Tag: media

Oprah: At Least 6 Years Late On Domestic Violence

/ Alessia / 5 Comments

The August 2009 issue of O, The Oprah Magazine, has a feature story (beginning on page 154, after the book reviews?!) on how the laws against domestic violence aren’t enforced. The piece, titled “Why Didn’t They Stop Him?” (by Phoebe Zerwick, photographs by Mary Ellen Mark) is an excellent one — and long overdue.

Not only did I pitch this story roughly 6 years ago to Oprah, but the horrible especially because it’s true story of the ordeal of Vernetta Cockerham which resulted in her daughter’s murder is really only half the story.

Every time I start to blog about Oprah and her ignorant stance on domestic violence (she thinks it’s as simple as leaving), I get so infuriated I have to quit; I have 7 posts in draft to prove it. And this one will be short so that I can finally get to posting something without getting so outraged or ill that I cannot continue.

For the past 6 years I’ve contacted Oprah by every means I could find: via her website’s online form, via email, via phone messages at Harpo, and even spoke directly to producers of the show — who told me the half-dozen books and another half-dozen studies on the subject weren’t enough; call back when I published my own book.

Grrr — I’m in the middle of a battle for my own safety & that of my children; the book, and 1 million other things, will have to wait.

Wait for the day someone wants to open their minds to the realities — before another woman &/or her child(ren) dies.

Yes, Oprah, I told you about the Massachusetts study in 2000 which said that as many as 60-80% of restraining orders are not enforced; and I have the personal experiences to prove it. Running from my abuser kinda kept me a bit too busy to write that book.

Yes, I told your staff about the U.S. Department of Justice study that same year which said that arrests were only made in:

47% of the cases in which the victim reported being raped

36% of the cases in which the victim reported being assaulted

29% of the cases in which the victim reported being stalked.

I especially went into great detail about what happens when children are involved in domestic violence cases.

And I emphatically stated how all of this not only results in victims having a loss of faith in the system, how it not only results in keeping victims with their abusers, but how it is further abuse of victims by the system & how it impacts the children involved.

I even offered to put myself at further risk by going on-air to discuss this.

So, while I applaud you for finally getting to the truth of some of the matters involved in domestic violence, Oprah, I wonder why it took you so long? Especially when you had 6 years of my nagging.

I wonder how much longer it will take for you to heed my voice and take up the other issues I have brought to your attention?

And I wonder how many more women & children will suffer & die during that time.

But I guess death just sells more that saving lives, doesn’t it; don’t worry, continue to ignore us, and you’ll have more deaths to put on the cover of your publications.

Oprah, and staff, be prepared for more calls & emails from me.

Sensationalized Sexist TV That’s Mean To Men?

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Have you seen these screaming headlines yet:

Is your boyfriend/husband HAIRY and you are sick of it?? Now Casting

and

America’s Uggliest Husband — Is he yours?

Can you imagine if we saw headlines & programs dedicated to calling women ugly? If we saw casting calls announcing how husbands who were sick of their wives looks could get help — as if it were acceptable?

The media would have a field day, bringing on expert after expert to discuss female body image pressures & concerns & how this sort of valuing females for their looks was abusive. But do it about men? Oh, that’s fine.

Not.

Even if women are taught to be more (self) conscious about their appearance and so are (often) more obsessed with make-overs etc., even if these shows are aimed at a (materialistic  & superficial) female audience who wants to see men transformed back to some snazzier (more romantic novel looking) version of themselves, these sorts of shows are just plain mean.

Double-standards flipped back to bite the sexist stereotypical hand that feeds them BS are not what equality & respect are about.  Physical makeovers and unrealistic romantic notions are not the stuff that gets you through a healthy, longterm relationship. And dragging your mate in for a show which wants to make him less hairy because “you are sick of it” or pronounces him “ugliest” is a sure way to run your relationship off of a cliff.

If you’re really considering such a thing as being on such a TV show, just ask for a divorce, you shameless bitch.  Don’t prolong the guy’s agony, don’t encourage shows like this — and don’t let me hear about it. I have rolled-up newspaper; will travel.

Dating Fear Mongering, Single Mom Edition

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

Once again, supposed experts shoot their mouths off, using salacious headlines and fear to label & manipulate women; this time the horrible deeds are being done by Robert Siciliano at Single Minded Women.

In the article, Siciliano paints single mothers as easy prey for sexual predators:

…the one under-discussed, over looked and “it can’t happen to me” aspect of being on the dating scene is your personal security, and that of your children. In fact, online dating is one way pedophiles find their next victims (through unsuspecting single mothers looking for love and perhaps a male role model for their children).

While the supposed security expert infuriates me with his depiction of single moms as so eager for love that they’d sacrifice their own children, it’s only going to get worse:

As the saying goes, “water seeks its own level” which means unhealthy, insecure people seek each other out; this often leads to destructive relationships. But what’s worse is insecure people often seek out destructive, unhealthy and sometimes violent people. We’ve all read the story, the single woman or single mom who couldn’t break the cycle of always settling for less, and winds up a statistic.

Healthy, conscious, right minded people don’t settle for less and can sense “bad” from a mile away. They are secure, and often are aware of their personal security as well. When something doesn’t look or seem right, they pay attention to their senses and get themselves out of what may become a dangerous situation. They cut their losses and chalk it up to a learning experience. Others get deeper into destruction.

There is a clear parallel here between what would be considered a healthy potential mate, and a predator that has nothing but bad intentions. The good guy actively pursues what he believes to be his heart and does things to romance his potential mate. The bad guy does the same thing but in the name of personal gain, manipulation and evil. Predators will target anyone who will give them their time and attention. Often a smooth talking good looking guy, who is a predator, may win over the attention of a healthy and conscious woman, but she will soon see there’s something wrong with the guy. Whereas an unhealthy woman who is unsure of her personal security will settle for less and in some cases put her and her children at risk. Sadly, sometimes loneliness trumps consciousness.

Sadly, sometimes it’s media-hungry experts who consciously prey upon the fears & insecurities of the humans they pretend to be helping.

The real “clear parallel” that Siciliano seems to be operating off of is his non-documented notion that single mothers are single parents because they are “unhealthy,” “insecure,” “destructive,” & therefore somehow more likely to put their children at risk.

Think I’m exaggerating? Here’s his first bit of helpful (and tainted) advice (page 2):

First make sure you have a healthy strong mind and your self esteem is in order. Read as many self help books as possible, go to weekend empowerment retreats, associate with friends that are goal oriented and have their life in order, shred any baggage you may have and most importantly, “know thyself”; which means to understand oneself is to understand others as well.

Like all self help books are full of sound advice. *snort* Like those with real (not author-imagined) mental health issues are able to trust their way to “health” through a book alone — or trust their friends (doesn’t that “water seeks its own level” business apply to friends too?)

The rest of his advice for dating safely online is fine; rather generic and based on the commonsense advice your friends give you (and not unlike what mom told you in the years before the internet & other tech gadgets), but his message gets lost in the fear-mongering & victim blaming.

If there is any connection (and I’ve not yet ready any study that indicates this) between single moms’ children being at risk from pedophiles and/or sexual predators, I’m willing to bet that this has less to do with the single mother’s poor self esteem than it does with access to the children.

Just as biological dad has access to his own kids, step-dad or mom’s boyfriend is there to watch the kids while she works, runs errands, etc. In both cases (as with uncles, other family members, clergy, etc.), these males are (eventually) trusted to be alone with the children; trust being something the criminal works hard to gain. It’s a matter of single mothers working, meaning a higher rate of absenteeism from home; not something necessarily borne of an “unhealthy” single mom putting her children at risk for the sake of her own loneliness.

Are some pedophiles using dating sites to target victims? Sure they are. Just like rapists are. But targeting victims isn’t new. Before the internet and dating sites, those willing to commit sex crimes against children were trolling parks, volunteering to coach or otherwise be with & supervise children, etc. looking for victims. (I they wanted adult female victims, they knew what they were looking for & did their best to find the situational windows to take advantage of.)

Like Celeste Moyers, the director of the Safer Online Dating Alliance, said two years ago (when Good Morning America covered this “story”), “If someone wants to do harm, that person will find a way to do it.”

“People are caught off guard,” she said. “Even the smartest savviest online dater can be a victim of sexual assault.”

So why is this fact buried in most of the coverage of this issue — and absent from Siciliano’s salacious story?

Because it’s preferred to blame the victim — and the victim’s mother — rather than to hold the victimizing, criminal pedophile responsible.

Shame on Robert Siciliano for playing up & preying on the fears of female single parents, for labeling them “unhealthy” for not being married, for blaming them for somehow increasing the potential victimization of their children.

We’re Sick, Sick, Sick Of Violence & Hatred Towards Women

/ Alessia / 3 Comments

The following was written by Tenured Radical after the May 2009 campus shooting at Wesleyan, but it sums up so much for me and others (some of which wonder if the US flag flies for women too) that I had to share it:

But can I say one thing? I am sad, but I am also angry. I am sick, sick, sick of men beating, brutalizing and killing women and children, of boys brutalizing their girlfriends, of fathers raping and killing their wives and daughters. All these years after second wave feminists first raised this as a fundamental problem in our culture during the 1970s, the media, the police and our judicial system still treats each of these things like an isolated incident of individual pathology. And there seems to be no organized feminist movement left to insist, in contradiction to this vapid construction, that the hatred of women by men is a systemic cultural and political problem in the United States. I am sick of men who think they acquire ownership rights to women because they fall in “love” with them, men who think that “love” entitles them to do whatever the hell they please to keep women under their control so they can “love” them even more. I am tired right now and have nothing eloquent or intelligent to say on the topic, but if this short rant feeds your feminist outrage too, go to this post by Historiann about the Loyola University tragedy, where Daddy decided that his life wasn’t worth living and then imagined that the rest of the family would be better off dead too, a not uncommon scenario. I end with a quote from Historiann’s post:

Just curious: how many women and children (especially girl children, as in this case–2 women and one girl were the victims here) have to die before someone notices? One woman is accused of a child murder out in California, and that’s all we hear about all day long. But husbands apparently have carte blanche when it comes to murdering the women and girls who lived in their homes?

What’s your guess, friends? (Are you holding your breath?) If 2,100 women and children are killed simultaneously on live television by their male partners and fathers, even if it’s not by jetliners crashing into buildings, do you think anyone will notice then?

Twitter Of 1950

/ Deanna / Leave a comment

Quick, a vintage news weekly magazine, promoted itself on page 65 of the July 31, 1950 issue, with quotes from readers (along with a subscription form, should you so be moved), which illustrate that the “quick” news blurbs and short “frequent,” “accurate,” and “up-to-the-minute” information was “invaluable” to professionals, such as John L. Gary, Superintendent of Schools, La Center, Washington, and Margaret Webster, “distinguished Shakespearean director.”

quick-mag-promoting-itself-july-31-1950

Then people were thrilled to receive “digests” of “what is going on in the world,” to have “short-cuts” assisting them, helping them save time in a rapidly moving world — just as those of us who use Twitter do now. Well, at least that what Quick wanted you to think so you’d be moved to clip that subscription form and send it in.

I had just scanned the page from Quick magazine so that I could make the pithy comparison and add this 1950’s update to your history of Twitter (see also: Robot Messenger Displays Person-to-Person Notes In Public, Aug, 1935), when what do you suppose happened?

Just a few days later, presumably after finding & reading my article about the vintage publication, Clyde Hostetter, Professor Emeritus at California Polytechnic State University, emailed to ask if I have a copy of Quick published about 1948 “with a cover photo of sick women lying in a hospital corridor as the result of a mass food poisoning in Topeka, Kanas.” Seems Mr. Hostetter, then a writer/photographer for what was then the Topeka Daily Capital, is the one who took the photo of the woman suffering from food poisoning and, it being his first & only cover photo on a national magazine, he was eager to have a copy of it.

This is not the first time I’ve been delighted to make connections with people over my old magazines & ephemera; for example, I’ve helped provide images for the new walking tour of the Hingham Shipyard Historical Exhibit & helped family of legendary poodle trainer, instructor, & author Blanche Saunders find out more about “Great Aunt Blanch.” So it was with sincere regret that I wrote back to Hostetter to inform him that I did not own the copy he was looking for (even though I write about things found in Quick quite often, I currently only have three issues of that magazine). I told him if & when I discover a copy, I’d be sure to let him know.

Hostetter did have a great gem to share about the good old days of journalism — and it’s equally applicable to today’s discussion of Twitter & blogging:

I forgot to mention the joke that went around in the newsrooms when Quick first hit the newsstands with its acutely shallow summary of the week’s news. It was said that Fleur had another idea for a magazine called WORD. It would be published weekly like Quick. Every week the editorial staff would gather and chose a word for the total content of that week’s issue.

I find it very interesting (and, I’ll admit, somewhat amusing) to consider those days of print journalism, the old guard & the new guard competing against the assault of that new menace, television, discussing integrity & worthiness. Its comparisons to newspapers and magazines today and their view of the internet and digital media cannot be underestimated. And the super news is that Mr. Hostetter seems willing to continue sharing his memories of those days… So stay tunned to read more in the future.

Might As Well Just Hit Myself With A Rolled-Up Cosmo

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

cosmopolitan-mag-june-2009The June issue of Cosmo has a cover screaming the usual predatory scare tactics about love, lust, sex and how not to be a fatty. But buried on page 44, the pickle-sized beef patty on an obnoxiously condiment loaded burger, is the meet of the issue.

Is It Ever Okay To Stay If He’s Hit You? is an article prompted by the Rihanna/Chris Brown situation (another topic I should sink my teeth into, eventually), and it discusses how even a shove is dating violence.

While the one page (large font & image laden) article isn’t bad, it barely covers the subject of dating & domestic violence past the surface stuff. However, given Cosmo‘s poor & even dangerous presentation of such serious issues, I suppose I should count my lucky stars that the topic even made it into the glossy — even if it, as it usually does these days, took a celeb situation to warrant any coverage at all.

cosmo-abuse-in-relationshipsBut I’m not thrilled.

Not just because it’s skimpy coverage, designed to provide assistance in gossiping about Rihanna and her “shocking” decision to “take Chris back.” But because it’s buried on page 44 — and the issue isn’t even put on the cover.

Yeah, I know that the domestic violence issue, like rape, is a downer and that it won’t make copies fly off the news stands like Best. Sex. Ever. (I know this from writing Relationship Underarm Stick.) But is it too much to ask that Cosmo give attention where attention is due and at least try to look like it gives a damn about the safety of women? More in-depth — and accurate — articles, please; and load the cover with ’em when you run ’em.

Because while the chicks who read this stuff are probably the least likely to be drawn to important personal safety information, they are probably the most in need of it.

From “The Cosmo Creeps Me Out Files”…

/ Alessia / 1 Comment

In the June 2009 issue of Cosmo (you know, that magazine I neither subscribe to, nor like), the perplexing page that is number 98, titled “Fun Fearless Female,” a Q & A about T & A with Anna Paquin:

Now, if this page were in Maxim, I could kind of get it… And if Cosmo actually addressed lesbians, I could kind of get it — up until the last bit of Q & A anyway.

Is there anything you wish guys understood about women?

No, because then they’d be girls. It would take away half of what women talk about.

First of all, Cosmo, why does a (supposed) women’s magazine care about offering advice to men about women?

And second of all, Anna, I don’t know anything about you & your friends… But speaking for myself and my friends, we’d rather talk about — and listen to — pretty much anything else other than “my man doesn’t understand me.”

But that’s not the really creepy part.

As captioned by Anna’s photo, a quote from Ms. Paquin:

What’s so endearing about boys is that they’re so different from us — we’re not all wired the same.

Um, Anna, it’s really & truly creepy when a grown woman (and your age is listed as 26, so if anything, you’ve shaved a few years off that number) refers to possible male relationship candidates as “boys.”

How To Talk About Vh1’s Tough Love Season End — Without Vomiting

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

It’s been days since Tough Love ended & I’ve been meaning to write a wrap-up post about the show, but honestly, I’m really sick of the Ward/Vh1 mess and don’t want to give them any more promotion to the attention-seeking hair pulling bad boys of television. The only reason I’ve continued to reply to comments (and repeat myself ad nauseum) is because the matter of societal judgment — and the many inaccuracies thereof — still matters to me.

But that issue is waaayyy bigger than this show and I think it’s time the conversation turned to look at this issue (and related issues of violence against women) from a different view point (soap box).

However, I would like to make the following, short, statements about the program.

* The show had a marvelous opportunity with the episode in which Arian’s mom was on. Not only at the “dinner party,” but in the conversation between Arian’s mom, Steve, and Steve’s mom. But while they edited the footage to include mention of Steve’s infamous statement, they did nothing to address it. Instead…

* Absurd judgmental focus was put on the “inappropriate” relationship between Arian and her mother. Now I can appreciate that not everyone is as open about things, let alone sex, with their parent; and I can accept that the Wards do not talk about sex — or at least not that way. But isn’t being as open with your parents about sex as you are with your friends (and the world on a TV show!) a really honest thing –something to be admired? You may disagree with Arian’s focus on (& attitudes towards) sex, but would you really prefer Arian pretended to be someone she’s not with her mother? I think that’s a testament to the “goodness” of their relationship. I know I talk to my parents the way I do to my friends about sex — and while I’m not as “out there” as Arian, I’m sure Ward’s mom would “upside the head me” (as she gestured, I believe) for the way I talk. They don’t seem very open about or even fond of sex. (I guess these Wards are too soft on The Beaver?) So much for accepting people & their relationships; if we’re not the Wards, we’re not “good.”

* Is it wrong of me to take a perverse sense of happiness that Ward’s “tough love” resulted in relationship failures? If so, sue me. I’d feel bad for the women involved — if A) the show weren’t a trainwreck and the women actually participated in “after the boot camp” interviews at the end of the last show… Since they didn’t, I smell something fishier than Mrs Ward’s unused taco.

* I guess there’s going to be a season two. I won’t be watching. Unless there are some major changes — and after all the people I’ve talked with, I don’t see that happening.

UDATE: For anyone willing to put themselves into the fryin’ pan of Steve Ward’s Tough Love, they are casting — men and women.

Follow Up On Tough Love Rape Stance

/ Alessia / 14 Comments

If you’ve been living under a rock and somehow missed the slimy activities going on with Steve Ward and VH1’s Tough Love show…

It starts here, with Giving Steve Ward & VH1 Some Tough Love Of My Own, continues with More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue & Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop, and, frustrated with all that, I then directed you to contact the producers etc.

I’ve been contacting them all, one by one, and thought you might be interested in my progress…

First I contacted Flower Films, the commercial film production company founded by Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen which is a partner in Tough Love‘s production. If you thought for just one moment that being “woman owned” would make the company receptive to this issue of blaming women for rape you’d be dead wrong.

During a phone conversation last week, with a woman who refused to give her name, I was told that “all complaints/comments are to be posted to VH1’s blog.” When I explained that this had been done, but Ward was only continuing his misogynistic statements, I was told, “We read the blogs, we are aware.” I’ll admit, that set me back a bit, so I countered with a, “Don’t you wish to make a public statement to at least clarify Flower Films’ views — to separate them from those of Ward?” Her reply was to say that there would be “no statement on the subject” and I was dismissed.

Can you feel my hackles rise?

Grrrr.

Next I contacted the other production partner in the making of the show, High Noon Entertainment “one of America’s largest creators of unscripted television.”

There I spoke with Paul Taylor, Executive In Charge Of Production, who began by plainly & dismissively informing me that they had “been in touch with their legal department and they were protected.” Because, you know, the litigious are all they ought to be worried about.

I countered by restating my concerns for the perpetuation of misogynistic rape mythology; he countered with, “Well, you know, VH1 is a controversial network…”

So profiting from dangerous myth-information is a-OK?

Ready to spew (both anger and vomit), I thought about High Noon Entertainment’s primary concern regarding legal action… They have a legal team & they know how to use it — which is not the case for victims of rape. That smug “been in touch with legal & we’re protected” line…

Well, if that was their line then I was going to jerk it.

So I told Mr. Taylor that next on my list was to inform those involved in the federal lawsuit regarding trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims against MTV Networks, Drew Barrymore’s Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment based on the unauthorized use of the trademark “Tough Love,” of which Toughlove America is the exclusive licensee. (See details here.) He interrupted, countering with noise about how unfounded the lawsuit was — so I interrupted right back with an, “Oh, given that the lawsuit expressly states a desire to collect damages for the harm being done to their brand by the show’s use of the name, I imagine that they’d be interested to know just how many of us are now associating the phrase “tough love” with blaming rape victims.”

Now I had more of Paul’s attention. He wasn’t quite conceding anything, mind you, but he was now actively asking questions, such as my name, my telephone number, and the name and location of this blog. (I cooperated fully — and I totally welcome any further contact, should it occur.)

Feeling that perhaps he had moved past the party-line deafness and that he might just hear me now, I reiterated my concerns about Ward’s statements especially in light of the interviews Ward has done. In the interviews since the show aired and we responded, he’s defending his beliefs, not budging an inch; antagonizing, not apologizing.

Either Taylor began to hear my concerns or he’s just really good at the old “neutralize a complainer by being a good listener” thing because we ended the call with Taylor informing me that he would share my concerns but, due to a staff wedding that week, I likely wouldn’t hear from anyone until this week.

Not that I’m holding my breath.

But I will call back, Mr. Taylor, to see just what High Noon Entertainment intends to do about this mess Steve Ward has gotten them into.

And when I do, I’ll share it with you. As I will all my contact with those involved with this issue.

Now I have to go puke. Again.

Enough Is Enough

/ Alessia / 11 Comments

Now that Steve Ward & VH1 have shown us their true colors, showing indifference to concerns of misogyny and perpetuating inaccurate information which could add to the danger of women and other victims of rape, we must take action.

Before I urged you to contact VH1 via their blog and Ward at his Match Makers website, and Marge has suggested emailing VH1 at vh1blog@vh1.com; but as we’re not making enough of an impact with those methods…

Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment are partners with VH1 to produce VH1 Tough Love. High Noon Entertainment is one of America’s largest creators of unscripted television, and Flower Films is a commercial film production company founded by Drew Barrymore & Nancy Juvonen.

Here’s how you contact them:

Flower Films
7360 Santa Monica Blvd.
West Hollywood, CA 90046
USA
Phone: 323-876-7400
Fax: 323-876-7401

High Noon Entertainment
12233 W. Olympic Blvd
Ste 328
Los Angeles, CA 90064
USA
Phone: 310-820-7500
www.highnoonentertainment.com
questions@highnoontv.com

Jeff Olde is the Executive Vice President in charge of Original Programming and Production at VH1.

VH1 Television
2600 Colorado Ave.
Santa Monica, CA 90404
USA
Phn: 310-752-8000

VH1 Television
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
USA
Phone: 212-846-6000

Also, Toughlove(R) America, LLC filed a lawsuit in federal court in Los Angeles on March 4th for trademark infringement, trademark dilution and related claims against MTV Networks, Drew Barrymore’s Flower Films and High Noon Entertainment based on the defendants’ unauthorized use of the trademark “Tough Love,” of which Toughlove America is the exclusive licensee.

Igal J. Feibush, the company’s CEO said, “We believe that the actions of MTV/VH1 constitute a clear violation of our federal and state intellectual property rights. We have always vigilantly protected both our mark and the integrity of our proprietary program. With this lawsuit, we intend to stop VH1 from continuing to use our name and to collect damages for the harm being done to our brand by their use of it.” Toughlove America has stopped other media companies, including Sony Corporation and News Corporation, from using its trademark.

I’m sure they’d like to know that we think the show & it’s name are linked with misogyny and rape; that ought to raise damages.

Especially as Toughlove America has plans for its own show.

Matthew Lifschultz, Partner of Toughlove America, LLC
Phone:310-749-9702
MLifschultz@Toughlove.com

William J. Robinson and Miriam Claire Beezy, partners in the Los Angeles office of Foley & Lardner LLP, are representing Toughlove America, LLC in the action:

William J. Robinson
wrobinson@foley.com
213.972.4599

Miriam Claire Beezy
mbeezy@foley.com
213.972.4780

As you can see, I’m no longer messing around; I’m furious & I’m serious.

I am working on a list of VH1 advertisers too; any/all help is appreciated — as are all your letters, emails and calls of outrage.

PS Steve Ward is also, apparently, on Twitter: @stevenbward.

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

/ Alessia / 19 Comments

Whatever benefit of the doubt I gave to Master Matchmaker and VH1 Tough Love “commander” Steve Ward has been taken away — by Ward himself.

In an interview with some nameless VH1 bot, Ward defends the indefensible:

You said that Arian is going to end getting raped if she continues her behavior.

Yes.

You know it’s going to go down hill from there; he’s admitted that what he said wasn’t a mis-step, an ill-formed phrase, or something said quickly that “came out wrong.”

There was some talk around the Internet that your mindset was not unlike that of those who blame victims for being raped.

Well, that just goes to show how naive people are.

Wait, wait, wait; did Ward just call me naive?! I’m the one with the facts! He’s not merely “naive” or even “ignorant” — because we’ve told him, he’s got access to (at least) the same facts, experts and research as we do, yet he’s sticking with fiction. Dangerous fiction too yet.

I wasn’t blaming anybody for anything.

But, as you’ll soon see, Ward is doing just that.

I was explaining to her that there are risks to her behavior. She seems to feel that there are no consequences to her behavior. Like nothing bad can happen from her being as raunchy and as inappropriate as she was. And I was trying to explain to her that when you do things like that you put yourself in harm’s way. And there are men out there that because they are f***ed up in the head, for whatever reasons, they may take it as some sort of an invite, or that you really want it or this or that. I mean why would you sit there and rub a guy’s d*** under a table? You don’t know who he is or where he is from or what he is about. And you know what, a couple of beers later he may go try to rub you and you might not like it and he is not gonna stop. That’s all I was trying to point out them.

There are risks to her behavior — but not rape. The risks are that Arian is limiting herself, reducing her value to her looks, her body & sex. This is a pattern of behavior based on low self-esteem which will not bring her respectful relationships but continue with a parade of one-night-stands (who may be around for multiple nights, but are invested in her only as far as they are inserted in her). These are all fine issues to be discussed — and they certainly fit the context of the show and Ward’s (quickly diminishing In my eyes) expertise. However, everything else he discusses is the exact definition of blaming the victim.

This “if she, then he” line of thinking places the burden of responsibility for his (crappy) behavior upon her shoulders. He’s literally,”Hey, she asked for it.”

And I’ve got news for you; even when you are appropriate, “classy,” and “a good girl” — and even when he’s had no beers or alcohol whatsoever — he may try to rub you and you do not like it and he is not gonna stop. I know. Personally.

And that’s why there wasn’t backlash from the rest of the girls in the room, because they agreed with me.

Oh, so if everyone in the room agreed that you could fly, that would make it true?

The reason the women in the room agreed with you is because such bullshit thinking is so prevalent in our society — which is precisely why I continue to harp on this topic. I hope you all educate yourselves to the facts.

It’s time you, the women in the room, the VH1 producers, the Stepford Wives’ leaving comments in defense of your misogynist mythology, the asshats who like things the way they are, and, yes, the frightened & desperate who want to believe that such things won’t happen if they are “good” — you all need to be educated. You present a clear and present danger.

The reality, though, is that Arian wasn’t going to get raped in this situation. You’re there, cameras are there, producers are there. I wonder if there’s any suspicion that she might be playing up the salaciousness for the sake of the show.

No, I believe that she does this in her daily life. She is truly like that.

I too believe this is, more or less, Arians MO. But scaring her with lies & threatening her with violence is not the answer.

And she enjoys taking the risk and putting herself in that position. It is a very precarious situation. She doesn’t realize that there may be consequences. I’m not blaming the victim, but if the girl would act a little bit more appropriate, then I’m sure she wouldn’t be treated the way she is by men.

You are blaming the (in your eyes, potential) victim. If (desperately knocking wood!) Arian were to be raped, you’d be all, “I told you so!” and therefore not holding the rapist 100% accountable.

If she walked around like a classy woman and treated herself with respect, she would command respect and men would respect her.

I agree with you, she would command more respect — at least from non-violent, non-controlling, rapists.

With a personality like she has, why would anyone respect her? That was the point I was trying to make. She was trying to say that there were trust issues, and she doesn’t trust men. And of course, why should she trust men? Men don’t respect her.

True. But there’s a HUGE leap between men not respecting a woman, not wanting to “bring her home to mom,” and rape. I myself have not respected people who have not warranted respect — like you right now, Ward — but I’m not raping or assaulting any of them.

Honestly, Ward — and the rest of you at VH1 who refuse to correct the gross errors of your words and ways and continue to perpetuate myth-information, placing more women in danger — you make me feel violated.

And for every woman and man who feels that they must teach their daughters to “be good” so that the bad men won’t hurt them rather than addressing the issue of bad men, it’s another forced entry.

“Show mommy where the bad man touched you on this doll, honey.” I’m pointing all over, because that’s where it hurts.

And there’s no place on the doll for my soul.

You know what else? There are no, “And what did you do to the man to make him touch you,” or, “And what were you wearing,” or, “And what do you do for a living” questions when you show a child victim of rape or abuse the doll. Why not? Because it’s not ever the victim’s fault.

Ward, your statements perpetuate misogynistic mythology and generate the same sense of shame which victimizers, abusers, and rapists use to keep victims silent, docile, and in control.

You may not be raping women, Steve Ward, but you are adding to the exploitation of their shame and you are reducing the responsibility of rapists & perpetrators of abuse; things which punish victims and prevent them from receiving justice. And that just adds to the power of the rapists & abusers, creating more victims.

You, sir, are more of a threat to Arian than any “dangerous behaviors” she exhibited. You are a threat to me, to women every where.

UPDATE See how to take action: Enough Is Enough!

More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue

/ Alessia / 22 Comments

The conversation about Steve Ward’s stupidity is continuing — thank Gawd.

But all the talk brings up a few points I’d like to clarify.

1) I was really enjoying Tough Love up to this point. Ward (and the shows producers) seemed to be operating from the old BDSM mantra, “Safe, sane & consensual,” something pretty rare in reality television.

Most remarkably seemed to be the “consensual” part, in which scripted tricks were not played on either the female participants nor their male “possibilities.” (You might be able to debate the use of physically using electronic shocks to modify the women’s behaviors, but it’s not like these were stun-guns or something. It was no worse than having Ward or another coach standing beside them going, “Bup-bup-bup!” when they did something dumb.)

Overall — and up until the misuse of “rape” (both in diagnosis and as a fear-mongering tool) — I’ve been appreciative of the combination of tact & honest bluntness in confronting the women’s baggage — both the emotional issues & the bad habits. So it pains me to see the show go so low.

2) I’m not condoning Arian’s actions. I understand them; but I do worry for her. (A number of the other women on the show too.)

But there is a clear distinction between Arian’s self-hurtful behaviors and the predatory act of rape performed by another. She, and women like her, need to be held responsible for their own actions — but not the actions of others. In this case, Arian needs to be aware of what she is doing, how her perception of the effectiveness of her defense mechanism as inaccurate and is in fact detrimental to herself and her objective of finding a good relationship. She needs to see this in order to change her behaviors — in order to bring her the happiness she both deserves and seeks.

This is what Ward was trying to do/say. And it would have been a great lesson for all those watching too. He started well, but… *shudder*

This would have been one of those educational & self-help moments; a lesson for all of us at home, young & old who need to learn it, or at least understand it. But…

3) What about the other side? When comments are left at VH1’s blog about this “educational moment”, they go something like this one by Kaya:

To all of you who are so upset with Steve, let me ask you this: is this what you will teach your daughters? That it’s okay to get drunk, dress suggestively, act in a sexually agressive manner and take home anybody you like, and nothing will ever happen to them? Many rapists are predators, just like child molestors. A child molestor will seek out a victime when he or she is most vulnerable and least able to resist. So will a rapistt; in this case, a drunk woman eager to be alone with him. Sure, the rapist is at fault, but that doesn’t make the woman less raped, beaten, emotionally scarred, dead, etc….

If you aren’t teaching your daughters how to protect themselves, you shouldn’t be a parent.

Ignoring my desire to nit-pick some of your comments on the behaviors of rapists, let me say that I agree totally that parents should teach their daughters how to protect themselves. And when, for whatever reason, they haven’t learned such things — or have adopted bad or unsafe habits — they need to be reeducated. See all of the above.

This brings up the post I linked to in my original Ward/rape post (read it; I link for a reason, yo). I too wish the world wasn’t the way it is, but it is and we need to safeguard our daughters, our girls, our women. But what are we teaching our sons, our boys, our men? (Incidentally, that same blogger — the author of the main author here at Kitsch Slapped — has a post about talking to her son about such things.)

In all this talk about rape, where’s the part about parents teaching their sons?

Kaya’s statements completely ignore the lessons here about teaching young men that rape & other abuse is not to be tolerated. Like Ward’s original statement and those of the other show participants, such language of omission isn’t an accident. They are excusing bad male behaviors, placing the blame for “enticing” upon Arian’s shoulders — and all women’s shoulders — when the blame clearly belongs to men who commit rape, assaults, and abuse of any sort.

This sort of complacent language dismisses male responsibility & diminishes the crime. It complicates how we as a society react to charges of assault & rape. It’s why Ward said what he did, why the other women agreed with him, and why the comments at VH1 have been so stupid. It perpetuates the myths, blames the victims, and places other women in danger with misinformation. All things I’ve already spoken of, so I’ll stop now. For now.

4) Because I have a lot of friends who are sex workers * (escorts, phone sex operators, erotica authors, strippers, etc.), I also feel I need to clarify my statements about Arian, her stripping, and my thoughts on what I see regarding a history of her past abuse.

This is the toughest part of the post, actually, because what I’m about to discuss is a stereotype as old as the oldest profession. And incredibly hurtful too. So, let me say for the record that abuse & sex work do not go hand in hand.

Like any segment of society, especially female segments, abuse is a part of the demographic — but abuse is not an identifying characteristic. It should not be assumed to be a part of any sex worker’s history.

Unfortunately for sex workers who wish stories that reinforce such stereotypes would just go away, Arian, the sex worker, exhibits a hyper sexuality that moves past a self-described “bad girl” let alone a content within her own skin, sex positive person.

The true tell-tale signs for me, just in this last episode, were her approval seeking glances at her fellow house mates when she sat in the “hot seat,” her upping the loud & raunchy display & talk when she found no support, and her lashing out in pain like a wounded animal when the rape word hit the fan. (As I said before, she was looking for a reason to leave and explode — but watch closely, she’s got more pain than fire in her eyes at that point.)

In past episodes, we’ve seen her both use her sexuality to garner attention and react dramatically when it’s been of no help to her. Most obvious in her dealings with Ward himself, when she feels she not only has no control but no value to Ward.

I can’t speak for sex workers everywhere, but none of the sex workers I know behave like Arian has on the show.

And so it is this set of behaviors I speak of when I say I believe Arian has been abused; these are the behaviors which are dangerous. Her employment as stripper or sex worker has nothing to do with it.

There. I think I covered every thing I intended to.

Oh, except for the fact that I still urge you to contact Steve via his matchmaking service’s site, Master Matchmakers, and VH1 to demand an apology.

* Don’t act so shocked that I know and cavort with sex workers. They are damn fine people.

If you are “just surprised to hear this because I never mentioned them before”, well, I also don’t identify my computer programming friends. I also don’t identify my gay friends, my black friends, my white traditional straight vanilla mom friends, etc. How horrible would I be if I identified them as such for no reason? I only mention such identifiers when I feel it is relevant.

UPDATE See how the story unfolds:

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

Enough Is Enough

Please take action!

Giving Steve Ward & VH1 Some Tough Love Of My Own

/ Alessia / 40 Comments

I’ve been watching VH1’s Tough Love for the past few weeks now and, despite his somewhat slower-than-I up-take on females and a need to nurse along a viewing audience, I have agreed with Steve Ward nearly word for word — up until tonight that is.

Tonight Steve Ward began to very tactfully, once again, help Arian to see that her automatic defense mechanism, using overt hyper sexuality to turn away men before any attachments could be made (and so avoid being hurt herself), was a bad thing. True, such actions will keep her from being hurt; but they will also keep her from finding what she really wants: to be in an honest, truthful, committed, loving relationship. Where Ward went wrong was saying that if Arian continued on this path, she’d end up raped. Now the already defensive and shut-down Arian used the powerful word of rape as her cue to end the conversation. She was going to do that anyway because she is in complete denial — and wishes to remain there. But Ward was way out of line here.

Rape is not about sex. It is not borne of lust. It is not caused by the penis’ desire for pleasure, nor a biological drive to pass on DNA. Rape is an assault of rage, anger & power. The penis (&/or other objects) are used because the physical penetration and friction of intimate walls violates emotional and spiritual worlds, echoing on in the psyche, forever haunting that person (and those who love them). Whereas death is but a moment’s passing, and therefore finite.

Ward’s perpetuation of such dangerous misogynistic mythology not only places (once again) the responsibility for male behaviors squarely on the shoulders of females, leaving victims to face guilt, but by covering up the truth, leaves more women ill-prepared and therefore vulnerable to attack.

Ward should apologize. And undergo the proper education.

So should everyone behind the show at VH1.

But perhaps even more alarming than Ward’s perpetuation of this dangerous myth, was the fact that all the other women present did not correct Ward — in fact they repeated what he was saying as if it were the truth! (I at least expected my girl Jody to speak the truth!) They are as brainwashed by the rape myth as Ward.

Can you see the huge tears rolling down my face?

As for Arian & the show, she was set to run off set anyway. But it was stupid to even try to talk to a woman who is so wrapped-up in the belief-fear that her only value is her body, by talking about her bodily risks.

It’s been clear to me from the start that Arian’s projection of hyper-sexuality is based upon a fear that this is all anyone sees her as. (And some sexual abuse signals were seen by me with the first watching of the show; so watch for that reveal too.) If she is to feel valued for herself, Ward’s conversation should have focused (more accurately) on the fact that, with continued use of her defense mechanism, the danger Arian faces the continuation of a succession of one night stands — but if she express more value of herself past her sexuality, exhibits less signs of sexual availability, then she increases her odds of finding men who will view her in terms of total person-hood and not just a great lay.

So Ward f-ed up all over tonight.

You’ll notice, if you’ve seen the show, that VH1 conveniently doesn’t have a clip of Ward saying she’ll be raped — they have the clip just before that line (which, if you haven’t seen the show, is evidence of Arian’s hyper-sexuality) and the clip after it, of Arian leaving & the other women’s reactions.

No go to VH1 & demand an apology and proper education for all.

You can also contact Steve via his matchmaking service’s site: Master Matchmakers.

UPDATE See how the story unfolds:
More On Moron Steve Ward & The Rape Issue

Mommy, Make The Bad Man Stop

Enough Is Enough

Please take action!

My Pajamas Made Him Kill Me (Or, In Which I Review A Film I Haven’t Seen)

/ Alessia / 6 Comments

Most would say it’s not fair to review a movie you haven’t seen — and normally I’d agree. It’s an ethics thing. But sometimes you hear about a movie (based on the opinions of those who have seen the film), and you just have to say something…

This is especially true when the movie is based on a true story.

In this case, the film is based on a crime — but the real crime here is not (just) that the makers of the film have sensationalized and exploited a murder, but have missed the very points which make the story moving and important.

The film is The Pyjama Girl Case (1977), and it’s based on the real life story of the unidentified charred remains of a woman discovered in Australia in 1934.

Let’s begin with the reviews…

Stanley Runk “Runkdapunk” says:

On the books this film is a giallo, but it is only in the most basic sense. Yeah it’s a murder mystery, it deals with sexual themes and it’s Italian. That’s where all comparissons end though. No rampaging killer with gloves and a hat/hood and no real body count to speak of other than the Pyjama girl herself. Sure there are a few more deaths, but not until the end of the film.

J. B. Hoyos says:

“The Pyjama Girl Case” disappointed me for several reasons. First, and foremost, it is not a true Italian giallo. Absent is the typical black-gloved serial killer. Only two people are murdered. Second, this movie doesn’t contain any major shocks or plot twists. The plot is very linear. Third, there is only one attractive woman and that is actress Dalila Di Lazzaro who later went on to act in Dario Argento’s superb “Phenomena,” which is definitely an Italian giallo.

(Oh, and “Runkdapunk” also says that Dalila Di Lazzaro is “yummy except for the armpit hair” — just in case you wanted to know.)

And those are the people who gave it three stars at Amazon; there are worse reviews with less stars.

Now I don’t know what a “giallo” is, let alone an Italian one, but that’s neither here nor there because I’m not going to judge this film by whatever standards either may have. And I’m not going to even discuss if a movie can have enough killing (I’m totally one girl who doesn’t go in for body-count flicks). But I do have a lot to say.

Again, this movie is based on a true story. The real-life “Pyjama Girl” was a brutally murdered unknown woman, whose battered and partially burnt body was found dumped roadside in Albury, New South Wales on September 1, 1934. Normally I find the phrase “brutally murdered” to be redundant or excessive — nearly an expletive to induce horror — but the details, according to Australian Screen, make it pretty clear that one can easily use the extra word:

The victim’s head was wrapped in a bloody towel and her body was pushed headfirst into a hessian bag. The body had then been set alight. A post-mortem revealed that she had been shot below the right eye, but the cause of death was probably eight blows to her face.

“Brutal murder” no longer seems to be just for shock-value, does it?

Anyway, as her identity was not known, the woman was dubbed the “Pyjama Girl” because she was found wearing pieces of pyjama fabric.

After coroner’s inquest failed to establish the identity of the woman, artists’ sketches and a forensic facial reconstruction were created to represent what the victim may have looked like, with the images shown around the world, in hopes that someone would identify her.

And her body was preserved in order to be put on display and shown to hundreds of people. Yes, hundreds of people paraded past her post-mortem. For ten years.

Her death was naturally shocking, but her death became a mystery which fascinated the nation and, for some, became an obsession. To the extent that in 1939 an entertainment “newsreel” was made to be shown in cinemas before feature films (and, in some cases, was, like other newsreels, shown continuously).

Again, a quote from the Australian Screen (where you can catch clips):

The Pyjama Girl Murder Case newsreel, produced in 1939 after the coronial inquest, is considered to be Australia’s first true crime film. Filmmakers Rupert Kathner and Alma Brooks defied a ban by the New South Wales Police Commissioner, William MacKay, on newsreel coverage of the case and even tried to break into Sydney University to film the body. The use of adverbs such as ‘stealthily’ and emotive phrases such as ‘fiend in human form’, as well as the re-creations of various episodes of the case, indicate the ways in which the filmmakers sought to sensationalise the case.

In 1944, ten years after her body was found, a man was convicted not of her murder, but of manslaughter. Rat-bastard Antonio Agostini confessed to the police commissioner that he had “accidentally shot” his wife, Linda Agostini, “during an argument.”

Just how unlikely it is that Linda was Pyjama Girl (Linda Agostini had brown eyes; Pyjama Girl’s eyes were blue), is as astonishing as a husband who confesses to murdering his wife but only gets 6 years — and serves less then 3. And this is stuff that Richard Evans tells in his book, The Pyjama Girl Mystery (also available via Amazon).

But what we end up with now, are two dead women — both of which were likely killed by men they knew. (The odds say it’s true; and who else has access to a woman in her pajamas?)

Author Evans’ investigation into this case is far more fascinating than the story told in that 1977 movie — but that’s not even my main (or only) point.

Apparently in 2004, Australia’s ABC’s Rewind program ran a story on the Pyjama Girl mystery and, along with an extremely interesting interview with Evans, they presented this fascinating bit of cultural commentary:

MICHAEL CATHCART: In the 1930s, pyjamas were exotic, the sort of thing worn by young flappers. These so-called ‘new women’ dressed in skimpy clothes, they smoked, they drank, they partied and they laughed at convention. The straitlaced moral guardians of the day held up the Pyjama Girl as an example, a warning of what happens to young women who go astray.

CALEB WILLIAMS, CURATOR, JUSTICE AND POLICE MUSEUM: It was a wonderful trope for the newsmen of the day to play with. The idea of, you know, this wonderful, gorgeous, sexy woman abandoned bashed in a ditch in a pair of exotic silk pyjamas – it was sort of media heaven, basically.

In case you missed it, let me highlight the most offensive part here: The straitlaced moral guardians of the day held the Pyjama Girl up as a warning of what happens to young women who go astray. Why did they think the young woman had “gone astray”? Because she wore pajamas.

Pajamas.

Pajamas were, at the time, the “exotic” sort of thing worn by young flappers. And flappers were amoral women. Women who, apparently, deserve to be beaten, shot, burned and left dead in a ditch.

That’s a whole lot of conclusion jumping and victim blaming.

Just like the crap said about Linda Agostini.

Wikipedia (a site I trust about as much as I do the investigation into the Pyjama Girl case), says that Linda was a “penniless glamour girl” who “worked at a picture theatre in the city and lived in a boarding house on Darlinghurst Road in Kings Cross where all accounts tell she ‘entertained’ more than her fair share of young, attractive men. Platt was a heavy drinker and a flighty Jazz Age party-goer who had difficulty adjusting to stability.” Lovely. Who writes and edits at Wiki? Tony Agostini’s family?

Wiki does not reference those particular sentiments (for they sure aren’t facts), but none of the sites referenced says such things. One of the sites referenced, Australian Dictionary of Biography, says the following:

Tony and Linda were a popular couple. He was 5 ft 7 ins (170 cm) tall, trim and dark haired; she was only five feet (153 cm) tall, attractive and well liked. Yet, according to Tony, their relationship was not an easy one.

Linda sometimes left him for long periods and drank too much which shamed him within the Italian community. In 1933 the couple moved to Carlton, Melbourne, where he worked on the newspaper, Il Giornale Italiano, and she took a job at Ferrari’s hairdressing salon in the Manchester Unity Building. Agostini later claimed that there were frequent altercations. During one quarrel in bed, Linda was fatally shot with a pistol which Tony alleged she had held.

“They were well liked,” but… Tony says “their relationship was not an easy one,” Tony says there were “frequent altercations,” Tony says they argued in bed and she had a pistol. *snort*

Tony says it was an accident — but the bitch had it coming.

Who is here to speak for Linda? (And couldn’t I argue that with an ass-hat like Tony for a husband, I’d take off and drink too. Only I wouldn’t return to where he lives — by my choice, not his hand.) But let’s all blame the victims.

Linda’s treatment is like Pyjama Girl’s: Unfair and unwarranted crap which absolves their murderers from any responsibility. Which makes me really, really upset. The kind of upset that renders me unable to even swear properly.

How can anyone ven suggest that a woman was somehow responsible for her own murder because of the PJs she wore or drinking?

That Pyjama Girl’s death & “murder case” was reduced to media hype, social agendas, sloppy & corrupt police work — and just plain political no matter how you cut it — is a story which deserves to be told. If only because it may be the only way this woman (and Linda Agostini and other victims) can be honored. And because it just might be of value in teaching people what matters.

And that isn’t a woman’s pajamas. Or her short skirt. Or the number of drinks she’s had, who she knows, where she goes. She’s human and her life was taken — and likely by someone she trusted.

So, just how ridiculous does that not-giallo-enough film made in 1977 seem now? Like some chick’s armpit hair, it just doesn’t matter. Other than it was an insignificant waste of time.

And yeah, I could be all wet because, as I readily admit, I didn’t see this 1977 film. But then “Runkdapunk” says, “The disc has a half hour documentary about the actual Pyjama girl murder case which is actually more interesting than the film.” So I rest my case.

Now if only poor “Pyjama Girl” could only rest in peace.

Of Sex Surveys Run By Maxim

/ Alessia / 6 Comments

OK, I like Maxim — unlike Cosmo, it’s a magazine that’s pretty clear who and what they are all about. But I have a little bone to pick regarding the 2009 Sex Survey in their March issue (yeah, the one with dreamy Dushku on the cover — I’ve got a girl crush on her, and I don’t care who knows it).

“More than 2,000 female readers of Maxim.com, TheFrisky.com, Lemondrop.com, and PopSugar.com, aged 18 to 48 and from all over the country, took our in-depth survey…” Now I’m no statistician, but 2,000 speaking for an entire gender on the globe — or even the nation — seems pretty small. What’s worse, is that I would have expected a greater number than that just from Maxim‘s site; yes, even just female readers of Maxim should be more than 2,000. Then again, a recent survey says that only seven percent of a magazine’s subscribers seek/read the magazine’s website. But that survey only had 316 participants?!

Then you add in the other websites — all of which I’m sure boast more than 2,000 unique visitors a day to their advertisers — and you have what I’d call a diminutive survey participation rate. (Word to my bloggin’ pals: don’t feel badly about poor blog participation/comment ratios; the Big Sites don’t do any better.)

And that’s before we even get to the readership bias issues of pre-selected groups of women…

It’s pretty clear from the canned “In an effort to help the male readers of Maxim magazine understand us women a little better, they’ve asked…” line used in all the posts of the female-centric sites which partnered with Maxim for this survey that the publication sent out a form letter to the sites they selected — and that they selected/defined women based in large part upon the stereotypical female interests of celebrity gossip, shopping and relationship sites. Not all women are defined by such activities and websites. And the latter, women interested in reading about relationships, pretty much precludes women who are happy in their relationships — which would pretty much seem to be the best ones to offer men (and women) insights into what works. But whatever.

While this all sounds like I’m gonna spank some behinds rosy red (and you know I love to wear my leather domminatix gear when dishing media madness and relationship mythology), I don’t entirely disagree with the Maxim survey results.

So stick around for more; I’m breaking it up into more easily digestible points/posts.

Cosmo On Being Well-Hung

/ Alessia / 2 Comments

I kid-you-freakin’-not, in their section titled “The Single Girl’s Bible” Cosmo offers three-step instructions on how to hang a picture. With illustrations. Because it’s just that difficult.

Jeebus.

What the hell, Cosmo, are you actually under the impression that women don’t know how to hang pictures — that we’re on the dating scene because we need to marry a hammer-wielding man or our framed posters of hang-in-there kitties will never be hung on the wall?

While the column is by Molly Triffin and the “how to hang a picture” credits go to Thom Filicia, Cosmo has editors, right? Someone who makes the decisions on what to publish & how to publish it.

And I’ll accept any loose definitions of “editor”…

Like there’s a retarded horny monkey who randomly flings his or her own poo at the things that “need” to be published on the slick pages — a monkey who does this in exchange for food (to make the poo to fling), something for sexual release (a blow-up monkey doll, or a helping hand of some sort), and shelter (some place to eat, screw and fling poo — the office will do).

But then I’m not sure a retarded horny monkey would even suggest that single women wouldn’t know how to hang a picture — at the same time implying that married women have no need for this masculine knowledge.

Women hanging pictures? Using tools?! That’s not just wacky, that’s dangerous!

Thank Gawn I’m married so I’ll never have to learn how to do this. Not.

Cosmo Is For Those With Relationship Autism (And Living 60 Years Ago)

/ Alessia / 1 Comment

I know that you’re thinking I’m an insensitive bitch for saying “Relationship Autism” — but I have members of my family & friends on the Autism Spectrum (as well as others with similar challenges) and so I know what the hell (and what hell) I am talking about.

I know, I know, I know, that me mocking relationship advice &/or those who need it seems pretty freakin’ hypocrytical — but dude, there’s a difference between honestly trying to help people and doing what Cosmo does. And just what is it that Cosmo does? Oh, thanks for asking — because I’m dying to tell you.

Cosmo tells us things we all should know — like if he strokes your thigh, “sexy one-on-one time” is on his mind. (February 2009 issue.)

A-doy.

Something we all know — unless, of course, you seriously are on the Autism Spectrum or otherwise have a note from your doctor regarding an emotional &/or cognitive deficit. (But if you or someone you know does have such issues, they should not — repeat, NOT — be reading Cosmopolitan magazine. In fact, I don’t know just who should be reading Cosmo…  There’s danger in that-there publication.)

But just in case we aren’t grasping this subtlety of human behavior or have some memory problems, Cosmo wants us to know that he likes it if we grab his thigh too. (March 2009 issue)

This sort of turn-about is about as close to liberated as issues of Cosmo get.

(And no, I am not done with pointing out Cosmo‘s flaws — until they clean-up their act, I’ll keep up my activities alerting you to their irrelevance.)

Puppies, Kittens & Vampires, Oh My!

/ Alessia / 5 Comments

We humans want, crave, unconditional love and acceptance — but we’re pretty unrealistic in the terms. Our highest heights of female romantic fantasy too-often focus on Bad Boys. You know, those hard men with elements of danger — not that they’d ever hurt us! Oh, the intoxicating power of what could crush, but doesn’t.

It makes us puppy putty in their hands.

These big strong men could hurt us, but they won’t. We’re the one good thing in their lives, the Good Woman who truly know that beneath that rough exterior of the Bad Boy lies a tragic side — their true tender side — that only we hold the key to unlocking…

We’re the kittens in their big strong man-hands…

We tame the Bad Boy, leashing the unleashable wild child & binding him to us.

As women, we can’t help but see ‘the potential’ in these men. We see behind the swagger, to the hidden wounds; behind the drug addiction, an artist or profoundly brilliant man who suffers; behind the womanizer, a man who has been so injured in the past, he fears to really try again… And we can heal him if we love him enough. No matter how big the challenge, the obstacles.

In fact, the bigger the challenge, the larger the danger, the least understood or accepted he is, the more romantic the relationship becomes.

The ultimate pinnacle in Bad Boys are vampires and other supernatural creatures. Not only are they dangerous and misunderstood, the big strong Bad Boy arms we want to swoon into, but there is no larger a separation than between living and dead, making these men the most unobtainable of all.

The notion of vampires and other immortals who live forever, doomed through their isolation and loneliness to never quite consummate the real physical thrust of human connection, is the exaggerated dramatization of the isolation and loneliness — the fear of unrequited love — we all wish to overcome. Even if that romantic love cannot be consummated. This is the popularity of un-dead men in television shows & films, such as Angel, Moonlight and Twilight.

In some ways, I find this more disturbing and potentially damaging than the unrealistic media images of romantic comedies for it teaches women self-sacrificing denial. Not just in physical pleasure, but in tolerating distasteful and reprehensible acts for the sake of love; real love doesn’t ask you to tolerate violence because he’s just bound by different morals than you are. Women already are asked this stuff too often — and too often they comply, making room for danger in their relationships

But supposing you can separate fantasy from reality, intelligently enjoy fiction and not tolerate unpleasant friction, then by all means, consume such things. And if you’re a real fan of Twilight, perhaps you’d like to enter this contest.

20/20’s The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

/ Alessia / 1 Comment

Live blogging 20/20’s show The Science of Seduction: Why Him, Why Her?

When I first heard about the show, which is sort of based upon biological anthropologist Helen Fisher’s book Why Him, Why Her? — a book which claims there are personality types — I thought, “Well here’s another form of astrology.” I won’t say I hate astrology; those daily things suck, but the general overviews are slightly informative. Then there’s Chinese astrology etc. So maybe these are some basic bits of information on personality, but what about personal experiences? I know far more women who are happily married to ‘men just like their dads’ then perfect astrology matches.

But after hearing of the research and science behind, I’m more intrigued…

I don’t think we are any more trapped by biology than we are the stars or family patterns. However, I think I want to check out this book and see if it is perhaps yet another layer — another framework among several. And when you lay each over the other, you end up with a complicated, yet far more accurate image of how we seek , who we find, and what we end up with.

Part of the television program also included being ‘damaged’ or insecure regarding relationships based on former experiences, opting to show professional matchmakers as a means to find love, or at least meet people. It wasn’t very helpful as far as remedies to your fragile belief in dating & relationships, but there was something very informative in this segment. The matchmaker said, “Many people say they want love, but aren’t ready for love.” I found that to be the most important part of that segment. It was too bad that 20/20 edited it to look as if the matchmaker was defensively using this as an excuse for not having perfect performance.

On the flip side, 20/20 erred in the next segment their aired. It was on arranged marriages, and rather than focusing on the wisdom provided by the expert who mentioned that a huge key in the success of Indian arranged marriages was the ceremony which clearly put an emphasis on the investment of both the bride & groom’s families and their communities to make such marriages work; 20/20 ended the segment with the small percentage rate of divorces in India, leaving out the plethora of cultural differences which can also account for such disparity. Leaving that as the last word, rather than the insight into total family & community commitment to the couple’s success, left me lingering on more negative, less helpful facts.

Second to that, were the damning statements about love as depicted in song and film (something covered in that study I’m participating in).

Ah, so at the end, the expert, Helen Fisher, does agree with me that love & romance are far more complicated than it sounded at the beginning. *wink*

I’m off to take the questionnaire to see “what I am” — and I think I’ll make the husband do it to. Then I’ll have more to say.

Let’s Date Like My Sister Eileen?

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

I made issue #14 of the Feminist Carnival of Sexual Freedom and Autonomy (yea me!), which reminds me that I should give you an update on that media and relationships survey I’m participating in…

The survey is based on your TV and movie viewing habits of the past week, which means you’re reporting on your holiday season habits. Personally, my sitting-on-my-butt and watching television &/or films time has been very limited by holiday stuff — but also because TV programing has sucked the past month. This means I’ve watched mainly The History Channel and NatGeo (which, unless you categorize this watching as “news” puts your viewing in the “other” category on this survey) and it has had, upon reflection, little to do with my relationship values — other than to find great pleasure in the fact that my partner also likes geek TV.

I’ve also snuck in the occasional TCM (and other old film) viewing. This has been secretive alone-at-night-while-working movie watching — but not because it’s some naughty or guilty pleasure to watch a “chick flick”. Writing, being a solitary pursuit most enjoyed by night owls, lends itself to complete remote control domination when one is well, you know, screwing around and not working. However, my point is, that the movies I’ve watched (including The Pleasure Seekers, My Sister Eileen, and Sabrina) were retro films, if not all Classic Films with capital C & F, and as such it’s damn near impossible for a feminist to watch those films and not giggle, smirk, or groan at the sexist roles and actions. They are entertainment (served with an equally entertaining side dish of snark that I am unable to turn off) not some map for relationship bliss.

If they were, then I guess my first tip in getting a date would be to go out drinking with your sister & two fellas, walk drunkenly to a gazebo, and have the four of you burst into song, dance, and imaginary instrument playing a la My Sister Eileen. But then, you’ll also end up with some other guy… Which involves some lying, lots more song and dance, the Brazilian Navy, and lots more…

My point is, if I (and any other intelligent sentient being) can realize that musicals are fantasies, why would anyone expect to find tips on relationships & romance in such films?

Oh, and I also watched Elf; and that didn’t make me think that I might have missed an opportunity to mate a real elf and get myself closer to Santa’s Nice List.

So, over all, my feelings regarding media and relationships have neither changed nor become more enlightened by this survey process. While there’s still weeks to go (and I am interested in what may come from the experience), I’m still amazed that there are people out there — that I’m sharing this same world with — who honest to gawd, still base their real world relationship expectations upon images in film and television.

May gawd help us all.

The Reality Of Relationship Reality Shows

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

A new relationship show is seeking men and women who are unhappy in their relationships to find a middle ground and win up to $50,000 in cash and prizes!

Are you cheating on your boyfriend/girlfriend and don’t know how to break it to him/her? Do you love your boyfriend/girlfriend but know he/she is not the one? Do you want to date others but he/she wants to take the next step with you? Are you on a completely different page than your partner? We want to help you!

Help you? Are they serious? There isn’t a relationship reality show that’s based on helping people — and yes, I include ‘counselors’ Dr. Drew and Dr. Phil in this. These shows are about making money off humiliating people.

And when they say they are seeking couples who “have amazing personalities” they mean “explosive,” “dumber than a box of rocks,” and anything else they can exploit along with your relationship misery.

I don’t understand the people who go on these shows. They aren’t just putting themselves on display for mockery, airing their own dirty laundry in public, but they dare to do this for their entire family and even friends. Who wants to live as the sister of “that psycho bitch,” the mother of that “asshole with an ego,” or somehow related to that “gullible girl” who is dating the “asshole with an ego” while her best friend, “that psycho bitch,” screws him on the side?

I can’t watch those shows; I just ache for all the sane people they know who must cringe in shame and share in the TV watching public’s blame. So if you go on this casting call, or any other like it, don’t tell me. I don’t want to have to look at you with pity.

Which Came First? The Chick-Flick Or The Egg On Your Face?

/ Alessia / Leave a comment

Jaynie asked if, when participating in the survey about media and relationships, I noticed anything about the survey.  The answer? Yup, I did.

I’m guessing Jaynie did too, or she wouldn’t have asked ;)

It’s pretty clear when I looked at my responses on the television shows and films I watch, by genre, that I don’t watch a lot of chick-flick-shit.  So maybe I’m totally not who they want participating.  But the interesting thing is that I also don’t believe that the stuff shown on the screen has anything to do with real relationships, let alone any expectations for my own.  That alone would seem to indicate a strong correlation between watching the drivel and believing the BS.  But does the watching cause the believing? Or is it that those who live in a fantasy world seek out fantasy entertainment?

I’m hoping I’ll be asked to participate in the study for its entirety — not for the possible money, but because answering the questions, looking at my replies, makes me wonder more and more about these things.  While I may not be ‘typical’ or in any way reflective of the study results as a whole; but discovering things about myself, my habits, and my beliefs is really fascinating. Perhaps because I am so fascinating.

Do Romantic Comedies Ruin Relationships?

/ Alessia / 5 Comments

The Telegraph has an article saying that romantic comedies can ruin relationships. Their proof is a study a team at Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh did. They studied 40 top box office films released between 1995 and 2005, looking for patterns & common themes to establish common themes, and then asked hundreds of people to fill out a questionnaire to describe their beliefs and expectations when it came to relationships. The results?

The psychologists found that fans of films such as You’ve Got Mail, The Wedding Planner and While You Were Sleeping, often fail to communicate with their partners effectively, with many holding the view that if someone is meant to be with you, then they should know what you want without you needing to tell them.

In what certainly will not be news to feminists who have long argued that images in & portrayals by the media, the bottom line was, according to Dr Bjarne Holmes, a psychologist who led the research, “We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media play a role in perpetuating these ideas in people’s minds.”

Years a go, a friend of mine in college did a presentation on this subject — but hers focused on even earlier , more formative years. Her project was called Damaged By Disney, and it explored the messages sent to children — especially girls — regarding relationships. She found the following themes:

  • Women often have to change themselves to get the attention of a man &/or acquiesce to get him.
  • Once a girl gets her guy, the story ends — as if all the work exists in ‘getting’ and there’s no effort needed after that.
  • Love is presented as magical, two-dimensional, and unlikely as any of the other animated fantasy creatures used in the film.

I did and still do see her points; but why we’d choose to believe massages delivered by talking mice is beyond me. Similarly with films where humans play fictional characters — where Matthew McConaughey plays a character as real as talking mice — why do we opt to believe fantasy rather than reality, and then claim to be disappointed in the results?

In order to find out more the researchers have launched a much larger, international study on the effects of the media on relationships. At www.attachmentresearch.org, the researchers have a questionnaire about personality, relationships, and media consumption habits called the Media, Personality and Well-Being Study. Perhaps if enough of us participate we’ll get more clues.

And if such lofty altruistic goals do not seduce you, the folks behind the Media, Personality and Well-Being Study have sweetened the pot for you:

Starting in the week following completion of this initial set of questionnaires, you will be asked to complete a shorter set of questionnaires once a week for up to 24 weeks. Each set of these questionnaires takes approximately 10 minutes to complete and assesses your television viewing, mood, and feelings of well-being for that week.

You do not have to participate beyond completing the initial set of questionnaires. However, if you do decide to participate further in completing weekly questionnaires, for each weekly set you complete, you will be entered into a single cash drawing in which you will have the chance to win £500, held exclusively for participants in this study only. For example, if you complete all 24 weekly sets of questionnaires, you will be entered into the £500 draw 24 times.

So that ought to encourage you to participate in the Media, Personality and Well-Being Study.