Proposed "Museum of Women’s History" ends up cashing in on Jack The Ripper

Via Wikimedia Commons

Imagine if Montreal promised to open a museum of women's history, and instead dedicated it to Marc Lépine.

Something similar has happened in London. A museum that was promised to be “the only dedicated resource in the East End to women’s history” opened last week, opened to reveal this:

Via Alamy Live News

A document  sent by the museum's architects to Tower Hamlets council last summer,  to get permission to convert an empty Victorian shop into a museum,  "included pictures of suffragettes and equal pay campaigners and designs for a museum called the Museum of Women’s History," reports the Guardian.

Instead, they got a place dedicated to an anonymous serial killer who targeted women sex workers and mutilated their reproductive organs.

The businessman behind the tourist trap, Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe, told the Standard:

“We did plan to do a museum about social history of women but as the project developed we decided a more interesting angle was from the perspective of the victims of Jack the Ripper. It is absolutely not celebrating the crime of Jack the Ripper but looking at why and how the women got in that situation in the first place.”

And what, exactly, is that supposed to mean? More shockingly, the Mark Palmer-Edgecumbe quoted is a diversity and corporate social responsibility expert who has worked with Google, Barclays, and the Global Diversity List, (associated with The Economist).

His LinkedIn profile reads, "I am passionate about all aspects of diversity and corporate social responsibility and believe that all individuals should have the opportunity to fulfil their potential. For me diversity and CSR are key business issues that I am adept in utilising to add financial, commercial and reputational benefits to organisations - as well as creating a great company for employees and customers."

He also mentions that he was voted to  the top 25 most influential LGBT people Globally by the World Pride / Guardian Powerlist in 2012, and that he is the Chairman of Board of Trustees at The Inclusive Foundation "a UK based Charitable Foundation aimed at helping young people to realise their full potential."

Is this really the same person? What the hell is going on over there?

(Thanks to Patrick for the tip)

Shooting game company literally makes women targets of misogyny

Cross-posted at Sociological Images.

Via zombieindustries.com

So it turns out there's this company that makes "zombie" targets for gun enthusiasts. They have clown zombies, nazi zombies, "terrorist" zombies, dog zombies and even a green zombie named "Rocky" that has Barack Obama's ears.

And one woman.

Here's their explanation:

The Zombie virus does not discriminate and neither does Zombie Industries.  We take preparation for the Zombie Apocalypse seriously, which is why we strive to have all groups of undead monsters represented in our product selection.  In addition to the Ex Girlfriend Zombie, we currently sell 15 male zombies, 5 animal zombies & 2 aliens… to discriminate against Women by not having them represented in our product selection would be just plain sexist.

Each of the zombie targets has a story. Here is the story of "The Ex":

Be warned, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but a man scorned is nothing to mess with! A young gent from Louisiana, we’ll call him Andre` to protect his identity, was deeply committed to his one true love and her to him, or so he thought. While partying with her friends during one particular Mardi Gras, she took several suitors over the course of the festivities. Andre` felt something odd indeed, so he paid a visit to his great aunt, Marie, who helped him see the truth. With a few eggs, candles lit and kiss upon his forehead, her voodoo curse was set in motion. Late each night while lying in bed, a smile would appear across his face, for a slight breeze would travel through a cracked window bringing with it, a faint whiff of decay and a unnatural cry of regret.

That's right. In this narrative, a man kills a woman for cheating on him. Then he has her turned into a zombie. Which you, bro, are now invited to blow to bits.

Despite the game-like zombie theme, it is notable that the single human female representation has been created specifically as a target of violent male anger towards a woman's ownership of her own sexuality.

"The Ex" is also portrayed in a highly sexual way, with what seems to be a bare lower torso and busting out chest.

Policymic writes, "Every day, at least three women are killed by an intimate partner in the US alone.  Let's make sure those numbers go down, not up. Let's make sure companies like Zombies Industries know that we're not buying it."

Some people, however, are buying it. And this is what's most troubling.

From the product reviews:

This Zombie Bitch is awesome, reminds me of a girl I knew in High School, My LMT LM308MWS should put a stop to the undead bring them on !!! Later Party till you drop Corvette forever !!!!! - Ralph Cox ( Big Money Grip) 

I love that this target looks like Britney Spears and it bleeds when I shot it. - Bryan 

And from YouTube:

It may just be me, but I think that people who are willing to pay $100 to shoot a cheap sex doll to bits while fantasizing about killing women who rejected them (and people who think that's totally cool) have some very serious problems.

Oh, and Zombie Industries was selling this shit at the National Rifle Association convention in Houston last weekend. Surprised?

Update: Amazon was selling The Ex. It is no longer doing so.

Update 2: Kelli, a Sociological Images reader, commented on the cross-post that Zombie Industries has changed the name and backstory of "The Ex" to make her more of a traditional villain:

Alexa was from Louisiana and was always drawn to the occult.  She had a wicked mean streak in her and was known for her nasty disposition, especially if she had been drinking.  She also happened to be in love with a young man, but there was a slight problem.. he was married to another women.  When he told her that he loved his wife and could never be unfaithful to her, Alexa became enraged.  She decided to seek the help of a local tarot card & palm reader who also dabbled in Voodoo.  When she told the Voodoo Witch of her plan to break up a loving a marriage.. the witch refused to help her.  That’s when Alexa lost her cool for the last time and crossed the wrong person.  She let out a slew of insults directed at the witch and told her she would get her way one way or another.  That’s when the Voodoo Witch cast a spell of her own.  Alexa never knew what hit her and before she reached her home that evening she joined the ranks of the Undead!

It's more of an admission of guilt than anything else...

Vintage ads showing women as trophy kills

I recently caught this ad on Sociological Images' Twitter feed. While vintage ad sexism is easy enough to find, I'd never seen this one before. It lives on the site for Lucky Tiger, a men's grooming products brand, and Time says it's from 1957.

Apparently, taxidermied women was a thing in the 50s. This one is quite well known:

Via Retronaut

But it was still going on in the '70s:

Via Fashion Rat

Hunting metaphors have long been part of the culture when it comes to "courting", but taking it to its logical conclusion is beyond bizarre.

It's all fun and games until someone is dehumanized

Reader Warning: This post contains extremely misogynist language and images. 

There was quite a stir online this week after popular web comic The Oatmeal compared a computer key, humorously, to a terrified rape victim. I'm not going to go on about that. Facing massive online protest, he removed the offending panel and apologized. Time to move on.

Except that his self-styled "free speech" supporters won't let it go. They accused people who took to the author's social media feeds to tell him why they were so upset about the joke of "censorship". They're probably still at it.

But there is a big difference between criticism and censorship. The former is also part of freedom of speech. The latter is legislative.

I am against censorship, but I will certainly speak out in public when I think something is not okay. For example, racism is not okay. Anyone who spews racism in public deserves the social sanction of people who are not racists. That's a pretty mainstream, accepted, thing now.

But what about misogyny? As the Oatmeal incident shows, it is both embedded in our popular culture and an issue that is becoming increasingly hard to "let go". In the recent United States election, many sexist or even openly-misogynist politicians and pundits were brought down by changing mainstream sensitivity to women's issues. Then again, many still stand.

Which brings me to today's topic: The most asinine tee shirts I have seen this year. 

This collection of shirts is brought to you by an online retailer called Spencer's. It's obnoxious, dehumanizing and dumb, and somebody must be buying the damn things.

But it's just a joke, right? Sure. Racist jokes are just jokes too. The problem with them is that they also serve a social purpose: they both reflect and reinforce a culture of exclusion, where one group is assumed to be superior to another. (The last US election also showed that racism is still very much with us.)

Believe it or not, I have a sense of humour. And I actually make lots of "inappropriate" jokes. But these are made in mixed company, with women who are my friends and my equals. Nobody is calling anyone a fuck puppet.

You might ask yourself whether Spencer's are equal opportunity sexists. There are, in fact, a few women's shirts that have a sexually predatory slogans on them. While this is bad, it's not quite the same problem. Not at this point in history.

Lots of really awkwardly and outrageously sexual things are funny. These tee shirts are not. They simply communicate an attitude that women are things that lack agency or independent sexual desire. They show women as breathing sack-of-meat masturbation devices, for men to enjoy and dispose of.

That's bad, and the people at Spencer's should feel bad.

But I am not trying to censor them. On the contrary, I want as many people as possible to see these shirts and form their own opinion about just what kind of person chooses to design, sell, and wear stuff like this.

Form your very own democratic, free market, free speaking opinion about what these shirts are telling you about what Spencer's thinks their target market likes. A target market of young men who could be strangers or could be among your family, neighbours or friends. Or who could be dating your family or friends. 

And on this day, which here in Canada is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, decide how you want to feel about that.

For more information on rape culture, visit FORCE.

Tip via Buzzfeed

Should we expect global brands to respect universal human rights?

Following the scorn heaped upon IKEA for deleting all adult women from the Saudi version of its catalogue, I think it's time to start talking about how we hold global brands accountable for how they operate in places without basic human rights.

This week, I noticed a picture going around that claimed to be from the door of a Pizza Hut in Jeddah:

Digging a little deeper, I found a 2007 blog post with more documentation of major brands giving in to sexist Saudi social and religious policy:

In this case, the policy of sex segregation is because women must expose their faces to eat, so no unmarried and unrelated man can be allowed to see them.

At McDonald's, the segregation is has created the "need" for restaurants to build parallel and non-communicating sections for (male) "singles" and "families".

Admittedly, this was five years ago. But has anything changed?

From 2009:

An American businesswoman was carted off to jail by religious police in Saudi Arabia for sitting with a male colleague at a Starbucks in Riyadh, the Times of London reported.
The woman, who spent a day behind bars, was strip-searched and forced to sign a false confession before being released, the newspaper said. The Times declined to publish her name at her request. 

The 37-year-old businesswoman works for a finance company in Riyadh. Her problem began when her office lost electricity. She and her male colleagues then went to a nearby Starbucks to use the coffee shop's Internet connection. 

She sat with a male colleague in the Starbucks' family area, the only place women are allowed to sit with men.  

"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," she told the Times. 

Following her arrest and interrogation, the woman was hauled before a judge.
"He said 'You are sinful and you are going to burn in hell.' I told him I was sorry. I was very submissive. I had given up. I felt hopeless," she told the Times. 

The newspaper said the woman had received a visit from officials at the U.S. embassy in Saudi Arabia. A U.S. official told The Times that it was being treated as "an internal Saudi matter" and refused to comment on her case.

And this year:

Western companies on Saudi land must comply with Saudi religious regulations. Fast-food restaurants such as McDonald's, Pizza Hut, Starbucks, and other US firms, for instance, maintain sex-segregated eating zones in their restaurants. The facilities in the women's section are usually lower in quality.

I will just flat out say it: I don't think brands that want to do business in a world that respects the equality and dignity of women should be doing business in places where women have no basic rights. Full stop.

Recently, I refused to work on a project for a North American educational institution (NDA prevents me from naming names) that wanted to recruit teachers for a Saudi school. They would happily accept applications from anyone, but in reality only wanted white males. Fuck that.

Everyone — EVERYONE — deserves the same rights and opportunities as everyone else, and cannot be denied them simply because of what's between their legs. Whether that is a major right such as education and voting, or more mundane things like being able to drive or buy junk food, the continued denial of this equality is an affront to anyone who believes women are free individuals.

IKEA, when they were called out by the media in their base of Sweden, issued this statement:

We should have reacted and realized that excluding women from the Saudi Arabian version of the catalogue is in conflict with the IKEA Group values. We are now reviewing our routines to safeguard a correct content presentation from a values point-of-view in the different versions of the IKEA Catalogue worldwide.

You may not like where I'm going with this post. After all, don't universal human rights guarantee freedom of religion? Isn't it the Saudis' business how they run their society?

Personally, I have no problem saying that the way women are treated in Saudia Arabia, and many other countries is wrong. I don't care whether the reason given is religion, tradition, or just fear of women's liberation. Human beings deserve better.

I cannot change Saudi Arabia. But I can let western brands know that we're watching them. If expansion into wealthy but oppressive countries is more important to them than respect for women's rights, then that belief should be seen as part of their global brand.

If you want a Starbucks coffee, go ahead and order one. What you have in your hand is a beverage that stands for sex segregation and arrest of women who dare order one without their husband or brother present. If you have a Big Mac attack, remember that somewhere a single woman has had to hire a taxi driver to take her through the drive-through to get one, because to walk into the restaurant would put her at risk of being beaten and arrested by so-called morality police. Same with your Pizza Hut hot dog stuffed greasewheel, or your Double Down.

When you support a brand, you are making its values part of your own. That's the way branding and identity work. Would you like fries with that misogyny?