It's the first paragraph and I already have a problem with the article. The sentence " an increased social permissiveness allowed more obviously violent and pornographic imagery to leak into the dominant culture through media " I don't believe this statement or believe that more sexualized or violent media necessarily makes for a more violent society. Violence has always been a part of society, weather or not it was reported on or not, it's not as if all of a sudden because these images were on TV that we became a more violent society. I also take an issue with the use of the word "pornographic" as it's a word that has never had a clear definition. Also there is porn that is made to degrade women and there is porn that is meant to empower women. It's not as if all pornographic images are negative. I also take issue with the fact that they follow this statement with one about snuff films. It links the previous statement about violence and sex in the media with snuff films. which I really don't think is the case at all. Snuff films have never been part of main stream media and for good reason.

After the first paragraph the article dos get a lot better in my eyes. It offers a lot of good tips for people who want to disseminate the media and get their messages out there. I wish they went more in-depth about there own projects as a lot of them sound really interesting but they really don't give all that in-depth of a description of many of them.

It be interesting to see their take on the Internet and the use of the Internet to disseminate feminist issues. With sites like you-tube and facebook being so popular it's easy to reach a large group of people. The problem is coming up with a viral video or campaign that people want to pass on to friends and talk about. We've all seen the Dove the real beauty campaign ads because of this. It'd be nice to see these means used for something other than commercial gains.