Warning: The following post contains explicit quoted material that may offend.

Late last week Kyle Sandilands, a well-known Australian breakfast radio host, made headlines all over the country.

In response to a news article by a female journalist about the unpopularity of his new television show, Sandilands launched into an on-air rant:

Some fat slag on news.com.au has already branded it a disaster. You can tell by reading the article that she just hates us and has always hated us …

… What a fat bitter thing you are. You’re deputy editor of an online thing. You’ve got a nothing job anyway. You’re a piece of shit …

… This low thing, Alison Stephenson, deputy editor of news.com.au online. You’re supposed to be impartial, you little troll …

… You’re a bullshit artist, girl. You should be fired from your job. Your hair’s very ’90s. And your blouse. You haven’t got that much titty to be having that low cut a blouse. Watch your mouth or I’ll hunt you down.

Within days 20,000 people had signed an online petition calling for sponsors of Sandilands’ radio show, and also the radio network on which it appears, to drop their support. So far at least 16 sponsors have pulled out in varying capacities.

Much has been said about this event in opinion columns throughout the weekend, so I will not add to the cacophony.

What I do wish to add however is some thoughts about the underlying misogyny reflected in Sandilands’ comments.

I made note of Sandilands’ misogyny on my social networks early on when this story first broke last week. A few people responded to such comments claiming that Sandilands was not, in fact, a misogynist* since he has previously launched similar on-air tirades against men.

But the nature of Sandilands’ above comments goes beyond simple anger or offence. Previous anger levelled against men by Sandilands has not ventured into the realm of sustained ridicule regarding physical appearance.

In reality misogyny is not simply about verbally assaulting women more often than men (nor is equality about dishing it out evenly).

Misogyny is literally (and obviously) about hating women. So does Sandilands hate women? Certainly his comments reflect some form of hatred against women. Allow me to explain.

Sandilands’ stated disgust at Stephenson’s shape, hair and breasts implies an objectifying view of women, one steeped in the perspective of magazine covers. Her figure is not like that of a one-in-a-billion supermodel, her hair is not styled according to the most up-to-date fashion, her breasts are not large enough. (I do not even know if these things are true since I do not know what Stephenson looks like, but this is irrelevant.)

The problem of course is that magazine pictures are not real; they present not reality but falsity. Still, Sandilands is implying that women should look something like those Photoshopped wonders.

Is it not the case that to insist upon women matching up to this impossible falsity is to hate what women truly are in reality? Isn’t this precisely the essence of misogyny; to implicitly desire an imagined form while expressing disgust at real female-ness?

Shouldn’t we collectively assert that this has no place in the public sphere?

In addition it was pointed out to me by a friend that Sandilands’ comments about Stephenson’s appearance are completely irrelevant to her competence in her job. Instead she is objectified and sexualised in order to humiliate her. As my friend aptly argued, “No woman in the world is under any obligation to be what turns (Sandilands) on just to get his approval.”

Sandilands is certainly not alone in such attitudes. I very much doubt he consciously sets out to propagate misogyny, though there is an underlying attitude to women that deems them somehow inferior, somehow deserving of sexual objectification and a more humiliating standard of achievement than men.

Even many women acquiesce in these attitudes; the objectification of women is so potent and enculturated that Kyle Sandilands’ female co-host Jackie O can simply giggle along with his misogynistic rantings without protest.

Certainly out contemporary entertainment industry colludes in such attitudes. Even in Christian subcultural expressions of entertainment (think worship music etc.) it appears that attractive women have a better chance of “success”. Why is that?

The Bible is often thought to have misogynistic elements, particularly in regard to silencing women. The meanings of such passages are disputed and will continue to be so.

What is certain is that New Testament theology affirms the breaking down of barriers between men and women:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3)

(Perhaps the disputed passages should be read in light of this ethic.)

I wonder how different traditions and groups within Christianity actually reflect and embody this ethic…

I would love to hear from you on this complex issue, particularly women who can reflect about their experiences of misogyny – what can/should men do to bring dignity to women in all spheres?

MCA

—
* It should be noted that misogyny does not only denote hatred of all women; it can also denote the hatred of women who do not fall into certain categories.

Kyle and Jackie O

OK so there has been debate going for nearly a week about Kyle Sandilands and his behaviour earlier this week.

There have been numerous articles, blogs, TV discussion etc on the topic so I don’t feel I have to rehash old news but this is why Kyle will win.   See whilst the sponsors walk away and show their support of “We the People” really he’s got one more week of radio to go then he’s off air anyway till the New Year.   Ratings period will be over so maybe he just wants to take off a week early.

Kyle has never been one to think first and talk later (and no I am not defending him)  He likes to stir and he likes to get a reaction.  Most of the time we shake our heads and state how outraged we are but are we truly outraged or are we feeding the beast?

Interestingly whilst the petition  to get Kyle off the air now has over 20,000 signatures, the one to keep him on http://twitition.com/ipcyv has 94.   What does this tell Austereo, the sponsors and people in general?   I think we as the silent majority have finally decided NOT to be silent and to use the power of the people to rid ourselves of someone who has continually crossed our boundaries of good and decent but it STILL isn’t working.

Kyle states he has “freedom of speech” this is probably right considering he’s in the US but we do not have that here in Australia.  We have defamation laws and Apprehended Violence Orders.  I would urge Alison Stephenson to seek both of these options to show just how much “freedom of speech” Kyle has in this country.

I still can’t understand that Austereo kowtows to this man.   But, like I said, in another week he will be off the air for a month.   By the time that’s up many of us would have forgotten it and moved on to the next outrage…until he does it again….and of course he will..ask Geoff Field, Fiona Cahill, Charlotte  Dawson, Jessica Mouboy. Ricki Lee Coulter and  Kate DeAraugo to name a few.   But in the end he will have won because next year he will be doing exactly what he’s doing now…laughing all the way to the bank.

The attack was on Alison Stephenson after she critiqued the new television show Sandilands and co-host Jackie O premiered on the 21^st November.

Nine companies have so far pulled their sponsorship with Holden the first to go.

A statement released from Holden states “Recent comments made on the Kyle and Jackie O Breakfast Show do not in any way reflect the views or opinions of Holden and we are very disappointed to hear Kyle’s personal attack on a journalist.”

IN case you’ve been under a rock the last couple of days (and sometimes, listening to Kyle’s latest cringe-inducing diatribe, I wish I could hide under a rock too), Kyle Sandilands hit back at a report by News.com.au journalist Alison Stephenson who covered the debut of his TV show, Kyle and Jackie O’s Night With The Stars, with a less than savoury comeback.

Since then, there’s been a shit-storm. Media and social commentators (and me) all having their two cents on the situation. So he has used his radio platform – again – to put his point across. That being along the lines of: ”I’m not a woman-hater” and *pouts bottom lip “what about me?” So people have reacted to his desultory comments with similarly flagrant name-calling. Not exactly fair and, as Jackie O puts, a little bit “tit for tat”.

Well, Kyle if you can’t stand the heat….

He has not been victimised. This was not a media storm created by any one journalist or even any news organisation with a vendetta against him (what an ego to think that’s what’s going on!).

(For the record the show’s audience went from 1.2 million viewers at the start of airing to just 200,000 by the end… I don’t think Ms Stephenson was exactly pulling tweets out of some magic hat). Certainly not “crazy, outrageous allegations” as he described it.

It came about as women – outraged and rightly so – heard his comments, felt for the woman who was simply doing her fucking job and felt the bile rise up in their throats and obliged to speak out.

If he doesn’t consider himself a woman-hater, then riddle me this, Batman. Why was his instant reaction to attack her on such superficial grounds? A troll, a fat slag… and threatening to ‘come after’ her. That smacks of deep-seated sexism to me, and disturbingly violent. Why the fuck didn’t he just say it was an inappropriate, biased reporting? That I could understand. Even if I didn’t agree.

Why attack her hair, her boobs, etc? Her physical appearance has got shit-all to do with her journalistic integrity.

But rather than apologise, he defended his outburst saying she had come after him in a personal attack and he would have done the same regardless of gender.

What is it with men lately not apologising for bad conduct and instead turning themselves into victims?! Take Matthew Newton’s self-pitying confessional on ACA.

Tomorrow is White Ribbon Day - a campaign against violence to women – wouldn’t it have been a fortuitous media opportunity to apologise to Brooke Satchwell and Rachel Taylor and set an example of what’s not acceptable?

Nope. Instead we get to hear about how awful his world has been dealing with the frustration that is the mental health service industry in Australia. Indeed it would be. But still…

Why Kyle thinks similarly pointing to his past as grounds to excuse hurtful remarks is just mind-boggling. To go from “watch your mouth, girl, or I’ll hunt you down” to “if you grew up in my house, if you’d seen what I’ve seen, you would know I’m the last thing on earth like a woman-hater”. Someone needs to draw him a picture of the CYCLE of domestic violence.

Having unconcealed threats like that on commercial radio is offensive. I don’t consider it a joke. Nor should any woman. I’d really love to know what Alison Stephenson felt hearing his reaction.

At least corporate sponsors have got the message, even if Kyle hasn’t,  and pulled their support. As they should.

Women are predominantly the person handling the purse strings in most households and we can stand against such prehistoric, irrelevant slagging-off simply by choosing where we spend our money.

Now if executive television producers could start to understand - why personal conduct IS relevant when hiring a new show host (Matthew Johns as well as Sandilands and Newton) – then perhaps there’d be some incentive for these guys to mend their ways.

And if this was just some media stunt (as I sometimes wonder) to salvage a sinking ship, then I hope this one backfires horribly. Not with national criticism but with a certain pink slip.

PS You can sign a petition to cancel advertising with the company until the shock jock is dropped.

Advertisers began retreating from Sandilands after he unleashed a personal attack on news.com.au reporter Alison Stephenson after she labelled the one-off special Kyle & Jackie O’s Night with the Stars on Monday night a “disaster”.

PR is an interesting thing isn’t it? I wonder if Kyle sees this latest stunt as a success because after all… audience ratings did start high at 1.4m audience for Night With The Stars before it plummeted to just over 200,000. I wonder what Seven and Southern Cross Austereo are thinking (again)??

Related articles

• Holden cancels Sandilands sponsorship after on-air mauling of female journalist (theage.com.au)
• http://www.bandt.com.au/news/shock-jocks-sponsors-scurry