#slanegirl and why this isn't about female sexual desire

The #slanegirl hashtag refers to photographs of a teenage girl performing oral sex on at least two men in the audience of the Eminem concert at Slane Castle in Ireland. I do not know the exact details since it's hard to shift through the rumours, of which there are many, and I do not want to accidentally come across the images. I do believe that photographing anyone without their consent is wrong: I don't care if this is a child skipping in puddles, a celebrity picking their nose or Prince Harry naked. Taking photos without consent and then distributing them is unacceptable and feeds into bullying culture, particularly since most of the images shared without consent are of people in embarrassing situations.

This situation isn't just the sharing of embarrassing photos: it's sexual violence. Sharing photos of people engaged in sex, even if they are in public venue, is sexual violence. I don't care if that isn't the position of the law. It's what the law should be.  The distribution of images of sex without the full consent of all participants is sexual violence.

The fact that the photos are of a teenage girl makes this crime child sexual abuse since a teenager cannot legally consent to sex with an adult nor can they consent to their images being shared publicly. If it were images of an adult woman performing a sex act, it would still be a case of sexual violence. This is without investigating the issue of consent due to substance misuse or the fact that these images have been shared online.

Every single person who has shared or retweeted these images has committed sexual violence. The people who first put the images online deserve to be prosecuted, as does every single  person who has shared them including the people who claimed to be sharing them to demonstrate their "moral outrage" at the images being placed online. 

I hope every single person who has helped to repeatedly sexually violate this young girl gets prosecuted and ends up with a criminal record. 

That said, I am equally concerned about the positive discussions of the article #Slanegirl and the shaming of female desire on Twitter.* The article claims to be a challenge to the shaming of female sexuality but that's not quite what is happening in the piece. Ignoring the deliberate misrepresentation of radical feminist discourse of female sexuality**, which is disgraceful, the piece assumes that the young girl was an active participant in the act. As yet, we have no confirmation of this 'fact'. In fact current media reports put the young girl below the age of consent which would make this a story of child sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if the young girl was an active participant, the fact that adult men were involved makes this a crime. The Irish Independent is also suggesting that the young girl was sexually assaulted at the concert in an attack separate to that which is seen in the photos uploaded. This is a story of the sexual violation of a young girl. It is not the time to 'celebrate' female sexual desire.

Shaming women for enjoying sex is misogyny. It is about reinforcing patriarchal control of women's bodies and creating a dichotomy of good and bad women. However, whether or not individual women enjoy specific sexual acts cannot be separated from a political analysis of the treatment of women as a class. The bodies of women and children are objectified and pornified daily. Suggesting that adult men using the body of a teenage girl for their sexual gratification is something we should celebrate as an example of female sexual desire completely decontextualises sexual violence. It ignores the reality of women's lives and it belittles the pain this young girl is experiencing due to the abuse. It is rape culture.

Teenagers exploring their sexuality together is a different situation to adult men preying on young teenage girls. It is a constant in our culture and it occurs daily. The only difference now is that the authorities seem to be taking the abuse seriously. This is not to say that teenagers engaged in public sexual acts aren't problematic but that this situation involving a young child is not a celebration of female sexual desire. It's just another story of the abuse of a young girl by men and those who seek to minimise the responsibility of sexually abusive men.

This is rape culture.

A child has been sexually violated. Repeatedly. 

It is not a story of female sexual desire. This is a story of sexual violence.

* The comments underneath the article are a disgusting display of male violence, misogyny and the shaming of women. 

*This particular blogger has an obsession with radical feminism and has been caught on numerous occasions making outright lies about radical feminist theory. 

Read More

Blame the perpetrator, not the victim:

The following was originally published as a twitlonger by Everyday Victim Blaming. I'm posting because it is an important piece of writing that should not get lost in the Twitter-verse: 

I am another EVB volunteer, taking over from this morning's debate regarding this tweet from @mwilliamsthomas :

"The story about the 12yr girl being raped in London in early hours of Sunday morning is horrific. But what was she doing out at that time?"

The subsequent debate and defence of this tweet has troubled me greatly so I have asked to share may thoughts.

Regarding Mark's tweet, speaking as a child survivor, I need to emphasize that if I were that 12yr old girl reading that tweet – I would assume that either myself or those who were responsible for my care were being blamed instead of the people raping me. The focus from the perpetrators is shifted immediately. This is NOT ok.

The person responsible for rape is the rapist. Some of us had wonderful parenting – it didn’t stop us being raped. Many survivors are raped in their home. I share concerns regarding a 12 year old being out late at night. But surely the focus on this particular story – and where our energies should focus - is the fact that a child was raped.

Victim blaming can be subtle – as can be shifting the focus onto others. The only person responsible for raping this young girl is the rapist. Questions regarding caring responsibilities/safeguarding should be asked – but they shouldn’t be your biggest concern. It shouldn’t be your first question if you truly are victim-centered. This is BASIC.

Furthermore, people who support/work with victims can victim-blame. As can victims themselves. Working for victims rights does NOT make you immune from victim-blaming.

Please LISTEN to the voices of victims and survivors when we ASK you to reflect on your language and behaviour. Don't let defence be your first response - try to reflect why/how you may be victim-blaming. Thank you.

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

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

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

Some personal reflections on two recent events involving Transwomen: TW

I don't normally write about Trans* issues on my blog because I find it difficult to express my political beliefs on gender theory whilst not causing unnecessary hurt to people. This weekend I came across two stories concerning Trans which trouble me greatly.

The first, and I will not link to the source of this story for their own protection, was a Lesbian woman watching a Dyke march who came across a Transwoman, on the march, with their penis on display. It was a public march and a Transwoman felt it was acceptable to display their penis without any concern for those around them. Regardless of your political beliefs, I don't think it's too much to ask that genitalia not be displayed in public. It's not generally considered particularly people-friendly.

1 in 4 women are victims of male sexual violence. At least 25% of the women born women on the Dyke march will have been a victim of male sexual violence. Other Transwomen will have experienced male sexual violence. Displaying one's penis in public isn't a form of protest. It is the belief that you are more important than anyone else around you, including children who really don't need to be exposed to the genitalia of complete strangers in the middle of the road. I would go as far as to suggest that this was a form of sexual harassment with the deliberate intention to trigger women. 

The second incident I came across on a blog. I'm not going to link to the blog or name the Transwomen who wrote these statements on twitter. Instead, I'd like the statements to stand for themselves.

If cis women were forced into sterilisation and criminalised for having sex we would hear about it. Trans women though, few care. 

As a woman I can never have kids b/c of cissexism. Where is the outrage that trans ppl are being sterilised for being poor? Nowhere.

I was going to ignore both of these statements because, frankly, the lack of basic knowledge of 20th century is just embarrassing.  Then I googled and discovered that this complete ahistorical understanding of sterilisation isn't necessarily uncommon. It is predicated on the fact that the hormones Trans* take render them infertile. Clearly this is true. But, is it "forced sterilisation"?. I take the definition of forced sterilisation to mean without consent. Trans* take hormones with consent [except in the case of Iran where Gay men and Lesbians are forcibly required to transition in order to cure them from being homosexual]. Becoming sterile is a consequence. It isn't a nice consequence but it's a consequence many women born women experience when they have treatment for cancer, degenerative conditions like arthritis and even mental illness. It may not be a nice choice to make but it is not the same as "forcible sterilisation".

Many millions of women born women [and men] have been sterilised in the past 150 years without consent. 

It's called eugenics.

Even if you know nothing about the history of North America [and particularly the state of California], most Western-educated people should have heard of Nazi Germany. The Nazis sterilised a lot of people: for being "asocial" or "subhuman". The Nazis forcibly sterilised women convicted of prostitution, those deemed mentally unwell, people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and anyone else who didn't meet their specific ideals of the Aryan nation. They sterilised prostitutes and women with "inappropriate political beliefs'. In the concentration camps, men had their testes removed in surgeries performed without pain killer. Women's uteruses were injected with toxic chemicals. And, these were some of the "experiments" which people managed to survive. The first people the Nazis murdered were the mentally and physically disabled to prevent them from reproducing their defective genes.

Eugenics is still codified in law across the world. Look at American states which require women [and usually only those of colour] to be sterilised in order to receive state benefits. These "non-permament" forms of sterilisation have a nasty habit of being permanent; not withstanding the issue of medicaid only paying for the original treatment. If the women react badly to the coil or other forms of not-quite temporary sterilisation, they have to pay to have it removed themselves. 

Until recently, Sweden required all Trans* to be forcibly sterilised before transitioning. That is "forced sterilisation". Choosing to take hormones which make you sterile is not the same as the government sterilising you without your consent or being required to be sterilised before transitioning. 

Claiming that no "ciswomen" have ever been sterilised without their consent is asinine and simply wrong. It demonstrates a rather remarkable inability to understand women's lived experiences. Transwomen who are poor aren't the only ones who lack reproductive choice. Many women cannot conceive and cannot afford the very expensive medical treatments required to test why they are infertile. Not all women-born-women are fertile. Some can conceive but can never carry a fetus to term. This is the reality of women.

Women are also frequently criminalised and labelled "asocial" for having sex. Ask any rape victim who has been told it's their fault or any child in Afghanistan who is forced to marry their rapist. Teenage girls who get pregnant are treated as pariahs and blamed for the destruction of society whilst the boys who help get them pregnant are never held responsible. Women are labelled sluts and denigrated in the press for having sex whilst men are celebrated for being sexually promiscuous. Prostituted women are criminalised for selling sex but the men that buy them suffer no real consequences, even when they rape or torture prostituted women. 

I know these examples are only of two Transwomen but, increasingly, I becoming extremely uncomfortable, particularly on twitter, with the discourse that Trans* should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions or words because they are vulnerable. Millions of people are vulnerable. Making statements which are clearly fallacious helps no one. Allowing someone to state such ridiculous things without pointing out their historical inaccuracy is enabling behaviour and it is good for no one. 

Particularly not the millions of people forcibly sterilised who are erased from this narrative of victimhood.

Read More

If Men Want to Help:

This is reblogged from Radical Wind: blowing through female outerspace

If Men Want to Help:

There’s been a bit of discussion lately about how men who posture as pro-feminists are worse than useless, such as John Stoltenberg or this Dude.

I could write an entire essay about each “pro-feminist”, why and how what they write and do is wrong, but it’s a complete waste of energy and time because all we need to know is that men cannot be feminist and should not get ANYWHERE NEAR feminism or talking in the name of feminism, at all. They are not to be given any important or prominent tasks within any feminist organising, they are not to be given any position or presence (even small, let alone a public one) within any feminist group or woman’s support group, and are not to be integrated in any decision-processes or debates concerning women whatsoever; they should refuse any such position or invitation even if asked by women.

The pattern is that pro-feminist men will very easily occupy and monopolise key positions and publicity in feminism so they can posture as heroes-victims-of-masculinity, and behind the scenes, not only do they do NOTHING to help women but they continue to steal women’s work, abuse women, manipulate women, rape women, promote the work of rapists or publish misogynist content, etc, etc ad nauseum.

The foremost reality about so-called pro-feminist men however is that their mere presence (just PRESENCE, that is, without even saying anything YET) inevitably and automatically triggers in most women the illusion that men can, after all, be nice and care about women, and that it is worth staying around them investing energy and time trying to change them (and why not be my nigel?). In other words, it reinforces trauma-bonding to men, or alternatively, causes consciously-experienced fear, rage, suspicion, hypervigilance or other normal reactions to men’s presence. This means that men’s presence will inevitably be experienced as a threat by women, whether consciously or unconsciously, and will thus paralyse movement into feminism. Whether we want it or not. Encouraging trust and especially trauma-bonding to men endangers all women, exposes women to more abuse and surveillance from men, it prevents women from going to the end of our thoughts and sabotages women’s spaces and work.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg, this chain of paralytic effects on women caused by their mere presence in feminist spaces. This alone is enough to warrant their complete exclusion from all things feminist, before we even look at what scum they might be.

To make it easier for everyone, I will lay out a brief and very simple, minimalistic instruction manual as to what men can do if they are taken by the desire to give women a hand in destroying man’s dominion. It’s not an instruction as to how to be a feminist man, because as I said earlier, it doesn’t exist and men’s presence is highly undesirable and noxious to feminism. It’s not an instruction as to how to free women from men, because only we can do that. It’s just, if men want to do something for women, this is the LEAST, the VERY LEAST they can do, and it’s easy! No need to say anything! No faux-posturing or lying needed! No invading of women’s spaces! No stealing women’s work!

1. Stop sticking your dicks in women. This is rape. This is torture.
2. Stop sticking your dicks in women. NOW. For EVER!!!! Ever ever. Like, don’t ever put your dick in a woman or a girl again.
3. The above is the utmost, absolute MINIMUM men can do to help women. This does not even count men’s infinite every-day torture that surrounds rape and impregnation of women by men that they should stop too. A man who sticks his dick in girls and women is a rapist (and scum). He is not helping women.
4. Give back to women what you, and men in general, have stolen from women:
5. Women need Land. Give land back to women.
6. Women need money. Give money back to women.
7. Women need houses and rooms of our own. Give houses back to women.
8. Women need resources (food, water, equipment of all sorts…). Give resources back to women.
9. Women need time. Clean your own shit.
10. Reminder: stop using your dick against women, stay away from feminism, and refuse any credit for your what you give back to women. For a thief is not to be thanked for handing back what he stole.

This, above, is also the LEAST men can do. It’s very easy, all it takes is doing it, with no consequences to men’s personal integrity other than minor material loss. As opposed to more complicated things, like sabotaging the porn and prostitution industry, ridding us of the most violent rapists and abusers, things like that. Which men are also free to do of course, but let’s start with more simple things and see how it goes, ay?

To all women who may be reading: remember: if a man claims to help women, ask yourself (or him) what he does: does he continue to stick his dick into women? Yes? You can forget him. Is he parasiting a space meant to be reserved for women (feminism, support for victims, healing groups, whatever female only space…)? Easy: he shouldn’t be there, his very presence is anti-feminist. You can forget him too, or tell him to get out. If he doesn’t, then, bye bye. He claims to do things useful to women? Does he do any of the above, discreetly, without taking any credit for it, and making sure it goes to the right hands? Take it and don’t look back! Don’t feel grateful! It is impossible to steal anything from a man.

Read More

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

This following message is from SCASE:

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

Rhoda Grant MSP has lodged her proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which would make the purchase of sex an offence.  Many feminist and women’s organisations were heavily engaged in the consultation process leading up to the publication of this Bill and responded in a supportive way to the consultation.  The responses to that consultation are now available to view at ….

In order for the proposal to proceed to the first formal stage of the Parliamentary process, there needs to be support secured amongst at least 18 MSPs from across a range of political parties in the Parliament.  

At 6 June 2013, the MSPs who have supported the proposal are:

Drew Smith, Margaret McDougall, Hanzala Malik, Ken Macintosh, Michael McMahon, Patricia Ferguson, Murdo Fraser, Anne McTaggart, Elaine Murray, Iain Gray, John Pentland, Jayne Baxter, Claudia Beamish, Siobhan McMahon, Malcolm Chisholm, Hugh Henry, Claire Baker, Paul Martin, Elaine Smith, Graeme Pearson.

The deadline for MSPs to support this proposal is Friday 28 June 2013.

This list only has MSPs from the Labour party and Conservative party.  It is necessary, therefore, to particularly seek the support of SNP, Lib Dem or Green/Independent MSPs; without the support of an MSP from at least one of these parties / party grouping, this proposal will fall and any further discussions on the proposal to criminalise the demand will end.  The WSP support the policy intent behind the bill to put the legislative focus onto those who choose to purchase sex but believe this is only one aspect of a criminalising demand approach.  This also needs to look to decriminalise those who sell sexual activity and ensure that quality long-term support and exiting services are available

We are now asking for people to contact their MSP and ask them to support the progress of the Bill to the next stage.  This does not mean the Bill will be passed but will ensure that a full discussion can take place as to the best approach to address the harm and inequality in the sex industry.

WRITING TO YOUR MSPS

Step one: to find your MSPs (you have 8: 1 constituency and 7 regional MSPs), use the Scottish Parliament’s MSP locator: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx This will enable you to find contact details and information on the party affiliation of each MSP.  Bear in mind that SNP, Lib Dem and Green/Independent support is particularly vital at this point in time.  If your MSP is included in the list above as having already supported the Bill, you may wish to instead write to them to thank them for their support. 

Step two: prepare your letters or emails to MSPs., MSPs really value the personal approach, and so if you have a particular piece of information or local evidence that you can include, please do so.

IMPORTANT: when corresponding with your MSPs, always include your name, address and post code at the end of your letter/email.  MSPs only deal with correspondence from people within their area.  

Step three:  please let us know if you have done this, and do keep us up to date if you receive any follow-up correspondence from your MSPs, whether they are agreeing to support the proposal, or if they are explaining why they are not inclined to support it. 

Read More

Why Don't Perpetrators have Agency?

[Reblogged from the Everyday Victim Blaming Project]

This week, I’ve been watching discussions on Facebook and Twitter talk about the “agency” of a teenage girl in her grooming, kidnapping, and rape by her teacher Jeremy Forrest.

A 15 year old girl was groomed, kidnapped and raped by her teacher; a man she was supposed to be able to trust. Instead of discussing the horrific abuse of power by Jeremy Forrest, people are talking about the “agency” of a 15 year old girl in her own abuse. Instead of using the term sexual predator or rapist to describe Forrest, we are discussing the “agency” of his victim.

Where are the discussions about Forrest’s agency? Why are we discussing the “agency” of a teenage girl and not the agency of the man who chose to kidnap and rape her. Why aren’t we focussing on the choices made by an adult? Why are we trying to cast a teenage girl as responsible for her own rape?

We need to stop using the term agency when talking about sexual abuse. Agency implies that the victims were in some way responsible for their own abuse. The only person who has “agency” in this situation is Jeremy Forrest.

Jeremy Forrest groomed a child. He chose to groom a child. He chose to rape a child.

Jeremy Forrest is a sexual predator. That is the story.

Read More

Reproductive male violence against women

This is another piece written by Elaine Charkowski that was originally posted on Facebook: 

Reproductive male violence against women

Male supremacist governments force women to have children they don't want or can't care for by denying women birth control or abortion. Mandated pregnancy is male violence against women.

Spiritual male violence against women

Simone de Beauvoir said, "Man enjoys the great advantage of having a god endorse the code he writes . . . fear of God will keep women in their place."

Using their invented gods like ventriloquist’s dummies, men granted themselves power over women. "God's" words are men's words. This means men have declared themselves to be the gods of women.

Male supremacist religions claim "god" gave men the eternal right to control women. Men coerce women to have children by telling women birth control or abortion is "sinful" and that "children are sent from god" etc.

This is what caused overpopulation. Which is great for the male dominated global economy which must endlessly grow and require an increasing supply of worker/soldier/consumer/breeder units. The uterus must be kept in maximum re "production."

Men wrote all the scriptures of all the organized religions, so "god's" agenda is men's agenda. Since the "words of god" are actually the "words of men, men don't "play god" they virtually ARE "god," as illustrated by the following examples of male authored scripture:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, for the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church.”— Ephesians 5:23-24.

“I thank thee O lord, that thou has not created me a heathen, a slave, or a woman.” – Orthodox Jewish prayer.

The uterus must be kept in full industrial "re PRODUCTION to advance the male state.

Notice the male term "reproduction" as oppose to women who can CHOOSE "giving birth."

"God formed her body to belong to a man, to have and to rear children. Let them bear children till they die of it."— Martin Luther.

"In pain shall you bear children, yet your urge will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."— Genesis 3:16. "Your women are fields to cultivate, so go to your fields as you will!" –Koran 2:223. "

Read More

Nick Ross: There is no such thing as Child Porn

I didn't think Nick Ross could say anything more offensive but it turns out he's worse than I originally thought. He's not just a misogynist, he's also a racist. I've reproduced the Telegraph article on Ross' appearance at the Hay Festival below. Even if the Telegraph has gone for the most extreme out-of-context quotes, Ross is a deeply hateful man. Ross has gone for the "police aren't institutionally racist, West Indians are more likely to mug people" construction of crime. 30 years as a journalist heading Crimewatch and he thinks that skin colour and community dictates criminality . I would write further about that one comment but, frankly, that's just the level of stupid I would expect from a man peddling rape myths in the Daily Mail.

Ross also suggests he might peruse some child porn, if offered, just to see what the fuss is all about. Yep, he wants to peruse some "child porn" to see what the fuss is about. 

"Child porn" does not exist. 

Ross wants to view images of children being sexually assaulted, raped and tortured just to see what the fuss is about.

He wants to view images of 2 year old children being raped until their pelvises break. 

He wants to view images of a 5 year old child being sodomised.

He wants to view images of a 12 year old child being gang raped.

That is the reality of "child porn"

It is the violent sexual and physical abuse of children.

It is not something that normal people view because they are "curious".

It's what violent, hateful men think is entertainment.

Ross needs to shut the fuck up.

The Telegraph article

Speaking at The Telegraph Hay Festival, Ross, who provoked censure last week with his views on rape, claimed that all humans were essentially curious.

“We’re all inquisitive,” he said. “I had never seen, until I started working on Crimewatch, child pornography.

“I think if someone came to me and said: 'Would you like to see what all the fuss is about?’, I’m sorry, I probably would say yes.”

Ross referred to a study in which internet users clicked on links to extreme pornography even if they had not searched for it.

He said: “Does this tell us that we’re all awful? I think not.”

The presenter courted further controversy when he claimed some races were more likely to commit certain crimes. He argued that there was no evidence of institutional racism in the police force, claiming instead that West Indians were simply more likely to mug people.

Ross had already admitted at the festival that his views were likely to get him into “hot water” again.

Last week, he was criticised for his comments on rape, when he compared “provocatively dressed” women to a bank “storing sacks of cash by the door”.

Yesterday, he urged critics to read his book, Crime and How to Solve It, and Why So Much of What We’re Told is Wrong. He discussed the relevance of race to crime, claiming that particular ethnic minorities had a tendency to commit certain offences.

He said there was no evidence of institutional racism in the police force simply that some minorities were likely to commit certain crimes.

“We’re very bad pickpockets in this country,” he said. “We’re incredibly good at car crime. It does seem that contact crimes of the sort people don’t like, such as mugging, are specifically of some communities from the West Indies.

“Does that mean they’re worse than us? No. Does that mean they’re less moral, than us? No. It just means they’re not very good at pick pocketing, they do this sort of crime.”

Read More

Sex Worker vs Prostitute: Who Gets to Define the Terms of the Discussion

I have been thinking about this issue for a while but have been unwilling to write it. Partly, I've been worried about causing unnecessary distress but equally because I have already been attacked online for my stance on the entirety of the sex industry including lap-dancing clubs and pornography. I didn't want to pop my head above the parapet again. 

I wouldn't have written this had I not seen yet another discussion on twitter today stating that only sex workers were allowed to have opinions on sex work or the sex industry.

Apparently, the sex industry is the only industry in which you can only have an opinion if you are/ were involved in it. This does beg the question as to why people who were never involved in it have the right to dictate who can or cannot speak about the industry. Surely the logical conclusion of not being allowed to speak about the sex industry means you also aren't allowed to decide who gets to speak about the sex industry? Perhaps, I am just confused and you are allowed to have an opinion but only if you are pro-sex industry. 

I have never worked within the sex industry. Like all my political positions, I came to my decision through research. I have read blogs, books and other forms of personal testimony by women who have exited the industry. I have read blogs, books and other forms of personal testimony by women who are still working in the industry. I have read radical feminist research and research from those who are pro-sex industry. I stand by my position.

I do not like the term sex industry. I have used it until this point to cover everything from lap-dancing clubs to Playboy to pornography and to prostitution. However, I just want to focus on the difference between the terms sex worker and prostitute. Whilst I would never tell a woman how they can and cannot label themselves, I do find the current insistence on using the term sex worker is a silencing tactic. The term sex worker implies a positive experience. Many women, both currently working and those who are exited, prefer to use the term prostitute to define their experience. They use it because the word prostitute has a negative connotation.

My question, as a radical feminist, is which term do I use to accurately define my political position without causing unnecessary distress to women. I prefer to use the word prostitute because I think it more accurately reflects the experience of the majority of the women and children whose bodies are sold. Yet, there are women who self-label as sex workers. Do I have the right to tell them how to self-label? Do they have the right to tell other women that they cannot self-define as prostitutes. 

What I find most worrying is that there is a concerted effort to silence women, especially exited women, from using the word prostitute. Even if I believed that it was not possible to have an opinion on a subject without it directly effecting you (which is clearly ludicrous), why aren't women allowed to use the term prostitute to define their own experience? Why are we privileging the voices of some women over the voices of others? 

I would never tell a woman how they can self-define. I do have a problem with women being told whether or not they are allowed to call themselves prostitutes. I do have a problem with what is clearly a well-funded industry dictating who is allowed to speak. I've seen the vitriol and personal attacks on blogs written by exited women. I've seen them belittled, denigrated and publicly attacked for daring to speak in negative terms about their own experiences.

I am willing to believe that some women have positive experiences as sex workers. Why is it so dangerous to believe that other women do/ did not? 

If we are going to follow this new rule about only being allowed to have opinions on things which effect us directly, then why are women not allowed to define their experience by using the word prostitute?

I would really like those online feminists who are pro-sex work but who are not actually sex workers explain why the voices of exited women don't count.

I want to know why we must use the term sex work with no attention paid to those who use the word prostituted to define themselves?

I respect the right of those who choose the term sex work but I also respect the right of those who use the term prostitute. I may find the term sex work deeply problematic, and that is an understatement, but I will not tell another woman how to define themselves. Why isn't the same respect extended to women who prefer the term prostitute? Why are exited women attacked over and over again online without any support?

UPDATE: I got these tweets today from the organisation NorMas:

NorMAs ‏@NorMAs_201239m@LeStewpot We're often told it's not 'sex worker' vs 'prostitute' but 'prostituted'. Many exited women uncomfortable with 'prostitute' too. 

NorMAs ‏@NorMAs_201239m @LeStewpot We tend to use 'women in prostitution' and 'exited women' as compromise, avoiding 'prostitute' or 'sex worker'.

I prefer these terms "women in prostitution" or "exited" women. The term sex worker feels too vague due to the size of the "sex industry". 

Read More