Credit where it’s due

June 4, 2009 at 10:06 am (abuse, feminism, men hate you, Rapists, smh)

SMH did something I never thought would happen: called rape, rape.

Here is an example of an article written properly.  They call it rape.  They call it sexual assault.  They don’t blame the victim.  They do mention she was unconscious from drinking alcohol, but I can’t sense the disapproval.

On another note, this is exactly what I was talking about in my previous post.  (and in my next one once I’ve finished editing the notepad file and actually upload it!)  How am I meant to comfortably go on my date tonight knowing that shit like this happens all the time?  No wonder I sometimes think I hate men.


Permalink Leave a Comment

Smh roundup

February 25, 2009 at 9:23 pm (feminism, men hate you, Rapists, smh)

Today I noticed that the number of articles waiting to be mercilessly blogged in my favourites has increased to the point where it would be time consuming to do separate posts.  So, today is the first ever whyimbitter smh roundup.  Hopefully there’ll be more, but I may just give up on the paper before we get to any more editions.  Also, just a warning, this post is heavier on the swear words than normal.  I’m not in a good mood and reading all these articles at once is making it worse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink Leave a Comment

“War on Drugs”

February 3, 2009 at 5:05 pm (idiots, smh)

This is what happens when you have a war on drugs.

This 17 year old was more worried about the consequences of being caught with three tablets in her possession than she was about the effects taking all three at once would have.  She died because we’d rather prosecute users than deal with the underlying social conditions that lead to drug use in the first place.

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink Leave a Comment

smh gets it VERY wrong

January 15, 2009 at 2:36 pm (abuse, arsehats, men hate you, Rapists, smh) (, , , , )

Dear Reporters at smh (specifically, Chris Johnston and his editors, but y’all can feel free to pay attention),

When you are reporting on the rape of a child that spanned four years of her life, starting at age 14, it is NOT, under any circumstances whatsoever, ok to report it as a ‘sexual relationship’. 

It is rape.  It is pedophilia.  It is a horrible disgusting thing that should never have been done to somebody, let alone perpetrated by someone in a position of care over the child. 

And no, I don’t care if you were merely reporting what the school friends told you.  Still not appropriate.  It’s not a consenting sexual relationship between two adults.  (Also, given that you didn’t use quote marks around the phrase, you can’t claim you’re just reporting a straight quote).

Get your act together smh.  This is unacceptable and disappointing. 

Sincerely pissed off,

Permalink 1 Comment

More from smh

September 2, 2008 at 3:15 am (feminism, smh) ()

I’m glad she was acquitted. I wish they hadn’t identified her as a ‘mother of six’ before anything else. Our media has a long way to go to realise that mothers are also humans, and that if they’re not going to identify men by their kids in the first sentence, women shouldn’t be either. This ‘mother of six’ was abused by a ‘father of six’.

Permalink Leave a Comment


September 2, 2008 at 3:13 am (smh) ()

This is crap.

“I don’t know why some people have children at all if they know that they can only take a few weeks off work,” she said.

Really Mem Fox? You have no idea why this might happen? REALLY??? You are so wrapped up in your privileged world that you have NO IDEA why some people would have children without being able to take “enough” time off work to look after them?
For anyone who didn’t follow the link – they’re talking about young infants, but they go on to mean anyone under two or three. Can any of my readers afford to take THREE years off work to look after someone? Someone who is adding to your financial burdens not detracting from them?

She does gain more credibility at the end of the article though with this:

She said a solution to the problem was for the government to redirect the money it provided to childcare providers to families so parents could afford to choose whether to remain at home or not, free of financial pressures.

Permalink 4 Comments

Oh Gloria Jeans

August 3, 2008 at 11:03 am (arsehats, church, smh) (, )

Starbucks is closing down most of its Australian stores. This is not overly newsworthy, although I will miss the chocolate frappucinos. They are awesome.

However in this article the manager of one of the Gloria Jeans stores says that

he did not expect his business to benefit from the closure of the nearby Starbucks because the customers who went there were “not interested in real coffee anyway”.


this STILL cracks me up. To my non Australian readers, Gloria Jeans is an Australian owned equivalent to Starbucks. Their coffee stinks. They have ok iced chocolates, but these don’t compare to a chocolate frappucino from Starbucks, they’re not even on the same scale.

Gloria Jeans also have a close relationship with Hillsong. And they donate money to Mercy Ministries, for “troubled” girls. yuck. Counting down til THAT chain has to close down.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Major Newspaper gets it right (almost)

July 17, 2008 at 11:45 am (exploitation, smh) (, , )

for once.

An article discussing PETA’s misogynistic tactics. It doesn’t condemn the sexism enough for my taste, but it is a mainstream newspaper.

At this point I’ll take what I can get.

Permalink 2 Comments

Horrible Happenings and Late Postings

July 16, 2008 at 11:08 am (bullying, men hate you, smh) (, , )

I’ve been meaning to post about this story since I read about it, but every time I’ve tried I’ve come up speechless. (typeless?)

Others have gotten there before me, so go read HellOnHairyLegs and Shakesville

My lack of a proper post on this topic does not mean I’m not thoroughly and utterly disgusted by this entire thing. I just can’t find the words to describe it.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Gang Rape and the Patriarchy

July 8, 2008 at 7:06 am (Rapists, smh) (, )

If this doesn’t make you even slightly bitter, you will never understand why I am.

Convicted rapist Bilal Skaf claims his name is so synonymous with a Sydney gang sex crime he will never be able to get a fair trial.

Wow. Don’t we all feel sorry for the poor rapist whose name is now associated with THE CRIME HE COMMITTED. And how exactly is a trial unfair when HE COMMITTED THE CRIME??

And the 26-year-old is asking the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to reduce his sentence, saying his victim – who was held at gunpoint and raped by up to 14 men – suffered no significant harm.

I’m sorry but if you think that poor poor woman suffered no significant harm, you deserve a much much harsher sentence than a maximum of 55 years. That is quite possibly the biggest load of misogynist shit I’ve read in a long time. Not to mention admitting at this point that you actually did the crime kinda ruins your claim of an unfair trial. Also, even in this situation women aren’t free of labels that mark them as belonging to men. In this case she is ‘his victim’. Screw the patriarchy.

The article goes on to say he’s not just trying to get his sentence REDUCED but that he’s actually trying to get it ANNULLED. This total waste of space thinks he actually deserves to get off the hook because there was no sustained physical harm to the victim???

Skaf’s barrister Andrew Haesler SC said “unremitting” publicity had etched Skaf into the public imagination, making it impossible to find an impartial jury.

So this poor little man is finding it hard to find a bunch of people who don’t hate him for what he put the victim through? My heart, it bleeds. Anyone else shocked to find out his defender is also male?

shit like this makes me bitter. Next time someone asks me why I’m bitter, this story may go some way towards explaining it.

Permalink 1 Comment