Archive for the ‘censorship’ Category

Ytringsfrihed og Socialisme

august 2, 2009

Jeg har mange gange undret mig over, hvorfor det er, at mange på venstrefløjen forekommer at have et anstrengt forhold til ytringsfrihed. Et typisk eksempel er, når kombinationen af politisk korrekthed og kulturelt selvhad påkræver, at vi i vesten ikke må kritisere religion (forstået alt religion der ikke er vestlig, det er okay at kritisere Kristendom); fordi det hævdes, at religionskritik udgør racisme. Et andet eksempel er Socialistiske dobbeltstandarder i forholdet til politisk motiveret vold og optøjer. Her er et lille tekststykke skrevet af Ludwig von Mises i 1922, det sætter Socialismens dobbeltstandarder i perspektiv:

“… Marxismen overser fuldstændig det vigtige ved de liberale ideer. Den er rådvild når det kommer til at forholde sig til de liberale krav om retten til at besidde en holdning og udtrykke sin mening; for den principielle anerkendelse af ethvert oppositionsparti og de lige rettigheder for alle partier. Når den ikke besidder magten, da kræver Marxismen alle de basale liberale rettigheder, fordi de alene kan levere den frihed som dens propaganda påtrængende har brug for. Men den kan aldrig forstå [de liberale rettigheders] ånd og vil aldrig tildele dem til dens modstandere, når den selv kommer til magten. På dette område minder [Marxismen] om Kirkerne og ande institutioner som hviler på voldens princip. Også disse, udnytter de demokratiske frihedsrettigheder, når de kæmper deres slag, men så snart de får magten, nægter de deres modstandere samme rettigheder. Så, tydeligvis, viser Socialismens demokrati sit bedrag.”

(Ludwig von Mises in his book Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis, 1922, egen oversættelse)

Her er originalteksten på engelsk:

“… Marxism entirely overlooks the importance of liberal ideas. It is at a loss when it comes to deal with the liberal demands for liberty of conscience and expression of opinion, for the recognition on principle of every opposition party and the equal rights of all parties. Wherever it is not in power, Marxism claims all the basic liberal rights, for they alone can give it the freedom which its propaganda urgently needs. But it can never understand their spirit and will never grant them to its opponents when it comes into power itself. In this respect it resembles the Churches and other insitutions which rest on the principle of violence. These, too, exploit the democratic liberties when they are fighting their battle, but once in power they deny their adversaries such rights. So, plainly, the democracy of Socialism exposes its deceit”.

(Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An economic and sociological analysis, 1922)

Reflections on Fleggaard and feminist iconoclasm

maj 14, 2009

This is an English version of my text published January the 6th 2009. The original text written in Danish is here. I have received quite a few requests for this translation.


Some background information

Fleggaard is a German registered supermarket chain located at the Danish / German border. Fleggaard GmbH is owned by the Danish company Fleggaard Holding A / S registered in the Danish town Kruså. Fleggaard GmbH is a retailer of kitchen appliances among other goods.

In a censorship context, Fleegaard is interesting because of their conscious ‘provocative’ use of female beauty ideals in their commercials. Recently the latest commercial, available on the Internet through www.Fleggard.dk, obtained huge viral impact. On December 11th 2008 the well-known American blogger Michael Arrington declared the film to be the world’s best commercial. Because of Arrington’s remarks the Danish mainstream news media ran stories about the commercial. According to TV2 Finance, Fleggaard’s web commercial received more than 100,000 viewers in the last few weeks. According to DR News, Fleggaard has now decided to allocate most of their future advertising spending to online marketing because of the huge impact of the video. They will discontinue production of the traditional printed catalogues.

Here is Michael Arrington’s description of the commercial:

”Only the Danish could get away with something like this (but how great would it be to see Amazon do commercials like this). Danish ecommerce site Fleggaard recently made the commercial below. I don’t know if it was shown on Danish television (I’m trying to find out), but I wouldn’t be surprised.

It most definitely contains nudity and is NSFW. I think it would be just as good without the exposed breasts, though. If you don’t watch it, the highlight is that dozens of topless Danish women link hands during a skydive to advertise a Siemens washing machine for 4,999.00 DKK, or about $900. It doesn’t seem like such a great price, but I’ll buy one anyway if they deliver to California.”

Response from the professionals

Subsequently a huge amount of Danish media and communciations professionals have made comments on the Fleggard commercial on their blogs and in specialised media, etc. It appears that many professional marketers have serious problems with ‘this sort of primitive tools’. They tend to hide their sexual moralism in various ways. ‘Trivial bare breasts from Fleggaard’ is the headline of an article from Bureaubiz.dk, a site specialised in news about and from the agency businesses. A significant amount of advertising professionals use the commercial argument: The means have no relationship to the product; the audience might only remember the beautiful women. Others are worried that potential visitors only will visit the website in order to view the commercial. For others this is in itself a kind of success, attention is king. And then of course we have the feminist morality, that the commercial is sexist, it is oppressive to the entire class of women. It comes as no surprise to me that advertising professionals also might have problems with the tendency of the human males to be sexually aroused by young beautiful seductive women. The bodily surface and the core sexual instincts have been condemned by religion and cultural powers for hundreds of years. The gender feminists have likely enhanced this moral pressure in the second half of the 20th century. They managed to convince intellectuals on the Left that (hetero) sexual exchanges are not the work of the Devil but of Capitalism.

The gender feminists and their problem with beauty ideals

The subject of my text here is not the marketing power of young attractive half-naked female beauty ideals. It is the feminist iconoclasm of tomorrow: The attempt to clean up the public sphere of images that idealize stereo typical hetero sexual female beauty because feminists hope that this will erase gender differences. There should not exist any gender differences because everything in this world is a social construction and hence there is no ‘natural causes’ for men to be sexually attracted to young beautiful women, so the argument goes. The acute reader might rightly wonder why it is so import that men’s sexual desires for young beautiful women are not ‘natural’ but ‘cultural’ based? If everything is a cultural construction, then surely any re-programming of the male desire not to lust for young beautiful women would equally be a cultural construction. Those of us who have spend time at the humanities and social science departments of the university are probably aware of the logic behind this cultural relativism: everything is culture, but some cultural constructions (e.g. Non-gender) are more ‘true’ than other cultural constructions (e.g. gender). This ‘true’ is not a ‘true’ or ‘proper’ ‘true’, as this does not exist. Truth is simply a social construction. So this ‘truth’ is just a cultural ‘righteousness’, that is, something we choose to define as politically ‘correct’, not ‘true’ in the sense of any objective criteria. Then we might encounter some theories that oddly as it seems make truth statements about the world, i.e. that gender difference is produced through language power or that women are not born as women, rather they become gendered as women through a certain social family structure, that is the social organization of mother, father, and children. This cultural conditioning is then defined – possibly through some obscure relativist Freud interpretations – as women’s oppression. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it is important to remove the hetero-sexist family form. Then finally all will be good, this often means that Capitalism will disappear and there will no longer exist hierarchies of any kind. ‘Equality’ is the popular notion arising from this doctrine, the idea that all individuals should not only be treated equal for the law and have the right to self-ownership, but they should also possess the same resources, talents, opportunities, economy, status, and power. I have never read about any historical precedence of this ideal let alone heard any intelligent explanation of how this ideal should come about.

Feminist ideology and the censorship of advertising

After this superficial introduction to the ideology behind the feminist iconoclasm, it is time to take a look at the real life censorship effect of the feminist ideology. The Danish consumer Ombudsman (the head of the Federal Authority of Consumer Rights) is one of the potential bureaucratic instruments that can be used by powerful feminists in today’s Denmark. The Ombudsman can serve as an interesting example of censorship of advertising. Last year he affirmed the following judgment due to feminist complaints of a print advertising campaign (my text on the JBS images) by Danish male underwear brand JBS Underwear, case no. 08/02166 in the Law of Promotions (Markedsføringsloven):

“Eroticism can be used widely as a tool in advertising. But the limit is where the use of eroticism is of a demeaning or offensive nature. The Consumer Ombudsman shall inform about his decision in JBS case.

A scantily dressed nun, nurse, maid and secretary sniffing at men’s underpants, appeared in the autumn of 2007 at the JBS website. The advertisements led to a relatively large number of complaints to the Consumer Ombudsman.

The photos, 4 in total, gave the impression to the receiver of the message that the women just had sex with a man who had left his underpants. The pictures showed women in settings of normal working environment for professionals – the nurse was situated in a hospital bed; the secretary sat on a printer, etc.

The overall impression makes the advertisement discriminatory. Having looked at the advertisement, the Consumer Ombudsman is very inclined to believe that the female sex is represented in a demeaning and defamatory manner in the advertising.

Due to the posture of the women in the pictures, with the sexual act and the underpants at the centre, the immediate view of the Consumer Ombudsman is that the advertisement reduces the female gender to sexual objects purely in order to sell men’s underwear. “

(My own emphasis in bold).

So the Consumer Ombudsman may as a legal authority declare that if the use of eroticism is derogatory or offensive in nature, then the advertisement can be deemed illegal. The problem is that the Consumer Ombudsman is unable to clearly define when the use of eroticism is derogatory; it obviously depends of the eye of the beholder. What I find offensive, another person could find an artistic stimulation, etc. But the Consumer Ombudsman does not even have to refer to, for example the majority of the eyes that might have seen the advertisement, that they could have found it offensive. He just makes a feminist interpretation that 1) it is unfair to ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’ when 2) it happens ‘purely in order to sell men’s underwear’.

Here we have two of the gender feminist favourite aversions present: gender, expressed through heterosexual male desires (suppression of women) and sales of goods (Capitalism).

From the decree of the Consumer Ombudsman we cannot clearly determine whether it is 1) or 1) in combination with 2) that represent the profane. It is obvious that 2) in itself cannot be the cause – that it should be undue in itself to produce advertising in order to sell men’s underwear. Was this the case, the Consumer Ombudsman would have to declare all advertising illegal. But if it was blameworthy in itself, to ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’ then clearly some art and most (hetero sexual) pornography should be illegal. This is not (yet) the case in Denmark.

How can it be that pornography is not illegal? If we follow the above logic, most pornography addressed to (heterosexual) men absolutely ‘reduces the female gender to sexual objects’ (in the feminist sense of the Consumer Ombudsman). Not in order ‘to sell men’s underwear’, but in order to sell itself as the product. It should clearly be just as cruel to ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’ in order to sell these reductions as information as it is to ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’ in order ‘to sell men’s underwear’. Both of the strategies ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’, and both of the strategies have a mercantile purpose. From this it must follow, that it cannot be ‘selling menswear’ versus ‘selling sexual information’ that is the problem; it would be completely illogical, even in the feminist logic.

From a purely logical position I can only find one explanation why the one mercantile operation is prohibited and not the other: Contrary to advertising, pornography is not visually imposed on random people in the public domain, it is something consumers themselves should seek out deliberately. It must be the ‘public space factor’ that is the underlying reason why the Consumer Ombudsman (according to feminist ideology) has the right to ban advertising that reproduces heterosexual idealized women.

But the JBS Underwear advertising was as far as I am aware never placed as ads in the public domain, i.e. on billboards in the public city space. They were placed in magazines that are privately owned and in order to be exposed to the evil, consumers would have to actively choose to buy these magazines. Why are these adverts illegal then but not the heterosexual pornography? Possibly because consumers of these mainstream magazines could not reasonably be expected to view advertising that ‘reduces the female gender to sexual objects’ in order to sell products. If there is any logic, it must surely mean that it would be all right to place the JBS Underwear adverts in pornographic magazines, otherwise the power exercised by the Consumer Ombudsman is absurd. Or could it be that one may not place adverts that ‘reduces the female gender to sexual objects’ in order to sell products in a media owned by a third party? In the JBS Underwear example this third part would be different magazine publishing houses.

Fleggaard’s advertising versus feminist censorship of advertising

Back to Fleggaard and the world’s best commercial. What I think is interesting in this case is the fact that the commercial only is published in Fleggaard’s own media, the company website and not in a media owned by a third party. Fleggaard even makes it very clear to the potential website audience that they actively must choose to view the Profane material that ‘reduces the female gender to sexual objects’. There are 18 + warning that a viewer must accept before he is allowed to view the commercial. Therefore the Consumer Ombudsman could not have any valid reason to ban the Fleggaard commercials, even though they obviously are trying ‘to sell washing machines’ through images that ‘reduce the female gender to sexual objects’. Further Fleggaard GmbH is a German registered company. The Danish Consumer Ombudsman would probably run into legal problems if he tried to ban Fleggaard’s commercials.

This are bad, bad news for the feminist iconoclasts who try to use the government bureaucracy in order to eliminate the gender difference – especially when gender is produced through idealized heterosexual images, this is absolutely proper iconoclasm. But because gender feminists are theoretical relativists – they believe that the reality is a language or cultural construction – it is obvious why they must be so busy making their ‘discursive information interventions’.

If the advertising experts are right, that the trends are going towards more web-based publishing of commercials, it will become harder for bureaucrats informed by feminist ideology to censor advertising material that reproduces women as sexual desirable persons (sexual objects in the feminist rhetoric). What about the brave new European Union gender abolishment project known as Gendermainstreaming? Here it is clearly approved that the each EU member nation (i.e. the State bureaucracy) actively must seek to prevent the spread of gender stereotypes in media, information and culture.

This must surely mean that we will very soon see the Internet become a battleground for feminist motivated censorship. And further, the Fleggaard example shows that there will be a growing need for international censorship rules, otherwise a company can publish on the Internet from another country. How fortunate it is for the zealous censorship forces in our time that they now have an EU system at their disposal. Here they can create common rules for the feminist iconoclasm in all of Europe. And further it can provide many wonderful high paid jobs to various experts who are educated in feminist theory at the universities. Watch out all of you who care about the free movement of information on the Internet. Big Sister is on her way and she is heavyly armed with political university theory that is too good to be true for bureaucrats with totalitarian inclinations.

No further explanation necessary

marts 9, 2009

were nearly

Overvejelser om Fleggaard og feministisk ikonoklasme

januar 6, 2009

Here is my English version of this text.

 

 

 

 

 

Lidt baggrundsinformation

Fleggaard er et tysk registreret supermarkedskæde ved den dansk/tyske grænse. Fleggaard GmbH er ejet af det danske firma Fleggaard Holding A/S registret med adresse i Kruså. Fleggaard GmbH sælger blandt andet hårde hvidevarer fra deres butik.

 

 

Det der er interessant med Fleegaard i censursammenhæng, er deres bevidste ’provokatoriske’ brug af kvindelige skønhedsidealer i deres reklamefilm. Den sidste reklamefilm, der er tilgængelig på Internettet via http://www.Fleggard.dk, opnåede for nylig stor viral effekt. Den 11. december 2008 udråbte den kendte amerikanske blogger Michael Arrington, filmen som verdens bedste reklamefilm. Det fik de danske nyhedsmedier til at fortælle om reklamefilmen. Ifølge TV2 Finans er Fleggaards reklamefilm blevet set på nettet af mere end 100.000 mennesker inden for de sidste par uger. Ifølge DR Nyheder, har Fleggaard efter succesen besluttet at anvende størstedelen af deres reklamebudget til on-line markedsføring, og de stopper nu med at producere de traditionelle tilbudsaviser.

Her er Michael Arringtons beskrivelse af reklamefilmen:

”Only the Danish could get away with something like this (but how great would it be to see Amazon do commercials like this). Danish ecommerce site Fleggaard recently made the commercial below. I don’t know if it was shown on Danish television (I’m trying to find out), but I wouldn’t be surprised.

It most definitely contains nudity and is NSFW. I think it would be just as good without the exposed breasts, though. If you don’t watch it, the highlight is that dozens of topless Danish women link hands during a skydive to advertise a Siemens washing machine for 4,999.00 DKK, or about $900. It doesn’t seem like such a great price, but I’ll buy one anyway if they deliver to California.”

 

Respons fra professionelle

Efterfølgende har man herhjemme kunne læse en række bidrag på professionelle blogs om markedsføring og reklame, på private blogs, i medierne, osv. Mange professionelle marketingsfolk har selvfølgelig problemer med ’den slags primitive virkemidler’, og de pakker gerne deres seksualmoral ind på forskellige måder. ’Banale bare bryster fra Fleggaard’ er overskriften på en artikel fra Bureaubiz.dk, et site der bringer nyheder og holdninger fra bureaubranchen. Mange reklamefolk tager den kommercielle vinkel, at virkemidlerne ikke står mål med Fleggaards produkter, man risikerer kun at huske de smukke kvinder. Andre er bekymrede over at potentielle besøgende kun går ind på websitet for at se filmen. Andre igen, påpeger at det i sig selv, er en slags succes, opmærksomhed er King. Og så er der selvfølgelig den feministiske moral, at reklamen er sexistisk, hvilket betyder undertrykkende for den samlede kvindekønsklasse.
Jeg er ikke forundret over, at reklameprofessionelle også måtte have problemer med menneskehannernes trang til at blive seksuelt opstemt af unge smukke forførende kvinder. Kroppens overflade og de basale drifter har mange hundrede års religiøs og kulturel fordømmelse bag sig. Dette moraltryk er givet blevet grundigt forstærket efter at gender feminismen i anden halvdel af det 20. århundrede formåede at få intellektuelle på venstrefløjen til at tro at (hetero)seksuel udveksling ikke er Fandens, men Kapitalismens værk.

 

Gender feministernes problem med skønhedsidealer

I denne sammenhæng er mit ærinde selvfølgelig ikke marketingseffekten af unge smukke halvnøgne kvindelige skønhedsidealer, men derimod tidens feministiske ikonoklasme: forsøget på at rense den offentlige sfære for billeder der heteroseksuelt idealiserer kvindelig stereotypisk skønhed, idet man derved håber, at kunne udviske kønsforskellen. Der må ikke eksisterer kønsforskel, fordi alt i denne verden er en social konstruktion, og derfor er der ingen ’naturlig årsag’ til at mænd eftertragter unge smukke kvinder seksuelt. Nogen vil måske med rette undre sig over, hvorfor det betyder så meget, at mænds seksuelle begær efter især unge smukke kvinder ikke er ’natur-’ men ’kultur’-funderet? Hvis alt er kulturel konstruktion, så vil en omprogammering af mænds begær til ikke længere at eftertragte især unge smukke kvinder, jo også være en kulturel konstruktion. De af os der har gået på universiteternes humaniora- og samfundsvidenskabelige afdelinger, er sandsynligvis på det rene med logikken bag ved denne kulturelle relativisme: alt er kultur, men noget kultur (f.eks. ikke-kønsforskel) er mere ’rigtig’ end andet kultur (f.eks. kønsforskel). Dette ’rigtig’ er ikke et ’rigtigt’ ’rigtig’, det findes selvfølgelig ikke. For sandhed er jo blot en kulturel konstruktion. Så det ’rigtige’ er alene et kulturelt ’rigtigt’, altså noget vi vælger at anse for at være politisk ’rigtigt’, ikke ’rigtigt’ ud fra nogle objektive kriterier. Så kommer vi eventuelt igennem nogle teorier, som mærkværdigvis laver sandhedspåstande om tingenes rette sammenhæng, f.eks. at kønsforskel alene opstår gennem sproglige magtkonventioner, at kvinder ikke fødes kvinder men bliver kønnet som kvinder i familiemønstre der består af mor, far og børn. Denne kulturelle indkodning bliver så gerne – evt. gennem nogle obskure relativistiske sprogvidenskabelige Freud-tolkninger – defineret som kvindeundertrykkende, hvorfor det er vigtigt at få ophævet den heterosexistiske familieform. Så vil alt endeligt blive godt, hvilket ofte er lig med, at Kapitalismen forsvinder og der ikke længere vil eksistere hierarkier af nogen art. ’Ligestilling’ er det populære begreb der udspringer af denne doktrin, ideen om at alle mennesker ikke alene bør behandles lige og have ret til selvejerskab, men de skal også besidde lige ressourcer, talenter, muligheder, økonomi, status og magt. Hvordan dette mål nogensinde skal kunne lade sig gøre i praksis, det har jeg aldrig set noget intelligent svar på, endsige historisk fortilfælde på.

 

Feministisk ideologi og censur af reklamer

Efter denne overfladiske introduktion til ideologien bag den feministiske ikonoklasme, er det tid til at kigge lidt på den feministiske ideologis praktiske effekt på censur. Hvis vi kigger på Forbrugerombudsmanden, et af de konkrete bureaukratiske instrumenter der eksisterer i dagens Danmark, og som kan anvendes af magtfeminister, så opstår der nogle interessante spørgsmål i forhold til reklamecensur. I forbindelse med feministiske klager over en reklamekampagne publiceret af tøjproducenten JBS Undertøj, stadfæstede Forbrugerombudsmanden sidste år følgende i Sagsnummer 08/02166 om Markedsføringsloven:

 

”Erotik kan i vidt omfang bruges som virkemiddel i reklamer. Men grænsen går, hvor brugen af erotik har en nedsættende eller krænkende karakter. Forbrugerombudsmanden orienterer om sin afgørelse i JBS-sagen.

En lettere afklædt nonne, sygeplejerske, stuepige og sekretær, som snuser til et par herreunderbukser, var i efteråret 2007 at finde på JBS’s hjemmeside. Reklamerne gav anledning til et forholdsvist stort antal klager til Forbrugerombudsmanden.

Billederne, 4 i alt, gav modtageren det indtryk, at kvinderne lige havde haft sex med en mand, som havde efterladt sine underbukser. Billederne viste kvinderne i et sædvanligt arbejdsmiljø for professionerne – sygeplejersken lå således i en hospitalsseng, sekretæren sad på en printer etc.

Helhedsindtrykket gør reklamen diskriminerende
Efter at have set på reklamen, er Forbrugerombudsmanden mest tilbøjelig til at mene, at kvindekønnet i reklamerne bliver fremstillet på en nedsættende og ringeagtende måde.

Kvindernes positur på billederne, med den seksuelle akt og underbukserne i centrum gør, at reklamen efter Forbrugerombudsmandens umiddelbare opfattelse reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter med henblik på udelukkende at sælge herreundertøj.” (Egne markeringer med bold).

 

Altså Forbrugerombudsmanden kan med lovhjemmel deklarere, at hvis brugen af erotik er af nedsættende eller krænkende karakter, så kan reklamen kendes ulovlig. Problemet er, at Forbrugerombudsmanden ikke klart kan definere, hvornår brugen af erotik er nedsættende, det afhænger jo åbenlyst af øjet der ser. Det som jeg finder krænkende, kunne en anden person finde kunstnerisk stimulerende, osv. Men Forbrugerombudsmanden behøver end ikke at henvise til f.eks. majoriteten af de øjne der måtte have set reklamen, at de evt. havde fundet den krænkende. Han laver alene en feministisk tolkning, at 1) det er forkasteligt at ’reducere kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’ når 2) det sker med ’henblik på udelukkende at sælge herreundertøj’.

Vi har her to af gender feminismens yndlingsaversioner tilstede: kønsforskel udtrykt via heteroseksuelt mandligt begær (kvindeundertrykkelse) og salg af varer (kapitalisme).

Ud fra Forbrugerombudsmandens dekret kan vi ikke klart afgøre om det er 1) eller 1) i kombination med 2) der er forkastelig. Det er tydeligt at det ikke er 2) i sig selv der er problemet; altså at det alene skulle være forkasteligt at lave reklame med henblik på at sælge herreundertøj. For i så fald skulle Forbrugerombudsmanden erklære alt reklame forbudt. Men hvis det var forkasteligt i sig selv, at ’reducere kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’, så burde noget kunst og meget pornografi klart være ulovligt. Det er det ikke (endnu) i Danmark.

Hvordan kan det nu være at pornografi ikke er forbudt? Hvis vi følger ovenstående logik, så reducerer meget pornografi, henvendt til (heteroseksuelle) mænd, absolut kvindekønnet til sexobjekter (i den Forbrugerombudmandske feministiske betydning). Ikke med henblik på ’at sælge herreundertøj’, men med henblik på at sælge sig selv som produkt. Det burde vel være ligeså ondsindet at ’reducere kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’ med henblik på at sælge disse reduktioner som information, som det er at ’reducere kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’ med henblik på ’at sælge herreundertøj’. Begge strategier reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter, og begge strategier har et merkantilt formål. Her af følger, at det ikke kan være ’at sælge herretøj’ versus at sælge begærsinformation der er problemet, det ville virke komplet ulogisk, selv i feministisk optik.

Jeg kan logisk set kunne finde en forklaring på, hvorfor den ene merkantile operation er forbudt og ikke den anden: Pornografi er i modsætning til reklame ikke noget der påtvinges tilfældige mennesker i det offentlige rum, det er noget forbrugere selv skal opsøge bevidst. Det må altså være ’offentlighedsfaktoren’ der ligger til grund for, at Forbrugerombudsmanden, ud fra feministisk ideologi, kan forbyde reklamer der fremstiller heteroseksuelt idealiserede kvinder. Men JBS Undertøjsreklamerne blev så vidt jeg er orienteret aldrig indrykket som annoncer i det offentlige rum, altså i bybilledet. De blev indrykket i magasiner som er privatejet, hvorved forbrugere aktivt skulle have valgt at købe disse magasiner for at blive eksponeret til ondskaben. Hvorfor er reklamerne da forbudte og ikke heteroseksuel pornografi? Det må være noget med at forbrugere af disse mainstream magasiner ikke med rimelighed kunne forventes at blive eksponeret til reklamer der ’reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’ med henblik på at sælge produkter. Hvis vi følger logikken, må det vel betyde, at det ville være i orden, at indrykke JBS Undertøjsreklamerne i deciderede pornografiske magasiner, ellers virker Forbrugerombudsmandens magtudøvelse absurd. Eller er det i virkeligheden det forhold, at man ikke må indrykke reklamer der ’reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’ med henblik på at sælge produkter i et medie ejet af en tredje part, som i JBS Undertøjs eksempel ville være forskellige bladforlag?

 

Fleggaards reklamer versus feministisk reklamecensur

Tilbage til Fleggaards reklamer. Det der efter min mening er interessant i denne sag, er det forhold, at Fleggaards reklamer alene bliver publiceret i Fleggaards eget medie, firmaets hjemmeside, og altså ikke i et medie ejet af en tredjepart. På Fleggaards hjemmeside fremgår det tydeligt, for forbrugerne, at de aktivt skal vælge selv at se profant billedmateriale der ’reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’. Der er endog 18+ warning, inden man klikker ind på reklamen. Altså Forbrugerombudsmanden burde ikke have nogen som helst logisk mulighed for at forbyde Fleggaards reklamer, selvom de tydeligvis forsøger at sælge hårde hvidevarer gennem billedmateriale der ’reducerer kvindekønnet til sexobjekter’. Endelig er Fleggaard GmbH et tysk registreret firma, hvilket vil sige, at Forbrugerombudsmanden i Danmark sikkert kunne løbe ind i juridiske problemer, såfremt man forsøgte at forbyde Fleggaards reklamer.

 

Dette er jo bad, bad news for de feministiske ikonoklaster der forsøger at få statsbureaukratiet til at fjerne kønsforskellen, og det åbenbart især, når kønsforskel bliver opført gennem idealiserende heteroseksuelle billeder, vi taler absolut om ikonoklasme her. Men da gender feminister, som tidligere nævnt, er teoretiske sprog- og kulturrelativister – de tror at virkeligheden alene udgøres af sproget – så er det måske forståeligt, at de har så travlt med at lave ‘diskursive informationsindgreb’.

Hvis reklameeksperterne har ret, at tendenserne går imod mere internetbaseret reklamefilmspublicering, så bliver det sværere for bureaukrater informeret af feministisk ideologi, at censurere reklamemateriale der fremstiller kvinder som begærsvæsner (sexobjekter i feministisk retorik). Hvad så med EUs fagre nye kønsforskelsophævende projekt der går under betegnelses Gendermainstreaming? Her står der jo tydeligt nedfældet, at medlemslandende (det vil sige Statsmagtens bureaukrati) aktivt skal medvirke til at forhindre udbredelsen af kønsstereotyper i medieinformationen og kulturen.

Det må vel betyde at vi meget snart vil se at internettet bliver den nye skueplads for feministisk motiveret censur? Og yderligere viser Fleggaard eksemplet, at der nu vil være et stigende behov for internationale censurregler, for ellers kan et firma jo bare publicere på Internettet fra et andet land. Men så er det godt at de censurivrige kræfter i vores tid har et EU-system til deres rådighed. Her kan man lave fælles regler for feministiske ikonoklasme i EU. Og det vil yderligere kunne giver dejligt mange arbejdspladser til forskellige eksperter der er uddannet på universiteterne i feministisk teori. Watch out alle jer der holder af informationens frie bevægelighed.

Magasin og kvindelige skønhedsidealer i 2008

december 10, 2008

Magasin, kønsforskel og billedlige skønhedsidealer i december 2008

Jeg har lige været inde i centrum af København, hvor jeg pludselig blev ramt af en glædesfølelse. Jeg befandt mig i fodgængerovergangen i slutningen af Strøget skråt overfor varehuset Magasin. Henover indgangspartiet til Magasin hænger der lige nu en stor promotionplakat der både har Magasin og undertøjsfirmaet Femilet som afsender. Plakaten er vel 10 gange 20 meter stor, og den viser foruden Magasin og Femilets bomærker et stort fotografi af en ung smuk kvinde der sidder i et stuemiljø kun iklædt forførende undertøj: bh, trusser, strømpeholder og sorte stockings. Hun poserer indbydende ud mod gaden, altså hun fremviser sin femininitet, skønhed og kvindelige ungdommelighed.

Der eksisterer også kvinder i virkeligheden som besidder samme kropslige attributter, som dem der fremvises af modellen i billedet. Men det gælder givet ikke flertallet af kvinder. Derfor kan man sige, at kvinden på billedet er udtryk for et kvindeligt skønhedsideal: hun er en idealtype der ikke er som flertallet. Selvom der ikke eksisterede nogle billeder i den offentlige sfære, så ville der alligevel eksistere unge smukke kvinder i virkeligheden; ligesom der eksisterede unge smukke kvinder gennem tusinder af år længe før fotografiet eller det realistiske maleri var opfundet.

Jeg blev glad over at blive konfronteret af en stor poster i det københavnske offentlige rum som fremviser et kvindeligt skønhedsideal, fordi det er udtryk for, at Danmark endnu ikke er underlagt den form for censur som lige nu stortrives i Sverige. Det at Magasin, et stort varehus ejet af en stor koncern, tør fremvise kvindelige skønhedsidealer på den måde, vidner om, at den radikale feministiske ideologi, som vil udrense kønsforskelle, er svagere stillet i Danmark. Det betyder ikke at denne ideologi er fraværende her, blot at den tydeligvis endnu ikke er i stand til at påføre sin ‘symbolske slørdragt’ henover billeder i det offentlige rum der iscenesætter kvinder som kønnede begærspersoner (det der i feministiske terminologi kaldes for ‘sexobjekter’). På dette område er kønsforskel endnu ikke blevet forbudt i Danmark.

en svensk kvindelig biolog skriver om kønsforskelle i hjernen

november 29, 2008
I dag læste jeg artiklen ’Forskelle i hjerne og nervesystem mellem kvinder og mænd’, der selvfølgelig omhandler biologiske hjerneforskelle mellem mænd og kvinder. I de store træk var der ikke meget i artiklen jeg ikke allerede vidste, men jeg var glad over at artiklen var med i en nylig publiceret forskningsantologi om stress. Antologien havde bidrag fra ikke mindre end 54 forskere inden for felterne biologi, medicin, anatomi, neurovidenskab, psykologi og farmakologi, især fra Sverige, men også en del fra USA. Artiklen var skrevet at Annica Dahlström, professor ved Institutionen för anatomi och cellbiologi ved Göteborg Universitetet.

Dahlström beskriver nogle af de strukturelle hjerneforskelle der eksisterer mellem mænd og kvinder som neurovidenskaberne har kortlagt. Hun nævner f.eks. de forskellige hjernedele, den gamle reptilhjernen – som vi deler med f.eks. krybdyr og som står for de mere basale instinkter som overlevelse og seksualdrift – og den nyere hjerne som tager sig af alle bevidste processer, indlæring, socialt liv, empati, mv. Alene dette forhold har den logiske konsekvens, at tabula rasa teorien falder fuldstændig sammen: mennesket fødes ikke med en tom bevidsthed, selvom mange socialkonstruktivister inden for humaniora og samfundsvidenskaberne forekommer at tro på dette. Dahlström forklarer også, hvordan den nyere hjerne oplæres gennem f.eks skolen:

citat fra artiklen:
”Hjernforskere er i den seneste tid blevet opmærksomme på personer, der syntes at savne empatisk evne og har ’hvide pletter’, områder, der ikke aktiveres korrekt ved tests, i deres storhjernes bark. Årsagen til disse ’hvide pletter’ er endnu ukendt. De kan skyldes mutationer i gener, der styrer hjernens udvikling, men det kan også være negative oplevelser i de tidlige år, der er årsagen, en mangel på den rette stimulering, da empatiudviklingen havde sit ’åbne vindue’”.

Ud fra dette tekststykke, tyder det på, at Dahlström, ligesom jeg selv, er tilhænger af den position, der går under betegnelsen ’interaktionisme’: ideen om at menneskets adfærd skabes gennem en interaktion mellem kulturel påvirkning og nedarvet mentalt indhold.

Dahlström beskriver også nogle af de adfærdsforskelle mellem kvinder og mænd, som tyder på at være betinget af nedarvede forskelle. Men i artiklen er der en påfaldende implicit celebrering af kvinders kønsforskelle. F.eks. får vi at vide, at små piger har en ’fingerspidsfølelse, der er drengenes fingerspidsfølelse overlegen’. Et andet sted står der, at piger forekommer at anvende begge hjernehalvdele ved mange funktioner, hvor drenge kun anvender den ene hjernehalvdel. Et tredje sted sår der ’Kvinder og piger har altså større muligheder for at opfatte genstande og bevægelser i periferien end mænd, de er så at sige mere ’vidtskuende’.

Det forhold, at Dahlström kun vælger at fremhæve egenskaber, hvor kvinder/piger ser ud til at være stærkere ’hard wired’ end mænd/drenge, er påfaldende, når man som jeg ved, at hun sagtens kunne have udvalgt at beskrive områder, hvor det modsatte er tilfældet. Men måske er det forståeligt? Dahlström er forsker i Sverige, landet hvor man hader kønsforskelle og efterhånden har institutionaliseret offer-feminismen som en måde at bedrive national sindelagskontrol på. Så hun ved nok, at man som svensk forsker er sikrest, hvis man nøjes med at beskrive biologiske kønsforskelle til kvindernes fordele, så kommer feministerne nok ikke så meget op fra deres censur- og berufsverbot-poster.

Min mistanke om at det forholder sig sådan med stakkels Dahlström bliver bestyrket ganske kraftigt et sted i artiklen, jeg citerer:

”Det er endnu relativt ukendt for almindelige mennesker, at der findes sådanne forskelle mellem mænd/drenge og kvinder/piger – ikke kun i deres legemsdele og i de hormoner, som udskilles, men også i hjernens opbygning. Disse forskelle har været velkendte af biologiske forskere i et par årtier, men informationen om dem er ikke slået igennem i skolens naturvidenskabelige undervisning”.

Hertil er alt i sin fineste orden, jeg nikker genkendende til Dahlströms beretning. Men så kommer dette mærkværdige stykke:

”Dette kan muligvis have noget at gøre med den generelle nedskæring af undervisning i de biologiske naturvidenskaber, især menneskets biologi. Eleverne undervises i seksualitet og formering, men meget lidt om hjernes betydning for hele individet.”

Enten er Dahlström ufattelig naiv, hvilket er svært at tro, når man kigger på hendes credentials, eller også ved hun godt, at hun ikke kan skrive sandheden: Det er ikke på grund af nedskæringer i undervisningen at man i Sverige (og Danmark for den sags skyld) ikke lærer noget om biologiske kønsforskelle mellem mænd og kvinder. Det er på grund af gender-feministisk ideologi, der bekender sig til en lukket socialkonstruktivisme, hvor alt menneskelig adfærd er et spørgsmål om kulturel påvirkning. Der må ikke eksisterer kønsforskelle som er nedarvet inden for denne ideologi, thi så vil det jo kunne forsvares at mennesker er forskellige, og i næste instans, at alle mennesker ikke er lige. Det vil jo ødelægge Ligestillingsidealet: gennemsnittet af alle mænd bør have den samme adfærd og interesse som gennemsnittet af alle kvinder; og videre, alle mennesker uanset køn bør ikke alene have ens vilkår og udgangspunkt, men også lige fordeling af ressourcer – gennem staten forstået. Vi bør alle være lige – altså Socialisme. At alle så absolut er langt fra at være ‘lige i resultat’ i Sverige eller Danmark, og for øvrigt heller ikke var det i forskellige økonomiske systemer der bekendte sig til fuldent statskontrol over økonomi og produktionsapparat, f.eks. Sovjet Unionen, det er så en selvmodsigelse der ligger dybt begravet i socialismens indre væsen.

Som George Orwell beskrev det i Animal Farm: “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. I Danmark og Sverige er det typisk de få mennesker der tilhører investeringsklassen og de mange bureaukrater og politikere der er håndlangere for Staten, som er mere Ligestillede. Sidstnævnte giver sig selv ressourcer gennem middelklassens ufattelige store indbetalinger af skatter og afgifter.

Dahlströms artikel er at finde i bogen Stress: Individet, samfundet, organisationen, molekylerne, 2006, redigeret af Rolf Ekman og Bengt Arnetz, Fadl’s Forlag

Følgende vittighedstegning, fundet hos Forsker.net, illustrerer på glimrende vis, hvad det er for nogle dilemmaer som Dahlströms artikel åbenlyst befinder sig i – og i bredere omfang, hvad der kan ske med videnskab, når den bliver underlagt politisk korrekthed (d.v.s. forskeres selv-censur skabt på baggrund af et politisk ideal der i dag hersker inden for den intellektuelle elite).

Karl Lagerfeld versus Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordisk Ministerråd)

oktober 19, 2008

Karl Lagerfeld versus Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordisk Ministerråd).

My view of Karl Lagerfeld, Designer for Chanel, was positively enhanced when I saw the documentary film ‘Lagerfeld Confidential’ last year. He came strongly across as an anti sex puritan and this film is produced in our era where the political correct Left increasingly takes over the classical prejudices especially in sexual matters that has been historically associated with the religious Right. I named this blog text ‘Karl Lagerfeld versus Nordic Council of Ministers (Nordisk Ministerråd)’ because the Nordic Council of Ministers officially appears to have adopted the radical feminist ideology: Heterosexuality is recognized as an oppressive social construction. Male sexual desire is defined as problematic and demeaning to women. If it appears outside an equal (whatever that is?) monogamous relationship and especially if it is exchanged through money it must be neutralised through excessive state force and prohibitions. Nordic Council of Ministers is very explicit in the view on prostitution: Prostitution must be made illegal, male customers should be punished and female suppliers – they are all defined as victims regardless of what they think themselves – should be liberated and nursed through various public funds.

I quote Karl Lagerfeld from the film:

”I’ve been asked to write a preface for a book of photos of a bordello. I think it is funny. I’m rather pro-prostitution. It avoids frustration and I admire people who do it. It can’t be much fun. Thank goodness for it. We can’t all afford a mistress or an expensive friend. People need relief or they become murderers. Is that a moral position? That’s how I see it anyway. It’s like what we were saying about porn films. People are outraged, but… It’s easy to act out emotions. I imagine it’s much harder to give a blow job. Being filmed giving a blow job must be harder. Sorry. Emotions can be faked, but at some point… It has a role in society, otherwise it wouldn’t be the world’s oldest profession.”

(Lagerfeld Confidential, 2007, 1:13.22)

I dare say, what a courageous public figure Karl is. For now I support Chanel!

Der er stadig intelligent liv på venstrefløjen i DK

marts 26, 2008

Der er åbenbart stadig nogen på venstrefløjen i Danmark der formår at tænke klart, også selvom det ikke passer med politisk korrekthed.

Informations leder 25/3/08 ‘Bedrevidende mænd’ har et nuanceret forhold til begrebet prostitution. Avisen følger ikke rutinemæssigt den feministiske dæmonisering af den mandlige seksualitet med der til hørende placering af kvindekønnet i offer-rolle.

Som nogen af os har erkendt for længe siden, så eksisterer der mange former for prostitution. Der findes tydeligvis mennesker i branchen som udnyttes og lever under dårlige forhold, hvilket også er tilfældet inden for andre brancher. Men det er åbenlyst, at der også eksisterer mange prostituerede som har truffet et frit valg om at leve af at sælge seksuelle ydelser.

Informations leder signalerer, at man stadig kan tilhøre venstrefløjen i Danmark, uden at man ubetinget af den grund behøver at støtter op om den ekstreme misandriske universitetsfeministiske ideologi: mænd er som kønsklasse undertrykkere, mandlig (hetero)seksualitet er kvindeundertrykkende (en patriarkalsk social konstruktion) og kvindekønnet skal beskyttes gennem statsforbud mod visse seksuelle praksisser – forbud der komme forbavsende tæt på tidligere tiders religiøse sexforbud i Europa.

One more time: American library censorship?

marts 9, 2008

I just received my a copy of the book Pinker, Steven (2002) The blank slate, Penguin Books, London, ordered second hand through amazon.com. From the stamps inside the book it appears that this book was formerly the property of the Library Services of Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. It is marked with a ‘Withdrawn for sale’. There seems to be a pattern in the US regarding books that challenge certain fashionable discourses: When I have order books second hand that attacks gender feminism, political correctness and the closed social constructivist world view, many times these books have turned out to be discarded library books. They have been removed from the catalogue for some reason.Regarding my newly bought book ‘the blank slate’, I did today make the effort to check the entire on-line library catalogue of the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton and guess what, Pinkers book does not exist anywhere!!! So this title has been removed from the library. I am sure that this book is deemed political incorrect and has been removed from the library in the Sefton because it challenges the Marxist-feminist-constructivist theory complex.Pinkers book attacks the blank slate theory, the idea that the human mind is empty when an infant is born. Through biological theory Pinker argues that indeed the human mind is more that a social construction, we are born with certain innate human nature. But Pinker goes much further than this, he discusses the philosophical and political motives behind the insistance on the constructivist world view, that humans are only shaped by culture.So far I have only browsed through the book but it seems pretty potent, I will quote from the start of the chapter 8 The fear of inequality:

“The greatest moral appeal of the doctrine of the Blank Slate comes from a simple mathematical fact: zero equals zero. This allows the Blank Slate to serve as a guarantor of political equality. Blank is blank, so if we are all blank slates, the reasoning goes, we must all be equal. But if the slate of a newborn is not blank, different babies could have different things inscribed on their slates. Individuals, sexes, classes, and races might differ innately in their talents, abilities, interests, and inclinations. And that, it is thought, could lead to three evils. The first is prejudice: if groups of people are biologically different, it could be rational to discriminate against the members of some of the groups. The second is Social Darwinism: if differences among groups in their station in life – their income, status, and crime rate, for example – come from their innate constitutions, the differences cannot be blamed on discrimination, and that makes it easy to blame the victim and tolerate inequality. The third is eugenics: if people differ biologically in ways that other people value or dislike, it would invite them to try to improve society by intervening biologically – by encouraging or discouraging people’s decisions to have children, by taking that decision out of their hands, or by killing them outright. The Nazis carried out the ‘final solution’ because they thought Jews and other ethnic groups were biologically inferior. The fear of the terrible consequences that might arise from a discovery of innate differences has thus led many intellectuals to insist that such differences do not exist – or even that human nature does not exist, because if it did, innate differences would be possibly” (141).

I have never read a more precise summary of the wishful (political) thinking that drives the fear of nature as a determinant factor of human behaviour so much favoured in the social sciences of today. Now some pages later Pinker gets juicy:

“The Nazi Holocaust was a singular event that changed attitudes towards countless political and scientific topics. But it was not the only ideologically inspired holocaust in the twentieth century, and intellectuals are only beginning to assimilate the lessons of other: the mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, and other totalitarian states carried out in the name of Marxism. The opening of Soviet archives and the release of data and memoirs on the Chinese and Cambodian revolutions are forcing a reevaluation of the consequences of ideology as wrenching as that following World War II. Historians are currently debating whether the Communists’ mass executions, forced marches, slave labour, and man-made famines led to one hundred million deaths or ‘only’ twenty-five million. They are debating whether these atrocities are morally worse than the Nazi Holocaust or ‘only’ the equivalent” (155).

And now Pinker lines up his ‘weapons’:

“And there is the remarkable fact: though both Nazi and Marxist ideologies led to industrial-scale killing, their biological and psychological theories were opposites. Marxists had no use for the concept of race, were averse to the notion of genetic inheritance, and were hostile to the very idea of a human nature rooted in biology. Marx and Engels did not explicitly embrace the doctrine of the Blank Slate in their writings, but they were adamant that human nature has no enduring properties. It consists only in the interactions of groups of people with their material environments in a historical period, and constantly changes as people change their environment and are simultaneously changed by it. The mind therefore has no innate structure but emerges from the dialectical processes of history and social interaction… Marx’s twentieth-century followers did embrace the Blank Slate, or at least the related metaphor of malleable material… We come across the metaphor of the blank slate in the writings of a man who may have been responsible for sixty-five million deaths: A blank sheet of paper has no blotches, and so the newest and most beautiful words can be written on it, the newest and most beautiful pictures can be painted on it. – Mao ZedongAnd we find it in a saying of a political movement that killed a quarter of its countrymen:

Only the newborn baby is spotless. – Khmer Rouge slogan

The new realization that government-sponsored mass murder can come from an anti-innatist belief system as easily as from an innatist one upends the postwar understanding that biological approaches to behaviour are uniquely sinister. An accurate appraisal of the cause of state genocides must look for beliefs common to Nazism and Marxism that launched them on their parallel trajectories, and for the beliefs specific to Marxism that led to the unique atrocities committed in its name” (157).

Please read the last sentence again. How painful Pinkers writing must be to academics who still lean towards a Marxist orientation.

“Nazism and Marxism shared a desire to reshape humanity. ‘The alteration of men on a mass scala is necessary’, wrote Marx; ‘the will to create mankind anew’ is the core of Nation Socialism, wrote Hitler. They also shared a revolutionary idealism and a tyrannical certainty in pursuit of this dream, with no patience for incremental reform or adjustments guided by the human consequences of their policies… The ideological connection between Marxist socialism and National Socialism is not fanciful. Hitler read Marx carefully while living in Munich in 1913, and may have picked up from him a fateful postulate that the two ideologies would share. It is the belief that history is a preordained succession of conflicts between groups of people and that improvement in the human condition can come only from the victory of one group over the others. For the Nazis the groups were races; for the Marxists they were classes…” (157).

And I would of cause add for the gender feminist the groups are men versus women!!!

“The ideology of groups-against-group struggle explains the similar outcomes of Marxism and Nazism. The ideology of the Blank Slate helps explain some of the features that were unique to the Marxist states:…” (157).

And now Pinker lists about a page of these features, aspects of Marxism’s preoccupation with the Blank Slate view that had fatal consequences for millions of people who were murdered or suppressed by Marxist regimes. I will not list these features here, as I must preserve some of the excitement for potential readers.

“None of this is meant to impugn the Blank Slate as an evil doctrine, any more than a belief in human nature is an evil doctrine. Both are separated by great many steps from the wicked acts committed under their banners, and they must be evaluated on factual grounds. But it is meant to overturn the simplistic linkage of the sciences of human nature with the moral catastrophes of the twentieth century” (158).

Those who lean to a hard line constructivist and/or relativist stance would probably deny Pinkers cry for ‘evaluations on factual ground’, because facts are just social constructions used in power games between social actors, or positivist or essentialist inclinations. But to the rest of us, Pinkers suggestions might make sense.All in all this book appears to be promising, in my experience there seems to be a connection between the political correct censorship of a potential academic book from a public American library and the vitality of the content of this same book. I start to fear that my book collection is becoming very much like the library in Umberto Eco’s novel The name of the rose.

Hopefully I will not be arrested in the future by the feminist gendermainstreaming police (most likely male workmen) who should prevent the circulation of the wrong scientific information that could compromise the power of the state (tax) sponsored post materialist regulators/bureacrats/politicians who profit immensely by the enforcement of their ideological social engineering reform project….The Blank Slate is of cause listed in my facobook library list.

Will we see more censorship of fashion images in the near future due to the puritanical gender feminist ideology?

februar 15, 2008

In Denmark the Head of the Federal Consumer Rights Authorities (Ombudsmanden) recently banned the advertising campaign by JBS Underwear for being sexist: ‘it reduces women to sex objects’ and this is considered a discriminatory act.  The campaign plays with reversed gender stereotypes where beautiful female models appear to have a fetishistic behaviour; they are turned on by male underwear. Here is four of the images of the campaign as reference.

The critique is based on the idea that it is insulting for women to be depicted as sexual beings – sex objects. In this case people with a feminist or religious moral orientation felt it demeaning that the models were dressed up as female work stereotypes such as nurses, waitresses, secretaries and nuns. This was recognised as an insult to these work groups. Beautiful women are an insult? I consider this case an obvious example of censorship based on gender feminist ideology. In the name of gender equality it should be illegal to depict females as sex objects, whatever that term means. I guess that women may not be associated with their sexuality because this is a simplification of what it means to be female. In this case any symbolic use of images, meanings or humour can potentially become illegal because it simplifies people or ideas. But how can any image message then be acceptable? How can we be sure that an image reflects the diversity of an individual or a category? And who has the right to make these judgments? Is it enough that some people feel that they are offended by an image or message, or feel that an image or message offends their idea of a class category?

Is it because the models are young and attractive as they pose as classical female work stereotypes that the images are a disgrace? What if the models had been just plain normal or ugly and posed as female work stereotypes, would that equally had been an insult? Or is it because we see the female models expose some flesh in a sexual manner combined with the fact that they are young and attractive? Or is it because these stereotypical work types remind of us work areas where we might see a relatively high proportion of young women some of whom might be beautiful?

How can it be that many men associate nurses with sexual attractive women? Is it because all nurses are sexual due to their profession or is it that some nurses are sexual due to their age, body and facial features? If we no longer would be exposed to images of beautiful women would young attractive females then cease to be attractive for most males? Do we produce images of young attractive women because men like to look at young attractive women or are young attractive women only attractive because men see images of them? Were young attractive women attractive before the photographic technology was invented? Have young attractive women been attractive in many human cultures and historic epochs? Do young attractive women cease to be sexual attractive in Muslim countries where they are hidden away behind veils and where sexual stimulating or female beautifying images are banned?   

Will it be possible to show fashion images that beautifies women in the future? Many fashion images can be said to stereotype women according to certain ideals and they certainly reduce the complexity of a person. Should this equally be illegal because some feminist actors assert that it is a heterosexual beauty stereotype? Or because certain gender feminist see heterosexuality as a patriarchal construction?

I suspect that the moral outcry in the JBS Underwear case was caused because of the desirable nature of the models in the images, they are a threat because readers of magazines will see young and sexually attractive women. Many gender feminists don’t like female beauty ideals; they hate to see female models that are attractive as this reminds them of differences between men and women and further, differences between women – it points towards differences and differences as we know could lead to inequalities. This is a hatred of female beauty because there shouldn’t be any beauty ideals in the gender feminist utopia; all women should be equally beautiful. It is also a hatred of heterosexuality as heterosexual relationships usually involve gender differences: beautiful females are in ‘desirable positions’ (in the feminist world view ‘object positions’, they are ‘sex objects’) for many men who would like to engage sexually with these women unless the men already are in a monogamous relationship (or maybe even if they are in a monogamous relationship!) should they get the chance. This is considered a threat to gender feminist ideology, many of these feminist want to abolish the gender differences that they consider to be patriarchal social constructions/conspiracy against womanhood.


Further I suspect the moral outcry also is due to the stupidity of many, luckily not all, left wing actors who uncritically subscribe to the gender feminist ideology. Therefore they believe that good socialists must seek to abandon gender differences as they are capitalistic social constructions. So the dogmatic Religious Right meets with the dogmatic Feminist Left, pragmatically they do agree, the law/state must censor sexual images.


Say no to censorship of images especially censorship that is promoted by political or ideological stupidity.

 

(here is a link to a later text I published where there is more information on the official ruling in the JBS case)