There’s no such thing as blurred lines when it comes to consent.

A while ago I read a bunch of articles on why Robin Thicke’s song, Blurred Lines was so horrendously offensive. (which of course I can’t find now!)

I confess, that had I not read these I probably would have found myself singing along to it on a regular basis as it’s a bloody catchy tune, the words are pretty nonsensical if you don’t pay attention and the real misogyny is in the video clip and I generally don’t watch clips unless linked to them.

So it was kind of an early save really.

Today a parody clip of the song, called ‘Defined Lines’ by the Auckland Law Revue popped up on my fb feed. I was going to postpone the publishing of this post, but since the original video I linked to has already been taken down, I thought I better post it before the Internet decides that humorous parodies and men in their underwear being subjugated by women is too much for the poor little delicate constitutions of internet viewer who like their funnies with a good dose of 1950s misogyny.

The original video on Youtube only lasted 3 days before being removed (why, i don’t know, I’ve certainly seen videos with more nudity and swearing!, the ‘tamed down’ version of Thicke’s Blurred Lines is still up!) It has since, obviously, been put back up, but still, it’s a mystery!

For anyone wanting to know why I’m offended by the original song, here’s a link to the video and the lyrics and some great articles by people who write better (and more often) than I. Robin Thicke has since come out and said the song was intended to be liberating for women and the video a subtle parody… but well… it just wasn’t. Anyway, if you want to read more, just google it, there are articles in metro (ok, ok) daily mail, huffington post, jezabel and many others questioning WHY?! and HOW?! and WHY?! again.

In the course of writing this, I have discovered that previous parody videos have encountered similar problems. Thus proving that while near-to-naked women treated as objects are completely fine for your morning music video fix, men treated in the same manner and women talking openly about having sex-drives and wills of their own is not-safe-for-the-internets.

*facepalm*

keep fighting the good fight my kiwi cousins of the Auckland Law Review!

Advertisements

I love it when someone pitches a fight above their class.

So, the facebooks lead me to this post by John Scalzi, a professional writer I’ve never heard of who apparently has some weight on the internet.

It’s entitled

“To the Dudebro who thinks he’s insulting me by calling me a feminist”

And it’s brilliant. Here’s why.

a) it’s funny. People like funny, we absorb what’s being said with out realising we’re being taught or challenged.

b) It’s spot on. Feminist isn’t an insult. Sometimes the word feminist can be pretty hard to deal with, since there are people out there that give it a bad name, and it has been associated with some horrendous behaviour and opinions. However, at it’s core, the word means “someone who believes women are equal to men.” A crazy notion to some, but not, in and of itself, an insult.

c) It’s thorough. Scalzi points out ALL the reason why the Dudebro’s meme was poorly thought through, including pointing out how much funnier it could have been.

d) And it’s a lovely lesson on how powerless internet insults can be if we stand up for ourselves and are not afraid to be proud of what we stand for.

And did i mention it was funny? because I laughed!