Bitch drags out the "Hairy, Man-Hating Lesbian" Trope. #LeSigh > with update

I'm really, really tired of the supposed joke "I'm a feminist, just not the hairy, man-hating Lesbian kind". It creates a dichotomy between 'good' and 'bad' feminists wherein Lesbians in possession of their body hair, who are by default man-haters, are 'bad' feminists. It's thoughtless, reductive, and, to be perfectly blunt, it's lesbophobic. 

Feminist Borgia has written an excellent critique of the concept which I highly recommend but, essentially, the entire basis of the "I'm not a man-hating, hairy Lesbian" is to make feminism palatable to men and reinforce women's sexual availability to men. Frankly, the men who are feminist allies don't need us to pander to their delicate sensibilities. They already get it. The men who don't get it won't get it whilst we throw our Lesbian sisters under the bus to make men feel important. 

It is not funny. It is not clever and it is most certainly not a feminist act to use a "joke" which insults one group of women in order to placate men.

This is why I was really quite distressed to see Bitch magazine  using the trope whilst advertising for new freelance writers:

By focusing on gender issues and the media, Bitch acts as a tool-kit for all those who engage in social justice and feminist criticism (no, feminist is not another word for lesbian), and editors are looking for writers who can provide smart, thought-provoking commentary on pop culture.

This appears as a guest post by Bitch on the website FishBowl NY. I can't access the full article so I cannot tell for certain if this is a direct quote from a staff member at Bitch or not. It does read as though Bitch are looking for freelance writers who are not lesbians. I'm sure this wasn't their intention, but the inclusion of the trope does imply that Bitch has enacted a no-lesbian policy.

We will not succeed in liberating women by making jokes about our sisters or reinforcing Patriarchal stereotypes. By insisting that we aren't "hairy, man-hating lesbians", we are telling the Patriarchy that lesbians, women with hair and women with valid reasons to hate men aren't worthy of our concern or our support. 

That is not a feminism I support.

UPDATE: Bitch media was not responsible for the quote and has requesting that it be removed from the article. 

UPDATE 2: I emailed Bitch with my concerns yesterday morning and received a very lovely reply back from them both apologising and stating that the quote did not come from a member of staff at Bitch.

Read More

Why I'm Boycotting Madame Tussauds

 Yesterday, I read a blog written by my friend @LUBBOttom on the silencing of the voices of women with disabilities within the feminist movement entitled "white, cis and silenced". I have read the piece multiple times but still haven't processed it fully because I keep getting to this paragraph and am not able to express a coherent thought due to rage: 

Funfairs and theme parks, which once used to be accommodating to people with wheelchairs are now considerably less so. Madame Tussauds, in particular, has brought into the scrounger propaganda and now demands medical proof of your disability in order to give you disability access. And god forbid you might want to sit with your children on a ride- they’re convinced you’re a danger to yourself, and insist that you can only sit next to, in front of was not good enough, another grown up or not go on the ride. Considering children also need to sit next to a grown up it leaves you with the option, if you’re only there with one other adult, of going on after your kids with a grown up but no children, which is understandable on a roller coaster but not so much on a small kiddy ride.

I assume this level of bullshit is currently legal since we live in a country which genuinely hates disabled people. It's just the level of arrogance and infantilisation in this policy is just gobsmacking.

I will be boycotting Madame Tussauds until they change this policy and I will be writing them to tell them why. 



UPDATE: A good friend just posted a link to a really powerful article on the erasure of women with disabilities from interesectional feminism. It really is an essential read.

Read More

What about the women? The existence of Brothels in Nazi Concentration Camps

This is a response to a post at Everyday Whorephobia called "When the State Traffics Women". I posted a brief response on the blog itself [which is currently in moderation]* but I wanted to write a longer response. Women's history is something I am very passionate about and this particular topic is something I am quite familiar with. Whilst I am glad more women are writing about this topic, I do have some reservations about some of the conclusions within this piece.

Sexual violence and rape were common during the Holocaust. The fact that these experiences are not common knowledge is because of sexist constructions of a specific Holocaust narrative which privileged testimonies of male survivors like Elie Wiesel over women, Gay men, people with disabilities, and children, to name a few. Partly, this was because of the historical context in which Holocaust narratives became well-known as very little academic research was done until the 1960s. Testimonies published in the immediate post-war era, of which there are many, had very small publishing runs as many people were simply not interested in analysing the full spectrum of violence perpetrated during World War Two. Holocaust history was written during, and is historically situated by, the Cold War. The political desires of the US and the USSR impact how Holocaust history was written and who it was being written for. Racism was a motivating factor of the crimes against humanity during the war as much as it was a motivating factor for how the history of the war was written.

As with all history, the Holocaust was complicated. Mass genocide does not simply occur because a few men in one nation order it. The Holocaust required the participation, active and passive, of much of Europe. That is a fact which very few are willing to acknowledge but it is something we need to remind ourselves of daily.

"When the State traffics women" does raise awareness of just how prolific sexual violence was during the Holocaust. This point cannot be emphasised enough; sexual violence was ignored by mainstream historians until well into the 1990s. Feminist historians were writing about in the early 1970s but this researched was dismissed, as women's history frequently is. Since the 1990s, there have been numerous collections of essays on the experience of women published as well as numerous conferences which dealt specifically with the gendered experiences of women. There also been an explosion in the sheer number of women's testimonies being (re)published. In 2010, an anthology specifically about sexual violence against Jewish women was published. As I write this, there are a multitude of PhDs, essays and books being written about sexual violence during the Holocaust. Women's experiences are being written back into the history of the Holocaust and the extant of sexual violence against all peoples is finally being questioned.

My personal belief is that there cannot be enough research and writing on the Holocaust. The Soviet archives, which were only recently opened, have demonstrated just how much we did not know. 10 years ago, a group of scholars decided to establish the official number of slave labour and concentration camps. It was double what was previously believed and includes at least 500 brothels. So many records still need to be archived. What we thought we knew has turned out to be only a brief snapshot of what actually happened.

This piece had the potential to increase public awareness of the existence of brothels and the treatment of prostituted women. Unfortunately, there are several problems with the essay. First, it occasionally  conflates the experience of prostituted women within Nazi Germany with the experience of all women within the concentration, death and slave labour camps. This conflation is not helpful when researching sexual violence. The treatment of individuals within the camp system depended on their nationality, race, age, sex, sexuality, criminal activity, disability and skill. During the 1930s, the Nazis deliberately targeted prostituted women under the category of 'asocial'** for incarceration, however we do not know how many women incarcerated as 'asocials' were prostituted women as the category included convicted criminals, women with disabilities, and those who are still othered in the UK now. The category of 'asocial' included anyone accused of moral degeneracy. It is also included women who were Lesbians. Lesbianism, unlike homosexuality, was not illegal under the Nazi regime. Lesbian women were still incarcerated but they were charged as 'asocials' rather than for the crime of homosexuality. This category was specifically about women living within Nazi Germany before the outbreak of war and at the beginning.

Secondly, the number of prostituted women who were incarcerated in concentration, slave-labour and death camps which had brothels is open to debate because of this issue of identification. We know, for the camps where records were not destroyed, how many women were incarcerated as 'asocials' but that does not give us an accurate record of women incarcerated for prostitution. This is a very important point when addressing the issue of brothels and which women were required to "work" in them because women incarcerated for the crime of prostitution were by no means the only women forced to "work" in the brothels.

The establishment of the brothels, as the piece correctly points out, were in direct response to two issues: Heinrich Himmler's "incentivisation" program for male inmates working within the armaments factories in the slave-labour camps and homosexuality within the camps. Brothels were obviously the answer to both problems. I have some personal reservations about the brothels being developed to combat homosexuality within the camp system since the men who were incarcerated for the crime of homosexuality were subjected to sexual violence and medical experimentation. Being a known homosexual was much more likely to result in death than a pass to the brothel. The problem within the camps was sexual relationships between men who were not homosexuals and the rape of teenage boys by adult men. Both issues need far more research.  

The women who were raped in the brothels included lesbian women as punishment for being lesbians and Jewish women; the laws of Rassenschade were generally ignored in the camps. "Working" in the brothel did involve better food rations. The women were also allowed to bathe and had access to better clothes. They also got to work inside which was an important consideration for many women. Women's testimonies vary on how women were "chosen" to work in the brothels but most involve the women themselves "volunteering" to be raped in the brothel and women being forced to parade naked in front of SS guards and the most beautiful being chosen. Stories of women "volunteering" to work in the brothel include women who made the "choice" in order to access extra rations to smuggle to their sisters, which may or may not have included biological sisters as the benefits of sisterhood and the importance of women's relationships are a common theme in women's testimonies. There are also stories of women who were incarcerated for prostitution "volunteering" for the brothels in order to spare other women the degradation of being raped. 

The women "working" in brothels generally represented in women's testimonies in two ways: as debased women or as true sisters helping other women. Much more research needs to be done into the experience of women who worked in the brothels: who they were and, for those who "volunteered", why did they make the "choice".

The third, and in my opinion, the biggest problem with "When the State traffics women" is that it focuses on men and their feelings, effectively erasing the humanity of the women "working" within the brothels. Men were given tokens for 'good behaviour'. The tokens were bartered around the camp for food and other extras. Women's bodies were bartered as objects and then the women were raped but not just by male inmates, and certainly not Jewish men. SS guards also raped the women within the brothels, as they did with women in all the slave-labour, concentration and death camps. Jewish women were allowed to be raped by men but Jewish men were not allowed in the brothels.

As the piece states, the men were given tokens to the brothels were subject to "humiliating genital examination and a prophylactic injection before being taken to the room". The piece fails to mention that the women within the brothels were also subject to humiliating genital examinations. SS guards certainly did watch in some camps but not in others. In some camps, SS guards were the only people allowed to rape the women in the brothels.  The women were also raped by dozens of men every day but no mention is made of the effect of this on the women's bodies. The article also suggests that women who were infected with STIs were sent back to the main camps. It does not mention that this was frequently followed by a death sentence. It is also important to note that the campaign against STIs, as with the campaign against lice, was actually about the "safety" of the SS officers within the camps rather than concern about the male prisoners. The women, obviously, did not count. And, yes, the pregnancies which followed mass rapes were frequently aborted. Depending on the camp, this abortion could simply involve the murder of the women or the women dying from the abortion. It is certainly not quite as easy as the article implies.

This is the piece of text with which I have the most reservations: 

What motivated the men who used the service? The need to relieve sexual frustration was one motivation but survivor testimonies also refer to many men wanting to talk or simply feel the physical closeness of a woman. In the pitiless world of the concentration camp they simply sought a few minutes of tenderness. They were as much victims as the women.

Whilst the men were as much victims of the women, it wasn't for the reasons stated above. After all, the women weren't exactly in a position to decide whether or not they wanted to talk or just feel the physical closeness of a male body. The women were being raped dozens of times a day by dozens of men. The men had a choice. The women did not and to ignore this point is to ignore the experience and trauma of the women. This failure to acknowledge the very gendered nature of the Holocaust has led to women's lives being written out of history. 

The issue of brothels within the camps is complicated because it does "challenge prevailing orthodoxies about the nature of Nazi oppression", but, and this is very important, race was a key factor in the privilege to access to the brothels. Polish resistance fighters, German criminals and western POWs were allowed access to the brothels. Jewish men were banned and Soviet POWs were considered suspect. For the women, race was generally irrelevant. Once women were incarcerated in the camp systems, they were victims of sexual violence from all men*** without the added factor of being incarcerated in the brothel. For women out with the camp system, race also impacted on their experience of sexual violence. German soldiers raped whomever they wanted and the rape and murder of Jewish women in the ghettos guarded by regular German troops. The mass rapes by the Soviet army as the moved west is well-known, less so is the mass rapes committed by Allied forces. The stories of rape of women in Western Europe have not been fully explored. 

I do agree that the story of sexual violence needs to be historically situated within the wider context of Nazism, however the article refers to a now questionable construction of womanhood in Nazi Germany that was based on Nazi propaganda rather than the reality of the lives of Aryan women [and the conflation of *all* women with Aryan women here is telling]. This, however, is another essay for another time.

Sexual violence was an integral experience of the Holocaust for many women and I will write further about the experience of Jewish women in the camps. What I will say is that current research into sexual violence in the Holocaust has shown just how integral sexual violence is to genocide and human rights violations. The fact that rape was not mentioned once during the Nuremberg trials is disgraceful. The fact that neither "forced prostitution" nor rape were considered war crimes until 2002 is a crime in and of itself. When writing women's histories we need to be careful that we do not use their life-stories to reinforce a narrative based on our political leanings. The experience of women during the Holocaust has already been erased from history once to met a male political narrative. This cannot happen again.

*And, before anyone assumes anything. I only posted the comment yesterday. I'm sure they have a moderation policy which is run by volunteers. Moderating is a time consuming process and not one that anyone should have to do on a Saturday night.

** I have placed a number of terms in quotation marks because they are deeply problematic and outlining why they are problematic is an essay for another day.

***Clearly, not all men in the camps were involved in the rape of women and teenage boys but the threat was there for women. 

There is more research on the experience of women available here:

The Holocaust at Women Under Siege
New Holocaust findings highlight larger gap in conflict and rape research at Women Under Siege
Remember the Women Institute

Read More

Silent Sunday : Inspiring Blogs written by women

Three Concerns about Cameron's Porn Plans at We Mixed our Drinks

Porn is only damaging when its not Murdoch Porn at Week Woman

Dishing about PIV at Women Warriors

Labelling a state of being at One Woman's Thoughts

Why I support criminalising rape porn at Close the Loophole

Here's what's wrong with hijab tourism and your cutesy modesty experiments at MsMuslamic
Conversations about beauty and beauty privilege need to be intersectional at Gradient Lair

The glorification of white crime at Holy Matriarch

On Banknotes and the etiquette of sharing at Glosswitch

Rising above our differences to celebrate the little things at The not so quiet feminist.

My boyfriend blames me for my sexual assault at Everyday Victim Blaming

Lest we forget at Liberation Collective

Radical Feminist you say at Witchwind

J.K Rowing and the case of the sexist nom de plume by Victoria Brownworth

I'd rather risk rape than quit partying: Rape Culture and the Good Men Project at Belle Jar Blog

On Shouting the Fuck Back at GoddessDeeva

Online Abuse and reporting the man who threatened me at We Mixed our Drinks

Read More

Feminists are actually human shocker

You'd think this was only directed a the arsewipes at a Voice for Men and the rape apologists hanging out at the ironically named Good Men Project but it seems a number of actual self-defining feminists are struggling with this too. 

So, here's the point:

Feminists make mistakes too. We are human and we make mistakes. 

Holding the entire feminist movement accountable for a mistake one feminist made ten years ago is deeply stupid.

Holding all [insert feminist category of choice here] responsible for a mistake one person made six months ago is stupid. 

Trashing one feminist for making a mistake once is stupid. 

Feminism is a movement and one in which we are all learning. 

We will make mistakes. We will change our minds. We will be as imperfect as every other human on the planet. 

If all you do is whine about what other women are doing and saying, then you really need to reassess your feminist principles.

We need to call each other out on racism, homophobia, lesbophobia, disblism, classism etc. One mistake should be forgiven as part of a learning process. 

A pattern of abusive behaviour should not be forgiven. 

So, for all the so-called feminists out there whining about activism of The Women's Room UK and Caroline Criado Perez, stop being so freaking self-centred and try supporting your sisters instead of wasting all your time trashing them.

And, the trashing goes for middle class white journalism too. We should all have access to education and decent employment. Let's campaign for that instead of whining about some women being more privileged than others.

The endgoal of feminism is to liberate all women, not reduce us to the lowest common denominator. Frankly, that's just offensive.

Read More

Why I want Boudicca on the £10 #banknote.

Well, to be completely honest, I've never actually had an opinion on who should be on the #banknotes since I have never actually noticed who was on them. But, that's the beauty of feminism: we aren't the Borg. Feminism is full of brilliant and inspiring women who question everything. We need campaigns like #banknotes and Everyday Victim Blaming and the Name Equality Campaign as much as we need Rape Crisis, Women's Aid and Women Under Siege. 

So, why my nitpicking over which woman gets to be on the £10 note?

I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and until last night I was perfectly happy with Austen. She's a brilliant writer: funny and snarky. She also published under her own name, which remains pretty fabulous. I only changed my mind after seeing the sheer amount of misogynistic abuse and one rape threat that feminist campaigner Caroline Criado Perez received for her campaign to ensure that a woman remained on English banknotes.

I want Boudicca to serve as a symbol of what happens to women when they question the Patriarchy: Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped for questioning the right of the Roman Empire, an emblem of male violence and patriarchal control. 

Jane Austen remains one of my favourite authors but I want Boudicca to serve as a Fuck You to all the men who insulted and threatened Caroline yesterday. I want Boudicca to serve as a reminder to all the men who stood up for Caroline that this isn't a one-off. Male violence, and the threat thereof, is constant. 

We all need a reminder of what is at stake for women who question the Patriarchy.

Read More

We will not succeed by silencing dissent.

I have been contemplating whether or not to publish this post since the incident described below happened. I have erred on the side of not publishing hoping that things will change but they haven't. If anything, things are getting worse.

I was reminded of the incident in an email conversation with Jane Fae where I mentioned how distressing I found the situation and then said: We will not succeed by silencing dissent. Jane quoted me in a blog she wrote for the F-Word UK which is what led me to decide to publish this piece. The below post has actually nothing to do with our email conversation or her F-Word blog but it has been preying on my mind and I need to make me feelings clear on this issue. 

I also think it's important to write about this following my Twitter #FeministLoveIn post yesterday. I firmly believe we need to celebrate online feminism and the incredibly inspiring women who fight the fight against misogyny online. I don't agree with every opinion held by the women I mentioned but that is the point. We can be feminists and focus on different issues without trashing one another's activism. We can disagree without resorting to personal insults and attacks. Feminism isn't one movement. And no one has the right to decide whether or not another person can label themselves a feminist. Discussion is an essential part of feminist activism. Silencing those we disagree with us is just the Patriarchy using women to police women. 

As feminists, we need to acknowledge our differences and celebrate our activism. We will not succeed by silencing dissent.

I have redacted all names from the post below and I will delete any comments which name the women involved.

Several months ago, a teenage feminist tweeted out a question from a webchat. She did not use quotation marks but that is hardly relevant. A teenage girl just tweeted out a question about feminism and language. This teenage girl, who is little more than a child herself, was attacked for asking a question that was deemed unacceptable by adult feminists. 

A teenage girl was verbally abused and harassed into apologising for asking a question by a group of adult women who call themselves feminists. 

When did feminism get to the point that asking questions was considered anti-feminist?

When did feminism get to the point that a child cannot ask a question?

When did feminism get to the point that a child asking a question was considered worthy of verbal abuse?

Verbal abuse is just that: abuse.

It is bullying.

It is completely unacceptable behaviour, especially when the victim is a child.


Feminism will not succeed by silencing dissent.

And, feminism certainly won't succeed when adult women think they have the right to verbally abuse a child for committing the crime of asking a question.

My feminism does not punish children for asking questions. It does not punish other women for asking questions. I'm struggling to understand how any woman who treats a child in such an abusive can label themselves a feminist. It is certainly not part of any feminist movement I want to be part of. Basic kindness and respect should be the basis of feminist interactions with other feminists. Trashing a campaign for the sake of it (as seen in the aftermath of the #Banknotes win for The Women's Room UK) aren't feminism.

My feminism is about supporting women and liberating women from male violence. Harassing and verbally abusing those we disagree with isn't feminism. It is women replicating the abuse perpetuated by the Patriarchy. Whilst I will continue to celebrate the activism and wins of women whose goals I am not support, I will not be silent when feminists use abusive behaviour to silence other women.

Read More

Twitter #FeministLoveins : Celebrating Sisterhood!

I've written recently about the negative aspects of twitter with the online bullying, cliques and some, frankly, ridiculous behaviour.  

Sometimes I focus so much on the negative and worrying about being trolled that I miss the good stuff. This week I have had several really inspiring conversations with women on 3 continents. I've discussed pornography, reality television, rape, racism, children, cats and women's literature. 

I forget what a privilege it is to converse with so many women and learn from our collective wisdom. Our lives and our feminisms differ dramatically but the sisterhood still exists. We just need to celebrate it more. We need to celebrate our strengths and our weaknesses. We need to stop expecting perfection from our sisters. We stop pretending that feminism is the Borg where we all must think the same thing or we're not feminists.

So, I'm having a twitter #feministlovein today for all the amazing women who've inspired me, held my hand, made me rage, made me laugh, made me cry and most importantly made me a better feminist. 

Abi Yaffe
AFeministMother
AlexPolisTigers
Alice (@adarling575)
Alison Boydell
allthecake (@whoateallthepye)
Alyson (@textuallimits)
A Lone Parent
Andrea (@MsAndreaist)
Angela
Angeline (@Angeline1611)
Ann Tagonist
Anna
Anywavewilldo
Avital (@themamafesto)
Background Spinner
Barbara Scott
Barbara Carregonnen
Bee Jones
Bessie 
Benita(@e_benita)
Bobbi Oliver
Caitlin Roper
Camilla (@whodoesshethink)
Caris
Carol (@maggiefairy)
Cat Eleven
Cath Elliot
Cath Andrews
Cath
Cath 
Cathy Brennan
Caroline Criado-Perez
Caroline Crampton
Chitra Nagarajan
Chloe Miriam
Clara
Claire Moore (@cctheatreco)
Claire
Clementine
Crates&Ribbons
Dawn
Denise Marshall
Diane (@teenybash48)
DillyTante
Donna Navarro (@lexiconlane)
Dorien Niprock
dustsister
Elodie Pierce
Emma
Emily (@theurbandryad)
Emily Milton
Fantome
Farzana (@bananaharama)
feministavenger
FeministBorgia
FeministRoar
FeministaSista
FeministUK
Firestone Dworkin
Flea (@evil_fi)
Flumpmistress
FrauHupfdohle
FrothyDragon
Georgina Spiller
Gill
Glosswitch
Gobtastic
Goddessdevva
Gothicmama
Grainne McMahon
GrumpyOldBat
Hannah M. Curtis
Hannah Mudge
Hannah
Heather Harvey
Helen Lewis
Helen (@theowlgirl)
Helen (@queenofbiscuits)
HerbyAttitude
HisFeministMamma
Hypathie (@Hypathieblog)
JamButties
Jane (@ambitiousmammas)
Jane
Jane
Jane
Janey
Janey (@vegetarianjelly)
Janie
Jen (@JennNiff)
Jess
Jo (@PortofinoSunset)
Jodie (@MsJodieLW)
JudeinLondon
Julie Bindel
Julie
Jules
Katharine Edgar
Karen Ingala Smith
Karis (@Karis_Lily)
Katabaticesque
Kate
Katie
KBadlan
Kiramadiera
Kiran Chug
Laura
Laura
Leah Hardy
Lee Lysandra
Liberation Lover
Lilith (@GrimalkinRN)
LilRadFem
Lily Monroe (@pornfreeculture)
Lissie (@lissielouwalton)
Liz (@Lizj73)
Liz Kelly
LondonFeminist
Lorrie Hearts
Louise
Lucy (@Bang2write)
Lynn Schreiber
Lucy Bottomface
madoldbat (@scouserinlondon)
Mary-Ann Stephenson
Marie
Marstrina
Mhairi Macalpine
Meghan Murphy
Melissa (@theresthebs)
Melissa Wilde
MissAndrist
M.K. Hajdin
NattAndra
Nicola (@NicolaGilChrist)
Nicole (@ni c_jameson)
Nicole Rowe (@cellardoor790)
No Anodyne
Orla Moylan Hegarty
Philippa (@incurablehippie)
Planet Pavs
Planet Cath
Portia Criado-Perez
Poppy (@popbadger)
@psychoclaire
RadFemRusty
Rebecca
Redbullfiend
Reni Eddo-Lodge
R.K. MacKenzie

Roberta
Rose-Anna (@roseannastar)
RoseBlah
Rosemarie (@roseycameron)
Rowena (@RowenaMonde)
RubyFruit2
Ruth Jacobs
SallyAnn Betteridge
Sam (@katedaddie)
Sara (@sararatee)
Sarah (@academicablues)
Sarah (@saraclarke)
Sarah Haughey
Sarah (@seja75)
Sarah
Sarah Jay (@mauvedinosaur)
ScallopsRGreat
Scarlet Wilde
Scousey (@Firewomon)
Seja
Sharon
Sianushka
Sister Trinity 
Slutocrat
SmashtheP
Sophia 
Sophie
Soraya Chemaly
Steffie (@selise3)
Terre Strange
TheTrudz
Tricialo (@trishlowt)
Truthtopower
TullyHerron
Umlolidunno
Vanessa 
Vicky
Victoria (@VABVOX)
Victoria Lucas (@radfemmamma)
Virginia Pele
Winnie Small
Zarina (@Zarinacc)
Zoe Williams

(Sensibly, when I started this list I only put the first names. I'm going through to add either last names or twitter handles so others can follow them too, which is what I should have done from the beginning:) )

*This is only a list of women from Twitter. The list would be twice as long if I included the amazing feminists on Facebook.

Read More

#DickheadDetox : Tim Lott's Ode to Domestic Violence in the Guardian

As the lovely Glosswitch stated on twitter earlier this week, the Guardian have managed to find the only literate MRA and have given him a job. Like Glosswitch, I've only recently come across Lott The Arsewipe but he's like every other misogynistic fucknugget whinging about his penis and why women refuse to kowtow to it. 

Lott belongs on the #DickheadDetox for a number of reasons starting with insulting his wife in the national press, whining about having to share "his income" with his wife, and reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes which are based on male control of women. What concerns me the most is the sheer number of red flags for domestic violence within his columns. Lott's construction of his relationship is one in which he has control; that is not normal and it is not healthy. It is disgraceful that the Guardian is giving space to a man who writes such twaddle. 

For an excellent takedown of Lott's nincompoopery, do read Glosswitch's blog. I've reblogged a section below but the entire piece is a must read: 

Using a central scene in the film as a springboard, Lott offers up a self-important analysis of what he calls the difference between “acceptance” (as displayed by him) and “resignation” (as displayed by his morally inferior wife). While acceptance is “a wholehearted, positive acceptance that no one can be everything you want them to be” (and “is hard”), resignation is “the refusal to take on board the fact that people are different from you and, anyway, you cannot cast the first stone unless you are without sin yourself”. While Lott generously allows that his wife might have “more to complain about than I do”, he argues that “one thing she doesn’t have to put up with — by and large — is me complaining about her”. Since he doesn’t add “except in the pages of a national newspaper” I’m assuming the irony of the whole character assassination has escaped him (and yes, I know I’m having a go at Tim myself, but then I’m not the one preaching bloody “acceptance” in the first place).

I’ve since learned that on all matters domestic, but especially those involving the humiliation of one’s nearest and dearest, Lott has form. Last week’s piece was called Money – the biggest taboo in a relationship, and in it, Lott discussed the apparent complexities of earning more than one’s wife when she happens to be doing more of the unpaid domestic labour. You and I might think “just share the bloody money” but apparently that’s “archaic” and Lott isn’t “quite sure what would be a better alternative”. Hence while he’s waiting for that alternative to appear, he keeps more money for himself and “if there’s a big expense, say a foreign holiday or house improvements, I tend to have the last say”. But don’t worry – it all balances out in the end:

My wife says that my having more money than her makes me feel powerful. She’s right – up to a point. It gives me an area of control, although I don’t think I use it in order to control. I just think some form of imbalance is inevitable. When it comes to the house and children, my wife enjoys virtually total authority.

The point that Lott seems to miss is that while his wife may have “authority” over the dirty socks, that’s because it’s become her job (in case you’re wondering, Lott shrunk a sweater in the wash once and is therefore incapable of helping). It’s the same type of “authority” Lott has over his writing. It’s not the same as the reward. It’s not the same as the fundamental freedoms that financial autonomy brings. I suspect deep down Lott knows this (how could he not?) but is playing dumb.

...

I imagine there are members of the men’s right’s “movement” who’d consider Lott too “Guardian” to really be one of them. They’d be wrong. He’s the perfect example of the way in which, via Essential Difference neurosexism, Fathers 4 Justice grandstanding and hype over male underachievement, the men’s rights narrative of resentment has become mainstream. It could be there at your own dinner table. Don’t listen to it. Achieving the right balance is difficult in any household but we can all do better than resignation, acceptance or whatever someone who claims to speak for you is telling you to call it.

Read More

OK Magazine: Still Hates Woman

OK Magazine: continuing it's policy of woman-shaming.

I'm not surprised OK Magazine ran this cover. 

I'm angry. Sad. Depressed. Mostly angry. How dare they treat a woman like this. It doesn't matter what woman because none of us deserve this.

I am surprised at how many people seem shocked by OK Mag running this as their cover. It's not like OK Mag ever write anything positive about women.  All of their articles are about women being too fat fat, too skinny, too promiscuous, too orange, too stupid, too smart, too woman. Just like most women's magazines.

Women's magazines make their money making women feel insecure. They don't care about women's health or happiness: just the money.

We need to boycott them all.

We need to start developing magazines aimed at women which don't engage in women-blaming and women-hating. 

No woman should ever be shamed for her body. Ever.

Read More

Louise Mensch is a professional troll but why do we find her so surprising.

I genuinely don't know what to say about Louise Mensch anymore. I know she is a troll by profession but her recent tweets have been shocking. At least, I've always assumed she was a professional troll, along with Dr. Christian, but I am at a loss for words to describe her recent tweeting. If she were a friend, I would be worried about her. I cannot decide if she's actually quite dim with moments of brilliance or if she genuinely lacks the empathy to even attempt to understand the lives of people who aren't wealthy and white like her.

The idea that George Zimmerman should be thankful for the imminent birth of the "royal baby" demonstrates such a lack of awareness of reality that I'm gobsmacked. How can anyone living in the US think of the Zimmerman acquittal in positive terms? A child is dead, dead because of racism and utterly insane laws about "standing your ground", and Mensch is blithering on about the birth of a child in a country that she no longer lives in.* 

As for "rape fantasy porn" tweets, I can't believe any woman could be so dismissive of the experiences of sexual violence of other women. Mensch is engaged in that old skool narcissistic twitter tendency to retweet everyone who agrees with them and ignore the comments by those who disagree. Her replies to those expressing concern are dismissive and, frequently, rude as though survivors of sexual violence aren't worth her time. 

I loathe the term "rape porn". Rape, by definition, is a non-consensual act. It is impossible for consensual porn to be made about rape. As for Mensch's assertion that most women have "rape porn" fantasies, well, I'd like to see her research to back up the statistic because I think it's complete twaddle. What really shocked me was Mensch stating she would blog about the "rape porn" debates AFTER she blogs about the royal baby. How skewed are her priorities if the potential birth of one child is more important than legislation dealing with pornography and sexual violence? I know she's hardly the only person blithering on as if we are witnessing the birth of the new Messiah but her tweets shocked me.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at what Mensch tweets or blogs since she is clearly in it for the attention and the best way to get attention in our culture is by being utterly ridiculous. This is just another dimension of our reality television based culture which grants those engaged in self-destructive behaviour with fame and columns in national papers. Instead of publishing actual news, our national media has spent the day stalking a hospital where one woman is giving birth in a denial of her right to privacy and at the expense of reporting information which is important.

It is a sad indictment of our culture that Louise Mensch, who resigned as an MP to live in the US with her new husband, is still considered an important political commentator on our culture.


A selection of her tweets on the murder of Trayvon Martin

People most thankful for #royalbaby - George #Zimmerman and his family. 

Should #Zimmerman have followed #Trayvon, no. Did Trayvon have right to attack, yes. Previous statement still applies. Not guilty. #tcot 

In the end #Zimmerman defence & acquittal very simple, backed by forensics; #Trayvon attacked, GZ feared for his life, shot him. Not guilty 

George #Zimmerman wasn't on trial for being a puffed-up vigilante. He was on trial for murder 2 & the President should not have intervened.

Her tweets on the debate over "rape fantasy" porn

I would hope that any such law would be challenged in the courts and fail in the courts. It is inhuman. Rape and rape fantasy not the same. 

It is not for our government to police consensual simulation, between adults, of one of women's most common fantasies. 

It's not law yet and I hope it never will be. The Simon Walsh Obscenity trial should give all MPs pause. Govt out of people's bedrooms. 

Going to blog on opposition to government seeking to criminalise simulation one of most common female fantasies, rape, but after #royalbaby

* I know insane is not the right word to use here. I apologise for the ableist term. I'm just so angry that I can't work out what to say.

Read More

Feminism, Racism, Misogyny, and Privilege

I started this blog post several months ago after I entered a discussion about the existence of Islamaphobia (it does) and whether or not its possible for individuals to "see past stereotypes". It started as an attempt to clarify my thoughts following the discussion but I couldn't quite articulate what I wanted to say. As a white, middle class feminist, it felt arrogant to try to write this piece. It felt equally arrogant not to write. I also lost a friend because of that discussion. So, I took the chickenshit way out and didn't finish writing this piece.

This piece would probably have stayed as a draft in my file marked "too scared to post" had it not been for yet another debate on whether or not Beyonce is a feminist [Frankly, I would have thought that was a question for Beyonce to answer rather than white women deciding for her but, apparently, no]. Now, I haven't read the article in Ms Magazine which has, once again, kickstarted the debate so this isn't so much a response to that article as it is burblings from my brain. For a proper response to that article, please read this post on Gradient Lair. 

Really, I shouldn't be conflating these two issues but I'm still trying to work out what I want to say. It's so hard to articulate effectively in a medium like twitter wherein people seem to want to take offence the moment you disagree with them without actually listening to why you disagree with them and others who want to take offence no matter what you say. I don't like this idea that there is an official arbiter of who is and who is not a feminist. I also don't like this idea that we can not have disagreements about feminism without people deliberately taking offence when none was intended. I also don't want to cause hurt unintentionally. I am afraid I will be by writing this or, at least, I'm afraid that I can't write this without sounding pompous, patronising and utterly ridiculous. At the same time, not writing feels like I'm deliberately ignoring my sisters.

Basically, I don't think it's possible to not be racist, homophobic, disablist or misogynist in our Capitalist-Patriarchal culture. I want to claim that I am none of the above but that feels, well, arrogant, considering we live in a culture in which I, as a middle class white woman with a high standard of patriarchy-approved education, have a tremendous amount of privilege. Regardless of how hard we try, it is almost impossible to live, as a privileged white woman, without reinforcing the White Supremacy. We reinforce the White Supremacy in a myriad of small ways daily; many of these are unintentional but they still function to reinforce the oppression of our sisters.

As privileged white women, it is our responsibility to stand with our sisters: to listen, to support and to challenge those engaged in abusive language or behaviour. In real life, it is generally easy to know (or feel safe) when to call someone on behaviour or language which is offensive: to know when calling a man on offensive language will result in him listening or when it will result in violence. I very rarely call men out directly because I am afraid of male violence. I call the police but that rarely results in the police doing anything. It is hypocritical of me to call women out more than men, when male violence is the problem, but that is our culture. I am less afraid of having my jaw broken when calling out a woman than a man. This does result in reinforcing the patriarchal construct of holding women to a higher standard of behaviour than men but I am not sure how to change this without getting assaulted.

On twitter, it is so much more difficult to know when to call someone out. You cannot know how the person will respond and whilst there is no immediate threat of physical violence, abusive language [and getting their mates along to threaten] does silence people. These tactics on twitter are getting more common and more abusive. There is an assumption that everyone must call everyone out over every written word. There is little attempt to have constructive dialogue; the first response is abusive language followed by having a mob descend on a person. Whilst some people are lost causes [see Dr. Christian], having a large number of people descend on one person using abusive language doesn't actually help especially if that person did not intend to cause offence. Call out culture on twitter isn't about changing the language which, sometimes unintentionally, supports the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. Frequently, it feels like a group of people with boundary and anger issues taking out their personal issues on other people. 

Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that we stop calling people out for reinforcement of the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. I am suggesting that we pause before attacking and assess the situation, particularly when it is privileged white women doing the calling out. Yes, we absolutely have to stand up for sisters but we also must ensure that we aren't speaking for them either. Many of the "call out" rucks I have seen on twitter have been by white women-born on behalf of other women. Whilst it is important that we examine our own privilege and participate in the call-out culture, far too often I have seen women taking offence on behalf of an oppressed group and then speak for them. This is equally unacceptable as it contributes to the Othering of women.

I have called out numerous people on twitter but only those who I think will listen or those whose followers might listen in the case of celebrities. Frequently, I do so via DM because I find people respond better to polite suggestions than angry ranting [although angry ranting at Dr. Christian is quite therapeutic]. I do this for people who clearly intended no harm. I report those who are clearly trolling with abusive language because they are only after the fight. I won't engage in debate because they genuinely don't give a shit who they hurt. They just thrive on the attention and we need to stop giving them the attention.

In the personal case I mentioned above, I thought it was safe to call my friend out publicly on twitter as she is a feminist who I have campaigned with for several years. We have never agreed politically on many issues but that has never been a requirement of friendship for me. I thought we had a relationship where we could listen to one another and learn from each other.

I was wrong.

Our friendship ended because I thought she would hear me when I said Islamaphobia exists: that most people cannot see out with the cultural stereotypes they raised within. I was sad at the end of our friendship but I felt happy that I had called her out for racism. Hell, I felt smug. 

A few months later, I read a blog by a WofC expressing her distress at the number of white feminists who hadn't called out The Onion for their disgusting "joke" about Chris Brown and Rihanna ending their relationship. My first instinct was to tweet them with a link to the blog I wrote about it. Thankfully, I engaged my brain before sending the tweet since a white woman hopping up and down shouting "look at meeeeeee" is precisely the problem. I went straight for cookie validation without even pausing to think how I was reinforcing white supremacy.

That was a huge kick to the gut, a necessary one, but nonetheless very painful. And, one that we need reminding of constantly so that in our effort to support our sisters we don't end up silencing their voices, that we don't ignore the multiple oppressions of our sisters, that we don't end up replicating the very same patriarchal structures which punish all women.



I wrote the above two months ago but did not publish. I'm not sure I've expressed myself well enough. I'm not sure I would have ever published had I not come across this piece on racism by Michele Braa-Heidner. She is a radical feminist for whom I have tremendous respect and I love her blog, however, I disagree with her most recent post on the murder of Trayvon Martin.

Michele Braa-Heidner argues that the Trayvon Martin murder is not a radical feminist issue because it is male on male violence and that women can not be racist against men. I do agree that calling radical feminists racist for choosing not to focus on the Trayvon Martin case is hyperbolic since Radical Feminism is about women. People are entitled to campaign about that which they deem personally important. I would not call a member of the LGBT community racist for focussing on campaigns that affect them personally. However, I do think that radical feminism cannot exist out with the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. We are racist as a default position [just as we are disablist, homophobic etc]. Radical feminism's focus on women's experience and activism cannot survive without acknowledging how the multiple oppressions of race, sexuality etc change the experience of women within the patriarchy.

My focus, as a radical feminist, is on male violence against women and girls. The murder of Trayvon Martin is important to me because of clearly it demonstrates the gendering of legal culpability within the criminal justice system. The comparison with the Marissa Alexander case is important because it demonstrates how the life of a Black man is considered more worthy of media attention that the life of a Black woman; that stand your ground laws are only beneficial to men. It clearly delineates the hierarchy of race in American culture and how race affects gender.

I believe the murder of Trayvon Martin is a radical feminist issue: he was a child killed because of the structural racism and misogyny in our patriarchal culture. This doesn't mean I expect every radical feminist space to devote their time to discussing this case at the expense of other female victims of male violence but that I don't agree with Braa-Heidner that this is not a radical feminist issue.

What is important to me is that radical feminists have a safe space to discuss these issues and that we listen to the voices of all our sisters. We don't have to agree with one another but we do need to hear one  another.

Read More