The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

I'm a big fan of this trilogy. Over a year ago I read all of the books and have watched all of the Swedish films. I'm not sure what I think of this remake though - although I haven't seen it.

I think I'm against seeing it on principle seeing that the original Swedish movie was only released 2 years before this Hollywood version. The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest was barely out of cinemas when this version came along. It's clearly a remake for the sake of Hollywood-ising it (a la Psycho which was scene-for-scene remade). Shove in an American actress and James Bond and you've got yourself a much higher production value and draw a wider audience who maybe rejected the original film because of the subtitles and wanted to watch some celebrity actors they already recognised. Cashing in on the success of the trilogy before the original hype dies down? Almost certainly.

I think I just liked the original films so much that I don't see the point in watching a re-make two years later, before any changes in culture or history can mark any significant changes on its interpretation.

I love Lisbeth Salander, she's a real feminist heronie although it looks like the fact this book in Swedish was entitled Men who hate women, is a bit lost on the new audience. Just compare the two promotional posters for a start. I want to keep Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth in my mind - but by all means do try to persuade me based on the differences between the versions if anyone here has seen both of them?

(and if not, I question why?)

Uni Lad misogyny is just "banter"

So I just heard about Uni Lad which is a misogynistic magazine and website for university "lads" teaching them to treat women (who they call "sluts") as sex objects. Usual articles for them consist of advice on how to hunt "vulnerable" students down for sex. They have just shut down their website due to complaints about a severely pro-rape article.

In the 'cleverly' titled article 'Sexual Mathematics' we are told that 75% of women are sluts, implying that women are automatically going to sleep with you. However if you're unlucky enough to meet one of those rare non-sluts the Uni Lad's are told to "think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported...That seems fairly good odds". They add a very funny 'joke' at the end just to make sure we know it's just 'banter' and that none of it's 79,000 Facebook fans are actually going to rape anyone: "Uni Lad does not condone rape without saying surprise".



Apart from that statistically, amongst those 79,000 fans there are going to be rapists. They might not even be aware they're rapists because of articles like this that are allowed to be printed through the rape myth that it's not 'real' rape unless you're attacked by a stranger at knife point in a dark alley. This myth encourages men to see acquaintance rape more as "convincing" women to sleep with them rather than real serious rape. Some of those Uni Lad fans will therefore think it's not really rape to get a woman drunk and force themselves on her, some of them will take this article seriously. Considering 1 in 6 women in the U.S are raped, each of those members statistically know several victims themselves.

A Twitter member (Sazza_Jay) complained on Uni Lad's Twitter page about the article and was asked in reply whether she was a "dyke". The official 'apology' from Uni Lad originally claimed that the article was intended as "banter". It's hard to take their 'apology' sincerely when they respond like this:

Facebook fans since have been posting misogynistic defences, victim -blaming and pro-rape 'jokes' in response. Rape apologists are citing "freedom of speech" which would not make racist or homophobic hate speech acceptable but somehow means sexist hate speech is fine. This reflects cultural beliefs that openly encourage and accept sexism. Racist, homophobic and anti-Semitic hate speech is illegal but sexist hate speech is not. Regurgitating Uni Lad's claim, anyone who objects to their misogynistic article must just be a "dyke" or "gay" with a "small dick". These ridiculous claims further enforce the expectation of men to go along with the 'joke' in order to be accepted by their peers. Through fear that they may not be a real 'bloke' otherwise. This completely disregards the fact that many rape victims are also male of course, another rape myth they're enforcing.

Link to Facebook comments.

But yeah, misogyny in the media doesn't really exist, it's just lads being lads. After all, they're programmed to be sex-obsessed so can't help themselves. It's just the way things are.

The femme fetale in modern film.

The femme fetale archetype featured prominently in the 40’s and 50’s classical genre of film noir. The fatal woman was the ‘love interest’ of the protagonist whose beauty and sexuality bestowed power over the male characters, often to a dangerous end. In Gilda (1946) the eponymous heroine (Rita Hayworth) uses her glamorous looks and sexuality for revenge; she publicly dances and flirts with other men to make Johnny (Glenn Ford) jealous. On the surface, Gilda’s sexuality bestows her with immense power which is able to affect the actions of the male characters. However, Gilda demonstrates that she can only use her appearance rather than intellect or physical power; she is dominated by male characters who physically punish her. The femme fetale’s power is signified as dangerous in film noir, it must be broken by the finale of the film through either repentance or death. At the end of Gilda, her display of sexuality is described by another character as “just an act” as Gilda’s return to her ‘innocent’ form is symbolised through her change of clothing and rejection of sexuality. In The Lady From Shanghai (1947), femme fatale Elsa (again Rita Hayworth) is shot dead during the ending sequence, as a punishment for her killing Grisby (Glenn Anders). The classical sexually ‘empowered’ woman therefore was seen as sinful, their sexual power taken away from them by the end of the film.

Laura Mulvey describes that in classical film, female characters are “the one, or rather the love or feat she inspires in the hero, or else the concern he feels for her, who makes him act the way he does. In herself the woman has not the slightest importance.” Despite the film being entitled Gilda, her importance lies in how she causes the men to act; Ballin fakes his own death because of her cheating while Johnny marries her for revenge. Mulvey demonstrates that the narrative structure of classical film is always controlled by a male protagonist who acts to forward the story, females as a result are given passive roles. Johnny is clearly presented as the protagonist from the first scene of the film which sets up his narrative goal, voice-over narration is also presented from his point-of-view. In contrast, very little information is communicated about Gilda, she is introduced merely as Ballin’s wife and described as his “property”. Gilda exerts her power through sexual displays; performing a strip tease and character traits such as flicking her hair. However these also function to present Gilda as an object of Mulvey’s “male gaze”. Her body is objectified through clothing, fragmentation and close-ups which are presented from the male characters point-of-view.

In modern film another interpretation of the femme fetale, the ‘sex goddess’, also appears. In Lara Croft: The Cradle of Life, (Bont, 2003) the female heroine is a similarly sexual, dangerous woman who uses her appearance for her own needs. She teases Terry (Gerard Butler) by kissing him to lure him into a feeling of security, allowing her to chain him up and interrogate him for information. However, in contrast to the classical femme fetale, Lara also uses her intellect to acquire information to find the hidden treasure; her dialogue details her extensive knowledge of Pharaohs and treasure maps which she uses to seek the treasure. Gilda wears typically ‘feminine’ clothing and lacks physical power but in contrast, Lara displays physical power, fighting using typically ‘masculine’ machine guns. Lara’s heavy use of guns indicates phallic undertones, escaping submission by metaphorically becoming the typical male hero. Lara rejects traditional female clothing such as lightly coloured dresses and skirts, opting for dark shorts or trousers that reveal her body, rejecting femininity while simultaneously symbolising her sexuality. The indication from both Cradle of Life and Gilda is that women who look and act feminine are submissive and lack power. In order to gain control, they must reject feminine norms and metaphorically become male through costume and characterisation.

Richard Gray describes that “in the first decade of the new millennium, representations of technology, pleasure and sexuality have intersected in films with female superheroes” (2011: 80). Here he describes that in modern films, female characters are sexualised but they can also be heroes. Although Gilda and Lara both use their sexuality for their own goals, in the modern film Cradle of Life Lara uses both ‘beauty and brains’ which reflects the cultural change of women’s independence between the 1940s ‘femme fetale’ and the 2000s ‘sex goddess’ superheroes. Similar representations of physically strong, sexualised ‘superhero’ women can be found in many modern films such as Charlie’s Angels (Nichol, 2000), Resident Evil (Anderson, 2002) Catwoman (Pitof, 2004), Aeon Flux (Kusama, 2005) and Elektra (Bowman, 2005.) Not only do the women of these films exert their sexual power like the classical femme fetale, but they are also smart and physically strong - rejecting typically ‘feminine’ traits which restrain the femme fetale. Additionally, Mulvey’s theory of a male character controlled narrative is disputed; the clear protagonists of these films are all women, however Richard Gray argues that this is for male audiences who like to watch sexualised 'unattainable' women rather than for female audiences who want to watch independent women. Like in classical film, Mulvey’s “male gaze” remains constant throughout modern film. Changes in censorship means that modern female characters are more overtly sexually objectified. As an addition to cinematographic techniques such as fragmentation that are used in both Gilda and Cradle of Life, Lara’s nude body is exposed in a sex scene and shower scene which are used as spectacle rather than for narrative importance.

The protagonists of modern ‘superheroine’ films all possess strikingly similar physical characteristics, wearing dark, tight and revealing costumes to strongly signify their ‘dangerous’ sexuality. Women’s success and power in film is still dependant on their appearance. While modern heroines are arguably more ‘empowered’ their success cannot be based purely on their merits and intellect. They have to possess sex appeal to gain physical power. The message here is that a woman’s worth still lies in her beauty and for both the classical femme fetale and modern sex goddess, only beautiful women can hold any power.

Adapted from a university dissertation written by Laura Connett, copyright 2011.

Mrs She's Too Big, Now She's Too Thin

The term ‘size zero’ gets flung around a lot, but the truth is that there are next to no major celebrities with a size zero frame. This article, however made me realise quite how ridiculous the slim ideal is. Models are required to be under a UK size 8. If they’re any bigger, they’re classed as “plus sized”. As a size 8 myself, that means I’d be considered plus sized which is ridiculous considering the average dress size in the UK is 14-16. Models and body ideals that are shoved in women’s faces are always extremely far from the norm, that’s because what is considered to be the most beautiful at any given time in history is usually what is the most difficult to achieve. Take the trend of pale skin and heavy body weights a hundred years ago while poor workers had to work long hours outside in the sunshine. Being able to avoid average appearances signified wealth and health. This ideal has turned around so quickly simply so money can be made out of selling women cosmetics, diet schemes and surgery they really don’t need. Now we’re expected to be unnaturally tanned and unnaturally slim. The slim beauty ideal clearly presents many self-esteem problems as well as disorders such as anorexia and bulimia, but the message is clear; beauty ideals, no matter what they are, are always homogenised and leave no room for manoeuvre. If women don’t fit in with the very tight idea of beauty that culture presents to us, they are marginalised. Ideals are not the norm so that they make women with normal and average bodies feel bad about themselves.

Recently however I’ve noticed a particular beauty ideal dominating western culture. “Curvy” celebrities such as Christina Hendrix, Kelly Brook, Jennifer Lopez and Kim Kardashian are today's role models women want to look like and men want to look at. Gone are the days of the skinny and flat chested Kate Moss ideal and in are womanly “curves”. Now while I think it’s great that other body types are being accepted, it comes at a price; homogenisation, marginalisation of any other body type. These types of images are cropping up all over social media websites:

This picture is objectifying, marginalising and judgemental of women’s bodies. I can’t believe some feminists think this is a positive thing!

I understand the good intention behind images like this, I really do. It’s a backlash against the diet industry and conditions like anorexia and bulimia which are a real problem. But isn’t it hypocritical to imply acceptance of women’s bodies at the same time as rating one body type as better than the other. No matter which way around the images are switched, it's body judging just the same. We should be accepting all body shapes and sizes, not picking out what women should and should not look like. Celebrating "curvy" women is being confused with celebrating the bodies of normal, heavier women but these "curvy" women all weight much less than the average woman. As much as the lower pictures of women arguably possess healthier body weights, they were still exceptionally beautiful - they weren’t the norm and they don’t signify the average woman’s figure. We have to remember that the “curvy” beauty ideal is a beauty ideal all the same which does not reflect the norm can be just as harmful to women’s self-esteem as the slim ideal. The lower row of images signify a beauty ideal which is just as unattainable as the beauty ideal which is denounced in the upper images. They have slim waists yet un-proportionately large breasts and hips which does not reflect the average woman's figure. It isn’t any more ‘normal’ or achievable than the slim ideal.

I am small framed and have always been naturally slim. I’ve hated my body and had self esteem issues since I was a child, yet people have repeatedly told me I’m too slim and I “need” to put on weight. I’m 5’5 and weight 8 and a half stone which puts my BMI in the ‘healthy’ weight category. I’ve never purposefully tried to be slim, I eat whatever I like and have struggled for a long time to put weight on, yet people assume that because I’m slim they have the right to judge me for it. People generally realise it’s not acceptable to tell someone that they “need” to lose weight so why is it okay the other way around. Just like the picture above, women's bodies are being judged and it's no more acceptable whether the woman is fat or thin. It's increasingly become acceptable in the media to declare a celebrity "too thin" - not through any worry about their personal health but purely so they can scrutinise the way they look. Maybe this is down to the "Curvy” ideal or rejection of the older slim idea, but whatever the reason for this, women should never be judged for their natural body shapes, whatever that happens to be. It’s happening no matter whether women are skinny, slim, normal, heavy, fat, pretty, ugly, tall, short, black, white, old, young, poor, rich… It’s happening because we all share one thing in common. We’re women and our bodies are public property.

Women and men’s magazines have been declaring proudly that they accept and love “curvy” bodies like they are finally accepting normal, natural body types. What they usually mean by “curvy” however is not plus sized models or women with average size 14 bodies, but women who have slim waists and un-proportionately large “curves” on their breasts, bottoms and/or hips. The truth is that very few women naturally have tiny waists and big breasts. The chances are that if you are female and you are reading this article that you will fit into one of two types: If you do manage to have large breasts and bum, your tummy is also curvy so you’re labelled too fat. If you do manage to have a small waist you probably don’t have big breasts so you’re labelled too skinny and un-womanly. Of course there are those lucky few who do manage to get the ‘best of both worlds‘, but they are the exceptions not the norm, they are the ideal.

Angelina Jolie is described as curvy because of her large breasts, despite having a very thin waist. It’s a similar deal with Kim Kardashian and Kelly Brook who are described as “curvy” for being slim while remaining extraordinarily big breasted. Christina Hendrix, declared by Britain’s equality minister as someone “ all women should aspire” to look like, is actually a slim size 10 with a typical models dimensions. The result? Women with average body types are striving to look like her so much that they’re resorting to breast surgery. Even Marilyn Monroe wasn’t nearly as big as most people assume, her waist was about as small as Kate Moss’, the difference is that Kate Moss has average sized breasts for her weight while Monroe’s proportions and perfect hourglass figure were highly unusual, hence why she was such a beauty icon. Monroe is currently often cited as a symbol of the 'empowered' woman whose heavier-than-usual weight and curvy body shape makes her the attainable role model for women. However what people tend to forget is that she was sexually objectified in exactly the same way as current celebrities are, she posed nude for the first Playboy cover and her worth was based on her "sex siren" act and looks. She ended up being a very sad, depressed person, as did Bettie Page who also became severely depressed. According to Bette Davis, Monroe "didn't like sex or men all that much, because she was tired of men always trying to get her into bed." She was a 'sex siren' for everyone, to the whole world, to detriment of her own sexuality.

People don’t seem to realise that people like Marilyn Monroe were objectified and used in exactly the same was as modern celebrities! The picture you posted is objectifying, marginalising and judgemental of women’s bodies. I can’t believe some feminists think this is a positive thing!

Ruben's The Three Graces is probably the nearest we will ever get to an average attainable 'curvy' body type. Painted in the 1600s, Ruben's depicted the beauty ideal of his time, before heavy homogenisation through the media.








These women with rare body shapes are repeatedly described as “real women”. Now it’s great that they love their body shapes and are being accepted for them, but as a result other body shapes are seen as inferior. Are slim women with small breasts or larger women with round tummies not “real women” too, should they not also be proud of their bodies? The skinny ideal threatens self-esteem issues and body disorders, the curvy ideal threatens self-esteem issues and cosmetic surgery. No matter what we look like, women are always going to be judged for either being too fat or too thin. Ideals are all just as destructive as each other. Isn’t the solution to reject ideals and embrace variation rather to favour one body type over the other?

This is what a feminist looks like.

People who know me have called me: Open minded, Louis Lane, funny, articulate, talented, natural, brave, inpatient, creative, clever, ugly, pretty, feminist, bitch, slut.

People who don't know me have called me: Femi-nazi, jealous, liar, bitch, fugly bitch, slut, ugly, fat, lesbian, feminist, old, smelly, bored, housewife, hairy, idiot, man hater, closed minded, pretty, brave.

Send your pictures to stopthemyths@hotmail.co.uk to be added here.

Paper-mache Princess.

Work starts at nine.
Not enough light to blend this illusion,
Not enough time.

I blend just enough to be effortless,
But not so much that I’m revealed.
My pale skin hiding beneath the layers,
Waiting to be accepted, not to be concealed.

I live as these other people,
Laminated, polished and frozen.
But somehow something tells me,
They’re really all broken.

They asked me at school what I would like to be,
Now I just want to be a celebrity.
The mask I won’t do without, it is my shield.
You’ll never get close enough for it to be healed.

Someone else’s hair has become glued to mine.
Stripped of all meaning, bleached of all desire.
Glowing layers of paint sprayed onto my skin,
Adhesive nails are already wearing thin.

I work for the weekend, gyrate like on T.V,
Like magazines my legs are smooth and glossy.
Makeup, hair and nails my weekly salary,
Of someone famous I must become married.

Swarms of people drawn to this culture,
From possessing no hobbies they become vultures.
I see them lured, captivated, and pacified,
But something vacant still lingers in their eyes.

I’m a paper-mache princess,
A real life doll.
Disposable, I’ll break,
Replaced with a remake.

Laura Connett.

Believing what you want to believe.

As a rape survivor who, like most others did not receive justice, this sort of reporting (which happens frequently) severely pisses me off:

Article.

The article is about actor Michael Le Vell. Now while I am impartial to his situation and don't care to speculate whether he is guilty of anything or not, the article suggests he has been found innocent while actually he has not.

First part of the article:
"Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell has told his family of his joy at being cleared of child rape allegations."

Later part of the article:
"Following enquiries by Greater Manchester Police I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to put before a court."

Being "cleared" of a crime means going through the courts and being found 'not guilty', or being found not guilty in preliminary investigations. In his situation, the case will not be brought to court because the law will not even allow a trial unless there is a high chance of a ‘guilty’ verdict. Because rape is usually committed in private, the high amount of evidence required by law usually does not exist. Evidence usually required includes witnesses and CCTV recordings - which is ridiculous considering the most common place to be raped is in your own home.

Only 6% of reported rapes end in conviction because the vast majority of them do not even reach court. This is because the law is tailored towards ‘stranger rape’ scenarios where there will be CCTV evidence, witnesses and severe physical assault. However only 8% of rapes are committed by strangers and possibly may even happen this way, so most rape cases do not possess the required evidence to even get a trial.

Now, as a feminist who has encountered the same thing happening to me, I'm not even suggesting that we should believe the alleged victim must be telling the truth. The fact is that since there has been no legal finding one way or the other, we should remain impartial. That is unless we have access to the evidence in the CPS report, which we don't. My point is that people are far too ready to believe the woman must be lying. Even though it's not been proven one way or the other, they'll be on the side of the accused being innocent and the woman being a liar. Based on absolutely nothing at all.

From Twitter.

Now looking through the comments under the article, the vast majority of readers have wrongly deduced that the alleged perpetrator has been found not guilty and are outraged for the poor man that he has been “falsely accused”! So if, like 94% of rape survivors, you don’t get a chance in court to receive justice (because you didn’t film your ex-partner raping you and he didn't invite a witness to watch!) you are often seen as a liar. I'd like to add here that in my case, a signed confession and emails to the same effect, which he admitted to writing, were not deemed enough evidence to take him to trial.

Notice the amount of people who agree (green arrow) and disagree (red arrow).

Most rapists don't reach court because the law is flawed, this does not mean they have been found 'not guilty' and are falsely accused. For more on how the law is biased towards 'stranger rapes' see my petition here.

I still wish I had a bloody camcorder.

[All statistics from the UK Home Office Report. Alan, J and Myhill, A.]