Jezebel shames a 3 year old for having a natural human reaction to bears breaking her stuff

Jezebel* has surpassed itself with it’s policy on shitting on people for no reason whatsoever. This time their target is a three year old who gets distressed whilst a family of 6 bears take over her backyard and break some of her toys. Being three, the natural reaction was to be upset. Hell, the father is upset and Jezebel doesn’t insult him for winding up his three year old. Nope, Jezebel has to go for the whole publicly shaming a three year old. And, yes, the child is identifiable to all of their neighbours, extended family and anyone else watching the video:

Five years from now, the little girl featured in this video will watch this and realize just how flagrantly youth is wasted on the young. That’s because, at eight years old, she’ll realize what she didn’t at three: Bears chilling on your swingset isn’t a cause for tears but a cause for celebration! (Just like when a bird poops on you for good luck, but less gross.)

And at 8 the child will be able to read and learn that Jezebel has invited the internet to trash her for being a three old. With emotions. Because nothing says cause for celebration being publicly shamed by a major media outlet.

We’re also supposed to be okay with the bears causing damage because a swing set only costs $300 at Target:

Bro Bible reports that the scene you’re witnessing happened in New Jersey, and correctly chastises this entire family for not just stopping for a second and recognizing how cool it is that six bears (a mother and her five cubs) are ripping up your backyard amenities. A swingset costs $300 at Target, but a story about a bear cub just chewing the hell out of your floatie while his brother tries to use your slide? That’s priceless!

This assumes that the family has $300 to spare to replace the pool and the swing set. The commentary in the video implies they might be but circumstances change and that pool may never be replaced. It’s okay to be disgruntled and annoyed at your stuff being broke. Granted, the father winding up the small child isn’t exactly a vision of excellent parenting, but he’s still allowed to be upset at the bears damaging their possessions.

The rest of the article is also twaddle:

And it’s all on video, so no one can even say shit when the toddler featured here tells everyone about it at school. “You think I’m joking about them ripping up my Eddie Bauer licensed pool float?” she’ll ask her teacher, after being gently accused of having a very vivid imagination. “Well, why don’t we just roll the goddamn tape, Sharon?”

Plus, you know that this is just an excuse for a bigger, better pool, right? Everyone wins!

Unless of course they can’t afford to buy another pool. Or, the bears keep coming back and some over officious police officer shoots them for causing a public menace. Or they get killed by a hunter. Or hit by a car. Or a million other things that can go wrong when bears enter human spaces.

Jezebel seriously needs to dump the label feminist when publishing shit.

* clean link

#DickheadDetox: George Clooney for hypocrisy

George Clooney’s hypocrisy as a human rights defender has been well known for years. It’s hard to take a man claiming to be a left-wing Right-On Dude seriously when he advertise for Nestle – a corporation renown for it’s total disregard for basic human rights like free access to clean water for everyone. Hell, they are currently draining water from drought-ridden California. Hard for Clooney to miss this since he LIVES in California.

Clooney’s Saving The World activism is completely undermined by his prioritisation of personal wealth over infant health and nutrition in countries where access to clean water to make formula (and the money to buy it) are in short supply due to the behaviour of multi-nationals. Like Nestle. This is without getting into Nestle’s well-documented history of grossly inappropriate, misleading and dangerous advertising of infant formula.

On top of this total disregard for infant health it turns out Clooney’s new organisation The Sentry isn’t quite the The End to All War as he seems to believe. David Swanson’s article in Counter Punch breaks down the who-owns-who and who-hangs-out-with-who data:

Clooney’s new organization, “The Sentry,” is part of The Enough Project, which is part of the Center for American Progress, which is a leading backer of “humanitarian” wars, and various other wars for that matter — and which is funded by the world’s top war profiteer, Lockheed Martin, and by number-two Boeing, among other war profiteers.

The spreading of the U.S. empire through militarism is most often justified by the example of Rwanda as a place where the opportunity for a humanitarian war, to prevent the Rwanda Genocide, was supposedly missed. But the United States backed an invasion of Rwanda in 1990 by a Ugandan army led by U.S.-trained killers, and supported their attacks for three-and-a-half years, applying more pressure through the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and USAID. U.S.-backed and U.S.-trained war-maker Paul Kagame — now president of Rwanda — is the leading suspect behind the shooting down of a plane carrying the then-presidents of Rwanda and Burundi on April 6, 1994.

As chaos followed, the U.N. might have sent in peacekeepers (not the same thing, be it noted, as dropping bombs) but Washington was opposed. President Bill Clinton wanted Kagame in power, and Kagame has now taken the war into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), with U.S. aid and weapons, where 6 million have been killed. And yet nobody ever says “We must prevent another Congo!”

What does George Clooney’s new organization say about the DRC? A very different story from that told by Friends of the Congo. According to Clooney’s group the killing in the Congo happens “despite years of international attention,” not because of it. Clooney’s organization also promotes this argument for more U.S. warmaking in the DRC from Kathryn Bigelow, best known for producing the CIA propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty.

Personally, I’m not exactly shocked or surprised by Clooney turning out not to be the Good Guy. Rich, white dudes rarely are the great men they claim to do. Frequently, they turn out to be the problem.

Yogi Bear, Leonardo DiCaprio and Great Whites: Pointing out the Obvious

Another surfer in Australia is currently undergoing surgery having been bitten by what appears to have been a great white. This is only a few weeks after the media deluged us with footage of surfer Mick Fanning being pulled off his board by a great white. The media, showing a total disregard to little issues like personal space and trauma, had cameras jammed in Fanning’s face even before he’d made it to shore. Because shark attacks are super-cool for a 24 hour faux-media saturated culture. They are far more interesting than reporting on actual globally important news like war, genocide, male violence, and human rights abuses. Images of great whites breaching in South Africa are way more entertaining that a report on Nestle capitalising on a drought in California:

Unknown

 

Sea World ought to capitalise on The Great White Entertainment Industry by replacing their Orcas with them. That way no will ask pesky questions about that little film Black Fish. No one will care about great whites trapped in cages. Just means less of them eating surfers.

Here’s my question though: if we’re spending obscene amounts of money tagging sharks and flying drones to spot them so that people can surf wherever they want, whenever they want, why are we also dangling food off boats so dopey people can hang about in cages getting up, close and personal with a great white? Seriously, where is the sense in this? In one hand, we’re spending a fortune and trashing the environment so tourists can swim without being eaten but we’re also spending a fortune and trashing the environment so tourists can swim with the same animal they don’t want to eat them?

I’m not an animal behaviourist and the only animal I anthropomorphise is my cat, so I have no idea if sharks actually confuse surfers with seals or, as this interesting article on the 3 surfers killed by sharks off the coast of Reunion suggests, some sharks are learning to see humans as an easy source of food, particularly for well-loved or injured members of the pack (which sounds rather sweet. And anthropomorphising). I just don’t see how dangling food off the side of boats so humans can swim in cages next to great whites does anything but teach them boat = food. Even without the anthropomorphising, sharks aren’t stupid. They follow the food and currently we’re tossing it off the side of the boats so this can happen:

Unknown

 

images

Although, it’s possible the second image isn’t actually meant to happen, but I have it on great authority that it also happened to Leonardo DiCaprio. And, if a shark can have a go at the bun-wearing, never-going-to-win-an-Oscar, and only-dates Victoria’s-Secret-models former star of Growing Pains, what chance do the rest of the nincompoops hanging about in cages have?

Having googled, Great Whites targeting boats isn’t exactly an unusual circumstance but what do we expect? Has no one seen an episode of Yogi Bear? There are reasons you don’t feed dogs from the table. Surely the same rule should apply to sharks? Don’t feed wild animals is a rule that doesn’t seem to apply to sharks, who, if you believe the media, are the only animal that actually eat people – though I suspect cougars starving in the mountains of North America might have a query or two about this particular theory.

Like with the bucketheads who yank the tails of nurse sharks napping in the sand off the coast of Florida and then who express surprise at being bitten (seriously, I’d bite someone if they insisted on waking me from a nap by trying to yank my finger from it’s socket), I have to wonder about the shark-viewing population.

Granted sitting on a boat in the freezing cold for 8 hours on the off chance you see an orca isn’t exactly exhilarating, but surely it’s better than enticing large mammal-eating creatures to hang out when we’re also mammals. I’ve yet to see evidence of sea lions deliberately swimming with great whites for funsies. And, humans should, at least, be slightly more intelligent than sea lions.

 

*Okay, the authority is the Mirror. But, they don’t totally exaggerate stories to sell papers.**

** It’s possible I need a nap.

 

16 books Mark Zuckerberg NEEDS to read to stop perpetuating VAWG

Mark Zuckerberg has given a list of 14  books he thinks everyone should read this year. Since he’s so concerned about the general knowledge of random people on the internet, I thought I’d give Zuckerberg a list of books that he needs to read so he can stop putting survivors of domestic and sexual violence and abuse at risk with the deeply stupid ‘real names’ policy on Facebook.

1. Lundy Bancroft, Why Does he do that? Insides the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, (Berkly Publishing, 2003)

2. Aisha Gill, ‘Honour’ Killing and Violence: Theory, Policy and Practice, (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014)

3. Dee L.R. Graham, Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives, (New York University Press, 1994) – a full PDF of this text is available here.

4. Lynne Harne, Violent Fathering and the Risks to Children: The Need for Change, (Policy Press, 2011)

5. Michael P. Johnson, A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance and Situational Couple Violence, (Northeastern University Press, 2008)

6. Lorraine Radford & Marianne Hester, Mothering through Domestic Violence, (Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2006)

7. Evan Stark’s Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Oxford University Press, 2007)

8. Liz Kelly, Surviving Sexual Violence, (Polity Press, 1988)

9. Nancy Berns, Framing the Victim, Domestic Violence Media & Social Problems (Transaction pub. 2008)

10. Nina Burrowes, The Courage to be Me, (2014)

11. Gavin De Becker, The Gift of Fear, (Bloomsbury Pub, 2000)

12. Marianne Hester, Who does what to whom? Gender and domestic violence perpetrators. (Bristol University, 2009)

13. Kimmel, “Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research ReviewViolence Against Women, vol. 8 No.11

14. Rachel Pain Everyday Terrorism: How Fear Works in Domestic Abuse, (University of Durham & Scottish Women’s Aid)

15. Jennifer Perry, Digital Stalking: A guide to technology risks for victims, (Pub, by Network for Surviving Stalking & Women’s Aid)

16. Women’s Aid, Virtual world, real fear: Women’s Aid report into online abuse, harassment and stalking.

Granted my list  has slightly more than 14 books, but I figure if Zuckerberg has taken the time out from running a multi-national corporation to give the general public a reading list, he has the time to make sure his corporation isn’t perpetuating violence against women and girls.

I really hope this is meant to be a joke:

because this has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read:

Screen Shot 2015-07-27 at 14.00.42

The province of Ontario needs to do some serious work on their social studies curriculum if this what their graduates come out with.

#DickheadDetox Donald Trump for being a White Supremacist

 

Donald Trump’s recent public statements on migrant workers don’t need to be deconstructed: they are racist and xenophobic.

But, he isn’t an anomaly. Trump represents the core of the Republican Party. Dismissing Trump as a joke or ‘mad’ is to fundamentally misunderstand American politics. It ignores the entirety of American history starting at colonization and continues through US foreign policy and domestic policies on housing, welfare and healthcare.

After all, there’s already a giant wall between Texas and Mexico. Trump wanting to expand it doesn’t make him more racist than the men who built it in the first place.
11701022_10153508221949255_4485554063786493277_n

Rihanna should have known better because she’s a victim of domestic violence

I’ve seen this statement repeated on numerous blogs and media articles on Rihanna’s latest video and it seriously pisses me off. Holding a victim of domestic violence to a higher standard than other women isn’t a feminist position. I don’t like Rihanna’s new video, but this idea that she has transcended all of the societal norms of the capitalist patriarchy by being a victim of male violence is inherently anti-feminist. This is victim blaming language and feminists shouldn’t be shaming a woman.

Critical engagement with the video is essential, but critical engagement doesn’t involve victim blaming language or woman-shaming. Feminists should know better.

 

8 Celebrities Who Look Like A Quality Street

This is actually an article in the Huffington Post. I’m not going to link to it since they don’t need the advertising clicks, but this is the world we live in: not only are women body-shamed for having bodies, our clothing is policed for looking like “chocolate wrappers”.

Screen Shot 2015-07-08 at 12.00.09 PM Screen Shot 2015-07-08 at 12.00.17 PM

Celebrity women get trashed in the media for going out in jeans or trackie bottoms, but also shamed for dressing up in designer clothes for events they are required to wear. As women, we need to stop consuming media that shames women for their bodies. We may not be able to stop it but we can certainly cause financial harm to such online media by refusing to click.

Real feminist sisterhood

It’s very rare that I share positive stories of women here. I spend so much time writing about male violence and celebrity culture that I forget to share the good stuff.

This is the good stuff: an anonymous donor gave a disabled, single mother 10 000 pounds so she can complete her master’s degree.

Screen Shot 2015-07-07 at 10.39.57 AM

Screen Shot 2015-07-07 at 10.40.06 AM

The donor is anonymous so we can’t guess as to their biological sex. What we can say is that due to women sharing Diane’s GoFundMe (and whatever spiteful asshole reported it), a brilliant feminist is now going to be able to complete her Master’s degree in criminology to embark on a career helping young people who have been criminalized following substance abuse. This is real sisterhood.

Male Violence at Glastonbury

I’m well behind on my reading this summer what with the whole no wifi and numerous small children standing at my shoulder checking out what I’m doing on the computer, -plus, the daily battles over who gets to mine craft that day, so I’ve only just seen Laura Bate’s article in the Guardian about a man at Glastonbury who unveiled a flag with a still from the “sex-tape” involving Kim Kardashian.

I absolutely loathe the term “sex-tape” as it makes the release of the intimate videos of celebrity women sound consensual. Kardashian, like Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson, did not consent to an intimate video being shared. We need a new term to make it clear that these videos are sexual violence.

I would also go further than Bates when she said this about the flag:

This wasn’t “banter”. This wasn’t a hilarious stunt. This was the very public shaming of a pregnant woman in front of her husband and a crowd of strangers. And if that sounds positively medieval, then it should tell you something about our “modern” attitudes towards women.

I would class this as sexual violence. It was the deliberate use of images of a woman shared without consent.

Bates’ article is excellent and I highly recommend it. And, I wish we lived in a society where the man who brought this flag to Glastonbury could be criminalized.