Taking the Fight to the Bank: Join us on Friday!

[Reblogged from WeekWoman]

What a couple of weeks it’s been!

We not only reached, but have actually passed our fundraising target of £13,000, which means we are now in a position to take the Bank of England to court if they continue to refuse to take equality into account when deciding who features on our banknotes. Following on from the letter signed by 46 Labour MPs and peers, we’ve had both Maria Miller and Ed Miliband come out in support of our campaign – we even had Mervyn King backed so far into a corner on the issue that he was forced to name the ‘contingency candidate’ he previously refused to reveal, citing what we must now consider to be spurious security concerns.

And now Mark Carney has used his first public statement as Governor of the Bank of England to address the #banknotes issue. This is fantastic; but it is by no means the end. We still have no firm guarantee that women will remain on banknotes. We also have no firm guarantee about the Bank’s future public decisions being made under the auspices of the Equality Act. Until we have these, the fight continues. (My full statement can be found here)

And our first step is to START THINKING about an outfit! At 11am on Friday, we will be gathering outside the Bank of England to hand in the petition signed by over 30,000 people, dressed as our favourite women from history. It should be a great day and a wonderful opportunity to highlight the wealth of choice the Bank has when it comes to choosing women for our banknotes. Fancy dress is optional, but any nods you can make to your favoured candidate would be great! I will be there at 11 sharp, along with my puppy adorned with a suffrage sash – I look forward to seeing as many of you there as possible! Feel free to bring friends etc along – it would be brilliant to have a really strong showing there to demonstrate to the Bank the strength of feeling on this issue. I realise that since many of you don’t live in London you won’t be able to make it, but I have plans for this too! If you can’t make the protest, please take a picture of yourself dressed as your favourite female historical character and tweet it @bankofengland under the hashtag #WomenonBanknotes – make sure they have us coming at them from all angles! But if you possibly can find a way to make the demonstration, even if only very briefly at the beginning, it would be hugely appreciated.

Look forward to meeting loads of amazing women from history very soon!

Read More

​Don't let the Bank of England buy their way out of justice! Help spread the word!

Below is a letter written by Caroline Criado-Perez of The Woman's Room UK asking for financial support in challenging the Bank of England's decision to remove the only woman from our bank notes to replace her with yet another man [and, yes, we know the Queen is on the bill. If you don't understand why the Queen doesn't count, well, there's not much I can do to help you filter through the patriarchal bullshit].

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME! Please copy and paste this letter and send it to all your friends and colleagues; if you are at university as a student or academic, please ask your Woman's Officer to send it round. We need to spread the word as far, wide and fast as possible if we are going to stop the Bank of England evading justice! 

Feel free to adapt it if you think it can be shorter - it is written with people who haven't heard of the campaign before in mind.

Suggested Subject: Please read this in full: it's important to me.

OR: ​Don't let the Bank of England buy their way out of justice! Help spread the word!

Dear [xxxxx]

I am getting in touch to ask for your help. Nearly two months ago, the Bank of England announced a new figure for our paper currency. That person was Churchill. What they did not mention in the long speeches they made at the time about the 'gilded list' that he was joining and the 'uniquely privileged position' they were in to be able to 'promote our shared cultural heritage', was that Churchill would be replacing the only female historical figure on our banknotes. This means that our banknotes will exclusively feature white men.

This matters. It matters because we still live in a culture where women's achievements are routinely undermined and erased - you only need to look at the paltry representation of women in our new history curriculum to see this in action. It matters because a growing and compelling field of research on role models shows how much impact they have on young women - including a negative impact where they are absent. And it matters because, as the Bank of England themselves say, the choice of figures on our banknotes promotes a shared cultural heritage - and what does it say about us as a country if we see that heritage as exclusively white and male?

This is why it matters - and this is what I am doing about it. To date, more than 28000 people have signed a petition, asking the Bank of England to reverse their decision to remove the only woman on our banknotes and replace her with yet another man. In response, the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King informed us that 'with respect', the Queen is on the notes, thereby completely evading the conversation we are having about merit rather than inherited privilege, and also demonstrating that, far from respecting the 28000 people who had signed the petition, he had not even read it, since the issue of the Queen is addressed there.

In a more concerning move, he also said that he was 'sure' that all people 'would' have been treated equally, despite the fact that at this point, the Bank of England had already been sent a legal letter arguing that they were in breach of the 2010 Equality Act, which is not satisfied with conditionals such as 'sure' and 'would'; on the contrary, it requires Mervyn King himself to know that he has paid due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. In line with King's own comment, the Bank's formal response also demonstrated a lack of understanding of their duty under the Equality Act. They claimed that the duty is not engaged, but also claimed that they had complied with it; considering the positive action required under the Act it is arguable that it is possible to fulfil the duties of the Act while at the same time thinking they are not engaged. They also refused to provide any documentation regarding the decision-making process,  calling it a 'fishing expedition' - this despite the fact that the Equality Act explicitly refers to the decision-making process, meaning that evidence of how a decision was taken is paramount to demonstrating compliance. Finally, they completely changed their tone about the the significance of the people on banknotes - no longer a 'gilded list', it was an irrelevance which 'prominent dead person' replaced another.

I do not want to take the Bank of England to court. I simply want them to recognise their duties under the Equality Act - indeed a very easy way out is open to them, since Darwin is in fact an older note than Fry and therefore is due a change anyway. However, the Bank is not taking this option. Instead they are throwing all the public funds they have at their disposal into defending the decision not to have a single woman on our banknotes; their solicitors are as expensive as they come. This is without doubt a David and Goliath situation, but I do not believe that the Bank should be able to buy their way out of justice. There is no doubt that the Bank is big, powerful and rich. But what we lack in funds, we make up for in strength of numbers. We only need 671 people to donate £10 to reach our target - but time is running out. We only have until the 24th of June to make our target amount. Please help us get there: forward this email on to all your friends; tweet about the petition; share it on facebook; and please donate whatever you can to help us see justice done.

I believe we can get there, but it requires us all to pull together and stand firm against inequality and injustice. This may be a small thing, but small things add up to a toxic culture in which women are routinely discriminated against. Let's not let the small things slide.

Thank you so much for your support.

Read More

TWR & The Feminists can campaign about more than One Thing at a time Shocker

I am so bored of the concerted attacks on The Women's Room UK and the obsession of supposed 'feminists' with denigrating one form of feminist activism as not important enough. 

The women behind The Women's Room UK aren't fucking stupid. They know their campaign to increase women's visibility in the media by destroying cultural femicide isn't the only form of feminist activism.

They know that there are literally millions of other feminist campaigns which have nothing to do with cultural femicide.

They know that having women on banknotes for their accomplishments rather than an accident of birth is a small step towards patriarchal destruction.

They also know that small steps are as important as the big steps.

How about we stop wasting time having tantrums on twitter about one campaign and actually start focussing on destroying the patriarchy?


The campaign to keep women on English banknotes for their accomplishments rather than an accident of birth is here.

Read More

Dr Christian: Apparently, he invented twitter.

Dr. Christian Jessen is on yet another misogynistic spree on twitter. He does this frequently as he really, really dislikes it when women challenge his knowledge. I first came across him nearly 18 months ago on twitter. I knew about his reality TV show but I had never watched it since I think all reality TV is exploitative and hateful. His "Embarrassing Bodies" is up there with Gok Wan on the misogynistic body-shaming stakes.

I would have ignored him completely had a member of Mumsnet not retweeted a particularly nasty comment of Jessen into my twitter feed. Basically, Jessen had called into question the fuckability of women with leg hair. This was, apparently, the appropriate response to a member of Mumsnet tweeting Jessen to point out his information on breast feeeding was incorrect. Jessen was helpfully suggesting that breastfeeding "ruined" women's breasts. Ignoring, the misogynistic body-shaming in that statement, it's actually also not true. The rapid weight gain and loss during pregnancy changes the shape of women's breasts. There is also research that suggests that breast-feeding helps women retain the shape of their breasts but, actually, that bit is irrelevant.

Dr. Christian took to twitter to make factually incorrect statements about breast-feeding and dismissed the women questioning him as unfuckable due to their leg hair.

He then proceed to suggest that breastfeeding was kind of creepy, which is also not exactly a pro-woman stance. A pro-woman stance on infant feeding is to ensure that women have all the correct information and support so that they can then choose the option which works best for themselves and their baby. Suggesting breast-feeding makes women unfuckable by ruining their breasts is misogyny.

Now, I totally would have ignored him as yet another obvious misogynistic troll had Jessen not gone to suggest that the women questioning him were "hysterical". As you can imagine, I did not take kindly to that suggestion.

Nor did I find Jessen's suggestion that we should thank him for giving us a platform in which to air our views.

Because Jessen, clearly, invented both twitter and the internet.

Because without Jessen us poor "girls" (as he dismissively refers to us) couldn't possibly have a public platform in which to discuss our views.

Like, say, the internet.

Read More

#DickheadDetox: Aaron Carter's #tipsforgirls

Aaron Carter, the Dude internationally reknown as the little brother of some other dude from some boyband from way back when, has taken to twitter to reveal his dating #tipsforgirls.

Bless his cotton socks, these are the pearls of wisdom from The Younger Brother of What's His Pickle:

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER16h Confident woman are sexy to any man. Don't pretend to be someone your not just to please a man. #TipsForGirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h Be Approachable- men don't like rejection- a woman with an attitude to her look will scare a man away. #tipsforgirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h A woman's appearance is a weapon to attracting a man- always look your best ( neatness, clothes,hair ,makeup,scent,etc... #tipsforgirls

I can not think Aaron enough for bringing these pearls to our attention, sometimes I actually forget that we live in a culture where women's value is based entirely on their ability to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. I forget that women's intelligence and love is completely irrelevant unless they are white, blonde,  and thin. I forget that women have to ensure that their behaviour and appearance are pleasing at all times. God forbid, we hurt men's feelings but not actually wanting to fuck them. 

We must always be approachable; even when we don't want to be approached because men's feelings are more important than women's safety and bodily autonomy.

Some genius has suggested that Aaron write a book about his #tipsforgirls. No one try to dissuade him from this policy; just imagine the hilarity it would cause on twitter.

Read More

Apparently, Bar Rafaeli is JUST Leonardo DiCaprio's Ex-Girlfriend

At least, according to the Independent, Bar Rafaeli's is only important insofar as she used to have sex with Leonardo DiCaprio. The fact that she is a multi-millionaire, world-famous model is completely irrelevant. Rafaeli's only value is that she used to have sex with Leonardo DiCaprio. 

The actual point of the article is that the Israeli foreign ministry would like to use Rafaeli in a new PR campaign to promote Israel internationally. The Israeli Defence Force are unhappy with the choice of Rafaeli because of her failure to complete the, usually mandatory, national service. Rafaeli was excused from this service because of her status as a model. Now, regardless of what one thinks of mandatory national service in the military, modelling, Israel, or the exclusion of celebrities from the basic tenets of citizenship required of others, one really has to wonder as to why Rafaeli's sex life is somehow relevant to these questions. Rafaeli's personal beliefs on mandatory service, which, thankfully, the Independent does mention, are relevant considering Rafaeli is not a fan but the exact identity of who she used to have sex with is hardly newsworthy.

Is it too much to ask that the Independent not identify women according to their sexual relationships with men? 

Read More

How to Tell When You Need to Invest in a Divorce Lawyer and a Vibrator

(Image from here)

This morning I awoke to this utterly brilliant piece by The Kraken Awakes on Paperchase's unbelievable misogyny. You have to read Kraken's takedown of these cards because it is just brilliant. 

There is nothing I can add to the Kraken's smackdown except to say that if you receive one of the following from your male partner, you need a divorce lawyer and a vibrator* because he's an arsenugget and you are worth so much more than him.

(Well, actually, being on the RadFem spectrum, I think women should spend more time learning how to pleasure themselves without the use of sex toys. After all, learning to love ourselves is an important part of feminism and that includes sexually. I'm not against sex toys. I just want women to feel comfortable and sexual  within their own bodies without needing external options. But, definitely, the divorce lawyer is needed.)

Read More

Hilary Devey's Women on Top

I watched exactly ten minutes of Hilary Devey's Women on Top. The premise is interesting: a successful British business woman who didn't understand the gendered barriers to women's equality within capitalism traveled to Norway to investigate their practise of quotas of women's participation in employment. 

I stopped watching after they said women in Norway "embrace their feminine side" with 1 years maternity pay. Because women in business must have babies otherwise they aren't actually women. Or, something equally stupid. 

Perhaps, the BBC might want to actually think about gender stereotypes before embarking on these types of programs and don't reinforce the same misogynistic bullshit that they claim to be "investigating".

Read More

So, Playboy, Definitely Art. And, other Dubious Statements

Hugh Hefner's 21 year old second son from his second marriage is apparently lining up to take over the company. When he finishes school. Obviously. This rather creepy article in the Independent, which is attempting to pass for news, would like everyone to know that Hef Jr definitely thinks Playboy is art and not pornography. 

I'd like to believe the article's other claim that the Playboy is only a "marginal" brand now but, let's be honest, they aren't making their money from the magazine. Instead, they have been capitalising on ole' Hugh's penchant for sexual violence in reality TV programs like The Girls Next Door. The Playboy Club TV program may have been cancelled in its first season but the Playboy clubs are coming back [and are the focus of some brilliant feminist activism]. Sales of Playboy Magazine itself are falling but Playboy brand merchandising is everywhere. For reasons I genuinely don't get, parents are buying their children Playboy branded duvet covers and notebooks. Playboy merchandise is flaming everywhere and that's without getting into the "sexy" Playboy dress-up clothes.

Ranting about Playboy merchandising on children aside [and I judge parents who buy 6 year olds jeans with Playboy bunnies on their arse or t-shirts which say 'Future Porn Star'. It's not funny or clever. It's just creepy], Cooper Hefner's attempts to rewrite Playboy's past and label their magazines 'art' rather than porn demonstrates some serious cognitive dissonance. Or, nincompoopery. Probably both. Whatever it is, Cooper is just not the brightest of sparks when he's comparing nude art with Playboy centerfolds insofar as he misses the whole freaking debate. Because, there is feminist debate about this and there is recognition that much of the art we admire is of questionable value morally and ethically. Hell, there's a whole lot of recognition that some of the artists whose work we admire are nothing more than sexual predators. Pretending that Playboy is 'art' isn't participating in that debate. It's the intellectual equivalent of running about with Darth Vader helmet back to front on one's head.

As for Cooper's discussion on the Bunny Girls and "empowerment", well, it's nice he's giving us permission to decide for ourselves but, really, when is Cooper going to participate in an activity which "empowers" him? Because, I'd really like to hear someone use that word on an activity men are required to participate in to be considered valuable.

And, honestly, how do you even unpack the following twaddle:

"There are many domestic issues in the US that bother me, such as gay rights or fighting for the legalisation of marijuana. But as we go global we need to stand for more important issues internationally. Women's rights in the Middle East and internet censorship in China are two things we can stand for and have an influence in, especially when we're coming into these emerging markets like India and we're faced with the challenge of opening up Playboy clubs where the bunnies can't even wear bunny outfits. You have these countries which are in a very similar place sexually – especially when it comes to gender roles – where the US was when my dad first started."

"Faced with the challenge" of opening in markets where women aren't allowed to wear Bunny outfits? I genuinely don't what to stay except that's a whole load of  nincompoopery which is seriously missing the point, not to mention just a teensy bit of orientalist discourse. That's without mentioning the whole issue of women's rights currently being destroyed in the US with access to abortion being curtailed everywhere and gang-rapes like that in Steubenville being a whole lot more common than many would like to believe. Or, that internet censorship isn't only in China. Why is it important for women in other countries to have the right to dress in Bunny outfits when American women wearing Bunny outfits are slut-shamed? How is expanding the Playboy empire going to help women? What has the legalisation of marijuana got to do with large swathes of the planet not having basic human rights like access to clean water? 

Being raised in the Playboy mansion [and the house next door where his mother lived] can't have been a healthy place for two young boys to grow up. I don't think its all that surprising that Cooper's brother Marston has a recent conviction for domestic violence. Whatever your opinion of porn, it isn't ever appropriate for children and the two boys would have been exposed during Playboy "parties", photo shoots and the filming of the Girls Next Door. These would not have been simply nude women. The Playboy empire is built on porn.

Christie Hefner, Cooper's older sister, ran the company until 2009 when she stepped down. She oversaw the expansion of the empire out of the magazine industry and she put an end to some of Hugh's more egregious behaviours, at least ones financially supported by the company. Cooper may not want to wear his father's pyjamas but neither he nor his brother Marsten come across as well-rounded men with a respect for women and women's sexuality. I don't agree with many of Christie Hefner's expansion policies, and I certainly find the show Girls Next Door deeply creepy, but I'm quite certain that Christie Hefner wanted to run a business. I'm not sure that's what Cooper or Marston are looking for.

Read More

Women's Rights News: Missing the Point Completely

Women's Rights News is possibly one of the most ironically named FB groups; almost on par with those pro-rape apologists at the Good Men Project. Firstly, they don't actually post stories about news which is just a teensy bit odd for a group who use the soubriquet 'news'.

I'm willing to overlook the attempt at intellectual pretentiousness, but, honestly, what does the above image have to do with women's rights? It's the image of a very thin, young, white woman posed to be sexually attractive and lacking a face. Hello, every image of women in the media. Ever. 

And, hello mother-blaming misogyny whilst Daddy-can-do-no-wrong twaddle. I read the quote and just wanted to bang my head repeatedly off my desk. How can anyone read that and think Feminism? 

But, then, they also posted this: 

Without a hint of irony. Or, you know, critical thinking skills. Disney does give women unrealistic expectations about men: it teaches women that the only way to deal with an abusive man is to love him harder [Beauty and the Beast]. Or, that it's totally acceptable to give up a real gift for a man who doesn't even know you [Little Mermaid] and that necrophilia is romantic [Snow White] and rape normal [Sleeping Beauty]. But, this isn't really news. Andrea Dworkin, Angela Carter, and a hundred other feminist writers have covered this topic a million times and without resorting to asinine comments. 

And, the image below. Well, I just give up. 

I can't tell if Women's Rights News actually think they are a pro-woman group examining women's rights.

Or, a bunch of MRAs having a laugh.  

Or, both.

I'm not actually sure that Women's Rights News knows.

Read More

The John Lewis Window Display: Anyone Notice the Problem?

Can you tell which side is the boys toys? And, which side is for the girls? Because, personally, I really struggled with this since I did not know that only boys were allowed to play musical instruments. I already knew that girls weren't allowed to like science experiments or lego and that we were only allowed to play with dolls and prams so we didn't get confused as to the exact purpose of the uterus but I totally thought we were allowed to play the piano. After all, Jane Austen was forever droning on about young girls being taught the piano in order to be "accomplished". Have we lost the right to do this too? Was there a memo I missed? Should I donate our piano to the nearest boy in case in makes my girls grow a penis?

Read More

So, Every Women Wants to be Objectified?

I probably would have ignored this story if it hadn't been for this article in the Huffington Post. Cameron Diaz's comment to the Sunday Times suggesting that its healthy for women to want to be objectified is, well, stupid and arrogant. But, we all say stupid and arrogant things from time to time, so, whilst her comment pissed me off, I was going to let it slide. Diaz clearly does not speak for most women; even those who've bought into the "empowerfulising" discourse [here's a hint: if a man doesn't have to do it to be empowered, it's misogynistic bollocks]. These kinds of comments just reinforce Patriarchal constructions of women's sexuality and are best ignored.

As I said, I would have ignored it if it weren't for the daft article in the Huffington Post which ends with this:

The comments are sure to raise some eyebrows -- just as her recent interaction with Robert Pattinson raised a few. 

Earlier this month, it was reported that the actress was spotted flirting with the 26-year-old "Twilight" star, who recently reconciled with his girlfriend, Kristen Stewart. 

"She was pretty obvious," a source told Us Weekly. "Cam was seated next to Rob at dinner. She was touching his arm, doing her big Cameron laugh at everything he said and trying really hard. He was polite, but not having it."

I'm struggling to work out what the link is between Diaz spouting some dire "choice" feminism twaddle and her possibly flirting with a man who may or may not be in a relationship. I'm not googling to find out because I genuinely don't care if he is in a relationship or not. What I do care about is the constant reinforcement of slut-shaming in our rape culture. The Huffington Post piece pretends to be impressed with Diaz being confident in her own sexuality, whilst snidely swiping at those who object to Diaz's statement, and then it slaps Diaz back into place. The hypocrisy in one piece is breath-taking.

God forbid a woman find a man sexually attractive. And, tell him so. I am so fucking over this slut-shaming arsehattery.

Yeah, I think Diaz's comments were stupid and arrogant but I'm angry with what she said; not because she may like having sex. Or, may have decided to hit on some guy. It's not relevant and it has nothing to do with the story except as a silencing technique.

Oddly, The Huffington Post posted an article by Nico Lang in defence of Kristen Stewart and the serious slut-shaming she faced after kissing someone who was not Robert Pattinson back in September. I think there a few people who need to revisit that article.

Read More

We Need a New Feminist Social Media. Now.

Spot the Difference?

Spot Facebook's Hypocrisy?

Facebook is also deleting these images:

But, leaves up groups advocating extreme sexual violence.

We need a new Feminist social media. 

Now.

Read More

Monster house: Reinforcing VAW in a Children's Film

My kids have watched this film a few times while I've pottered about around them listening but not really listening. It is incredibly dire with the over-protective mother and emotionally distant father routine. Honestly, it's like Feminine Mystique: The Animation. This Halloween, though, I actually sat down and watched it. And, whimpered. Followed, swiftly by rage. Lots and lots of rage. I haven't actually binned the film as I don't want other children to watch it so it's joined Scooby-Doo meets the Harlem Globetrotters in my box of Evil Films.

The film starts with a young boy spying on his neighbours with binoculars. Now, technically, the boy is spying on his evil toy-stealing male neighbour but his father seems to be under the impression that the boy is looking at women with his binoculars. Apparently, it is totally normal for young boys to spy on women and then wank. It's not at all creepy or, you know, sexual violence. I may have shrieked in rage at this point. After I said, WTF is that doing in a children's movie. They don't actually say wank but the implication is there.

Mom and Dad then piss off leaving the boy in the charge of a baby-sitter who hates him. Baby-sitters boyfriend, who is a pillock, rocks up and sexually assaults the baby-sitter. Yep, it's a kids movie where the boyfriend pins his girlfriend on the couch to force her into having sex with him. Now, she does kick his ass out of the house telling the boyfriend that he lacks respect for women which would be good if the next morning the she doesn't go looking for the abusive boyfriend because she loves him. We couldn't possibly have a film where a sexually abusive boyfriend gets the boot. Permanently.

Then, along comes a new girl who is the same age as the young boy: about 12. There's a lovely line where she responds to the boys confusion by asking if they are mentally challenged because if they are, she's certified to teach them baseball. I may have been whimpering at this point in sheer rage.

Oh, and the basic plot of the film: house is possessed by the spirit of a dead woman who steals children's toys which land on the grass around it. The old man is her husband and he is only "evil" because he's trying to protect the neighbourhood children from his dead, morbidly obese circus freakshow of a wife. Because, you see, that is why is she is angry and frightened. This woman spent her life in as a freakshow act in a circus where people paid money to come and laugh and humiliate her. She dies by falling into the foundations of the house as its being built because she is paranoid about being humiliated; a fairly justified paranoia. 

FFS, the entire point of the movie is that the evil house is possessed by the frightened and angry spirit of an emotionally abused and tortured woman. The children destroy the house and the old man thanks them from saving him from his evil dead wife. 

I actually can't believe that anyone could think this was a good film. But, then, I don't understand why people watch reality TV. To me, that is nothing more than the 21st century version of a 19th century freakshow. We are invited to laugh and jeer at vulnerable people and we pay to financially support their exploitation. It doesn't feel like much has really changed in 200 years; just how we exploit the most vulnerable members of our communities for our entertainment: in reality television, the music industry and pornography.

And, I can not stress how guilty i feel having allowed my kids to watch this without knowing just how awful it really is.

Read More

Knight and Day: It was Shite. And Sexist. But mostly shite.

I usually don't bother with Tom Cruise films. They inevitably make me feel all stabby and that's without getting into the historical fallacious twaddle which is Valkyrie but Knight and Day was on TV and we watched it because we were bored. I wasn't expecting anything exciting since it is an action movie and they are hardly examples of gender equality but Knight and Day took it to a whole new level. He's a hitman. She's a dippy girl who is also a mechanic. She wanders on to a plane full of people trying to kill him. He responds by saving her life and then drugging her in order to kidnap her. Because a hero can't save a woman without drugging her first.

He repeatedly drugs her in order to kidnap her. Once, he even removes all her clothes and puts her in a bikini whilst she's drugged. But, that wasn't creepy because he's a professional and they were on a Caribbean island. It was romantic.

Did I mention the bit about him kidnapping her? Repeatedly? 

Then drugging her?

Plus, there was this bit where he returns her home, having kidnapped her, and he covers her body and her flat with post-it notes with instructions. Just in case she was too stupid to eat breakfast.

Obviously, the movie ends up with them driving off into the sun together. Generally speaking, relationships involving violent men who repeatedly drug a woman and kidnap her are considered abusive. What with the whole multiple felonies involved but somehow we are supposed to believe it was romantic.

Personally, I don't find Stockholm syndrome romantic. Could just be me though. 

Read More

That Super-Scary Breastfeeding Doll is Back:

Or, at least the media seems to have remembered it exists. Again. I'm fairly sure they all had this exact same tantrum when the doll was first marketed about two years ago. Or, Mumsnet lives in some weird sort of time vacuum where we discuss things two years before the media does [or the week before in the case of Matthew Wright and his lazy researchers]. 

So, let's just review the situation once again: it's a doll which simulates breastfeeding. It does not encourage satan worship. The doll does not come with its own machete or sub-machine gun. It does not recite Mein Kampf or Fifty Shades of Grey. It is just a doll like countless others on the market with the sole exception of not coming with a bottle.

Personally, as this lovely Facebook graphic suggests, I am far more concerned about the sexualisation of children through Monster High dolls. I'm concerned about Tescos who sold pole dancing kits. For children. I am concerned about W.H Smith and Argos selling Playboy branded items for children.

A doll which simulates breastfeeding is lovely. Pole dancing kits for children: an actual problem.

Read More

Handmaidens, Feminism and Reclaiming the Internet

I'm never entirely up-to-date on who, exactly, the official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy is actually meant to be. I'm sure we're supposed to have one; that one woman who gets a bit uppity and therefore deserves our public scorn about their body and their intelligence followed, inevitably, by threats of violence. Liz Jones usually occupies this place. The Daily Mail sets Jones up weekly to make a spectacle of herself and we (or, at least the readers of the Daily Mail) buy into this woman-blaming discourse by insulting and denigrating Jones. For the past few months, Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch have been taking alternating turns for the position of Official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy. They've also been taking swipes at one another, jockeying for the role of definer of "new" conservative feminism. I do not like the politics of either Dorries or Mensch. Their stance on abortion means that neither will receive my support for their political ambitions. I also have no intention of participating in their denigration because of their physical appearance.

I have spent the better part of the week with my teeth clenched at Dorries decision to do a reality TV show. Now, I've never actually watched a reality TV show but I'm fairly sure they don't involve attending constituency meetings. Dorries' decision to do the TV show was simply a bad decision. It was inevitably going to result in her being chastised publicly by Cameron. Part of me thinks Dorries is being set up, either consciously or unconsciously, to take the fall for her anti-abortion stance; that Dorries' public humiliation will force her to shelve the more destructive of her anti-abortion plans allowing the men of Conservative party to look "kind" by reducing the abortion time-limit to only 20 weeks in the spring. She is being sacrificed to make male Conservative politicians look "reasonable".

I wasn't going to publish this blog because I didn't want to add to the never-ending number of people lining up to humiliate them. The Patriarchy's favourite foul trick to further isolate women is by having other women police their behaviour. Then, it turns on those women by denigrating them for failing to stand up to the very vocal Patriarchal bullies. It is so disheartening seeing women, even women I disagree with, being disparaged, insulted and denigrated by all for doing things men do with very little criticism.

This week, I've read three pieces written by women which have reminded me both why I am a Feminist and what it means to be a Feminist online. CherryBlossomLife's blog on Serving the Man is a beautifully written reminder of what it takes for women to survive in the Patriarchy and how we need to keep reminding ourselves of that so that we do not judge individual women harshly for that which is out of their control. Exiled Stardust has written the 6 Step Evil Overlord Plan to Discredit Women in the Public Sphere showing just how Dorries and Mensch have been set up. Today Natasha Walter wrote equally beautifully of how women are taking back the internet and directly targeting the Patriarchy in open combat. And, winning.

There are countless examples of the power and space women are carving for themselves online from parenting sites like Mumsnet which are dominated by women to the online Women Under Siege, Women's Room UK, iHollaback! and Everyday Sexism Projects which are recording women's experiences of violence under the Patriarchy. Despite their very obvious roles as Patriarchal constructs of control, Twitter and Facebook are equally being reclaimed by Feminists. Personally, I have benefited from friendships developed on Mumsnet and strengthened through online activism and nurtured via Facebook. The women of Mumsnet diagnosed my PND and held my hand whilst I got well. They gave me the courage to follow through my dreams. They gave me the courage to write this blog. They gave me permission to be me. I have 'met' many other women on Twitter whose courage and strength never fail to amaze and inspire me. Without them, and their constant encouragement and support, despite them not actually 'knowing' me, I would never had written this blog, nor would I have joined the Mumsnet bloggers network or the Huffington Post UK bloggers. I've even started a new blog collecting examples of misogynistic advertising because of the women (and a few men) on Twitter; particularly @Cellar790's encouragement. Though Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst trying to silence the voices of women, the Sisterhood is fighting back.

I started reading only books written by women because I was just so angry at V.S Naipaul dismissing women's voices as irrelevant because they have vaginas. The women of Mumsnet joined me in this policy [which actually came from another MNer]. We are fighting back against the publishing industry's misogyny by financially supporting women writers. I am angry that Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst silencing the voices of women. This is why I only have women friends on Facebook and follow a few men on Twitter. I deleted the vast majority of men I was following in March. Strangely, the level of misogyny I was reading decreased astronomically; although people insist on retweeting Stephen Fry who is not as smart as he thinks he is and is a woman-hating arsehole to boot.

I care about making spaces safe online for women so, whilst I will never support the policies of Dorries and Mensch, I do think we need to stop belittling and denigrating them. It is possible to criticise their policies without making it personal and supporting the Patriarchy in silencing women. That is what we do when fall into denigrating women. We are effectively helping to silence other women's voices. Instead, we need to reclaim the Internet and make it the most subversive weapon we have against the Patriarchy.

Read More

Feminism is Dead. Again.

I am getting rather bored with women who have no understanding of Feminism declaring Feminism dead.  I was going to write a scathing reply to Anne Lloyd's whiny-arsed blog in the Huffington Post. I just can't be bothered with women who whine about Feminists being "angry" and "aggressive" because we are still fighting for things like equal pay. Frankly, if you think women in the west are receiving equal pay for equal work, you are just stupid. I know it's unsisterly to call other women stupid but I am so bored by women who think that just because they have well-paying jobs, that all women do. It's so lacking in critical thinking, class analysis and any kind of empathy. I don't understand women who refuse to acknowledge how racism, homophobia and disablism change the experiences and "choices" of othered women.

We need to stop addressing these women. If they can't see the woods for the trees, that is a problem we can't fix. Instead, we need to focus on dismantling the Patriarchy. There is no argument that will demonstrate just how insidious misogyny is to women like Anne Lloyd who can't tell the difference between "femininity" as gender performance and Feminism as a political theory. 

Read More