I go overseas for a couple weeks to attend to business and come back to a political storm about the kind of behaviour I naively thought we might have grown out of or, at least, avoid during this election year - and that’s the sexist objectification and trivialisation of women.
The National Party must be exasperated with Farrar and Franks. Their schoolboy sniggering about sexist depictions of women cuts a little uncomfortably close to revealing National’s dirty little secret: It’s appalling attitude to women. An attitude which may cost National electorally.
Women form just over half of this country’s population and, as such, form an important constituency and, putting it crudely, a vast pool of potential votes. When women voters see brave, intelligent women MPs like Katherine Rich leaving parliament and wonder about her motivations these voters must also wonder whether National takes women seriously. When women voters survey National’s front bench and find it stuffed to the gunwales with men, they must wonder whether National takes them seriously. When women voters look at the insidious links of between the Catholic Church’s ultra-conservative, anti-women dogma and some of National’s leading MPs they must wonder whether National takes them seriously. When women voters read blogs like Farrar’s and his buddies and are shocked by the heinous misogyny being directed at Helen Clark and other women MPs they must wonder whether National takes them seriously.
All’s not lost for women voters though. While National might be happy to dismiss the relevance and importance of women it’s not the same in other parties. The Greens, Labour and the Maori Party all have women in prominent leadership roles. Moreover, under successive Labour-led governments, women have found their way to the highest positions across nearly all branches of government and are represented strongly in Cabinet. For women voters there are alternatives to the barely concealed contempt being directed at them by the National party.
And to counter Franks’ and Farrar’s woeful sexism - here’s an uplifting story about the World’s youngest university professor: A young woman called Alia. She became a college professor three days before her 19th birthday - which according to the Guinness Book of Records makes here the youngest college professor since 1717. This remarkable young woman also excels in music and martial arts.
I guess while Farrar and his mates believe the only interesting thing about a blond 19 year old women is her mammary glands - it’s nice to know that women like Alia - despite her youth, blonde tresses and breasts - manages to get on and do important stuff.
Tags: sexism
April 27, 2008 at 1:39 am
…I naively thought we might have grown out of…
We? We? Since when was sense of humour collective? Thanks very much, but I won’t be asking your permission on what’s funny.
Nobody cares what you think is funny. Nobody.
It’s appalling attitude to women.
As compared to what? Your spelling? Moron. (and, please, don’t pretend your inability to spell is not at least as important as the content of this mind numbingly stupid post)
If women should be insulted, Zoster, it might well be by your assumption that they need defending in the first place. I’m quite confident that if I was an object of your inane head-patting I’d be even more inclined to tell you where to go.
April 27, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I am not defending women. I am linking Farrar’s schoolboy antics with the National Party’s thinly veiled sexism. I don’t pretend to tell people what is or is not funny. I personally don’t hold with any kind of censorship. I think people should be free to express themselves as openly as they want. However, I do hold that everyone should be prepared to be judged by their expression. DPF’s free to be a sexist schoolboy - but he doesn’t get some kind of get of gaol card in terms of being judged as such. I also thought it a nice counterbalance to provide a link of to an uplifting story about a remarkable young woman.
By the way, if you’re going to pick holes in other’s material then you should learn the difference between a spelling issue and a grammatical or typographical error. Misplacing an apostrophe (something I am usually quite hot on) is not a spelling error. The other thing about setting yourself up as the resident spelling/grammar maven in this kind of forum is that you should be prepared to be similarly scrutinized. But hey, I will be the first to admit that it was a post scrawled quickly after a very long day of travel. Nevertheless, I will aspire to perfection next time.
April 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Zoster, the last four paragraphs of this post reminds of scenes from The Office when Brent tries to build up Asian people by talking about hard they work. You won’t understand the humour, of course, neither did Brent.
Your message to women in this post: “See girls? You can do it afterall! You should all be proud when one of your kind succeeds.”
April 27, 2008 at 3:48 pm
I think you’ve read a message into Zoster’s post that wasn’t intended. Any ambiguity though must surely have been resolved by the clarifying reply. You get hot and heavy pretty quick matt, what gives?
April 27, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Thought about this some more, Zoster. This post says far more about your own view of women than anyone else’s.
Why would you go to the trouble of writing about women’s achievements if your assumption is not that women are weak and need defending?
If it was just about embarrassing Franks you could have stopped at the second paragraph.
How long have you had this problem with women Zoster?
April 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“As compared to what? Your spelling? Moron. (and, please, don’t pretend your inability to spell is not at least as important as the content of this mind numbingly stupid post)”
The real humor to come out of this post is matt’s thinking he can come onto someone’s blog and call them a “moron” and “mind numbingly stupid” and not be banned (I assume he doesn’t want to be banned because of the amount of time he spends posting here).
Zoster - if you don’t ban this silly little hot-head you’re a more tolerant person than 90% of bloggers that I’ve seen.
April 27, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Whatever, Matt. Try and make this about me and my supposed problem with women if you like. But this is really about National’s underlying sexism. Farrar’s just a juvenile expression of this attitude.
And for the record, Nome, I like Matt’s contributions around here. He might be a little pugilistic at times but generally he advances his arguments intelligently and honestly - I have no intention of seeing him banned. I think he’s a healthy check on us all. I don’t detect any real ill-will. Matt’s just trying to deflect attention away from my point about the National Party’s uneasy record on women and women’s issues.
April 27, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Fight, fight, fight, fight, fight…
Nah, I agree. I think Matt’s language can be pretty immoderate but I agree with Zos; it’s good to have a generally intelligent alternative perspective.
April 27, 2008 at 9:33 pm
You’re right, I’m just f**king with you Zoster.
But you really have missed the boat in this post. Your argument amounts to people who find the piece funny also disrespect women, which is exactly backwards.
If you think about it, it is the topless women who are exploiting a weakness of men, and therein lies the joke. The joke depends on the fact that it is the women who are in control, and it dies with even the hint that the women are being exploited.
I just think it is hilarious that you would not only miss this point, but you would miss it so badly that you felt the need to defend women from this alleged assault by pointing to their successes! That’s as funny as the video.
And you’re right, my spelling/punctuation/grammar is awful. I just thought that anyone who holds Farrar and Franks to such high standards must be themselves basically perfect. That was me saying Aha!
April 27, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I have to say this post-feminist argument’s never convinced me. The argument you make above could be interpreted to justify men’s otherwise inappropriate behaviour as “I was being manipulated”? I certainly get the women-in-control-of-their-sexuality thing but struggle to believe the Spice Girls are on the same continuum with Dita Von Tease.
That said, I don’t think it’s only men who can be exploitative, but I think in our modern Western Democracies, it’s generally the case. Perhaps my perspective is coloured by being the father or two girls, one of whom is a teenager and susceptible to the images of women as portrayed in the MSM (which are often inconsistent with the otherwise very strong messages she gets from her mother and father).
April 27, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I always think it’s pretty funny when a guy calls another guy out for putting intelligent words in women’s mouths. It’s so damn nice to see someone of the male persuasion assuming that women are smart and will vote accordingly that I’m willing to excuse the speaking on behalf of bit. I’d consider someone like that can speak for me in absentia most times and it won’t be a disaster.
As for liking or not liking the video and its humour - it’s eye of the beholder stuff. Not everyone is going to find it offensive, including women. However, as a woman I find it tired and a bit painful. It reflects a commonly portrayed relationship between the sexes and set of symbology where women are objects, to even get to that point they have to have a certain type of body and want to be looked at, and men are stupid. Where would I want to place myself in that picture? Nowhere. The fact that a National MP had it on his site is not offensive per se - it just makes me roll my eyes and wish things were different. I wouldn’t want to support an MP or party that aligns itself with the ideas contained within the visual narrative of the video.
April 28, 2008 at 12:45 am
“If you think about it, it is the topless women who are exploiting a weakness of men, and therein lies the joke. The joke depends on the fact that it is the women who are in control, and it dies with even the hint that the women are being exploited.”
Congratulations for missing the point by several miles Matt.
Let’s review your argument: the women in the video a valued as far as they have “nice tits” - which means that women win, because women, as a whole, want to be seen as a pair of tits. There’s an old saying Matt, that, in one sentence crudely brings to the fore the problem with your mentality. And that’s:
if your cunt’s your currency, then you’re going to get fucked
What if you aren’t one of the 5% of women that fit the mold of woman portrayed in the video and you want to be valued for your sense of humor, wit, intelligence or talents? If the women in the video are valued solely for their sexuality can it really be said to be empowering for women? Of course not, ultimately it’s disempowering.
Now the following video depicts women with a lot of skin showing - yet somehow it isn’t demeaning - they’re talented, active musicians who are creating ,and they stand next to a reasonably good looking guy who’s waring a similarly racy outfit. See it’s not the nudity in farrar’s video that bothers me - it’s the way the women are depicted. Understand?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70_8r_b-J2U
April 28, 2008 at 1:10 am
rogernome, that’s the worst art-rock wank I’ve seen this week :>
April 28, 2008 at 1:41 am
Mardy: Art rock? All week!? Looks like good ol’ time lo-fi garage rock to me - just with funny outfits.
April 28, 2008 at 1:43 am
oh and BTW, Demolition Dollrods kick arse, and I won’t hear any different!
April 28, 2008 at 11:57 am
The outfits place it, for me at least, in that era/genre. Speaking of which, remember the shockers from the ’70s - glam-rockers and the like. I saw that Devo hav been reborn as some sort of Mickey Mouse club-band http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1525358/20060303/devo.jhtml?headlines=true. Anyone remember the song, Baby Its You by the band Promises http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promises_(group)?
April 28, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Are you seriously this prudish or are you just using it as a tool to create perceptions of the national party?
What on earth is wrong with topless women in this day and age?
In a biochemistry department I worked at some years ago one year the male Phd students and young lecturers got together to do a nude calender for charity, the next year the female Phd students (but no lecturers) did the same.
So brainy and flashing boobs are polar opposites.
April 28, 2008 at 7:37 pm
NPG, not prudish in the slightest. Just very much aware of the National Party’s tendency to sexism. There’s no need to create impressions, I think Key’s made public his desire to extend National’s vote-catchment to women (he’s been somewhat compromised by the resignation of Rich) therefore Franks will hardly have endeared himself given this school-boy prank.
April 28, 2008 at 7:39 pm
NPOG: “What on earth is wrong with topless women in this day and age?”
Is the word “objectification” too long for you to understand, NPOG?
Ever wondered why there are so few women National MPs, NPOG?
Did you notice that the video clip was posted by two blokes, NPOG?
Oh, what’s the point?
April 28, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Incidently IIRC two of those biochemistry victims of patriarchal chauvanist oppression, one was a post doctoral fellow at Cambridge University and the other was at Imperial College, London.
Doubtless happily flaunting their sexuality in those hallowed halls whenever they feel so inclined.
So am I guessing you don’t object to the Danish road safety campaign per se, just the fact that Franks posted it on his blog.
Meant to write “So brainy and flashing boobs are not polar opposites” actually.
April 28, 2008 at 8:51 pm
No one’s arguing women can’t/aren’t/shouldn’t be as sexual as they wish.
The point is that Franks school-boy humour reinforce traditional gender stereotypes, stereotypes his party and friends are clearly happy with, which is an astounding display of poor judgment given his party’s stated strategy.
In another thread, Stephen’s support for discrimination against sex workers presents a strange paradox too. It’s ok to promote humour using women’s sexuality, but it’s also ok to discriminate against them if they choose to work in the sex industry. What gives?
April 28, 2008 at 9:41 pm
So do you have a problem with the danish road safety campaign or not?
And what is the appropriate way to view such a video?
April 28, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Fulfilling male fantasies is not feminism and is not empowering; no matter how many times you show them your tits.
Great comments Mardy. You’re a good man Charlie Brown.
April 28, 2008 at 10:23 pm
So taking off your top is “fulfilling male fantasies”?
When I lived in Sydney I was friends with a german exchange student who was surprised that sunbathing topless was considered a big deal.
The poor oppresssed victim didnt realise that what she was doing was fulfilling male fantasies.
I have to be honest, my absolute most wildest fantasies extend a little further than simply seeing a woman’s tits.
April 28, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Oh and that german exchange student is now doing a post doc in marine biology.
April 28, 2008 at 10:37 pm
You’re seriously missing the point NPG. The criticism about Franks and Farrar is not about whether or not women are sexual. It’s about whether or not women are represented as simply sexual entities and sexual entities for your amusement.
And by the way, men and women’s sexuality is not indexed to their academic performance.
April 28, 2008 at 10:50 pm
“And by the way, men and women’s sexuality is not indexed to their academic performance.”
Could have fooled me as the original post seems to be applying that women can either take there tops off on occasion (presumably this encompasses sexuality for you….?) or be academically gifted but should not be both.
I was simply trying to subvert the stereotype in implicit above that topless women are necessarily stupid and/or demeaned.
I don’t seem to have an answer as to if the original danish advertising campaign is a problem or not.
April 28, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Three things.
1. I can see why the contrast of the Danish advert and the youngest Prof could lead to someone thinking the contrast was between models and academics; I don’t think it was about this however.
2. Topless, sexual (overt or otherwise) doesn’t mean stupid nor demeaned but the Danish advert had little to commend it - it invited viewers to see women as funny people with breasts who’re good at amusing motorists. Hardly very enlightened.
3. I’ve said previously, and I’ll not speak for others, I don’t think the advert’s a hanging offence; I’d expect it from Farrar who’s got solid form (witness the array of Hooters and related posts) but for a prospective candidate, it shows very poor judgment and undermines his leader’s stated campaign.
April 28, 2008 at 11:39 pm
If you say DPF has boobs on his blog far too often you may have a point.
If you say Franks as a former and soon to be MP should not have such content on his blog as it would be seen as inappropriate by older and more conservative NZers, I would also agree. A politician has to respect the values of all his/her electorate.
In the same way I encourage women tourists to conservative parts of the Middle East to wear a headscarf, not because I think exposed female hair is shocking nor because they might be harrassed (in the conservative parts of the ME they certainly wont be) but that I think local standards of decency that are sincerely held by both genders should be respected by visitors.
But am I personally offended by topless women making a humorous public safety campaign? No, nor would most Northern Europeans be (and surely we need to determine the possible inappropriateness of the ad in its cultural context?) and nor would almost all NZers under 30 be either.