More Facebook Misogyny

Because this photograph deserves a 30-day ban:

Facebook hates women.

21 comments

  1. You know that FaceBook will remove any photos showing nakedness. In an effort not to offend anyone, they end up offending people. Grow up.

    1. Stupid man is a man.

      1. You’re an idiot. Facebook will have suspended your account because someone will have complained about the image, probably someone you’ve pissed off, so there’s you’re list of subjects. You saying FaceBook hates women because they removed an image of a naked woman and suspended your account is stupid, and your response to my post shows you have nothing sensible to contribute.

      2. Oopster, if you want to claim it was a complaint from someone Cathy ‘pissed off,’ then you just gave a tacit acknowledgement to the FACT that biology matters in all of this discussion. And it would seemingly confirm that trans believes discussions of biology to be transphobic…

  2. This is very well done. The illustration of the anatomy of the human female is factually correct and scientific, in no way improper or objectionable. Yet it has become objectionable. It has been censored by a communications network which has a policy of otherwise permitting material so objectionable that it is at the edge of criminal.

    The symbolism is inescapable: hard science is censored because it conflicts with an insane political agenda.

    This is the logic of the patriarchy.

    I appreciate the way this posting focuses the issue.

    1. Becky Green · ·

      More and more the trans community reminds me of the religious right with their hatred of science and constant attempts to discredit it. I wonder if they will get biology text books altered to fit their bizarre delusions about the body in the way that creationists have done with evolution.

      Political correctness, magical thinking, disregard for women, YEAH, what an enlightened and progressive society we live in!

    2. There’s always someone who will find something to object about though. I don’t find it offensive, but I can imagine some will, and had it been me that posted the image, I’d have tried to post one that looked less “real” if that makes sense ie, basic shapes, no skin pigment, pubic hair etc If someone posted a similar image of a naked man, what do you think the response would be? I Imagine it might be similar.

      1. doublevez · ·

        Yo! Cathy. I think oopster wants you to post Miss Tobi’s dick pic.

      2. LOL. He is well aware of where it is, as he is featured on the same blog: http://pretendbian.wordpress.com/tag/sarah-davis/

      3. “I’d have tried to post one that looked less “real” if that makes sense ie, basic shapes, no skin pigment, pubic hair etc…..”

        Pubic hair? John Rushkin and Effie Gray anyone? What happens when you aren’t allowed to depict acual females, but some idealised male version of what a female looks like. Porn is OKAY, but simple factual diagrams aren’t………..

        No skin pigment? So, women are transparent/invisible then, let’s not REMIND anyone that we have blood and flesh and hair, else they get offended yet again.

  3. It looks like none of you can have a sensible debate. Oh and Cathy, my lawyer says to give you 7 days notice to remove any images of me that you have posted, and that can she have your address to send the legal papers to to take you to court. I have asked you nicely several times.

    1. Feel free to file a DMCA notice. Cheers.

      1. Nope, you have 7 days, and then I take legal action, and for every day after that, I will charge you £100. By refusing to remove what I have asked, you agree to these terms.

      2. Always love it when people make their threats to take legal action by prefacing that they are giving notice before they turn it over to their attorney…if someone actually HAD an attorney, it would have been the attorney providing the original notice. Especially in a matter such as this…and yeah, that holds even in the cases where the legal action is frivolous, as with a matter such as this.

        Sounds like oopster is going to be saying ‘OOPS’ after they spend some time reviewing US law on the matter…

  4. You forget, I’m in the UK, I won’t be suing in an American court, it’ll be a British court, and freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of free speech. Say what you want about me, I’ll sue you for it, stick that in your pipe. £100 per day from this time in 7 days.

    1. That’s nice.

    2. You have an extraterritoriality problem, sir. http://law.wlu.edu/deptimages/Law%20Review/62-1Kroto.pdf

      Your lawyer is free to file a DMCA notice.

    3. Becky Green · ·

      Same thing happens on Dirt’s blog. She gets people threatening to sue her all the time. Hasn’t amounted to anything yet.

  5. How many comments here from a man, comments that have nothing to do with the fact that Facebook allows images that depict violence against women, but not a simple diagram of the female body?

    Sarah, you are revolting. I am banning you from further comments due to your relentless narcissism.

  6. Can’t imagine why a diagram of a human body (of either sex) would trigger this response (unless, perhaps, one of their low-paid minions in Morocco took objection to it when it was run past them, alongside a whole lot of very unpleasant stuff that people flagged up). It could be that it was removed for copyright infringement rather than nakedness, as it is obviously not a real naked body.

%d bloggers like this: