tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post5549351237487900799..comments2023-08-14T16:35:49.756+01:00Comments on Cruella-blog: The Daily MisogynyCruellahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03446805038957924958noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-31146492713893010572009-04-03T18:16:00.000+01:002009-04-03T18:16:00.000+01:00Yes this is a known really Dom. In fact the evide...Yes this is a known really Dom. In fact the evidence I've seen suggests in most cases people decide and act first and construct a rational later. The exception of course is me. I am the one and only person capable of true objectivity... Well that's how I see it anyway!Cruellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03446805038957924958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-2217406973672566342009-04-03T11:49:00.000+01:002009-04-03T11:49:00.000+01:00There is a slight problem that people who have tri...There is a slight problem that people who have tried to get a rational grasp on a situation often overestimate the power of rational persuasion in changing that situation - after all, the rational argument persuaded <EM>them</EM>. But it usually did so because it explained something that was already a problem for them; for those for whom the problem is <EM>not a problem</EM>, but rather a source of gratification, profit, social status or whatever, the argument needs to be backed up with something that challenges their privilege and shakes their personal sense that all's right with the world. But you don't need me to tell you this...Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17939466948420020186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-71130923355847707282009-04-03T11:42:00.000+01:002009-04-03T11:42:00.000+01:00I'm replying to your first commentor ("Rowan Pelli...I'm replying to your first commentor ("Rowan Pelling needs to read..."). Well, maybe she should. But there are some fairly concrete reasons why it's unlikely to do much good.<BR/><BR/>Of course it's worthwhile you writing for your readers!Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17939466948420020186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-9650673138599536222009-04-03T11:19:00.000+01:002009-04-03T11:19:00.000+01:00That's just weird Dom. You seem to be implying th...That's just weird Dom. You seem to be implying that I shouldn't waste my time writing an article about Pelling unless I really believe she herself is going to read it and change jobs as a result.<BR/><BR/>Firstly I have to say that writing an article is more likely to affect Pelling than not doing so.<BR/><BR/>But secondly - did you really think my article was aimed at her? It was for the benefit of all my readers. I think you understand journalism well enough to know that when a review comes out of Elton John in concert, the author is not necessarily writing that article for Elton's benefit - but for the benefit of all readers: those who already went to see him and want to share another person's view, those considering buying tickets and looking for advice on the show and those who will never go who want to know something about the state of modern music.<BR/><BR/>(So it is with me...!)Cruellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03446805038957924958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-59889840340886041842009-04-03T10:54:00.000+01:002009-04-03T10:54:00.000+01:00Um, no. My point is that things that make lots of ...Um, no. My point is that things that make lots of money generally feel pretty OK to the person making the money, and that they tend to rationalise what they're doing on that basis (see financial crisis, passim); therefore, rational argumentation is generally less effective with those people than taking their money away (or not giving them any more).<BR/><BR/>I'm not excusing Pelling's venality and collusion, just pointing out that she is likely to be very adept at excusing herself, and not particularly susceptible to the good sense of Jean Kilbourne, with whom I entirely agree. As I said, the harms are largely invisible to Pelling, or if not invisible then certainly deniable.<BR/><BR/>Besides, in terms of the visual grading system such representations set up, Pelling's doing OK - for the time being. Perhaps her perspective will change as she ages. But for the time being, it's not really surprising that her advice to those whose self-image is damaged by the imposition of bizarre norms of feminine beauty is essentially "be more like me!". Egotism like that is hard to scratch.<BR/><BR/>Compare the way someone like Nina Hartley rationalises the grotesque misogyny of the porn industry, and defends her (lucrative, privileged) position within it as somehow demonstrating that it's not all bad, that it can be reformed from within, and so on...Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17939466948420020186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-3984001305851706912009-04-01T22:39:00.000+01:002009-04-01T22:39:00.000+01:00Ha ha ha. Very funny Dominic. The it-makes-money...Ha ha ha. Very funny Dominic. The it-makes-money-so-it-must-be-ok argument. Remind me to go selling crack to chidren and when you tell me I'm a bad person I'll trot that argument out and see who agrees with me.<BR/><BR/>Fact: being an asshole pays. If it didn't very few people would bother. But being well paid doesn't excuse being an asshole.<BR/><BR/>I strongly doubt you would say the same to some corporate fat-cat who had just paid himself a fat bonus and pissed your savings up the wall.<BR/><BR/>And there's nothing wrong with beautiful images. But there's something wrong with continually selling women the idea that they are inadequate as a way to grow your own profits which, as Jean Kilbourne points out, is what advertisers quite cynically do.Cruellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03446805038957924958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-67217688879695315742009-04-01T22:19:00.000+01:002009-04-01T22:19:00.000+01:00Rowan Pelling makes a pretty good living out of th...Rowan Pelling makes a pretty good living out of this shit. It's hard to argue with a pretty good living. I know just what she'd say to Jean Kilbourne: what's the harm in glamour, in fantasy, in pleasing images of (admittedly unattainable) beauty? Since for her, personally, the profits are splendid and the harms invisible (or, at least, deniable), there's little hope that rational persuasion will move her very much from her privileged position. The way to such a person's heart is through her bank balance.Dominichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17939466948420020186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8248707.post-56649929824126671872009-03-31T23:14:00.000+01:002009-03-31T23:14:00.000+01:00Rowan Pelling needs to read or watch Jean Kilbourn...Rowan Pelling needs to read or watch Jean Kilbourne because Ms. Kilbourne shows how the mass media attempts to fool women into believing their bodies are 'not good enough for the male gaze/female bodies need fixing etc. etc.' But then Rowan Pelling would not be working for the Daily Male if they had read Jean Kilbourne.<BR/><BR/>Patriarchy and the mass media is responsible for perpetuating female negative stereotypes - not feminism.JENNIFER DREWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02112807166372869685noreply@blogger.com