Petition to Scottish Government to Prevent Cuts to Charities Supporting Rape Victims

This is a link to a petition to the Scottish Government  concerning cuts to services for victims of abuse and rape in Northern Scotland. The text below is taken directly from the petition.

PETITION

Scottish Government is cutting 50% of the funding to the only charities that support abuse and raped women from Aberdeen to the northest point of Scotland.

The only available abuse and rape charities up north, which provide a vital and important service to victims of abuse, rape and sexual violence are now facing closure after losing 50% of its Government funding.
In particular, RAS of Aberdeen (accredited Rape Crisis Centre that operates in Aberdeen and Fraserburgh) and Scottish Women's Aid Caithness and Sutherland.

(Read the full article about RAS at this link: http://louisethorntonpr.com/ras-facing-closure/)

"The charity offers a specialised service to victims and works closely with the NHS and Grampian Police."
"Dawn Brown, director of RAS, is hugely disappointed with the funding cuts. ‘The loss of funding will directly impact on the service being able to operate as without the additional funds the charity will be forced to close before the end of the year. RAS was the only Scottish centre who lost existing funding from the Violence Against Women Fund. The government has been extremely short sighted in cutting this funding as without the service, women in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire will lose a vital avenue of support to help them recover from their ordeal."
(quotes from the article mentioned above)

Well RAS Aberdeen is the northest Rape Crisis Centre in Scotland. Many abused and raped women, me included, benefited of the huge and incredible support and work done by this charity to help us out.

There's NO other accredited Rape Crisis Centre in the Highlands that supports raped women. From Inverness to Shetlands raped women are often left alone and abandoned, no help and support to get out of that ordeal. NHS doesn't provide any free counselling services in Caithness and Sutherland directly aimed to rape victims and everything is left in the hands of volunteers. Now the Scottish Government wants to close down the few charities that operate in the area, this implying they're not of any use. Thanks to their decision, an area as big as the US state of Massachusetts will be left without any rape or abuse centre.

Maybe the Scottish Government should notice that the number of rape and abuse reports is so low in the Highlands because we receive NO support anywhere else. Police often misjudges the victims and in many cases police even turns on the victims.
There's NO meaning to report a rape unless the victims possess incredible evidence the crime happened. We suffer prejudice, slander, we've to leave our houses and we're let down by everybody.

Only FEW raped women are able to come forward because they know they'll be IGNORED and NOT BELIEVED from the start. If accidentally we decide to report what happened to the police, we face another ordeal that becomes a nightmare added to what we already suffered.

The only help and support we receive is from the charities Scottish Government is so eager to close down.

Please help Scottish Women to save these charities signing the petition.

Thanks a million xx

PETITION

Read More

The Vicky Bliss Mysteries: Great Feminist Books; Unfortunate Use of the word Misandry

I loved these books. They totally inspired my inner history nerd especially as I know *nothing* about art or art history. I love museums and art galleries but my retention of who did what and when is appalling. I have fairly plebian tastes about art and am firmly convinced that all outdoor art installations are meant to be climbed on by small children. There is no point in art existing if we all just stand around staring at it. Art should be engaged with and small children crawling all over outdoor sculptures is engagement.

The first Vicky Bliss book by Elizabeth Peters, Borrower of the Night, dates from 1973. It is an overtly feminist book with the character of Vicky Bliss announcing her stance as a feminist in the first chapter. She is an art historian with a PhD teaching at a small US college [who then starts working at a museum in Germany by stint of some excellent blackmail]. She is bright, funny, intelligent, and ambitious; all required characteristics of a great feminist.

But, and its a huge but, Peters insists on using the word "misandry". I hate this word, especially when its bandied about to describe one man. It is perfectly legitimate to hate one man because they are a rapist or a misogynist or a racist or homophobic or a thousand other things. But, misandry isn't the word to use here. It's just hate. Misandry is a word bandied about by Misogynist Rights Activists [MRAs] who like to think that 'misandry' is equal to misogyny which is complete and unmitigated nincompoopery.

Misogyny isn't just hating women. It's the structural, institutionalised, and endemic hatred of women which is (re)created and replicated in political, social, religious and cultural systems. It is embedded in every facet of society and isn't just about disliking one women; it's about engaging in behaviours which replicate the patriarchal subjugation of women. It is everything from sexist jokes to pornography to rape culture. It's about millions of women dying needlessly every day because they are women through all kinds of violence including malnutrition from not being valued enough to be given enough food to eat. It's the laws on rape which favour male rapists over female victims. It's in the piss poor child maintenance and domestic violence laws. It's in the basic practise of women being paid less than men for the same job or being considered responsible for all the childcare and housework. It is the practise of rape as a tactic of war on female bodies to "emasculate" their male "protectors". It is in every music video which requires a talented female musician to gyrate half-naked in order to sell their music. It is everywhere. And, it is everything.

Misandry only exists in the minds of whiny-arsed men afraid of having to give up their privileged positions. Misandry only exists in the minds of misogynists. It is not real.

Read More

FFS: School Uniforms DON'T improve children's learning or behaviour.

It doesn't matter if you stick a bunch of preschoolers in ties or teenagers in bright orange prison jumpsuits, dressing children the same doesn't make them better learners. It doesn't make them behave better. Children learn best in safe environments where they are respected and where the staff and management respect one another. I know I've ranted about this before [and all over MN] but I have NEVER seen any research-based evidence that says uniform increases student outcomes or changes their behaviour positively. I have seen lots of studies which imply this [and media coverage which swears blind that this is the case] but in these studies the inclusion or formalising of school uniforms has always been part of a wide-ranging number of changes to the schools including a new management team and a new behavioural contract policy.

This article in the BBC just made me want to rip my hair out. Now, I don't necessarily agree that teenagers calling their teachers by their first names is a good thing. That's the type of behaviour that comes after positive relationships already exist between the students and staff [and I frigging loathe the diminutive "Miss" for women teachers. Totally demeaning that shit is]. But, this pretence that British children learn better wearing ties and shorts in the winter is just nincompoopery. American, Canadian and German children don't wear uniforms and their children aren't running about like Barbarians blowing up schools and assassinating their teachers. Violence does occur but that is reflected, particularly in the US, in the exclusion of poor, ethnic minority students into sinkhole schools and gang culture. It's about poverty and racism. Children aren't stupid. They can tell when their school is funded properly or when they are being dumped somewhere with teachers who don't care and they respond accordingly.

Could we just stop with this freaking cognitive dissonance about ties making kids learn better. It just seriously farks me off.

Read More

Edinburgh Book Festival: Cultural Femicide at its Finest

The Edinburgh Book Festival catalogue has, once again, arrived by post. As ever, it's dominated by male authors. Lots and lots of men writing books and speaking about books and having important thoughts and questions about books. Granted, there are a number of women authors represented in photos but that's clearly an advertising fudge. At least, I think its a fudge. I haven't actually bothered to count the number of male and female authors attending and then do some fancy maths comparing them with the photographic representations. But, I'm pretty confident that the women authors are disproportionately represented in the photographs of the festival than women authors are actually speaking at it.

In fact, most of the women authors seem to be children's authors. Now, I'm a huge fan of children's fiction [except for Twilight and books about magic ponies. Those are just all kinds of awful] but we all know that in the world of literature, children's fiction just doesn't quite cut it which is unfortunate as, apparently, J.K Rowling is one of the only billionaires in the UK who actually pay proper income tax. [Not that I'm suggesting anyone who hasn't read all her books needs to run out tomorrow to buy them, but a brilliant woman author who pays tax? The Tories won't find one of them]. Children's literature is dominated by dead, white men. Newer, more popular, children's books are derided as rubbish and dull. The Harry Potter books, some of the best-selling books ever, are frequently dismissed with "at least, it gets boys reading book". Talk about damning with faint praise. Now, I do happen to think that there are a lot of children's authors who write literature [as opposed to popular fiction which I enjoy just as much]. Women like Kit Pearson, Jean Little and Madeleine L'Engle write literature [however poncily you want to define that term]. Authors like Jacqueline Wilson, who is a constant presence at EBF and financially successful to boot, are relegated by snobbery to being unimportant. The dismissal of books aimed at children is part of cultural femicde because it denies the very power and success women writers have with audiences of children, who are just as critical about the quality of books as adults are.

There are some incredible women authors attending EBF. I'm looking forward to Caroline Moorhead's The Resistance Women Who Survived Auschwitz. I am interested in the contested definitions of resistance as is applied to the Holocaust and how the label of "resister/resistance" is culturally appropriated or denied depending on political context, who has the right to label themselves resister and who has the right label others as resister. This debate is clearly played out publicly in discussions over Fania Fenelon's memoir Playing for Time; a book which is both feted for its honestly and critiqued for its rewriting of history. I'm also looking forward to Jeanette Winterson, Kate Summerscale and Monique Roffrey. I have, for the past few years, tried only to see women authors speak but it is difficult, particularly when one is starting from a feminist position.

Interestingly, and totally opposite to the rest of my ranting about the EBF in general, is the Anobii First Book Award given to either writers of their first book or overseas authors whose book has just been translated into English. This award seems to have gender parity which raises some interesting questions. I don't actually know how authors are selected; if they volunteer or are chosen by committee. However, if they are chosen, then it does seem like the emphasis on "Important Male Authors" is a deliberate [if subconscious] policy. It also reflects an ageism since the women writers nominated for the Anobii prize are all very young, reflecting both their status as first-time published authors but also, perhaps, an acknowledgement of the cultural femicide inherent in the book industry. At least, I hope so. Either way, the Anobii prize is quite odd considered the gendered nature of the rest of the event.

And, finally, I'm also slightly perplexed by the keynote question which is "should literature be political?" How, precisely, can someone argue that it isn't. Even the drivel which is Twlight [and it is serious fucking misogynistic drivel about loving your abusive boyfriend and cutting out all your friends and family so he doesn't hurt you] is political. Hell, its the ultimate Patriarchal Handmaiden text written by a Mormon evangelising the no sex before marriage bullshit which works out so well for society. Literature is, and always has been, political; as much when it focuses on the private lives of individuals as it does on the public political and cultural structures of society. Also, the panel to discuss it seems to include no one in possession of a vagina. Obviously, because women never write books about political issues.

I do love EBF. I love the hope they maintain every year in holding the festival in a bunch of tents in Charlotte Square. I love the fact that its a mud swamp by day three. I love the whimsy involved in tossing random rubber ducks into the swamp for decorative purposes. Most of all, I love the fact that the slide show shown before every session only contains pictures of lovely literary people having picnics in the grass on the one day a year that the festival isn't a mud swamp. You can't argue with that level of cognitive dissonance. Yet, every year I'm disappointed by the lack of women writers, by the lack of overtly feminist writers. As a general rule of thumb, EBF is a lovely day out with a great bookstore but the Independent Radical Bookfare held in October has a greater variety of authors and a better gender parity.

Oh, and before I get any pissy comments telling me to calm down or that I'm over-reacting, women buy more books than men. Women read more books than men. There are more women involved in the publishing industry than men and it's women's volunteer labour which makes many book festivals possible. We should expect gender parity in book festivals when the vast majority of people involved in the industry have vaginas.

Read More

Women Power: Family Planning Saves Lives

The lack of access women, all over the world, have to birth control and abortion directly impacts on family and community structures. Where there is little or no access, there is an increase in maternal and infant mortality with the practise of unsafe abortions, occasionally infanticide, or the birth of unwanted children [particularly due to economics] causing untold problems in communities. There are cultural prohibitions against some forms of birth control but the lack of access to basic medical care [or even clean water] means that too many women are suffering from unwanted pregnancies and too many children are being born into families that can not support them. This is without getting into the issue of women being allowed to control what happens to their own bodies by having the power to control whether or not they conceive without being coerced via government policy or economics. Even ignoring the US governments cowardly policy, during the Bush administration, of not funding any family planning clinic that mentioned abortion, the impact on women's lives has been horrendous.

There have been several high profile campaigns bringing media and world attention to this issue; notably the White Ribbon Alliance on Maternal Mortality whose global patron is Sarah Brown. Their information page contains numerous links to important research into maternal mortality, including the research into feeding infants during emergencies; a piece of information that the large multi-national corporations like Nestle like to pretend doesn't exist. It might sound counter-intuitive but donations of formula and baby-food in disaster zones, particularly where access to clean water is non-existant, lead to increases in infant mortality. It is much safer for infants to be breastfed and any woman who has previously lactated can feed an infant as the female body is designed to respond to the nutritional needs of an infant. The White Ribbon Alliance works in partnership with other organisations in a variety of nations to advocate for safe motherhood as a basic human right.

The newest campaign on safe motherhood and reproductive rights kicked off with the International Reporting Project sending 11 bloggers to Kenya to report on reproductive health and population issues. The bloggers, including the very lovely Lynn Schreiber, spent the first day in Kibera, one of the largest slums in East Africa where population estimates range up to 3 million [although this generally considered too high]. This is part of the lead-up to The London Summit on Family Planning held jointly by the Gates Foundation and the UK government in July [with any luck Melinda Gates will shame Cameron into at least pretending to be human].

There are some obvious questions which need to raised when dealing with the issue of family planning, particularly in relation to issues of coercion and the, quite violent, history of population control polices such as those enacted in Nazi Germany and China not to mention places like California which had enforced sterilisation programs for those deemed unfit. Dorothy Roberts' Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction and the Meaning of Liberty lists some of the coercive policies enacted in the US to prevent poor African-Americans from having children. It included the use of mandatory birth control in New Jersey in order to receive public benefits. In the 1990s. We may think of Nazi Germany and China when thinking of coercive population control but they are by no means the only guilty party and it isn't "history". Coercive reproductive measures happen everyday anywhere that access to birth control, abortion and medical facilities are not present [and this is without getting into the issue of rape and sexual violence which severely impact on women's health, particularly in war and disaster zones].

This is why I was glad to see that Amnesty International, the Centre for Reproductive Rights, Action Aid and dozens of other human rights organisations, academics and women's rights activists have signed this declaration:

We, civil society organizations working to promote women’s and young people’s human rights, call on world leaders on the eve of the “Family Planning Summit”, hosted by the UK Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to ensure that sexual and reproductive health and rights are at the centre of all efforts to meet reproductive health needs, including family planning. Contraceptive information and services – “family planning” – form an essential part of the health services that women need throughout their lives. Any steps to increase demand for contraceptives must actively support efforts to improve comprehensive and integrated sexual and reproductive health.  

Contraceptives must be provided through primary healthcare, with full regard for women’s human rights and the specific needs of young and unmarried women and other groups. Our experience, built over decades of work around the world, has taught us that the failure to take actions guided by women’s human rights – to health, to life, to live free from discrimination among others – can have devastating consequences. Policies that accept or tacitly condone forced sterilization, the coercive provision of contraceptives, and the denial of essential services to the young, poor and marginalized women that need them every day have violated, and continue to violate, women’s human rights. 

Nearly twenty years ago, governments at the International Conference on Population and Development agreed that respect for women’s reproductive autonomy is the cornerstone of population policy. Any return to coercive family planning programs where quality of care and informed consent are ignored would be both shocking and retrograde. The Family Planning Summit must ensure that the clocks are not put back on women’s human rights: women’s autonomy and agency to decide freely on matters related to sexual and reproductive health without any discrimination, coercion or violence must be protected under all circumstances. ...

Save the Children are also involved in the Family Planning Summit and have started a petition requesting that the British government make a firm commitment to the issue of family planning and safe motherhood. Please sign this petition to help women around the world give birth and raise their children with access to real health care [and education].

Free access to birth control, family planning and safe motherhood should be a basic human right with every woman having the control over her own body and her own family. Anything less is nothing more than a return to the normal coercive practises but this time tied up in a different fancy box with a UN ribbon on top.

Read More

So Saudi Arabia is Sending 1 Female Athlete to the Olympics

Clearly, Feminism is no longer needed if intense international pressure and lots of media speculation are all that's needed to convince a misogynistic government that, yes, in fact, they do have to have women on their team. Since, the freaking Olympic guidelines require all teams to field male AND female players. Yep, we can all hang up our banners, put down our tambourines and stop singing "I'm a Feminist. A Mighty, Mighty Feminist" because Saudi Arabia is sending a woman to the Olympics. This is clearly the heralding of The Dawn of Post-Feminism.

Course, they're only sending ONE woman. In the entire wealthy nation of Saudi Arabia, they could only find ONE woman capable of competing in an athletics competition at the international level and they weren't even going to send her. But, still, we are supposed to celebrate this one, pathetic little attempt at not being banned for being misogynistic. Frankly, the IOC should have acted as an organisation of adults and banned them at the beginning of this farcical debate. After all, South Africa only started taking anti-apartheid protests seriously when their rugby and cricket teams were banned from playing internationally. And, its not the first time the Olympics have been used for political purposes.

Hitler was embarrassed by the African-American athlete Jesse Owens destroying his team of "Aryan" athletes after other nations threatened to boycott if Germany didn't allow Black or Jewish players. Germany fielded one Jewish woman. Just the one Jewish woman. Erm, can anyone else see the irony in that? Threatened ban, so they send one token player? Maybe the IOC might want to review its own history. And, perhaps the media can stop pretending this is some great victory because it isn't. It's just another piss-poor attempt at pretending women are human too.

UPDATE: Apparently, Saudi Arabia aren't fielding any women athletes because the only women who could compete at the international level can't because her horse is injured. Dalma Rushdi Malhas trains in Italy. For obvious reasons. Even if her horse weren't injured, Malhas would have been a controversial choice because she hasn't actually competed at a high enough international level and the IOC would have had to make a special case for her. So, we're back to the original position. Saudi Arabia is apparently fielding an Olympic team with no women athletes in direct contravention of IOC regulations. And, no one gives a shit. We should be boycotting any sport with countries which don't allow women to compete [and those committing human rights abuses like Sri Lanka].

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Compeed Blister Pads

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Read More

Loving the NHS: Why Privatisation Kills

Someone on Twitter linked to this document Dying for Coverage: The Deadly Consequences of Being Uninsured by Families USA. And, I read it. And, I was horrified. One of the statistics quoted is that more people in California in 2010 died because of a lack of health insurance than in car accidents. Now, I'm not unfamiliar with the shite which passes as the US healthcare system. You can't grow up in Canada in a place which only had American TV channels accessible or attend uni in a border town without getting at least a passing understanding of its all-round crapness. But, the idea that more people die from lack of adequate healthcare than in car accidents [with the sheer number of stupid people who are apparently legally entitled to drive; some as young as 15] is just jaw-dropping.

Living on the border with the US, you see lots of healthcare tourists. Many are elderly people on pensions travelling several days on buses in order to buy their prescription medications for pretty basic conditions like asthma and diabetes [and I say basic because the treatments like ventolin have been on the market for years and cost very little in Canada or the UK]. The use of the term "tourism" is just farcical. Travelling 4 days on a bus when you're 75 to get treatment for diabetes is not the sign of a civilised nation. And, it's hardly surprising that the states with the highest amount of deaths due to lack of health insurance are the states with the largest populations of Hispanics, African-Americans and other ethnic minorities. Nothing says racism quite like poor access to healthcare. Nothing says racism quite like institutionalised and systemic murder through lack of basic healthcare. And, there can be no debate on this. A child who dies of cancer because they can't afford the treatment isn't dying because of cancer. They are being murdered by a society that doesn't give a shit.

The Affordable Care Act comes into effect in 2014. It still won't guarantee basic health insurance for every person living in the US and that's only if the evil Republicans don't get it vetoed [and anyone who participates in that should be going straight to hell]. This bill still doesn't cover universal access to birth control, abortion or maternity services. The US has one of the highest rates of maternal death in "Western-Industrialised" economies. The misogyny inherent in killing women through lack of access to these services is astronomical.

 I am proud to live in a country which has free healthcare at the point of service. Where a child with cancer is treated at ANY hospital, regardless of their insurance. Where abortion and birth control are considered human rights. Where prescription medications are available for all and not just those lucky enough to be wealthy.

Read More

Apparently, Angela Merkel has a vagina.

I know this because @IndiaKnight, and others, are gleefully insulting her "camel toe" on Twitter. Now, this could be some of my weird-arse feminist principles coming into play, but Angela Merkel's vagina or vulva or whatever genitalia is currently being belittled is possibly the least interesting thing about her. [Unless she has a corn on her toe. I don't actually care about that either.] The important thing here is that she's the Chancellor of Germany; like the only financially stable country in Europe right now.

The woman has actual fiscal power to help end the recession [not to mention that pesky issue of the more women in power, the more likely issues specific to women are to get government attention]. Merkel is a hell of a lot smarter than The Double Nincompoop Act of Sarkozy and Berlusconi and I thank the Goddess everyday that those two are gone. But, I don't remember Twitter insulting the various genitalia of those two and, frankly, their sexually predatory behaviour is well-documented.

But, Merkel has a vagina. And, it doesn't matter what she does or how she does it. All that matters is that, today, Merkel has a "camel toe" and, therefore, is an object of ridicule. My crazy-arse Feminist principles don't care how Merkel looks. I care what she says and the consequences of her actions. They have the real ability to cause serious harm or fix a serious situation. Her vagina does not. So let's stop playing the Patriarchal Fuckability Game and start worrying about what Merkel is doing [along with every other European politician] right now.

Read More

Girls In Science: How to Patronise and Offend in 45 Seconds.

This is an EU Initiative to encourage girls into science. Its' a video involving 18 year old models in skintight clothing, wearing ridiculous shoes, crawling about on their bellies for a tube of lipstick. Because nothing says science more than sexualising a bunch of teenagers and making them look desperate for lipstick: the one thing guaranteed to bring them wealth, success and happiness.

It's just all kinds of awful. It's the kind of campaign one would expect from 14 year old boys who have never had a date. Or, a stupid misogynist who actively hates women and doesn't think women can be scientists. Because there is no excuse for this level of misogyny to be made by an organisation who are charged with breaking gendered stereotypes. All this does is reinforce the same patriarchal bullshit which assumes that women are nothing unless they are fuckable; even if they are geniuses like Rosalind Franklin [DNA and who was not awarded the Nobel Prize because she passed away several months before the ceremony], Marie Curie [the first person - and not just one with a vagina - to be awarded two Nobel prizes in chemistry and physics] or, you know, every freaking woman on the planet [and in space] currently working with the field of science in physics, chemistry, archaeology, paleo-bottany, AIDS research and on and on and on and on and so forth.

I do like the inclusion of the fuck me heels: you know the ones which cause exactly the same damage to women's feet as the [now banned] practise of Chinese footbinding. An activity roundly condemned for its misogyny and the actual physical, debilitating harm it caused women. But, now, roundly hailed as a sign of a really fuckable woman in "Western culture". Because nothing says "fuck me" like deliberately physically destroying one's body for the pleasure of someone else.

I could complain all day about the minutiae of this video but, instead, I think everyone needs to watch the Unofficial Response To EU Misogyny: Because It's Brilliant.

Also, this video is so clearly an example of cultural femicide. So much so, that I expect the Girl Guides will be writing snotty letters to the EU next week.

Have to add this because it's genius: This is what a Scientist Looks Like

Hilariously, the original video link has been removed from Youtube. I'm guessing because of all the negative comments underneath so this is a new link.

Read More

FemFresh: Got to love a Feminist Smackdown

I do love a Feminst smackdown. There is nothing like a full on Feminist smackdown of Patriarchal arse-hattery. And, the Feminist smackdown of Femfresh is just genius. And, do they deserve it. Not just for selling a product which labels women's bodies disgusting and smelly for being real but for the total inability to use the actual NAME for those body parts. Because vagina and vulva are such horribly dirty things that even their name is tainted by their disgustingness. I wouldn't have linked the FB page except the comments by Feminists are freaking hilarious. 

These are some of the blogs I've been reading : 

Cath Bussey

Stavvers

Girlonthenet

London Feminist

OhHellWhatTheHell

Who says Feminsts aren't funny?

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Perrier Water

Perrier has outdone themselves with the 'women are nothing more than wankfodder for men' with this particularly stupid piece of misogyny. Basically, it's a female 'astronaut' (and I use that term loosely) in a gold 'spacesuit' prancing about in sexualised poses doing the faux blowjob-licking-her-lips schtick. Do males over the age of 14 actually find this attractive?

And, seriously, thanks ever so fecking much Perrier for using what could have been a really brilliant woman-as-scientist motif and reduces women to nothing more than fuckbots. Genius display of creativity that.

Adding Perrier to the boycott.

Here's a link to the ad with a genius article suggesting its "inspired" by 2001: A Space Odyssey. Honestly, I'm just shrieking with laughter at the self-congratulatory twaddle in the review.

Read More

Father's Day: The Patriarchal Whiny Prize.

My feelings on the capitalist-patriarchal conspiracy which is Mother's Day are quite clear. It was a fob-off for women who do most of the work most of the time. So they get one insipid little day a year to go home to visit their Mummies (and all the work that goes into it). It is patriarchal obfuscation at its finest: one day a year. Despite doing all the shit work. And, that's without getting into the issue of whose responsible for mothers-in-law. Here's a hint: not usually the person with a penis they gave birth too.

Father's Day, on the other hand, is just the kind of stupid prize men give themselves in self-congratulatory hypocrisy because, God forbid, women get something men don't. (See also International Men's Day in response to International Women's Day). Giving yourself a prize for doing nothing is totally a male response. And utterly pathetic.

Here's a couple of tips for men on Father's Day:

Stand up and be a father.

Do 50% of the parenting.

Do 50% of the scut work.

Do 50% of the shit work.

Get up in the middle of the night with your sick kids.

Take the day off work when your kids are sick.

You don't 'baby-sit' your kids. You are a parent.

You don't get rewards for acting like an adult. You shouldn't get one for being a parent.

Pay maintenance. Not paying maintenance is child abuse.

You show up for contact. There is nothing more important than your children. You skip contact to watch football, then you are a shit father.

Domestic violence makes you a shit father. Abusing your partner in front of your children is child abuse.

If you can't name your child's teacher, best friend or medication, you are a shit father.

If you can't name your child's favourite toy, you are a shit father.

If you need to be told what time your child's school starts or the names of their after-school activities, you are a shit father.

Parenting is a 24/7 job with no breaks or overtime. If you don't understand that, then don't have PIV. Children deserve real fathers; not neglectful arse wipes who care more about their cocks than they do their children.

Read More

Loving Aurora Teagarden [and Looking For Recommendations of Series Featuring Strong Women]

I've been boring Twitter senseless with my updates on loving the Aurora Teagarden books by Charlaine Harris. They are Harris' first series and aren't her best books but she does touch on the themes which make the True Blood so fascinating: feminism, racism, manners, homophobia and constraining social structures which punish those who don't fit. The character of Aurora Teagarden isn't quite as fun or feminist as Sookie Stackhouse who, above all else, is a real fighter and an incredible woman who knows herself. Aurora Teagarden is still stuck in the marriage/baby rigamarole, despite her interest in solving old murders and subsequent accidental involvement in solving current murders. They are both strong female characters though and there can never be enough strong, quirky, intelligent and interesting women characters in books. 

Some of my favourite characters in book series, in no particular order, are: 

• Janet Evanovich's Stephanie Plum
• Dorothy Gilman's Mrs Pollifax: elderly widow gets bored and joins the CIA. As you do.
• Agatha Christie's Miss Marple
• M.C Beaton's Agatha Raisin via LeBof
• Charlaine Harris' Lily Barb [there is a pattern to this one!]
• Carola Dunn's Daisy Dalrymple
• J.D Robb's Lt Eve Dallas
• Elizabeth Peters' Vicki Bliss
• Alison Gordon's Kate Henry

I'm always looking for more recommendations for series.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Tampax Pearl's Mother Nature Twaddle

There's a whole stack of these stupid, misogynistic ads where "Mother Nature" tries to punish women with their periods for DARING to have a social life. Thankfully, Tampax, the Great Feminist Hero, is on hand to humiliate Mother Nature with their "pearls". Because, obviously, without Tampax no woman could possibly ever go out in public for fear of accidentally spilling some menstrual blood and possibly poisoning every man in their vicinity.

I can't even describe how angry the whole "Mother Nature as an evil bitch who hates women" theme makes me. That's patriarchal arsehattery at its finest. Making a natural part of women's lives bad and yucky and then blaming it on a woman. Because women need to be punished with their periods. Or, protected from them or something else that's all kinds of stupid.

Boycotting this shit too.

Bring on the Matriarchal Revolution by reclaiming our bodies and our mooncups [or washable linens].

Read More

Louis Theroux Utterly Stupid View of Porn

WARNING: TRIGGERING

To be clear, I am anti-porn. I think its harmful, reductive and destructive. It destroys women's bodies through abuse and objectification. It reinforces rape culture by perpetuating the myth that women are ALWAYS in a constant state of consent. It destroys sexuality by delineating and prescribing "acceptable" sexual practises which, inevitably, privilege the male orgasm at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy [never mind their desire to orgasm]. I agree with the radical feminist philosophy that: Porn is the Theory and Rape the Practise. I have no time for the arguments of "choice feminism" which suggest we should support the rights of individual women to "choose" to engage in any activity which then, necessarily, become feminist [with no mention the issue of poverty, abuse and substance misuse which push women into the porn industry]. Feminism is a political theory which examines structural power. It is not about individual "choices"; especially when those "choices" involve serious consequences on the physical and emotional body of the woman involved and longer-term consequences for the objectification and abuse of other women. Porn is your basic woman-hating, Patriarchy-approved establishment.

Usually, I am a fan of Louis Theroux's work. I like his ability to play the foppish Englishman and ask awkward and inappropriate questions which elicit answers that others couldn't. Twilight of the Porn Stars, a return to a 1997 documentary by Theroux, though was, simply, quite embarrassing. Theroux's failure to challenge the myth that porn is in financial difficulties is incredibly harmful. Yes, I get that he's more interested in the performers than in the money but still, his refusal to even attempt to tackle one of the most pervasive myths of the sex industry is telling. He could have challenged the myth in his conclusion without impacting on his interview technique. Theroux seems to have taken the information he received from employees in the industry without question. It just wasn't good enough as a documentary or responsible enough for a man with his reputation. It also shows a remarkable lack of research into the topic and some serious cognitive dissonance.

I would have just clenched my teeth and assumed that bad editing was responsible for the problematic documentary but the article Theroux wrote for the Guardian to advertise the documentary destroyed my optimism. The article is really quite appalling and distressing. There is so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start. Basically, Theroux's premise that the porn industry is in decline is just wrong. He completely misunderstands how "free" porn works on the internet or how the "sex entertainment industry" uses the word "amateur". How can you produce a documentary without understanding the mechanics of the industry; especially one which operates on obfuscation? Porn is a profitable industry because it followed the rules of capitalism and has concentrated the power and the profits in the hands of a few men. Gail Dines and Dana Bialer have written an excellent critique of Theroux's failure to understand the industry in the Guardian. Frankly, ten minutes googling would have demonstrated just how fallacious the premise of a porn industry in decline really is.

Whilst Theroux's failure to understand the economics of the porn industry is interesting, I found his refusal to really question the effects of the porn industry on individual performers quite intriguing. Theroux does return again and again to the suicide of a performer called John Dough that he interviewed in the 1997 documentary but Theroux seems to have a "romantic"view of the industry. At least, his view of the industry has some seriously rose-coloured glasses involved. He does get Francine Amidour to make some seriously unpleasant comments including the fact that she wouldn't want her children to be involved because she doesn't want to be the mother of a "whore". The fact that Amidour is "whoring" out other people's children is, apparently, so insignificant that isn't even worth mentioning. Amidour also says that "fucking someone on a camera isn't as hard as working 16 hours a day in an office." I've worked in offices. It's never given me an STD, or stretched my anus so that I suffer permanent anal leakage or resulted in my gang rape. And, that's without getting into Robert Black, who actually served a prison sentence for obscenity, who says that he doesn't regret forcing women to engage in multiple anal penetration but that it seems "silly" now. The women whose bodies he tortured might feel differently about that. I know I do. It's actually quite lazy journalism.

Theroux does focus on the suicide of the one male model, 'John Dough', that he interviewed in his  original film is interesting but very odd considering the irreparable harm caused by the industry on women's bodies daily like double anal penetration, gang-bangs and men ejaculating in women's eyes. Theroux asks everyone he interviewed about Dough's suicide and tracks down Dough's wife. Monique DeMoan suggests that her husband committed suicide because of "his cocaine addiction and the instability and sense of failure that went with it, not because of the pressures of the industry". Whilst the interview with Dough's wife is definitely one of the most important parts of the documentary, interviewing her daughter on camera was a step too far for me. She is a child. She could have been interviewed without her face being shown. I know Monique could have refused the interview but it's Theroux's documentary. He could have shown some consideration for the child and chosen not to use her; especially because she is used as a foil to belittle her mother. That made me so very uncomfortable and angry. More importantly, Dough didn't commit suicide because of the "decline of a media format" as those interviewed by Theroux suggested. And, that's certainly not what the people Theroux interviewed thought. They have been saying it but its a clear case of cognitive dissonance. After all, no one working in the industry is going to admit that the industry is harmful and kills people. Theroux just didn't push hard enough on this issue.

I don't even know where Theroux was going with this bit in his Guardian article:

It's an open secret in the porn world that many female performers are supplementing their income by "hooking on the side". It's also called "doing privates", as in private bookings. The official industry line is that it's dangerous (because clients aren't tested the way performers are) and irresponsible (because the women could then infect the closed community of professional performers). But the women can make far more money having sex behind closed doors than doing it on film and, in fact, the practice is widespread. For many female performers nowadays, the movies are merely a sideline, a kind of advertising for their real business of prostitution.

Male performers do not have the same options. For a tiny subsection of top talent, there is still a regular pay cheque, albeit a shrinking one. But work has dried up for many of the journeyman-performers in the lower ranks and there is a great deal of anxiety across the board.

Because men aren't financially "compensated" in the same manner as women, we should feel sad for them? "Doing privates" is prostitution. The models, male and female, do so because they need the money. That's hardly a "free choice"; especially in an industry which has no health insurance and causes serious physical damage to bodies. Using "adult movies" to advertise your body to be prostituted is not a good thing. It just shows how strong the links are between the "sex entertainment industry" [approved by Wall street] and the prostitution and abuse of women's bodies [approved by Wall Street in all but name]. The fact that we live in a society where women and men are required to sell their bodies to pay their bills is not a society I want to live in.

And, frankly, this bit is just stupid:

Where the industry will end up is hard to predict. Clearly there is still a market for softcore movies made by companies such as Penthouse and Hustler, available on subscription channels. The parodies may continue for a while, too. But it is difficult to see how a business selling hardcore movies and even internet clips is sustainable when most people simply don't want to pay if they don't have to. To many people, when it comes to porn, not paying for content seems the more moral thing to do.

I know where I want the porn industry to end up: consigned to the rubbish bins of history and every piece of pornography destroyed so that the abuse of individuals is no longer the fodder for men to wank over. The morality of people who masturbate over the abuse of women's bodies is questionable but its not because they don't like to pay for porn. It's because they are masturbating over the rape and torture of women; vulnerable women. That is the morality issue.

And this bit just made me want to vomit:

And there is also the wider question: do those who use porn not, perhaps, owe it a little something? Should those who download it not be ready to pass on a little cash incentive to the business? And if not, why not? Does the stigma attached to porn make it OK to steal it? These questions underpin a much bigger dilemma being faced by all media: how do you sustain an industry that provides a certain standard of product – be it journalism, music, or mainstream movies, or X-rated movies – when more and more consumers are in the habit of downloading content for free? In the world of porn, the answer is: you can't.

I'd like to see the BBC do a real documentary on pornography and the real effects of it on individual performers and the larger effects on the objectification and sexual violation of women. The obfuscation in this documentary is just depressing.

Theroux is better than this. And, the women and men abused daily in the "sex entertainment industry" deserve better than this documentary.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Always and their Seriously Stupid "Have a Happy Period" Shite

The Always ads are stupid. They have always been stupid. They will always be stupid. And, they are so clearly designed by men because no women would think up "Have a Happy Period" as a slogan. I don't care about their dry-weave or pretty patterns on something designed to collect my blood. I'm not planning on displaying my used pads on youtube. I just want something practical to deal with the blood. Periods may be natural but they ain't an afternoon tea party. At least, I've never been to a tea party involving diarrhea, cramps, heavy bleeding, bloating, migraines and mood swings. I may be leading a somewhat sheltered life though.

I did try to find a link to one of these ads on youtube but mostly I found pisstakes of the "Have a Happy Period" bullshit. I didn't quite feel the need to watch any but it was enough to make me not bother searching further. Frankly, if you're desperate to see it, the ad runs on TV constantly.

The only thing I can say that is positive is that Always finally made me take the plunge into buying a mooncup. Probably not their intention but its made me happier. No more monthly purchases supporting the ultra-stupid P&G and their utterly bizarre "P&G is Proud to Sponsors Mums" crapola which just makes me want to vomit.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Pepsi Max's End of the World Pro-Rape Bullshit

This is an old advertising campaign for Pepsi Max and one that I complained to the ASA about. Needless to say, the ASA didn't see the misogyny inherent in "tricking" a woman into a sexual relationship by "pretending" the world is about to be destroyed by a giant meteor. But, then, the ASA isn't exactly renown for understanding or spotting misogyny even when its handed to them on a platter.

I think Pepsi Max crossed the line with this ad. Simply put, it encourages rape culture wherein a woman's consent is nothing more than a game. With the rape of a woman's body as a prize. The fact that Pepsi Max used this as part of a viral campaign entitled "Tell Us Your Max Experience" just makes it worse. Women's bodies are only for male pleasure and men get to use a woman's body even after she has said "no". Because women aren't allowed to say "no".

So, thank you Pepsi Max for reminding women, once again, that bodily autonomy isn't a privilege women have. In a capitalist-Patriarchy, we are simply fucktoys. And, rape, just another marketing tool.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Durex uses Sexual Violence to Sell Condoms

A dear friend tweeted me to suggest that Durex needed to be added to the Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame because of an image of sexual violence they used on their FB page. Since I started writing this blog post for its usual Monday morning slot, it appears that Durex has realised the massive PR mistake it made in allowing the photo to be used in the first place. Whilst this is a positive response to the massive criticism they received, its not actually good enough. Sexual advertising is harmful and destructive. It reduces 50% of the consumer base to nothing more than plastic blow-up dolls which is actually a pretty stupid business practise since women make up the vast majority of consumers in terms of household items and groceries. Purchasing condoms ends up "wifework" simply because its a chore. And, we all know women are the ones who do chores.

Taking down the photo also doesn't excuse Durex's reply to my friend Kim's letter of complaint:

Dear Kim,Thank you for your comment on the Durex UK Facebook wall. We appreciate you feel strongly about us removing the image but this will delete all the comments as well and we feel it is important for the conversation trail to remain visible. We don’t want our fans to feel their voices have been hidden.We hope you understand and please take our sincere apologies once again.Kind regards,Durex UK

Kim replied to their obvious bullshit with this:

Firstly, thank you for the email. However, I feel the decision to leave the content standing is a misinformed one. Durex has a public image, which is reflected in the content it posts on it’s public profiles, including its Facebook and Twitter feeds. It is not silencing to remove posts which offend a large number of people because of a strong link to sexual violence against women. It wouldn’t be silencing to remove it, and follow this up with a further apology. It would be showing that Durex hold a zero tolerance policy against sexual violence, and are committed to upholding their promotion of safe sex; safe sex doesn’t stop with using condoms. It extends to promoting healthy, consensual sexual relationships. By allowing this image to stand, you’re telling numerous survivors of sexual violence and their allies that their pleas not to see offensive media promoting violence against women, from a brand that is supposed to promote sex in a positive light, are unimportant, and unworthy of being responded to in a sensitive manner. You are allowing yourselves to further be associated with violence against women. As a result, I shall be boycotting Durex until the offending image is removed. I shall also be encouraging my friends to do the same. It may be time that Durex reconsider how “safe” their view on safe sex is.

Even though Durex has apparently pulled the ad, I will be joining Kim's boycott because, as she says far more eloquently than I, "My money will be going to condom brands who recognise that safe sex doesn’t stop at the use of a condom". We need to start holding more companies accountable for lazy sexist advertising so that ads which use sexual violence simply don't get made. Ever again.

Read More

Scholastic: Reinforcing Harmful Gender Roles for Profit

I loved Scholastic book fairs as a child. The monthly catalogue full of crappy books you just HAD to have [and the chance to buy great books at discounted prices]. I still have lots of the books I bought via Scholastic: the complete Judy Blumes and Beverly Cleary books; The Chronicles of Narnia; Lord of the Rings; Laura Ingalls Wilder; Roald Dahl;  and Jean Little. We have many Junie B. Jones and irritating books about unicorns collected by the teenager. The Book Fairs were always the highlight of Parent-Teacher interviews. And, yeah, as a child I didn't quite get that they were merely a capitalist enterprise exploiting a captive audience and that our schools sold us out in an attempt to deal with their chronic underfunding. As they do.

Scholastic always did gender its products: pink butterfly erasers for girls and football keyrings for boys. But, this gendering, whilst all kinds of stupid, is nothing like the extreme gendering Scholastic is pushing now in their How to Survive Anything Books. I genuinely can not believe a company with the reputation Scholastic has for its educational materials is so desperate to sell books that they've come up with this as an acceptable way to market to kids:

Boys Only: How to Survive Anything! Table of Contents:

1. How to Survive a shark attack
2. How to Survive in a Forest
3. How to Survive Frostbite
4. How to Survive a Plane Crash
5. How to Survive in the Desert
6. How to Survive a Polar Bear Attack
7. How to Survive a Flash Flood
8. How to Survive a Broken Leg
9. How to Survive an Earthquake
10. How to Survive a Forest Fire
11. How to Survive in a Whiteout
12. How to Survive a Zombie Invasion
13. How to Survive a Snakebite
14. How to Survive if Your Parachute Fails
15. How to Survive a Croc Attack
16. How to Survive a Lightning Strike
17. How to Survive a T-Rex
18. How to Survive Whitewater Rapids
19. How to Survive a Sinking Ship
20. How to Survive a Vampire Attack
21. How to Survive an Avalanche
22. How to Survive a Tornado
23. How to Survive Quicksand
24. How to Survive a Fall
25. How to Survive a Swarm of Bees
26. How to Survive in Space

Girls Only: How to Survive Anything! Table of Contents:

1. How to survive a BFF Fight
2. How to Survive Soccer Tryouts
3. How to Survive a Breakout
4. How to Show You’re Sorry
5. How to Have the Best Sleepover Ever
6. How to Take the Perfect School Photo
7. How to Survive Brothers
8. Scary Survival Dos and Don’ts
9. How to Handle Becoming Rich
10. How to Keep Stuff Secret
11. How to Survive Tests
12. How to Survive Shyness
13. How to Handle Sudden Stardom
14. More Stardom Survival Tips
15. How to Survive a Camping Trip
16. How to Survive a Fashion Disaster
17. How to Teach Your Cat to Sit
18. How to Turn a No Into a Yes
19. Top Tips for Speechmaking
20. How to Survive Embarrassment
21. How to Be a Mind Reader
22. How to Survive a Crush
23. Seaside Survival
24. How to Soothe Sunburn
25. How to Pick Perfect Sunglasses
26. Surviving a Zombie Attack
27. How to Spot a Frenemy
28. Brilliant Boredom Busters
29. How to Survive Truth or Dare
30. How to Beat Bullies
31. How to be an Amazing Babysitter

The ONLY thing these lists have in common is "How to survive a Zombie" attack. Now, I've not bothered to check out anything past the table of contents but I'm guessing the advice isn't the same.

I can not state how much I loathe this essentialist gender bullshit. I really can't. It's not like there is no one with a vagina wandering about Northern Canada who might get attacked by a polar bear and boys are equally likely to suffer sunburn as girls. FFS, girls are being taught how to survive a "crush" and its pretty fucking obvious that this book isn't aimed at teenage girls. It's aimed at children and its telling girls that they have to have "crushes" and "be in love" in order to be a "real" girl. And, frankly, the "How to be an Amazing Babysitter" bit is just unbearable tedious and reinforces the belief that the one true desire of girls is to be a mother otherwise they just aren't girls. The real answer to "How to Play Truth or Dare" is to NOT play it. Someone always gets hurt because its an invitation to bullying [which is hilarious considering surviving bullying follows on the list].

Really, the girls list is an how to guide on surviving being a teenager in a capitalist-patriarchy whilst the boys list is a guide to having fun. How utterly despicable is it that we are already conditioning girls into being Handmaidens whilst allowing boys the freedom to be as creative and imaginative as they want. What better way to spend a long summer day than climbing trees and pretending to be a guerilla army destroying zombies? Or being an astronaut in space? Or living in the jungle and fighting crocodiles and snakes?

And, what about the boys who don't like hanging about in trees? Are they not "real" boys? Hyper-masculinity and the Patriarchy damages boys too. It creates a construction of masculinity which requires boys to be physically aggressive and never take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

Shame on Scholastic for selling our children out and reinforcing the Patriarchy's policy of cultural femicide.

Read More