DISCUSSION FORUM:
feminism and the portrayal of sexual power

NOTE: As of April 2002 no updates are being made to the comment section. However you are still welcome to submit comments to Thinkbomb. I still read all my mail and reply to reader submissions personally. Yes folks. I'm still here and sexist as ever. Just don't get the nooky I used to.

From: concamp@hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002

I would like to say in general that I support your efforts to present a point of view of society which acknowledges that in addition to the attitudes present which are unfair to women, there is a great deal which is unfair to men.

And while there are a lot of women making public and published complaints about their experience of the world as it now is, there are few places where the injustices which men routinely absorb are spelled out for those who might think that men have it lucky and that men are not brutalised, victimised, stereotyped, or dehumanised by the treatment we endure or the beliefs and intent people have towards them.

I believe any time you form an opinion about someone, even someone you have never met, you are responsible for that opinion and it's consequences. Every time you treat one person, or one race, or one gender differently you cause harm because you halp to define what it means to be black, or male, of female, when these things should have no definition or importance whatsoever.

I do however have a criticism regarding your website, in particular the page: germaine.html, where you show a comic which ridicules Germaine Greer. I do not know enough about her to opine as to whether she is worthy of vitriol but I am making another point here. The comic shows her with a knife in one hand and the dismembered genitals of a man in the other hand. I do not think you would have shown a comic which graphically depicted a rape, or the sexual mutilation of a woman. I think you have taken on an idea which the media puts forwards, not directly, but implicitly in its treatment of men which is that men are so superhumanly tough that we can and should watch men get sexually assaulted on a regular basis in advertising and in movies and not bat an eyelid or have any concern for the psychological safety or the men, or women, watching it.

I hope you will print this criticism and, at your discretion modify the page. I hope also that you will understand that despite my criticism I believe that you represent a positive force with your website, in your belief that men as well as women have a right to express themselves and to be free from prejudice and mistreatment.

I also wanted to understand better your dislike of Susan Faludi. I couldn't find much of her writings as yet but I uncovered this from an interview:

Q: So what's a good feminist like you doing writing sympathetically about men?

A: I don't see how you can be a feminist and not think about men. One of the gross misconceptions about feminism is that it's only about women. But in order for women to live freely, men have to live freely, too. Feminism has shown us that what we think of as feminine is actually defined by cultural messages and political agendas. The same holds true for men and for what constitutes masculinity. Being a feminist opens your eyes to the ways men, like women, are imprisoned in cultural stereotypes.

I would like to bring your attention to a recent movie, John Q. This movie is supposed to be about the US medical system and how the difficult matter of money is handled, or not handled, by it. But there is a more important message in this movie.

There is in the movie a certain 'bad boy', held hostage along with his 'girlfriend' in the hospital. It becomes clear that he has been physically violent towards her and probably caused the facial bruises and (sprained or broken) arm she is sporting.

The lesson the movie teaches it's audience is that he deserves to be raped. When the 'girlfriend' disables him with pepper spray during a fight with the movie's protagonist John, she takes the opportunity to kick him in the ribs. She then walks to where she has a clear view of his ass, leisurely moves one of his legs aside with her leg to get a clear shot, and kicks him between the legs. She is clearly enjoying this, and it is designed to allow the audience to anticipate, and enjoy the display of gratuitous sexual violence. It is designed to make the audience sympathise with her and feel that he deserves to be sexually violated.

This is not a scene which would have been allowed to appear in a mainstream movie or which Denzel Washington would have permitted to appear in a film starring him, had the gender roles been reversed and the sexual victim been a woman.

You only need to keep your television set on a few days before seeing numerous advertisements which portray the same kind of victimisation as humorous.

Until that changes I must agree with Faludi on that one point. Men can never be free until women are free, and women can never be free until men are free. When sex crimes are glorified there will be more of them, period. And generally speaking sex crimes are perpetrated against the innocent.

From: hazza@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002

Where to begin... I think its time that you gave up this reactionary rant against a force (feminism) that has changed the face of western sexuality. Men and women have experienced a revolution in their experience of sexual equality and interaction. You are a spike in this new regime. Get over it. Get on with it. Don't waste your time holding back the ocean.

Got something to say!? Contact Thinkbomb and leave a message. I no longer post messages but I do reply.

Don't forget, there is also a wealth of material on the page links below. Includes facts, opinions, satire, news and references.

Go to top

Bitch's Spew

Site map: all pages on sexual politics.

History from the perspective of sexual power.

Reader forum archive index.

Back to the ThinkBomb homepage.