One of Supermax's offensive posters showing a woman licking a clenched fist which appears to be pinning her down by the face
Feminism is getting a rebrand, and we are all brand consultants. By reclaiming the F word, we are active participants in the future of gender equality. By changing perceptions of the word, we encourage more people to become feminists and we move further towards achieving true equality.
What's needed isn't bestselling feminism, or even radical feminism, but an ethical humanism more radical than feminism. A movement that actually demands change of the existing cultures and tries to get every human to act towards it, rather than the sort of change that inspires people to buy a different brand of beauty product.
Feminism is a multigenerational effort, and it's easy to get caught up in talking about waves of feminism, and what kind of feminists we are, when we should be explaining the issues faced by women to younger generations.
Have you ever read something you think is so outrageously wrong you have to correct it? Well, that feeling overwhelmed me when I read fellow Huffington Post UK blogger Jack Fletcher's post entitled Feminism Is For Men Too. I'm now going to spend the next few hundred words explaining and defending why not agreeing with feminism is not the same as being a misogynist.
Alas, the cynic in me had not been disproven - this really was another stereotypical and attention-seeking "feminist" outcry, concealed by the false notion that many women feel pressured to have Brazilians to satisfy their oppressive partners.
It's a massive step to get rid of the most sexually objectifying image of a woman in a newspaper. Whether it's replaced by another sexually-objectified image or just an objectified image, the question remains why it is necessary to give over two-thirds of a page to represent only women in this way in a national newspaper.
The panic about these keyboard-tapping folk devils, this handful of very sad men who are said to pose an existential threat to the safety and self-esteem of the whole of womankind, conforms precisely to Cohen's definition of a moral panic. With one difference: the moral panic over trolls has even less substance.
Fitna could not understand why a man running a Facebook page which objectifies women would request her help explaining, 'I think what he had in mind was that he wanted to promote a guerrilla image of women. His perception of feminism was more along the lines of liberal feminism (ie. sex positive feminism), so he probably thought objectifying women is ok.
When I was a first year undergraduate student, my psychology lecturer told me that Muslim women were complicit in their own repression and did not know what it was like to be liberated. As a student of humanities and social sciences I gauged that his views were conspicuously grounded in the litany of anecdotal sources cited by the media.