By Anonymous.


(Image: Andrew Courts 2012)

“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” — Oscar Wilde, Intentions

Online participatory culture has unlocked prosumers rights to freedom of expression and online anonymity. However, it has also engendered a new level of identity-based discrimination. Platforms such as Reddit have recently seen a rise in debate surrounding this issue, and more specifically, gender-based trolling and sexism on the site.

On Reddit it is suggested men account for nearly three-quarters of users, a site known for its less-than female-friendly content. Reddit abides to principles of free speech and open platform, and best of all, they can do this anonymously – no real names or email addresses required. However, as The New York Times writer David Carr recently indicated, the anonymity of Reddit “has the odd effect of prompting users to be very intimate and remarkably candid.” Female Redditor, Zopilotemachine, seems to agree with Carr, suggesting “online anonymity makes assholes more vocal.”

For the past few weeks, co-founder of Reddit, Alexis Ohanian, has been expressing his concerns for the online sexism being expressed on the platform. Ohanian has voiced his disappointment in his fellow tech community’s attitudes towards women, proposing “Aren’t we better than this?” Ohanian refers to the people that seem purely comfortable and self-righteous in calling a woman a bitch/cunt/slag on platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, or Reddit.

Notorious Redditor, Violentacrez, was recently unveiled by Gawker’s Adrian Chen, who wrote a piece revealing the identity of Violentacrez, now known as Michael Brutsch. Violentacrez, had launched and moderated some of Reddit’s more controversial community-generated subreddits, including one called “Chokeabitch” and one called “Creepshots”, on which photos taken of women in public are posted, but without their knowledge or consent, and shared based on stimulation of that non-consent. In response to this type of trolling and abuse received from Reddit’s 66% of male users, some females, such as Redditor, SomeGuyWithABoner, have opted to morph into “one of the guys” in order to cease being “berated and belittled for any opinion held.”. In my opinion, we should be ashamed that females have to hide their gender online in order to protect themselves from being abused and belittled while enjoying a FREE AND OPEN space.

Anonymous Redditors on the site may argue that these degrading comments and subreddits are users exercising their freedom of speech, however that doesn’t mean they are free from the consequences of their speech!

 I was going to end on the old childhood saying ‘that there is a time and a place for everything’, however in the case of sexism and the degradation of women, there isn’t, nor will there be, a time or a place.


A Youthful Vision.


(Image: Yasmine Fathi 2011)

Many contend that online political activism is nothing more than the click of button, resulting in ‘slacktivism’ and no actual activism or devotion to the cause at all. However, Henry Jenkins argues that‘the digital age has opened a new era of activism that offers the next generation new avenues into broader political participation.’ Today’s youth is no longer inspired by traditional organization and dated politics, such as voting and petitioning. Instead, participatory politics permits prosumers to have their own creative expression, allowing for online mobilization.

Formed around 3 years ago, the April 6 Youth Movement (a non-violent resistance) has demonstrated just how useful online political activism can be. What began as a loosely organized social network forum on Facebook, would eventually lead to the downfall of the repressive Mubarak.

Started by young activists, Ahmed Maher and Mohammed Adel, the group aimed to mobilize support for the protests surrounding industrial workers in El-Mahalla El-Kubra. The group assisted with a national strike, and on April 6, 2008, where and citizen journalists used Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, blogs and other new media tools to report on the strike, alert their networks about police activity, organize legal protection and draw attention to their efforts. Unfortunately met with violent repression by police authority, the protests ended resulting in four deaths and 400 arrests.

The April 6 Youth Movement attempted two more strikes in 2009 and 2010, but was obstructed by the regime. However, in the wake of the Tunisian revolution in 2011, April 6 coordinated with other youth groups to organize ‘Day of Revolt’ on January 25. A leading force of this day was Asmaa Mahfouz’s, a founder of the April 6 movement, viral video in which she urges people to fill Tahrir Square. Once shared on her Facebook page, Mahfouz’s video spread like wildfire, driving Egyptians by the thousands into Tahrir Square for the protests. These powerful protests, initiated by the April 6 Youth Movement, resulted in toppling the regime of the former president, Hosni Mubarak.

From 2008, April 6 mobilized the public through lively political discussions on social-media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, and through street protests. For young people in Egypt, Facebook allows users to speak freely. As the first youth movement in Egypt to use social networking sites as a means of communication, April 6 aimed to promote democracy by encouraging public involvement in the political process. As Jenkins suggests, ‘Participatory politics welcomes diverse involvement, enables greater creativity and voice in expressing one’s views,’ something that the citizens in the Middle east had never thought possible, until April 6.

While, we, the youth of today, may not buckle to the traditional ways of activism, we have developed a new era of political activism. We can now rally together in forces once deemed complicated and unachievable; the boundaries of race, age or nationhood can no longer confine us as we fight for what we believe in on all platforms. Whether it be Facebook, Twitter or Reddit our voices can be heard across the world, our opinions can be made known, and our numbers can impact the lives of many.

Re-mix, Re-mash, Re-define.


(Image: Samantha Laura Kaye 2013)

In this digital age we have entered a culture of mash-ups and remixes, enabled by modern computing technologies available. Theses technological resources support this new culture, allowing prosumers to organize their efforts together and develop specific platforms to publicize and share their content.

These collaborative efforts form part of the phenomenon of audiences participating more activity in creating and sharing their own content than ever before. As Lawrence Lessig reveals “remix utilizes the (multimedia) language through which the current generations communicate” (2008).

Produsage, a ‘collaborative, communal practice of content creation’ is a constant process of remixing and/or writing over the original work in order to discover new possibilities. Open platforms such as Reddit allow this; an example can be derived from Reddit’s continuous stream of meme creations. As do mash-up and remix channels, such as YouTube, which allow you to trace the development from the initial, notorious video clip which is then transformed into mash-ups, parodies, reinterpretations. Produsage is rapidly establishing itself as the standard mode for communitydriven, collaborative content creation online. Produsage communities are creating new creative resources and collaborative content, and in doing so are beginning to contest the established industries in their fields.

In our new media world, remixes and mash-ups of all kinds are quite easy to find. They are constantly surfacing on social media sites, usually in comic forms where the meaning is subverted or undermined revealing a critical engagement to the content. A video that surfaced not so long ago was the Taylor Swift ‘goat remix’. Remixes such as this, and thus the technology used, facilitate the democratic participatory culture. These remixes allow users to completely transformed the significance/atmosphere of the original video, in this case revealing a critical evaluation of pop music. Initially a song about romance (a classic “good girl falls for the bad boy” scenario), this remix undermined the meaning of the song, reconstituting the song and adapting its message from a serious issue, to a comic parody.

New media is continuously flowing across a multiplicity of new platforms. The ‘goat remix’ surfaced on YouTube, where from audiences actively produced, edited, shared and evaluated their own versions, others staring Nic Cage, a towel dispenser, a rabbit and a man crying (click here to see an amazing video including all of the above).

With numerous methods for online file sharing these videos have now spread to other platforms such as Reddit and Facebook, stirring up discussion about the video and allowing an unimaginable amount of sharing. The original video has 5 390 600 views on YouTube (to date), and has 9 040 000 hits on Google Videos.

The enormity and accessibility of file sharing, and the innovation of new technologies, have allowed this new culture of mash-ups and remixes to thrive. Due to our participatory culture and the increased interest in creation of new content, this culture has taken off, allowing for new possibilities and opportunities for creation, innovation and design. The power is in the prosumers hands; make of it what you will.

Big Things Come From Small Beginnings.


(Image: Simon Sticker 2010)

In this new participatory era, we are all active users of media technologies day in and day out. As a result, we are no longer simply consumers, but contributors to this ‘transmedia’ world.

Transmedia is the spread of content across multiple channels, producing a unified entertainment experience for all. It’s about building a world through various mediums of technology, which, when pieced together, contributions to the finished story. As Henry Jenkins reveals, “Transmedia storytelling practices may expand the potential market for a property by creating different points of entry for different audience segments” (2007).

Transmedia provides roles and goals for the reader, allowing consumers to connect, interact, and become part of a community (and excitement). A prime example of this can be taken from the lead up to Ridley Scott’s most recent movie, ‘Prometheus’. In an attempt to market his new movie, Scott and his producers set up a transmedia campaign unraveling background information and raising excitement about the upcoming film.

It all started with a co-branded video of ‘TED’ (a popular thought leadership speaking series). The video is reimagined in the year 2023 where ‘technology genius and industrial mogul Peter Weyland shares his vision of the future’ (the twist is that Weyland is a fictional character from ‘Prometheus’, played by Guy Pearce). This first video set up the plot for ‘Prometheus’ while raising questions and hype about the film. Furthermore, at Wondercon conventions in America, fans received ‘Weyland Industries’ business cards (a fictional business from the movie), which led to the short video‘Big things come from small beginnings’. The business cards also had a number on them. After fans called the number, they received a text message leading to another viral video‘David 8’. This video not only gave an introduction to David 8, a Cyborg and central character in the movie, but also enhanced his ‘creepy’ personality portrayed in the movie. Once all of the trails were followed and the clues found, the fans revealed an unlocked mission named, ‘Prometheus’.

Scott and his producers broke through the walls of traditional marketing (such as banners and posters), understanding that Gen-Y audiences, like myself, are barely affected by these methods. They embraced this alternate route for digital campaigns with an attempt to reconnect with our society, dominated by electronic media. Scott enabled his audience to participate in the world he had created, without over selling and forcing his movie on the public. Transmedia isn’t about selling and marketing, it is about inviting and engaging in a shared and valued experience. 

el final.

the end

(for now.)

I’ll confess that when I started this subject I had absolutely no idea what I was doing! Posting blogs, adding hyperlinks and inserting images & videos were completely foreign concepts to me. And, if I’m honest, I was dreading my first post. I didn’t know what was expected, I didn’t know how to stand out from the sea of BCM110 bloggers and I had a hard time finding my writing style. But coming to the end of this experience I am actually so grateful because I’ve loved it!

While blogging still isn’t my forte and I still wonder whether anything I write is being noticed, I’m proud of the small distance I’ve come. While my writing style has developed, my discussions have also evolved and progressed into focused explorations of the topics and my opinions about them. I feel a lot more confident with each post, and can cheerfully say, that although referencing seemed like a monster I would never concur, it is getting easier.

The (numerous) readings, in particular Hart (2011) and McKee (2005), have also helped me through these first few weeks. At times I may have found them drawn out, however when it came to writing my blog I could see the impact they had on the development of my ideas. I too realized that they helped me gather a greater understanding of the topics, as did the discussion in my tutorial. The comments others left on my blog and the comments I’ve made on blogs not only promoted discussion about the topics, but also gave me a greater insight into different interpretations of the topics and diverse opinions.

I’ll be the first to admit that my view on the media was very one-sided. However my understanding of the media has definitely changed and evolved during my time in BCM110. Whenever I’m watching a show or reading a book, I can’t help but think about the issues they rise in the public sphere and form my own opinion about it. I’m also a lot more aware about media ownership, and have even converted my ‘go to’ radio station to Triple J, and have been more aware of the information I post on my social networking sites due to privacy laws and surveillance. Although they are only small changes, there’s no doubt this subject has influenced my knowledge on the roles of the media and the control and impact they have on society.

All that I can say is now that I’m hooked watch out media, be ready to be scrutinized, and maybe if you’re lucky, praised at times.


 Hart, E 2011, ‘Case study 6: media ownership’, in J Bainbridge, N Goc & L Tynan (eds.), Media and Journalism : New Approaches to Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Victoria, pp400-408.

McKee, A, 2005, ‘Introduction: the public sphere : an introduction’ in Public Sphere: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp1-31.

Cherrybam 2013, The End, image, Cherrybam, viewed 13 April 2013, <http://cherrybam.tumblr.com/post/47027107452&gt;.



(Image: Joshua 2011)

Gone are the days where audiences are simple referred to as passive consumers. By embracing our new role as ‘prosumers’ in this participatory culture, we have discovered new ways to produce and interact with content. With the growing number of international, self-described organizations, such as Facebook and Twitter, citizens are “playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analysing, and disseminating news and information.”   This form of journalism, known as citizen journalism, has played a significant during the modern-day activism in the Arab Springs.

Throughout the Arab Springs debacle, social networking was used as a key tool in expressing thoughts concerning unjust acts committed by the Government. These sites gave citizens the capability to share an immense amount of uncensored information, which played a critical role in mobilization, empowerment, shaping opinions and influencing change during the uprising.

Activists used Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate their numbers, and Youtube to spread it around the world. The speed of communication through digital channels gave activists extraordinary responsiveness during street operations. Some individuals also created Facebook groups such as the “We Are All Khaled Said” group, which stirred up much controversy round the world. The use of these sites permitted activists to brake down the psychological barrier of fear and help others connect and share information. They allowed the spread of public information, vital in establishing the democratic movement that helped guide abused citizens to revolt against injustice. Through social media, the public was given the knowledge they are not alone, uniting them against their oppressor.

In the first three months of 2011, the most popular hashtags were #Egypt with 1.4 million mentions, #jan25 with 1.2 million mentions, #Libya with 990 000 mentions, #Bahrain with 640 000 mentions and #protest with 620 000 mentions. Tweets from Egypt went from 2,300 to 230,000 in the week leading to the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak. While Facebook usage swelled in the Arab region between January and April, overall, the number of users jumped by 30 per cent to 27.7 million, compared with 18 per cent growth during the same period in 2010. The bulk of 200-plus people surveyed over three weeks in March said they were getting their information from social media sites (88 per cent in Egypt); which outnumbered those who turned to non-government local media (63 per cent in Egypt) and to foreign media (57 per cent in Egypt).

Government attempts to ban such sites ended up backfiring, the vast majority of people said the blocking of Facebook motivated them to press on, spurring people to be more active, decisive and find ways to be more creative about communicating and organising.

The uprising has so far seen governments in Egypt and Tunisia fall, regimes in Syria, Libya, Yemen and Bahrain clash with the opposition, and more benefits offered to the people in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Social media has permitted prosumers to organize, debate, plan, and broadcast at a level of coordination that was inconceivable in the past.

Modern Family: the only show to live by.


Jürgen Habermas first defined the ‘public sphere’ (Habermas, 1964) as an arena in which citizens could debate about common concerns, expressing their views and opinions. Some say the development of the Internet and new media has degraded this notion of the public sphere, however in my eyes it has opened up new possibilities and issues, allowing public debate on a number of platforms. We are no longer restricted in our freedom of voice and opinion; we have many stages and many to hear what we have to say.

One such example of new media that promotes discussion and debate is the TV show ‘Modern Family’.  If you have been unable to catch an episode of this hilarious comedy, then please, do yourself a favour and go watch one! This takeoff of a ‘modern’ family not only raises issues that are completely relatable to anyone and everyone; such as sibling rivalry, (not so)’hip’ Dads, teenage rebellion and kooky members of a close-knit extended family, but also highlight topics of major debate within our public sphere.

Modern Family deals with the conventional family (conveyed by the Dunphys), while also introducing a homosexual couple (Mitchell Pritchett and Cameron Tucker), and a mixed marriage (the Pritchetts). The blend of the traditional and the new is commonly seen within families these days, allowing the show to introduce new relevant discussion.

The shows presentation of a gay marriage has raised many issues revolving around equality and acceptance. Through the character of Jay (Mitchell’s father), the producer portrays society’s’ struggle with the concept as his acceptance of his sons’ homosexual relationship develops throughout the show. ‘Stabs’ at the issue are regularly integrated within the sitcom, provoking thought from the audience, such as in the episode “Best Men”(2013), where Cameron comments, “What kind of people would we be if we denied you, or anyone, the right to marry?”

More recent debate has surround the use of inappropriate language in the episode, “Little Bo Bleep”(2013). In this installment, Lily (Cam and Mitch’s adopted child) copies the ‘F-bomb’ from her fathers, dropping it in inappropriate situations (something that I’m sure many Mum’s and Dad’s have experienced). The use of the ‘F bomb’ in ‘family friendly’ TV has spiked debate around the globe. Some parents groups, like the ‘No Cussing Club’ and the ‘Parents Television Council’, said the joke “was in poor taste“(Mom Huston, 2013), even going as far to say that it encouraged children to curse. (I’d like to point out that the subplot was actually hilarious and in no way glamorised cursing.)

The show also enlightens the audience on theissue of divorce, conveyed within the relationship of Jay (a grandpa past his prime) and Gloria (a gorgeous, young, Columbian woman); both of whom have had failed previous marriages. Their relationship also puts a spotlight on modern marriages with major age gaps. Yet, with couples like Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, Gloria and Jay’s marriage is more easily accepted by the audience.

With the development of society, it is inevitable that the realm of the public sphere will evolve, and so too will the issues and opinions with in. In shows such as Modern Family there has already been an evident shift in values (such as the audiences acceptance of Jay and Gloria’s marriage). Whether you believe the public sphere is being degraded or evolved by our evolving society, change within this domain is inevitable; it’s happening as we speak.


Habermas, J 1964, ‘The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article (1964)’, in Lennox, S & Lennox, F (eds.), New German Critique, Duke University Press, Durham, England, pp. 49-55

Best Men, Modern Family, 2013, television program, 20th Century Fox Television, America, February 27.

Little Bo Bleep, Modern Family, 2013, television program, 20th Century Fox Television, America, January 18.

Mom Huston, 2013, Modern Family proves a cussing baby is very funny, as long as it’s not your baby, Mom Huston, blog, 19 January, viewed 9 April 2013, <http://blog.chron.com/momhouston/2012/01/modern-family-proves-a-cussing-baby-is-very-funny-as-long-as-it’s-not-your-baby/&gt;.

2012, WWPDD (What Would Phil Dunphy Do?), image, Uproxx, viewed 9 April 2012, < http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2011/10/the-best-of-phil-dunphy/attachment/phil-dunphy-wwpdd/&gt;.

Couch Potato No More.


(‘Banksy’ n.d.)

We live in a mass media society, particularly dominated by electronic media. If you are like myself, then you sleep, eat, go to the toilet and brush your teeth with you iPhone (it’s sad, I know). This assures a constant stream of media in our lives leaving no room to doubt that it actively changes and influences society, rather than merely depicting a detached reflection of it. Therefore the question begs to be asked, with the media influencing our daily lives, does it matter who controls it?

The media have the ability to the control of the flow of information, knowledge, values and images of society. From only a handful of people dominating this global media market comes a lack of diversity in the news (A Goodman & D Gooman 2005). This not only has a negative impact on assuring healthy competition within the media, but also leads towards a one-sided industry full to the brim of bias news stories.

Certain media channels, News Corp (News International Communications) as a prime example, demonstrate this supremacy through their domination of main news networks, leaving the smaller channels without a voice. It’s becoming disconcerting for a handful of people to have that much sway in the world, especially with self-regulation becoming a common occurrence in media today (Meier 2002).

With reference to the powers the media have on politics, sociologist, Anthony Giddens, explains the dangers of a prejudice media industry.

‘The media…have a double relation to democracy. On the one hand …the emergence of a global information society is a powerful democratising force. Yet, television, and the other media, tend to destroy the very public space of dialogue they open up, through relentless trivializing, and personalizing of political issues. Moreover, the growth of giant multinational media corporations means that unelected business tycoons can hold enormous power’ (Giddens 1999, cited in Meier 2002).

However, within this question over media ownership, Giddens introduced me to a larger question. If ownership is as important as I, and I hope you, believe it is, then who gave the right for Rupert Murdoch or Mark Zuckerberg to have all of the power? By watching their channels and reading their newspapers are we encouraging their growth of control?


Meier, W.A. 2002, ‘Media ownership – does it matter?’, Networking knowledge for information societies: Institutions & intervention,  Mansell,R, Samarajiva, R, & Mahan, A (eds.), pp. 298-302, viewed 27 March 2013, <lirne.net/resources/netknowledge/meier.pdf>

Goodman, A & Goodman, D 2005, ‘Why media ownership matter’, Seattle Times Newspaper, 3 April, vewied 28 March, <http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2002228040_sundaygoodman03.html&gt;.

Banksy, n.d. TV Heads, image, SincerelyShannon, viewed 28 March, < http://sincerelyshannon.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/lost-introduces-its-womans-line/banksy-tv-heads/&gt;.

An Open Future.


Users hold the key. 

There is a fine line between an ‘open culture’ and a ‘permission culture’. Some say Apple is a ‘permission culture’, due to its’ limitation on choices for its’ users. Apple controls both the content their users see and how they interact with the content. Those same people refer to Android as an ‘open culture’, because of the freedom users have over the platform, the content and the choices you make when engaging with their content. But there are platforms that seems to enjoy both freedom and control – namely Reddit.

Reddit has around 4.4 billion page views per month and 62.3 million unique visitors per month, however, unlike many other sites, Reddit is one of the few platforms that have tried to keep content control in the hands of the users. Reddit is known for its open nature and diverse user community that generate its content, allowing you to interact with the contents on your own terms!

If you’re a fellow ‘Redditor’ then you’ll understand what I say by ‘subreddits’, which are pages created by users so that people can post and share their interesting media source ( a photo, video, meme etc). The founders’ do NOT determined these pages, allowing for creativity and freedom to rein. The creators of these pages are referred to as the ‘moderators’, whom control, monitor and make general rules for the page; providing interactivity within the platform. The founders of Reddit deeply respect the role moderators and rarely use their control to override the creators unless it is absolutely necessary. This is to say that the control is completely up to the users, however if a breach of copyright is reported (e.g.; if you upload something that doesn’t belong to you and take credit for the work) then it is most likely your post will be taken down by the founders, if not by the moderator.

Without the input of the founders, Reddit relies on their innovative socially ranked rating and sorting system that is known as ‘up voting’ and ‘down voting’. While users have the power to create their own subreddits, they also have to power to vote on the posts within these pages (a typical thumbs up, thumbs down system), which is used to rank the post and determine its position on the site’s front page. This allows for content and quality control, within the terms of the users, assuring that posts and pages remain interesting and relevant to the page.

With the growth of platforms like Reddit, we can only hope that the founders see the significance and importance of users in their platform. While I agree that some situations need to be taken care of by the founders, leaving majority of the control in the users hands allows the flow of new, interesting content and freedom for new opportunities to arise for us ‘prosumers’.

A Risqué Business.

Introducing Burger King’s Super Seven Incher …


(Before I go any further, I would ask if everyone could everyone please keep their head out of the gutter!)

Let’s start by discussing the simple denotation (signifier: what is literally on the page) of this image before we get into the dirty, ‘nitty gritty’. This image depicts a blond haired girl, with her eyes wide and her red lips opened facing a burger. There it is people – that’s it! Or is it? (Let’s just say, I don’t think anyone would believe that she’s preparing to take a bite out of that burger.) While that description of the image may be true, the connotation (signified: the evoked meaning a sign represents in your mind) of the image tells us another story.

While searching the web for a ‘controversial’ image, never did I think that something like this would come up. A play on racism? Maybe. A criticism of smoking? Definitely. But an add that makes possibly the least subtle allusion to oral sex while advertising a meal was not on my list.

This ad was released in the city-state of Singapore in the first half of 2009 (which came as a pretty big surprise to me, considering Singapore is a society typically known for its strict government controls of social conduct). The “mind-blowing” sandwich near the open mouth of the woman, accompanied by the suggestive tagline: “It’ll blow your mind away”, suggests an act of fellatio taking place. The sexual undertones of the meal, including the name, ‘Super Seven Incher’, not only lacks subtlety but also appeals to only half of the population (we can all guess which side), something I’m not sure you should aim for when advertising a product. The ad continues, “Fill your desire for something long, juicy and flame-grilled,” (cough, vomit, faint). One thing I can say is that this ad achieves universality and it’s ability to transcend audiences as we all recognise the act this ad is suggesting, though we may not be willing to admit it to our grandparents just yet.

I don’t know about you, but I for one cannot help but feel highly uncomfortable and a little disgusted. Is there a line in advertising? Yes. Did they cross it? In my opinion – most definitely. I’d also like to point out that, while distracted from this unappetizing ad, I actually forgot that Burger King was indeed selling a seven-inch sub!

Which leads me to my question: WHY BURGER KING, WHY?

(I apologise if this image offends anyone in anyway.) 


Burger King 2009, Super Seven Incher, image, Market Like A Chick, viewed 20 March 2013, < http://www.marketlikeachick.com/burger-king-loses-marketing-machismo-focuses-on-women/&gt;.