But what does the future hold for a radical feminist media-critical project, once its author realizes that exposure to this propaganda itself, for any reason — even to critique it — is actually a harmful cultural practice that’s best avoided?

We previously discussed a study conducted by researcher Ann Becker (the “Fiji study“) where television programming was “naturally” introduced into a population for the first time, and within 3 short years, (between 1995-1998) nearly 70% of the female population were dieting to lose weight, and nearly 75% “felt too fat.”  A critical observer, after reading the study and its methodology would notice that this gynocidal, misogynistic effect was surely anticipated: why else would American researchers — well-versed in the effects of media exposure themselves — have swooped into the area just weeks after television was introduced to make their baseline observations, and come back 3 years later to see what had changed?

The researchers knew what was going to happen, and importantly, they did nothing to stop it.  If gynocide were taken as seriously as other genocides, and if parallels were made between destroying the health and lives of girls and women and destroying the health and lives of human beings, this method of data collection would be seen as problematic, and similar to studying the known-effects of politicized torture on an oppressed people in real time, as it’s happening, instead of activating against it.

And indeed, American researchers have done this before — in the Tuskegee experiment, between 1932 and 1972, researchers observed the progress of syphilis in 399 rural American black men who had contracted the disease elsewhere, but who were never told they had syphilis and were never treated for it.  The differences in the public and academic perception of these experiments are obvious: the Tuskegee experiment is an example of a harmful practice stemming from racism and classism against poor black men (and necrophilia) and the experiments are now an embarrassing blight on medical science, demonstrating the reprehensible ethical shortcoming in obtaining data via observing the destruction of non-consenting human subjects producing tainted “research” from which legal and ethical changes were rightly forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the Fiji study — experimenting on non-American black girls and women, and relatively recently at that — is seen and treated as something else entirely.

In fact, media exposure for girls and women functions as politicized torture from which there are known negative outcomes for the victims that are very serious indeed — we know this, and we have known this for a long time.  Interestingly, unlike the Tuskegee experiment, where the progression of a disease-state functioned as the politicized torture of an oppressed group, in the case of media exposure, it is politicized torture that functions as politicized torture — media imagery does not exist outside its political purpose and function.  In other words, unlike a disease-state which would exist regardless of oppressive social structures or unethical researchers being jerks, patriarchal media does not exist in nature and has no other function but to harm and politically oppress girls and women and to support male power.

Indeed, because it is not a natural process or a disease-state, observing the effects of media exposure is more akin to and as scientifically valid as objectively “observing” non-medicalized torture of political prisoners — causing pain and damage for the sake of causing pain and damage, with absolutely no pretense made, for example of its medical or scientific value — than it is akin to Tuskegee or even the medical or quasi-medical experiments of the Nazis who tested, for example, the effects of extreme heat and cold, albeit (obviously) in an unethical and politically oppressive way.  Like torturing political prisoners for the sake of physically, psychologically and politically damaging them, exposing girls and women to media imagery (or objectively observing it without intervening) should be dispositively adjudged to be unethical on its face, but of course it generally isn’t.

Which brings us to the task at hand: identifying and examining the intent and effect of media imagery to further feminist understanding of patriarchy and oppressive social structures that benefit men at women’s expense — with the endgame being women’s liberation from male dominance.

If media imagery really does function as politicized torture — and I think there is excellent evidence that it does — then it is harmful and serves its political purpose well whenever girls and women are exposed to it.  There is no safe level of exposure, and no way to “observe” it objectively without being harmed by it — so a project such as Radfem-ological Images might serve its critical purpose, but it also serves another purpose, which is to further expose its audience to harmful political propaganda that is actually damaging to girls and women in real time.

Radical feminists have long struggled with this in fact, and at one point a deliberate decision was made, for example in anti-pornography work, to show women actual pornographic imagery in order that women would really know what we were up against — what men were producing and how they imagined and viewed us, and what they were doing *to us* in the pornography industry.  The idea was that what men are doing is so awful, so brutal and so woman-hating that it is literally incomprehensible and unimaginable to most women, who simply do not imagine the same things men imagine, for whatever reason.  The idea was to take the blinders off, so that we could understand men for what they are and what they do, and male culture for what it is and what it does.

The idea was to get real about men, and to know the truth about women’s lives and the truth about what men do to us.  So now that we know, what do we do with that knowledge?  Are we just supposed to keep viewing this imagery endlessly, even though we know what it does and (therefore) what it’s for?  Or is there an actual point to all of this that goes beyond “understanding” it intellectually — where we start to implement what we know, and make real changes in our lives and in the lives of other girls and women?

That is the question isn’t it?  To take radical feminist thought to its logical ends is to make the leap from radical feminism to female separatism, if not in practice (yet) then in theory.  Isn’t it?  In the case of critically examining media exposure, our logical ends is to understand that there is no safe way to interact with media imagery as it currently stands, and very little chance that we will be able to successfully change the imagery in a fundamental way; in fact it would be reasonable to conclude that despite our best efforts, the gynocidal intent and effect of media imagery has gotten worse, not better — for example, both pornography and advertising have become increasingly violent and degrading over time.

We can and should thank the women who came before for proving, with their female blood, sweat and tears, that reforming the patriarchal media so that it does not harm girls and women cannot be done, or that it is so unlikely to be successful as to be an unreasonable goal — and then respect their contributions (and our own) by using this knowledge constructively.

Under patriarchy, “constructively” means grounded in reality (unwinding and discarding reversals, including unclear and wishful thinking about boys and men) and acting in a way that is supportive of girls and women, and/or undermining to male power.  In the case of media imagery, because exposure actually, actively harms us, including traumatizing us which creates known chemical and physical changes in the mind and body including trauma-bonding us to men, reducing exposure rather than viewing it with a critical eye will likely move us toward success and will be endemic to our female-only safe space.

Instead of engaging in media criticism, even radical feminist media criticism, it might be more constructive to turn off the TV; at the very least, now that we understand how and why *men* use this imagery, we could spend that time examining how and why girls and women voluntarily use politicized torture as recreation, or as relatively-benign material with which to unwind after an average day.  Now that’s interesting, isn’t it?

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Reversal.  Whenever we see reporting on “natural disasters” there are references made to “the wrath of mother nature” and human male traits such as violence, mercilessness, rage/anger or revenge are projected onto nature uncritically.  In reality, nature is value-neutral and does not have intent or malicious intent, but men constantly pretend otherwise, and in the case of all natural disasters, much of the harm is due not to the storm or geological event itself but to failures of (men’s) structures and infrastructures that follow.  Importantly, much is often made of men or male technology “saving lives” before, during and in the aftermath of these disasters, when in reality, without men’s negligence, malice, incompetence and greed, there would not be nearly as many people in harm’s way — victims to be rescued — in the first place.

As we can plainly see with our own eyes in all media coverage of disaster events — or from experiencing them firsthand — but which is never adequately or actually addressed, buildings and transportation hubs are built too close to the sea, or with cheap or shoddy materials which are not intended to protect or preserve life but to maximize profit for the property owners and builders; and male-devised and male-run corporations, quasi-governmental agencies and government-run utilities and social safety nets are revealed to be flimsy facades when “put to the test” or in other words, when they are called upon to do exactly what they are supposed to do during foreseeable periods of increased demand.  Men’s responsibility for this harm to life and property is never adequately addressed in media coverage of these disaster events, and the specifically manmade destruction is made to seem to naturally flow from the natural event when it doesn’t.  These media images have the intent and effect of normalizing men’s greed, incompetence and the fact that they routinely put women and children in harm’s way on purpose, and the ways this supports male power — including economic power — and increases female vulnerability, including destroying women’s gynergy when our homes and our children are destroyed.  See also Fetishize female vulnerability; Normalize abuse/neglect; Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent.

Parts 2-8 of this documentary are available on Youtube.

Footage of the 2011 tsunami devastating the northeast coast of Japan, with similar results and implications:

Part 1 of a documentary on that disaster here (the rest is available on Youtube):

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Normalize abuse/neglect.  Take a dangerous (and largely unnecessary) pharmaceutical and then almost certainly expose women and children to it, even though the drug is not indicated for women or children and in fact is known to cause dangerous side effects for them.  Take exposed women and children to a doctor when the signs of exposure can no longer be denied, e.g. signs of early puberty in a child.  Signs of early puberty in a child.  SIGNS OF EARLY PUBERTY IN A CHILD.  See also Male entitlement.  Men are entitled to place others in harm’s way, especially if it benefits the man (but also just for funzies, that’s ok too).  If it’s beneficial to a man, it survives a cost-benefit analysis no matter what the cost to women and children.  See also Joke’s on women.  How’s that new beard and acne going?  Har.  See also Support patriarchal institutions (medicine/religion/law).  Pathologize “low testosterone” in men as if it’s a disease state, and put billions into the coffers of medical providers, medical research and Big Pharma.  Then, when the male patient (or his wife and kids!) experiences one of the known negative outcomes, (also known as “possible side effects”) dood gets a lawyer and assuming he wins, puts the lawyer’s kids through college with exorbitant legal fees.  Unfortunately however, as a patient and consumer of dangerous pharmaceuticals, what he will never get is his (wife and kids’) lives and health back.  Win?

Reversal.  Accidentally-on-purpose expose the people you allegedly love to dangerous pharmaceuticals that carry serious side-effects known negative outcomes.  Frame/present these exposures similarly to the way common side-effects of medications are framed/presented, when in reality it’s not an issue of a side-effect at all, but of men deliberately polluting their living and working environments and purposely placing other people (not yourself, as in the case of a true side-effect) in harm’s way.  Also, are we very sure that “low testosterone” in men is a bad thing?  Bad how/says who?

More (official) AndroGel information here.

*Comments open due to extreme egregiousness of this product and the propagandizing effect of the ad campaign, especially “normalize abuse/neglect.”  And especially “reversal” too.  FFS.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Male entitlement.  This is what male entitlement looks like!  An entire series on the Investigation Discovery channel dedicated to the phenomenon of men lying to and conning women in order to obtain and maintain access to women’s unpaid sexual, domestic and reproductive services.  There are even a couple of episodes on female conmen (!) because equality.  But it doesn’t exactly mean the same thing when women lie to and “con” men, now does it?

Men lie to and con women all the time, because men — being born into the privileged oppressor class — are entitled to the unpaid sexual, domestic and reproductive services of women and by god they will get what they deserve.  Men lie to and con women within the context of sexual and intimate relationships because the point for men of these relationships is gaining and maintaining access to women’s services; the point for men is notably *not* to be good or quality partners to women.  Men lying to and conning women is so common that it’s often joked about and minimized, even though (or because) it is the source of tremendous female suffering and endangers women’s financial security and safety, and causes incalculable anxiety, stress and emotional, mental and psychic pain.  Criminal liability may even attach to the woman if he has included her in his criminal enterprises.  See also Joke’s on Women.  Because this is all very funny isn’t it?  Har.  See also Woman as “useful object”.

Normalize abuse/neglect.  Focusing on extreme examples of men lying and conning women — and those offenses for which the men are caught — serves to normalize lesser or unknown offenses which almost all men perpetrate on their female partners at some point within the context of the het partnership, due to male entitlement.  See also PIV-centric narrative — Rape and rape culture.  Lying to obtain women’s consent to sexual intercourse is rape.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Normalize abuse/neglect.  BDSM.  ‘Nuff said.  See also Reversal.  Pain is pleasure, bad is good, up is down, black is white.

Normalize porn/prostitution.  Role playing where the wife is playing the part of a high-priced “escort”.  Sexxxay!

PIV-centric narrative — Rape and rape culture.  As long as we continue to frame “sex” versus “rape” as an issue of consent, drugs and alcohol — which remove legal capacity to consent — will be evocative of rape.  This especially applies to depictions of boozy sex, where sex and drugs and alcohol are explicitly combined.

French AIDS awareness poster. Click on image to visit Ads of the World.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Reversal.  If this ad is implying that it’s primarily women giving men HIV/AIDS, rather than the other way around — and that men get HIV/AIDS primarily from heterosexual contact — it’s a complete reversal of reality, which shows the opposite.  In the United States, the greatest infection rates are from man-to-man, and then from man-to-woman via heterosexual contact (where he was likely originally infected by a man himself), then from woman-to-man via heterosexual contact (where she was almost certainly infected by a man originally).  In sub-Saharan Africa, the WHO reports that it is women who comprise some 60% of persons living with AIDS, almost all of them having become infected by men through prostitution, mandatory PIV and rape, where the disease was transmitted to the women by HIV/AIDS-infected males.

As a general matter, boys and men are spreading AIDS, not women.  Women are being infected by men and are then infecting others, but thanks to survivalist prostitution, mandatory PIV and rape, it’s not as if many women have much of a choice.  Men as a class demanding penetrative sex from each other and from women — and the frequency of individual men demanding penis-centered sex and intercourse from both male and female partners, whether these individual men identify as gay, bi-sexual or straight — is the problem, but actually saying that would be naming males as the agent of harm and “problematizing” male behavior instead of normalizing it; therefore, it is both unthinkable and unspeakable.  Instead, harm-reduction techniques are generally preferred, such as “safe sex” campaigns that never adequately identify or address male culpability, and the problems for women of penis-centered sex (although recently, some sources are addressing the problems of “gender inequality,” “masculinity” and obvious abuses such as domestic violence and rape and their role in AIDS transmission by men to women).  The thought-termination and chilled speech on this subject is, of course, deliberate.  See also Femicide; Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent; Male entitlement; Normalize abuse/neglect; Woman as “useful object”.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent.  Why do women — specifically women — experience feelings of hopelessness (regarding their political and interpersonal power and standing, and the observation that it’s likely permanent); decreased motivation and energy (to fulfill patriarchally-defined roles and patriarchy-mandated obligations), decreased interest (in being a victim or a slave or a target, or in trivial pursuits that don’t advance women’s individual or collective positions at all) in the first place?  Why do many women start to not even want to leave the house — the home being the only place in life where many women experience any modicum at all of control, and where women tend to be objectified and victimized by only one or a few men and not by all men like we are when we venture into the public sphere?

It’s at least possible — isn’t it? — that some women who experience these feelings, which have been framed as “symptoms of depression”, do so in response to patriarchy, and in rational response to their location within a political context that is specifically destructive to and exploitative of women, both individually and as a sexual class.  It’s depressing — like a hydraulic press is depressing, from the perspective of whatever is unfortunate enough to get caught up in one.  Get it?  Let’s name the agent of harm — it’s probably not all in women’s heads.  We can all accept that, right?  (Without using alienating absolutes like “definitely” when we don’t have to — “probably” is good enough to expose the fraud of pathologizing it).

As for harm reduction, the rationale for prescribing harmful pharmaceuticals — the only ethical rationale, anyway — is that the cost-benefit analysis is positive, meaning that the net-benefit of taking the drug (benefit minus risk) is greater than the net-benefit (benefit minus risk) of not taking it, or of doing something else, or of doing nothing.  In order to perform this analysis correctly, one must be reasonably able to predict alternate outcomes, and in the case of the decision to prescribe dangerous drugs or of any medical intervention, one must ask “is the likely outcome of the disease objectively worse than the likely outcome of the intervention?”

In the case of dangerous drugs that are known to carry significant risks, up to and including death, it is (perhaps?) easy to make the argument that “depressed” patients who are likely to kill themselves might want to take something for it  — and even that’s assuming that “continuing in your patriarchally-defined role as if nothing is wrong” — with or without devastating side-effects — is objectively (?) better than death by suicide, which is quite an assumption in itself, is it not?  (I’m not saying it is or it isn’t, just that it’s an assumption that’s never said out loud.)  There are surely many, many doctors who would deny that patriarchy even exists.  That is terrifying to think about, considering that it is they who are performing these cost-benefit analyses, and are surely doing so without assigning the proper values to either side.

But beyond even that, what does that mean for everyone else, those who would probably or definitely not kill themselves if left untreated?  And why is “continuing in your patriarchally-defined role as if nothing is wrong” — with or without devastating side-effects — in the case of non-suicidal female patients whose “depression” is a response to female subjugation and abuse under patriarchy considered to be objectively better than the other likely outcomes of non-treatment of these women, what are the possible outcomes, for that matter, and who decides what is better and what is worse?

Mansplaining/women’s perspective is wrong.  Uncritically framing women’s “symptoms of depression” — which are not objectively distinguishable from rational female despair under a woman-hating patriarchal regime — as an illness, let alone an illness of irrationality, is a decidedly male-centric frame which does not acknowledge patriarchy at all, and therefore tends to normalize and invisiblize patriarchal policies and practices.  Characterizing women’s “lack of interest and energy” (to male-please and to fulfill their domestic, sexual and reproductive roles that benefit men) as a problem at all, let alone one that is worth treating with dangerous drugs that can disable and kill you, normalizes women’s roles and literally pathologizes women’s inability (or unwillingness?) to perform them, and to do so cheerfully.  Then, through applying forced-perspective which is inconsistent with female reality, women are made to view their “situation” from a woman-hating, male-centric perspective, accepting that they are “ill” and perceiving reality incorrectly, rather than acknowledging the real, political context of global female subjugation and abuse, including sexual and reproductive abuse.  *Shudder*  See also Normalize abuse/neglect; Woman as “useful object”.

Support patriarchal institutions (medicine/religion/law).  Cha-ching.  Also, women who are medicated over the long-term for any reason, including for alleged mental illness and depression, are under patriarchal institutional control 24/7 via the woman-hating patriarchal medical machine.  In the case of psychology and psychiatry, and psychological and psychiatric illness, women’s very thoughts are subject to constant patriarchal surveillance and “correction” and reprogramming.  See also Femicide; Necrophilia.

Reversal.  Wow, all these awful side-effects have made me feel better (not worse, or even the same).  Also, framing women’s awareness of or response to patriarchal reality as irrational, sick, or delusional is a mind-fuck and a reversal.  And notice the repetition of the phrase “my depression.”  She is made to “own” it (over and over and over and over) which is really revealing — it’s clearly intended as a thought-terminating phrase, where dialog centering context, politics or collective responsibility is specifically excluded, leaving only room for propaganda centering individualism, pathology and ownership.  Striking.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Fetishize female vulnerability.  Making comparisons between “women’s fashion” and “women’s food” is very apt, as both are specifically designed to harm women and make them more vulnerable by depleting women of our hard-earned income, enticing us to spend on “trends” and specialty items that are overpriced, non-functional, woman-hating, and even inherently dangerous (as in the case of high-heeled shoes, which are known to be crippling in both the long and short-term).  Just as high-heeled shoes are not functional for walking, running, climbing, or for anything except being looked at, (and hobbling) low- or non-caloric “food” does not function as “food” which is meant to supply energy and fortification via calories and nutrition, and actually functions as something else entirely.  See also PIV-centric narrative — Goal is to “land a man”.  Fuckability mandates; competing or vying for male attention; male-pleasing generally.  See also Reversal.  “Food” that is low- or non-caloric is a mind-fuck and a reversal in terms.

Normalize abuse/neglect.  Denying women calories and nutrition is both abusive and neglectful, and this is known to occur cross-culturally and across time, as girls and women are forced to eat the “leftovers” or nothing at all, while the quality nutrition is given to the boys and men.  In the case of the diet industry, it is cleverly offered up as a voluntary exercise in Western women’s self-deprivation, and the effect is to normalize the deprivation of girls and women of nutrition, including calories — completely ignoring its location within the global political (patriarchal) context of deliberate starvation of females as a sexual class, and the clear benefits of this practice to males.

This (political, patriarchal) context, and the ways that obviously-sexed (not “gendered”) eating patterns reflect and reinforce women’s subordinate status is described in detail here, in the abstract for an article entitled “The cultural conception and structural perpetuation of female subordination: an examination of gender relations among the populations of the Chalt-Chaprote community in the Nager Valley of Northern Pakistan”:

Women’s role and status in Pakistan is discussed with reference to fieldwork conducted in the Chalt-Chaprote community in the Nagar Valley in 1989-90. Attention was directed to how women are placed in subordinate positions within socioeconomic activities, and the effect of changing economic conditions on their role and status. Women’s social position of authority, decision making, or leadership is subordinate to men’s at the household, the village, or community level. Even though women belong to women’s organizations, men still keep accounts and maintain contact with men of the “outside world.” Unchaperoned mobility and access to formal education are restricted for women. Women and girls are active in production in the fields and pastures, and their role exceeds that of males in intensity and length of work. Several tables indicate the involvement in a variety of production tasks. Production work takes about 8.05 hours/day throughout the year; this equals 2378.8 hours every year compared with men’s 2047.27 hours. Household work is in addition to production work. Girls contribute to the household at the age of 8-9 years in child care, and at the age of 13-14 years in cooking cleaning, and washing. Women comprise 49.3% of the population, but are not entitled to claim property if there are brothers or the family is very poor. Birth ceremonies are different for girls, and only boys are welcomed at birth. Eating patterns also reflect the subordinate status of women. Women eat after men and eat the leftovers. In a food crisis situation, it is women who are expected to limit their consumption. Maternal mortality is high due to malnutrition and lack of prompt access to medical care. Women have very little leisure time and almost no recreational activity, in contrast to men. Women do not practice sports or dance as men are allowed to do. This community was incorporated into the Federally Administered Areas in 1972, and piped water was introduced. This reduced the time and labor in fetching water, but did not change women’s status. Wheat threshers were introduced, which reduced men’s and women’s labor; maize is still threshed manually by women only. Weeding sprays are available, but women’s labor is cheaper. New products have expanded women’s work, and access to labor-saving inputs is still restricted. Recommendations, for instance, are to increase education and training, health care, and women’s networks.

Bolds mine.  See also Femicide.

PIV-centric narrative — Normalize simulated/exaggerated female pleasure.  Tiny portions of highly processed food that tastes like crap are not satisfying at all, and the whole thing including the individualized ritual/process and the larger political context is an exercise in deprivation and woman-hatred.  Yet the women are shown to enjoy it all immensely.  Where have we seen that before?  Not to mention of course, that all these women are actors, and are literally faking it.  We do not need to see any more images of women faking pleasure (or do we?) and yet we are constantly exposed to these images — they are literally everywhere in all patriarchal media, including (obviously) pornography.  Women “faking it” with regard to pleasure (and faking or tamping down other things, like containing revulsion or suppressing a “fight or flight” response or intuitive or conscious “inhibitions”, including self-medicating with drugs and alcohol to accomplish that) is also a requirement in both porn and prostitution.  See also Normalize porn/prostitution.

Woman as “useful object”.  These commercials literally present women as objects or products to be consumed.  Stunning.  A similar tack is taken in this Special-K commercial, where women are conflated with food items — in this case, with candy.  This commercial was discussed earlier here:

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Male entitlement.  According to mainstream news outlets, (all of them) Charlie Sheen buys prostituted women and abuses them.  And yet, he still has his freedom and is entitled to work, and to earn not just a living but to amass extreme wealth, with which he is known to abuse women.  This man should not be allowed to have any disposable income at all, considering what he is known to do with it.  But no one that matters cares about what men do with their disposable income; all men — including serial abusers of women and of prostituted women — are entitled to literally whatever they are able to earn, and the value of these men’s work is determined by a misogynistic capitalist patriarchy, which depends and thrives on women’s sexual, reproductive and domestic labor.  In the case of Charlie Sheen, he is apparently worth quite a lot — to the patriarchal propaganda machine that continues to pay him extravagant wages for his (mediocre?) performances in both advertising and television programs.

Normalize porn/prostitution.  What is the effect of constantly being exposed to images of Charlie Sheen in the popular press?  The pervasiveness of the images of a known criminal and serial abuser of women doing “normal” things, and presenting him for public consumption as if he is not pure (misogynistic) poison and harmful to humans (all women as a sexual class) normalizes his history and his behavior, including his sexual use and abuse of his wife, and of prostituted women and women in pornography.  Patriarchy loves that, it’s its favorite.  See also Normalize abuse/neglect.

Reversal.  House arrest?  Really?  Even Charlie fucking Sheen knows that’s a reversal, or at least that it’s a reversal in his case.  Also, if anyone dares, watch this very revealing interview with Sheen, where he takes the victim stance, when he’s actually the perpetrator, like, all the time — a known criminal and criminal abuser of women who does not hesitate to invoke the misogynist, patriarchal legal system as soon as he thinks he’s been wronged, by other men.  And where he says that he loves, violently.  And numerous other reversals.  This man is terrifying, he really is.  Patriarchy loves that, too.

See also Joke’s on women.  Because all this misogyny, injustice, and failure to protect women and punish men who harm women is very, very funny.  Har.

Please see our “About,” “Why Radfem?” and “The Gears” pages for additional information about this project.

Common themes represented here:

Handmaidens of the patriarchy.  Handmaiden of the patriarchy Valerie Bertinelli handmaidensplains to all of us how our female-specific, patriarchy-derived problems will be resolved via pro-patriarchal consumer spending.  If an actual man told us to do it, it might seem patriarchy-supportive and offensive, but when a woman does the same thing it creates plausible deniability of patriarchal intent and effect, even though the intent and effect are patriarchal in both cases.

Harm reduction/refusal to name the agent.  Weight-loss “systems” are supposed to reduce the suffering that female-bodied persons experience under patriarchy due to mandatory heterosexuality, where male-pleasing is synonymous with partner-pleasing and female sexuality and worth; enforced fuckability mandates and female-specific consumerism; normalizing male bodies and pathologizing healthy female bodies; and the severe consequences to women of patriarchal noncompliance.  Sure, eating tiny portions of crappy, processed food sucks, but being unpleasing to men can be an absolute disaster.  The consequences can be more or less severe to individual women based on their circumstances, but no woman is immune, not even famous women.

Normalize abuse/neglect.  Restricting women to tiny portions of crappy, processed food is abusive and neglectful generally, as well as normalizing self-abuse and self-neglect.  Chronic starvation and near-starvation is the preferred state for Western women who would otherwise have access to adequate food.

Reversal.  Tiny portions are satisfying; crappy processed food is nutritious.  Also, she says, “Believe it or not, this is happy!”  Eh, I don’t really believe it, but that’s because we seem to be saying that “relieved to be temporarily and conditionally suffering fewer consequences under patriarchy” is the same thing as happiness for women.  It’s not.  And she’s crying while she says it.  She actually looks pretty miserable and defeated (resigned?) to me.  Interestingly, Valerie seems to almost catch this reversal herself, even as she’s trying to get us to literally buy it.  Almost?