I noticed today that she was featured on a program called "Stars on Trial" on Much Music. Obviously, it is a program that is directed at teenagers and that is why I find what I saw so disturbing.

A "judge" said that they "should sew up Paris Hilton's vagina for a month". There were further comments regarding her sexuality and clips from the sex tape.

As I said before, I do not like Paris Hilton but I cannot see how these comments can be considered acceptable let alone as entertainment for children and teenagers.

Recently a young girl I know, a bright pretty popular girl, was the target of cyber-bullying. She was called a slut, a whore and stupid. It was a specific attack with a web site created using photos of her. The language on this site was very much along the lines of the attack on Paris Hilton.

WTF is going on? What kind of society arises when you can be that vicious and there are no consequences? How is it that young women are still being shamed?

Paris Hilton, being a celebrity, makes it her professional business to get noticed(=publicity) in the media for what she says and does.

The fact that you, or I, are even discussing her proves she is successful at it.

I wouldn't worry too much about whether people or the media are being 'fair' to Paris Hilton.

I am concerned about the language used to trash young girls and how it is that the media models this slander as acceptable.

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

Does a privileged person, or a flamboyantly superficial person, "ask for it" in our culture? That's kind of what you're asking, yes?

It seems to be a deep cultural urge in many societies to take revenge on figures like that, not because they are the worst of the privileged classes (although they are often very bad) but because they are such easily available symbols.

I'm thinking, eg, of Marie Antoinette and the peculiar gossip that had started about her some years before the revolution began. No question that the ancien regime was rotten to the core, but airhead though she was, she was hardly the engineer of state collapse - and yet it was so easy for popular resentment to be funnelled into a particularly intense and sadistic hatred for her, for that one woman.

Read some of the narratives of what was done to women aristocrats during the revolution. Read how the Princesse de Lamballe died (ripped to pieces by a furious mob).

Did the people have reason for their fury? No doubt. Do women seem to draw a special fury whenever fury is afoot? I suspect so. Why? I dunno.

The bleeding munitions manufacturers and shipping magnates and economists can be bleeding a society dry, but when tempers boil over, it is so easy to channel popular anger into sexual frenzy against sex symbols.

“Does a privileged person, or a flamboyantly superficial person, "ask for it" in our culture? That's kind of what you're asking, yes?”

Yes, some seem comfortable with so and so “asked for it” but what human being asks for a description of sexual mutilation. It seems to me that over and over again women’s sexuality is attacked, the standards that existed when I was a girl seem to still exist. Yes, how is it over and over again hatred is turned on women?

And.

There are a lot of powerful and privileged women I have not liked. But I agree: criticism of them often takes an especially sadistic turn, and it is hard not to think that some deep visceral reaction - against the female, or against any perceived outsider or deviant, is driving that criticism.

quote:

---

A "judge" said that they "should sew up Paris Hilton's vagina for a month".

---

It seems to me that objecting, in the strongest possible terms, to this hate-filled, misogynist suggestion, has little to do with Paris Hilton and pretty much everything to do with an attitude toward women that has not yet, in spite of so much work, been wiped out.

An example from Piczo these are 12 and 13 years olds talking to eachother.

thehonesttruth: there are soo many future whores in grade 8 i can name them all... sara (big nose) janet (voice of a donkey) brooke (manly body) ashley (fucked up eyebrows, your not worthy of wearing baby phat it looks horrible on you who said it looked hott?) darla, but who really cares about her?! she wears lipstick as blush ( c lown face) susan i can't even start there is so much to say about her judy she'll become a whore when she loses a few pounds there im all done
Hahahahahahahaha: That's funny... WHAT UP is most likely sabrina... because anyone who actually sees her knows she's a fatty. She must not have many mirrors in her house...
sleeping killer: why are you writing those things about yourselfs, you know what i mean with the hole brooke darla karen are soo hot HAH your so not hot and get that there your head, the only place that wants you is the cornor of portage and ellice (they only want you there at midnight so nobody whos willing to buy will see your face) well g2g
sleeping killer: oh my god Kristjana your such a complaining bitch that no one gives a shit about stop going on this site because no one whos going on this site likes you so just get a life!! also ally your dead!
sleeping killer: lol jakeyboy your soo funny with what you put about the aim people lol your right thats what they do so how smart can they really be?!
sleeping killer: hey kristjana guess what nobody in grade 8 thinks your hott or that you are popular they all think that your an ugly hoe bag whos trying to hard to get guys attention so either get surgury or get lost oh ya your uggs look ugly on you they make you look like white trash"

What is the relationship between what children are exposed to on programs such as "Stars on Trial" and the kind of trashing that is going on in schools. What responsibility does media have?

“MuchMusic, a division of CHUM Limited, is the Nation's Music Station.

CHUM has this to say on their site:

“RESPECT AND DIGNITY IN THE WORKPLACE AND GENERAL CONDUCT All employees, suppliers, business associates, volunteers, customers and the general public are to be treated with respect and dignity. Acts of discrimination, harassment or violence in the workplace will not be tolerated. Please refer to the Company’s Non-Discrimination/Harassment Policy. All employees and volunteers will conduct themselves in a professional manner when dealing with other employees and volunteers, business associates, suppliers, customers and the general public.”

CHUM

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

the “judges” were a panel of twenty something year olds, male and female and it was a young woman who made the comment.

---

Paris Hilton is no more a real person (to the audience) than Barbie, and Barbie is just as real a person (to the young owners) as Paris.
So, what is it they are both a surrogate for? Whence the love-hate relationship between symbol and consumer? How do girls and young women feel about themselves?

Why were so many 'witches' in the middle ages denounced by other women? Why were so many women in Biblical times eager to throw the first stone? Why do so many modern American women vote for a party that obviously intends to keep them ignorant, marginal, pious, subservient, pregnant and barefoot?
This ambivalence about an externalized image of ourselves goes back a long way - and never seems to go away.

We need to do some serious and honest introspection.

Would i stand up for the poor idjit?
Sure.
What would i say in her defence?
I'm not sure yet... but i know it will be long and complicated.

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
Liberal Prisoner I am not worried about "whether people or the media are being 'fair' to Paris Hilton". It is obvious to me that they are not.

I am concerned about the language used to trash young girls and how it is that the media models this slander as acceptable.

[ 26 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

---

The comment about the harassment policy is interesting, and I will definitely be discussing it with some "talky" people to get it spreading around a bit. Hopefully the new MTV (CTV) will be a step or two up from the nonsense on MUCH.

I can't sleep tonight because a girl was killed today in Toronto. I'm sure she had no relation to the useless human being that was shooting up Yonge Street. Even though I am angry with these men who are firing bullets in my new hometown, I can't help but think of how the company I work for is perpetuating their behaviour by glorifying gangsta's and everything superficial.

I think that people will always get off on making fun of others, as in Paris Hilton's case. It's our cowardess way of getting a sense of how everyone else feels about something or someone. I just wish that we could turn the insults into something constuctive, yet still entertaining like: If Paris' spending habits don't change, someone should sew up her overpriced hand bag and mail it to a starving family. And while they're at it, explain to her that her cute little dog is a product of severe inbreeding and that the stupid little outfits she makes it wear will be the least of its painful experiences.

I know that feeling.

One young man on "Stars on Trial", a "judge" said he had never seen the breasts of a 35 year old woman but he hoped that when he did they would be fake. How to deal with this ignorance when it is "humor"? Oh, and after all, it is not only men who are saying these things it is women too.

What are the choices for young women who choose to work in these environments?

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

The stuff on Much Music is abysmal in it's treatment of young women, both in their features and the video's they choose to broadcast.

How bad is it? The voice of sanity, reason and decency (such as it is) on that channel is "Ed the Sock".

A sock puppet.

I find it disturbing. Young women can claim to be offended, claim to not be influenced, but their actions don't fit the words.

A few years ago, when Avril Levine hit the scene, she was cool, then when over exposure set in, "not cool".

But so many of the "Avril haters", like my youngest, were sporting the eye liner on the lower lid look.

Just like Avril.

Much Music is educating young girls on how to be attractive to boys. Dance like a stripper, shake your tits, wear latex full time, and it's okay to be called a "bitch" and "Ho".

You know I am far from being a prude. But there's no context of young women being in control of thier own sexuality. It's a game where to be cool you have to act like a "slut" but if you do, you deserve to have your vagina sewn shut, like the mother in law in de Sade's "Philosophy in the Bedroom".

It's a tad unhealthy. But it's ubiquitous, and you can't "ban" or censor it. But what you can do, is provide an alternative view. Parents may think that kids will reject your "uncool" views, and on the surface they might.

But it sinks in.

Because you are right. And nothing succeeds like being right.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]

You sum it up clearly Tommy_Paine.

Who is it that asserts ownership of young women's sexuality? Who benefits from producing generation after generation of young women who can be seduced into betraying their own best interests?

I have watched as my nieces and friend's daughters have grown into their teenage years and I see the impact this is having on them. I think we must speak up about it and say this is NOT entertainment and it is NOT acceptable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by feign_empyrean:
I have been working for CITY/MUCH for the last year. I can tell you that I feel like I check my soul at the door. Although there are many people working there with healthy attitudes toward women and the world in general, the signal that spews out of the transmitter is a negative one. I don't understand it. I've talked with many producers about what kind of shows they would like to create. Most of them seem to believe that they have no choice but to continue with the trash because that's what the people who are paying them want people to watch.

The comment about the harassment policy is interesting, and I will definitely be discussing it with some "talky" people to get it spreading around a bit. Hopefully the new MTV (CTV) will be a step or two up from the nonsense on MUCH.

I can't sleep tonight because a girl was killed today in Toronto. I'm sure she had no relation to the useless human being that was shooting up Yonge Street. Even though I am angry with these men who are firing bullets in my new hometown, I can't help but think of how the company I work for is perpetuating their behaviour by glorifying gangsta's and everything superficial.

I think that people will always get off on making fun of others, as in Paris Hilton's case. It's our cowardess way of getting a sense of how everyone else feels about something or someone. I just wish that we could turn the insults into something constuctive, yet still entertaining like: If Paris' spending habits don't change, someone should sew up her overpriced hand bag and mail it to a starving family. And while they're at it, explain to her that her cute little dog is a product of severe inbreeding and that the stupid little outfits she makes it wear will be the least of its painful experiences.

That's funny, right? Or at least interesting, I think. Heh.

---

CHUM is the Wal-Mart of local tv. I am surprised David Kines and Switzer are able to walk around the office, not having a spine and all. They like to say that this is what people want to watch, but the industry is like fashion - they are the ones who dictate the taste.

Paris Hilton makes money by acting like a slut - there's no getting around it. Any complaints should be directed towards her publicist. Christina Aguiellera recently made the decision to shed her trashy image in lieu of her marriage.

I do not agree with this statement.

One way that Paris Hilton is making money is through her book which is marketed to pre-teens and teens. In this book she is dressed in beautiful clothes and surrounded by beautiful things. There is nothing in this book that is overtly slutty.

But really, I am not interested in defending Paris Hilton, she has enough wealth to insulate herself from the consequences of her actions. I would hope that there is someone in her life who might encourage her to look deeper than this week's fad. I am interested in the young women who look to Paris Hilton as a role model and who saw her being described in that way.

[ 27 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

posted by Trams: Men who have been called a slut = Charlie Sheen, Gene Simmonds, Bill Clinton...Oh, and Ron Jeremy practically got crucified when he appeared on The View. There isn't much balance between how men and women are protrayed sexually but there are some incidents where men are insulted for their actions. Hugh Grant, Eddie Murphy and so on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Perhaps it helps explain the absurd situation where females have incredible capacity to have lots and lots of sex but often cut back on the supply as to make it even more valuable!
Sad but true.
Yeah, its part of the evil market monopoly that females have.

---

Most women now days have learnt to enjoy sex, or even been brought up in such a healthy way that they enjoy it without having to learn anything. Sorry that you havn't run into any of them. The only difference I can see is that some women only want to have sex with men they are in a relationship with, others would rather have casual sex than not any. Where did you meet a woman who "gave" you sex?
I suggest if you don't have money, love, or children with her - get out!
If you do want to stay you could-
-discuss this problem with your doctor and see what they suggest
-take up masterbation
-visit a sex worker
-see a sex therapist
-just let it come out anyway, when you sleep
-continue paying the price, but realise that's not much different than the third option above.

"ACoW, I was trying to point out that the cultural issue is one of trash-talking in general, not just trash-talking against women."

O.K.

And.

"Not everything is about gender."

quote:

---

They actually had some standards as to what was allowed to shown, had shows to debate banned videos and discuss their content.

---

But going back many, many years CHUM sent out some pretty confused signals.

Remember French Canadian singer "Mitsou"? She had a video where she exposed a nipple, and after much discussion (in which she took part) this Moses Znaimer production decided that the combination of nudity and music was too much for kids.

Next day, I happened to be watching another CHUM, Moses Znaimer Production called "Fashion Television", in which models wearing see through tops bounced their nipples down the cat walk-- with musical accompaniment-- durring the prime time sunday dinner hour.

Same Producer, same issues, different outcomes.

What difference was there? The only one I could see was that "Mitsou" was very articulate, very much in charge of her own career, while models are under someone else's bidding.

The standard then, as now, is to supress images of women in control of their own sexuality, and promote images of women as sex slaves.

I won't invoke one though, because I fear being flayed alive.

quote:

---

I have been working for CITY/MUCH for the last year. I can tell you that I feel like I check my soul at the door. Although there are many people working there with healthy attitudes toward women and the world in general, the signal that spews out of the transmitter is a negative one. I don't understand it. I've talked with many producers about what kind of shows they would like to create. Most of them seem to believe that they have no choice but to continue with the trash because that's what the people who are paying them want people to watch.

---

I don't think this is what the people want, it's just what is available.

In 1978, while a first-year university student when I was 17, at the height of disco (and I was a Sex Pistols fan at the time), I happened to catch
The Goldwyn Follies on the TV late show.

I was smitten.

This was as corny a movie as they come, yet it struck more of a chord with me than any Donna Summer tune.

Why do we think it's a good idea to consign young people to a cultural ghetto?

[ 28 December 2005: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brian White:
Southlander,
And is it the sleeping around or the being open about it that annoys other women?

I think it's the being open about it. Remember the fuss about Madonna's book, because in it she was in charge!
Men (and women) do not behave in that way to guys who sleep around.
Why?

Evolution has tended to favour behaviour that increases viability and survival of offspring. An openly promiscous women in a relationship is very much seen to be cockodling her man, and he is a fool to take it. An openly promiscous women without a relationship will have difficulty bringing up children alone. A secretly promiscoius women in a relationship is increasing her offsprings viability by expanding their genetic diversity while maintaining their father figure.
Perhaps women don't like this behaviour in other women they feel a connection to, as it is also human nature to group people and generalise about them. So if women feel a bond with someone like Paris, (cos she appears regularly in their lounge room), they don't want to be associated with her because they worry that people will think similar thoughts about them.

And you got to expand a bit to make a point sometimes

Is that better?

Anyway, I do need a girlfriend and you do need a sense for humour.

I did laugh when I read this, honest! sorry about the hobby horse.
If you want a girlfriend I suggest You watch "something about Mary"

---

Women are sexuality in Western/Usian culture. Particularly white women, particularly blonde white women. Sexism works like this: any woman who is a public figure is open to all sorts of attacks about her appearance / sexuality, whether her appearance / sexuality is why she's a public figure or not. Paris, yes, is a public figure because of her looks, although I'm sure her family's wealth has something to do with it, ya think?

But look at the mud thrown about Olivia Chow recently, or Michaelle Jean (sorry for sp) when she was appointed GG, or even Belinda.

And why is a woman's appearance equal to her sexuality? Because of the magic of sexism, see how that works? We can natter on and on about Jack's moustache, or Stephen's sweaters (augh!) but men's bodies are (generally) not cultural conduits for us to act out our fucked-uppedness about sexuality, except for maybe Brad Pitt or other hunks-of-the-hour. (There's a whole homo-subtext that would be a thread drift here, but I would argue that it also has roots in classic anti-woman-sexism)

Under sexism, women are seen as the carriers / embodiment of sexuality, and are both desired and loathed for that. So, Paris, who's maybe not too bright, but is rich and "attractive" and "sexual", is slammed in misogynist ways by both the MSM and teens themselves, including girls. This ain't news, folks. Women policing other women goes on all the time, another important component in maintaining the system of sexism.

That's why no one ever gets mad at PM the PM."

Very true, we only have to look at the example of Belinda Stronach to see this. After her defection to the liberals, the right-wing media as well as rightist forums like FD and CNEWS were full of the most sexist commentary I've seen in a long time. A male politican doing what she did would have been called at worst "a turncoat". As we all know, she was called a lot worse.

These are such important questions.

I wonder how has the creation of a doll like Barbie, a doll so clearly sexualized, has affected the development of girls? There was no Barbie when I was three or six or even nine. I had baby brothers and sisters to take care of, dolls never interested me until Barbie and it was only for a moment, in fact I never owned a Barbie.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

I don't think this is what the people want, it's just what is available.

In 1978, while a first-year university student when I was 17, at the height of disco (and I was a Sex Pistols fan at the time), I happened to catch
The Goldwyn Follies on the TV late show.

I was smitten.

This was as corny a movie as they come, yet it struck more of a chord with me than any Donna Summer tune.

Give the people credit for having a brain, and a soul.

---

You said,"Most of them seem to believe that they have no choice but to continue with the trash because that's what the people who are paying them want people to watch."

That is so interesting, who would want people to want trash? Who benefits from lowering the standards?

quote:

---

Originally posted by bigcitygal:
The whole Paris Hilton thing is a wonderful example of the hypocrisy of sexism/male supremacy. It's a handy tool to use, and I'm pretty sure it ain't got nothing to do with evolutionary pyschology or anything universal like that.

Women are sexuality in Western/Usian culture. Particularly white women, particularly blonde white women. Sexism works like this: any woman who is a public figure is open to all sorts of attacks about her appearance / sexuality, whether her appearance / sexuality is why she's a public figure or not. Paris, yes, is a public figure because of her looks, although I'm sure her family's wealth has something to do with it, ya think?

But look at the mud thrown about Olivia Chow recently, or Michaelle Jean (sorry for sp) when she was appointed GG, or even Belinda.

And why is a woman's appearance equal to her sexuality? Because of the magic of sexism, see how that works? We can natter on and on about Jack's moustache, or Stephen's sweaters (augh!) but men's bodies are (generally) not cultural conduits for us to act out our fucked-uppedness about sexuality, except for maybe Brad Pitt or other hunks-of-the-hour. (There's a whole homo-subtext that would be a thread drift here, but I would argue that it also has roots in classic anti-woman-sexism)

Under sexism, women are seen as the carriers / embodiment of sexuality, and are both desired and loathed for that. So, Paris, who's maybe not too bright, but is rich and "attractive" and "sexual", is slammed in misogynist ways by both the MSM and teens themselves, including girls. This ain't news, folks. Women policing other women goes on all the time, another important component in maintaining the system of sexism.

As for the question in the OP, I personally have other priorities in my feminist agenda, but anyone who wants to "stand up for" her can go right ahead. The way that she was spoken about is horrible, no question about that, but money and celebrity can insulate her in ways that most of us don't have access to.

---

Isn't it telling you didn't lay blame squarely at the feet of Paris Hilton? As much as I agree with some of your points, women like Paris throw gas on the sexism fire by purposely casting the image of a whore. Even when the crass comment was made about sewing her vagina shut, she likely made a few grand more in book sales and what not.

Trams,

First, what is your definition of a whore?

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
"As much as I agree with some of your points, women like Paris throw gas on the sexism fire by purposely casting the image of a whore."

Trams,

First, what is your definition of a whore?

Second, what do you offer of proof that she meets your definition of a whore?

---

My definition of a whore: a person who makes money off of exploiting their own sexuality.

Proof: she makes money from exploiting her sexuality...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trams:
if you are defending her actions just because she is a woman you are sending the feminist movement back a few years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
I'm counting to ten, no I'm counting to ten thousand. I'll be back.

---

quote:

---

posted by Trams: My definition of a whore: a person who makes money off of exploiting their own sexuality. ... This may not be in the Oxford dictionary, but if you are defending her actions just because she is a woman you are sending the feminist movement back a few years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Funny how this dolt thinks that he can sit in judgement of what is 'true' feminist thought, trash a comment & charge someone with causing harm to the women's movement, all the while demonstrating his deliberate ignorance of the complex issue being discussed. So, can you name, say 10 men at least who fit your definition of whore? Or in your view, do only women deserve that label?

---

Sure...any male porn star. That should be well over ten. Don't get all angry just because I don't support Paris Hilton. You shouldn't support a woman just because she is a woman. Hey, that Homolka sure is a nice lady, eh?

quote:

---

posted by Trams: Don't get all angry just because I don't support Paris Hilton. You shouldn't support a woman just because she is a woman. Hey, that Homolka sure is a nice lady, eh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
More proof that you just don't get it, Trams. I am not angry, I am amused by your obtuse and stubborn insistence that your interpretation of the posts on this thread as 'support' for Paris, is correct. You must be used to forming opinions by reading the headlines in newspapers, because your comments lack any finesse or deep understanding of the issues discussed. The people who bought the abused spouse argument from Homolka, were men, eager to reap the glory of nailing Bernardo. Had you read any previous posts regarding this issue, you would understand that any discussion around the circumstances of her incarceration and recent release did not include any blanket support of her, as a woman. Mostly, the arguments centered on the misogyny of the justice system.

---

Even more proof of your bitterness towards me because I am male. You remind me of a young child who needs her bitter blanky to stay warm. Notice how you didn't acknowledge the Paris Hilton comment but instead focused on my sarcastic Homolka comment? I even met your request of stating that men can be whores too.

I am sitting with a friend of mine, an active feminist, who is telling me that you are likely one of those feminists who put men in one category - bad. So I realize I could say anything and you would find a way to disagree with it. That's fine, I don't mind.

quote:

---

michelle and or audra at rabble dot ca

---

quote:

---

posted by Trams: Notice how you didn't acknowledge the Paris Hilton comment but instead focused on my sarcastic Homolka comment?

---

I don't blame Paris for the circus surrounding her, though - just the sycophantic media that insists on inflicting this vapid non-entity on my consciousness.

Note that "vapid non-entity" is a gender neutral insult and can easily be applied to, say, Vin Diesel.

I can say that I think the show and comments you referred to in your first posting was cruel, disgusting and sexist, regardless of the target.

I can say that women are subject to very specific insults that are only ever applied to prominent women - "strident", and "hysterical" being two that one rarely ever hears with regards to men (See Sheila Copps, Anne MacClellan, Deb Gray, Carolyn Parrish, etc. and ad nauseum).

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Well, I did use all those big words in my two responses to your Paris Hilton comments so I guess that's why you didn't read them. You are a ridiculous dickhead with shallow and ill-informed opinions. Fortunately no one here shares your narrow and judgemental view on the human race. Nonetheless, you an abberation, and a disgrace to your gender.

---

Ah, who's a bitter baby...you are...yes you are!

Your words, albeit big, were actually non responsive. And your defensive stance for Paris Hilton is a joke. You should be contacting her people and asking her to stop helping the mainstream's continuing depiction of women being about sex. Instead, you are attacking me because I believe Paris Hilton deserves nothing - well, maybe she deserves free STD testing each month. It's like I called Sister Theresa a whore. I think you need to go back and try to figure out what you believe in. You are full of piss and vinegar, but sadly you seem to be full of shit as well.

quote:

---

posted by Valiant Mouse: I can say that women are subject to very specific insults that are only ever applied to prominent women - "strident", and "hysterical" being two that one rarely ever hears with regards to men. ... The comments were digusting, and sexist. I'd attack them on that alone. No need to defend Paris Hilton, as such.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Thank you. You have succinctly expressed the core of the discussion.

As for Mr Trams, strident and hysterical actually describe his posts on Babble quite well.

---

Strident = harsh - hysterical = funny. I can live with that.

Ms. Deboo-Hoo,

A couple of fitting words...Bitter, misguided, angry and, dare I say it - sexist.

Even with Homolka you found a way to blame men. Are women ever responsible for their own behaviour? You don't think Paris knows that her breasts make young girls look up to her? Take your head out of the sand and be a productive person in your quest for...whatever that may be.

Irony - you seem to believe that i don't think men can be sluts because the media doesn't call them sluts. Not true. In fact, I get embarassed every time I turn on the tv and watch men get portrayed as fat, beer swilling windbags who never clean the house and burp at the dinner table. It's disgusting. But the media doesn't speak for me. This is the same media that depicts women as dumb, gushy and loose. We both know this is also untrue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Let not feed the troll grils. He's broken the forums rules so it's only a matter of time. He's small fry anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trams:

Small fry, eh? What rule did I break?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

No trams fat allowed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sunny Beasty:
Re:"I get it...I'm a man. My opinion is irrelevant."

No, because labelling a woman a "whore" or "slut" is inherently offensive, particularily when it comes from a man. The defense that you would apply the same words to describe men is similar to that used by white racists who defend their use of the "n" word with "I didn't mean it to be anti-black, I use it on white people all the time. Besides they use it with each other so it's not that bad right?" Now do you see why such words cause offense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trams:
Whatever. If you want to run this forum like a KKK meeting go ahead. I get it...I'm a man. My opinion is irrelevant.

---

[ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Ok, now the feminists of this forum are like Klan members. Not only is your opinion irrelevant, it is repugnant, abhorrent, execrable and loathsome. Fortunately, you will not be around long enough for the stench to permantly settle into the carpet fibre. Begone, unpleasant thing. Away with ye.

---

Don't overstate what I said. I was referring to her alone. If YOU want to run this forum...

I wonder if the moderators will notice how me calling Paris Hilton a slut, a comment I stand by, will be equal to Debeauxos calling me a dickhead. I assume I will be tarred and feathered as well. But what message is it sending - Trams' opinion, even if you believe it to be misinformed, is powerful enough to get him booted? Is the feminist forum a place where people can cut up men collectively but when a man cuts up Paris Hilton HE is out of line?

And Makwa, it is obvious you are trying to score points with the PEOPLE in this forum. It is transparent really. I am not going to pander to anyone. I got attacked because of a word. We'll have to change the sticks and stones proverb because it looks like names really do gurt some people.

To ME, a slut is a PERSON who sleeps around and acts trashy. If people want to hang on that word and pretend to know exactly what my definition is then so be it.

quote:

---

posted by Trams: ... I have a degree in literature and write novels. Please do not assume you know me or what I am made of.

---

quote:

---

Fine...Paris Hilton's image = permiscuious.

---

[ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trams:


your big words you should know that I am very articulate. A forum, for me anyway, is a place where I like to speak in the vennacular. I have a degree in literature and write novels. Please do not assume you know me or what I am made of. I will try and do the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:

I like to speak in the vennacular too. My favourite writer is Jules Venn. Who is your favourite writer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by deBeauxOs:
Would that big word be promiscuous, Mr Novel-Writer?

[ 29 December 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
My favourite writer is Jules Venn.

---

quote:

---

Isn't it telling you didn't lay blame squarely at the feet of Paris Hilton? As much as I agree with some of your points, women like Paris throw gas on the sexism fire by purposely casting the image of a whore. Even when the crass comment was made about sewing her vagina shut, she likely made a few grand more in book sales and what not.

---

Hey Trams. Before I begin, I should say that I appreciated your comments on the Boxing Day shooting thread. And I don't actually think you're a troll or trying to cause problems on purpose, at least initially.

Under the system of sexism, women are only allotted a few specific archetypes to embody (not a pun, and intended). Virgin, whore, mother, crone. (We can really see the Christian roots of so-called secular North America, eh?)

Some women, not able to get beyond these limits for a number of reasons (and I say this not in judgement of these women, as I used to be one of them), adopt one or more throughout their lifetime. Paris has adopted the whore / promiscuous woman / easy lay / add-another-insulting-or-degrading-term-about-who-she-fucks-and-how-often here. I'm not defending her, surely not, as my post upthread clearly states.

Simplifying women as either "victims" or "opportunistic bitches who will use this to advance book sales" (my quotes) is a part of this limited view of what women are and who women are.

Just because I'm not vilifying her doesn't mean I think she's a victim, and just because I, and others here, bring in an analysis of the system of sexism doesn't mean that Paris isn't an active agent in her own media construction, and is raking in the buckerinos for it.

quote:

---

So if sex sells, who dshould we blame? The men who buy, or the women who sell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trams:

I guess you would know, eh?

---

Oh no, I don't think so. One more crack like this in the feminism forum - actually, in any forum - and you're gone, gone, gone.

Edit: Holy crap. I just read backwards to the posts before this, and I change my mind - you're outta here now.

[ 30 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

As for skank fashion..she knows she isn't going to be allowed to wear it. Period. Grandma says butt cracks aren't pretty!

So her dad got her a digital camera for Xmas and is demonstrating the difference "background" can make, introducing her to composition and we all sincerely hope, getting her interested in something other than ditzy Paris or any of the other bean brains.

The lowest common denominator sells simply because it is so EASY to achieve.

And a thank you to Trams and others for so clearly illustrating some of the challenges that young women face.

What is a slut? Women who have sex indiscriminately? A word used to shame women into behaving like "good girls"? What is wrong with sex?

I look at Paris Hilton and I feel sad not just for her but for a whole generation of young women who are trapped in the same dynamic I was thirty five years ago. I recall girls in the hallway whispering about me and one day in the bathroom a group confronted me and one said, "all you know about is sex". There was lots of contempt and sneering at me but the truth was I didn't know about sex, of course that didn't matter to them. The fact that I was different from them was enough to make them attack.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread a 13 year old girl I know was attacked as a slut and a whore, a web site was made about her with her photos and ugly comments about her, and so it continues but now the internet can be used to shame and humiliate too. Are we raising a generation of Mike Klanders?

And Makwa, I am still giggling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by feign_empyrean:

You misread what was written. I don't think that it is what people want to watch. I think that there are people who want the public to take part in that kind of media.

---

Oops. Sorry, I did misread what you wrote. I guess I'm so used to seeing the excuse "I'm just giving the people what they want" that I skimmed over your fine details.

With that out of the way, though, why do you think these people think that it is in their best interests to produce this kind of stuff?

quote:

---

I am very new here...my 2nd post.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

Sounds like a glasperlenspiel to me...

---

I like to speak in the vennacular too. My favourite writer is Jules Venn. Who is your favourite writer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigcitygal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8938

posted 28 December 2005 07:24 AM "Paris, yes, is a public figure because of her looks, although I'm sure her family's wealth has something to do with it, ya think?

[ 30 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

[ 31 December 2005: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
[QB]Dang, al-Qa'bong and fern hill, you've got spidey sense.

[QB]

---

It was still extemely offensive, Sabrina Jaleese, a "judge", suggested Paris Hilton put her feet up in the stirrups and open an amusement park.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

With that out of the way, though, why do you think these people think that it is in their best interests to produce this kind of stuff?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by a citizen of winnipeg:
I just watched the same "Stars on Trial" again and it seems they have edited out the "sewing statement".

It was still extemely offensive, Sabrina Jaleese, a "judge", suggested Paris Hilton put her feet up in the stirrups and open an amusement park.

It would seem this is in response to critism, I wonder if they would have edited a little more if there had been more voices.

---

OK here's the deal. I spoke with the producer of Stars On Trial who is a very sweet young guy. He admits that it was over the top, but assumed that if it was unacceptable, it would have been flagged by the superior who screens the show. The producer reminded me that there are content warnings before the show and after every commercial break. As much as that absolves MUCHMusic from liability of influencing young people's minds, I think there are better, more constructive forms of humor as said before. Besides, who are they marketing that show to? I can't remember the last time I talked to an adult who would watch MUCHMusic for more than a minute other than to laugh at the content.

I have respect for my job, and it's a lovely place to work, but I see so much better things possible than from what is being broadcast now. I was working on MOD a few days later and they pulled up a picture of Paris with her hand in her bathing suit (as all of us have had to do for some reason or another). The VJ started to speculate about the possibility of her having crabs and insult, insult, insult. It just wasn't funny.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Valiant Mouse:
The comments were digusting, and sexist. I'd attack them on that alone. No need to defend Paris Hilton, as such.

---

I'm with you.

Anyone who would come up with the concept of sewing ANYONE's vagina shut is deserving of contempt soley for making the statement, independent of whose vagina is in question.

There are plenty of women who have come from extreme privilege who do not make it their life goal to appear utterly useless. There are women who have been relegated to the role of "beauty only" and have struggled to get free of that image foisted upon them.