A long time ago on television I saw this programme about artists. Well I’ve seen lots of programmes about artists really, being as I used to think I was one, and every now and then I occasionally still think it. But there was this one in particular:

A man collected over 1000 autumn leaves and he wrote on them. Happy little statements, nice little messages. He put all 1000 into a sack, and went to the roof of a tall building, and then emptied the sack of leaves into the wind so the messages would get carried far and wide and would perhaps make someones day.

I thought abut it again recently, when reading somewhere (I think it was at Graces) that you always see the streets in some city littered with sexxxy ‘empowermentful’ porn posters and fliers. I got this mental imagery of fliers all about town with sexist depictions of women all over them, just papering the streets. N’I thought… ‘I want to paper the streets with opposite fliers. Things that promote women and are anti porn and anti empowermentfulism. Maybe with some ‘love your body’ stuff thrown in as well.
I thought about how maybe women reading those fliers would see them, and maybe it would brighten their day, and then I remembered roof-leaf-man. N’I thought about how leaves and such are absolutely better because they don’t harm the environment in the same way (Though it’d be harder to notice a message written on a leaf I guess.)
I think I want to do that, or something like that.

N’maybe make little fliers that I can stick on noticeboards and things. Like, outside shopping places etc.

I don’t know. It might brighten some womans day, and I think the effort is worth that.

Does this sound good to anyone else? If it does sound good, and anyone else would want to be involved, then wouldn’t it be awesome if we made a real day of it? Like a bunch of women-folk and pro-women-folk collecting leaves and writing on them for a few months, and then releasing them into the wild on the same day.
It sounds fantastic.

Would anyone else want to be involved in a project like that?

I was trawling on the internet and I came across this article talking about the response from the Advertising Standards Board to That Nandos Advertisement

Here’s a copy paste:

“Nando’s Australia Pty Ltd (Cinema pole-dancer)

(EXTRACT OF RULING JUNE 2007)- Complaint Dismissed

EXAMPLE OF COMPLAINTS

“The ad is almost as repulsive and sordid about men as it is about women. It exploits the current stupid notion that sexual exploitation is “empowering” for women in order to use sex to sell chicken. It is not empowering to see women represented as lust objects, nor is it remotely funny. It is just unspeakably demeaning.”

THE DETERMINATION

The Advertising Standards Board (“Board”) considered whether this advertisement breaches Section 2 of the Advertiser Code of Ethics (the “Code”). The Board noted that the advertisement had been classified M by CAD which meant that it could only be shown after 8.30pm and during the week from 12-3pm. The Board noted that the advertisement had only been shown at the cinema prior to an M classified movie which means that the movie is recommended for persons over the age of 15. The Board also noted the diverse issues raised in complaints about this advertisement.

The Board noted the complaints about the inappropriateness of stripping or pole dancing being shown in conjunction with images of a happy family and the disconnect between poledancing or stripping and family values. The Board considered that poledancing was not incompatible with family values and that there was no breach of the Code in this depiction.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified men by depicting the man at a pole dancing show, paying for the woman to dance. The Board considered that the man was depicted in a very sterile manner and not in a way that made him appear sexist or sleasy. The Board noted that the advertisement also depicted a man as the father with his family. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify men by showing a man enjoying a pole dancing show.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified women by depicting the woman poledancing and therefore as a stripper or a prostitute. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was not a depiction of a sleasy or overtly sexual woman and that there was no suggestion that the woman was a prostitute. The Board also noted that poledancing is becoming more mainstream with it currently being a popular form of exercise. While noting the change in attitude towards pole dancing the Board agreed that this change was probably not widespread in the community. Regardless of this the Board considered that this depiction of pole dancing was fairly clinical and not overtly sexual and was therefore not vilifying of women or inappropriately sexual.

The Board noted complaints that the advertisement’s reference to ‘nando fix patches’ amounted to a stereotypical portrayal of sex workers as addicts. The Board agreed that most members of the community would not see that there was any such suggestion in the advertisement.

The Board noted many complaints about the depiction of a mother and wife as a pole dancer/prostitute and considered that this vilified women. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted a strong in control woman who went about her work in a professional manner (wearing a suit to work), enjoyed her work, enjoyed being ’sexy’ and enjoyed time with her family. The Board considered that this advertisement depicted the woman as being a strong and empowered woman. The Board considered that the advertisement did not vilify women by portraying a woman in both roles or in a manner that demonstrated that she was ’sexy’. The Board considered that such a depiction was not improper as a depiction of someone who was also a mother and wife.

Lastly the Board considered the pole dancing scene and the woman’s near nudity. The Board noted that the woman’s breasts were covered (albeit by her hands), and that her nipples and genitals were not shown in the advertisement. The Board considered that the depiction of the woman pole dancing was fairly ‘clinical’ with no overtly sexual music and no touching by the man. The Board noted that even when the woman pokes her bottom out, the viewer sees this from the side and there is no actual nudity or inappropriately sexual views. The Board noted that the advertisement is rated M and is therefore not directed to small children or children under the age of 15 without parental supervision.

On this basis the majority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement did not breach any of the provisions of the Code. The minority of the Board considered that this part of the advertisement was a breach of community standards in relation to sexuality. All members of the Board noted that the advertiser certainly meant to create an advertisement with some shock value and that this had been achieved. The Board agreed that the diversity of opinion within the Board about the advertisement was likely to reflect community views on the advertisement. Finding that the advertisement did not breach the Code on any grounds, the Board dismissed the complaint.”

Point of interest: “The Board noted complaints that the advertisement vilified men by depicting the man at a pole dancing show, paying for the woman to dance.”

I’m interested that MRA’s complained about this advertisement depicting men badly as being cheif buyers of stippers/prostitutes. Frankly men are primarily the people who buy strippers and prostitutes. I suppose depicting it might villify men seeing as the sex trade is encouraged by these men, and encouraging the sex trade is pretty inhuman since it encourages sex-trafficking and rape.

Also: The board considered the woman in the advertisement STRONG and EMPOWERED. So I guess the advertisement wasn’t pandering to men after all. Amirite?

Hey - ‘empowermentful’ sex isn’t the totally fulfilling thing ever. Why I am _shocked_

This post was written by Australian radical feminist Allecto who can be found at Gorgon Poisons It highlights a study stating that females who suffer from mild to moderate depression have a third more sexual activity than those who are not.
The woman in the article says that the depressed women probably seek out sexual intimacy to gain more security.

Over at Gorgon Poison there’s a bit of talk about whether having lots of sex is the thing making women depressed, or whether they get depressed and then have lots of sex. At any rate I agree with the commenter Hecate when she says this:
“Only when wymmyn rise up and redefine sex as something we want and can participate in freely (without men) only then can we free ourselves from the endless series of rapes that all wymmyn everywhere have experienced since the beginning of time.” I’d say “With or without men” being my heterosexual self, though I could understand why anyone would think it’s impossible/difficult to have that kind of enjoyable free act with men around considering the state of gender as it is.

I mean. It seems obvious. Women should be having sex when they want, freely, no coersion, no pressure. Not all women want to be having sex, or having wild sexual encounters or any of that shit. N’you know, thats cool. It’s not about being prudish or repressed.
I don’t care for having ‘at least five or so penises inside me.’ Thankyou very much. Shocking obviously.

Not in the best of moods.

I just had a little spat with my S.O, I think I was in the wrong, I’m not sure. Got me emotional anyway, so I left the house for an internet cafe.

I was talking in a feminist forum, with a girl talking about a channel called ‘oxygen’ that she likes. We got onto speaking about how the majority of the media is aimed at white men, where we both agreed. She said the majority of action heros are men, and i noted that even when they are women, they’re made into sexual objects.

It exploded from here where she said that these women in movies are just ustilizing their sexuality, and that it’s showing womens sexuality as powerful, ’sex sells’ and men are also sex symbols.

I thought there was a difference between a sex object, and a sex symbol. A sexy man is still a person, in fact, he’s a person first, and then sexy second. Sexy women in movies are there to be sexy first, and to do other things second.

She said that some or most people might see the women as sex objects, but she didn’t so it was okay. I responded that if some or most people see women as sex objects, there’s clearly some problem. In the same post that I responded to, she said this:
“You can be oppressed all you want, but I’m going to enjoy the sexuality that women can exhibit with such powerfulness.”

I can be oppressed if I want to. I can choose oppression. This is something I choose. Okay. Also: I don’t enjoy sexuality. She’s said similar things about me and sex in other threads.

I continued to explain that female characters in movies are characters written by men and that when you’re watching a character on the silver screen, you’re not watching a woman making empowered choices, you’re watching a woman fill a role that men have created.

She said there’s nothing we can do about it, and I responded that we can get active, boycott things, write letters etc.
I was told that she couldn’t care less about the issue of objectification, and she has other things to fight. Alright, I give her that she’s focusing on other things, but she was also saying that objectification wasn’t a bad thing, and that if it was a bad thing, there’s nothing to be done about it, and how she doesn’t watch shows that make her feel bad anyway, she watches shows with powerful women in them, shows like Sex in the City.

She also talked about how we can change the porn industry not by protesting, but by creating ‘good’ porn. I had a problem with several things in that post, the biggest one being the idea that creating ‘good’ porn will eliminate ‘bad’ porn.
The people who get off on the degredation and humiliation won’t watch this ‘good porn’ and the people who do watch it, are still using a womans body to get off to. I also wouldn’t say ‘Sex in the City’ empowers women.

I was then told this:

“ Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Do you want to know how often I hear this?

Too often!

There’s no substance to what’s being said.

No proof.

Women are objectified every day. So are homosexuals. So are hispanics. So are Native Americans. So are animals!

Do you know who objectified women? Idiots. Do I waste my time changing the opinions of idiots. No! I have better things to do.

I don’t want to change anyone’s opinion. I want them to change it themselves. I want them to wake up with one big bitch-slap on a Tuesday morning. Holding a picket sign may help, but I’ll leave that work to you.

I’m going to watch The Color Purple. And then I’m going to be awed by Frida’s artwork. And then I’m going to have fun with my cobalt blue vibrator. And you want to know why? Because I’m going to enjoy the awesome oragsms that I deserve!

And then I’m going to watch Sex in teh City. ”

I’ve posted her the link to the APA report before, so I’m not happy at being told that there’s no substance to what I’m saying. Is it really that bad for a feminist to say that objectification is bad? Also, another implication that I’m ‘anti-sex.’

I don’t know, I’m complaining about someone else, and that doesn’t feel very ‘big’ of me, but I don’t know. I’ve been insulted a few times now, I’ve been told that the sexism I see in objectification is an unsubstantiated non issue, and that I’m oppressing myself. This is the first time I’ve had such a discussion, and I’m not feeling all that great about it.

On a more positive note. I just discovered this blog