On Saturday 1st September I spent the day at the Paralympics, and I had a FANTASTIC time.
I had a park ticket, which meant I could go into the cheap seats in four of the arenas (when seats were available). I got to see A LOT of sport and it was brilliant value for a £10 ticket. (Thank you again, Sara <3)
A note: I am not someone who would call herself a sport lover. I usually don’t bother watching sport on TV, with a few odd exceptions (snooker, the Olympics/Paralympics, gymnastics, ice skating…). So yesterday was the most sport - live or otherwise - I have *ever* seen in one day. I found it totally enthralling and was once again annoyed at how much attention is paid to football (which I find deathly dull), and how little to other sports - especially women’s sport.
The “Good Men Project” is a terrible, terrible site. It’s actively harmful at this point. (I recommend @GoodMenzProject as a perfectly judged satirical response.) I just couldn’t help writing to its managing editor (and editorial contact), Lisa Hickey, about a recent and especially awful article, about women with “small breasts”.
I am writing to voice my concern that this article - “In Praise of Small-Breasted Women” - made it through your editorial process to appear on the site. It appears to go against everything that the GMP stands for.
The writer revels in objectifying women (“And yes, don’t worry, we snuck a good, long look at your body”) - as if this is “good man” behaviour; as if it’s OK to leer at women as long as you’re not one of those nasty déclassé Not Good Men builders or drunk wedding guests or frat boys.
More problematic lines:
“Maybe there’s something fearless and yet vulnerable about your petite frame that draws us.” - er, not all women with small breasts are “petite”? And describing “vulnerable” as an attractive trait is, I hope you’ll agree, creepy to the nth degree.
“Guys like me, like the fact that you’re used to having to win people over with your mind and personality, not what was peeking through your blouse.” - The whole ARTICLE is about what kind of breasts he finds attractive, so he is contradicting himself something fierce here.
“Maybe you’re just a bit lighter—at how you handle life. Maybe the thing you think you’re lacking has given you so much more. And you’re better able to move around the obstacles of life a lot quicker without it.” - now he presumes to speak for ”small-breasted women”, deciding on their behalf that they think they are “lacking”. Not cool at all, and not at all the behaviour that I would expect from a Good Man. I would expect a Good Man to listen, not to tell women how they feel about themselves.
“We’re not the ones throwing themselves at you at the frat party. Or your friend’s wedding, countless drinks in.” - beep beep rape culture alert! I am sure that men who are attracted to women with small breasts are just as capable of assaulting and attacking women as anyone else.
“Maybe we’re the ones quietly taking you in from five tables away. Listening to your voice. Your perspective. Your sense of humor. The witty way you referenced an F. Scott Fitzgerald line in the middle of ordering your drink.” - barf, this is total Nice Guy talk, right here. “I might be objectifying you and judging your attractiveness based overwhelmingly on whether you are pleasing to my Dudely Gaze, but I also think it’s cute that you think you’re clever! Who wants a pat on the head?” And I am fairly sure that literary taste and breast size aren’t actually correlated in any way whatsoever?
In fact, the dreadfulness of the article is apparent in its opening paragraph, where boobs are described in monetary terms (“invest”, “endowed”), and ‘cut off’ from the rest of a woman’s body - textbook objectification and dehumanisation if ever I saw it.
The article stinks. It is patronising, objectifying, and, in trying to speak for women, highly offensive. I am sure the author wrote it with the best of intentions. I hope I don’t have to spell out why his intention matters not a jot - not when the result is to speak for rather than to women, and when the article is based on the premise that all women can and should be sexualised regardless of their feelings on the matter. The author’s privilege is so staggeringly huge, it’s visible from the other side of the Atlantic. It’s probably visible from space.
Join the Cosmonewts!
Buy the print here !
Natural History Museum post-collapse of civilization?
Looks totally Skyrim-tastic. Like a Spriggan matron is going to pop out of hiding and start throwing bees at you.
How to buy merch without making me hate you - 13 handy tips! -
I don’t think I’ve ever done any of the Bad Things Kim lists here, but it’s still good to be reminded!
Seeing Earth play chilled-out desert rock in a chapel last Sunday could not have been more of a contrast to the gig I saw the night before (Saturday 10th March) - well, all the groups used guitars and drums, but other than that. Saturday’s gig - Destroyers of the Faith, at the Forum in Kentish Town - was Enslaved, Triptykon, and Cannibal Corpse. Bit of an odd line-up, but there you go.
Enslaved were my favourite of the night, and not just because I got to meet them afterwards. They’ve been going for over 20 years, and - as with Earth - the band members’ communication on stage is organic and seems utterly natural. The camaraderie between (especially) Ivar and Grutle, who co-founded the band in 1991, brought a tear of joy to my eye. They clearly adore what they do - which is producing top-quality black metal/prog/experimental/IDK WTF music - and it’s infectious. I had a big grin on my face for the duration of their set. As many have noted, the cover of “Immigrant Song” was a highlight; they respected the song, but had their own take on it, and I thought the harsh vocals worked a treat. Would love to have a proper studio version showing up on an EP or something.