What We Missed

Community poster wonderwall brought attention to this awesome performance by spoken word artist Desdemonda.
A woman is suing Toyota for a marketing campaign that led her to believe she was being stalked.
Double X has a piece on Lingerie Football, perhaps the worst excuse for a sport created.
New York women’s organizations and senators are calling for the removal of Democratic Senator Hiram Monserrate from office for assaulting his girlfriend, then getting off the hook with a misdemeanor charge. Says NARAL Pro-Choice New York: “Our message to the Senate is urgent and clear: if you do not remove this individual from office, we will.”

and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

21 Comments

  1. DeafBrownTrash
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Permalink

    Lingerie Football makes me SO angry. It’s such a huge insult for female athletes and for all women.
    That stupid jerk who defends Lingerie Football, should take his clothes off and play football wearing nothing but a speedo. See how he likes it.

  2. Laura_M
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 6:32 pm | Permalink

    That Toyota campaign is nearly enough to make me want to switch my Corolla for something made by some other company, and I love that car.

  3. Lynne C.
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Coffee House barristas serving coffee in bikinis (risking third degree burns and who knows what else), female football players playing in lingerie (risking torn skin and abrasions), doesn’t anyone else see the sadism in this? That people love to watch people not only humiliate themselves, but expose themselves while putting themselves in harms way? WHY do we continue to not only allow this shit, but defend it under the guise of “FREE SPEECH” or “CHOICE.” Give me a break. I’m not BUYING it!

  4. Brittany
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Me too. I’d be freaking the hell out if I got those emails.

  5. Laura_M
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    No kidding. If my lease didn’t still have another year to go, I’d probably be looking for something else right now.

  6. Pantheon
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    Does anyone understand how that was supposed to promote Toyota? They said it was supposed to target men under 35 who hate advertising, so how was it going to do that? Were they going to make a TV show about how they punked her? Were they hoping those men would sign up to punk their friends? I don’t get it.

  7. Hrovitnir
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

    That video is beautiful.
    In her better moments my mother was very much made up of the energy this video conveys. Which makes me feel good and nostalgic. I find the beauty of womanhood described here intoxicating.
    But it makes me a bit sad. For I am a woman. And I have never wanted those curves and valleys for myself, I have never wanted to create life or dedicate myself to nurturing it, I have never wanted to be a woman in this way and I feel like this vision of womanly beauty cuts down so many of us who are even slightly more androgynous.
    I do not think there is anything wrong with this, or that it should change a bit. It just made me think, and made me sad. The one thing that makes me feel happy in my womanhood is being able to reach into that feeling so encapsulated by that video. But it’s something I appreciate, not desire.
    I do not want to be a man. Mostly. But I do not want to be a woman by anyone’s definition of it. I cannot see any way to love the things I love about myself without wishing for a penis and testosterone, and I wish that wasn’t true.
    [/ramble]

  8. curlykidz.wordpress.com
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 9:06 pm | Permalink

    I love this video… thanks

  9. Lucy Gillam
    Posted October 16, 2009 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    That video is lovely.

  10. creebakthedestroyer
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 1:20 am | Permalink

    I don’t get how the Toyota thing is relevant to a website about feminism? No one was actually stalked, her friend signed her up for it, and lots of other people were chosen for it as well. It sounds like a dumb marketing idea, but the idea that “…their objective with those people was to terrify them first and embarrass them second” is ridiculous. No business sets out to make customers terrified (unless you’re in the intimidation business, I guess.)

  11. rraimist
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    The poet for TOO BIG FOR MY SKIN is spelled DESDAMONA…
    http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/desdamonamusic
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Desdamona/25191495735
    http://www.myspace.com/desdamona
    She is one of the co-founders of B-Girl Be: A Celebration of Women in Hip Hop in Minneapolis:
    http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/06/29/desdamonaprofile/
    She is an AMAZING artist and incredible with youth and writers of all ages. Contact her to buy music, speak for National Women’s History Month, National Poetry month, or for school residencies.
    I’ve worked with over the course of many years and I can say she is too big for her skin!
    -Rachel

  12. Citizen Lane
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    About this Monserrat case – I am having trouble finding out more. Was he acquitted by a jury? Did he plead to a reduction of charges? The linked article says acquitted by the judge… after a bench trial?
    I ask because if a jury or judge found that the state of NY couldn’t prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (ie, there is sufficient reason to believe it was accidental) then he is not guilty and shouldn’t face legal consequences. If he plead to something requiring only a negligent mens rea, meaning he was careless and an accident happened, then a misdemeanor is correct as well.
    Generally, assaultive offenses without priors, serious bodily injury or involving weapons or thr commission of another crime in tandem are misdemeanors. This might be a case of outrage sparked by being unfamiliar with criminal prosecution.

  13. MzBitca
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    It’s relevant because toyota played on a fear that women constantly have beat into their head or have to deal with on a day to day basis.
    My friends who live in chicago are constantly worried that one of the men who insist on their attention while out will one day be waiting for them to follow them home or other such things. It’s not a fun prank, it’s making a woman feel unsafe in her home in a world where many women get emails telling them that they are unsafe in there home or just walking to there car

  14. Posted October 17, 2009 at 10:07 am | Permalink

    Ummm… because stalking is a crime that disproportionately affects women, and all too often isn’t taken seriously? And therefore stupid “pranks” like this enforce the notion that women who complain about stalking are just overreacting? The fact that she wasn’t “really” being stalked is irrelevant to the sense of fear she must have felt, and the fact that it never occurred to the company that someone might find this intensely frightening shows that they certainly don’t take stalking seriously.

  15. oatnut
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    I believe his partner received over 20 stitches in her face after the assault. If that is not “serious bodily injury” than what is?

  16. Vx24
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    People need to find out more before being”outraged”. All this does is make it more difficult for those who are assaulted to get any attention. Also I see many couples who are drama addicts not getting help for the collateral damage they cause!!
    Ps it was not an assault!!

  17. FrumiousB
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm | Permalink

    That photo in the DoubleX article about lingerie football looks a lot like photos from roller derby. I think they are both tools pf the patriarchy, but I find it interesting that roller derby has been discussed positively here but lingerie football is criticized. Rough sports in small outfits is what I see. No difference in nature, and not much difference in degree.

  18. creebakthedestroyer
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

    But the campaign wasn’t about stalking women or the simulated stalking of women. It was meant to be in the vein of “The Matrix”, being contacted by a mysterious stranger. They didn’t know it would freak anyone out (because they are idiots, I guess.) It was also gender neutral, random people signed their friends up for it. They weren’t looking for women, they were looking for people. This person was just (as of now) the only one who has complained about it.

  19. creebakthedestroyer
    Posted October 17, 2009 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

    The big differences I see are that the Lingerie bowl is performed by Supermodels, whereas Roller Derby is played by anyone who has an interest in playing, regardless of their looks. You can’t “try out” for the Lingerie bowl. And he outfits in Roller derby has always struck me as a statement of irony, tough athletic women wearing very revealing “feminine” outfits whereas the outfits in the lingerie bowl are just, well, lingerie.

  20. sherunslunatic
    Posted October 18, 2009 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    They weren’t looking for women, they were looking for people.
    Yes. “People” in this case meaning “someone whose life experiences would lead them to find this intriguing in a Matrix-y sort of way” rather than “someone whose life experiences would lead them to react with alarm.” They defaulted to male experience as human experience. They may be idiots, but their particular brand of idiocy is a feminist issue. The fact that the campaign wasn’t “about” stalking and yet so closely resembled it, and that no one noticed or cared, means that women’s experiences are not considered when marketing to “people.”

  21. Terrils
    Posted October 19, 2009 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

    Exactly. I find it hard (sadly, not impossible) to imagine a woman of even average intelligence being in the meeting for this and not saying “You know … this is stalking behavior – very threatening, given that the guy knows her name and address – and is potentially terrifying.” Of course a man wouldn’t think of it, but a lot of women would.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

194 queries. 0.485 seconds