Today I’ll be blaming the Internet. More precisely, I’ll be blaming Dude Nation’s appropriation of the Internet as a women’s-oppression-delivery device.
Rare is the behavior the humanitarian outcome of which may be said to improve when performed by insensate mobs, and perpetual penisism is no exception; the phenomenon of internet voyeurism magnifies a zillionfold the misogyny of a single “hubba.” To wit:
The other day WaPo reported that some knob sports blogger, an excrescence who by definition exalts the basest impulses of his species, had posted a photograph of an obscure record-breaking high school pole vaulter. The photo showed the woman at a meet, adjusting her ponytail. The knob sports blogger titled the blog entry “Pole vaulting is sexy, barely legal.” He is a dude, so naturally he felt inclined to add “Hubba hubba and other grunting sounds” to his jokey ‘analysis’ of her athleticism.
Because it is the prime directive of dudes to circlejerk all over the internet, downloading images of the pole vaulter soon became pretty much the only purpose to which they put their computers. Eighteen-year-old Allison Stokke, whose crime was pole vaulting while female, had achieved internet pornaliciousness.
Which freaked Stokke out. Says WaPo:
Stokke read on message boards that dozens of anonymous strangers had turned her picture into the background image on their computers. She felt violated. It was like becoming the victim of a crime, Stokke said. Her body had been stolen and turned into a public commodity, critiqued in fan forums devoted to everything from hip-hop to Hollywood.
After dinner one evening in mid-May, Stokke asked her parents to gather around the computer. She gave them the Internet tour that she believed now defined her: to the unofficial Allison Stokke fan page […] complete with a rolling slideshow of 12 pictures; to the fan group on MySpace, with about 1,000 members; to the message boards and chat forums where hundreds of anonymous users looked at Stokke’s picture and posted sexual fantasies.
The Washington Post calls this “unwanted attention.” I call it out-and-out pornulational harassment, but it is not permissible, when reporting on human rights violations endured by women, to be too sympathetic. Here’s what the WaPo reporter had to say about how the knob sports blogger initially came to violate Stokke:
She was hot. She was 18.
Lest we fail to suffiently appreciate the degree to which her physiognomy compelled the helpless knob sports blogger to “react […] on instinct” by pornalizing her, WaPo gives readers an overview of her hotness:
At 5 feet 7, Stokke has smooth, olive-colored skin and toned muscles. In the photo, her vaulting pole rests on her right shoulder. Her right hand appears to be adjusting the elastic band on her ponytail. Her spandex uniform — black shorts and a white tank top that are standard for a track athlete — reveals a bare midriff.
The knob sports blogger perceived that his next action — to post her photo without her permission and caption it with wolf-whistles for the prurient enjoyment of his 18-to-35-year-old male audience — was “a no-brainer.”
I’d make the obvious joke, but it’s a no-brainer.
His exploitation of Stokke has brought him some much-engorged exposure and popularity. Oh, he’s caught a bit of flak since Stokke and her parents went public with their revulsion, but he’s a dude, so there’s no taking her pictures down or apologizing for his part in her public humiliation. Instead, he has posted new “high-res photos […] with the written permission of the photographer [1].” Take that, young high school girl! Way to smack down that teenager, knob sports blogger! Boo-ya!
Dude Nation’s automatic assumption is that any woman who flouts paternalistic convention by appearing outside her home is a public toilet. That a public woman, such as a teenage athlete, has no right to the slightest dignity is commonly considered a settled point. Quoth the knob sports blogger in a second post facetiously titled “Please be respectful of Allison Stokke [2]”:
It’s 2007, people: time to realize that attractive women athletes will always be recognized and — yes, sometimes — obsessed over. Is it right or wrong? I don’t know. But it’s reality.
He doesn’t know if making a teenage girl feel like a public toilet is right or wrong? Yeah, and I’m Candida Royale.
Of course he knows. He just doesn’t give a flying fuck. Neither does anyone else in his tribe, which is why this thing he innocently pretends not to understand is also a thing he calls ‘reality.’ The motto of young male pornocrats — ‘women are public toilets’ — would be vulgar as a guiding principle even if women actually were public toilets. The fact that we are human beings makes Dude Nation’s religion one of surpassing cruelty and malice.
______________________
1. The photographer, it seems, had originally threatened the knob sports blogger with legal action unless the original pictures were taken down, but now that the Stokkes have voiced their outrage in national media, “[the photographer] no longer finds them a sympathetic cause.” Nail that uppity bitch!
2. It will surprise nobody that the 160 + comments to this ‘be respectful of our sex toy’ post can be summarized, leaving out the overwhelming preponderance of vulgarity, as “I’d hit it. What’s a pole vault?”
[Gracias, Beth]
OK that does it. I’m ready to take to the streets. I peeked at the comments at the WaPo and of course she ASKED for the attention by wearing those skimpy clothes (that make it possible for her to compete with minimal hindrance) and by telling her story to a newspaper (heaven forbid - she has a voice).
They aren’t going to stop until we’re all silenced and wearing burkas.
Just because she was out in public engaging in a public performance does not mean her photograph is public. Actually, it should be a crime to post anybody’s photograph without their permission. There’s clearly an exception to first amendment concerns when the speech is offensive. How fucked up is it that the photographer owns it, instead of the subject?
Maybe some good will come out of this for her. Obviously, if she’s got the AntonellaBarba-itis. Look where it got her.
I read an article about that in the paper this morning. If the story wasn’t sickening enough, the quote from the girl’s coach at the end guarenteed I wasn’t going to finish my breakfast:
“Coach Mangula said a lesson had been learned.
‘If you are good at something and are an attractive female, you will draw attention whether you want it or not,’ he said. ‘She has great potential. If she continues improving at college and beyond, there will be a lot more publicity. She’s 18 now, going off to college. She’s just going to have to deal with it.’”
Apparently some tool has also plastered Stokke’s picture on mugs and mousepads and is profiting nicely from the sale of them.
There are just days when I wish men really were from mars and women from venus and we could just return to our home planet and be free from them.
Can the Stokkes at least sue the jerk making money off of selling her image? And what exactly is the lesson here? Appearance will always trump accomplishment? Disgusting remarks are a compliment? Ick.
Now, I know violence isn’t supposed to solve anything, but sometimes I wonder if a good bonk on the head for every asshole every time they do something like this wouldn’t make things at least a tiny bit better for the world. I also thought people were supposed to have the final say in what happens with their image, though perhaps that’s my naïveté showing.
Can the identity theft regulations appy here when it involves someone’s likeness? Do people have the copyright to their own image?
I Googled Ms. Stokke to see what this was about and noticed the completely disgusting practice of “fans” removing her head from many of them. Hubba, hubba. Nothing sexier than a woman with no head.
After my eyes healed, I looked at some of the other pictures that were more legitimate records of her performances. Awesome. What an amazing athlete! One wonders if any of the masturbating cretins notice that a woman is a much better athlete than they will ever be.
I used to be an art director, and remember having to go to great lengths to ensure that any photo we used was free and clear of the likeness of anyone who had not given their legal, notarized permission to be photographed. Until now, I was sure that commercial photographic reproduction of a person was subject to the approval of the model, or person photographed.
This, to me, means that she has the right to sue any of the people who have profited from the reproduction of her likeness without her express permission, starting with the photographer himself. Whether she has the means to go through with prosecuting everyone involved, and whether she will win a judgement with the entire porn-crazed dude nation against her is another matter.
After all, she’s hot, and she’s 18, and she’s a member of the sex class. She has no rights under the law not granted her by the dude nation. How can she ever prove that she did not consent to have her photo smeared all over the internet? Just like rape, there’s probably a higher and almost insurmountable burden of proof for a female victim of photographic exploitation.
I can see the dude lawyer for the defense right now, smirking through his scraggly goatee, making jerk-off motions in front of his baggy shorts to the howls and hoots of the delighted dude nation jury, as he says, “Just look at her! Anyone that hot is gonna get her picture took any time she steps out of the house without her freakin’ burka! Case fuckin’ dismissed!”
The dude nation judge, jerking off under his robes as usual, will find easily for the defense as soon as he runs out of lotion.
Absolutely, Comrade. That’s one of the reasons they’re trying to turn her into a sex object: They can’t handle the fact that some women are better athletes than they are. I’ve heard dudes joke that women basketball players look “so clumsy” and known that one-on-one, my sister could clobber them. When we compete with them, intellectually or athletically or for money, the only recourse they can think of is to objectify us.
They do want us silenced, of course, but wearing next to nothing (not burqas). If we aren’t sexy enough, they’d just as soon we were dead. I don’t mean every single dude; just the ones who are threatened by us.
Under the circumstances, puking is a rather restrained response. Kick-ass essay, Twisty.
On a related note, isn’t it time Olympic swimmers competed in bloomers and softball players in chain mail? But I think the greatest genius of this post is recognizing how little difference in coverage there is between some anonymous jackass and a national newspaper.
Metin: I think they would apply to one’s own pictures on FLickr and Myspace (I believe), but would not revert to her if it were some media or sports-photographer.
So let’s see — the photographer and the knob who exploited the photographer’s images of Stokke have made nice and settled the spat over her commodification between them? Well, isn’t that special. Let there be peace in the valley.
I am woefully low tech, so I don’t know any more about such things than what I read in the news, and of course I am sceptical of that.
However, whenever I hear about this sort of pornification, I wonder. When I hear about all the kazillion porn sites, I wonder. Are there feminist hackers? Are there feminist allies who are hackers? Is it possible to deny access to the pornification of people on these interwebs? Would one get arrested?
While free speech would require that one respect the rights of a person to put their own images, words, or drawings on the web, it does not require that anyone respect their right to publish other peoples images, words, or drawings.
Civil disobedience is long overdue, I think.
Gah… GAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!! After making the mistake of reading the bubbling toxic cesspool that is the comments section on that sports website, I noticed this comment made by “matt” who feels not only entitled to slobber all over Stokke’s pictures, but feels it necessary to MOCK her rightful complaints about her forced entry into the Sporto’s Porno Pantheon:
” [Imitating Stokke] ‘I don’t want to be victimized because of my looks, so I’d better by [sic, you dumb fuck] a mid-riff tank top with booty shorts that expose my camel toe, that’ll show ‘em’
ps Mr. Stokke: Camel Toe = vaginal outline ”
Oh my god you sleazy FUCK, she’s an ATHLETE! Jesus, should she be pole-vaulting wearing sweat-pants and a caftan? I hope you never go swimming in a public pool when there are any hetero women/gay men around, because if they find you attractive and go on a molestation rampage, you’ve got no defense; walking around as you were all shirtless and sopping wet, you were basically asking for it.
And I’m sure Allison Stokke and her father thank you for explaining away the bandied-about juvenile slang for his daughter’s “vaginal outlineâ€. Class act.
I assume that Allan Stokke is the same “defense attorney Al Stokke” who defended the Laguna Beach cop acquitted of ejaculating on a motorist (as reviled in Twisty’s Feb 11th posting).
Which isn’t to say that the guilty don’t have a right to counsel nor that Mr. Stokke is being “taught a lesson” about the corrosiveness of patriarchy through his own daughter’s exploitation.
One of those meaningless coincidences, I suppose.
I was initially interested on this story because I love to watch pole vaulting. It is one of the most specialised and demanding sports I know and it looks as elegant as vertical dance.
It is always painful to see women treated as sexual objects, but this time I was so furious I was speechless. It’s not so much the objectification; after all, we are used to it. It’s the fact that male athletes are still considered demigods, but all the attention that female ones get is directed at their sexual appeal.
Anyway, what I want now is that Allison Stokke wins a tournament or two and gets a Nike deal that makes her a millionaire.
As to suing over using her image without permission, I wonder what sort of cognitive dissonance would rip through the inevitable Right-thinking war-supporters who, after reacting like someone rubbed Dave’s Insanity Sauce on their hemroids over the use of soilders’ names in anti-war t-shirts, have conspicuously consumed Stokke’s image.
Is it berry flavoured barium puke?
I present a crumb, the following, from the blog of sportwriter Roch Kubatko of the Baltimore Sun, dated May 27, 2007. He opens his usual pre-game lineup post with something a bit unusual:
“Forgive me for not getting all goosebumpy over the Duke lacrosse team reaching the NCAA tournament finals. The players who attended the infamous party last year might not have done everything they were accused of, but what they were doing was wrong. Very, very wrong. Certainly nothing for a university, or their families, to be proud of.
OK, I’ll step down from my soap box.”
After the usual rapist apologists slam Roch, and some male commentors back him up fairly effectively, which you can see here: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/roch/blog/2007/05/the_lineup_12.html#comments
he responded to one comment :
“Nobody said they’re the only ones doing it. Nobody said they should be sent away for 20 years. But what they were doing that night was wrong, and I choose not to root for them. Period. Nothing ignorant about that.
However, I will have a nice day. Thanks.”
So, for all the Nice Guys who want to know how to show that they are not assholes, here’s a good, simple example. That wasn’t so hard, now, was it ?
To quote my DH, it’s not much, but it’s better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
@ TP, and regarding image rights and the like in general –
As a graphic designer, I’m in the same boat as you wrt having to be clear on image use, especially when model rights are involved.
A big part of the problem here has to do with whether publishing someone’s photo on your blog counts as “commercial use” or not. Of course, the folks putting her likeness on mouspads and such are subject to that, and should have their pants sued off them.
Additionally, the details of how and why the photographs were taken complicates matters. if it was for a newspaper, and she was photographed candidly during a meet, usually people in that situation are asked to sign a release which states that photographs are the property of the publication (or photographer, sometimes) and can be used by the former for any purpose. You can always choose not to sign such a thing, but usually when it happens, you’re not exactly thinking “Oh, crap, this means somebody could use this photo to sexually objectify me!” unless maybe you’re naked or doing something sexual. So Stokke may not have a leg to stand on here in terms of image use rights and the like.
Either way, This Totally Sucks!!!!! Even if they sued the pants off everyone involved, it still doesn’t take away the shitty feeling of being used and objectified. I used to participate in an online forum wherein my fellow participants were by and large male. At one point, we added a “post your photo” thread, just for shits & giggles. I was stupid enough to add mine, and stupid enough to choose one where I didn’t look like a nun or somesuch. Similar crap happened to me, though thankfully on a much much smaller level — it really sucked.
Twisty, my dear….on some occasions, I read your posts and nod quietly. Other times, your opinion and mine might differ quite strongly…but all of your postings are brilliantly written, with a real love of and facility with words shining through.
And when you are dead-on right, like in this post, I find myself reduced to mere awe.
Thank you for being here.
The feeling that plagues me most when I read this sort of crap is frustration at our impotence. I agree with thebewilderness on civil disobediance, and also with that old adage about money talking, which is why I propose for your consideration the IBTF Foundation, a charitable organization which exists for the sole purpose of funding radical feminist activism. The society will be run by a volunteer board of directors, and grants will be awarded to successful applicats by the funding review committee. The IBTF Foundation shall restrict its activities to the management and disbursement of donated funds, and all members shall be volunteers with the exception of those retained to provide accounting and administrative services.
Someone get that going, and I’ll send you $100 right now.
On the article: love the catch 22 - any sympathy she might have warranted is voided by her speaking out to the media. And if she hadn’t spoken the the media? This is reminding me of Kathy Sierra.
But now we have the Orange County Register selling pictures of her for $35 (for an 8X10 print.) I wonder who’s making the money here?
By the way, she should not be blamed for her dad’s weakness as a defense attorney defending freaks.
But I do think she’ll probably do Leno and even get some sort of a Maxim deal when she’s 21.
I, however, would like to suggest that Allison Stokke get together with Antonella Barba and Sanjaya Malakar, and star in a new series called, ‘Private Eye for the Straight Guy!’
I hadn’t heard of this story until reading it here, and it is very disappointing and, worse, all too typical of the Dude Nation. This is a high-performance athlete, deserving of respect and dignity, yet when one does a Google search, this is what one gets in the little blurbs:
“That school’s so overrun with fat Asians and dirty hippies it’s beyond saving. Unless Ms. Stokke goes there. Best education on the West Coast, Allison!”
“The latest hot chick to bubble up from bountiful blog linkage is high school athlete Allison Stokke.”
“Allison Stokke is the world’s hottest high school athlete. See all her photos and video here!”
“Allison Stokke is a “barely legal†(just turned 18 some months ago) American pole-vaulter”
“The Big Picture: Would you do…Allison Stokke? Allison Stokke? Why we might: The easy answer: She’s legal. Half your age 7, motherfuckers! So: 23 ÷ 2 = 11½. 11½ 7 = 18½. We’re gold!”
All of these come from the first three pages of results (sorry, Twisty, your post hasn’t made it to the top of the heap yet, which would be helpful in order to set some of these nimrods straight), so it’s readily evident that the pornification of this woman trumps any of her athletic credentials. This is the imposed penalty for a woman being anything but a quiet, faceless, demure house object. Step out of the house, and you will be broadcast all over the Internet as masturbation material.
I second Dawn Coyote’s idea, and pledge $100. Any charitable board types out there? It would just feel so good to once in a while feel like I could contribute to some effective action, even one small thing. And there do seem to be a lot of blamers.
Twisty: I’d like to second what Dawn Coyote wrote about establishing an IBTP foundation. I’d kick in too. In fact, I’d make that the primary beneficiary of my yearly charitable donations. Not that that’s anything to get excited about, but still.
Excellent, excellent idea.
I am no expert, but there are some different rules regarding pictures of public figures and the like. Paparazzi never have the permission of their subjects, and yet their pictures are bought and sold and published and consumed all the time. Participating in an event like a track meet probably means she has little legal standing here, at least regarding the use of her image.
If 60% of men would rape a woman if they could get away with it, and people surfing the internet are, for all intents and purposes, anonymous, this sort of thing is the natural result. The number of men willing to masturbate to images of random women on the internet is probably close to 100%.
The culture of dehumanization and objectification of women leads naturally to this sort of thing.
I hate when photographers back down like that. It’s always some guy giving photographers, amateur and pro, a bad reputation. He *could* have come out and said something like “It’s a documentary sports photo of an awesome athlete, take your grubby hands off your dick and stop being such a loser.” but nooooo.
There’s a place for street and documentary photography that does include people who may or may not have known their photo was being taken. It does not include exploitative images or people who turn them into public wank material or stupid internet jokes. Big difference between say, Mary Ellen Mark, and some guy who puts up photos on Flickr tagged as “hot babe big rack gazongas ass”.
I dread ending up as a “headless fattie” photo accompanying some obesity scare story. I know a lot of fat women who are afraid to eat in public, for that very reason. You can either be a “hot chick asking for it”, or a “fat chick OMG gross”. What a choice. What a wonderful world.
So the unofficial allison stokke website shut down, saying: “Sorry for having contributed to the unwanted attention, Allison. We think you’re a phenomenal athlete and wish you the best of luck in your academic and athletic endeavors.”
Which seems like a class move. I’m assuming that the website was athletically oriented to begin with, and not sexual?
I’m a guy, so I can see where Allison Stokke is beautiful, as per your XX post especially. (excellent) Her beauty is obvious, her power & grace, intoxicating. My reaction to her appearance is both learned & biological. I can’t ignore her looks due to my human nature, but I can hold my tongue due to my common decency.
I’m sure almost any man would give her the time of day and probably go out of their way to do so, in service of her good looks at the very least and in the hope of being viewed favorably. It’s imperative.
I’m also sure that even the most devout religious dork is sizing her up, if only for child bearing hips. Again, uncontrollably male biological response to our time’s ideal of beauty. Every day, since time began.
Back in “the good old days†a fifteen year old would not have been invited by Allison’s uninvited pimp, Matt Ufford, to comment on what he might dream up for her from his vast experience of masturbating to internet porn and have it virtuaslly published.
Back then, even if the little squirt had any notion of what to do, he’d have had almost nowhere to voice said desires without getting the Palmolive treatment!
Back then, if you, Twisty, had overheard him, you might have gotten off a an angry glare or at best a stinging backhand, and justly… only just before both of your declarations would have vaporized into the void of unknown human dross.
Now, all the moments of this abominably pointless sequence of pornifying have become virtual history and Allison’s career will forever be tarnished by the heartless grunting orgasms of stupid monkey boys (18-35) without any notion of patriarchy or the protection they enjoy as members.
Unless…
Someone tells the little shits that it’s wrong and makes the little shits’ boners go away.
They need to be shamed.
Publicly.
They need to feel the sickening knot in their bellies of violation and degradation in the public eye.
They need to know that the “knappy headed hoes†are as real as their mothers and just as disgusted with them.
Those are the patriarchs of the future and they need someone to be the adult around here whose got the guts to spank them.
No Really!
Another terrific post, Twisty, even though I find this stuff so discouraging.
It’s imperative.
No it isn’t, really!
This story had me so depressed. I didn’t make the connection Neko did with the earlier post, but the article did mention the dad is a lawyer, so I hope he sues some people’s asses until they can’t sit down for papercuts.
I trolled a couple blogs that came up in the Google results. I encouraged the prior commenters to report to their local district office for complimentary castration. “Bring an ice pack!”
The various dudely sites mentioning this young athlete? Many are worse than the original one the Post mentioned. “How hard would you hit that?” one asked. Ew.
I’m glad there are decent men out there (one lives in my house)–but good gravy, are there a lot of asswipes.
Excellent essay.
It’s getting darn difficult to balance my time between here and the message board.
“our consideration the IBTF Foundation, a charitable organization which exists for the sole purpose of funding radical feminist activism. The society will be run by a volunteer board of directors, and grants will be awarded to successful applicats by the funding review committee.”
Considering my experiences in activism, I wouldn’t put it past such a funding organization to be deemed terrorist and a foe of all civilization. That the powers that be got all in a tizzy over my telling welfare mothers how to vote and that they needn’t consider themselves sluts of the world, I’d say anything more ‘radical’ than walk-a-thons and lapel ribbons gets the watchdogs in a lather.
Heck for the acts I mention above (plus some public speaking and writing) I suffered harrassment on all levels, threats and colleagues of mine had ‘missing’ or lost checks, I got called in for monthly reviews of my assistance instead of the six months, so you go figger.
Of course revolutions don’t spring from the group sitting on their hands complaining about how powerless they are. Or at least they only do that in public.
As for the pole vaulter, I highly doubt she’d win a case in court for property rights, not only for the reasons Opopo brought up, but also because she’s a woman. Her body was never her own.
She’s one of the lucky who apparently made it through to the age of 18 prior to realizing that she has no agency. Some never make it past kindergarten before they learn that.
I agree with Norbiz, the blind stupidity of most journalists (if they even deserve that title) is stupefying in and of itself. In this case the myopia not causes blindness to the real story and the real protaganist, but also the inability to see the Big Penis in the Room so to speak.
Thanks, Twisty, as usual, for bringing these vermin to the light of day. And thanks for including the usual problem that one of the biggest establishment “news”papers gave this crap the stamp of approval. This is the single most effective part of the propaganda machine that is increasingly depriving us of any rights whatsoever. It’s like grownups telling a group of snickering boys torturing a cat “You go right ahead dears”.
What the hell are women going to do about this?
“What the hell are women going to do about this?”
A lot of them will go out and buy athletic wear like the woman in the story and hate themselves for not looking like her and then hate her, the woman they don’t know and who never wanted the objectification anyway, which they see as the only affirmation they understand and can’t get enough of.
Right, Kate, I forgot about that huge wave of sellouts that’s helped create the undertow the rest of us are drowning in. I think they’re the product of an unfinished and too long stalled revolution.
But I did mean the rest of us rather than them.
I presume it’s not that she is targeted specially but this is what is called an Internet meme. There must be plenty of pictures of girls (even better looking) running on the internet that do not attract such attention. This is a form of snowball effect on the internet where an initial post becomes amplified to an avalanche. Unfortunately if your caught in that avalanche it’s not funny. The thing is you can never know if some image of you on the net will turn you in unwilling internet superstar practically over the night.
…uncontrollably male biological response
Lock yourself up, and away from us actual humans, you shit-for-brains wanker.
HippieB, you are a patriarchal jackass, it is not imperative for you to look at women with your male gaze crap, spanking is unacceptable, these kids need to be talked to and have their allowance docked for a week, the adults should be in education classes, for crap’s sake all you want to do is clearly sexually shame these people instead of educate them, you get off on making kids scared, don’t you? If you didn’t you wouldn’t talk this way. You contribute nothing helpful to the discussion.
Actually what you said about photos makes me think of Super-size-me, it had a valid point about the food industry but all the photos of overweight people, shit. The boys in my class kept on going eeww whenever there were pictures of people’s asses, if only they’d grow up.
SlamShut: do you have a point?
HippieB: you don’t get the point. Jolly nice of you to drop in and tell us you think those boys are mean. But do you see how intensely irritating it is that you’ve felt the need to preface your lengthy essay with three paragraphs about how hawt Stokke is and men just can’t help it because of their irrepressible biological imperatives?
I realise I’m straying close to feeding a troll here, but I highlight the example of HippieB as exactly the problem when you try to deal with this kind of exploitation and pornulational harassment through the medium of Nice Guys. The above chump thinks he’s sitting on the fence between the radical feminists and the “stupid monkey boys”, benignly shining down his magnificence upon us all as he decrees what he believes to be the middle line: Objectifying laydeez is bad, but woah, check out her rack. Except he’s paraphrased “rack” as “beauty… power & grace”, because he’s busy pretending to himself that he, the Superior Nice Guy, wanks over her for her sporting achievements. Phwoar, yeah! Check out the power and grace on that!
Surprise, schmendrick! You are one of the “stupid monkey boys”. And, until you are able to think about the case without feeling entitled to give your opinion on Stokke’s personal appearance, so you shall remain.
It’s so depressing that so very, very many men still think that it’s acceptable to objectify women as long as they’re being complimentary about them. Because having thousands of strangers download and masturbate over a picture of you is fine, as long as they do it nicely. Hell, it’s probably even empowering. Lucky Allison!
“I’m sure almost any man would give her the time of day and probably go out of their way to do so, in service of her good looks…”
That really says it all! In the service of her fucking good looks? What the hell is that suppose to mean really? I’ll tell you what it means: it is unabashed affirmation of the patriarchal scheme for the most basic and unquestionable, not to mention pretty much the only one endorsed by 9 out of 10 doctors, measure of a woman’s worth: her fuckability.
I’m sure almost any man would give her the time of day and probably go out of their way to do so, in service of her good looks…
I have to second pdxstudent on this one. This really is just rich. They’d do anything in service of her good looks, but the one thing she’s actually asked of them, in service of her person - Take the picture you’ve turned into pornography off your hate sites - is a request she ought not be uppity enough to beg for.
The fucking gall of men. We’re supposed to be boot-lickingly grateful for the swung-open doors, the casual invitations to be raped they consider compliments, the unsolicited $5 intoxicant they made the woman waitress bring you for no tip, all done in the name of our “good looks.” But ask them for one thing in the service of ourSELVES, like please don’t rape us, or encourage others to rape us by turning a blind eye while others entertain the thought, and, they’re not willing.
Why? Because they’ll only do things for ‘tang. No, seriously, they’ll only agree not to rape if we, in exchange, agree to give up the ‘tang. See how that works? We agree to give up the pussy, and then they don’t have to do anything about rape because we already agreed to give up the pussy, so there is no rape.
Is this Ms. Stokke’s father?
“It is one thing to pursue a vigorous defense for your client, but it is beyond the pale for lawyers to make claims, in court, as the defense’s Al Stokke did, when he claimed that, since the girl had been drugged unconscious by the trio of rapists, her physical injuries, including penetration by lit cigarette, soda can and a pool cue, were not that severe, with his claim that ‘There’s [no pain] that is felt,’ he said, ‘because she was unconscious.’” (The Boston Progressive, March 25, 2006)
and
“No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.
“When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.
“‘She got what she wanted,’ said Stokke. ‘She’s an overtly sexual person.’” (Orange County Weekly, 2/8/07, and our own Twisty Faster, 2/11/07)
If so, I feel even more sorrow and dread for this young woman. If this is the same Al Stokke, why does he even care what is being said about his daughter? Clearly this Al Stokke believes women are just slabs of meat to be tortured and raped and used as semen receptacles by men, and women show they “want” this by being “overtly sexual.” You know, by having vaginas, and everything.
If this is just some other California defense attorney named Al Stokke, I apologize.
Google is your friend.
http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/technology_internetcritic/webtech/index.html
It appears that the shitbag CA attorney Al Stokke is indeed Allison Stokke’s dad.
“My reaction to her appearance is both learned & biological. I can’t ignore her looks due to my human nature … uncontrollably male biological response to our time’s ideal of beauty. Every day, since time began.”
Funny then, that men are perfectly capable of suppressing their uncontrollable biological responses to me (young, thin, female, though not conventionally pretty) when there’s a guy around. Hmmm.
If that is her father, first, not her fault, and (B) she has enough problems. I don’t think we should blame her for her patrirachy.
This makes me so angry. This young woman is, from what I can tell, an amazing athlete. She deserves to be celebrated for that, and, more importantly, to be able to be proud of herself for her own accomplishments. She worked hard to get where she is.
How DARE these wankers take that away from her.
Twisty is right – MEN HATE WOMEN the world over and do not forget it for a moment. “[P]enetration by lit cigarette, soda can and pool cueâ€â€¦ hmm… in other parts of the world consumed by civil war such acts are considered to be crimes against humanity and are treated as such. This is justice served on criminals. It requires that society acknowledges that rape is wrong and it is a crime not “just something that happens to sluts who ask for it, oh well what can you do?†It is a horrific crime and the punishment meted out should be proportional. Hell, in some places, places we consider to be the backwaters of civilization, justice is served on rape perpetrators by their own communities: the rapist is outfitted with a tire around his shoulders, doused with kerosene and set alight.
I do not personally advocate violence but there is something seriously wrong when in a society that alleges to be democratic and where apparently justice is accessible to all we cannot bring aggressive and violent men, WITH CLEAR EVIDENCE OF THE CRIME, to account. Protecting some pseudo athletes takes precedence?! Shaming the victim is the final word?!
Seems to me like the system needs an overhaul and it’s nothing new to say that. A bunch of you out there is already taking up that task. In the meantime, spend the 10 bucks it will cost you in paperback and get yourself a copy of Gavin De Becker’s The Gift of Fear. Cheesy front over notwithstanding the read will serve you well. You will learn practical ways of detecting situations where your safety is compromised and how you can get out of danger. The guy is well informed on violence having survived it himself and is now working in prevention. His point of departure is this:
“Whether it is learned the easy way or the hard way, the truth remains that your safety is yours. It is not the responsibility of the police, the government, industry, the apartment building manager, or the security company. Too often, we take the lazy route and invest our confidence without ever evaluating if it is earned. As we send our children off each morning, we assume the school will keep them safe […] it might not be so. We trust security guards – you know, the employment pool that gave us the Son of Sam killer, the assassin of John Lennon, the Hillside Strangler, and more arsonists and rapists than you have time to read about. Has the security industry earned your confidence? Has the government earned it? We have a Department of Justice, but it would be more appropriate to have a department of violence prevention, because that’s what we need and that’s what we care about.â€
Keep sharp and keep safe – don’t let your guard down!
I’m not at all blaming her for who her father is. I said, “I feel even more sorrow and dread for this young woman.”
I’m blaming her FATHER for being an asshole, and feeling sickened that this man is the one on her “side.”
Wow, if that’s her dad…
how sad for her.
Yeah, YOUR safety is YOUR responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the world around you, though especially unpredictable and unrestrained men, to be considerate of YOUR safety. God knows that if you get raped, attacked, or harassed, you obviously weren’t watching out for YOUR safety– you were probably asking for it too.
“I also thought people were supposed to have the final say in what happens with their image, though perhaps that’s my naïveté showing.”
Nope, it is your good legal intuition showing.
There is a common law legal right called the “Right of Publicity”, which “prevents the unauthorized commercial use of an individual’s name, likeness, or other recognizable aspects of one’s persona [and] gives an individual the exclusive right to license the use of their identity for commercial promotion.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Publicity
Based on my superficial understanding of this legal principle, it seems to me that Stokke would have a valid claim against those who are making money off her likeness.
If Allison Stokke happened to not sign a waiver releasing all images of her performing in the sports activity, then she has a full right to sue all the people making any profit off of her image. I assume, however, that at this point she must be in the situation of having signed away her rights, making her pictures property of the photographer.
However, she can definitely sue the hell out of whoever is selling the mugs, mouse pads, t-shirts, etc. Just because she is an popular meme doesn’t mean that her image is now a legal free-for-all. I hope she does take legal action against those she can, if only to receive some compensation for the mental trauma she has had to endure.
Also, a bit of internet research revealed that Al Stokke is also Alan Stokke. He is the SAME lawyer who defended the disgusting sexual assailants of BOTH CASES MENTIONED BY TINFOIL HATTIE. I also feel even more sorry for Allison Stokke after discovering this little tidbit of information.
Also, in case Allison Stokke happens to be reading this:
“A three-minute video of Ms. Stokke standing against a wall and analyzing her performance at another meet had been posted on YouTube and viewed 150,000 times.”
This is also COMPLETELY ILLEGAL! You can take legal action against whoever posted and distributed this.
In the interests of not wanting to set off another 700-post flame thread, I won’t say what I’m thinking.
OK, maybe I’ll just say that given the family setup, I don’t figure there’s much of a chance that she’ll ever fight this.
Everyone should also keep in mind that, unfortunately, most of the laws governing image usage rights only apply clearly to commercial use.
It is unclear whether someone posting pictures on a blog (or a video of you on You-Tube) is commercial use or not. If the blogs in question are really big for-profit ventures with a lot of advertising and sponsorship, she would have a pretty good case for whatever her cut of that would be. which probably isn’t all that much, anyway.
Though the You-Tube video might be subject to some other kind of law, probably privacy.
J, I am wondering if your comment was directed at pomosucks’ advocacy of being on the lookout for your own safety. I think pomosucks is advancing the idea that we can’t trust the justice system as it stands right now, and this is more than clear given the outcomes of rape and privacy trials. GdeB is simply a book that helps women, since we are led to believe that we will get justice from the system in the event that we are fucked over by the patriarchy. Instead of believing that men will “protect” us, we should be realistic and take matters into our own hands. I fully agree with this, and agree with Dawn Coyote about establishing an IBTP foundation, regardless of whether anyone considers it radfem terrorism or not. Both our current personal safety and an overhaul of the system are in women’s hands, because men simply DO NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT EITHER. It’s suicide to think that men will ever give a shit unless forced to. Using tactics from the Gift of Fear can help individuals under the current system, because the system is SEVERELY flawed, but a revolution is necessary to change the laws in order that they no longer benefit every sick, perverted whim of the entitled assholes.
That said, I pledge my hundred dollars.
Yep, same Al Stokke. And the idjits commenting on her photo use her Dad’s reputation to excuse their wanking all over his daughter. If they’re so concerned about the fair treatment of victims of rape and sexual assault, why don’t they stop doing the virtual version of it themselves? Oh, right. That would mean acknowledging that Allison Stokke is a person in her own right and not her father’s property.
I also notice that most of them are upset about his defense of someone accused of molesting a boy, and not the infamous OC case. Typical.
“If the blogs in question are really big for-profit ventures with a lot of advertising and sponsorship, she would have a pretty good case for whatever her cut of that would be. which probably isn’t all that much, anyway.”
If she could make out a case based on the right of publicity, then I suspect that she would also be entitled to equitable relief, such as an injunction ordering the blogs and product-sellers to stop using her likeness without her permission.
Twisty, you are brilliant. I only hope Ms. Stokke finds this post so she knows her name is important to some people more important and eloquent than those jackholes sitting in their darkened computer rooms.
They do. That’s why they have to remind her that her accomplishments aren’t important, and the only thing that matters is whether they want to jerk off while looking at her photo. That’s why the sports blogger is such a scumbag - he very deliberately created the let’s-put-uppity-showoff-bitch-in-her-place campaign. In the service of his bank account.
I’m kind of surprised that people are surprised her dad, being a patriarchal asshole, would say, “WTF, you can’t do this to my daughter,” because, come on, that’s the logical extension of his patriarchal bullshit. Women are whores, but not my daughter, you can’t do that to my daughter, because I own her.
J, mearl elucidates my comment – read it. Irrespective of the many hours of the day I take out to daydream about la-la land where no danger will come in any woman’s way in any circumstance in the end I have to face facts and the world in which I live. Oh, why is there a battered women’s shelter just down the street from where I live? Hmm… I’ll get crazy and advance it’s because they have been turned out by “the system†(see mearl’s post) and have nowhere else to go. Why are there patrol cars cruising dodgy neighborhoods in my own city and yet assaults on women happen? Hmm, again. I stand by what I said, The Gift of Fear can and does help women become more aware of constant danger. Your remark is hostile and unhelpful. If you have a better way of helping women improve their safety, right now, today, I welcome and look forward to your suggestion.
(Twisty – apologies for the petty infighting)
A few points:
1st - I 23rd the call for an IBTP fund.
2nd - I assume that Allison Stokke is now being defined as a public figure, which I think complicates normal requirements about fair use and model releases and all that. Normally you do have to sign a release for your picture to be used for commercial purposes, but I think it’s different for public figures. Why an 18 year old high school student would be treated as a public figure, I have no idea. Maybe someone with more expertise with this distinction could expand?
3rd - Even though I’m a lesbian, I find it surprisingly easy to refrain from harassing women I find attractive.
In terms of communication law, Allison Stokke is not a public figure. A public figure is someone who has a preexisting public life — a politician or a celebrity, for example. Nor is she a “limited public figure,” which is someone who has injected her/himself into a controversy in order to affect its outcome. Stokke has done neither. She is a private citizen.
“In terms of communication law, Allison Stokke is not a public figure.”
Do you know what the consequences for a right-of-publicity claim would be if she were a public figure?
In most cases, someone being a public figure actually makes using their image for profit even more of a big deal. It would be much easier for me to get away with putting some girl on the street’s face on a mug or mousepad than it would for me to get away with putting the cast of House on same. It wouldn’t be right, and it might not be legal, but it would be much easier.
Of course, if all Allison Stokke wanted to do was get an injunction for the blogs and products to cease and desist, that should actually be pretty easy, unless she specifically waived her right to do so by signing a waiver of some sort.
Allison Stokke’s story leads to her father’s story, which leads to Duke’s athletes’ story.
The irony reminds me of Eric Schwartz’s song in which he sings:
“George Bush’s funding of sex education
Says that ‘condoms don’t work’.
If they didn’t, both your daughters
Would be pregnant, YOU JERK!”
po-mosucks:
J:
I’m with po-mosucks. I read the Gift of Fear some years ago, and I actually had a couple instances where I used the information. De Becker talks about women’s socialization, how they are taught to be passive, not offend people, etc. He says women need to get over it so that they can be safe.
After having read the book, I was driving home and pulled into my apartment building’s parking lot. It’s a secured building. You have to have a key or get buzzed in from someone who lives there. There was a guy I didn’t recognize smoking a cigarette on the sidewalk some feet away from the door. As I got out of my car and started toward the door, he extinguished his cigarette and started walking towards the door, too. It occurred to me that he was going to time it so that he would get to the door when I did. Since I didn’t know him, I wasn’t going to give him the opportunity to get in the building. So, I turned and walked quickly around to the back of the building. Luckily, he didn’t follow me. Before reading that book, I may have just gone ahead and let him in because I would have been afraid to have him think that I suspect him of something.
But now my thinking is, “You are giving me pause fella, so no dice.” If you’re offended that I’m treating you like a potential criminal, don’t take it out on women; take it out on the men who ARE criminals.”
I believe that people need to take precautions. I realize it’s a slippery slope because then you get situations where men say, “Hey, you were asking for it. I mean, after all, you did leave the house and walked along public streets.” But I do think that there are some situations that are inherently more dangerous than others and common sense should apply.
Marcy and po-mosucks, y’all are awesome. I agree that De Becker’s book is invaluable. I read it, and as a woman and as a teacher, I am grateful I’ve read it. We need to learn how to listen to our valuable intuition, the clues and signs that we unconsciously pick up on. /i/And we need to teach it to girls and young women./i/ For me, as a middle school teacher, I have been trying to weave bits of that in to my teaching, of helping children to break something down and analyze it, as well as point out to them clues they’ve found. And I want to definitely work in “your intuition is powerful. USE it! Listen to it!” in a more direct fashion in coming years.
We can only *help* ourselves when we rely on our inner strength, it can become a way to help dismantle the patriarchy.
Also, I really like Lundy Bancroft’s _Why does he do that: Inside the minds of angry and controlling men_ as something for every woman and young woman to read. I think it is especially helpful for women in het relationships, but it’s helpful for any women who has to deal with men–whether at work, or whatever.
“uncontrollably male biological response to our time’s ideal of beauty. Every day, since time began.” –Hippie B
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit?
Here’s a gem from withleather:
raginsaintsfan says
Mr. Sailor has a fantastic eye for the art of Photography [sic] and it appears that he has obviously earned accolades from the members of this site. He should be proud of his work… he managed to catch the essence of a blossoming flower, she just happens to be supper [sic] hot. These pictures are all over the internet so if your [sic] a parent or sibling of Allison instead of griping you should be convincing her to get an agent, and go PRO Ana Kournikova was 16 and she sucked but went on to become the highest paid (endorsements) tennis player in the world. Who cares about measurable talent? She has the only talent she needs.
[sic] [sic] [sic]
I think the temperature of the slightly chilly room I’m in right now about matches the I.Q. of the average poster on that site.
Twisty: You remember the fora for microbial masturbation 4.1 billion years in the primordial soup, right?
Wiggles: In Celsius, although there’s precious little money to be made in pole vaulting. She might have to actually succeed in business or something else foreign to most of the basement-dwellers on that site.
Okay, so when and how are we going to launch a site devoted to images of women wearing those full body and face things like they had to in Afganistan or like the modesty police require in Iran? It might be interesting to see if there are some of the same sorts of comments on there, and what sort of trolls would show up with the same sort of bullshit about “asking for it” and “old enough” and “hot” because they could just imagine what must be under those robes?
Somehow, I doubt the wankriarchy would respond much differently.
Discussion on the proposed IBTP Foundation has moved to the message boards.
BTW, the reason her clothing is brief is that you don’t want ANYTHING to catch on anything when you are going over a very high bar like that. People have gotten seriously hurt when their t-shirts have snagged their pole at the wrong time.
Also, a bit of internet research revealed that Al Stokke is also Alan Stokke. He is the SAME lawyer who defended the disgusting sexual assailants of BOTH CASES MENTIONED BY TINFOIL HATTIE. I also feel even more sorry for Allison Stokke after discovering this little tidbit of information.
Oh, the bitter irony. It’s like a movie on Lifetime.
I also was disturbed when I read the article, and am more so even now, that her parents’ response seemed sort of…bland. The only thing the Post published about them in the article was:
“Her father, Allan Stokke, comes home from his job as a lawyer and searches the Internet. He reads message boards and tries to pick out potential stalkers.
“‘We’re keeping a watchful eye,’ Allan Stokke said. ‘We have to be smart and deal with it the best we can. It’s not something that you can just make go away.’”
and
“Allan Stokke, a defense attorney, studied California’s statutes so he would know if he saw or read anything about his daughter that went beyond distasteful to illegal.”
So: assuming the Post didn’t just omit a heartsick and bitter rant coming from her father, his reaction is mainly that a) this internet rape and defilement of his daughter is “distasteful,” and b) he wants to make sure it doesn’t go beyond that to “illegal.”
Even her mother categorized it as “locker room talk.”
Meanwhile, their daughter ” […] locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone.”
Doh. Bad tag.
I’m late to the party, but:
The suggestion that men are responding to the threat of female athleticism & achievement — I’m not sure about that, but anyway — reminded me of someone’s wise comment about the 10-year-old getting harassed in high school: “your presence here threatens my sense of the world, so I’ll pick on you as a sex object.”
I write better than this when I “blame for pay” (yay Teffie), I promise.
“Again, uncontrollably male biological response to our time’s ideal of beauty. Every day, since time began.”
Yeah. the biological determinism excuse for being a reprehensible pervert. Never heard that one before.
Is this really what passes at intelligence to men? Seriously?
And the bitter bitter irony of this poor young woman having been sired by that misogynistic rape-apologist fuck head is just too much.
I think I’ve warned women to be “careful” what photos they post online. But after reading Stokke’s story and also coincidentally hearing ANOTHER similar story about a law student (also in non-eyebrow raising photos) I realized telling women to be careful about posting their image online is like saying there’s a way to prevent rape from how you dress. Stokke was in a public place and had no control over her photograph being taken. And frankly it’s impossible to be so careful all the time because how the heck do you know how your innocuous image will be viewed by the public id?
To compensate by saying “no public images of me ever” is the equivalent of wearing a burka to prevent being raped.
Off-topic, but. I heard something interesting on the radio this morning and I thought, who needs to hear about this? Twisty and the Blametariat.
My local radio station reported on “a shocking case of sexual assault” this morning. When they started the story with “A thirteen-year-old boy,” I felt sure it was going to go “A thirteen-year-old boy was assaulted…” but no.
“A thirteen-year-old boy is accused of assaulting an 18-year-old woman at [some trailer park]. Authorities say the boy was arrested while trying to assault a second woman.”
Now, granted, this is a bit of a paraphrase, because I was just waking up when I heard it. But I almost fucking cheered when they didn’t use the passive voice.
I think that it is easier for this (and every) news media outlet to speak actively, because status -wise the 13-year old boy is not much different than the woman. Of course, he’s in a liminal phase and will soon enough be fully integrated into male privilege. He is not compellingly a patriarch yet to be given the media’s cloaking device.
For a similar reason, you always hear about how mothers are killing and abusing their children, when everyone knows that men beat, rape and kill children on vomitously larger proportions.
Lexia: I try very hard to not conform, to the extent that I am looked upon with doubt and distrust. The blanket assumption that cooperation with the patriarchy on every level is an irreversible, unfixable fact causes consternation among its adherents. Blaming those who dare to challenge is far easier than taking the risk of picking up some challenge on one’s own.
As for Stokke’s and her attorney father, ironic for sure, in that it is all public knowledge. Not necessarily new though, most defenders of the patriarchy live in a vaccum. I’m sure that if his daughter is raped, he would probably refuse to do anything about it, in fact wish to keep it from becoming public and encourage her to not report it or take it to court.
If she has a feminist epiphany and possibly she has already, she will work hard to free herself from her father’s world. Well, no she wont’, its all about economics, college and marriage and by then she’ll have compromised.
I’m not feeling too optimistic today.
from Hippie B:
“I’m a guy, so I can see where Allison Stokke is beautiful, as per your XX post especially. (excellent) Her beauty is obvious, her power & grace, intoxicating. My reaction to her appearance is both learned & biological. I can’t ignore her looks due to my human nature, but I can hold my tongue due to my common decency.”
Obviously not.
Gakkk.
A few years ago I got into an argument with someone over on livejournal. Suddenly, in the middle of the argument, they asked about my weight/body shape. I declined to answer such an irrelevant question, whereupon they went to my journal, searched my userpics, found one of me, declared I was “fat” (actually at the time of the picture I was of a healthy weight, as decided by the medical establishment’s doctor-gods), and proceeded to post my picture on their blog, declaring that since I was “fat” nothing I said could be taken seriously and all my arguments were to be summarily dismissed. This achieved minor livejournal fame for about 2 days. And much to my dismay, the ensuing argument for or against this person’s actions did not, in the main, focus on whether or not this was an ad hominem attack which showed his argument was so weak he had no answer for what I’d said to him, but on whether or not he was right to call me “fat”. What I said and thought and reasoned made no difference - whether or not someone was for or against me was decided by their assessment of my weight based on a five year old 100×100 pixel picture.
If you commit the crime of walking, talking, thinking, being victimized, working, breeding, or not breeding while female - just to name a few - your guilt or innocence will be judged by your appearance. The internet broadens the audience that feels qualified to sit on your jury. Funny thing is, as a female, you are guilty whether or not the jury decides you are “hot” or “not”, because if you are “hot” you are a slut/whore who was asking for it, and if you are not “hot” you are a pathetic lazy slob who, by insufficient adherence to the beauty standard, shows such an appalling disregard for the visual pleasure of men that whatever is done to you is obviously something you deserve.
Funny thing is, as a female, you are guilty whether or not the jury decides you are “hot†or “notâ€, because if you are “hot†you are a slut/whore who was asking for it, and if you are not “hot†you are a pathetic lazy slob who, by insufficient adherence to the beauty standard, shows such an appalling disregard for the visual pleasure of men that whatever is done to you is obviously something you deserve. –Amananta
This is what I am constantly trying to put across: that patriarchy isn’t fucking around when it comes to screwing women over, and that as long as this women-as-sex-class thing prevails, there is no happy ending, regardless of where a woman personally falls on the sexbot continuum. Nobody ever wants to hear this, though. And I get kind of vilified, too. It’s like, if I can’t offer a happy ending, why the fuck am I even bringing it up? I am constantly told, “I was so much happier before you hipped me to this goddam patriarchy thing.”
I definitely wasn’t happier before you offered me the red pill, Twisty. Now everything makes sense, and I totally blame the patriarchy instead of myself for my unbalanced state of mind. I knew there was something seriously wrong but I always felt like I was the only one seeing and being shat on by the big white elephant in the room.
Hippie B sounds like most guys I know who think they’re so above the “plebs” that can’t string a sentence together when objectifying women. Since they are obviously so much more eloquent with their objectification it miraculously tranforms it into a compliment. Also, Hippie B is part of a continuum of guys that are enthralled by the wonderous nature of women, that imagine us as little nymphs prancing around half-naked, all graceful and delicate. These fuckers make steam come out of my ears.