White Male Commits Sex Crime but We Should Feel Sorry For Him:

A male teacher at a Sidney high school has been arrested for filming up the skirts of several of his female students as well women at the local train station.  

Yet, according to the principal of the high school where Robert Emmett taught, we are supposed to feel compassion for Emmett and his family. Not the women Emmett sexually assaulted by taking sexual photographs without permission but the man who committed the offence. We are supposed to have sympathy for the "emotional devastation" Emmett feels at being arrested for illegally filming at least 3 of his teenage students. 

The only people I have any sympathy for are the women and teenage girls that Emmett sexually assaulted and his children who have to live with the knowledge of their father's crimes.

Frankly, if a teacher at my children's school was arrested for such a crime and the principal was wittering on about the "emotional devastation" of the perpetrator, I would be removing them from the school immediately.

A principal who absolves a male member of staff of personal responsibility for sexual violence is not a man who deserves to keep his job, nor is he a man who should be trusted around teenage girls. 

I have to wonder about what the principal believes is acceptable behaviour with female pupils if he is so willing to ignore the safety of his female students.

Read More

Hugo Schwyzer is not a Feminist Redux:

Last Friday, Hugo Schwyzer, the so-called feminist, had what appears to be a very public meltdown on Twitter having claimed to be leaving social media forever because of mean, nasty feminists holding him publicly accountable for the violence he has perpetrated against women. I did not write about Schwyzer because I am still not sure that he genuinely had a meltdown or if the past two weeks have been nothing more than his normal manipulative, sociopathic behaviour. I didn't write about his recent behaviour because I didn't want to give him any more attention.

I was wrong. 

I was guilty of that which I railed against last year [below]: of ignoring Schwyzer's racism. And, it never even occurred to me that that was what I was doing. 

Yesterday, I witnessed a number of women of colour, including @thetrudz, calling out the white feminists who have supported Schwyzer over the years. And, I witnessed the silence of those very feminists. Those who did answer said what I had thought: that writing about Schwyzer just encouraged his manipulative behaviour. I made this about Schwyzer without thinking of the women who Schwyzer has hurt. They are who we should be writing and thinking about: the women who have been manipulated and abused by Schwyzer. I ignored the racism inherent in the worship of Schwyzer and I ignored my own role in perpetuating the white supremacist patriarchy by supporting the silencing of my sisters voices.

In ignoring Schwyzer, I had ignored the lives of women he has abused, many of whom are women of colour. For this I am sorry.

@thetrudz has storified her tweets here.

I wrote this last year and I stand by it. 

Normally, I'm not one for telling people whether or not they can self-define as feminists. I think it's rude and pointless. We all come to feminism from different perspectives and are all at different points of our feminist journey. It's counter-productive to insist on the right to label, or not, others. That said, there some pretty basic tenets of feminism that aren't negotiable. Perpetrators of domestic violence, rape and other forms of MVAW aren't feminists. I do think it is possible for men who express anti-feminist statements to change. I don't think violent men can change enough to ever be feminists. 

This is why I am genuinely perplexed by the fawning that Hugo Schwyzer receives. He has consistently minimised his history of violence against women. Schwyzer writes of being an "accidental rapist" and"accidentally endangering" a former partner in a murder-suicide attempt.

I have no time for men who seek to minimise their personal history of MVAW by claiming personality disorders or drug addiction. Being a feminist means taking responsibility for one's actions and the consequences therein. Claiming that an episode of MVAW was "drug-fuelled" isn't taking responsibility. It is minimising one's responsibility. There is a huge difference between the statements "I am a recovering drug addict but my addiction does not minimise my culpability for the violence I committed" and "it was accidental VAW because I was stoned".

One is forgivable because it involves genuine remorse. The other is not.

Real male feminist/ feminist allies get this. They understand that their behaviour has no excuse, that it would remain unforgivable for many women and they don't insist on trying to get women to forgive them. They take responsibility for their actions and words quietly and without requiring cookies and blowjobs for being good boys. 

Hugo Schwyzer needs to start listening to women. He needs to start acknowledging that there are valid reasons that women find him frightening and then he needs to stop trying to intimidate them into silence. When he stops trying to silence women, I might be willing to engage with his work. As long as he continues to embrace the silencing of women who disagree with him, Schwyzer will never be a feminist. 

And, let's be realistic here, if Mike Tyson, who has a similar history of domestic violence and rape, were to start referring to himself as a feminist whilst blithering on about hegemonic masculinity, no feminists would be lining up behind him to stroke his ego and insist on his admittance to feminist spaces. We'd be laughing our asses off at him. Schwyzer is allowed in because he's white. That's a huge problem that white feminists need to address because we are silencing our sisters by allowing Schwyzer to continue pontificating as if he were the Messiah of Feminism.

Read More

Twitter, Trolling and Misogynistic Abuse (trigger warning for content)

This was originally published on the Feminist & Women's Studies Association of the UK blog.

Violent threats of physical and sexual violence and general abusive messages are a common occurrence for women online. Identifying as a feminist makes women more visible targets for abuse. As a member of Mumsnet, I have received a death threat from a member of Fathers4Justice who suggested I needed to be shot in the face for questioning a libellous ad F4J had published. Through my personal blog, My Elegant Gathering of White Snows, I have received numerous threats of rape from misogynist rights activists. A man objected to my post on Pixar and their problems with gender stereotyping by suggesting I needed to be “gang-raped by Congolese savages”. I have been called stupid, insane, unfuckable, fat, ugly, and a Nazi. In terms of online abuse, the threats I have received have been few and on the low end of the spectrum of violence. I am one of the lucky feminists, which is a ridiculous statement to make having received a death threat. It’s just that abuse is so common that the abuse that I have personally received isn’t even worth mentioning. I certainly never reported it to the police as I assume they would ignore it.

Social media platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, have simply made it easier for women to be targets for abusive behaviour as these sites are frequently unwilling to take responsibility for the abuse posted on them. Soraya Chemaly and Laura Bates recent Facebook campaign followed their refusal to remove images of sexual violence. In the face of the campaign, Facebook has removed advertising from pages encouraging and posting images of sexual violence. The pages themselves should have been removed but targeting advertising is a good start. Removing the pages themselves is the next step.

It was almost inevitable that a similar campaign would target twitter. It started two days ago, sparked by the vitriolic abuse targeted at feminist campaigner Caroline Criado Perez who runs The Women’s Room UK. Criado Perez’ crime?: a successful campaign on cultural femicide forcing the Bank of England to follow the legislation in the 2010 Equality Act which requires every public body “pay due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and equality.” The campaign began after the Bank of England chose to remove the only woman on English banknotes and replace them with another white male. The banknotes campaign was small with a specific outcome, which they achieved: in 2017, Jane Austen will be the face on the new £10 note.

Criado Perez has been receiving abuse since the campaign started, frequently by men calling her stupid for not noticing that the Queen is on banknotes. The difference between being on a banknote via an accident of birth and being on a banknote because of personal achievement has been missed by a lot of the usual trolls. The abuse got worse when the Bank of England announced the decision for the new £10 note. Criado Perez reported one rape threat to the police who took the threat seriously. The response from twitter: a massive 24-hour backlash of misogynistic slurs, threats of physical violence and rape:

@FatTonyCologino : Everybody jump on the rape train … is the conductor.@SultanofPing You wanna rape with me
@Beccas43 : RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE JEW JEW JEW RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE RAPE JEW JEW JEW@VizFoSho If you force sex on a prostitute is it rape or shoplifting? @VizFoSho what do 9/10 people enjoy? Gang rape.

This is only a small selection of what was tweeted at Criado Perez and some of the least offensive tweets More examples are available at the blog I will not put up with this. The trolls have since targeted Laura Bates’ organisation Everyday Sexism for similar abusive threats.

Numerous people have suggested that Criado Perez ignore the trolls and their threats of sexual violence, however this does not stop abusive behaviour from trolls. If anything, it encourages them to attack others with the knowledge that no one will stand up to stop them. Ignoring trolls only serves to silence their victims. It gives them a platform for them to continue abusing women. Whilst it is considered “conventional wisdom”, it is not helpful to ending violence against women and girls.

What did help was the feminist #shoutback and #fightback which immediately started with women standing up to the misogynistic abuse and mass reporting abusive tweets to twitter. While it remains heartening to see so many women refusing to be silenced in the face of serious threats of sexual violence, twitter’s response has been deeply disappointing. A senior member of twitter closed his account when activists tweeted him links to the rape threats. The twitter “how to report abusive behaviour” page has been closed most of this morning, whether that is due to mass reporting or their choice to take down the page remains to be seen but the point is the only way to report abuse was not functioning.

Of course, people can only report abusive behaviour if they know where to find the information. Twitter’s “how to report abusive behaviour” page is notoriously difficult to find and is quite time consuming. It is very difficult to keep up with reporting when facing an onslaught of abuse. Whilst many women did take the time to screencap and report the abuse, the process of reporting resulted in numerous hours of abuse from specific people before their accounts were suspended. Criado Perez is collating and reporting all of the abusive messages to the police, who are taking the threats seriously. Twitter, however, is unwilling to take responsibility for the abuse they are hosting.

The violent threats and misogynistic abuse that Criado Perez has been subjected to over the past few days are similar to the abuse all women experience online and in real life. What has been different is the number of women (and men) who have stood beside Criado Perez and refused to be silenced. Hopefully, this one event will be the catalyst which forces twitter to install a “report abusive behaviour button” similar to that of their spam button as well as help change all social media so that threatening violence is considered an immediate banning offence. 

Frankly, it already should be.

There is a petition here requesting that twitter install an “report abusive behaviour” button. 

Read More

Fathers4Justice, Mumsnet and Me: #shoutingback

I haven't written too much about my experience of online abuse with Fathers4Justice last year, mostly because I don't want a swarm of their buckethead members descending on me. Again. However, the recent violent abuse directed at feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez has made me change my mind on this issue. 

My first personal encounter with Fathers4Justice was on Mumsnet. F4J members troll the relationships and feminist board on Mumsnet all the time. They are tedious and completely lacking in self-awareness. They frequently come on threads started by women who are experiencing domestic violence and blame the women for being victims. Members also start threads whining about how they aren't allowed to contact their children due to the hateful mother. A quick google invariably finds that the man has been denied contact after criminal convictions for violence against the ex-partner and/ or drug and alcohol abuse. Their trolling isn't restricted to attacking women survivors of domestic violence but also victims of sexual violence and rape. They deliberately misrepresent what is being said on a thread in order to discredit women. It is safe to say I have no respect whatsoever for their organisation.

The incident last year started with F4J announcing a new campaign targeting Marks & Spencer's because of their advertising on Mumsnet who "promote gender hatred" and labels "men and boys as rapists, paedophiles and wife beaters". F4J members trolled both Mumsnet's talk boards and Mumsnet's Facebook wall making unsubstantiated and libellous statements about Mumsnet. The also attempted to publish the ad below in a variety of newspapers although only the I-Independent actually published the ad in the end.

There were numerous conversations on the Mumsnet talkboards and FB wall between members of Mumsnet and members of F4J. There was rudeness on both sides but Fathers4Justice members went beyond rude and straight to intimidation tactics and threats of violence. They told outright lies about what was written on Mumsnet, took quotes out of context and tried to silence criticism with threats of violence dressed up as 'concern'. The F4J FB wall was a disgraceful example of male privilege and violence.

In the end, I posted a link to the Advertising Standards Agency's complaint form on Mumsnet's wall. I did so because the ad below is clearly in breach of ASA standards. I received hundreds of abusive messages from members of F4J on Mumsnet, Mumsnet's FB wall and F4J's FB wall. One member of F4J responded to my post by stating that I deserved to shot in the head.

According to the senior members of F4J posting on the wall, this does not count as an actual threat of violence because the member didn't say he was going to shoot me in the head. Instead, this man suggested he'd help pay someone to shoot me in the head. But, this isn't a "violent threat" and I was told I was over-reacting, whining and being a drama queen for demanding that this man remove his post. Mumsnet staffers deleted the whole wall post at my request. They also deleted almost the entirety of my personal posting history on Mumsnet at my request.

I had my posting history deleted because I don't trust men who think its acceptable to threaten, intimidate and abuse women online. I don't trust F4J to remove violent men from their organisation and I don't trust the police to have taken the threat seriously. 

A member of F4J threatened to shoot me in the head after a week of harassment and intimidation by other F4J members. Numerous members got in line to congratulate the man who threatened to have me shot. I have never received an apology from the organisation. Nor have they ever taken responsibility for the threats of violence and abuse made in their name against other members of Mumsnet. 

My experience with F4J is commonplace. This is the abuse that all women face online. It was my first experience with a potential death threat [and by no means the last, even from F4J members]. In retrospect, I should have screencapped the threat and reported it to the police. But, at that point, it never even occurred to me. I just wanted the threat gone and my posting history deleted for the safety of my children [which MN did despite the fact that deleting a history as huge as mine was time-consuming and difficult!].*

As awful as that weekend was, I was also very lucky. I was surrounded by a thousands of women members of Mumsnet who stood with me. This is true feminist activism: standing up for other women. Being surrounded by women who have your back is a truly powerful and amazing gift.

This is why I am saddened by those attacking Caroline Criado-Perez as "attention-seeking" and insinuating that she's over-reacting. I had one serious death threat in a 2 day period of intense harassment and intimidation. Caroline has had literally hundreds; not to mention the sheer number of rape threats. We should all have her back, as we should have the back of every single woman threatened by male violence.

The only people responsible for male violence are the men who perpetrate it and those who minimise it.

Criticism is unsisterly and divisive and it does nothing to destroy the patriarchy. It also ignores the perpetrator.


*A huge thank you to smallwhitecat and HelenMN for their personal support that weekend.

Mumsnet statement about Fathers 4 Justice

Written by Justine Roberts, CEO of Mumsnet, on Saturday 17 March

Some of you may have noticed that a group called Fathers 4 Justice has been saying some pretty unpleasant things about us over the last couple of weeks. In an 'advert' which appeared first on Facebook and then in Friday March 16th's edition of the I, the group claims Mumsnet "promotes gender hatred", and labels "men and boys as rapists, paedophiles and wife beaters". It calls on advertisers to suspend advertising on Mumsnet.

Most people, I'm quite sure, will see the adverts and the 'campaign' behind them for precisely what they are: a naked attempt to court publicity by a group of people who, for whatever reason, appear to have tired of climbing cranes in superhero outfits. (And, just coincidentally, in the run-up to Mother's Day). In fact, it feels a bit like having a particularly irritating toddler repeatedly prodding you with a stick to get some attention.

By and large, it seemed most sensible to ignore them, not least because we've had our hands quite full with stuff that actually matters, like Mumsnet's We Believe You campaign to dispel rape myths.

But since Fathers 4 Justice appear to have attracted some grown-ups' attention, we thought we should tell you a bit about the background to this attack, the truth behind their allegations, and how they are trying to bully us and other organisations.

Here are 10 things you should know...

1. On 3 March, a Mumsnet user started a conversation about a poster campaign being touted on Mumsnet's Facebook wall by Fathers 4 Justice, and the fact that Fathers 4 Justice was bombarding a number of sites with this troubling image.
2. A conversation then ensued on Mumsnet about Fathers 4 Justice and their tactics, which some members of Fathers 4 Justice joined. Some Mumsnetters said some pretty harsh things.
3. We deleted a number of posts that broke our forum guidelines regarding personal attacks. In total, we deleted 70 posts from the thread, which went on over the next few days and reached 1000 posts in total. Sixty of the deleted posts were posts were made by regular Mumsnet members; ten or so were made by new joiners we believed to be from Fathers 4 Justice. Our community managers reminded users to follow forum guidelines on nine separate occasions, and at least one prolific Mumsnetter left the site in protest at our deletion policy.
4. On 7 March and 8 March, MNHQ received a series of emails from the Campaign Director of Fathers 4 Justice containing threats of legal action and a threat to contact our advertisers. At the same time, comments on the Fathers 4 Justice Facebook page describing Mumsnetters as "barking mad harridans", "weird sex obsessed paranoid perverts" and "child-abusing contact blockers" were left unmoderated. As were comments that described me variously as a "dried up old hag", "an evil woman" and having an "IQ that would return a negative score".
5. On 11 March, Fathers 4 Justice posted another attack ad this time accusing M&S of "sponsoring hateful, bigoted and prejudiced comments about men and boys on Mumsnet" and demanding that M&S withdraw all advertising on Mumsnet or face a boycott. It accused the company of "serving up gender hatred for Mother's Day".
6. Other organisations have experienced similar bullying tactics. In recent weeks, Fathers 4 Justice have targeted the lone parents' support charity, Gingerbread, jamming up its telephone helplines. Senior NGO staff have told us they felt too intimidated to speak out against them.
7. The suggestion that Mumsnet encourages gender hatred would be funny if it were not so offensive - and plain silly. The central aim of Mumsnet is to make parents' (mothers' and fathers') lives easier. There are many and varied opinions on the site and no one Mumsnet party line prevails, save for the view that we respect diverse opinion. We do not pre-moderate or vet comments made to our discussion boards, of which there are around 30 000 every day.
8. Men are and always have been extremely welcome on Mumsnet - and we have a Dadsnet forum for Dads to talk directly with other men, should they wish. We estimate that around 5 to 10% of our 2 million odd monthly users are men. Of course you can always find plenty of Mumsnetters whinging about their male partner's shortcomings - more than there are whinging about their female partner's shortcomings - but generalisations are swiftly pounced on and we do not tolerate gender hatred, or any other kind of hatred for that matter (save maybe hatred of Fruitshoots). We encourage people to be civil and supportive and, in the main, most people are.
9. Fathers 4 Justice campaigns for fathers to have access to their children following separation or divorce. Its founder, Matt O'Connor, says parents have "fewer rights than a terrorist". The organisation was temporarily disbanded in 2006 after it emerged that some of its members had plotted to kidnap Tony Blair's son Leo. Fathers 4 Justice boasts that it is "the most controversial and high profile pressure group of modern times" but it has struggled to win public attention since abandoning its eye-catching tactic of scaling tall structures in superhero costumes. In recent weeks, it has targeted Cafcass, the body responsible for protecting the rights of children in court proceedings, Gingerbread, the charity for single parents (which it claimed supported "the abuse of children"), and Mumsnet. It has also, somewhat mysteriously, branded London 2012 "the fatherless games".
10. We believe that the issue of a father's access to his children is important and needs to be discussed. We understand that many Fathers 4 Justice campaigners are driven by intense personal anger over what they feel is injustice they have suffered in their own cases. But the recent actions the group have taken against Mumsnet and others constitutes plain and simple bullying and intimidation, and only harms its cause.
11. Reading this as a Mumsnetter, you may well already be spitting tacks by now. Please do remember that's precisely what Fathers 4 Justice want. If you post on the subject, please keep it civil. We won't be bullied, but we don't want to be dragged into the mire either.

Read More

If you call another woman an "attention-seeker", I'm going to question your right to the label feminist.

I have been breaking my own rule on "not telling another woman whether or not they can call themselves a feminist" lately. I hate doing this because it is a silencing tactic. Telling women what they are and what labels they are allowed to use is a Patriarchal tool. It prevents questioning and a fundamental part of feminism MUST be the right to question everything. If we cannot challenge other feminists, we cannot grow as a movement. 

That said, I am absolutely disgusted at the "feminists" who are calling Caroline Criado-Perez an attention-seeker for demanding that Twitter and the legal system take responsibility for their perpetuation of MVAW. This is a silencing tactic and it is manifestly NOT feminism.

The feminist response to the serious threats of violence and abusive language directed at Caroline Criado-Perez is to analyse the political, social and cultural constructs which have made Caroline both a victim and a powerful spokeswoman. Then, feminism would seek to ensure that all women who experience MVAW online are taking seriously and the men [and women] who are harassing and threatening them are prosecuted. Feminist do NOT judge how a woman chooses to respond to the MVAW they are subjected to. Ever.

Do I think the fact that Caroline is white is a big reason the media is reporting this story? Absolutely. 

Do I think Caroline's gift for publicity is a big reason the media reporting this story? Absolutely.

Do I question the feminist credentials of the women calling Caroline an attention-seeker? Most definitely.

Feminism is a political movement which seeks to liberate all women. We do NOT blame women for the MVAW they experience, nor do we blame women for how they respond to that violence. If you self-define as a feminist and are calling Caroline an "attention-seeker", you need to review your definition of feminism. If your "feminist activism" consists solely of judging and insulting other women online, you need to review your definition of feminism.

I will not name names but this anti-feminist behaviour needs to stop. We need to support women who are victims of MVAW. 

I don't expect much self-reflection from the men who are minimising and erasing the MVAW experienced by Caroline. I do expect better of women who call themselves feminists. 


Glosswitch has written an absolutely brilliant piece for the Everyday Victim Blaming project on this the victim-blaming of Caroline Criado-Perez. It is a must read.

Read More

#DickheadDetox : Asshole Lists "Flaws" He Likes in Women:

[Image from here]

Some tool, called Mark Manson, wrote a list of 7 "Flaw" he likes in women for Thought Catalogue. I am so bored of the constant articles, nearly always written by men, trying to extrapolate their personal sexual desires as the "norm". The self-indulgent, narcissistic approach to sexuality in our culture is abusive and exploitative. The idea that the orgasm of one person is more important than the safety and personal boundaries of the person they are fucking is disgusting.

I hate the privileging of male sexuality and I loathe the men who take advantage of this: like Mark Manson. Normally, I'd ignore this shite but Manson brings the "domestic violence as romance" theme to a whole new level: one where he "forgives" us our imperfections in his voyage of self-discovery [which seems to miss the whole he's an asshole bit].

The first paragraph is Manson explaining what every woman has known for a millenia as if its somehow a new and exciting theory:

I feel more and more that our culture is conditioning us to expect, no — demand a perfect romantic or sexual partner for ourselves. It’s easy to forget that finding someone you truly want to be with isn’t a matter finding someone who is perfect or flawless, but finding someone who you actually grow to love their flaws.

Clearly, Manson missed the whole medieval knights and chivalry bullshit poetry period. And, every self-help book written in the 19th and 20th century. Seriously, does he genuinely believe this is a new pet theory? I don't know if I should be laughing hysterically at this point or leaning my head on my desk and crying for our species.

Having psycho-analysed himself [and continued to miss the bit where he's an asshole], Manson dedicates the piece to "the girl of my dreams and her issues, her traumas, and her deepest flaws. And not just the faults that I can tolerate, but the faults that I can love." Well, isn't that just peachy-keen and lurvely. Just reading that makes me cream myself with excitement or vomit. One or the other. My poor ickle girlie brain just can't compute the level of romance in that statement. 

I've reproduced all "The Flaws" below as they have to be read fully to be believed. All of them are disgraceful, woman-hating twaddle with a serious side of domestic violence. They are all huge red flags. Part of me is glad Manson wrote this so that potential partners can be aware of his violent personality at the start but the other part of me is angry that anyone would publish this bullshit.

The first two flaws are the most important to read, everything after that is Manson's Ode to His Penis. The first "flaw" is Manson clearly looking for a woman to emotionally and psychologically abuse. It is an obvious indicator of a man who is controlling. The second flaw is the same indicator with Manson looking for a woman to shoulder the responsibility for everything that goes wrong in Manson's life. 

Manson belongs on the #DickheadDetox. He certainly doesn't deserve to ever have a relationship with a woman [or be a potential father to children].

The Flaws:

FLAW #1: She’s Slightly Neurotic - I’m an extremely laid-back guy. Some people may say too laid-back. But every girl I’ve developed a strong emotional connection with has told me that I have a calming effect on them. Girls who are slightly neurotic feel right to me for two reasons: for one, if there’s something I should be worrying about, but I’m not, they’ll always catch it. And secondly, when they’re worrying about something that’s unnecessary, I enjoy being able to help them relax and feel more secure about it. It’s a nice dynamic, as it makes me feel needed and they’re always appreciative.

FLAW #2: She Blames Herself Too Often - This one’s a little twisted, but I like it. It makes me feel more at ease. My biggest pet peeve in the world is people who do not take responsibility for their actions. So if a girl blames herself too often, then I never have to worry about her shirking responsibility for things going wrong. But the biggest reason is I don’t handle people blaming me or judging me well. Never have. When I feel like I’m being blamed unfairly, my tendency is to either shut down or to simply leave. Obviously, this is not a helpful tendency in a relationship. On the other hand, I’m an EXTREMELY non-judgmental person and rarely blame the person I’m with, so I’m unlikely to pile on the blame if she’s being hard on herself. On the contrary, as a recovered Nice Guy, I have a tendency to want to help my partner feel better about herself and let go of whatever is bothering her, so this gives me another opportunity to do that. Hey, I never said I didn’t have flaws either. But it seems women with this flaw complement my flaw really well and the relationship works.

FLAW #3: She’s A Work-A-Holic - I get bored easily. If I’m with a girl who doesn’t have a lot going on in her life, I get bored with her easily. I find ambition sexy. I run my own business and will often pull 14- or 16-hour workdays and I need her to understand and support that. Women who work their ass off for something just tend to be much more interesting.

FLAW #4: She’s A Risk-Taker - I need someone who thinks outside the box, who is open-minded and up for trying something crazy or stupid on a whim. My last serious girlfriend, the day we broke up, we decided to go skydiving together to commemorate it. Don’t ask me why, but it was awesome. I love taking risks and having adventures. I want a girl who if I say, “Hey, I just bought us plane tickets to Dubai tomorrow, let’s go!” she won’t hesitate to say yes. She won’t complain about work or worry about what her mother would think or whatever. She’d drop everything and go.

FLAW #5: She’s Vain - I realize this is entirely self-indulgent, but I love it when women take the time and effort to make themselves as beautiful as humanly possible. The 90 minutes in the bathroom before we go out to get dinner? I like that. I want her to look stunning. I then want to tell her that she looks stunning. I then want her to love it when I tell her that she looks stunning.

FLAW #6: She’s Pushy - Like I said earlier, I have a tendency to be too laid-back some times. And I also have a tendency to avoid commitment. As a result, some times I pull away from the person I’m seeing even if I really care about them and feel strongly about them. It’s an unconscious reaction and habit. So I need someone who won’t let me off the hook easily, because I know at some point I will try to get off the hook. Even though it annoys me at times, it’s good for the girl I’m dating to be pushy, the kind of girl who will call me three days in a row and bother me for not hanging out with her. I’ll hate it in the moment, I’ll complain that she’s needy and annoying and smothering me, blah, blah, blah — but I think in the long-run it works out better because if left to my own devices I’d let myself drift away and never come back.

FLAW #7: She Wears Her Heart On Her Sleeve - You know the stereotype of the concerned husband saying, “Honey, what’s wrong?” and she says, “Oh, nothing.” So he tries again, “No, really, what’s wrong?” and she still says “Nothing,” even though she’s obviously really pissed about something. Then eventually she blows up and acts as if he was supposed to magically know why she was pissed off the entire time and fix it. It’s a stereotype you see in movies and TV shows a lot. Yeah, I hate that. I can’t be with a girl like that. I think if that happened to me now, she’d be out the door. Anyone who reads this site knows that I’m obsessed with blunt, painful honesty. I always want to know what people are thinking and feeling and I want everyone to always know what I’m thinking and feeling. I love women who wear their hearts on their sleeve. I want them to have the opposite problem of not being able to hide their emotions even if they want to. This goes along with passion as well. Women who let their emotions just flow out of them tend to be incredibly passionate. I get weak in the knees for passionate women. It’s why I love Latin women and Eastern European women so much. Their emotions are so intense you think the world is going to crack in half some times. As a boy who came from an emotionally-stifled family in an English-speaking culture, I can’t get enough of it. 

Read More

Facebook's Continuing War on Women: This Time Human Rights Watch is the Problem

Yesterday, Facebook blocked a page from Human Rights Watch. 

And, yes, you read that right. 

Facebook deemed a page by Human Rights Watch so hateful that it contravened their official policy on "offensive" material. You know, their policy which allows violent pornography, images of abused children and women, racism, homophobia, disablism and rape threats to remain as "free speech". 

Human Rights Watch's crime: requesting the Tunisian government grant feminist activist Amina Tyler pretrial release, as she is entitled to under the law. Amina Tyler, whose only crime was writing Femen across her bare breasts and posting the image on Facebook, has been detained since May 19th. Tyler's photo did not contravene FB's standards despite the fact that images of infants breastfeeding does. 

Human Rights Watch are a subversive group because caring that no human be tortured, imprisoned, raped or murdered for being human now contravenes Facebook standards. We have arrived at the point where "free speech" only applies to violent men. Those who campaign for the protection of vulnerable people from male violence have no legal right to free speech.

Welcome to the Patriarchy where Feminist activism is required to ensure that internationally recognised human rights organisations aren't deemed "offensive".

Read More

Trayvon Martin

I have not blogged about this case because I couldn't. I could write a whole load of plausible excuses here why but they wouldn't be true. I haven't written because I cannot believe a child has been murdered for walking home at night in a hoodie. I don't know how to express my anger and my distress and my guilt for being white in a White Supremacy; for being responsible for perpetuating a culture which believes the life a child is worth nothing. 

I cannot write anything that doesn't sound like I'm trying to excuse myself from being held responsible.

 But, I am responsible.

We are all responsible.

I have lived with the hope that George Zimmerman would be found guilty; that the life of a child would be declared valuable in court.

I knew it was unlikely but I hoped. And, I prayed.

And, Trayvon Martin has been declared unhuman in a court of law; murdering a black teenager is now legal (as it always has been).

What worries me, as a British-Canadian citizen, is the rhetoric that this is an 'American' crime that couldn't possibly happen here.

 Do I hope that this is true?

Of course.

But, it isn't.

Black teenagers die in the UK and Canada. 

And we don't care.

A child was murdered for being the wrong colour. 

If a similar case happened in the UK/ Canada, I believe a similar verdict would occur. 

I don't want to believe this. I want to believe we lived in a post-racial society.

We don't.

And, the murder of Trayvon Martin suggests we never will.

Read More

Don't Be That Girl: Rape Culture in Action

There isn't much I can say that hasn't been said already on twitter. This is, obviously, rape culture in action. 

I want to say, yep that's the University of Alberta for you: bunch of misogynistic, racist, homophobic and disablist rednecks. We all know the jokes and stereotypes about rednecks. And, hey, I'm Canadian. I know all the jokes about Albertans: the Texas of Canada.

That would be the lazy way out though.

Claiming that this kind of poster is representative of a cultural stereotype of stupidity allows us to ignore our own responsibility for perpetuating rape culture [and allows the dickheads of twitter more space to pretend they are Nigels]. 

Blaming rape victims for being raped is the basis of rape culture. It isn't just some Albertan thing.

Making rape apologists The Other makes it easier for rapists to rape. 

We need to start examining the obvious: that these are stories of MALE violence instead of hiding behind cultural stereotypes.

These posters were created by men for the sole purpose of labelling rape victims liars. 

We need to name the problem: Male Violence.

Read More

Jack Reacher: Obviously Misogynistic and I Should Have Known Better

Normally, I avoid Tom Cruise. His films usually put me on the wrong side of cranky. They are inevitably misogynistic with a side order of homophobia, racism and disablism thrown in. Despite knowing all of this, I chose to watch Jack Reacher. 

I didn't think Tom Cruise films could get any worse but I was wrong. Jack Reacher delved into a whole new level of misogyny.

We have:

• "the town whore"
• the "town whore" being used and abused
• "town whore" being publicly humiliated
• "town whore" being murdered for being "town whore"

This idea that women who have sex deserve to be murdered is old school victim-blaming. It's offensive, misogynist and vile. 

The film also includes this charming piece of dialogue:

Sandy: I don't mind the sight of blood.
Jack: Not when it means you're not pregnant.

You see, she's a whore so she can't possibly every want to get pregnant. And, we all know whores make bad mothers. It's in the Bible and everything. Course,  men who have numerous sexual relationships and cheat on their partners are still good fathers. After all, being in possession of a penis makes one a good father by default.

Jack Reacher is the last Tom Cruise movie I will watch. I'm boycotting his shit from now on. 

Read More

Attention Seeking Women Just Need to Shut Up

[First Published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

The Telegraph is not a newspaper I read. It is pure misogyny and, in that, is pretty much the same as the rest of the British media and their policy of victim blaming. This particular article is no different. 

Rupert Christiansen, who is apparently an opera critic, has merely joined in with the rest of the Telegraph in their current series: “women whine too much”. The target of Christiansen’s offensive tirade is opera singer Angela Gheorghiu. The real target should have been her ex-husband Roberto Alagna.

Christiansen knows nothing about domestic violence. I’d be tempted to say he knows nothing about basic human relations. According to Christiansen, a man giving his wife “a clap on the face” is not “violence". He actually puts the word violence in quotation marks.  You see, hitting your wife across the face isn't real violence; not like, say, hitting a man across the face. That would be real violence.

Christiansen follows it up with this gem:

“So far it’s hard to imagine that anything more sinister than explosive exasperation of a standard matrimonial kind is involved – unpleasant and upsetting for all parties concerned, but scarcely a matter for the courts or the headlines.”

Yep, Christiansen actually thinks that slapping your wife across the face is “standard matrimonial” behaviour. I’m so glad he included the words “unpleasant and upsetting”. What with all the minimizing of male violence, I thought Christiansen was going to suggest that Gheorghiu should write Alagna a thank you letter for hitting her. Clearly, Hallmark is missing out on a greeting card.

Christiansen wasn’t quite satisfied with blaming Gheorghiu for being a victim of domestic violence or using that utterly disgusting term “volatile”, a term only ever used to minimize men’s responsibility for the violence they commit. No, Christiansen had to say that both have a “terrible reputation in business for being chronic exhibitionists”, because using the media efficiently as a celebrity means that Gheorghiu is just a whiny woman who needs to learn to shut up.

Christiansen doesn’t just imply that Gheorghiu needs to shut up but he actually states that we should ignore a woman’s story of domestic violence because it’s ‘attention-seeking’. 

Women who speak out publicly about their personal experiences of violence are "attention-seeking". And, the Telegraph saw fit to publish this piece of victim-blaming bullshit.

Read More

Shock: Male Journalist Spread Myths about Domestic Violence

Damian Gee has been convicted of assault because he chose to punch his partner in the face and then he threatened to kill her with a knife.

Damian Gee assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship because Gee had an affair. He turned up at her residence at 3 in the morning, uninvited and assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship.

Yet, Neil Hunter of the Northern Echo, wrote an article claiming that the “cheating boyfriend attacked his partner during showdown talks”. I’m not sure how turning up at 3 in the morning, whilst intoxicated and without invitation constitutes “showdown talks” but ignoring that piece of victim blaming, Hunter also points out that Gee was having an affair with the victim’s sister. Not only is the victim responsible for Hunter showing up without invitation, she is also responsible for Gee choosing to have sex with her sister. Hunter has clearly been watching Jeremy Kyle to understand the full dynamics of victim-blaming.

Hunter’s lack of understanding of domestic violence is quite obvious. Hunter suggests it’s “bizarre” that Gee accused his partner of cheating on him before assaulting him. This is classic emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as exhibited by abusive men. Frankly, anyone with access to google could discover that this behaviour is “bizarre”; it’s the normal behaviour of abusive men.

Hunter, demonstrating a further complete lack of awareness of domestic violence, ended the article with this tidbit:

Mr Mochrie said initial accusations of rape and false imprisonment - later dropped by the prosecution - had caused him trouble in jail.

"It is not over just because the prosecution decides to discontinue the case. It has tarnished his reputation in the community." “

Mochrie, Gee’s defence attorney, is worried about the reputation of an abusive man. And, Hunter buys this without mentioning how rare “false” accusations of rape really are or why the prosecution would choose to drop charges of rape and false imprisonment. Here’s a hint for Hunter, it’s unlikely because the charges were “false”. Statistically speaking, it’s much more likely because accusations of rape are rarely brought before the court and when they are, rapists are frequently not convicted. It’s also likely the victim chose not to pursue the charges.

Neil Hunter could really do with researching myths about rape and domestic violence so he doesn’t write such victim-blaming twaddle again.

The only person responsible in this case is Damian Gee. 

Read More

A Man who rapes a child is never an "effective parent".

A 52 year old man has received a suspended sentence after being convicted of raping a 14 year old girl twice and indecently assaulting her twice.

The 14 year old girl is his wife's sister. At the time of the attack, the rapist was 24 years old.

A 25 year old man raped a 14 year old girl twice and has received a suspended sentence for his crime. 

A man who raped his wife’s 14-year-old sister has been given a suspended jail sentence after a judge, Garrett Sheehan, ruled that "imprisonment would impose extreme hardship on the rapist’s family". Judge Sheehan also stated that: 

“The evidence in this case disclosed that the defendant not only has the capacity to remain an effective parent but also that it is in his family’s interest as well as society’s interest that the family unit in this particular case be preserved and supported.”

How is it in society's best interest to have a convicted child rapist loose on the streets?

Yes, the rapist now has three children: two of whom are autistic and a third child who has several medical conditions. It will cause considerable hardship to his family for him to serve time in prison. But, that is his fault. He chose to rape a child. The fact that he now has three children requiring full-time care does not negate his actions.

This man should be in prison.

Having caring duties for the children requiring extra support does not negate the fact that this man chose to rape a child.

These are precisely the reasons why we need a real social welfare state. The three children, and their mother, should be receiving extra support from the state in terms of money and care-workers. They should not be dependent on a child rapist for support. 

Rapists are not "effective" parents. They are violent men and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced at the safety of the three children who are living in a house with a convicted rapist. I don't know what Judge Sheehan thinks is a bad father but this minimisation of male responsibility for the violence they cause because they happen to have children is the very essence of patriarchal victim-blaming. 

The judge has basically stated that the life of the victim of child-rape is not as important as the family of her rapist. The judge has stated that child rape lays  

"at the top end of the midrange of the scale and, in the absence of any mitigating factors, seven years was the appropriate sentence. He said the absence of any other convictions and the fact that the defendant had “self-rehabilitated” since the offences were committed 27 years ago were significant mitigating factors."

How do we know the defendant has "self-rehabilitated"? How do we know that he has not raped other children who have been too afraid to come forward? How do we know that he won't rape another child? Since when does committing a crime 27 years ago constitute a mitigating factor? Is the judge really suggesting that the longer a rapist gets away with committing rape means that they aren't really rapists?

I have all the sympathy in the world for the family of this convicted rapists, but keeping him out of prison isn't the answer.

He should be serving the seven years in prison [and I won't even start on how pathetic that sentence is without it being suspended]. His family should be receiving extra support from the state.

Really, what this case implies is that the 14 year old victim of child rape is responsible for ruining her sister's family by reporting her rapist. This is rape culture.

[originally published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

Read More

This is Rape Culture

I came across this poster via Everyday Victim Blaming. It gave me the rage.

This is rape culture. It isn't funny. It isn't clever and it is not the fault of the man who drank too much.

Anyone who thinks it's acceptable to do this to someone who is vulnerable, and then film it is an arsehat. It is bullying behaviour and is what underpins rape culture. There is a reason that the two budding 'filmmakers' are women. If it had been men, we would have recognised that the unconscious person in the bathtub is vulnerable to rape. This ad only inverts the traditional victim-blaming. It encourages the belief that all rape victims are responsible for being victims. It also implies women are as likely to commit sexual violence as men which isn't true.

We need to ban these images. They serve only to harm victims.

Read More

Consent, Disclosure and the Cotton Ceiling

This is another debate I have not yet commented on but a conversation today on twitter made me want to clarify my thoughts publicly.

I do not believe anyone has the right to sex. I believe that full disclosure is necessary even for casual or one-night relationships. I believe anything less invalidates consent.  Lying about your marital status should invalidate consent. Lying about your health in a manner which could compromise the health of your partner invalidates consent.

The police officers who had sexual relationships with women in order to cement their cover whilst spying on left-wing organisations committed rape. Their lies invalidated the consent of the women involved. The fact that this is not illegal simply demonstrates how utterly woman-hating our laws of consent are.

Consent, as it stands now, is a joke. It is designed so that men can fuck whoever they want whenever they want without any consequence. Women's boundaries and bodily integrity are violated in a million ways every day. The law is designed to defend these violations by men rather than protect women. 

We need to rewrite the law completely in order to defend women's bodily integrity [and, of course, the children and men whose bodies are violated]. This means we need to start with full disclosure before any, however temporary, sexual relationship. And, yes, this will mean difficult conversations. It will also mean forgoing sex because we cannot disclose for whatever reason but including safety. 

These conversations will, I have no doubt, be more difficult for transwomen who will be faced with the increased possibility of male violence. It is this very real threat which makes it all the more important for us to smash the patriarchal construction of consent. It may very well mean a decrease in sex for many but no one has the right to sex. We are morally required to ensure the safety of others and that safety includes not violating bodily integrity.

Real consent can only be given when both parties are in possession of all the facts. It is that simple.

This is why I find the term "cotton ceiling" so disturbing. I understand the need for Trans* to self-organise to share stories of full disclosure and offer mutual support over a difficult issue, however the term "cotton ceiling" does not imply respectful discussions of consent and disclosure. The idea that lesbian women are somehow providing a barrier to sex which must be smashed just like the glass ceiling in employment sounds remarkably like denying women bodily integrity. The term itself implies a level of coercion; coercion removes consent. Lack of consent equals rape. This may not be what was meant when the term was first used but the implication is clearly there and it is supported by suggestions that lesbian women are "transphobic" for refusing to have sexual relationships with transwomen. 

Being sexually undesirable by someone who you fancy sexually is a horrible position to be in but no one has the right to sex and lesbians have the right to refuse to have sex with whomever they want. Everyone has the right to refuse sex whatever the reason. We need to have conversations about consent and disclosure but they must be done from a position of honesty. If  you cannot disclose the truth [whatever that may be] to the person you desire sexually, then you should not have sex with them. This is as valid for one night stands as it is for long-term relationships.

Read More