Collective Shout

Collective Shout We are a grassroots movement against the objectification of women and the sexualisation of girls. http://www.collectiveshout.org/faq

Flashback Friday! Remember when we got a tavern application for topless waitresses denied?In 2016, WA tavern The Sixty30...
11/09/2026

Flashback Friday! Remember when we got a tavern application for topless waitresses denied?

In 2016, WA tavern The Sixty30 applied to have topless waitresses.

We, along with the Commissioner of Police, lodged an objection arguing:

The use of women’s bodies in s*xual entertainment and services is a form of prostitution. S*xual trade in women’s bodies both causes and contributes to gender inequality by reducing women to mere objects for men’s use and enjoyment, with adverse impacts on women who are directly involved as well as women as a whole.

A significant body of research links s*xual objectification of women with violence against women. S*xploitation venues pose a threat to women, with women reporting increased incidents of s*xual harassment, abuse and violence in areas in close proximity to strip clubs.

The tavern had attempted to argue there was demand for topless waitresses (with statements of support mostly from men). The Commission denied the application:

"The evidence fell well short of establishing that the variation of the licence was in the public interest. Whilst ‘Dan the Man’, 'Show me pussy’, ‘Robbo’, ‘Marshy’, ‘Bob’, ‘Jacko’, ‘Swanny’, ‘Fido’, and others may want to see st*****rs at the hotel based on their signing of the questionnaire, there is nothing before the Commission that is capable of establishing that the variation of the licence is in the public interest."

As always, we are grateful for your involvement in our campaigns.

“Breast cancer is not fun or cute”: Will Sydney Sock Project listen to breast cancer survivors? Last month we shared the...
11/09/2026

“Breast cancer is not fun or cute”: Will Sydney Sock Project listen to breast cancer survivors?

Last month we shared the good news that The Alfred Foundation had discontinued its partnership with the Sydney Sock Project over its objectifying b**b merchandise for breast cancer.

We had previously written to the foundation expressing concerns that the products, which were emblazoned with disembodied pairs of women’s breasts, reduced women to their breasts and trivialised the disease by reinforcing s*xist and unhelpful stereotypes.

This week, the Sydney Sock Project – who produce the b**b merchandise – posted a screenshot of our blog in a reel on their social media platforms asking supporters if they “had the right” to produce products that are a “little on the edge” to raise funds. (We’d argue that using women’s breasts to sell a product is old, tired, and done to death, rather than ‘edgy’.)

The company appears to be seeking reassurance from their social media followers for their continued production of b**b products, regardless of how survivors feel about it.

Predictably, many of the company's supporters responded in the comments that they were "not offended" by the products. But objections to the objectification of women and reducing women to s*xualised body parts are not on the basis that it might "offend" people, but the documented harm to women - and in this case, causing further distress to survivors of breast cancer - none of which is mitigated by a donation.

Some commenters, including breast cancer survivors, expressed how the product did harm (see images).

While the Alfred Foundation has carefully considered the harm to women experiencing breast cancer from the products and discontinued the partnership with the Sydney Sock Project as a result, so far there is no indication the Sydney Sock Project has any plans to modify their designs.

If the Sydney Sock Project is genuinely motivated by a desire to support women experiencing breast cancer, rather than their own profits, we hope they will listen to women’s expressed concerns and change their designs.

WIN: Mubadala-backed Fortress dumps multimillion-dollar Pl***oy stake after our campaign*Pictured: Sheikh Mansour bin Za...
10/09/2026

WIN: Mubadala-backed Fortress dumps multimillion-dollar Pl***oy stake after our campaign

*Pictured: Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, UAE Vice President, Deputy Prime Minister, Chairman of the Presidential Court and Chairman of the Mubadala Board; Hani Ahmad Barhoush, Chief Executive Officer, Credit and Special Situations, Mubadala; Drew McKnight, Co-Chief Executive Officer, Board Member & Managing Partner, Fortress; Pete Briger Jr, Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors & Managing Partner, Fortress

Following our years-long campaign, Fortress Investment Group has dumped its $17m stake in global p**n empire Pl***oy. While Fortress has not commented publicly on the divestment, Pl***oy framed it as an exciting buy-back exercise, which they will complete by the end of the year.

A long-time investor in the p**n industry with ties to P*rnhub's parent co, we were already tracking Fortress' significant Pl***oy investment when, in 2022, media reported that parent company SoftBank (Japan) was selling its two-thirds stake in Fortress to the Abu Dhabi Government's sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala. We started asking questions.

Was Mubadala aware that through the acquisition, it would be adopting a big chunk of Pl***oy? How would this fit in with its corporate claims and commitments? Were Mubadala's executives ok with absorbing p**n industry shares into their layers of investments? And, given that United Arab Emirate law prohibits p**nography and the distribution, publication and advertising of p**nographic material within the UAE, what consideration—if any—was given to the nature of Fortress' Pl***oy investment?

We used social media to put our concerns, questions and call for divestment to several Mubadala executives, and to the Abu Dhabi Government directly. We did not receive any meaningful response.

Then we discovered that one of Mubadala's key execs - Hani Barhoush - had served on Fortress' Board of Directors since 2019. Barhoush's name appears alongside other Fortress Directors in the company's 2021 filing documenting ownership of public Pl***oy shares (it already held private equity, prior to Pl***oy going public in 2021). The idea that Mubadala's connection to the Pl***oy investment was “indirect”, or that it was in the dark about the shareholding, seemed difficult to reconcile with these details.

We are pleased that after years of calling for divestment, Fortress is dumping Pl***oy. We don't think that investment in a company with a 70+ year history of abuse and exploitation of women and girls matches Fortress' stated core values of 'integrity' and 'respect'.

We are certain that p**n investments violate Mubadala's stated commitments to responsible investment, 'integrity', 'delivering positive outcomes for current and future generations', and 'delivering tangible positive impact to people, communities and the environment, in the UAE and abroad.'

Read more at the link in comments.

Note the stark difference in how young women and men are presented in Ghanda Clothing’s catalogue.Young women are posed ...
10/09/2026

Note the stark difference in how young women and men are presented in Ghanda Clothing’s catalogue.

Young women are posed with legs spread and in minimal clothing, alongside fully dressed young men in natural poses.

What does this unequal treatment represent?

Naomi Wolf, author of The Beauty Myth said, “Cross-culturally, unequal nakedness almost always expresses power relations.”

In her TED talk about growing up in a ‘p**n culture’, Professor Gail Dines encouraged the audience to critically analyse p**n-inspired depictions of women in media and advertising.

Pointing to a hyper-s*xualised image of a female model, she said:

“Look at her clothes, look at her face, look at her posture, and look at her gaze... who is she speaking to? Because the notion is that every image has a reader in mind. Before you answer, do you think she’s speaking to her mother, saying, ‘Let’s go for a cup of coffee after the photo shoot?’ So who is she talking to? Who is she speaking to? Men. And what is she saying? ‘F*ck me’.”

Dines also later said: “It’s no accident that in prisons the first thing a prisoner has to do is strip n*ked, because to be n*ked in the presence of somebody clothed is to be in a vulnerable situation.”

We object to Ghanda Clothing’s marketing tactics, along with more than 1,000 of you who have emailed the company demanding it stop s*xualising and objectifying women and girls in its advertising. ✊🏻

Will you be boycotting Ghanda Clothing? Let us know in the comments.

09/09/2026

When women are routinely s*xualised and objectified in media and popular culture, how does this affect women and girls? Here’s what the research shows.

08/09/2026

“Barely legal”: Movement Director MTR on how OnlyF@ns recruiters select young women

08/09/2026

After we exposed Ghanda Clothing’s s*xualised and objectifying depictions of young women in their summer catalogue, the story was picked up by national news media!

Let us know in the comments if you are now boycotting Ghanda Clothing ✊🏻

From our partners at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation 👉🏻 'OnlyFans is increasingly being normalized, even cele...
08/09/2026

From our partners at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation 👉🏻 'OnlyFans is increasingly being normalized, even celebrated, as a solution to financial hardship. Social media is filled with stories of overnight success, and popular TV shows often portray the platform as empowering and lucrative. But those stories don't tell the whole truth. Now, she's speaking out so others can hear what often goes untold.'

Head to the comments to read her full story.

07/09/2026

TikTok selling p**n as career goal to young girls: Movement Director Melinda Tankard Reist on the 'TikTok-to-OnlyF@ns pipeline'

Police are investigating the tragic death of a 16-year-old Sydney girl following allegations she died after being strang...
07/09/2026

Police are investigating the tragic death of a 16-year-old Sydney girl following allegations she died after being strangled during s*x.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no safe way to strangle someone.

A literature review by Dr Vicki Lowik, Associate Professor Heather Lovatt and Dr Nicola Cheyne noted,

“A person who is being strangled can lose consciousness after four to 10 seconds of arterial pressure and have anoxic seizures after six to eight seconds; lose bladder control after 15 seconds and bowel control after 30 seconds; and sustain brain stem damage after 20 seconds and brain death after one to six minutes of pressure.”

Not only can strangulation can be fatal, victims are at risk of brain damage or death even weeks or months later.

Individuals who have been strangled can suffer strokes, depression, memory loss, seizures, motor and speech disorders and paralysis. These serious long-term outcomes can occur even when strangulation is brief and without great force.

Research on young adult men who strangle their female partners indicated they had little awareness of the risks, that almost none of those surveyed had sought any education on mitigating them, and that their knowledge of strangulation and how to do it was typically informed by p**nography.

Research also indicates in many reported cases, individuals engaging in s*xual strangulation were intoxicated, raising concerns about their ability to assess danger or meaningfully consent.

We respond to more myths about s*xual strangulation on our blog – link in comments.

Address

Kirribilli, NSW

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Collective Shout posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Collective Shout:

Shortcuts

Share