A brief word on You Tube’s outrageously sexist double standards banning NZ Feminist parody of ‘Blurred Lines’

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
19
16

Screen Shot 2013-09-02 at 5.59.54 AM

To my astonishment, You Tube have disgustingly decided to ban the Auckland Uni’s Law revue feminist parody of ‘Blurred Lines’.

You Tube have facetiously claimed that the reason it was taken down was because it was ‘too sexually explicit’.

Let’s see if we can get this completely fucking straight shall we? A rape anthem song about questionable consent with half naked women dancing around a man is acceptable.

A feminist parody that sends that type of misogyny up is banned because it’s ‘too sexually explicit’????

This is an abomination of a sexist double standard that goes beyond the ability to articulate politely.

Fuck the fuck off you fucking sexist fuckers!(apologies to my dear Mum for having to read that).

I wish You Tube cared as much for free speech as the sanctimonious pricks care about precious copyright infringements for their corporate masters.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Seriously, un-fucking-believable.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

19 COMMENTS

  1. Thanks for this post Martyn, I am so glad that this ridiculous display of misogynist double standards is not going unnoticed.

    But I beleive the video was by the Auckland Law Revue, not the Law Society!! Slight difference there so you might wanna correct it 😀

  2. The original video by was also banned by Youtube for the same reason. It has since been restored but flagged as inappropriate. So there is no double standard – both the parody and the original have been through the same process.

    Like the original I am sure it’ll be restored.

    • Quite correct, the uncut version is no longer on youtube and the censored (creatively) is marked for mature audiences.

      • Last time I looked, both the original and ‘unrated’ versions where the women are naked but for a tiny thong, were up on YouTube but the spoof one by the AU Law students wasn’t. Huge double standard there. However, most depressing was when I showed both to my (tertiary level) students yesterday and they thought the original one was “really funny” and there was nothing wrong with it. Arghhhhhhhh

    • People are downrating you just because they don’t like the truth, they would prefer a scandal that they can get up in arms about.

      The truth is that the majority of the time x video get’s taken down but y video doesn’t, it’s because x video got reported a bunch of times and y video doesn’t. This isn’t gender specific, as ‘Mens Rights’ videos have had the same treatment, they (specifically) are taken down simply because of the sheer volume of reports the videos received.

      Please don’t try to turn this into a ‘YouTube is sexist omgomg’ thing, it’s not.

        • Society is broken, but this is a straw person argument through and through, and doesn’t add leverage to the issue of the gender bias’ prevalent in society.

          I am a proud ally, but the blurred lines on this page are between revolutionary action and blind aggression.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKfwCjgiodg

          If it were purely a gender based issue then this would have also been plainly removed.

  3. Haha, would be funny if it was the Auckland Law Society though!

    I’m sure the makers of the video will be secretly glad youtube were stupid enough to take the video down. This will probably make the 6 o’clock news and the viral video will spread even faster!

  5. Martyn

    I believe as you are so outraged about this you should boycott YouTube. Never use them and try and pull any content that involves you off their website. That will teach them!

    Kind regards.

    Steve

  6. they allow the song “sexy and i know it” by LMFAO which exposes men down to brightly coloured speedo’s whereupon they “wiggle wiggle wiggle, do the wiggle dance” with the camera zoomed on their man bits wiggling. yet consider blurred lines too explicit!!!!! excuse me!!!!

  8. I watched the video. It’s hilarious, and I profess admiration for all involved. Those guys were good sports.

    There was NOTHING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT WHATSOEVER. There’s a lot of knowing looks, there’s 3 guys cavorting in very modest white underwear that hides a lot more than the swimsuits at the olympics (or the women’s gym leotards for that matter).

    There’s a hilarious bit where a guy gets his face covered in canned whipped cream – but that’s innuendo, not explcit at all.

    Youtube cease this double-standard, it’s deplorable.

  9. It’s back up 🙂

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/9119939/YouTube-reinstates-Defined-Lines

    “A Google spokesperson said the web giant does not comment on individual videos but it sometimes makes mistakes.”

    “mistake” is such a bullshit excuse, and the fact that they’ve had to lobby to get it back, while the original, deeply misogynist version is still on there, continues to highlight youtube’s double standards while avoiding the actual problem.

    • “while the original, deeply misogynist version is still on there, continues to highlight youtube’s double standards while avoiding the actual problem.”

      Ahh no. There is no double standard. The original version was also banned by youtube for a time – longer than the parody version even.

      There is no double standard

  11. Hahahaha ahahahahah! So the spam-bot didn’t get you then ? Sorry Martyns Mother but it’s so nice to see the fuck word back in action .

Comments are closed.