Dec 28 2006

Twisty’s Grody Media Korner

A glance through narrowed eyes at some recent headlines reveals that a class of subjects identified as “women” are widely reviled in the online media as messed-up, insatiable, dead, guilty, and of course, pregnant.

“Women are greater love cheats than men!” [DailyIndia.com]
The joyous fact of women’s’ natural slutty duplicity is distilled by this news outlet from a gazillion factoids collected by an enormous condom manufacturer survey. The survey also reveals to a breathless public that Coventry is the vibrator capitol of the UK and that the honky movie actor currently starring as James Bond is the “sexiest man alive.” Newindpress delights that 34% of women supposedly fantasize about “lesbian sex.”

Humans infected with a certain parasite suffer brain damage resulting in personality changes. Male sufferers are merely “jealous and morose” but afllicted women “ooze sex” and become “more promiscuous” and “more attractive to men!” Hooray!

“More women drivers guilty of drink-driving” [BBC via Kwik-FitInsurance.com]
The statistic quoted in this article to substantiate the use of the adjective “more” to describe drunk-drivin women is this: of 109 drunk drivers caught, 99 were men. In other words, 90% of drunk drivers are men, which makes this headline a total lie. Which does not prevent Kwik-Fit from indulging in a patronizing finger-wag, reminding ditzy, infantile chick drivers that “women motorists who drink and drive may not only be endangering their women’s [!] car insurance, but also their livelihoods, as some will require a driving license as part of their employment.” Thanks for the news flash, Officer Friendly.

“Do Sudden-Death Genes Strike Women Most?” [CBSNews.com]
“Women are more likely than men to carry — and to pass on — mutant genes that cause long-QT syndrome, a defect in the heart’s electrical system linked to sudden death.” [my italics]. Where women and aberration are involved, allusions to dire mutuant reproductive ramifications are never far away.

“Women should not be punished for adultery” [IndiaTimes.com]
In India the debate rages on amongst official vagina monitors: should women who have “extra-marital affairs” be punished as criminals, or is adultery merely a civil “wrong”? There is no option, apparently, for women to just do it like fucking human beings without some sort of invasive juridical oversight.

“Military death count for women reaches 70” [UPI]
“Some have argued that the women who have died are no different than the men,” said a report from the Center for Military Readiness, The Washington Times reported. “But deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to acceptance of violence against women in general.” Bwaaaah! on so many levels.

“Pregnant women hope to delay births for German govt aid” [Reuters]
In order to cash in on a sa-weet government bucks-for-babies incentive that doesn’t kick in until January 1, the pressure is on to stay pregnant until the cut-off date. Women who manage to hold it in long enough present the fatherland with a 2007-vintage bundle of joy — the program is one of those desperate actions taken by governments when they’re afeared of population shrinkage, in which women are — what else is new — essentially paid to incubate new Germans — will reap 25,000 euros and the thanks/disdain of a grateful nation.


Skip to comment form

  1. Yuk yuk: “It seems that ‘traditional’ methods of salesmanship, such as asking the female customer to bend over and wait for it … ” (From a previous post.)

    I love your blog! I love your writing! Thank you for the million guffaws to date.

  2. stormcloud.wordpress.com

    Such a barrage of misogyny, one doesn’t know where to begin. But at least I can hit the BLAME button on IBTFP (I like the sub division)!


  3. An excellent overview. Thanks, Twisty! I also enjoyed this recent article in the LA Times on how irresponsible, unthinking females– who, when given a choice will quite surprisingly NOT choose to wear pantyhose– are responsible for a depressed hosiery industry, which is working very hard to either come up with other uncomfortable garments for gullible females to buy, or alternatively to convince them that retro pain is chez cool:


  4. The Australian federal government now gives women a $4000 “baby bonus” when they squeeze one out for the country. Of course there is now woman-blaming galore aimed at teenage and young mothers, who are obviously getting pregnant just so they can get the $4000 and buy a new plasma TV or some other thing that slutty teen mums don’t deserve because they ought not to have anything vaguely resembling a luxury consumer item, the dirty slags. It apparently never crosses the women-blamers’ minds that perhaps nice married ladies are also not spending their $4000 on onesies and Baby Mozart DVDs but instead on two days at the Versace spa resort, possibly because they know they have a husband who takes care of all the hard things like money. So now, the $4000 is doled out in installments to mothers under a certain age because man-less sluts can’t be trusted to have that much money at once.

    The whole baby bonus thing is insulting, sexist, and racist (plenty of hopeful immigrants and refugees want to have children, but they’re brown so they don’t count). The Treasurer actually came out and said “One for him, one for her, and one for the country”. Oh, he was just joking, of course.

  5. ginmar.livejournal.com

    Christ, the Center for Military Preparedness? How come nobody cites their only criteria—-an all-male military?

    What these assholes never cite is the fact that women make up fifteen percent of the damned military—six percent of Marines—and are supposed to be kept from combat because a bunch of chickenhawks are afraid of them.

    Yeah, if people are so concerned about violence against women how come it never bothers them when it’s American men being violent to American women at home?!

  6. There was a similar rush to the German one to get enceinte in Australia last year when several thousand dollars-per was ponied up for producing little grubs for the vaterland.

    I myself was an early January birth, giving which my ma delayed via bullet-biting for a couple of weeks to win a baby bonus instigated in the 1950s by a similarly anxious developed economy that was looking down the barrel of importing yellow and brown hordes for labour.
    Pity my parents were aboriginal darkies. The government couldn’t refuse the dosh, but made them jump through a hundred more bureaucratic hoops to get it.

  7. Gee Harpy, I thought I’d seen all the posts before I made my duplication of your information.

    Many apologies for not appearing to acknowledge your input.
    And I couldn’t agree more with your far better description of the whole thang.

    I suspect that a patriarchy attempt to mend the rips in the space/time continuum that the Twisty publication appears to be making is interfering with reality.
    Nothing ever makes sense when the patriarchy is inserting spaniards in the works.

  8. The Center for Military Preparedness http://www.cmrlink.org/ look like anti-women, anti-homosexual, kooks. Only a whack rag like the Washington Times would quote them as a real source of any kind.


    “…when the world was adrift on the stormy waves of the Cold War, I established The Washington Times to fulfill God’s desperate desire to save this world.” – Rev. Moon

    And a fine job he’s done of it, too!

  9. Where women and aberration are involved, allusions to dire mutuant reproductive ramifications are never far away.

    I do not debate this point.

    In this specific case, the allusion was a simple statement of fact:

    Among children who inherited the gene, 62% got it from their mothers; 38% got it from their fathers.

    Here’s a link to the abstract:

  10. Twisty

    frumiousb, I do not dispute the facts in this story, only the way they are manipulated by phallogocentric language to put women in a bad light.

  11. Speaking of media manipulation of scientific studies, the BBC came out with a gem this morning – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6214655.stm , headline “Housework cuts breast cancer risk.”

    There’s a big problem with science writing in the media, and I think this article illustrates it perfectly – reduce an incredibly complex system to the most alarmist (and, as the above list of articles shows, the most misogynist) talking point possible and run with it.

  12. I suppose I should add that in this article, it seems the reporter is inflating the misogyny rather than creating it. Dr. Lesley Walker sounds like a gem: “This study suggests that being physically active may also help reduce the risk and that something as simple and cheap as doing the housework can help.”

    Save the gym membership fees, keep your man’s floors clean, and hold on to your tits – it’s win-win-win.

  13. Reedy these stories are press release journalism. The article comes in already written by the pharmaceutical company that’s backing the research. It’s paid for. It appears to be editorial content, but it’s not.

  14. I haven’t read this yet Reedy, but it’s over on Feminist Law Professors, gratis Ann Bartow:


    And this factors in too. Most of those patient groups begging for drug X to be released sooner than the FDA wants to, are bought and paid shills for pharma. Pharma is also buying the articles telling us about their dire drug needs:

  15. Fuck housework.

  16. faultline.org/place/toad

    I agree, Mar. And if you get on top and fuck it strenuously enough, hey, win-win!

  17. Thanks for the links, Pony. I’ll check them out.

    I don’t understand how big pharmaceuticals factor into this – we may be talking about totally different things.

    I’m certainly not naive regarding the industry’s involvement in drug research, marketing, and press, but the article I mentioned does not even mention a drug, and while I haven’t followed all of Twisty’s links, her summaries of them don’t seem to have a pharmaceutical theme. We may be drunk-driving, adulterous sex kittens who are trying to milk money from the Germans with our baby-retaining cervices, but not necessarily pill poppers (yet).

    What I specifically object to in the BBC article is the dishonesty of it. At best, the study shows correlation, but it is impossible to prove causality in that kind of observational study (as opposed to experimental ones, which are of course impossible). And yet, the title of the article declares that “Housework cuts breast cancer risk.” Beyond that, there are environmental, socioeconomic, and genetic factors that need to be accounted for in order for the study to have any meaning. Maybe the original paper accounted for it, but the article doesn’t.

  18. No nor should you expect the article to account for those things. The articles are 10 inchers. They are re-arranged press releases. Read a sampling of the media blitz on this, you’ll see the same phrases over and over. It’s also very common that this kind of advertorial happens in holiday time, when staffing is short and the marketing dept wonks know they can get them in easily, because media outlets will be looking for fodder that can be plonked in. I haven’t read the study to follow the money, but it will almost surely have been industry backed.

  19. jokerine

    Well, the German goverment does try! you get the money if you stay home for three years until you can send your child to preschool. But the father of the child has to stay home at least for 3 month of that time, for you to be eligible. And yeah that money will really make me have children because you know I have spent those 6 years studying chemistry to be a stay at home mom. PhD who needs it, when you can have lots of cute babies at 25 000 each. And those idiots that suggest this money is better invested in public healthcare are just lazy sluts who don’t deserve children anyway with their liberal, self-finding crap. I mean they actually think they have a right to live their own life appart from the family, puh-lease!

    (um… got carried away.)

    Cheers Jokerine.

Comments have been disabled.