a message that will hopefully resonate with them. It seems that EFA polling has shown them that there is a significant group of people who are open to being swayed either for or against the filter, where the two most important factors are: concern for what children are being exposed to on the internet; and a lack of understanding about how the net, and the filter, works. Probably a large majority of people fitting into this category are also mums.
Where perhaps EFA failed here is in being too obvious about that stereotyping, because no-one likes to feel that they have been reduced to a stereotype, whether accurate or not. However, as EFA pointed out, it’s not an ad targetted at mums – it’s an ad targetted at their kids. It’s an ad calling for a specific action, which is: communicate with the people we think are most open to being convinced. There are of course a number of names they could have given those people, “your folks” being the most obvious. But calls for action are difficult, and it’s usually best to keep it simple. In using a descriptor that applies to more than one person, it may have reduced the ad’s effectiveness, whereas by using a word that immediately puts a face in the mind of the viewer, it’s possible it makes it more powerful as a call to action.
Does that mean it isn’t sexist? No. But it does mean that maybe it isn’t. If their research showed that “mums” was a genuine group worth targetting then is it sexist to formulate an ad based on the reality? Maybe it’s the reality that’s sexist, again, maybe it isn’t. It’s a debatable point is what I’m saying, although one that is absolutely worth debating. But not one that’s worth telling EFA they’re on their own, and refusing to help them in their campaign against the filter.
And so we get to the point I’m trying to dance around. Calling out allies when they get it wrong is important. But so is recognising that there are blurred lines at which reasonable people can disagree. Lines where we all interpret social dynamics and causes differently. And when we find ourselves involved in these debates, it’s important to a) recognise that that’s the kind of debate we’re in, and b) recognise that the people disagreeing with you may not in fact be wrong, or bad. Furthermore, it’s worth considering that even if your opponent is wrong, perhaps we don’t constantly need to demand complete ideological purity from our allies in order to band together for the fights where we do agree. Because the only people who benefit from that are the people who are actually against us, because we’re all either exhausted from defending ourselves against our allies or splintering into groups too small to actually make a difference.
I’ve seen the bingo cards, so allow me to make myself clear. I’m not arguing that we should ignore the small stuff until we fix the big stuff. The small stuff matters. But so does the big stuff, and sometimes some perspective is required. Disagree and argue your case, but be careful that you aren’t demanding time and energy from allies who simply disagree in good faith. We can’t all care about everything equally, and while I condemn the argument that “I don’t care about X, which means it isn’t important and you should stop caring about it also”, I also condemn the “I care about this issue and I’m not going to be satisfied with being heard and disagreed with, I’m going to take your time and energy/refuse to work with you on the things we do agree on until you apologise for disagreeing with me”. It’s a tendency I’ve been noticing a bit amongst some progressives lately, and I wish it would stop.
http://www.timetotellmum.com/
I presume this is the site, with ad, under the microscope?
It was a very nice pretty shade of pink when I arrived [without Adobe].
http://www.timetotellmum.com/
I presume this is the site, with ad, under the microscope?
It was a very nice pretty shade of pink when I arrived [without Adobe].
“It’s a tendency I’ve been noticing a bit amongst some progressives lately, and I wish it would stop.”
Such folk are possibly not as ‘progressive’ as they believe themselves to be…..
“It’s a tendency I’ve been noticing a bit amongst some progressives lately, and I wish it would stop.”
Such folk are possibly not as ‘progressive’ as they believe themselves to be…..
Maybe, *maybe* the campaign would have been a good idea if there was evidence that most supporters were mothers. However, the only evidence given so far has been in the comments thread of the EFA’s post, in which David Campbell writes: “In fact, there is very strong evidence that mothers do overwhelmingly support the idea of this filter. The most famous is the Hungry Beast/McNair Ingenuity Research poll in February that found that women (87%) were much more likely than men (73%) to support the question with the likelihood of support increasing with age and people with no children were among the least likely to support the filter (28%).”
So, yes, more women do support the filter. But that breakdown: 87% of women, 73% of men, doesn’t seem to justify developing a campaign that focuses on mothers. Why exclude men, when 73% support the filter? Why act like mothers are the main supporters when the difference is so small?
Maybe, *maybe* the campaign would have been a good idea if there was evidence that most supporters were mothers. However, the only evidence given so far has been in the comments thread of the EFA’s post, in which David Campbell writes: “In fact, there is very strong evidence that mothers do overwhelmingly support the idea of this filter. The most famous is the Hungry Beast/McNair Ingenuity Research poll in February that found that women (87%) were much more likely than men (73%) to support the question with the likelihood of support increasing with age and people with no children were among the least likely to support the filter (28%).”
So, yes, more women do support the filter. But that breakdown: 87% of women, 73% of men, doesn’t seem to justify developing a campaign that focuses on mothers. Why exclude men, when 73% support the filter? Why act like mothers are the main supporters when the difference is so small?
sky
note that 13% only of women oppose the filter, while 27% of men oppose it.
So men (“dads”) are TWICE as likely to oppose it, as “mums”.
Target those mums!
sky
note that 13% only of women oppose the filter, while 27% of men oppose it.
So men (“dads”) are TWICE as likely to oppose it, as “mums”.
Target those mums!
I found the ad sexist and offensive particularly this bit [from an online transcript]:
“Mums love gossip.
[Text briefly appears beside Saleh reading "Mums Love Gossip"]
You know, have you ever s— have you ever been to the hairdressers with your Mum?
[Assumes a high pitchy whiny tone]
“Oh look I’ve… Brad, Brad Pitt left Britney and Lindsay’s done [unclear: "a hammy"?] and and Daryl Somers has had a boob job and…”
I don’t care who the ad is targetting that above is purile sexism and constitutes a fail if the aim is to get ‘mums’ on board.
I found the ad sexist and offensive particularly this bit [from an online transcript]:
“Mums love gossip.
[Text briefly appears beside Saleh reading "Mums Love Gossip"]
You know, have you ever s— have you ever been to the hairdressers with your Mum?
[Assumes a high pitchy whiny tone]
“Oh look I’ve… Brad, Brad Pitt left Britney and Lindsay’s done [unclear: "a hammy"?] and and Daryl Somers has had a boob job and…”
I don’t care who the ad is targetting that above is purile sexism and constitutes a fail if the aim is to get ‘mums’ on board.
I’m sorry, but I don’t find just flipping those statistics around a very convincing argument. Especially when a key criticism of the campaign is that there’s no basis for claiming that mothers are less technologically-capable and politically aware: if we’re (rather shakily) taking ‘support for the filter’ as a measure of these things, men and women are not so far off.
Finally, it might be useful for you to note that “women” and “mothers” are not the same thing, neither are “men” and “fathers”.
I’m sorry, but I don’t find just flipping those statistics around a very convincing argument. Especially when a key criticism of the campaign is that there’s no basis for claiming that mothers are less technologically-capable and politically aware: if we’re (rather shakily) taking ‘support for the filter’ as a measure of these things, men and women are not so far off.
Finally, it might be useful for you to note that “women” and “mothers” are not the same thing, neither are “men” and “fathers”.
hannah’s dad, he also says this about himself:
Unfunny perhaps, but clearly he’s not being serious with the stuff about gossip magazines and hairdressers.
hannah’s dad, he also says this about himself:
Unfunny perhaps, but clearly he’s not being serious with the stuff about gossip magazines and hairdressers.
Sky, I’m pretty sure Ambigulous’ comment was 100% tongue-in-cheek.
You weren’t to know though, he can be a slippery sarcacist.
Sky, I’m pretty sure Ambigulous’ comment was 100% tongue-in-cheek.
You weren’t to know though, he can be a slippery sarcacist.
Must admit it (Akmal) gave me no trouble, but then Akmal is a satirist and humorist, it is a rough attempt to invert or transgress the usual, dreary mum as “custodian of the domestic” ploy used by the conservative side, in trying to get censorship in general “up”.
EG, that “mum” is not the silly goose the advertisers take her for, if she has a few facts told about net censorshup rather than than just having her emotions played upon by people like Conroy, that women ARE bright enough to see an issue for what its worth, in this case, as Akmal suggests, an employment of *pron* as catspaw for more political censorship.
Must admit it (Akmal) gave me no trouble, but then Akmal is a satirist and humorist, it is a rough attempt to invert or transgress the usual, dreary mum as “custodian of the domestic” ploy used by the conservative side, in trying to get censorship in general “up”.
EG, that “mum” is not the silly goose the advertisers take her for, if she has a few facts told about net censorshup rather than than just having her emotions played upon by people like Conroy, that women ARE bright enough to see an issue for what its worth, in this case, as Akmal suggests, an employment of *pron* as catspaw for more political censorship.
@4 hannah’s dad
Absolutely you’re right that this campaign is many of the things you say it is, and absolutely it could have been done better.
But political campaigning is about winning, not about being righteous, and it’s about reaching out to engage people who aren’t currently aware of the issue or its impacts on their life. That’s how you win. And stereotypes are the lifeblood of advertising and that’s because they work.
The union campaign against workchoices used stereotypes in the same way in their effort to reach out to the non-unionised workforce. Theirs were a little more subtle and a little sharper – but that’s what an multi-million dollar campaign buys you, as compared to a $20,000 campaign.
You can preach to the choir as hard as you want, but that doesn’t convert the world – and this campaign does more to reach out to disengaged demographics than all of the posts on LP, Hoyden, Catallaxy and the rest of the political blogosphere put together.
And we know that because of the people going over to the EFA and saying ‘yeah, I talked to my mum, and she didn’t know, and now she does’.
I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.
@4 hannah’s dad
Absolutely you’re right that this campaign is many of the things you say it is, and absolutely it could have been done better.
But political campaigning is about winning, not about being righteous, and it’s about reaching out to engage people who aren’t currently aware of the issue or its impacts on their life. That’s how you win. And stereotypes are the lifeblood of advertising and that’s because they work.
The union campaign against workchoices used stereotypes in the same way in their effort to reach out to the non-unionised workforce. Theirs were a little more subtle and a little sharper – but that’s what an multi-million dollar campaign buys you, as compared to a $20,000 campaign.
You can preach to the choir as hard as you want, but that doesn’t convert the world – and this campaign does more to reach out to disengaged demographics than all of the posts on LP, Hoyden, Catallaxy and the rest of the political blogosphere put together.
And we know that because of the people going over to the EFA and saying ‘yeah, I talked to my mum, and she didn’t know, and now she does’.
I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.
Sorry Anna I don’t accept that.
The ‘women gossip about trivia at hairdressers’ is LCD sexism and totally unnecessary. The same point, whatever it is, could, I’m presuming cos I don’t really know why the ad makers had to include that, have been made differently.
Come on, you know its stereotyping and insulting [implying airheadedness if there is such a word]. If you want to get mums on side don’t treat them like that.
Silly.
Mouth meet foot, learn about it, admit mistake and don’t do it again.
Those responsible dor the ad deserve to be called on their sexism and should thank the critics and be the wiser for it, then the criticism of the filter will be stronger.
Sorry Anna I don’t accept that.
The ‘women gossip about trivia at hairdressers’ is LCD sexism and totally unnecessary. The same point, whatever it is, could, I’m presuming cos I don’t really know why the ad makers had to include that, have been made differently.
Come on, you know its stereotyping and insulting [implying airheadedness if there is such a word]. If you want to get mums on side don’t treat them like that.
Silly.
Mouth meet foot, learn about it, admit mistake and don’t do it again.
Those responsible dor the ad deserve to be called on their sexism and should thank the critics and be the wiser for it, then the criticism of the filter will be stronger.
hannah’s dad, I personally do think it’s sexism. My point is that others don’t, and I don’t think it’s such an offensive and clear-cut moment of sexism that it we should refuse to help the EFA campaign until we get an apology. Because reasonable people can look at an ad full of exaggeration and jokes, and disagree.
hannah’s dad, I personally do think it’s sexism. My point is that others don’t, and I don’t think it’s such an offensive and clear-cut moment of sexism that it we should refuse to help the EFA campaign until we get an apology. Because reasonable people can look at an ad full of exaggeration and jokes, and disagree.
crankynick
“But political campaigning is about winning, not about being righteous”.
Are you serious?
What is the point then if winning is what it is about and being [ethically] right or wrong is irrelevant.
Without the ‘righteous’ element then politics just becomes a sport for those that like to play competitive games.
You can hire people to spruik anything you like and who cares what the issue is or how it is handled its how many goals one mob, presumably the batallion with the bigger guns, score.
Nup, principles first, other stuff second is the only long term way to succeed.
And please do not go into the standard issue response of accusing me of ‘pie in the sky/idealist/need to be pragmatic” stuff OK.
Heard it all before.
crankynick
“But political campaigning is about winning, not about being righteous”.
Are you serious?
What is the point then if winning is what it is about and being [ethically] right or wrong is irrelevant.
Without the ‘righteous’ element then politics just becomes a sport for those that like to play competitive games.
You can hire people to spruik anything you like and who cares what the issue is or how it is handled its how many goals one mob, presumably the batallion with the bigger guns, score.
Nup, principles first, other stuff second is the only long term way to succeed.
And please do not go into the standard issue response of accusing me of ‘pie in the sky/idealist/need to be pragmatic” stuff OK.
Heard it all before.
Good stuff Anna
Sure the campaign, the ad and the concept lack lots of political correctness and no message is going to be right for everyone but would we rather the EFF sat on its arse and did nothing? I challenge anyone here to come up with a creative concept that ticks every box and works.
Good stuff Anna
Sure the campaign, the ad and the concept lack lots of political correctness and no message is going to be right for everyone but would we rather the EFF sat on its arse and did nothing? I challenge anyone here to come up with a creative concept that ticks every box and works.
Is anybody actually refusing to support the EFA until there is an apology? I haven’t read that anywhere.
Is anybody actually refusing to support the EFA until there is an apology? I haven’t read that anywhere.
Look Anna I’m not completely up to speed on the kerfluffle that this ad has apparently caused.
But if I were those responsible for it I’d do some abject grovelling, have a serious rethink about my attitudes, and get the people I have offended back onside hopefully by doing what could have and should have done in the first place.
As a granddad I regard sexism as a pretty serious issue, I’m watching it do its poison, and I don’t see that an anti filter ad has to be sexist. I mean its really a weird world but not that weird yet if the only way the anti censorship group [that is what this is about isn't it?] can get their point across is to demean people, including my grandkids [very indirectly of course but it all contributes for example I getting to hate the colour pink FFS!], with sexist stereotypes.
Apologise, learn, move on.
Not hard.
Well shouldn’t be.
Look Anna I’m not completely up to speed on the kerfluffle that this ad has apparently caused.
But if I were those responsible for it I’d do some abject grovelling, have a serious rethink about my attitudes, and get the people I have offended back onside hopefully by doing what could have and should have done in the first place.
As a granddad I regard sexism as a pretty serious issue, I’m watching it do its poison, and I don’t see that an anti filter ad has to be sexist. I mean its really a weird world but not that weird yet if the only way the anti censorship group [that is what this is about isn't it?] can get their point across is to demean people, including my grandkids [very indirectly of course but it all contributes for example I getting to hate the colour pink FFS!], with sexist stereotypes.
Apologise, learn, move on.
Not hard.
Well shouldn’t be.
I’ve read people saying that tigtog. I’m not linking to people because this isn’t about attacking people.
But it’s also about forcing activists to spend time defending themselves to allies of their cause, rather than using their time and energy to stop the filter.
Calling people on sexism is one thing, the question is, what do you do when they listen, then say they don’t agree with your analysis.
I’ve read people saying that tigtog. I’m not linking to people because this isn’t about attacking people.
But it’s also about forcing activists to spend time defending themselves to allies of their cause, rather than using their time and energy to stop the filter.
Calling people on sexism is one thing, the question is, what do you do when they listen, then say they don’t agree with your analysis.
@12 hannahs dad
And the principle here is that this bill is a fucking stupid idea and should be stopped.
The question of morals is not who won, but ‘what are we winning’?
That’s what decides who is Us vs who is Them. Because that’s why we’re doing it.
I’ll take allies where I find them, and treat them like allies until we’re done. I’m happy to call them out when they’re wrong, but they’re still allies until we’re done.
Because otherwise all you have is a kitchen, a bottle of red wine, and an ever diminishing group of friends to only ever nod their heads when you make a Pronouncement on How the World Is.
What is the point then if winning is what it is about and being [ethically] right or wrong is irrelevant.
Because if we’ve stopped this bill we’ve done a Good Thing.
And if we find allies along the way among the libertarians, the god squad, the people who are clueless about sexism and privilege they are still allies.
And we should be happy to call them on it, but not to walk away. Because what’s important is what we’re trying to win.
Keep your eye on the prize.
@12 hannahs dad
And the principle here is that this bill is a fucking stupid idea and should be stopped.
The question of morals is not who won, but ‘what are we winning’?
That’s what decides who is Us vs who is Them. Because that’s why we’re doing it.
I’ll take allies where I find them, and treat them like allies until we’re done. I’m happy to call them out when they’re wrong, but they’re still allies until we’re done.
Because otherwise all you have is a kitchen, a bottle of red wine, and an ever diminishing group of friends to only ever nod their heads when you make a Pronouncement on How the World Is.
What is the point then if winning is what it is about and being [ethically] right or wrong is irrelevant.
Because if we’ve stopped this bill we’ve done a Good Thing.
And if we find allies along the way among the libertarians, the god squad, the people who are clueless about sexism and privilege they are still allies.
And we should be happy to call them on it, but not to walk away. Because what’s important is what we’re trying to win.
Keep your eye on the prize.
@15 tigtog -
Is anybody actually refusing to support the EFA until there is an apology? I haven’t read that anywhere.
here:
Yeah, you can get on with saving Australia from the Clean Feed without me, young geeky hipsters at EFA. Since I only want to watch Good Morning Australia and gossip with the hairdresser, obviously I can no longer pretend to give a shit about your campaign, as I don’t need the internetz for those activities. I’ll be over here, crocheting a cucumber or something.
and here
Goodbye, Electronic Frontiers Australia
For a start.
@15 tigtog -
Is anybody actually refusing to support the EFA until there is an apology? I haven’t read that anywhere.
here:
Yeah, you can get on with saving Australia from the Clean Feed without me, young geeky hipsters at EFA. Since I only want to watch Good Morning Australia and gossip with the hairdresser, obviously I can no longer pretend to give a shit about your campaign, as I don’t need the internetz for those activities. I’ll be over here, crocheting a cucumber or something.
and here
Goodbye, Electronic Frontiers Australia
For a start.
@tigtog
I was about to ask this, it depends on what “the campaign” is. Certainly I don’t think its feminist critics are going to support the “It’s Time to Tell Mum” campaign as such, and Sky at least has said she’d prefer to support campaigns like the GetUp campaign against the filter now rather than future activities of EFA. Which seems fair enough really, after they hosted any number of comments which were pretty vicious about her personally, even leaving aside the sexism.
On the other hand there’s no one that I am aware of who has previously been active in opposing the filter who is saying “I’m not opposing it any more, yay filter” or “I’m still opposed but I am not going to be active on the issue now”.
@Anna Winter
Probably a large majority? Leaving a probably teeny tiny minority that comprises fathers, teachers, relatives and carers of children all combined together?
I went into this a bit in my correspondence with ZDNet, and they didn’t quote me (which is fair enough, I only expected to have a sentence or two quoted), but even looking at it totally pragmatically “winning the filter argument is worth alienating X number of women who will think ‘the EFA has no idea I exist and is not representing my interests’” I can’t see how buying into the government’s framing of the issue into “caring Mums who support the filter” and “child pornographers who oppose it” is a useful strategy.
@tigtog
I was about to ask this, it depends on what “the campaign” is. Certainly I don’t think its feminist critics are going to support the “It’s Time to Tell Mum” campaign as such, and Sky at least has said she’d prefer to support campaigns like the GetUp campaign against the filter now rather than future activities of EFA. Which seems fair enough really, after they hosted any number of comments which were pretty vicious about her personally, even leaving aside the sexism.
On the other hand there’s no one that I am aware of who has previously been active in opposing the filter who is saying “I’m not opposing it any more, yay filter” or “I’m still opposed but I am not going to be active on the issue now”.
@Anna Winter
Probably a large majority? Leaving a probably teeny tiny minority that comprises fathers, teachers, relatives and carers of children all combined together?
I went into this a bit in my correspondence with ZDNet, and they didn’t quote me (which is fair enough, I only expected to have a sentence or two quoted), but even looking at it totally pragmatically “winning the filter argument is worth alienating X number of women who will think ‘the EFA has no idea I exist and is not representing my interests’” I can’t see how buying into the government’s framing of the issue into “caring Mums who support the filter” and “child pornographers who oppose it” is a useful strategy.
Great post Anna.
I don’t think its just about whether or not to call them on it and I don’t think its really about “walking away” or not. It’s about how the discussion is started. To mount a campaign against something that both major parties support involves people with a wide range of views working together. People can hold well reasoned views that you happen to disagree with because the value system they start from is different. We all need to be respectful and understanding of the ways different people value different things. Its fine to bring up a discussion about points of disagreement, but don’t be self righteous and small minded in the name of false ideological purity.
Great post Anna.
I don’t think its just about whether or not to call them on it and I don’t think its really about “walking away” or not. It’s about how the discussion is started. To mount a campaign against something that both major parties support involves people with a wide range of views working together. People can hold well reasoned views that you happen to disagree with because the value system they start from is different. We all need to be respectful and understanding of the ways different people value different things. Its fine to bring up a discussion about points of disagreement, but don’t be self righteous and small minded in the name of false ideological purity.
you got me there, FDB.
Never been targetted as a sarcacist before, but you’re spot on.
Also, to follow Der Katz, ich bin auch ham-fisted, swinish, and some of my ancestors were Colonians.
Now getting back to the statistics sky presented. The mean of 87% and 73% is 80%, so I’d propose that the campaign be directed chiefly at PERSONS.
Persons are generally known to be: gossips, lazy, manly, caring, intelligent, tall, aggressive, knowledgeable, blonde, brunette, sports-loving, blond, unshaven, nasty, brutish and short.
So as a target audience they shouldn’t be difficult to speak to.
Persuading them? That’s another kettle of fish, entirely.
you got me there, FDB.
Never been targetted as a sarcacist before, but you’re spot on.
Also, to follow Der Katz, ich bin auch ham-fisted, swinish, and some of my ancestors were Colonians.
Now getting back to the statistics sky presented. The mean of 87% and 73% is 80%, so I’d propose that the campaign be directed chiefly at PERSONS.
Persons are generally known to be: gossips, lazy, manly, caring, intelligent, tall, aggressive, knowledgeable, blonde, brunette, sports-loving, blond, unshaven, nasty, brutish and short.
So as a target audience they shouldn’t be difficult to speak to.
Persuading them? That’s another kettle of fish, entirely.
There is more than one prize worth being active about nick and I don’t think you should trash one just to achieve another.
And quite frankly I find this: “I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.” more than a little scary and off putting.
There is more than one prize worth being active about nick and I don’t think you should trash one just to achieve another.
And quite frankly I find this: “I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.” more than a little scary and off putting.
There is more than one prize worth being active about nick and I don’t think you should trash one just to achieve another.
And I would hope, were I in charge of commissioning that campaign, that I wouldn’t have either.
But the EFA is a weird mix of lefties and libertarians. They don’t agree with every position I hold.
I’ll say it again, because you clearly didn’t want to pay attention to that bit: I don’t like, or agree with, that advertising campaign.
But they’re allies, and they’re reaching out to a demographic that isn’t engaged – so says 42,000 people, according to them – and that’s more than you or I are going to achieve arguing about this on LP or twitter.
And quite frankly I find this: “I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.” more than a little scary and off putting.
Then bung me in the list of people you won’t deal with because I don’t agree with everything you say. I’m sure I’ll cope.
There is more than one prize worth being active about nick and I don’t think you should trash one just to achieve another.
And I would hope, were I in charge of commissioning that campaign, that I wouldn’t have either.
But the EFA is a weird mix of lefties and libertarians. They don’t agree with every position I hold.
I’ll say it again, because you clearly didn’t want to pay attention to that bit: I don’t like, or agree with, that advertising campaign.
But they’re allies, and they’re reaching out to a demographic that isn’t engaged – so says 42,000 people, according to them – and that’s more than you or I are going to achieve arguing about this on LP or twitter.
And quite frankly I find this: “I want this proposal killed, and I really don’t fucking care how we do it – if the EFA smears itself with shit on the way through, I don’t care. I just want to win.” more than a little scary and off putting.
Then bung me in the list of people you won’t deal with because I don’t agree with everything you say. I’m sure I’ll cope.
Well for someone whose only aim is to win you seem blase about losing.
Bit of a contradiction there nick.
Particularly when I haven’t given any indication whatsoever of whether I support or oppose the filter.
If I was to take notice of you and not the principles involved your anti-filter team might have lost me there because of you.
Back off, calm down, have respect for others, in this case women, and go for win-win not win -lose.
That way you will win.
I have no idea who EFA are but they have clearly stuffed up and, apparently, I dunno the details, aren’t backing down when they should. Maybe ego is in the way?
So that really does cast doubt about their competence and worth to be involved in this issue.
Conroy’s mob must be giggling themselves silly.
Well for someone whose only aim is to win you seem blase about losing.
Bit of a contradiction there nick.
Particularly when I haven’t given any indication whatsoever of whether I support or oppose the filter.
If I was to take notice of you and not the principles involved your anti-filter team might have lost me there because of you.
Back off, calm down, have respect for others, in this case women, and go for win-win not win -lose.
That way you will win.
I have no idea who EFA are but they have clearly stuffed up and, apparently, I dunno the details, aren’t backing down when they should. Maybe ego is in the way?
So that really does cast doubt about their competence and worth to be involved in this issue.
Conroy’s mob must be giggling themselves silly.
Or maybe they disagree.
Or maybe they disagree.
Your argument is completely false Anna. No way were we demanding any energy be diverted away from the no clean feed campaign. How much energy would it have taken EFA to own up that this time they’d f8ed up, acknowledge the actual work *mothers* such as Lauredhel and Tigtog and others have done, apologise and make a commitment not to treat broad sections of society as remedial cases in future programs?
Did you actually listen to the Akmal Saleh script?
And I have to go back and re read, because the last paragraph seemed to be allocating the perception of women, and particularly older women, as inherently gossiping daytime TV watching idiots, as “the small stuff”. Yes? Please tell me I’ve got it wrong, because that there is incredibly gaspingly horrible coming from one of the female writers on LP.
“Forcing allies to spend time defending themselves?”
This is all kinds of wrong. I’m so disappointed. How much time did they spend defending themselves, as opposed to playing WoW that particular day? Even my personal troll couldn’t have spent more than 20 minutes composing her breathlessly unoriginal and abusive comments.
So we can oppose the Net filter, OR we can behave like decent human beings and continue to evolve. Not both! That is just demanding way too much energy! Again, the false dichotomy, used to just make women sit down and shut up.
Your argument is completely false Anna. No way were we demanding any energy be diverted away from the no clean feed campaign. How much energy would it have taken EFA to own up that this time they’d f8ed up, acknowledge the actual work *mothers* such as Lauredhel and Tigtog and others have done, apologise and make a commitment not to treat broad sections of society as remedial cases in future programs?
Did you actually listen to the Akmal Saleh script?
And I have to go back and re read, because the last paragraph seemed to be allocating the perception of women, and particularly older women, as inherently gossiping daytime TV watching idiots, as “the small stuff”. Yes? Please tell me I’ve got it wrong, because that there is incredibly gaspingly horrible coming from one of the female writers on LP.
“Forcing allies to spend time defending themselves?”
This is all kinds of wrong. I’m so disappointed. How much time did they spend defending themselves, as opposed to playing WoW that particular day? Even my personal troll couldn’t have spent more than 20 minutes composing her breathlessly unoriginal and abusive comments.
So we can oppose the Net filter, OR we can behave like decent human beings and continue to evolve. Not both! That is just demanding way too much energy! Again, the false dichotomy, used to just make women sit down and shut up.
I have no idea who EFA are but they have clearly stuffed up and, apparently, I dunno the details, aren’t backing down when they should. Maybe ego is in the way?
So… you don’t know what the campaign is about, who is running it, or why you’re offended – but you’ve been told you should be so you are?
Awesome. I’ll move on, then.
I have no idea who EFA are but they have clearly stuffed up and, apparently, I dunno the details, aren’t backing down when they should. Maybe ego is in the way?
So… you don’t know what the campaign is about, who is running it, or why you’re offended – but you’ve been told you should be so you are?
Awesome. I’ll move on, then.
I’m sure you’ll cope, Crankynick, because you’re one of the default humans who aren’t being trashed in this campaign.
I’m sure you’ll cope, Crankynick, because you’re one of the default humans who aren’t being trashed in this campaign.
@27 Helen
This is all kinds of wrong. I’m so disappointed. How much time did they spend defending themselves, as opposed to playing WoW that particular day?
Wow. A offensive (to some) stereotype, made for effect…
Pot, kettle etc.
@27 Helen
This is all kinds of wrong. I’m so disappointed. How much time did they spend defending themselves, as opposed to playing WoW that particular day?
Wow. A offensive (to some) stereotype, made for effect…
Pot, kettle etc.
Poor things.
Poor things.
I’m sure you’ll cope, Crankynick, because you’re one of the default humans who aren’t being trashed in this campaign.
Nor is a white, middle class grandfather – which is who the comment was directed at. I’m not really sure what your point is.
I’m sure you’ll cope, Crankynick, because you’re one of the default humans who aren’t being trashed in this campaign.
Nor is a white, middle class grandfather – which is who the comment was directed at. I’m not really sure what your point is.
Did you ever consider that when they talking about telling “mum” that they’re not talking about mothers such as Lauredhel or Tigtog, but are targeting the mothers that are barely technology literate?
Of course I haven’t seen anyone pick up on the other bit of sexism in the ad: “We all know that its mums do the best job of looking after the kids…”. Because clearly dads are just so bad at looking after kids.
Did you ever consider that when they talking about telling “mum” that they’re not talking about mothers such as Lauredhel or Tigtog, but are targeting the mothers that are barely technology literate?
Of course I haven’t seen anyone pick up on the other bit of sexism in the ad: “We all know that its mums do the best job of looking after the kids…”. Because clearly dads are just so bad at looking after kids.
No Helen, I didn’t watch the ad or read the script. I just wrote a blog post about it and quoted a part of it in the comments thread.
I’m yet to hear a good reason why trying to force an apology out of people who don’t agree they did the wrong thing isn’t a waste of time and energy.
No Helen, I didn’t watch the ad or read the script. I just wrote a blog post about it and quoted a part of it in the comments thread.
I’m yet to hear a good reason why trying to force an apology out of people who don’t agree they did the wrong thing isn’t a waste of time and energy.
@33 desipis
Or to quote the Hoyden comment policy – if it’s not about you, it’s not about you…
@33 desipis
Or to quote the Hoyden comment policy – if it’s not about you, it’s not about you…
I’m sorry, but this is still portraying the mums as people who have their emotions played upon and remain in that happy state of innocence until some young dude mansplains things to them. Really. This is what we are not happy about. The mums at Hoyden were in the vanguard of writing and agitating about the clean feed. We’re not Conroy’s dupes any more than males are. Some will be, some will not.
I’m sorry, but this is still portraying the mums as people who have their emotions played upon and remain in that happy state of innocence until some young dude mansplains things to them. Really. This is what we are not happy about. The mums at Hoyden were in the vanguard of writing and agitating about the clean feed. We’re not Conroy’s dupes any more than males are. Some will be, some will not.
Plenty of people have picked up on it, it hasn’t been spoon fed to you on this thread is all. Go and read some of the discussions. The assumption that it’s only the mothers that have responsibility for the kids is pretty ordinary to us too, I can tell you. Although the logic is a bit circular when you consider that the ad puts kids (the target audience) in the role of teachers to the ignorant mothers, according to the story in the ad, so I don’t really see the point of claiming that their motherly influence will make a difference to the kids.
It’s a marketing fail, that’s all, and it should be acknowledged and consigned to “things we’ll do differently next time”, like better politicians and managers do. However, to this band of delicate snowflakes, apparently this is too *exhausting*.
Plenty of people have picked up on it, it hasn’t been spoon fed to you on this thread is all. Go and read some of the discussions. The assumption that it’s only the mothers that have responsibility for the kids is pretty ordinary to us too, I can tell you. Although the logic is a bit circular when you consider that the ad puts kids (the target audience) in the role of teachers to the ignorant mothers, according to the story in the ad, so I don’t really see the point of claiming that their motherly influence will make a difference to the kids.
It’s a marketing fail, that’s all, and it should be acknowledged and consigned to “things we’ll do differently next time”, like better politicians and managers do. However, to this band of delicate snowflakes, apparently this is too *exhausting*.
Crankynick @19: Not supporting EFA does not mean not doing other things and signing / saying / writing other things to oppose Conroy’s filter. Logic fail.
Crankynick @19: Not supporting EFA does not mean not doing other things and signing / saying / writing other things to oppose Conroy’s filter. Logic fail.
So because some of the people who understand the issue are mums, then all mums understand the filter? This is bad logic.
If the ad fails with its target audience then it fails. They’ll figure that out. The ad’s efficacy is a separate issue from whether it’s sexist, and both of them are separate issues to whether you make your point and move on, or continue to demand that people who disagree with you change their minds and apologise immediately.
So because some of the people who understand the issue are mums, then all mums understand the filter? This is bad logic.
If the ad fails with its target audience then it fails. They’ll figure that out. The ad’s efficacy is a separate issue from whether it’s sexist, and both of them are separate issues to whether you make your point and move on, or continue to demand that people who disagree with you change their minds and apologise immediately.
Helen,
I’m not sure they are the delicate snowflakes in this scenario.
5 points for providing an great example of the problem Anna is talking about.
Helen,
I’m not sure they are the delicate snowflakes in this scenario.
5 points for providing an great example of the problem Anna is talking about.
@38 Helen
And that comment was a direct response to tigtog @15. I didn’t draw any other conclusions from it, or do anything other than respond directly to her comment.
There’s no logic, other than a direct response to “this hasn’t happened”.
@38 Helen
And that comment was a direct response to tigtog @15. I didn’t draw any other conclusions from it, or do anything other than respond directly to her comment.
There’s no logic, other than a direct response to “this hasn’t happened”.
If this whole argument is a waste of time, why put the onus on the critics of the campaign for continuing it? At some point, someone has to change their mind. Either critics have to change their mind that sexism from a group that they care about and have supported and contributed energy to in the past is worth discussing, or the more stubborn EFA board members and their supporters have to change their mind about whether an apology or some attempt to prevent future recurrences is too hard. Why is one group at fault, but not the other?
If this whole argument is a waste of time, why put the onus on the critics of the campaign for continuing it? At some point, someone has to change their mind. Either critics have to change their mind that sexism from a group that they care about and have supported and contributed energy to in the past is worth discussing, or the more stubborn EFA board members and their supporters have to change their mind about whether an apology or some attempt to prevent future recurrences is too hard. Why is one group at fault, but not the other?
What makes you think I’m white and middle class nick?
[I'll grant the granddad bit.]
See you made some stereotyped assumptions including that I’m not aware of the filter issue.
I am.
You have mis-interpreted lack of specific knowledge about who EFA are to equate to something else.
If you want the anti-filter campaign to succeed, play smart, not agro and offend people who, from what I see are on the same side, the game does not have to be played bt EFA’s rules only but if they and you want to win then don’t antagonize the allies.
AFAICS the problem is here that EFA made a rather telling error [being diplomatic] and won’t admit it [or more concerning can't even recognize what the error is].
Nick and Anna seem to agree EFA blundered [I think thats right] so what is all the fuss about?
EFA not admitting such.
Thats a worry.
What makes you think I’m white and middle class nick?
[I'll grant the granddad bit.]
See you made some stereotyped assumptions including that I’m not aware of the filter issue.
I am.
You have mis-interpreted lack of specific knowledge about who EFA are to equate to something else.
If you want the anti-filter campaign to succeed, play smart, not agro and offend people who, from what I see are on the same side, the game does not have to be played bt EFA’s rules only but if they and you want to win then don’t antagonize the allies.
AFAICS the problem is here that EFA made a rather telling error [being diplomatic] and won’t admit it [or more concerning can't even recognize what the error is].
Nick and Anna seem to agree EFA blundered [I think thats right] so what is all the fuss about?
EFA not admitting such.
Thats a worry.
So because some mums don’t understand the filter, people who don’t understand the filter are mums?
And therefore, all people who do understand the filter are Dads?
I’ve been gobsmacked this week as to how the people whose focus is the clean feed and therefore enabling speech are the most panicked and threatened, and the first to suggest shutting down discussion (I was told I shouldn’t blog! By an EFA supporter! No, not because I’m a hairy legged feminist, but because it’s a waste of time being online! FFS!) Really, I think you’d all be a lot more comfortable with Conroy’s net filter in situ, they could block all the horrible feminists saying things that make people feel uncomfortable, and everyone could get on with devoting their every waking moment to doing the most important things that they could possibly do. Which is totally what you all do… Yes?! Because if you’re too busy to acknowledge that yes, the ad campaign was a bit of a crock, and we’ll do it differently next time, well, wow. I’ll be expecting the Nobel at the very least. Don’t disappoint me now!
So because some mums don’t understand the filter, people who don’t understand the filter are mums?
And therefore, all people who do understand the filter are Dads?
I’ve been gobsmacked this week as to how the people whose focus is the clean feed and therefore enabling speech are the most panicked and threatened, and the first to suggest shutting down discussion (I was told I shouldn’t blog! By an EFA supporter! No, not because I’m a hairy legged feminist, but because it’s a waste of time being online! FFS!) Really, I think you’d all be a lot more comfortable with Conroy’s net filter in situ, they could block all the horrible feminists saying things that make people feel uncomfortable, and everyone could get on with devoting their every waking moment to doing the most important things that they could possibly do. Which is totally what you all do… Yes?! Because if you’re too busy to acknowledge that yes, the ad campaign was a bit of a crock, and we’ll do it differently next time, well, wow. I’ll be expecting the Nobel at the very least. Don’t disappoint me now!
No, they don’t, that’s my point. Reasonable people can disagree on some issues and still work together on the things they do agree on. Well, they can if people are willing to let others disagree with them.
No, they don’t, that’s my point. Reasonable people can disagree on some issues and still work together on the things they do agree on. Well, they can if people are willing to let others disagree with them.
EFA not admitting such.
I think you should go do a bit more reading.
The EFA appear to have accepted that people have cause to be offended by their campaign.
What they haven’t done is apologised for launching it and withdrawn it.
Their response – and I’m paraphrasing here – is essesntially this:
“Our campaign has started 42,000 conversations that hadn’t happened before. We’re pretty happy with that. What the fuck have you done recently?”
Which is a position I have a fair amount of sympathy with.
EFA not admitting such.
I think you should go do a bit more reading.
The EFA appear to have accepted that people have cause to be offended by their campaign.
What they haven’t done is apologised for launching it and withdrawn it.
Their response – and I’m paraphrasing here – is essesntially this:
“Our campaign has started 42,000 conversations that hadn’t happened before. We’re pretty happy with that. What the fuck have you done recently?”
Which is a position I have a fair amount of sympathy with.
Helen,
No. Some people don’t understand those people. Some people are mothers. Some people are able to have their opinion swayed by marketing campaigns. The EFA decided that there’s a significant enough cross over of those three groups to warrant focusing a marketing campaign on them. The only inference is that the group is significantly large enough to be worth a campaign.
Helen,
No. Some people don’t understand those people. Some people are mothers. Some people are able to have their opinion swayed by marketing campaigns. The EFA decided that there’s a significant enough cross over of those three groups to warrant focusing a marketing campaign on them. The only inference is that the group is significantly large enough to be worth a campaign.
Sure, OK.
Feel free to place my post in with all the anti-feminists who tell you not to blog if you like. Continue to think that I’m saying this because I didn’t really watch the ad properly at the same time as you refuse to address my actual, non-straw argument. My words were clear for anyone who wants to actually read them, so wev.
Sure, OK.
Feel free to place my post in with all the anti-feminists who tell you not to blog if you like. Continue to think that I’m saying this because I didn’t really watch the ad properly at the same time as you refuse to address my actual, non-straw argument. My words were clear for anyone who wants to actually read them, so wev.
Demanding an apology or pontificating about your own self righteous views as if they were undeniable facts is not “discussing”.
Demanding an apology or pontificating about your own self righteous views as if they were undeniable facts is not “discussing”.
@43
A quick and final response because I don’t want to derail the thread.
What makes you think I’m white and middle class nick?
You’re an older man, who owns a computer who is up late at night arguing on a leftist blog.
It’s a pretty fair assumption – if I’m wrong, however, I apologise and withdraw the crack.
See you made some stereotyped assumptions including that I’m not aware of the filter issue.
I am.
I didn’t say that, I said you weren’t aware of the EFA hancampaign. Which you admitted that you aren’t – at the first comment in the thread, in fact.
@43
A quick and final response because I don’t want to derail the thread.
What makes you think I’m white and middle class nick?
You’re an older man, who owns a computer who is up late at night arguing on a leftist blog.
It’s a pretty fair assumption – if I’m wrong, however, I apologise and withdraw the crack.
See you made some stereotyped assumptions including that I’m not aware of the filter issue.
I am.
I didn’t say that, I said you weren’t aware of the EFA hancampaign. Which you admitted that you aren’t – at the first comment in the thread, in fact.
And they target that group by portraying them as ignorant. Yay EFA, that’s going to make me want to support you!
Crankynick, do. not. presume to say things like “what the f** have you done lately” on the internet where you don’t know anyone. Go over to Hoyden about Town and have a look at all the writing there. Where’s yours? How about a link?
Re. the link – that was after blog posts went up, and he says in so many words, after waffling about with a kind of faux-recognition of what is happening, that he’s not apologising.
Get that, activists? You can dress up in black face, you can make jokes about gas chambers, it doesn’t matter. If you get the page views and lots of adolescent kids click on you, it’s good activism. Those people who are upset can just suck on it.
Saying things that make people feel uncomfortable and might be a bit of an effort is bad activism.
And they target that group by portraying them as ignorant. Yay EFA, that’s going to make me want to support you!
Crankynick, do. not. presume to say things like “what the f** have you done lately” on the internet where you don’t know anyone. Go over to Hoyden about Town and have a look at all the writing there. Where’s yours? How about a link?
Re. the link – that was after blog posts went up, and he says in so many words, after waffling about with a kind of faux-recognition of what is happening, that he’s not apologising.
Get that, activists? You can dress up in black face, you can make jokes about gas chambers, it doesn’t matter. If you get the page views and lots of adolescent kids click on you, it’s good activism. Those people who are upset can just suck on it.
Saying things that make people feel uncomfortable and might be a bit of an effort is bad activism.
For serious Helen? You think my basic point is that people should shut up complaining about blackface and gas chamber jokes because it makes good allies uncomfortable?
For serious Helen? You think my basic point is that people should shut up complaining about blackface and gas chamber jokes because it makes good allies uncomfortable?
You said that people should shut up complaining about sexism because it makes good allies uncomfortable.
You said that people should shut up complaining about sexism because it makes good allies uncomfortable.
crankynick
I had previously read the EFA summary link you gave in #46, one of your previous links led me to it.
Please don’t presume I haven’t read stuff.
I found the entire tone of the writer in that link pretty poor.
Several things he said this most of all:
“we aren’t apologising for the campaign – we’re happy with the way it turned out.’
[ I suspect a lot of the 42000 conversations are counter productive.]
Reading that link was what partly caused me to see the EFA mob as the problem here.
It just seems that some find it easier to blame those who legitimately pointed out what was wrong with the ad rather than those who were needlessly offensive.
Conroys mob have stopped giggling.
They are now guffawing.
Sad ain’t it?
crankynick
I had previously read the EFA summary link you gave in #46, one of your previous links led me to it.
Please don’t presume I haven’t read stuff.
I found the entire tone of the writer in that link pretty poor.
Several things he said this most of all:
“we aren’t apologising for the campaign – we’re happy with the way it turned out.’
[ I suspect a lot of the 42000 conversations are counter productive.]
Reading that link was what partly caused me to see the EFA mob as the problem here.
It just seems that some find it easier to blame those who legitimately pointed out what was wrong with the ad rather than those who were needlessly offensive.
Conroys mob have stopped giggling.
They are now guffawing.
Sad ain’t it?
But I guess if you think jokes about liking gossip are basically the same as blackface and gas chamber jokes then there’s really nothing more that I can say.
But I guess if you think jokes about liking gossip are basically the same as blackface and gas chamber jokes then there’s really nothing more that I can say.
Crankynick, do. not. presume to say things like “what the f** have you done lately” on the internet where you don’t know anyone. Go over to Hoyden about Town and have a look at all the writing there. Where’s yours? How about a link?
The operative phrase there is “42,000 conversations that hadn’t happened before”.
Can you match that? Honestly? On blogs that have a comparatively small and well defined readership, and don’t tolerate dissent? There’s no exchange of ideas at Cast Iron Balcony, or Hoyden – I read both, and enjoy both, on occasion. But they’re not places of outreach, and you know it.
Give me a fucking break.
I’ll grant you volume of posts, and righteousness – I’ll even grant that they, like LP, are influential in a relatively narrowly defined circle. But you’re too busy deciding who is in and out of the tent to have ever changed any minds.
This post being a prime example.
Like I said earlier – preaching to the choir doesn’t convert the world.
Crankynick, do. not. presume to say things like “what the f** have you done lately” on the internet where you don’t know anyone. Go over to Hoyden about Town and have a look at all the writing there. Where’s yours? How about a link?
The operative phrase there is “42,000 conversations that hadn’t happened before”.
Can you match that? Honestly? On blogs that have a comparatively small and well defined readership, and don’t tolerate dissent? There’s no exchange of ideas at Cast Iron Balcony, or Hoyden – I read both, and enjoy both, on occasion. But they’re not places of outreach, and you know it.
Give me a fucking break.
I’ll grant you volume of posts, and righteousness – I’ll even grant that they, like LP, are influential in a relatively narrowly defined circle. But you’re too busy deciding who is in and out of the tent to have ever changed any minds.
This post being a prime example.
Like I said earlier – preaching to the choir doesn’t convert the world.
We needed more people to step up and actively engage with this issue, not to leave it to the EFA to mount a badly-conceived clumsily-executed offensive ad campaign on a laughable budget. That disappoints me more than this disappointing thread. Do the ends justify the means? Much easier to make distinctions while sitting on the fence. How will you react if this improbable campaign actually works? What are your proposals should it fail as is more likely? You’re all squabbling like hobbits in the shadow of Mordor. I’ll leave you to it.
We needed more people to step up and actively engage with this issue, not to leave it to the EFA to mount a badly-conceived clumsily-executed offensive ad campaign on a laughable budget. That disappoints me more than this disappointing thread. Do the ends justify the means? Much easier to make distinctions while sitting on the fence. How will you react if this improbable campaign actually works? What are your proposals should it fail as is more likely? You’re all squabbling like hobbits in the shadow of Mordor. I’ll leave you to it.
You’re all squabbling like hobbits in the shadow of Mordor.
That’s a great line, that I fully intend to appropriate at some point.
You’re all squabbling like hobbits in the shadow of Mordor.
That’s a great line, that I fully intend to appropriate at some point.
Thought about this earlier, commented and just had a look at the comments since. Glad I did because from rewatching Akmal to rereading the post again, I see there are a number of nuances in the reading of the Akmal, eg how do add makers “know” all this stuff about body language, form of adress; generally stuff you’d relate to ethnology and tying that into something as potent as “beleif”?
What a prostitution of a gift like knowledge, particularly of this sort, using it against the people who made you what you are.
Obviously, the posters Anna and Helen sum up two subsequent/consequent lines of thought, which was of benefit for the rest of us, clarifying or cutting to the chase.
Summing up, I muse on what constitutes “unscrupulous”and “magnitudes”.
Thought about this earlier, commented and just had a look at the comments since. Glad I did because from rewatching Akmal to rereading the post again, I see there are a number of nuances in the reading of the Akmal, eg how do add makers “know” all this stuff about body language, form of adress; generally stuff you’d relate to ethnology and tying that into something as potent as “beleif”?
What a prostitution of a gift like knowledge, particularly of this sort, using it against the people who made you what you are.
Obviously, the posters Anna and Helen sum up two subsequent/consequent lines of thought, which was of benefit for the rest of us, clarifying or cutting to the chase.
Summing up, I muse on what constitutes “unscrupulous”and “magnitudes”.
There are so many people who could have been offended by campaign. It could have just as easily been labeled anti-Semitic
Anti-Catholic
Ageist
Even people who don’t like Vegimite on toast get a serve.
And as Anna said Akmal even makes terrorist digs at himself. Some people think the campaign is sexist. A lot of people don’t. What I can’t understand is why one group has made such noise and we haven’t heard a peep from other groups who could also be expected to take offence.
There are so many people who could have been offended by campaign. It could have just as easily been labeled anti-Semitic
Anti-Catholic
Ageist
Even people who don’t like Vegimite on toast get a serve.
And as Anna said Akmal even makes terrorist digs at himself. Some people think the campaign is sexist. A lot of people don’t. What I can’t understand is why one group has made such noise and we haven’t heard a peep from other groups who could also be expected to take offence.
@desipis:
I didn’t demand an apology. I suggested that an apology might be one appropriate response among many, and invited other suggestions.
Also, I’m not sure if laying out my arguments clearly counts as “pontificating about my own self righteous views”. I have welcomed any sort of actual engagement with my arguments, and have responded politely (and, I think, constructively) to the single commentor who took the time to engage with my actual arguments rather than just insulting me (on this comments thread).
I think I’d be much better at doing the whole ‘agree to disagree and work together anyway’ if there had been more of a response to my actual arguments rather than the ridiculous fauxpology, plus the heap of comments calling me names, or repeating the initial defenses that I answered in my blog but more loudly and angrily.
And again, this whole debate isn’t happening purely because critics voice their opposition. If this is a waste of precious time and energy that must be devoted to stopping the filter AT ALL COSTS those who support the Time to Tell Mum campaign are welcome to apologise (surely a small sacrifice for such an important campaign that must succeed AT ALL COSTS) or ignore the criticisms completely or take any other action that they feel would be a better use of their time.
After all, we’ve offered critiques, but frankly I can’t see how that’s significantly hindered the campaign. How does us saying, “this campaign seems kind of sexist, so we’ll be working with others to oppose the filter” cause such a hassle to the EFA and such a problem for the campaign that we should hush immediately?
@desipis:
I didn’t demand an apology. I suggested that an apology might be one appropriate response among many, and invited other suggestions.
Also, I’m not sure if laying out my arguments clearly counts as “pontificating about my own self righteous views”. I have welcomed any sort of actual engagement with my arguments, and have responded politely (and, I think, constructively) to the single commentor who took the time to engage with my actual arguments rather than just insulting me (on this comments thread).
I think I’d be much better at doing the whole ‘agree to disagree and work together anyway’ if there had been more of a response to my actual arguments rather than the ridiculous fauxpology, plus the heap of comments calling me names, or repeating the initial defenses that I answered in my blog but more loudly and angrily.
And again, this whole debate isn’t happening purely because critics voice their opposition. If this is a waste of precious time and energy that must be devoted to stopping the filter AT ALL COSTS those who support the Time to Tell Mum campaign are welcome to apologise (surely a small sacrifice for such an important campaign that must succeed AT ALL COSTS) or ignore the criticisms completely or take any other action that they feel would be a better use of their time.
After all, we’ve offered critiques, but frankly I can’t see how that’s significantly hindered the campaign. How does us saying, “this campaign seems kind of sexist, so we’ll be working with others to oppose the filter” cause such a hassle to the EFA and such a problem for the campaign that we should hush immediately?
You were wrong nick.
But it seemed a pretty fair assumption [except for sort of equating middle class and lefty]and not a big deal so no worries.
Thats the trouble with assumptions tho’, they can be wrong real easy.
The irony of ‘what the f** have you done lately’ was strong, particularly the last few days which have been taken up with too much political activism here.
ewe2 makes a good point.
It would be so much easier to fight the common enemy, you know the Romans, not squabble between the PFLJ and JPF.
Now I wonder how these particular bridges could be mended?
You were wrong nick.
But it seemed a pretty fair assumption [except for sort of equating middle class and lefty]and not a big deal so no worries.
Thats the trouble with assumptions tho’, they can be wrong real easy.
The irony of ‘what the f** have you done lately’ was strong, particularly the last few days which have been taken up with too much political activism here.
ewe2 makes a good point.
It would be so much easier to fight the common enemy, you know the Romans, not squabble between the PFLJ and JPF.
Now I wonder how these particular bridges could be mended?
sky,
Apologies. Although I quoted you, I didn’t intend my points to be about the way you approached the situation. Rather I was disagreeing with your defence of the way some others are behaving.
sky,
Apologies. Although I quoted you, I didn’t intend my points to be about the way you approached the situation. Rather I was disagreeing with your defence of the way some others are behaving.
@hannah’s dad
Happily, there are people hard at work trying to figure out how to mend these bridges.
@hannah’s dad
Happily, there are people hard at work trying to figure out how to mend these bridges.
@crankynick
I never said “this hasn’t happened” – I asked for examples of where it had, because I hadn’t seen them myself. You provided them, thanks. However, I don’t think either of those two posts were fairly summed up by the descriptions in this post and thread, which seems to imply that supporting every single PR campaign that EFA comes up with is the only avenue available for opposing the mandatory net filter scheme.
Helen made it perfectly clear in comments to that thread and elsewhere that she actually felt ineffectual in her options for responding to the objectionable EFA ad, because having opposed the filter for so long she wasn’t going to stop doing that, so she felt unable to send a signal by not supporting them for exactly the reasons Anna outlines in the post i.e. that opposing the filter was too important to her to withdraw allydom entirely.
Sky offered the perfectly valid alternative of choosing to support a different advocacy group running campaigns opposing the net filter who made her feel that her character, attributes and opinions were better respected – surely there’s nothing wrong with that?
@crankynick
I never said “this hasn’t happened” – I asked for examples of where it had, because I hadn’t seen them myself. You provided them, thanks. However, I don’t think either of those two posts were fairly summed up by the descriptions in this post and thread, which seems to imply that supporting every single PR campaign that EFA comes up with is the only avenue available for opposing the mandatory net filter scheme.
Helen made it perfectly clear in comments to that thread and elsewhere that she actually felt ineffectual in her options for responding to the objectionable EFA ad, because having opposed the filter for so long she wasn’t going to stop doing that, so she felt unable to send a signal by not supporting them for exactly the reasons Anna outlines in the post i.e. that opposing the filter was too important to her to withdraw allydom entirely.
Sky offered the perfectly valid alternative of choosing to support a different advocacy group running campaigns opposing the net filter who made her feel that her character, attributes and opinions were better respected – surely there’s nothing wrong with that?
Worse than an atrocity, it’s a mistake.
I do prefer not to slam allies where possible, but I think this ad is counter-productive. My impression is that one of the reasons more women support the filter than men is that they think the opponents are men fundamentally concerned about their access to pr0n. Virtually the only people I know who support the filter are women who think that the only thing besides child pornography that will get caught up in it is mainstrean pornography. They may or may not support this in principle, but they certainly don’t see it as a big problem, and they think that all the arguements given against it are just cover for men who’re worried about losing their access.
Now can you think of a better way to reinforce that image than running a campaign guaranteed to be seen by many people as sexist? I’m not sure I can. I’ll admit this is the first I’ve heard about the ad, but all I can think is there are going to be a lot of women entrenched in their view that the opposition is pretty damn blokey.
It’s great if there have been 42,000 extra conversations. The question is now many people are now more firmly entrenched in their support. Did the EFA consider that before they made the ad? Maybe they did and calculated the group I’m talking about is small, and worth losing. My guess is they didn’t factor it in. For all our sakes we’d better hope it is a a sector too small to matter, but I fear it isn’t.
Worse than an atrocity, it’s a mistake.
I do prefer not to slam allies where possible, but I think this ad is counter-productive. My impression is that one of the reasons more women support the filter than men is that they think the opponents are men fundamentally concerned about their access to pr0n. Virtually the only people I know who support the filter are women who think that the only thing besides child pornography that will get caught up in it is mainstrean pornography. They may or may not support this in principle, but they certainly don’t see it as a big problem, and they think that all the arguements given against it are just cover for men who’re worried about losing their access.
Now can you think of a better way to reinforce that image than running a campaign guaranteed to be seen by many people as sexist? I’m not sure I can. I’ll admit this is the first I’ve heard about the ad, but all I can think is there are going to be a lot of women entrenched in their view that the opposition is pretty damn blokey.
It’s great if there have been 42,000 extra conversations. The question is now many people are now more firmly entrenched in their support. Did the EFA consider that before they made the ad? Maybe they did and calculated the group I’m talking about is small, and worth losing. My guess is they didn’t factor it in. For all our sakes we’d better hope it is a a sector too small to matter, but I fear it isn’t.
That ad goes to the core beliefs and politics of the people running the EFA. They suck. I can’t recall a better example of alienating the very people whose support you are seeking. The real campaign to address the clean feed issues will commence when the filter takes out politically valuable sites and no-one then will want a bunch of turkeys like the EFA to run the show.
That ad goes to the core beliefs and politics of the people running the EFA. They suck. I can’t recall a better example of alienating the very people whose support you are seeking. The real campaign to address the clean feed issues will commence when the filter takes out politically valuable sites and no-one then will want a bunch of turkeys like the EFA to run the show.
anthony nolan@68: Totally agree. If anything, the more we trash the puerile sexism of this ad campaign, the sooner the EFA will be obliged to trash it too – and come up with something that doesn’t fall way short of the maturity level of the kids whose mums they’re supposed to be targeting.
anthony nolan@68: Totally agree. If anything, the more we trash the puerile sexism of this ad campaign, the sooner the EFA will be obliged to trash it too – and come up with something that doesn’t fall way short of the maturity level of the kids whose mums they’re supposed to be targeting.
@66 tigtog
which seems to imply that supporting every single PR campaign that EFA comes up with is the only avenue available for opposing the mandatory net filter scheme.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of this post or comments at all.
Anna’s point was that there are more grey areas in this debate than have been previously explored to date, and there’s perhaps some merit to the way the campaign was targeted – even if there wasn’t in the detail of the way it was done.
For this she’s had her position equated with supporting blackface and jokes about murdering jews, while the substantive points she was making were largely ignored.
Can you not see that there might be a problem here with the way that some members of the leftist blogosphere treat their allies?
Helen and Sky have both said in this thread (Helen @44 and sky @62) that, effectively, all that was needed was a acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a commitment to do better next time:
Because if you’re too busy to acknowledge that yes, the ad campaign was a bit of a crock, and we’ll do it differently next time, well, wow.
But their attempts to do so were branded a fauxpology, and immediately attacked. And the EFA was told it should make no attempt to justify those ads – as crap as they were – on the basis of the perceived benefits they were bringing to the campaign.
Again, can’t you see there’s a problem with the way that some parts of the leftist blogosphere deal with allies? And again – and it bothers me that I need to repeat all of these things every comment – nobody is saying that the EFA shouldn’t have been called out, just that the argument is possibly a little more nuanced than has been discussed elsewhere.
@66 tigtog
which seems to imply that supporting every single PR campaign that EFA comes up with is the only avenue available for opposing the mandatory net filter scheme.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterisation of this post or comments at all.
Anna’s point was that there are more grey areas in this debate than have been previously explored to date, and there’s perhaps some merit to the way the campaign was targeted – even if there wasn’t in the detail of the way it was done.
For this she’s had her position equated with supporting blackface and jokes about murdering jews, while the substantive points she was making were largely ignored.
Can you not see that there might be a problem here with the way that some members of the leftist blogosphere treat their allies?
Helen and Sky have both said in this thread (Helen @44 and sky @62) that, effectively, all that was needed was a acknowledgement of wrongdoing and a commitment to do better next time:
Because if you’re too busy to acknowledge that yes, the ad campaign was a bit of a crock, and we’ll do it differently next time, well, wow.
But their attempts to do so were branded a fauxpology, and immediately attacked. And the EFA was told it should make no attempt to justify those ads – as crap as they were – on the basis of the perceived benefits they were bringing to the campaign.
Again, can’t you see there’s a problem with the way that some parts of the leftist blogosphere deal with allies? And again – and it bothers me that I need to repeat all of these things every comment – nobody is saying that the EFA shouldn’t have been called out, just that the argument is possibly a little more nuanced than has been discussed elsewhere.
Link to the criticism pls? I haven’t seen it but I’d be interested to.
Link to the criticism pls? I haven’t seen it but I’d be interested to.
@71 monkeytypist:
Mary’s post over at Hoyden is probably the best place to start, though there’s plenty more out there.
@71 monkeytypist:
Mary’s post over at Hoyden is probably the best place to start, though there’s plenty more out there.
To me there’s two issues in terms if marketing and political campaigns. One is whether there’s a significant number of women who are mothers who support the filter. And the other is whether this is the best way to change their minds.
I don’t know the answer to the first and I have my doubts about the second. But if the first is true, I don’t think there’s anything wrong is campaigning to kids to try to change their mother’s mind. The line about gossiping mothers at the hairdressers is a bit old, innaccurate and tiresome. But I note the daytime tv line was specifically about ‘old people’.
As Yasmin pointed out there were digs at lots of other groups; Jews, Arabs, ‘old people’ – certainly not just mothers.
I think it could have been done better. EFA and Saleh could have written something sharper, I think. But whether it’s a marketing fail depends on whether it works, or not.
To me there’s two issues in terms if marketing and political campaigns. One is whether there’s a significant number of women who are mothers who support the filter. And the other is whether this is the best way to change their minds.
I don’t know the answer to the first and I have my doubts about the second. But if the first is true, I don’t think there’s anything wrong is campaigning to kids to try to change their mother’s mind. The line about gossiping mothers at the hairdressers is a bit old, innaccurate and tiresome. But I note the daytime tv line was specifically about ‘old people’.
As Yasmin pointed out there were digs at lots of other groups; Jews, Arabs, ‘old people’ – certainly not just mothers.
I think it could have been done better. EFA and Saleh could have written something sharper, I think. But whether it’s a marketing fail depends on whether it works, or not.
@crankynick
I see more of a problem with said allies using the 800 lb gorilla of LP’s lofty crag in the Oz blogosphere to criticise some leftist bloggers for objecting at all, when at least two critical bloggers refrained from using their own status as LP authors to criticise the EFA in this forum, keeping it confined to the more modest perches of their own blogs.
As to the accusations of a fauxpology, it didn’t help that after a statement reported elsewhere as an apology that the EFA immediately published an article about how they were not apologising at all, did it? In fact, if people called it a fauxpology before that EFA “Not Sorry” was published, then that was a display of pure perspicacity.
@crankynick
I see more of a problem with said allies using the 800 lb gorilla of LP’s lofty crag in the Oz blogosphere to criticise some leftist bloggers for objecting at all, when at least two critical bloggers refrained from using their own status as LP authors to criticise the EFA in this forum, keeping it confined to the more modest perches of their own blogs.
As to the accusations of a fauxpology, it didn’t help that after a statement reported elsewhere as an apology that the EFA immediately published an article about how they were not apologising at all, did it? In fact, if people called it a fauxpology before that EFA “Not Sorry” was published, then that was a display of pure perspicacity.
@Fine
There certainly were. They weren’t the focus of the campaign as per the title “Time to Tell Mum” though, which is why the sexist stereotypes are the ones that have been given most attention.
Agreed: there’s no rule that sexist marketing cannot be successful marketing, in fact the entire industry (sadly) suggests that the opposite is true when marketing consumables.
I don’t know how well that translates to marketing political ideas though.
@Fine
There certainly were. They weren’t the focus of the campaign as per the title “Time to Tell Mum” though, which is why the sexist stereotypes are the ones that have been given most attention.
Agreed: there’s no rule that sexist marketing cannot be successful marketing, in fact the entire industry (sadly) suggests that the opposite is true when marketing consumables.
I don’t know how well that translates to marketing political ideas though.
TigTog:
Except that’s not what the post was doing. If you think it was criticising bloggers for “objecting at all”, perhaps you should read it again.
TigTog:
Except that’s not what the post was doing. If you think it was criticising bloggers for “objecting at all”, perhaps you should read it again.
“I see more of a problem with said allies using the 800 lb gorilla of LP’s lofty crag in the Oz blogosphere to criticise some leftist bloggers for objecting at all, when at least two critical bloggers refrained from using their own status as LP authors to criticise the EFA in this forum, keeping it confined to the more modest perches of their own blogs.”
And I do see this as an issue. Anna was careful not to link to Helen’s blog, but it was inevitable that someone would and it didn’t take long. Not that I’m criticising crankynick for doing so, because it was relevant.
But I can understand Helen feeling rather bruised and hurt about this post. The real idea behind it is that of progressives fighting with each other over means and ends, which has always been fraught. I think there’s a particularly strong history of women being told to subsume their interests until the revolution happens. Or STFU.
Perhaps this post forces everyone to put their dukes up, defending their corner. I’m not saying Anna shouldn’t have written this post either. I’m just saying these sorts of arguments are the most painful to have.
“I see more of a problem with said allies using the 800 lb gorilla of LP’s lofty crag in the Oz blogosphere to criticise some leftist bloggers for objecting at all, when at least two critical bloggers refrained from using their own status as LP authors to criticise the EFA in this forum, keeping it confined to the more modest perches of their own blogs.”
And I do see this as an issue. Anna was careful not to link to Helen’s blog, but it was inevitable that someone would and it didn’t take long. Not that I’m criticising crankynick for doing so, because it was relevant.
But I can understand Helen feeling rather bruised and hurt about this post. The real idea behind it is that of progressives fighting with each other over means and ends, which has always been fraught. I think there’s a particularly strong history of women being told to subsume their interests until the revolution happens. Or STFU.
Perhaps this post forces everyone to put their dukes up, defending their corner. I’m not saying Anna shouldn’t have written this post either. I’m just saying these sorts of arguments are the most painful to have.
I think that I agree with the one comment of cranky nick’s where he reminded us of the valence of the hoyden about town comment policy – the part of it that says if this stricture or disparaging remark or sweeping criticism is not about you, then it’s not about you. From my limited understanding of the fallout and the response from EFA this is pretty much the logic by which they’ve been operating all along. I deeply dislike that particular discursive get out of jail free card whoever plays it, whether that’s a self-appointed feminist spokesperson, or a self-appointed activist group campaigning ineptly against the filter. I suppose on homeopathic principles one way to combat Conroy style thinking is with a dose of the same sort of I’ll thought out irrational trade in the grossest sort of stereotypes.
It’s interesting to think about who that campaign is pitched at. As other people gave pointed out already, it’s very very patronizing and panders to a social vision populated by whole bevy
of derogatory stereotypes. In some ways I’m tempted to go along with those who say it’s at least starting conversations, maybe conversations about how shot through the entire filter project is with submerged assumptions about how education lines up with class position, gender, age and ethnicity In this country.
The
I think that I agree with the one comment of cranky nick’s where he reminded us of the valence of the hoyden about town comment policy – the part of it that says if this stricture or disparaging remark or sweeping criticism is not about you, then it’s not about you. From my limited understanding of the fallout and the response from EFA this is pretty much the logic by which they’ve been operating all along. I deeply dislike that particular discursive get out of jail free card whoever plays it, whether that’s a self-appointed feminist spokesperson, or a self-appointed activist group campaigning ineptly against the filter. I suppose on homeopathic principles one way to combat Conroy style thinking is with a dose of the same sort of I’ll thought out irrational trade in the grossest sort of stereotypes.
It’s interesting to think about who that campaign is pitched at. As other people gave pointed out already, it’s very very patronizing and panders to a social vision populated by whole bevy
of derogatory stereotypes. In some ways I’m tempted to go along with those who say it’s at least starting conversations, maybe conversations about how shot through the entire filter project is with submerged assumptions about how education lines up with class position, gender, age and ethnicity In this country.
The
Blame the bad grammar in my last on the autocorrection on my shiny new iPad, which despite my barrenness I’ve still not quite figured out how to operate.
Blame the bad grammar in my last on the autocorrection on my shiny new iPad, which despite my barrenness I’ve still not quite figured out how to operate.
@74 titog
So where was the fauxpology sky mentioned @62? Or are we talking about different things?
@74 titog
So where was the fauxpology sky mentioned @62? Or are we talking about different things?
tigtog:
There is an increasing body of research revealing that both sex and sexism in advertising do not generate successful marketing. Ads that give offense actually rate quite poorly, in favour of ads that create a non-sexual feelgood sense. Also, ads that feature lots of women’s (or men’s) flesh rate poorly on product recall tests.
http://jezebel.com/5467705/does-sexism-sell-with-super-bowl-commercials-not-really
http://www.mediaanalyzer.com/site/uploads/media/SexSellsSurvey.pdf
A similar trend is emerging in film research. Films that are misogynist, sexist and/or contain a high level of sex and nudity do not draw higher box office returns than those that don’t.
http://www.mediaanalyzer.com/site/uploads/media/SexSellsSurvey.pdf
The idea that sex sells is just another patriarchal paradigm that uses commercial imperatives to justify the sexual objectification of women for male consumption.
tigtog:
There is an increasing body of research revealing that both sex and sexism in advertising do not generate successful marketing. Ads that give offense actually rate quite poorly, in favour of ads that create a non-sexual feelgood sense. Also, ads that feature lots of women’s (or men’s) flesh rate poorly on product recall tests.
http://jezebel.com/5467705/does-sexism-sell-with-super-bowl-commercials-not-really
http://www.mediaanalyzer.com/site/uploads/media/SexSellsSurvey.pdf
A similar trend is emerging in film research. Films that are misogynist, sexist and/or contain a high level of sex and nudity do not draw higher box office returns than those that don’t.
http://www.mediaanalyzer.com/site/uploads/media/SexSellsSurvey.pdf
The idea that sex sells is just another patriarchal paradigm that uses commercial imperatives to justify the sexual objectification of women for male consumption.
Yeah, talking about ignoring substantive points…
It’s possible that my substantive point was unclear and I will give Crankynick and Anna the benefit of the doubt. My point was to do with EFA and Anna’s assertion that “lesser” issues – the “small stuff” – must give way to more important things in a campaign, so if one group gets trashed, they are just necessary eggs broken in the omelette of activism; also Guy’s rather strange argument, which seems to have some credence here, that if you satirise group A while group B is the target audience, then that is AOK because group A is not the target audience. I simply can’t agree with this.
Yeah, talking about ignoring substantive points…
It’s possible that my substantive point was unclear and I will give Crankynick and Anna the benefit of the doubt. My point was to do with EFA and Anna’s assertion that “lesser” issues – the “small stuff” – must give way to more important things in a campaign, so if one group gets trashed, they are just necessary eggs broken in the omelette of activism; also Guy’s rather strange argument, which seems to have some credence here, that if you satirise group A while group B is the target audience, then that is AOK because group A is not the target audience. I simply can’t agree with this.
No Helen, it wasn’t. It was, and still is, that calling people on things is good and important, but that rejecting allies when they disagree with your arguments rather than begging for forgiveness is not very productive.
Again, no. I suggested that sometimes making jokes people is OK, fullstop, especially when it’s quite clear that what you are doing is making jokes, not actually being cruel. I agree that it’s not exactly hilarious to make jokes about mums and gossip, but – and here’s another bingo square – it’s just jokes.
No Helen, it wasn’t. It was, and still is, that calling people on things is good and important, but that rejecting allies when they disagree with your arguments rather than begging for forgiveness is not very productive.
Again, no. I suggested that sometimes making jokes people is OK, fullstop, especially when it’s quite clear that what you are doing is making jokes, not actually being cruel. I agree that it’s not exactly hilarious to make jokes about mums and gossip, but – and here’s another bingo square – it’s just jokes.
But making those specific jokes trashing a group, or is that hyperbole? I don’t find the ‘gossiping at the hairdresser’ funny, but neither do I take it that seriously. Yesterday, I spent time at the hairdressers doing exactly that, I have to admit. Kylie says she used to use Botox, but doesn’t any longer, btw. ‘tho I have my doubts.
Anna, I think sometimes the ‘bingo card’ response is a way of not having to deal with the substance of someone’s argument. It can be just a ‘gotcha’ moment.
But making those specific jokes trashing a group, or is that hyperbole? I don’t find the ‘gossiping at the hairdresser’ funny, but neither do I take it that seriously. Yesterday, I spent time at the hairdressers doing exactly that, I have to admit. Kylie says she used to use Botox, but doesn’t any longer, btw. ‘tho I have my doubts.
Anna, I think sometimes the ‘bingo card’ response is a way of not having to deal with the substance of someone’s argument. It can be just a ‘gotcha’ moment.
Anna the campaign is effective in getting the organisers message across because it got you so annoyed that you blogged about it and there have been 95 responses! Yes the site is sexist and patronising and treats women as infants. If “infantilising” is a word then that’s what this site is doing to women.
I find it quite demeaning to “infantilise” mothers who generally have a whole lot more responsibility than their partners. Women usually ensure the rent/mortgage is paid, buy the food, take kids to doctor, pets to vet, manage kids social life and manage the family social life, encourage kids to strive for a satisfying career/adult life.
Now I am sure that there are some women who don’t, including me, but I think that more than half the mothers of children under 25 take their responsibilities very seriously and have more responsibility in the family than their partner has in the workplace
Anna the campaign is effective in getting the organisers message across because it got you so annoyed that you blogged about it and there have been 95 responses! Yes the site is sexist and patronising and treats women as infants. If “infantilising” is a word then that’s what this site is doing to women.
I find it quite demeaning to “infantilise” mothers who generally have a whole lot more responsibility than their partners. Women usually ensure the rent/mortgage is paid, buy the food, take kids to doctor, pets to vet, manage kids social life and manage the family social life, encourage kids to strive for a satisfying career/adult life.
Now I am sure that there are some women who don’t, including me, but I think that more than half the mothers of children under 25 take their responsibilities very seriously and have more responsibility in the family than their partner has in the workplace
Since when were EFA the only player in the game? Why can’t I simultaneously be against the internet filter, but also be against EFA treating me like an idiot?
What if they put out an ad saying “tell childless women that the net filter won’t protect other people’s children on the internet. They don’t have children and they think this will protect children from child pron. They are wrong. Tell a childless woman today”. Would you still be telling people to suck it up, or would you be offended, feeling like you had been stereotyped?
Or an ad saying that “fathers often don’t have much to do with their children. They think the internet filter will keep the kids safe on the internet. They are wrong. Tell a father today that the only way to keep their kids safe it to have an active role in their lives, including watching what they do on the internet.” Patronising enough? Stereotypical? Anything like the childless women or fathers that you know? Well now you know how it feels. So don’t tell me to suck up being patronised and belittled until you’ve given five minutes thought to how it feels to me. With everything else society tells me to suck up, I’ve got a little to much on my plate to be taking this in too. EFA you fucked up.
Since when were EFA the only player in the game? Why can’t I simultaneously be against the internet filter, but also be against EFA treating me like an idiot?
What if they put out an ad saying “tell childless women that the net filter won’t protect other people’s children on the internet. They don’t have children and they think this will protect children from child pron. They are wrong. Tell a childless woman today”. Would you still be telling people to suck it up, or would you be offended, feeling like you had been stereotyped?
Or an ad saying that “fathers often don’t have much to do with their children. They think the internet filter will keep the kids safe on the internet. They are wrong. Tell a father today that the only way to keep their kids safe it to have an active role in their lives, including watching what they do on the internet.” Patronising enough? Stereotypical? Anything like the childless women or fathers that you know? Well now you know how it feels. So don’t tell me to suck up being patronised and belittled until you’ve given five minutes thought to how it feels to me. With everything else society tells me to suck up, I’ve got a little to much on my plate to be taking this in too. EFA you fucked up.
And if I’d said that people should just suck it up then that would be a fair point.
And if I’d said that people should just suck it up then that would be a fair point.
Anna, thanks for being fair minded in terms of not hunting the EFA guys down with pitchforks for trying a strategy that could have been… well, shall we say more refined. One could argue that with only one woman on the EFA board – and from what I’m told she’s largely AWOL – there wasn’t an internal filter to pull them up and say ‘oi, dumb’.
More broadly, women haven’t been particularly vocal against the filter and I think we need to be. With most of the anti-filter voices being men – and from IT backgrounds – it further fuels Conroy’s insinuations that the only people opposed to the filter are young male geeks who just want their porn and pedophiles.
That being said I don’t see it as a concept as sexist, as I interpreted ‘tell mum’ and ‘tell people you don’t normally talk to about this stuff’ – and that as a concept I have an enormous amount of support for.
Are some of Akmal’s jokes and the language on the site sexist and condescending? Yes, absolutely. There’s also a stack of typos and grammatical errors, which I think I find more annoying. Normally I’d never blame the agency but aside from not foreseeing this issue (and the many other groups who could be offended) and coming up with a strategically better campaign, you’d think that Fnuky could at least learn how to proof.
Nothing about it in my view is worth walking away from the issue or condemning EFA over… it’s a joke, it’s getting some attention to the issue and getting information out there. Whatever works.
Anna, thanks for being fair minded in terms of not hunting the EFA guys down with pitchforks for trying a strategy that could have been… well, shall we say more refined. One could argue that with only one woman on the EFA board – and from what I’m told she’s largely AWOL – there wasn’t an internal filter to pull them up and say ‘oi, dumb’.
More broadly, women haven’t been particularly vocal against the filter and I think we need to be. With most of the anti-filter voices being men – and from IT backgrounds – it further fuels Conroy’s insinuations that the only people opposed to the filter are young male geeks who just want their porn and pedophiles.
That being said I don’t see it as a concept as sexist, as I interpreted ‘tell mum’ and ‘tell people you don’t normally talk to about this stuff’ – and that as a concept I have an enormous amount of support for.
Are some of Akmal’s jokes and the language on the site sexist and condescending? Yes, absolutely. There’s also a stack of typos and grammatical errors, which I think I find more annoying. Normally I’d never blame the agency but aside from not foreseeing this issue (and the many other groups who could be offended) and coming up with a strategically better campaign, you’d think that Fnuky could at least learn how to proof.
Nothing about it in my view is worth walking away from the issue or condemning EFA over… it’s a joke, it’s getting some attention to the issue and getting information out there. Whatever works.
‘EFA you fucked up.’
Without a doubt. I’m neither a mother nor a woman, and I feel offended by this stupid approach.
Then I actually looked at the web-site and the ‘cute’ visuals and general presumption that a certain group is intrinsically stupid and therefore can be patronised mercilessly was all too obvious.
‘EFA you fucked up.’
Without a doubt. I’m neither a mother nor a woman, and I feel offended by this stupid approach.
Then I actually looked at the web-site and the ‘cute’ visuals and general presumption that a certain group is intrinsically stupid and therefore can be patronised mercilessly was all too obvious.
Well Anna, my interpretation of you last paragraph was ‘just suck it up, because EFA have better things to do than worry about mothers being offended’. If I have mis-understood you, I apologise and would appreciate clarification. I stand by my comment that it is easier to say let it go for the good of all when you are not the one being asked to let it go.
Well Anna, my interpretation of you last paragraph was ‘just suck it up, because EFA have better things to do than worry about mothers being offended’. If I have mis-understood you, I apologise and would appreciate clarification. I stand by my comment that it is easier to say let it go for the good of all when you are not the one being asked to let it go.
I wasn’t going to comment, because I don’t want to disagree with Anna or Helen as I think you are both great. But I am going to and so I hope that I succeed in not making this personal.
I have to admit to completely agreeing with Helen on this particular point. Sometimes you have to prioritise your causes. Sometimes you have to choose one campaign over another because by supporting one you are actively undermining the other. I think that this is just such a case.
I object to the net filter. Strongly. (And I intend to continue objecting to it in my own way.) However, I will have absolutely no part in the EFA’s particular part of the campaign because I view fighting sexism as a more important issue. I believe that it deserves to be prioritised because it presents more of a threat to my version of ‘the good life’ (or whatever you want to call it). I’d imagine that Helen feels the same way and I don’t understand the logic of arguing that she has no right to make that call.
Womens’ issues are always trivialised and always asked to take second place to some other ‘greater’ cause. Look at so many independence movements around the world, etc. I think that it is perfectly justifiable to turn that trend on its head and to make other issues take second place to the fight against sexism.
I wasn’t going to comment, because I don’t want to disagree with Anna or Helen as I think you are both great. But I am going to and so I hope that I succeed in not making this personal.
I have to admit to completely agreeing with Helen on this particular point. Sometimes you have to prioritise your causes. Sometimes you have to choose one campaign over another because by supporting one you are actively undermining the other. I think that this is just such a case.
I object to the net filter. Strongly. (And I intend to continue objecting to it in my own way.) However, I will have absolutely no part in the EFA’s particular part of the campaign because I view fighting sexism as a more important issue. I believe that it deserves to be prioritised because it presents more of a threat to my version of ‘the good life’ (or whatever you want to call it). I’d imagine that Helen feels the same way and I don’t understand the logic of arguing that she has no right to make that call.
Womens’ issues are always trivialised and always asked to take second place to some other ‘greater’ cause. Look at so many independence movements around the world, etc. I think that it is perfectly justifiable to turn that trend on its head and to make other issues take second place to the fight against sexism.
LOL – after chipping Fnuky about typos I had one myself…
I interpreted ‘tell mum’ as ‘tell people you don’t normally talk to about this stuff’
Sorry about that.
LOL – after chipping Fnuky about typos I had one myself…
I interpreted ‘tell mum’ as ‘tell people you don’t normally talk to about this stuff’
Sorry about that.
“What if they put out an ad saying “tell childless women that the net filter won’t protect other people’s children on the internet. They don’t have children and they think this will protect children from child pron. They are wrong. Tell a childless woman today”. Would you still be telling people to suck it up, or would you be offended, feeling like you had been stereotyped?”
As a childless woman, if there was research saying that there was a substantial cohort of childless women who thought like that, then I wouldn’t be the slightest bit offended.
There maybe research showing that there is a substantial cohort of women with children who think it’s going to protect their kids against porn. If so, there’s nothing wrong with directing a campaign specifically toward those women. Whether this is the right campaign is another question. But there’s nothing wrong with targetting demographics, per se.
“What if they put out an ad saying “tell childless women that the net filter won’t protect other people’s children on the internet. They don’t have children and they think this will protect children from child pron. They are wrong. Tell a childless woman today”. Would you still be telling people to suck it up, or would you be offended, feeling like you had been stereotyped?”
As a childless woman, if there was research saying that there was a substantial cohort of childless women who thought like that, then I wouldn’t be the slightest bit offended.
There maybe research showing that there is a substantial cohort of women with children who think it’s going to protect their kids against porn. If so, there’s nothing wrong with directing a campaign specifically toward those women. Whether this is the right campaign is another question. But there’s nothing wrong with targetting demographics, per se.
I think the fight against sexism is more important than the filter too.
What I’m arguing here is two things:
One, that the fight against sexism means calling people on sexist behaviour, allies or not. But in instances like this when the response is that they oppose sexism too, but don’t believe this particular instance of it is sexism, then perhaps it is also important to accept that reasonable people can agree on the theory, but reject a particular interpretation of events – that they can disagree with us that *this particular thing* is sexist, without being anti-feminist.
Second, that right or wrong, we don’t have to agree with allies on everything in order to fight alongside them on the things we do agree on. Of course there are lines, but I don’t think this is anywhere close to being one.
Lastly, it seems that some of you are implying that criticising one’s allies is good and right, except that I shouldn’t do it. You don’t have to agree with me, I won’t be hurt by that. But how would you react if I decided that I would keep criticising you until you realised you were wrong and apologised? Would that make you change your mind any faster, or at all?
I think the fight against sexism is more important than the filter too.
What I’m arguing here is two things:
One, that the fight against sexism means calling people on sexist behaviour, allies or not. But in instances like this when the response is that they oppose sexism too, but don’t believe this particular instance of it is sexism, then perhaps it is also important to accept that reasonable people can agree on the theory, but reject a particular interpretation of events – that they can disagree with us that *this particular thing* is sexist, without being anti-feminist.
Second, that right or wrong, we don’t have to agree with allies on everything in order to fight alongside them on the things we do agree on. Of course there are lines, but I don’t think this is anywhere close to being one.
Lastly, it seems that some of you are implying that criticising one’s allies is good and right, except that I shouldn’t do it. You don’t have to agree with me, I won’t be hurt by that. But how would you react if I decided that I would keep criticising you until you realised you were wrong and apologised? Would that make you change your mind any faster, or at all?
@Anna – it would make me stop and think about what I had said, and if I thought offence had been caused then I would apologise (as I did in my second comment), even if I hadn’t changed my mind. Most of the people at EFA don’t seem to get this. Their attitude is that they have done nothing wrong and if people are angry then it is their problem. This is not a way to treat your allies.
Fine – I don’t think the EFA have that data, I’m skeptical as to whether is actually exists. That is the problem. They have just gone with a stereotype because it’s easy and lazy, and seemingly they don’t care if their audience objects because it’s all about the end result. Which may not be the one they are expecting if the troll on Helen’s post is representative and people are convincing their parents that a vote for Abbott is a vote against the filter. I think they may have a nasty shock coming.
@Anna – it would make me stop and think about what I had said, and if I thought offence had been caused then I would apologise (as I did in my second comment), even if I hadn’t changed my mind. Most of the people at EFA don’t seem to get this. Their attitude is that they have done nothing wrong and if people are angry then it is their problem. This is not a way to treat your allies.
Fine – I don’t think the EFA have that data, I’m skeptical as to whether is actually exists. That is the problem. They have just gone with a stereotype because it’s easy and lazy, and seemingly they don’t care if their audience objects because it’s all about the end result. Which may not be the one they are expecting if the troll on Helen’s post is representative and people are convincing their parents that a vote for Abbott is a vote against the filter. I think they may have a nasty shock coming.
The essence of what this issue has become occurred to me last night just a tad belatedly.
Its directly comparable to domestic violence and the cycle of abuse therin.
1.Abuser abuses victim.
In this case the EFA ad denigrated mums with its undoubted sexism [even some defenders of EFA seem to acknowledge this].
2.Victim complains.
In this case several writers identified the sexism and why they didn’t like it.
3.Abuser essentially ignores complaints, rationalises it, excuses, etc.
Which is basically what has happened here in this case and on LP.
4.And then, the cheek of it, the abuser [or its defenders]demands that victim
[a]ignore/ put up with the abuse because….
[b] blames the victim for not promosing to continue to love honour and obey said abuser for ever and ever.
The essence of what this issue has become occurred to me last night just a tad belatedly.
Its directly comparable to domestic violence and the cycle of abuse therin.
1.Abuser abuses victim.
In this case the EFA ad denigrated mums with its undoubted sexism [even some defenders of EFA seem to acknowledge this].
2.Victim complains.
In this case several writers identified the sexism and why they didn’t like it.
3.Abuser essentially ignores complaints, rationalises it, excuses, etc.
Which is basically what has happened here in this case and on LP.
4.And then, the cheek of it, the abuser [or its defenders]demands that victim
[a]ignore/ put up with the abuse because….
[b] blames the victim for not promosing to continue to love honour and obey said abuser for ever and ever.
@96 Hannah’s dad
Dude, that’s up there with comparing Anna to people who support blackface and gas chamber jokes.
@96 Hannah’s dad
Dude, that’s up there with comparing Anna to people who support blackface and gas chamber jokes.
You can’t be serious, hannah’s dad. There’s no argument to be made there.
This is a civil disagreement about activism shared interests and solidarity within campaigns. Nominating sides as abuser and victim is not helpful.
You can’t be serious, hannah’s dad. There’s no argument to be made there.
This is a civil disagreement about activism shared interests and solidarity within campaigns. Nominating sides as abuser and victim is not helpful.
I’m pro filter , athough desire sectet list issue diferently addressed
IF a pro filter add included trashing women , i’d demand a apology and if ignored disown THAT organization
Fact that Host says “The small stuff matters. But so does the big stuff, and sometimes some perspective is required.”
well that perspective is reely ‘sit on fence….whereas IF th anti filterers case itself actualy requires trashing women then th case is shallow in first place
If your allies ar indecent , there is a choice Helen made it corectly I think , although we disagree on filters merits Those anti filterers that think anything goes , incl trashing women without condemnaton/disowning EFA include zealotary Libetarians happy to ditch one basic principal (women) for anothr principal (being libartarien)..and seemingly a more dubious one
….eg if filter can be got easily around & can not tech work then there is no right to view infringed
I’m pro filter , athough desire sectet list issue diferently addressed
IF a pro filter add included trashing women , i’d demand a apology and if ignored disown THAT organization
Fact that Host says “The small stuff matters. But so does the big stuff, and sometimes some perspective is required.”
well that perspective is reely ‘sit on fence….whereas IF th anti filterers case itself actualy requires trashing women then th case is shallow in first place
If your allies ar indecent , there is a choice Helen made it corectly I think , although we disagree on filters merits Those anti filterers that think anything goes , incl trashing women without condemnaton/disowning EFA include zealotary Libetarians happy to ditch one basic principal (women) for anothr principal (being libartarien)..and seemingly a more dubious one
….eg if filter can be got easily around & can not tech work then there is no right to view infringed
No, it seems to me you’re the one who’s saying that. Criticising one’s allies is good and right, but women shouldn’t criticise EFA. You’re going around in circles now.
Show me where we’ve dug in behind some virtual sandbags? Sure, the discussion’s continuing in some places but to frame it as “keep criticising you until you realised you were wrong and apologised” seems to imply that there’s some arbitrary statute of limitation on discussion. I also think the effect on EFA is vastly overrated. From the comments I’ve seen from them and their supporters, with a couple of honourable exceptions they are preening themselves on their superior focus on the RLY important things and mansplaining about how they could not possibly, ever, have f*cked up, no way. From the reactions to the very few posts about this matter, one would think that the EFA had been thrown into confusion, running about like stepped-on ants, unable to compose an email or telephone call while they rebuilt their shattered world. I believe that IRL the effect would have been, er, less dramatic.
I never expected now asked for an apology. I would like to think it might kick off some trains of thought in the heads of some of the less inflexible members. Perhaps. But of course that would be a bonus.
My blog represents a real-life response to this and that. Feel free to dismiss as much, or all or it as you like.
The kind of “triage” you refers to has this kind of result, unfortunately, and has done for a long time. Mum’s burnt chop syndrome, perhaps, to keep the Mum theme going.
No, it seems to me you’re the one who’s saying that. Criticising one’s allies is good and right, but women shouldn’t criticise EFA. You’re going around in circles now.
Show me where we’ve dug in behind some virtual sandbags? Sure, the discussion’s continuing in some places but to frame it as “keep criticising you until you realised you were wrong and apologised” seems to imply that there’s some arbitrary statute of limitation on discussion. I also think the effect on EFA is vastly overrated. From the comments I’ve seen from them and their supporters, with a couple of honourable exceptions they are preening themselves on their superior focus on the RLY important things and mansplaining about how they could not possibly, ever, have f*cked up, no way. From the reactions to the very few posts about this matter, one would think that the EFA had been thrown into confusion, running about like stepped-on ants, unable to compose an email or telephone call while they rebuilt their shattered world. I believe that IRL the effect would have been, er, less dramatic.
I never expected now asked for an apology. I would like to think it might kick off some trains of thought in the heads of some of the less inflexible members. Perhaps. But of course that would be a bonus.
My blog represents a real-life response to this and that. Feel free to dismiss as much, or all or it as you like.
The kind of “triage” you refers to has this kind of result, unfortunately, and has done for a long time. Mum’s burnt chop syndrome, perhaps, to keep the Mum theme going.
Helen, I’m done having this discussion with you. If you stop saying that I ever said women shouldn’t criticise EFA then we can start again.
Helen, I’m done having this discussion with you. If you stop saying that I ever said women shouldn’t criticise EFA then we can start again.
Also, if this was just about your post a) I would have linked to it in the first place, and b) I wouldn’t have bothered writing this post.
Also, if this was just about your post a) I would have linked to it in the first place, and b) I wouldn’t have bothered writing this post.
Oh! I guess that’s me told. Anna, I never said it was just about my post. I’m speaking just as ONE of the people who are being referred to in the first para of the OP.
Oh! I guess that’s me told. Anna, I never said it was just about my post. I’m speaking just as ONE of the people who are being referred to in the first para of the OP.
I agree with Anna’s central point but I don’t think this instance illustrates that point very well. Unless I have missed something, a couple of blog posts where people describe how pissed off they are with EFA’s approach meets my criteria for “pointing stuff out and moving on”. YMMV etc. If there was some concerted effort to get people to boycott EFA or run some sort of interference I would think differently.
I have seen other instances of what Anna describes and I think that really is as damaging as Anna says. It turns politics from an interplay of ideas to a matter of faith and disagreement from an opportunity to persuade or be persuaded or to refine one’s position into a moral failing. The whole ritual of demanding and dissecting apologies makes me very wary for this reason. When disagreement becomes a moral failure then you leave no room for persuasion but also no room for the alliances between diverse groups. I think this is what they mean when people talk about the problems with identity politics. The ultimate result is splintering and fracturing of groups who are increasingly intolerant of any disagreement however carefully put. Not only is that politically isolating and self-defeating but I think it is disabling for those group members who become less not more capable of dealing with the stresses of a world where a whole lot of prejudiced shit still goes down.
On the third hand, currently caught between my butt and this here pointy picket fence, I am also wary about the triage Helen mentions because I don’t believe in trickle down social justice and it does seem that some things just keep getting shifted to the bottom of that triage queue and contrary to expectation, there are not magical spinoff effects for marginalized people when dominant groups have a big win.
I agree with Anna’s central point but I don’t think this instance illustrates that point very well. Unless I have missed something, a couple of blog posts where people describe how pissed off they are with EFA’s approach meets my criteria for “pointing stuff out and moving on”. YMMV etc. If there was some concerted effort to get people to boycott EFA or run some sort of interference I would think differently.
I have seen other instances of what Anna describes and I think that really is as damaging as Anna says. It turns politics from an interplay of ideas to a matter of faith and disagreement from an opportunity to persuade or be persuaded or to refine one’s position into a moral failing. The whole ritual of demanding and dissecting apologies makes me very wary for this reason. When disagreement becomes a moral failure then you leave no room for persuasion but also no room for the alliances between diverse groups. I think this is what they mean when people talk about the problems with identity politics. The ultimate result is splintering and fracturing of groups who are increasingly intolerant of any disagreement however carefully put. Not only is that politically isolating and self-defeating but I think it is disabling for those group members who become less not more capable of dealing with the stresses of a world where a whole lot of prejudiced shit still goes down.
On the third hand, currently caught between my butt and this here pointy picket fence, I am also wary about the triage Helen mentions because I don’t believe in trickle down social justice and it does seem that some things just keep getting shifted to the bottom of that triage queue and contrary to expectation, there are not magical spinoff effects for marginalized people when dominant groups have a big win.
SU
“On the third hand, currently caught between my butt and this here pointy picket fence..”
At one level I’m pleased as a pro filter to see anti filterers split , and for th bonus suport EFA’s add trashing women has done for pro filter cause
At anothr level it does highlite how extreme zealous libartarien sections of anti filterers Groups show themselves to be , such that blatant sexism & denigrate women add is condoned as a “small” issue…per Anna “in perspective” Some allies should be worthy of disowning without disowning one stanse , yet many anti filterers here do not see it even when allies highlite it
But then for some anti filterers , even publishin secret list wuld not be sufficent For some its all or nothing , and anything indeed any principal trashed in process is worth it
SU
“On the third hand, currently caught between my butt and this here pointy picket fence..”
At one level I’m pleased as a pro filter to see anti filterers split , and for th bonus suport EFA’s add trashing women has done for pro filter cause
At anothr level it does highlite how extreme zealous libartarien sections of anti filterers Groups show themselves to be , such that blatant sexism & denigrate women add is condoned as a “small” issue…per Anna “in perspective” Some allies should be worthy of disowning without disowning one stanse , yet many anti filterers here do not see it even when allies highlite it
But then for some anti filterers , even publishin secret list wuld not be sufficent For some its all or nothing , and anything indeed any principal trashed in process is worth it
I wouldn’t do too many jigs just yet, Ron – not one of the anti-filter objectors to the EFA “Tell Mum” campaign has said that they are going to stop campaigning against the filter just because they now see the EFA board as mostly a bunch of arsehats. Most of them haven’t even said that they plan to withhold support for the EFA in future hypothetically less arsehattish campaigns as a consequence of this campaign, just that they’re not supporting this particular campaign.
But even for the few who have decided to dump support for the EFA entirely, that is largely because the EFA is not the only, or even the most important, anti-filter lobby group to work with. They’ll still be working hard against the filter, because they believe it’s worth fighting.
I wouldn’t do too many jigs just yet, Ron – not one of the anti-filter objectors to the EFA “Tell Mum” campaign has said that they are going to stop campaigning against the filter just because they now see the EFA board as mostly a bunch of arsehats. Most of them haven’t even said that they plan to withhold support for the EFA in future hypothetically less arsehattish campaigns as a consequence of this campaign, just that they’re not supporting this particular campaign.
But even for the few who have decided to dump support for the EFA entirely, that is largely because the EFA is not the only, or even the most important, anti-filter lobby group to work with. They’ll still be working hard against the filter, because they believe it’s worth fighting.
I’m sure Conroy will be bracing himself for the outpouring of scathing blog posts as we speak, tigtog.
I’m sure Conroy will be bracing himself for the outpouring of scathing blog posts as we speak, tigtog.
Crankynick I’ve yet to see any evidence that Conroy is listening to anyone regardless of how many conversations EFA claims to have started.
Crankynick I’ve yet to see any evidence that Conroy is listening to anyone regardless of how many conversations EFA claims to have started.
I think su puts it well:
and then 2 comments later TigTog provides another example of the problem:
The only clear point in evidence is that the campaign uses gendered stereotypes in a humourous context. Deciding how bad the campaign is (or if there is a problem at all) relies on how harmful one considers the humourous use of gendered stereotypes, which in turns relies on the value system or ideology one basis those views on. To ignore the views of others or reject their value systems, and then insist what they’ve done is wrong is arrogant. Using terms such as “asshat”, “marketing fail” or “trainwreck” to do so is being unnecessarily undiplomatic.
I think su puts it well:
and then 2 comments later TigTog provides another example of the problem:
The only clear point in evidence is that the campaign uses gendered stereotypes in a humourous context. Deciding how bad the campaign is (or if there is a problem at all) relies on how harmful one considers the humourous use of gendered stereotypes, which in turns relies on the value system or ideology one basis those views on. To ignore the views of others or reject their value systems, and then insist what they’ve done is wrong is arrogant. Using terms such as “asshat”, “marketing fail” or “trainwreck” to do so is being unnecessarily undiplomatic.
su, that’s the most clearheaded thing I’ve read for days, thank you
su, that’s the most clearheaded thing I’ve read for days, thank you
Well, that is telling in itself.
Being the sole woman on a board or committee is not as simple as that, as I’m sure other women here who’ve been in the same situation will attest. Mostly when you try to “pull them up and say ‘oi, dumb’”, they just roll their eyes at each other and mouth ‘Here she goes again.’ If that poor EFA woman is ‘mostly AWOL’ then for at least some of that AWOL time she’s probably just hiding out in the Ladies’ trying to get the red mist under control.
Well, that is telling in itself.
Being the sole woman on a board or committee is not as simple as that, as I’m sure other women here who’ve been in the same situation will attest. Mostly when you try to “pull them up and say ‘oi, dumb’”, they just roll their eyes at each other and mouth ‘Here she goes again.’ If that poor EFA woman is ‘mostly AWOL’ then for at least some of that AWOL time she’s probably just hiding out in the Ladies’ trying to get the red mist under control.
True, Dr Cat. I missed that earlier, but I’d rather people be a little kinder about volunteers who must juggle these things with families, paid work and lives in general.
True, Dr Cat. I missed that earlier, but I’d rather people be a little kinder about volunteers who must juggle these things with families, paid work and lives in general.
In fact, after a couple of Friday night beers, perhaps my whole point could be summed up as: maybe, as activists, we could recognise that it’s tough going sometimes, and be a little more forgiving of one another. /hippy
In fact, after a couple of Friday night beers, perhaps my whole point could be summed up as: maybe, as activists, we could recognise that it’s tough going sometimes, and be a little more forgiving of one another. /hippy
Agree with Laura re su’s post. And Friday night beers is always a good thing. Though I favour wine myself.
Agree with Laura re su’s post. And Friday night beers is always a good thing. Though I favour wine myself.
Whereas I have just discovered that the New Extra Smooth Bundaberg Rum is as violently awful as the old version.
Whereas I have just discovered that the New Extra Smooth Bundaberg Rum is as violently awful as the old version.
No wonder you’re cranky.
No wonder you’re cranky.
It’s not the reason, just the reason right now.
It’s not the reason, just the reason right now.
So you’ve decided that slagging of mothers is justified for the greater good then? Thanks for that.
So you’ve decided that slagging of mothers is justified for the greater good then? Thanks for that.
Firstly, su and PC, thank you for two very on-target posts.
Now, desipis is correct that my use of “arsehattish” upthread was undiplomatic, and Nick quickly rewarded me for it by employing the tired trope that bloggers can’t/don’t/won’t do anything but blog. I’m not whining – I was the one to escalate first in this instance so retaliation is natural – but nice way to put down every blogger here in this thread, not just me.
In general, in terms of deciding the very simple matter of where my activist dollars go, let alone my activist time, tired tropes such as the gendered “quips” employed in the EFA ad don’t get me enthused about allocating my resources to the originators of those tropes, at least not for those particular campaigns. Before this thread however pretty much all I was doing was rolling my eyes and just hoping that despite the dismissive rhetoric from the board that the next EFA campaign would show a bit more clue.
This thread has actually got me considering other orgs to actively support instead. Strategically I don’t understand why they are so willing to alienate a fairly large chunk of their supporter base – after all, non-tech-savvy people have hardly even heard of the EFA, so alienating the tech-savvy mums appears to be shooting oneself in the foot.
Firstly, su and PC, thank you for two very on-target posts.
Now, desipis is correct that my use of “arsehattish” upthread was undiplomatic, and Nick quickly rewarded me for it by employing the tired trope that bloggers can’t/don’t/won’t do anything but blog. I’m not whining – I was the one to escalate first in this instance so retaliation is natural – but nice way to put down every blogger here in this thread, not just me.
In general, in terms of deciding the very simple matter of where my activist dollars go, let alone my activist time, tired tropes such as the gendered “quips” employed in the EFA ad don’t get me enthused about allocating my resources to the originators of those tropes, at least not for those particular campaigns. Before this thread however pretty much all I was doing was rolling my eyes and just hoping that despite the dismissive rhetoric from the board that the next EFA campaign would show a bit more clue.
This thread has actually got me considering other orgs to actively support instead. Strategically I don’t understand why they are so willing to alienate a fairly large chunk of their supporter base – after all, non-tech-savvy people have hardly even heard of the EFA, so alienating the tech-savvy mums appears to be shooting oneself in the foot.
Anna @ 94
I think that you also need to consider that there are people who will not do that because they are a perhaps more intelligent species of soccer hooligan.
They might barrack for the same team, but what they really want to do is to get out and have a stoush. If the stoush they are having with the opposing team is getting boring, or is not violent enough to adequately vent their aggressions, they turn on their own.
Thus you see people who are very very prone to launching attacks when their version of whatever -ism is offended, (commun-ism, hooliganis-m, environmental-ism Godwin-ism etc). They launch aggressive and repeated attacks on others who step over some imaginary line using the camouflage of the social acceptance of whatever -ism they espouse.
These people may be fine if and when they act as allies – if and when they are directed at the ‘real’ enemy, but are a nuisance otherwise because their self righteousness and sheer bloody mindedness is what gives rise to most ordinary people perceive as ‘political correctness’ in many spheres. It is often not political correctness, but people venting anger and aggression as socially acceptable targets.
They are also ‘noise’ when trying to develop workable solutions to problems. If you think of the stances of some people in the middle east, politics etc through this frame, you might understand why they do not necessarily want allies, nor that peace in the middle east or political solutions to the filter etc are what they really want at all.
They are not really allies, they are just using the particular issue as camouflage to mount aggressive attacks.
I am quite convinced that neanderthals did not become extinct.
Anna @ 94
I think that you also need to consider that there are people who will not do that because they are a perhaps more intelligent species of soccer hooligan.
They might barrack for the same team, but what they really want to do is to get out and have a stoush. If the stoush they are having with the opposing team is getting boring, or is not violent enough to adequately vent their aggressions, they turn on their own.
Thus you see people who are very very prone to launching attacks when their version of whatever -ism is offended, (commun-ism, hooliganis-m, environmental-ism Godwin-ism etc). They launch aggressive and repeated attacks on others who step over some imaginary line using the camouflage of the social acceptance of whatever -ism they espouse.
These people may be fine if and when they act as allies – if and when they are directed at the ‘real’ enemy, but are a nuisance otherwise because their self righteousness and sheer bloody mindedness is what gives rise to most ordinary people perceive as ‘political correctness’ in many spheres. It is often not political correctness, but people venting anger and aggression as socially acceptable targets.
They are also ‘noise’ when trying to develop workable solutions to problems. If you think of the stances of some people in the middle east, politics etc through this frame, you might understand why they do not necessarily want allies, nor that peace in the middle east or political solutions to the filter etc are what they really want at all.
They are not really allies, they are just using the particular issue as camouflage to mount aggressive attacks.
I am quite convinced that neanderthals did not become extinct.
Well- up and about today and back to this thread. The last twenty or thirty posts have me really worried, because it seems to me that toomany are missing thepoint of the thing- that internet censorship is a device by which public ignorance is increased, thus ensuring the increase of the sort of semi literate and hence likely uninformed characters, that Akmal is parodying.
Since the conservatives tactic has been to employ women’s fears for their children,as defacto body sheilds for Conroys legislation, the only possible intelligent response for the Left would be to come up with precisely the “coathanger” that challenges this gendered, ideological contruct “mum”.
Censorshup refers to something effecting the whole community and the lead concept is “community”, coded by the word “mum”; not in the sense coded by the conservatives as hysteric victim incapable of thinking thru censorshuip, but a the repository for exactly that good sense that sees Conroys legislation for what it is.
The issue; incipient fascism ultimately, is the thing as much as the expressive device, surely?
The advertising people have had to use what’s available- Akmals parody of a blue collar migrant illiterate is a device to examine the clasims of conservsatives on censorship, that regards women as intelligent enough to see the realissue rather than be confused by something as Akmal use of his own traits for satire.
It must be my age, I can’t see ANY cause for the sort seeming offense taken in this thread; that’s dead honest.
And if I am hated for that, or unthinkingly driven from the site for it, so be it, too.
I’m sorry.
To me the thread directs people at least to a view of Akmals funny, lefty, PARODYING take on censorship, I found it typically funny and a bit cheeky, which is trade mark Akmal, and found it sueful in deconstructing, for want of a better word, the fear and loathing campaign run by moral conservatives for increased censorship employing the propaganda motif of the conservative caring mum as means for enabling unthinking rejection of free media.
Well- up and about today and back to this thread. The last twenty or thirty posts have me really worried, because it seems to me that toomany are missing thepoint of the thing- that internet censorship is a device by which public ignorance is increased, thus ensuring the increase of the sort of semi literate and hence likely uninformed characters, that Akmal is parodying.
Since the conservatives tactic has been to employ women’s fears for their children,as defacto body sheilds for Conroys legislation, the only possible intelligent response for the Left would be to come up with precisely the “coathanger” that challenges this gendered, ideological contruct “mum”.
Censorshup refers to something effecting the whole community and the lead concept is “community”, coded by the word “mum”; not in the sense coded by the conservatives as hysteric victim incapable of thinking thru censorshuip, but a the repository for exactly that good sense that sees Conroys legislation for what it is.
The issue; incipient fascism ultimately, is the thing as much as the expressive device, surely?
The advertising people have had to use what’s available- Akmals parody of a blue collar migrant illiterate is a device to examine the clasims of conservsatives on censorship, that regards women as intelligent enough to see the realissue rather than be confused by something as Akmal use of his own traits for satire.
It must be my age, I can’t see ANY cause for the sort seeming offense taken in this thread; that’s dead honest.
And if I am hated for that, or unthinkingly driven from the site for it, so be it, too.
I’m sorry.
To me the thread directs people at least to a view of Akmals funny, lefty, PARODYING take on censorship, I found it typically funny and a bit cheeky, which is trade mark Akmal, and found it sueful in deconstructing, for want of a better word, the fear and loathing campaign run by moral conservatives for increased censorship employing the propaganda motif of the conservative caring mum as means for enabling unthinking rejection of free media.
As Anna says:
Until I participated on LP’s ‘On Banning the Burqa’ thread, I thought this too. However, after that thread, I lost all hope of that. Those who either supported a ban (or limited regulation), or who at least wanted to maturely discuss pro-ban arguments while not actually supporting one, were repeatedly accused of being fascist, misogynist, islamphobic and plain stupid or had their arguments constantly derailed by deliberate misterpretation.
So much for liberal tolerance. And therein lies the problem. Both this and the burqa thread are fundamentally about the increasing conflict between feminism and liberal tolerance, which I believe are on a collision course. This is because the next major wave of feminism will be played out in the arena of culturalism. Conservative women’s advocates are ready for it, but left-wing liberal feminists are woefully unprepared.
As Anna says:
Until I participated on LP’s ‘On Banning the Burqa’ thread, I thought this too. However, after that thread, I lost all hope of that. Those who either supported a ban (or limited regulation), or who at least wanted to maturely discuss pro-ban arguments while not actually supporting one, were repeatedly accused of being fascist, misogynist, islamphobic and plain stupid or had their arguments constantly derailed by deliberate misterpretation.
So much for liberal tolerance. And therein lies the problem. Both this and the burqa thread are fundamentally about the increasing conflict between feminism and liberal tolerance, which I believe are on a collision course. This is because the next major wave of feminism will be played out in the arena of culturalism. Conservative women’s advocates are ready for it, but left-wing liberal feminists are woefully unprepared.
1) I see that the EFA gave the job of doing the ad to a bunch of the sorts of professionals who do this kind of thing, who were the people who hired Akmal so this all happened at one or two removes.
2) Those sorts of PR/advertising companies tend to employ “creatives” who tend to be young male cowboys who tend to think of themselves as progressive. These boys are not a million miles from the current standard Australian male comedian.
3) Women who have been blogging and commenting for any length of time at LP will be all too depressingly aware that those sorts of blokes react very very badly to being told by women that they’re being sexist. They get sullen and resistant and kick the cat and say they’re not sorry and mansplain that that’s because teh wimmin r doin it rong. Looking at you (in this instance), Geordie Guy, you well-named sausage, you.
1) I see that the EFA gave the job of doing the ad to a bunch of the sorts of professionals who do this kind of thing, who were the people who hired Akmal so this all happened at one or two removes.
2) Those sorts of PR/advertising companies tend to employ “creatives” who tend to be young male cowboys who tend to think of themselves as progressive. These boys are not a million miles from the current standard Australian male comedian.
3) Women who have been blogging and commenting for any length of time at LP will be all too depressingly aware that those sorts of blokes react very very badly to being told by women that they’re being sexist. They get sullen and resistant and kick the cat and say they’re not sorry and mansplain that that’s because teh wimmin r doin it rong. Looking at you (in this instance), Geordie Guy, you well-named sausage, you.
@120: Neanderthals, now. And you’re supposed to be arguing for the civil, rational, non-stoushy side? OK.
@109:
So why is it OK for you to say that but us pointing out that the EFA/Fnuky ad was unnecessarily undiplomatic, has caused a backlash? Think about it.
@120: Neanderthals, now. And you’re supposed to be arguing for the civil, rational, non-stoushy side? OK.
@109:
So why is it OK for you to say that but us pointing out that the EFA/Fnuky ad was unnecessarily undiplomatic, has caused a backlash? Think about it.
Dumb women in suburbs thinking they ar Parently responsible for discouraging there children from viewing Internet filth , and then thinking a Filter is a Parantal aid for this , need to be reminded says EFA by there net savvy children just how libartarien stupidley wrong there Womens/Mothers thinking is
Dumb Mothers need to be educatd by there children that children can watch anything they like But then those Women Mothers in suburbs naturaly can not be from intelectual far left and therefore ar bogans anyway , so what would they know
Dumb women in suburbs thinking they ar Parently responsible for discouraging there children from viewing Internet filth , and then thinking a Filter is a Parantal aid for this , need to be reminded says EFA by there net savvy children just how libartarien stupidley wrong there Womens/Mothers thinking is
Dumb Mothers need to be educatd by there children that children can watch anything they like But then those Women Mothers in suburbs naturaly can not be from intelectual far left and therefore ar bogans anyway , so what would they know
Pointing out your views on the short comings of the ads wasn’t the problem, it was the undiplomatic way in which you did it. In short, the “backlash” in both directions was not about the message, but rather manner in which it was communicated. There isn’t an inconsistency there.
The problem is the do or die attitude demanding capitulation to a certain point of view of how things should be. It’s not enough that the EFA acknowledged the unintended offence and balance those concerns with all the other issues facing the campaign; insults had to be thrown and expectations that the EFA place some unrelated ideology front and centre were put forward.
Rather than attacking a group spending time and money to try to raise political awareness on an important issue, why not direct that energy to a positive effort by creating a complementary message that furthers the broader anti-censorship campaign in a more politically correct fashion?
Pointing out your views on the short comings of the ads wasn’t the problem, it was the undiplomatic way in which you did it. In short, the “backlash” in both directions was not about the message, but rather manner in which it was communicated. There isn’t an inconsistency there.
The problem is the do or die attitude demanding capitulation to a certain point of view of how things should be. It’s not enough that the EFA acknowledged the unintended offence and balance those concerns with all the other issues facing the campaign; insults had to be thrown and expectations that the EFA place some unrelated ideology front and centre were put forward.
Rather than attacking a group spending time and money to try to raise political awareness on an important issue, why not direct that energy to a positive effort by creating a complementary message that furthers the broader anti-censorship campaign in a more politically correct fashion?
@ 124 Helen, that is precisely what I am talking about.
Think about it.
Neanderthals – supposedly wiped out by H Sapiens, and then after the genocide were stereotyped as brutish, stupid etc etc.
Stereotyping of victims by genocidal victors.
So when I referred to neanderthals did you look for the possible and deeper meaning?
Yet if I look at the words of your posts here, you say that stereotyping is something you are against???
Ok.
I am not sure how your argument is advanced by such comments.
If it were me making the comment at 124, I might like to reflect on why I responded as I did.
*shrug*
@ 124 Helen, that is precisely what I am talking about.
Think about it.
Neanderthals – supposedly wiped out by H Sapiens, and then after the genocide were stereotyped as brutish, stupid etc etc.
Stereotyping of victims by genocidal victors.
So when I referred to neanderthals did you look for the possible and deeper meaning?
Yet if I look at the words of your posts here, you say that stereotyping is something you are against???
Ok.
I am not sure how your argument is advanced by such comments.
If it were me making the comment at 124, I might like to reflect on why I responded as I did.
*shrug*
@Ron (in parody mode)
Nope – parents who want filters need to be educated that there are better ways for them to monitor and/or restrict what their children can access on the internet using tools specific to their own internet access account rather than imposing the many costs and vulnerabilities that come with a compulsory filter on other people and businesses who don’t have children accessing their computers.
@Ron (in parody mode)
Nope – parents who want filters need to be educated that there are better ways for them to monitor and/or restrict what their children can access on the internet using tools specific to their own internet access account rather than imposing the many costs and vulnerabilities that come with a compulsory filter on other people and businesses who don’t have children accessing their computers.
Anna: Sort of OT — LP is in general a little too strident for my tastes, but I subscribe to your posts on Google Reader specifically so I can hear a feminist voice that I respect and want to hear more from.
This was a great post — keep it up
Anna: Sort of OT — LP is in general a little too strident for my tastes, but I subscribe to your posts on Google Reader specifically so I can hear a feminist voice that I respect and want to hear more from.
This was a great post — keep it up
I’d subscribe to GuruJ’s comment and think it a shame that the discussion seems to have petered out- its useful to have threads like this trying to comes to terms with issues of concern within the left, by setting up a discourse capable of clarification if not resolution of what’s driving a particular misunderstanding.
I’d subscribe to GuruJ’s comment and think it a shame that the discussion seems to have petered out- its useful to have threads like this trying to comes to terms with issues of concern within the left, by setting up a discourse capable of clarification if not resolution of what’s driving a particular misunderstanding.
Just back after being reminded of how obnoxious advertising can be, with the example of a new set of ads for foul-smelling brut b.o. spray.
No doubt the advertiser would say the adds had to be broad brush and “spelled out”
for the target market of young blokes and their girlfriends.
For me, these ads were just one long montage of stereotyping, from submissive teen ‘kini girls, to so called “wittiness” you’d expect from teens. And the reinforcement of certain traits and outlooks associated with teenagers and young peope, ought to be abhorred.
the next ”
Look out folks, the next “Cronulla” generation ison its way!
Just back after being reminded of how obnoxious advertising can be, with the example of a new set of ads for foul-smelling brut b.o. spray.
No doubt the advertiser would say the adds had to be broad brush and “spelled out”
for the target market of young blokes and their girlfriends.
For me, these ads were just one long montage of stereotyping, from submissive teen ‘kini girls, to so called “wittiness” you’d expect from teens. And the reinforcement of certain traits and outlooks associated with teenagers and young peope, ought to be abhorred.
the next ”
Look out folks, the next “Cronulla” generation ison its way!
Discussion does tend to peter out when people keep saying, ‘stop talking about this!’
Discussion does tend to peter out when people keep saying, ‘stop talking about this!’
I think discussion peters out when people have to spend their time defending things they didn’t say, rather than debating and discussing the points they did make.
We’re all guilty of doing that a little, picking out the worst interpretation of something someone has said and running that as the substantive portion of our comments – I can be worst than most on occasion, to be honest – but it does wreck a debate, and it’s certainly done this one no favours.
It’s a shame, because have been quite an interesting one, but there you go.
I think discussion peters out when people have to spend their time defending things they didn’t say, rather than debating and discussing the points they did make.
We’re all guilty of doing that a little, picking out the worst interpretation of something someone has said and running that as the substantive portion of our comments – I can be worst than most on occasion, to be honest – but it does wreck a debate, and it’s certainly done this one no favours.
It’s a shame, because have been quite an interesting one, but there you go.
Discussions like this also peter out because the in-group of LP bloggers, who all seem to be of roughly one mindset, nitpick interminably about totally unnecessary little nuances in their thinking in order to pretend they are not of roughly one mindset. Meanwhile, the out-group of non-LP bloggers, who try to inject some divergent or challenging ideas into the mouldy mindsets of the in-group, get routinely ignored, abused or paternalised for their trouble – then eventually leave the forum altogether … which I suspect is how the in-group prefers it.
Discussions like this also peter out because the in-group of LP bloggers, who all seem to be of roughly one mindset, nitpick interminably about totally unnecessary little nuances in their thinking in order to pretend they are not of roughly one mindset. Meanwhile, the out-group of non-LP bloggers, who try to inject some divergent or challenging ideas into the mouldy mindsets of the in-group, get routinely ignored, abused or paternalised for their trouble – then eventually leave the forum altogether … which I suspect is how the in-group prefers it.
I realise this thread is probably dead by now, but I found both the comments and the original post extremely thought-provoking. This means I’ve chewed the cud and come up with the following:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/06/08/the-noble-experiment/
iorarua, I have to say you’ve been given star billing. I hope you don’t mind.
I realise this thread is probably dead by now, but I found both the comments and the original post extremely thought-provoking. This means I’ve chewed the cud and come up with the following:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/06/08/the-noble-experiment/
iorarua, I have to say you’ve been given star billing. I hope you don’t mind.
skepticlawyer: I read your thread and think I understand your view but remain a little puzzled by the central grievance which you descibe as a tendency within some forms of feminism towards “moral totalitarianism”. The last time I checked, following Arendt, totalitarianism was a form of state, insitutional control over citizens. To my knowledge, nowhere is there a state run by or on behalf of feminists. Therefore I cannot fathom this strange beast “feminist moral totalitarianism” and would appreciate any clarification you may be able to offer.
skepticlawyer: I read your thread and think I understand your view but remain a little puzzled by the central grievance which you descibe as a tendency within some forms of feminism towards “moral totalitarianism”. The last time I checked, following Arendt, totalitarianism was a form of state, insitutional control over citizens. To my knowledge, nowhere is there a state run by or on behalf of feminists. Therefore I cannot fathom this strange beast “feminist moral totalitarianism” and would appreciate any clarification you may be able to offer.
It’s a metaphor.
It’s a metaphor.
Metaphors often hide more than they reveal. They can be deadly wrong which is why whenever someone uses metaphors it is best and reasonable to request that they unpack them. For example, Marx famously described relations between proletariat and the bourgeoisie as “class war” which metaphor effectively obscured the mutual dependency between the two classes. The development of a North/South analysis within dependency theory allowed the mutually beneficial elements of class co-operation in the industrialised centreto be grasped as a form of mutual exploitation of the colonial periphery.
So, PC, if its a metaphor, what do you understand “moral totalitarianism” it to mean?
Metaphors often hide more than they reveal. They can be deadly wrong which is why whenever someone uses metaphors it is best and reasonable to request that they unpack them. For example, Marx famously described relations between proletariat and the bourgeoisie as “class war” which metaphor effectively obscured the mutual dependency between the two classes. The development of a North/South analysis within dependency theory allowed the mutually beneficial elements of class co-operation in the industrialised centreto be grasped as a form of mutual exploitation of the colonial periphery.
So, PC, if its a metaphor, what do you understand “moral totalitarianism” it to mean?
Anthony:
In short its feminists saying “We’re right and you don’t even get a say about. We’ll impose our dogmatic rules regardless of the cost, how ineffectual they are, or the damage caused enforcing them.” and to a certain extent it can also include “We’ll circumvent the democratic process to get our way too.”
Anthony:
In short its feminists saying “We’re right and you don’t even get a say about. We’ll impose our dogmatic rules regardless of the cost, how ineffectual they are, or the damage caused enforcing them.” and to a certain extent it can also include “We’ll circumvent the democratic process to get our way too.”
Bored now, except to ask desipis: what exactly is your problem?
Bored now, except to ask desipis: what exactly is your problem?
Desipis, you know nothing about feminism. Don’t embarrass yourself, it’s too painful to watch.
Desipis, you know nothing about feminism. Don’t embarrass yourself, it’s too painful to watch.
‘My way or the highway.’
(Literal-minded analysis of the metaphor in question, in accordance with the principles laid down by the very influential 20th century American literary critic and theorist I. A. Richards, including a brief summary of Christine Brooke-Rose’s critique of his model, available on request. But I wouldn’t if I were you.)
‘My way or the highway.’
(Literal-minded analysis of the metaphor in question, in accordance with the principles laid down by the very influential 20th century American literary critic and theorist I. A. Richards, including a brief summary of Christine Brooke-Rose’s critique of his model, available on request. But I wouldn’t if I were you.)
Thank you PC. My understanding of it as a metaphor is that it is an attempt to slur those who hold views in opposition to your own by association with totalitarianism.
Moral totalitarianism, I guess, is a desire to want to have absolute dominance of opinion or view in the moral domain. There is no problem with that, of course, becuase if you hold a moral view that you believe to be correct then you need to be able to sustain it in the face of contrary positions.
Moral relativism, especially that identified by Alasdair MacIntyre in his “After Virtue” is the bastard child of pomo philosophy and the sort of subjectivism that infects the the whole of the US. It produces the sort of gobbledook that tries to pass of “moral totalitarianism” as a serious concept when it is nothing more than a cheap rhetorical shot.
The EFA has shown itself up as a bunch of sexist assholes thereby exposing their “libertarian” supporters to public ridicule. Pity, ain’t it.
Thank you PC. My understanding of it as a metaphor is that it is an attempt to slur those who hold views in opposition to your own by association with totalitarianism.
Moral totalitarianism, I guess, is a desire to want to have absolute dominance of opinion or view in the moral domain. There is no problem with that, of course, becuase if you hold a moral view that you believe to be correct then you need to be able to sustain it in the face of contrary positions.
Moral relativism, especially that identified by Alasdair MacIntyre in his “After Virtue” is the bastard child of pomo philosophy and the sort of subjectivism that infects the the whole of the US. It produces the sort of gobbledook that tries to pass of “moral totalitarianism” as a serious concept when it is nothing more than a cheap rhetorical shot.
The EFA has shown itself up as a bunch of sexist assholes thereby exposing their “libertarian” supporters to public ridicule. Pity, ain’t it.
As it happens, Anthony, I agree with you on the sexist arseholes (this is Australia, damn it) front, if I can put it like that. Unlike you, however, I am not trying to cram every topic on the planet into some overarching one-size-fits-all meta-agenda about evil pomo yada yada.
As it happens, Anthony, I agree with you on the sexist arseholes (this is Australia, damn it) front, if I can put it like that. Unlike you, however, I am not trying to cram every topic on the planet into some overarching one-size-fits-all meta-agenda about evil pomo yada yada.
It is not hard to attribute a lot of ill to pomo philosophes because there is an awesome lot of it about. As to ass- versus arse-holes I guess I take the view that my native language version (arse-) has more invective to it. Don’t know why. But I was unwilling to condemn the EFA to that low status because I think that they are more misguided than anything else. besides, they seem unduly influences by US liberalism which makes ass- seem culturally appropriate.
It is not hard to attribute a lot of ill to pomo philosophes because there is an awesome lot of it about. As to ass- versus arse-holes I guess I take the view that my native language version (arse-) has more invective to it. Don’t know why. But I was unwilling to condemn the EFA to that low status because I think that they are more misguided than anything else. besides, they seem unduly influences by US liberalism which makes ass- seem culturally appropriate.
PC,
I wasn’t describing feminism in general, rather what moral totalitarian feminism would sound like.
PC,
I wasn’t describing feminism in general, rather what moral totalitarian feminism would sound like.
In fact Jean Curthoys in her (1997) “Feminist Amnesia: The Wake of Women’s Liberation” identifies pomo feminism as “authoritarian with the appearance of radicalism”. Authoritarianism is the issue rather than putative left totalitarianism.
In fact Jean Curthoys in her (1997) “Feminist Amnesia: The Wake of Women’s Liberation” identifies pomo feminism as “authoritarian with the appearance of radicalism”. Authoritarianism is the issue rather than putative left totalitarianism.
I think the “personal is political” aspect of feminism can push it more to totalitarianism than to authoritarianism.
I think the “personal is political” aspect of feminism can push it more to totalitarianism than to authoritarianism.
Anthony Nolan, your deep attachment toward net censorship is the driving factor in this proffered gesture of engagement; behind this belated phenomena of outreach toward the sistern.
I doubt whether they will be fooled; they will know as well as the Silenced Desipis, that they are circumscribed in the service of a shabby agenda that employs *pron* as a pretext for introduction of a mechanism capable also of shutting down information and ideas.
Here is the REAL authoritarianism; the Akmal add was designed to deal with and communicate on a genuine issue, to adult women and men ultimately, in an adult way, not pander to the unforseen neuroses of the hypersensitive or the politically correct; rather to collapse the false emotive arguments of conservatives trying to get censorship up regardless of the damage this does to democracy.
Have watched it four times now and still cannot understand the hostility it has generated in certain quarters, or how people can arrive at the notion that it is somehow deliberately and maliciously sexist.
It doesn’t insult women, it expects the sort of women it talks to have the wit to see through theatrical props in moving toward understanding of an issue.
Rather it is the conservative counter thrust that insults the intelligenc of women with its fear and loathing and a clumsy attempted cooption of feminism in the service of conservative anti feminist, anti “liberation” if I could say it, goals.
Anthony Nolan, your deep attachment toward net censorship is the driving factor in this proffered gesture of engagement; behind this belated phenomena of outreach toward the sistern.
I doubt whether they will be fooled; they will know as well as the Silenced Desipis, that they are circumscribed in the service of a shabby agenda that employs *pron* as a pretext for introduction of a mechanism capable also of shutting down information and ideas.
Here is the REAL authoritarianism; the Akmal add was designed to deal with and communicate on a genuine issue, to adult women and men ultimately, in an adult way, not pander to the unforseen neuroses of the hypersensitive or the politically correct; rather to collapse the false emotive arguments of conservatives trying to get censorship up regardless of the damage this does to democracy.
Have watched it four times now and still cannot understand the hostility it has generated in certain quarters, or how people can arrive at the notion that it is somehow deliberately and maliciously sexist.
It doesn’t insult women, it expects the sort of women it talks to have the wit to see through theatrical props in moving toward understanding of an issue.
Rather it is the conservative counter thrust that insults the intelligenc of women with its fear and loathing and a clumsy attempted cooption of feminism in the service of conservative anti feminist, anti “liberation” if I could say it, goals.
No, Paul, you are factually incorrect. I’m opposed to the filter because it appears to me to have the potential for significant political misuse and I’m on record in various parts of LP as saying this including registering my concern about potential loss of access to, for example, Wikileaks.
My position on the net censorship is that it would be ideal if some form or other of bringing online content into line with Australian censorship laws and ratings is possible. Conroy’s technology, however, is a Trojan Horse of the first order. My reasons for wanting RC material subject to blocking is that it appears to me that the impact of exposure of young people (children) to such material, that is to say, exposure to material that would be RC in Australia if it were proposed to sell or distribute it via normal channels, is potentially deforming to their psycho-sexual development. And it sure isn’t hard for kids to locate really grim visual material.
This argument hasn’t yet been had. The point, made especially well by Hamilton, is generally ignored by sections of the cultural left.
Moreover, while the argument that it is a parental responsibility to impose filtering at the household level is sound in many ways it ignores the significant number of households where such matters are not a concern at all because the parents lack the care, the cultural capital, the sobreity (all drugs) or the education to bother. That attitude translates as ‘to hell with your kids mate coz mine are alright’. So much for traditional left social conscience.
The EFA add itself: the fact that they drew on Akmal the comedian suggests that the target audience of the ad was who? Mature adults? Make me laugh why doncha?
My ongoing interest in the consequences of depoliticised pomo education is in illustrating the way that the absence of basic sociology, history and philsophy in undergrad education over the last 15 years and the dominance of cultural/contextual deconstructivism has created what appears to be an entire generation incapable of a sustained critical appraisal of things like power relations or of understanding Jean Curthoy’s argument about the centrality of liberation theory.
But I’ll keep trying even if it is to your annoyance.
No, Paul, you are factually incorrect. I’m opposed to the filter because it appears to me to have the potential for significant political misuse and I’m on record in various parts of LP as saying this including registering my concern about potential loss of access to, for example, Wikileaks.
My position on the net censorship is that it would be ideal if some form or other of bringing online content into line with Australian censorship laws and ratings is possible. Conroy’s technology, however, is a Trojan Horse of the first order. My reasons for wanting RC material subject to blocking is that it appears to me that the impact of exposure of young people (children) to such material, that is to say, exposure to material that would be RC in Australia if it were proposed to sell or distribute it via normal channels, is potentially deforming to their psycho-sexual development. And it sure isn’t hard for kids to locate really grim visual material.
This argument hasn’t yet been had. The point, made especially well by Hamilton, is generally ignored by sections of the cultural left.
Moreover, while the argument that it is a parental responsibility to impose filtering at the household level is sound in many ways it ignores the significant number of households where such matters are not a concern at all because the parents lack the care, the cultural capital, the sobreity (all drugs) or the education to bother. That attitude translates as ‘to hell with your kids mate coz mine are alright’. So much for traditional left social conscience.
The EFA add itself: the fact that they drew on Akmal the comedian suggests that the target audience of the ad was who? Mature adults? Make me laugh why doncha?
My ongoing interest in the consequences of depoliticised pomo education is in illustrating the way that the absence of basic sociology, history and philsophy in undergrad education over the last 15 years and the dominance of cultural/contextual deconstructivism has created what appears to be an entire generation incapable of a sustained critical appraisal of things like power relations or of understanding Jean Curthoy’s argument about the centrality of liberation theory.
But I’ll keep trying even if it is to your annoyance.
The trouble with all the models I see for restricting unclassifiable material on the ‘net is that they continue to view the Internet as if it is a library or bookstore or a cinema or a TV/radio station where it should be easy to restrict access, select only approved content and monitor everyone’s activity. I can see why people want that to be true, but it just isn’t. Regimes which tightly controlled publication in the past always had an underground of political and pornographical content being privately printed off on dodgy old machines and passed around beyond the reach of the censors. The internet makes this underground dissemination even easier to spread and even harder to block – after all, the whole base architecture, which was designed for secure military communications before it was put to general and commercial use, is built with the fundamental capacity to route around obstacles and outages.
The Internet is every bookshelf and every CB radio and every printer and photocopier in the world, multiplied by at least a million, surrounding us as networks of electronic pulses which half the devices we use every day interact with in order to function. Just like nobody a century ago (or even now) could reasonably expect to monitor every piece of paper changing hands on the planet, nobody can reasonably expect to be able to monitor every packet of data passing between servers on the internet. It’s just not a reasonable goal.
It is certainly feasible for governments to facilitate and regulate simple, secure and monitored/filtered internet access for people who have only simple needs that they want the internet to meet. But such regulated/filtered access can never effectively operate as anything more than an opt-in. Any attempt to make it mandatory will not stop the flow of unregulated content any more than the censors of old stopped the dissemination of uncensored pamphlets and postcards, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
The trouble with all the models I see for restricting unclassifiable material on the ‘net is that they continue to view the Internet as if it is a library or bookstore or a cinema or a TV/radio station where it should be easy to restrict access, select only approved content and monitor everyone’s activity. I can see why people want that to be true, but it just isn’t. Regimes which tightly controlled publication in the past always had an underground of political and pornographical content being privately printed off on dodgy old machines and passed around beyond the reach of the censors. The internet makes this underground dissemination even easier to spread and even harder to block – after all, the whole base architecture, which was designed for secure military communications before it was put to general and commercial use, is built with the fundamental capacity to route around obstacles and outages.
The Internet is every bookshelf and every CB radio and every printer and photocopier in the world, multiplied by at least a million, surrounding us as networks of electronic pulses which half the devices we use every day interact with in order to function. Just like nobody a century ago (or even now) could reasonably expect to monitor every piece of paper changing hands on the planet, nobody can reasonably expect to be able to monitor every packet of data passing between servers on the internet. It’s just not a reasonable goal.
It is certainly feasible for governments to facilitate and regulate simple, secure and monitored/filtered internet access for people who have only simple needs that they want the internet to meet. But such regulated/filtered access can never effectively operate as anything more than an opt-in. Any attempt to make it mandatory will not stop the flow of unregulated content any more than the censors of old stopped the dissemination of uncensored pamphlets and postcards, and it is foolish to think otherwise.
tigtog – Even an opt-out system would be better than the current proposal (even though I’d prefer opt-in). For example my ISP by default blocks outgoing mail connections to anywhere but their mailservers as well as standard windows file serving ports. That works reasonably well in reducing the amount of spam and virus propagation. But its also very easy to opt-out through an account setting, and children would not be able to do so without having the password for their parent’s ISP account.
tigtog – Even an opt-out system would be better than the current proposal (even though I’d prefer opt-in). For example my ISP by default blocks outgoing mail connections to anywhere but their mailservers as well as standard windows file serving ports. That works reasonably well in reducing the amount of spam and virus propagation. But its also very easy to opt-out through an account setting, and children would not be able to do so without having the password for their parent’s ISP account.
tigtog: much of what you say is true but at the moment what we have is equivalent to an open air display containg everything from the best to the worst and most gruesome. Saying that it is beyond social control is giving up. That leaves the door open for Conroy. But I think we’ve been here before.
tigtog: much of what you say is true but at the moment what we have is equivalent to an open air display containg everything from the best to the worst and most gruesome. Saying that it is beyond social control is giving up. That leaves the door open for Conroy. But I think we’ve been here before.
Scepticlawyer, 135, will be pleased to discover that according to one explanation, (an)Iorarua is actually an Irish red squirrel, the only mammal of its type found in Ireland.
Scepticlawyer, 135, will be pleased to discover that according to one explanation, (an)Iorarua is actually an Irish red squirrel, the only mammal of its type found in Ireland.
Anthony, you seem to have borrowed Fred Nile’s smut-coloured glasses – I just don’t see this stuff as I go around the web. I know that it’s around if I wanted to look for it, but it simply is *not* right there in front of me every time I fire up my browser.
Anyway, there are ways that the govt can make filtered internet the most appealing option to people who just want to feel safe online while they sort out their email and log onto Facebook/Twitter, read a few online news sites and blogs, do a bit of wiki-walking, maybe play a few of the simpler online games. It requires subsidising ISPs who offer a discounted net-nannied feed to those who want such simple access. This would cost much less than any proposed mandatory filter scheme.
The rest of the population who want to do more serious crunching online, for many purposes which are by no means all about pr*n, or who want to have total control over our own filters, can pay a bit extra for the unsubsidised no-net-nanny feed.
Anthony, you seem to have borrowed Fred Nile’s smut-coloured glasses – I just don’t see this stuff as I go around the web. I know that it’s around if I wanted to look for it, but it simply is *not* right there in front of me every time I fire up my browser.
Anyway, there are ways that the govt can make filtered internet the most appealing option to people who just want to feel safe online while they sort out their email and log onto Facebook/Twitter, read a few online news sites and blogs, do a bit of wiki-walking, maybe play a few of the simpler online games. It requires subsidising ISPs who offer a discounted net-nannied feed to those who want such simple access. This would cost much less than any proposed mandatory filter scheme.
The rest of the population who want to do more serious crunching online, for many purposes which are by no means all about pr*n, or who want to have total control over our own filters, can pay a bit extra for the unsubsidised no-net-nanny feed.
“Metaphors often hide more than they reveal. They can be deadly wrong which is why whenever someone uses metaphors it is best and reasonable to request that they unpack them.”
Anthony in your sentences there, ‘unpack’ is a metaphor.
The nonsense quotient has really taken off in this thread since its resurrection. Good work everybody.
“Metaphors often hide more than they reveal. They can be deadly wrong which is why whenever someone uses metaphors it is best and reasonable to request that they unpack them.”
Anthony in your sentences there, ‘unpack’ is a metaphor.
The nonsense quotient has really taken off in this thread since its resurrection. Good work everybody.
tigtog: I’m employed in an area where the subject matter is relevant.
Laura: ‘unpack’ is a meatphor but unlike ‘moral totalitarianism’ it is readily understood by most people.
I’ll leave you to defending the EFA and its advertisement but suggest that doing so looks as amusing as Jim Broadbent’s destruction (as Zidler) of ‘Like a Virgin’ in ‘Moulin Rouge’. Very plausible.
tigtog: I’m employed in an area where the subject matter is relevant.
Laura: ‘unpack’ is a meatphor but unlike ‘moral totalitarianism’ it is readily understood by most people.
I’ll leave you to defending the EFA and its advertisement but suggest that doing so looks as amusing as Jim Broadbent’s destruction (as Zidler) of ‘Like a Virgin’ in ‘Moulin Rouge’. Very plausible.
anthony: your response doesn’t address the second part of my post about using a carrot rather than a stick as the social control you seek for restricted classification material on the internet (obviously we continue to prosecute as we already do those who are the producers/purveyors of illegal content). Subsidise net-nannied feeds so that they are the cheapest plan you can have at any ISP. Watch their popularity rise with families on a tight budget.
Adults in the family who want unrestricted net access might find that it makes better economic sense for them to have their own personal mobile broadband key just for their own lap-top. I also foresee an immediate rise in popularity of XXX-access internet cafes, but these can be regulated much like “adult” shops are already – no minors allowed on the premises for starters.
anthony: your response doesn’t address the second part of my post about using a carrot rather than a stick as the social control you seek for restricted classification material on the internet (obviously we continue to prosecute as we already do those who are the producers/purveyors of illegal content). Subsidise net-nannied feeds so that they are the cheapest plan you can have at any ISP. Watch their popularity rise with families on a tight budget.
Adults in the family who want unrestricted net access might find that it makes better economic sense for them to have their own personal mobile broadband key just for their own lap-top. I also foresee an immediate rise in popularity of XXX-access internet cafes, but these can be regulated much like “adult” shops are already – no minors allowed on the premises for starters.
skepticlawyer@135:
Well … yes and no. I think I’ve been taken out of context. Immediately after my quote you wrote:
‘To the extent that feminism engages in attempts to enact moral law rather than liberate women, this tendency needs to be exposed and undermined.’
So I am assuming that you believe I endorse this view. However, in my quote, I clearly made a distinction between ‘conservative women’s advocates’ and ‘left-wing liberal feminists’. Sloppy stereotyping, I know … but there are important differences between the two.
Both groups routinely raise concerns and criticisms on pornography and society’s objectification of women. However, they differ in their approach. The former group is more inclined towards moral rhetoric and legislative fixes to the problem, whereas the latter is NOT. It doesn’t help to lump them into the same boat.
It’s also unhelpful to conflate wider moral concerns about pornography with concerns from feminists and women’s advocates about female cultural objectification. Although both creative enterprises exploit women as the ‘sex class’, they are fundamentally different issues. Pornography is a private market that individuals choose to access, whereas the public objectification of women is a ubiquitous form of cultural messaging that people from all walks of life are exposed to on an everyday basis.
Because of its private nature, I don’t believe in legal restrictions to pornography – on the internet or otherwise. But, unlike most left-wing feminism, I strongly believe in introducing some form of legal regulation against the objectification of women in the public domain.
And PS, as Paul pointed out above, ‘iorarua’ is not Kiwi – and neither am I. It’s Gaelic for ‘red squirrel’.
skepticlawyer@135:
Well … yes and no. I think I’ve been taken out of context. Immediately after my quote you wrote:
‘To the extent that feminism engages in attempts to enact moral law rather than liberate women, this tendency needs to be exposed and undermined.’
So I am assuming that you believe I endorse this view. However, in my quote, I clearly made a distinction between ‘conservative women’s advocates’ and ‘left-wing liberal feminists’. Sloppy stereotyping, I know … but there are important differences between the two.
Both groups routinely raise concerns and criticisms on pornography and society’s objectification of women. However, they differ in their approach. The former group is more inclined towards moral rhetoric and legislative fixes to the problem, whereas the latter is NOT. It doesn’t help to lump them into the same boat.
It’s also unhelpful to conflate wider moral concerns about pornography with concerns from feminists and women’s advocates about female cultural objectification. Although both creative enterprises exploit women as the ‘sex class’, they are fundamentally different issues. Pornography is a private market that individuals choose to access, whereas the public objectification of women is a ubiquitous form of cultural messaging that people from all walks of life are exposed to on an everyday basis.
Because of its private nature, I don’t believe in legal restrictions to pornography – on the internet or otherwise. But, unlike most left-wing feminism, I strongly believe in introducing some form of legal regulation against the objectification of women in the public domain.
And PS, as Paul pointed out above, ‘iorarua’ is not Kiwi – and neither am I. It’s Gaelic for ‘red squirrel’.
Was just thinking about this thread whilst reading Robert Merkel’s latest on maternal mortality in the third world. It’s still a problem because the West still can’t evolve to a mentality that regards the unpleasant deaths of nearly half a million poor women due to untreated foul ups and complications involving birth as a situation deserving of genuione concern and action.
Iorarua’s explanation leeaves things clear to get back to what Anna Winter might have been getting at: the sheer sophistication of an advertising industry still captive of the adolescent mentality of late capitalism, yet with the wealth and power to access up to date behavioural science in the service of maintaining that mentality that regards consumer durables,”entertainment” and keeping up with the Jones as more important than the suffering of the third world billions. The mentality is itself, of course, unreflexive and not decentred, and the old system is indeed reified back down through continuing facilitation of acquisitiveness, aggression and power rather than something that revalues interpersonal relations, freedom and creativity.
What bothers feminists, of course, is that patriarchal capitalism replicates and entrenches a skewed social system within an obsolete mode of production (vice versa?) and the individuations, behaviours etc, hence also replicated, which guarantee the continuance of suffering as the price paid by the poor for the self indulgences of the unthinking, un-conscious bourgeoisie. It is well-able, as ever, also to coopt intelligent women and thiose fromother subaltern groups, into its service since the alternative is powerlessness before the system.
“The system” is not a result of conspiracy, rather it is an evolved system that provided the conditions under which we cpuld survive till this time in history and ourselves hopefully evolve to something better.. Am not meaning to sound overly deterministic, but one wonders what must happen before humanity can get beyond this current imperfect state, because when one thinks about it, the death of a adolescent girl, married off too young, say in Ethiopia, and unable to physically cope with pregnancy and birth and therefore consigned to a slow painful death, ought to mean more to civilised people than seems to be the case currently.
Was just thinking about this thread whilst reading Robert Merkel’s latest on maternal mortality in the third world. It’s still a problem because the West still can’t evolve to a mentality that regards the unpleasant deaths of nearly half a million poor women due to untreated foul ups and complications involving birth as a situation deserving of genuione concern and action.
Iorarua’s explanation leeaves things clear to get back to what Anna Winter might have been getting at: the sheer sophistication of an advertising industry still captive of the adolescent mentality of late capitalism, yet with the wealth and power to access up to date behavioural science in the service of maintaining that mentality that regards consumer durables,”entertainment” and keeping up with the Jones as more important than the suffering of the third world billions. The mentality is itself, of course, unreflexive and not decentred, and the old system is indeed reified back down through continuing facilitation of acquisitiveness, aggression and power rather than something that revalues interpersonal relations, freedom and creativity.
What bothers feminists, of course, is that patriarchal capitalism replicates and entrenches a skewed social system within an obsolete mode of production (vice versa?) and the individuations, behaviours etc, hence also replicated, which guarantee the continuance of suffering as the price paid by the poor for the self indulgences of the unthinking, un-conscious bourgeoisie. It is well-able, as ever, also to coopt intelligent women and thiose fromother subaltern groups, into its service since the alternative is powerlessness before the system.
“The system” is not a result of conspiracy, rather it is an evolved system that provided the conditions under which we cpuld survive till this time in history and ourselves hopefully evolve to something better.. Am not meaning to sound overly deterministic, but one wonders what must happen before humanity can get beyond this current imperfect state, because when one thinks about it, the death of a adolescent girl, married off too young, say in Ethiopia, and unable to physically cope with pregnancy and birth and therefore consigned to a slow painful death, ought to mean more to civilised people than seems to be the case currently.
“Because of its private nature, I don’t believe in legal restrictions to pornography – on the internet or otherwise”
But has it been private because of being illegal? Would it be OK if your local newsagent started displaying a shelf of …..
“Because of its private nature, I don’t believe in legal restrictions to pornography – on the internet or otherwise”
But has it been private because of being illegal? Would it be OK if your local newsagent started displaying a shelf of …..
It’s not illegal Russell. Local newsagents do sell it.
It’s not illegal Russell. Local newsagents do sell it.
No wonder the world’s in such a state! Since I haven’t looked, but you apparently have, what level of stuff are we talking about? The worst is available in newsagents?
No wonder the world’s in such a state! Since I haven’t looked, but you apparently have, what level of stuff are we talking about? The worst is available in newsagents?
So, when I was young, Playboy was sold in newsagents from under the counter. It was considered by many to be porn, but then newer publications pushed the boundary a bit further, and a bit further (Hustler?) so that Playboy became, by comparison, merely amusing, and migrated to the open shelves. I suppose the legal boundary will always be pushed, but if you make all porn legal, won’t the slide accelerate?
So, when I was young, Playboy was sold in newsagents from under the counter. It was considered by many to be porn, but then newer publications pushed the boundary a bit further, and a bit further (Hustler?) so that Playboy became, by comparison, merely amusing, and migrated to the open shelves. I suppose the legal boundary will always be pushed, but if you make all porn legal, won’t the slide accelerate?
Anna’s comment brings us back to what Anthony Nolan was trying to get at; what is the nature of porn. Dworkin some time ago brought to light the reality that much of the porn industry is predicated on the suffering and personal demolition of those paid or conscripted into taking part. Human sexuality is a reality; to what extent is it twisted, if at all by, not just the pron industry which is only an expression of a wider cultural system itself just out of the dark ages, but within this system that itself prepares the way for a pron culture that reasserts the “naturalness” of the injustice of the system as a whole, through its prior individuation of the young, that makes them as amenable to persuasion and manipulation from outsiders who pray on society, as previous generations.
Maybe it’s all down to the Human Condition, “civilisation” is just a manifestation or expression of our collective and individual limitations. It is normal that some will seek recourse to porn or drugs or self righteousness, or whatever, and equally naturally, people with a different sensibility will rise up to protest the consequences.
But how long will it take for humanity to humanise humanity and how can this be acheived?
If the process is up and running, do we take disagreements such as those that have arisen in the thread, as themselves symptoms of a process and resolvable through the hard work of communication, given prior agreement from most, that something tangible has to be dealt within the first place.
For my part am not interested in porn, although am as susceptible to erotica as the next bloke. Porn is just an example of how slowly and incompletely we have evolved relative to peoples efforts to cope with their own sexuality- we are still exploiting rather than educating and facilitating.
Sorry for being long winded, but am realising I haven’t the answers either and am using the thread as much to workout a new approach for myself in response to these questions, as to influence anyone else. Most of above will appear as a meditation with resulting questions, so I will risk ridicule if any response helps me understand better.
Anna’s comment brings us back to what Anthony Nolan was trying to get at; what is the nature of porn. Dworkin some time ago brought to light the reality that much of the porn industry is predicated on the suffering and personal demolition of those paid or conscripted into taking part. Human sexuality is a reality; to what extent is it twisted, if at all by, not just the pron industry which is only an expression of a wider cultural system itself just out of the dark ages, but within this system that itself prepares the way for a pron culture that reasserts the “naturalness” of the injustice of the system as a whole, through its prior individuation of the young, that makes them as amenable to persuasion and manipulation from outsiders who pray on society, as previous generations.
Maybe it’s all down to the Human Condition, “civilisation” is just a manifestation or expression of our collective and individual limitations. It is normal that some will seek recourse to porn or drugs or self righteousness, or whatever, and equally naturally, people with a different sensibility will rise up to protest the consequences.
But how long will it take for humanity to humanise humanity and how can this be acheived?
If the process is up and running, do we take disagreements such as those that have arisen in the thread, as themselves symptoms of a process and resolvable through the hard work of communication, given prior agreement from most, that something tangible has to be dealt within the first place.
For my part am not interested in porn, although am as susceptible to erotica as the next bloke. Porn is just an example of how slowly and incompletely we have evolved relative to peoples efforts to cope with their own sexuality- we are still exploiting rather than educating and facilitating.
Sorry for being long winded, but am realising I haven’t the answers either and am using the thread as much to workout a new approach for myself in response to these questions, as to influence anyone else. Most of above will appear as a meditation with resulting questions, so I will risk ridicule if any response helps me understand better.
Comment 162 is really asking the question; pornography as a form of entertainment whereby the entertainment is predicated upon the pain and destruction of those taking part; what’s the mentality?
How is it that (largely) men can become so pessimistic and full of self loathing that porn becomes the “spoils of defeat”, the one guilty compensation left for the Damned?
The( psychic as much as physical) violence is less in evidence with erotica, where the subjects, themselves free of the worst violence, participate more freely and are paid fairly for their efforts. Porn perhaps can inevitably evolve from erotica, with the porn industry finding a need to find a primitive enough market developed from the public’s and individuals inability/processivity, in coming to terms with sexuality, that will pay for the material.
A mate, setting up my first computer a while back, had the consideration to put a “blue” site onboard, and my curiosty piqued, I checked it out.
I found myself disturbed at the stranger stuff; gangbanging, bestiality, kiddie and the like and utterly devoid of erotic content. I thought of my educators back at uni, many of whom were excellent, friendly women and have not been back to these sites- they have nothing to offer me but sadness and the notion of (mainly) kids from poorer offshore societies or locales within our own western society being destroyed from the inside out only depresses me.
Comment 162 is really asking the question; pornography as a form of entertainment whereby the entertainment is predicated upon the pain and destruction of those taking part; what’s the mentality?
How is it that (largely) men can become so pessimistic and full of self loathing that porn becomes the “spoils of defeat”, the one guilty compensation left for the Damned?
The( psychic as much as physical) violence is less in evidence with erotica, where the subjects, themselves free of the worst violence, participate more freely and are paid fairly for their efforts. Porn perhaps can inevitably evolve from erotica, with the porn industry finding a need to find a primitive enough market developed from the public’s and individuals inability/processivity, in coming to terms with sexuality, that will pay for the material.
A mate, setting up my first computer a while back, had the consideration to put a “blue” site onboard, and my curiosty piqued, I checked it out.
I found myself disturbed at the stranger stuff; gangbanging, bestiality, kiddie and the like and utterly devoid of erotic content. I thought of my educators back at uni, many of whom were excellent, friendly women and have not been back to these sites- they have nothing to offer me but sadness and the notion of (mainly) kids from poorer offshore societies or locales within our own western society being destroyed from the inside out only depresses me.
Paul Walter, you might be interested in a recent book by Nina Power, One-Dimensional Woman. She reaches many similar conclusions to you, and like you she is quite clear that ‘feminism’ is deeply problematic when capitalism (and the logic of ‘choice’ and what she calls the ‘feminisation of labour’)) isn’t explicitly understood as the main part of the problem. She is also very interesting about pornography, burquas, Sarah Palin, the previous US government’s role in withholding safe aborion from women in the developing world, and many other recent topics of discussion on LP.
Paul Walter, you might be interested in a recent book by Nina Power, One-Dimensional Woman. She reaches many similar conclusions to you, and like you she is quite clear that ‘feminism’ is deeply problematic when capitalism (and the logic of ‘choice’ and what she calls the ‘feminisation of labour’)) isn’t explicitly understood as the main part of the problem. She is also very interesting about pornography, burquas, Sarah Palin, the previous US government’s role in withholding safe aborion from women in the developing world, and many other recent topics of discussion on LP.
If I’m understanding your point, Russell, I think the newsagency question demonstrates the anti-filter argument quite well – where the most explicit covers are blocked from the view of the general public, while not being made illegal to grown adults. Simple, straighforward steps are taken to prevent children and unwilling adults from viewing it (usually a piece of cardboard placed in front of them), that don’t make it harder for everyone to walk around in the shop.
In the same way, people can use a range of options – from opt-in filters to simply not visiting pr0n sites, depending on one’s age – rather than allowing the government to filter the entire internet for us and slow things down in the process.
If I’m understanding your point, Russell, I think the newsagency question demonstrates the anti-filter argument quite well – where the most explicit covers are blocked from the view of the general public, while not being made illegal to grown adults. Simple, straighforward steps are taken to prevent children and unwilling adults from viewing it (usually a piece of cardboard placed in front of them), that don’t make it harder for everyone to walk around in the shop.
In the same way, people can use a range of options – from opt-in filters to simply not visiting pr0n sites, depending on one’s age – rather than allowing the government to filter the entire internet for us and slow things down in the process.
Thank you for the tip, Laura.
Like Socrates am now happy to admit I “know b-all”, and welcome any help, let alone that which a better educated and more intelligent Diotima may choose to proffer, in the quest for answers to these issues.
Thank you for the tip, Laura.
Like Socrates am now happy to admit I “know b-all”, and welcome any help, let alone that which a better educated and more intelligent Diotima may choose to proffer, in the quest for answers to these issues.
I don’t think we have any of that going on in my respectable local newsagent, but I’ll have a look for any suspicious cardboard covers …
But I also don’t want to derail your post – I’m reminded of the huge anti Vietnam war demonstrations, what a coalition they were. In one of them I was walking beside an elderly blue-rinsed lady, immaculately dressed with matching hat and parasol, and we struck up a very interesting conversation – she had been a concert pianist in earlier days.
Now if she had advertised some of her other beliefs (perhaps anti-abortion) with a lapel badge, and I had advertised some of mine with slogans on my t-shirt, we may have chosen to not start a conversation. If everyone in the crowd had displayed their other opinions the demonstration probably would have descended into fights, instead of the glorious feeling of solidarity against the war, across such a wide section of the community. There’s a lot we might miss if we insist on unanimity before we listen and start a conversation. Sometimes it’s best to avoid topics that divide us.
I don’t think we have any of that going on in my respectable local newsagent, but I’ll have a look for any suspicious cardboard covers …
But I also don’t want to derail your post – I’m reminded of the huge anti Vietnam war demonstrations, what a coalition they were. In one of them I was walking beside an elderly blue-rinsed lady, immaculately dressed with matching hat and parasol, and we struck up a very interesting conversation – she had been a concert pianist in earlier days.
Now if she had advertised some of her other beliefs (perhaps anti-abortion) with a lapel badge, and I had advertised some of mine with slogans on my t-shirt, we may have chosen to not start a conversation. If everyone in the crowd had displayed their other opinions the demonstration probably would have descended into fights, instead of the glorious feeling of solidarity against the war, across such a wide section of the community. There’s a lot we might miss if we insist on unanimity before we listen and start a conversation. Sometimes it’s best to avoid topics that divide us.
paul walter
Ah, Socrates & Diotima
*sigh*
paul walter
Ah, Socrates & Diotima
*sigh*
“Porn and air travellers”:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/05/23/porn-and-air-travellers/
I don’t fly so wasn’t aware this was coming in until I read this. When is this OTT nanny state censorship going to end? The way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if adult book stores are next on the hit list, I mean they only encourage depravity right?
“Porn and air travellers”:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2010/05/23/porn-and-air-travellers/
I don’t fly so wasn’t aware this was coming in until I read this. When is this OTT nanny state censorship going to end? The way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised if adult book stores are next on the hit list, I mean they only encourage depravity right?
Quite right. And I’m sure I have many good conversations with white middle class men without becoming aware that they think mothers are simple creatures whose only pastimes are gossiping to the hairdresser and watching daytime TV (which in case people have forgotten was the theme of the ad under discussion). Doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to criticise that way of thinking when it does appear.
I frequently hear complaints from men in the media talking about programs and ads which portray men as idiots. This is ususally supported by feminists who agree that just because it’s done to us, doesn’t make it OK to do it to them. And again, I don’t believe these things are “little”. They’re basic. I notice there’s always time for discussions about rugby and AFL; these aren’t seen as distracting time and energy away from the leftist cause.
Quite right. And I’m sure I have many good conversations with white middle class men without becoming aware that they think mothers are simple creatures whose only pastimes are gossiping to the hairdresser and watching daytime TV (which in case people have forgotten was the theme of the ad under discussion). Doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to criticise that way of thinking when it does appear.
I frequently hear complaints from men in the media talking about programs and ads which portray men as idiots. This is ususally supported by feminists who agree that just because it’s done to us, doesn’t make it OK to do it to them. And again, I don’t believe these things are “little”. They’re basic. I notice there’s always time for discussions about rugby and AFL; these aren’t seen as distracting time and energy away from the leftist cause.
Anna:
“Anthony, you seem to have borrowed Fred Nile’s smut-coloured glasses – I just don’t see this stuff as I go around the web. I know that it’s around if I wanted to look for it, but it simply is *not* right there in front of me every time I fire up my browser.”
Well it can be and it would be better if you were acquainted with the material rather than basing your opinions on a Snow White like inability to see what is in front of you. My sophisticated and intelligent 15 year old son brought the following site to my attention just last week. If you google ‘newsfilter p*rn’ and hit the searched links you’ll find a site that provides an ‘interesting’ mix of crude pr*n and violence against women and men.
Some people have the cultural capital to look critically at this sort of stuff and it does no harm. Others are neurologically wired by pre-existing trauma in such a way that they wanna do it just like they see it. Having easy access to this sort of material is tantamount to leaving loaded revolvers lying around in a kindergarten. Accidents are gonna happen.
Anna:
“Anthony, you seem to have borrowed Fred Nile’s smut-coloured glasses – I just don’t see this stuff as I go around the web. I know that it’s around if I wanted to look for it, but it simply is *not* right there in front of me every time I fire up my browser.”
Well it can be and it would be better if you were acquainted with the material rather than basing your opinions on a Snow White like inability to see what is in front of you. My sophisticated and intelligent 15 year old son brought the following site to my attention just last week. If you google ‘newsfilter p*rn’ and hit the searched links you’ll find a site that provides an ‘interesting’ mix of crude pr*n and violence against women and men.
Some people have the cultural capital to look critically at this sort of stuff and it does no harm. Others are neurologically wired by pre-existing trauma in such a way that they wanna do it just like they see it. Having easy access to this sort of material is tantamount to leaving loaded revolvers lying around in a kindergarten. Accidents are gonna happen.
http://xkcd.com/751/
http://xkcd.com/751/
Sorry, the comment of mine @174 should have been addressed to tigtog @155 rather than anna.
Sorry, the comment of mine @174 should have been addressed to tigtog @155 rather than anna.
Yes Anthony, if you google p*rn you will find websites featuring it.
Yes Anthony, if you google p*rn you will find websites featuring it.
Yeah that’s pretty much what Google does.
Tell you what, get your 15 year-old to google up “TM-31-210″. You’ll be the coolest parent ever.
Yeah that’s pretty much what Google does.
Tell you what, get your 15 year-old to google up “TM-31-210″. You’ll be the coolest parent ever.
As FDB and Liam say, if you google something you will find it. Wow, what a revelation.
I’m also not unacquainted with the material – I’ve done my feminist research on porn both on and offline in the past. But unless I go looking for it I don’t just see it in front of me, so your analogy of an open-air market stall that people are just strolling by and seeing this stuff willy nilly is simply wrong.
As FDB and Liam say, if you google something you will find it. Wow, what a revelation.
I’m also not unacquainted with the material – I’ve done my feminist research on porn both on and offline in the past. But unless I go looking for it I don’t just see it in front of me, so your analogy of an open-air market stall that people are just strolling by and seeing this stuff willy nilly is simply wrong.
Still avoiding the point I see which is that the inquisitiveness of the young is rewarded with this sort of site where graphic sexual images are interspersed with graphic images of violence against women. For the psychologically vulnerable, once seen not forgotten I’ll wager. But hey, that’s the price of freedom of communication isn’t it?
Still avoiding the point I see which is that the inquisitiveness of the young is rewarded with this sort of site where graphic sexual images are interspersed with graphic images of violence against women. For the psychologically vulnerable, once seen not forgotten I’ll wager. But hey, that’s the price of freedom of communication isn’t it?
You’re outlining a very good argument for households and other places where young people have internet access to be supported by the government in easily accessing an affordable filtering solution (such as schools and libraries already have). I have already said that I fully support the government offering a carrot solution that makes a subsidised filtered feed* the easiest and cheapest form of net access for those who don’t know how to or can’t be bothered to set up their own filters.
I’m never going to see the benefits of a stick solution here. Prohibition has never worked, and it won’t work this time either.
*the subsidised filtered feed will still be abled to be bypassed by the sufficiently motivated – there’s no way to block it entirely
You’re outlining a very good argument for households and other places where young people have internet access to be supported by the government in easily accessing an affordable filtering solution (such as schools and libraries already have). I have already said that I fully support the government offering a carrot solution that makes a subsidised filtered feed* the easiest and cheapest form of net access for those who don’t know how to or can’t be bothered to set up their own filters.
I’m never going to see the benefits of a stick solution here. Prohibition has never worked, and it won’t work this time either.
*the subsidised filtered feed will still be abled to be bypassed by the sufficiently motivated – there’s no way to block it entirely
Actually Helen, Russell’s point, which you agreed with? Was one of the points I made in the post. It’s nice that you can make a fair reading of it when a bloke says it.
Actually Helen, Russell’s point, which you agreed with? Was one of the points I made in the post. It’s nice that you can make a fair reading of it when a bloke says it.
t-t: a govt subsidised filtered feed? Yeah, ok. That’s a campaign goer I reckon. The assumption being that households with sufficient $ to buy non-subsidised access may have the capacity to put in place either individual filters or are able to sustain personal regulation of web use. Imperfect but far better than Conroy’s block.
t-t: a govt subsidised filtered feed? Yeah, ok. That’s a campaign goer I reckon. The assumption being that households with sufficient $ to buy non-subsidised access may have the capacity to put in place either individual filters or are able to sustain personal regulation of web use. Imperfect but far better than Conroy’s block.
Anna@182: No, read my comment again: “Doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to criticise that way of thinking when it does appear.” It appeared. I called it. Just as Russell might have done at the riot if she’d expressed certain ideas. Or like most of us, most of the time, just gritted his teeth and carried on. Various people, not just you, said I was wrong to call it. I disagree. That’s just how it stands.
Anna@182: No, read my comment again: “Doesn’t mean I don’t have the right to criticise that way of thinking when it does appear.” It appeared. I called it. Just as Russell might have done at the riot if she’d expressed certain ideas. Or like most of us, most of the time, just gritted his teeth and carried on. Various people, not just you, said I was wrong to call it. I disagree. That’s just how it stands.
Except that I never said you were wrong to call it, and when asked in the thread if I was saying that feminists were wrong to call it, I said no, I was not arguing that. And rather than reading my words, and respecting my clarification that that isn’t what I meant, you ignored it in favour of arguing against an opinion I don’t hold and denied holding.
I don’t care if you disagree with my actual argument, but I do care very much that you continue to put words in my mouth despite my telling you that you are wrong about what I think.
Except that I never said you were wrong to call it, and when asked in the thread if I was saying that feminists were wrong to call it, I said no, I was not arguing that. And rather than reading my words, and respecting my clarification that that isn’t what I meant, you ignored it in favour of arguing against an opinion I don’t hold and denied holding.
I don’t care if you disagree with my actual argument, but I do care very much that you continue to put words in my mouth despite my telling you that you are wrong about what I think.
” as Russell might have done at the riot ….”
Helen, if nothing else I have always been respectable, and certainly not to be found at the scene of any riot!
” as Russell might have done at the riot ….”
Helen, if nothing else I have always been respectable, and certainly not to be found at the scene of any riot!
Jokey slang for a Demo, Russell but more of a UK thing.
Jokey slang for a Demo, Russell but more of a UK thing.
I did think they were out of line in this instance
I did think they were out of line in this instance