Page 7: I enjoy how this book opens right away with describing third wave, postmodern feminism as "politically bankrupt." Way to not pull any punches and ensure you offend an entire section of your audience who might associate with that movement for perfectly valid reasons.
P. 14: Some women are saying FCUK? It'd be nice to know what this means.
P. 15: Curious why they used a secondary source for this quote when it should be easy to find the primary.
P. 22: The argument on the top of this page, which is basically that magazines shouldn't be sexist because children might be able to access them at some point, is complete bullshit. There is already a huge amount of sexism available freely to children, and there are already a ton of reasons why magazines should shape up, but using the "BUT THE CHILDREN" line is just an unnecessary appeal to emotion that hurts your overall case. THANKS DISNEY FOR COVERING THIS ALREADY.
Continued p. 22: I have never heard of Promise Keepers, and I'm someone who consumes a huge amount of media. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to cover a more mainstream group? There are plenty of pseudo/neo-masculine Tumblrs and such.
P. 26: The analysis of Farrakhan affecting the Million Man March movement so heavily, and of journalism leaping to assassinate the messenger at the cost of ignoring the message really reminds me of the same thing going on with Assange and Wikileaks. The discussion about whether or not Wikileaks should be doing what they're doing is drowned out by Assange's personality/rape case. Of course, some of this Wikileaks does on purpose, they make Assange a lightning rod. It's sad, though, that they have to do this to remain feasible.
P. 27-28: Criticizing the fathers' group for their motto, which has a very tenuous at best connection to the dog motto (one I never would have associate the idea with, but whatever) is, again, a petty criticism compared with the more legitimate complaints to make.
P. 29: HEY FCUK IS NOW EXPLAINED. Editors should've moved this to the first reference.
P. 31: Lots of the modern references in this section are lost on me.
P. 37: This book has some really good writing, and it shines through in this section. The quote: "So we can see that cyberfeminism/s incorporate thinking about the poetics of the technoscientific woman-machine cyborg but also the regular woman in her living room e-mailing colleagues across the world with information about how to lobby their local politician." is positively poetic.
P. 42: Man, what happened to metrosexual anyway? It was everywhere for a few years, and I don't think I've heard the term outside of this classroom since I moved to Texas. Maybe that's the problem.
P. 46: This section is heavily repetitive from previous book and class discussions. Skimming.
P. 51: If this book had been published in the last three months, they could have discussed recent legislation in Israel banning models below a certain BMI. Of course, this naturally gets the feedback that WHAT ABOUT WOMEN WHO ARE NATURALLY THAT SKINNY but I assume there will be some penduluming back and forth on this issue for a few years. Israel also requires photoshopped pictures to be labeled.
P. 62: This section makes me worry about the blurry line between labeling and removing sexism and sex-shaming. (Note added later: The pornography section covers this debate extensively.)
P. 70: Did the congressman internalize their ideas, or ignore them? (re: Statement about why pornography should be legislated and its roots in feminist messaging).
P. 71: Interesting bit on pornography as power. Makes me think about sites, NOT THAT I HAVE EVER BEEN TO ONE, where pornography is shown for free but the cost is you put up with a lot of ads, some of which push into fetishes/images significantly different than what you're viewing. HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION - you're viewing some free porn and this ad makes it appear that a girl wants to chat with you about sex. EVEN IF THE PORN YOU'RE VIEWING is overall female-sex-positive, the advertisements probably won't be. CONUNDRUM.
P. 75: I have such a hard time following arguments sometimes. Would making porn-for-women shame women who enjoy traditionally-porn-for-men? Does it limit their acceptable repoire?
P. 82: I wonder the authors stance on cybersex addiction vs. Facebook game addiction.
P. 91: This section about the absence of females in journalism reminds me strongly of the recent rekindling of the abortion/rape debates and the lack of women involved in that discussion.
P. 96: Like Faith pointed out in class earlier this semester, the implication that men cannot control themselves and that women are asking for it should also raise disgust in male audiences. After all, why on earth would we want AN OVERWHELMING UNCONTROLLABLE URGE FOR SEX (actually usually urge for power, not sex) to be associated with MASCULINITY, and not just with RAPISTS?
P. 103: Racist reporting was "obliterated"? Am I reading that right? Uh.... Yeah, author lost me there. Also, she-devil seems a pretty weak example compared to tons of others available.
P. 105: I agree Palin and Clinton got undue attention to their physical appearances compared to their male counterparts, and that that sucks and should change. However, using the examples of Palin being charged with "abandoning" her children to pursue politics seems stretchy as being sexism-based. That campaign involved anything and everything being thrown at anyone and everyone--Obama has been shamed for taking family vacations and not being close to his brother, for example.
No comments:
Post a Comment