AN OPEN LETTER TO CHANNEL 7 PROGRAMMERS

Dear Sirs, and I'm going to assume you are 'Sir's because if I even suspected for a moment that there was a woman amongst you I might have to tear out my own reproductive organs with a coathanger so as to not be kindred to you in any way.

On Tuesday night, whilst the Wikileaks saga was unfolding, I checked the program guide for something mindless to watch while I pored over Twitter (I like to multi-task. I was also doing the dishes and making a mixtape - that's just how I roll). I noticed a program on your main station at 9:30pm called Most Shocking; Top 20 Women Out of Control. Hmm, I thought to myself, is this another "Britney forgot to wear knickers" countdown? No. The description advised me that it was ordinary women, going crazy. Intriguing? Not really.

First of all, clearly the producers of the program tried to inject a little class into the show by using 'women' in the title instead of 'girls'. Most women don't like being called 'girls' - particularly by men who are using it in an effort to put themselves in a position of power over said woman. Perhaps this is what made you assume that the program was even remotely appropriate to be aired on your station. Perhaps you couldn't ascertain from the description of the program that it would be grossly offensive to not just women, but humankind in general.

Let's get one thing straight; I'm not a prude. I'm not a wowser. My intention is not to incite moral panic and I barely have a second thought as to "who will think of the children?". I understand the concept, so often reiterated in website news commentary, that if I don't like a certain program I have the ability to change the channel or turn off the tv. Yes, I have the digital dexterity to use a remote control. Hoorah for me.

The fact that this program exists bothers me. The fact that you thought it was perfectly reasonable entertainment bothers me. Let's break it down; the program consisted of American women in varying degrees of distress and/or psychological breakdown. They were either being seriously injured in accidents where it was not shown whether or not they survived without major injury, or they were being physically or verbally abused by men.

One of the Top 20 'out of control' was a clearly intoxicated and distressed woman being arrested by male police officers. Her breasts were (I'm sorry to have to use the term) 'hanging' over her shirt which had been pulled down in the arrest. She had no way of covering herself due to the fact that her hands were cuffed behind her back. The police officers and the narrator were having a good laugh at her expense. Neither of the officers tried to assist her. This was absolutely revolting. I would liken it to a pack-rape scene - you might say that is a long bow to draw - but here we were presented with a woman who was physically restrained while being sexualised against her will - all while being filmed - against her will. Yes, she was being arrested lawfully and yes, no doubt her shirt was skewiff due to her own attempts at violence toward the police officers - but does that justify (a) having a laugh at her expense (b) disallowing any shred of dignity she might have had in the situation and (c) catching it all on film so every other arse can have a good laugh about it too?

Another of these wondrous 'Top 20' moments was a women being a nuisance on a train. She was loud and offensive and was generally upsetting the passengers. She was also clearly either drug-effected or suffering from a mental illness. The incident culminated in a male passenger on the train physically assaulting the woman. Well, the narrator thought this was fantastic. Good on YOU angry-man-who-has-been-inconvenienced. You bash that noisy woman GOOD. Ha ha HA!

In fact all of the narrator's comments were derogatory to the women - and ALL women. And all of the images were offensive, and presented in the most misogynist fashion that I will have to assume that you, channel 7 programmers, agree that women should be abused, berated, belittled, and made sex objects against their will. Your mother would be so proud.

Clearly with the new digital stations you are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel with program choices so you're happy to air this cheap crap from the US. I hope that the audience won't put up with it. I know that I should have no high expectations of quality programming from a commercial station, but there are basic, VERY basic expectations of common decency that even the most morally inept person would at least recognise, if not support. It is your job to make this very simple distinction. You have failed miserably.

I raise my middle finger to you Sirs. And I raise my middle finger to mediocrity.

Regards, Marian B.

What Century is This?

There have been a few news items lately with a running theme - indulge me for a moment while I wax lyrical. 

First there was the Tony Abbott faux pas re his opinion of his daughters 'gift' giving. Many reactions to the story, including mine, have wondered at the archaic idea that a woman's sexuality should be either repressed, or traded as a commodity.  Many, many more though have called Tony "brave" for talking about an issue that is supposedly avoided by male public figures and defended his right to have an opinion about his daughter's sex life.

Then there was the banker-turned-meme David Kiely who was sprung ogling naked pictures of Miranda Kerr in the background of a live cross on the channel 7 news. Kiely became a hero overnight. The David Kiely Facebook group has almost 2000 fans. The video has been watched more than a million times on Youtube and comments on the News Ltd sites are very much in support of the "unlucky" banker. Yes, men look at pictures of naked women. Yes, banking is probably not the most exiting job in the world. But the reaction to the story irks me to say the least. Whichever way you look at it, he was objectifying women - and he has been made a hero as a result.

I wonder what the public reaction would have been had the live cross been to a government department and the employee was looking at naked pictures of Jenna Jameson (supposedly the world's most famous porn star)? I put it to you that there would have been outrage at the "tax payers dollar being wasted" and that the images would have been labeled as "smut" or "porn". But as long as he's wasting someone elses money (and who doesn't hate banks?) and as long as it's "Our Miranda" then go right ahead buddy! It would be unAustralian to punish him.

Then I saw this story about the recent bomb attack on a Darwin insurance company. It alleges that the reason there was no footage of the attack is that the CCTV cameras were disabled due to investigations into misuse by the NT police. Supposedly there had been one or more officers using the cameras to "perv" (sic) on schoolgirls.

And finally back to Tony Abbott who has put his foot in his mouth again today by referring to "the housewives of Australia" doing their ironing - like the good little wifeys they are. As I've said in a previous post, I don't expect much more from Abbott, but an article in today's The Age reports a strong gain by Abbott in opinion polls. Seemingly he is growing on the Australian public.

So let's see. We have a society it seems that glorifies men objectifying women. Where a police officer thinks it's acceptable behavior to use CCTV cameras to sexualise young girls. Where looking at naked women in a corporate workplace is excused as a form of National Pride. Where a man who could one day (I can barely even type the sentence) lead the nation thinks women should be at home ironing shirts, cooking roast dinners and making themselves pretty for when hubby comes home to receive his "gift".

Rapid technological development and globalisation has moved sexualised images of women from behind the counter at the drug store to our television screens, our street corners, our soft drink bottles, our car windows, our buses - basically everywhere you look. Feminism has become a dirty word to young women who aspire to a cameo on Girls Gone Wild and a new advertising target group called "Tween" has been invented so that big companies can make squillions of dollars selling 12-year-olds bondage wear.

I'm not saying that a woman's sexuality should be shut up behind closed doors or that David Kiely is the devil - it's not necessarily what he did that bothers me, it's the public reaction. Women are used as objects to sell products. How can they be taken seriously? When Julia Gillard was made Deputy Prime Minister it was her hair and outfit choices that were scrutinised, not her political comments.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm disappointed. I'm disappointed that the extraordinary power of new media to give the 'common man' a voice has shoved a microphone into the face of a public that has evolved very little over the last century in its opinion of women and their place in society.