Archive for the 'indoctrination' Category

Policing gender in our mainstream media

Published by
Anna
at January 24, 2007 in The workplace, femininity, indoctrination and sexism. 2 Comments

One of my daily internet visits is the site for the Sydney Morning Herald. If you too read the Sydney Morning Herald you know that they have a whole blogosphere dedicated to vapid crap such as Sam and the City. Sam basically just reproduces all the dating cliches in the book and gets paid for it. This entry isn’t about Sam and the City however because it seems over there at smh HQ they’ve added yet another vapid, boring blog to their arsenal of vapid boring blogs. This one is called “Beauty Beat“. As you can tell by the title it’s a blog that shares beauty tips for women. Now I don’t pass judgement on women wearing makeup and I don’t want to get involved in that whole ‘if you wear makeup your a bad feminist’ debate but the following I take issue with:

If you’ve ever wondered how make-up (or lack thereof) affects the way you’re treated in the corporate world, consider this: a study conducted by US economists Hamermesh and Biddle found that women who wear make-up earn 20 to 30 per cent higher incomes than women who do not.

A sobering stat to remember as you hit the snooze button for a third time tomorrow morning. Go on, get up and spend those extra few precious minutes slapping on some lippie - it could take you on the road to riches.

That’s right, don’t question the punishment women get for not conforming to patriarchal beauty standards, get up earlier you lazy wench. I clicked on the above article thinking there was going to be some analysis of the obvious discrimination against women who don’t wear make up but that was silly to think that wasn’t it? Of course the article wasn’t going to be about that.

The whole article seems to be straight out of the patriarchy handbook really. Here we have the rebuke for women who don’t wear makeup because goodness knows if you can’t be bothered to put gunk all over your face then who knows what else you couldn’t be bothered doing:

I recently read an article by a woman who believed that wearing make-up was a waste of time, right up until her friend pointed out her lack of ‘face’ was hurting her career. “If you don’t bother with lipstick, it makes people wonder what other details you can’t be bothered with,” the friend said. The buddy went on to recount “stories of qualified, talented women she’s known who she would never refer to clients or for business because of their appearance - long, unstyled hair, more-casual-than-professional clothes, no make-up”.

Besides the fact that she totally made up that conversation (j’accuse!), she refers to makeup the whole way through the article as her ‘face’ and how uncomfortable she would feel going to meetings without her ‘face’ on. I’m sure a lot of women feel that way and the pressure to conform is definitely present but the fact that the social policing of femininity is so high as to result in women who don’t like wearing makeup receiving 20-30 percent less of an income than women who do wear it (on top of the already lower salaries women get for simply being women) should be thought of as outrageous, a chance to expose the inner workings of the social conditioning of the patriarchal system not as a chance to rebuke women for not ‘putting their face on’ (who honestly still says that?) when they go to work.

If you have a corporate job, looking professional is part and parcel but the fact remains that women are held to a much higher standard of what this looking professional actually means. A smart looking suit isn’t enough. That women’s salaries should suffer due to a lack of mascara is a clear case of discrimination case in my opinion.

This is just getting ridiculous

Published by
Anna
at October 27, 2006 in indoctrination, pop-culture, raunch, sexualisation of children and wtf?!. 1 Comment

First we have prostituted up Bratz Babyz dolls, and padded bralettes for four year-olds,
the US sells g-strings and lingerie for toddlers and now retailer, Tesco, has just been forced to remove a “sexy” pole-dancing kit from the toys and games section of their website. Marketing pole-dancing to kids? WTF?! My head is going to explode.

A “sexy” pole-dancing kit has been pulled from the toys and games section of a website run by Britain’s biggest retailer after protests from outraged parents.

The Peekaboo pole-dancing kit, which has a “sexy garter” to help “unleash the sex kitten inside” was sold in Tesco Direct’s toys and games section, The Daily Mail reported.

“Soon you’ll be flaunting it to the world and earning a fortune in Peekaboo Dance Dollars,” its blurb reads.

“Unleash the sex kitten inside … simply extend the Peekaboo pole inside the tube, slip on the sexy tunes and away you go!”

The £50 ($125) kit includes a 2.6-metre chrome pole, a “sexy dance garter” and a DVD demonstrating suggestive dance moves, the report said.

I need to go lie down.

This is really outrageous

Published by
Anna
at October 5, 2006 in eating disorders, indoctrination, media and wtf?!. 1 Comment

The Herald yesterday reported that during Australian Idol, channel 10 has been screening advertisements for the diet drug Xenical.

Screened during the high-rating Australian Idol program, which counts 13- to 17-year-olds as one of its largest audiences, the ads have reportedly driven girls as young as 13 and of average weight to ask pharmacists for the drug.

Pharmacists have reported an increase in demand from young girls since the campaign began two weeks ago. They have also reported that many young girls that have requested the drug are not overweight (surprise, surprise). The drug has side effects such as incontinence and diarrhoea.

This is seriously irresponsible. Here’s Ten’s contact details if you want to write to them and tell them just how irresponsible they are:

1 Saunders Street,
Pyrmont NSW 2009

PH: (02) 9650 1010
FAX: (02) 9650 1111
POSTAL ADDRESS
GPO BOX 10
Sydney NSW 2000

Teaching kids pimps are cool

Published by
Anna
at July 26, 2006 in indoctrination, media, pop-culture and sexist. 0 Comments

This article in the Sunday Mail, rightly points out the sneak attack of unsuitable kids television in the Saturday and Sunday G-rated timeslot through music videos.

WOMEN in dog collars, make-believe pimps and prostitutes . . . welcome to children’s breakfast television in Australia.

I’m no big watcher of Video Hits and the like but I do find myself mesmerised when, sitting at a pub having a quite beer, Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas starts showing me her hump or what have you. Music videos have been known for their raunchiness for a quite a while but has anyone ever studied their impact on children as far as attitudes to women?

The music director for PG-rated pay TV music station Channel V, Drew Michel, said the station regularly showed a video for the song Pimp by 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg, that included women in dog collars.

But community organisation Young Media Australia wants clips like this banned from children’s television.

“Having women led around in dog collars is degrading, sexist material,” YMA president Jane Roberts said.

“There is a whole generation of young Australians who think this is normal behaviour.”

Granted, music videos have become ever-raunchier and degrading but it has always existed in some form or another. Christina Aguilera’s raunchy clips perhaps could be comparable to some of Madonna’s early stuff for example. There’s a line that’s crossed, however, when kids are constantly bombarded with degrading images (and ideas/lyrics) of women, especially from the gangsta-rap arena.

YMA wants the clips banned from children’s television but should the regulation start at the source? Should the music industry be pressured into taking responsibility for the ideas they’re spreading? Or is that over-regulation and akin to censorship?

I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy of toning down songs by artists such as Peaches for mass release. For example she had to tone down her song Two Guys. The original lyrics go something like this: “I wanna take you home get you satisfied/ Drugged out, sexed up, however you fly/ Just one thing I can’t compromise/ I wanna see you work it - guy on guy…Slappin’ those dicks all over the place/ Rubbin’ that shit all up in your face.” But that toning down doesn’t seem to happen too much when the song lyrics involve “Bitch choose with me, I’ll have you stripping in the street/ Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat”*.

Feministing points out the reluctance of stalwarts such as MTV in giving airtime to bands with feminist leanings.

*Said 50 cent song

Prussian Blue

Published by
Anna
at June 21, 2006 in indoctrination and neo-nazism. 3 Comments

[This post was origanally tagged on the end of the ‘christian blogging’ post but I’ve decided to make it it’s own thread in the hope of getting a bit of conversation going around here…*nudge, nudge]

Meet the Olsen twins. I mean Lamb and Lynx Gaede. This is the disturbing progeny of a white nationalist who has been teaching her children the ways of neo-nazism since birth. The twins are home-schooled and have their very own white supremacist band called “Prussian Blue” and yes, in case you were wondering, they are indeed wearing Hitler smiley-face T-shirts.

Prussian Blue has been entertaining all-white crowds with songs such as “Sacrifice” – a tribute to Hitler’s deputy Rudolf Hess – since they were nine.

“We’re proud of being white, we want to keep being white,” said Lynx. “We want our people to stay white … we don’t want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race.”

Now that is just plain scary.

They’ve featured in the media and blogosphere heavily since their mother won a custody battle for them, due to their father’s history of drug abuse and domestic violence (but apparently no white supremacist tendencies).

A lot of the conversation in the blogosphere has centred around whether they would be better off with their father (depending on the seriousness of charges of domestic violence) and not getting indoctrinated with damaging ideological views, but then where do you stop once a mother loses custody because of her beliefs. Happy Feminist was of the opinion that a lot of people would think her views would be damaging to children. But is it a subjective thing when it comes to neo-nazism? My view was that lots of people are having kids and teaching them damaging views, that’s just the way it is… But if it comes down to what’s best for the child, which is worse?

Technorati Tags: ,

Friday christian blogging…on Tuesday

Published by
Anna
at June 20, 2006 in breeding, christianity and indoctrination. 0 Comments

Holy breeding frenzy. This is the Duggar family. The Duggar’s have gained a certain amount of noteriety due to their larger than average family. Mrs Michelle Duggar has given birth to 16 kids. In the ‘Advice to mother’s section’ on their family webpage, she tells of having a breakdown over all the washing she has to do but have no fear god is here:

It was 1:00 AM in the morning as I stood folding laundry with tears streaming down my cheeks. Feelings of being overwhelmed flooded my mind. I cried aloud, ”LORD I NEED YOUR HELP, I can’t do it all! I feel so inadequate! Diapers, dishes, laundry, meals, cleanup, school lessons, baths, hugs, kisses, correction…” My list seemed to go on and on.

[…]

I said, “OK Lord, I will praise you even now! It really is a sacrifice!” So through the tears I began to sing, “The joy of the Lord is my strength”. In my heart there was a release as if a burden had been lifted. I finished the laundry at 2 AM and went to bed.

Days later, I was at our piano teacher’s home (at 7 AM) trying to catch up on paperwork while the children were taking their lessons. Instead, I kept drifting off to sleep! The teacher noticed and asked, “Are you OK?” I replied, “I’m fine, I’m just tired. I was up late finishing laundry.”

As we talked more she said that she actually enjoyed doing laundry and that she would be glad to come and help me! That weekend when she arrived we had mountains of dirty laundry, and when she left we had nice, neat, orderly stacks of clean laundry! For 10 years now, our piano teacher, whom we consider a part of our family and loving call “NaNa” has faithfully come (now twice a week) to help us with laundry! GOD sent “An angel” in answer to my cry for help.

Her husband sounds like a catch. I guess he’s too busy winning bread to help her out.

This woman has numerous pearls of wisdom on her site, ‘Biblical Womanhood’. Which is mainly taken up with how to be a good subservient mother and wife. I especially liked the post where she regrets not telling the telemarketer where to go after daring to call her the female head of the household. Here’s an excerpt:

The conversation went something like this:

Crystal: Hello!

Telemarketer: Hi, I’d like to speak with the female head of the household.

Crystal: I am a female, but I’m not the head of our household.

Telemarketer: Silence.

Crystal: My husband is the head of our household.

Telemarketer: Um, um, well… in my office we call you the female head of the household.

Crystal: In our house, my husband’s the head so I think you probably don’t want to talk to me.

Needless to say, the telemarketer was quite baffled and ended up hanging up. I wish I had been more quick to explain to her how important it was that my husband is the head of our household and that I am under his authority.

And this piece of advice on what to teach a son was a bit of a gem too. Number two on the list of 10 was this:

To guard his mind - If I don’t, the devil will gladly teach him to have an open mind.

I don’t want this post to come across as scoffing at ‘unliberated women’ (well let’s face it I am) but I must admit a certain level of amusement mixed with a pinch of woah! and a little (perhaps self-righteous) pity (which I’m sure they want none of) – shaken, not stirred – did come across me at the discovery of these things.

I take that all back. Christians are just nutters. Try cruising some christian blogs. For example, this woman, if she could do one thing in the world, would revoke women’s suffrage and tie voting to property ownership.