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

A 13 year old girl is a "Sexual Predator" because she was sexually assaulted.

This is the point we have arrived at: a 13 year old child is sexually assaulted by an adult male and the judge and prosecutor both hold the child responsible for being sexually assaulted. According to Court New UK, the judge labelled the child a "sexual predator" who "egged on" her abuser. Neil Wilson, who is 41 years old, pled guilty and received a suspended sentence despite sexually assaulting a child and being found in possession of extreme pornographic images depicting both child sexual abuse and bestiality.

A 41 year old man gets a suspended sentence for assaulting a child and she gets labelled a sexual predator.

Anyone who doubts there is a war on women in our culture is suffering from a terminal case of cognitive dissonance. 

Everyday Victim Blaming have started a petition here. Below is the text:

Yesterday, a man walked free from Snaresbrook Crown Court despite pleading guilty to ‘sexual activity with a child’ after the prosecutor Robert Colover and judge Nigel Peters described the thirteen year-old victim as a “sexual predator”. 

I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I could have been that 13 year old girl who the judge and prosecutor descrbed as 'predatory'. Now, I work with other women who have survived similar experiences. I have seen first hand how this kind of victim blaming prevents women from coming forward and protects men who commit these crimes. 

It’s unacceptable that the Crown Prosecutor - the person who this young girl was relying on to help get her justice - used this kind of language in court. It’s a sad fact that this kind of attitude is commonplace within society and the legal establishment. We need to make a stand and send a clear message: It’s never the child’s fault. 

I’m calling on the Crown Prosecution Service to look at the language used by Robert Colover and meet urgently with our organisation and other groups working with victims of rape and sexual assault to ensure this never happens again.

Please sign and share this petition. We need to stand up and protect our children from the violent sexual predators who abuse them and the men support sexual predators by minimising personal responsibility.

If you think a 13 year old child is somehow responsible for their sexual abuse, then you are as guilty as the men who perpetrated the violence. You help support a rape culture which dehumanises women and children. You help make it easier for children and women to be sexually abused.

This case doesn't just demonstrate the guilt of Neil Wilson. It demonstrates the complicity of the Crown Prosecution Services and the judge in the continuing sexual abuse of the child.

You can make a formal complaint about the low crown court sentence here and a formal judicial complaint here.

POSTSCRIPT: Since i wrote this piece, the Attorney General has agreed to review this case for an unduly lenient sentence. The CPS has also announced that they will not be using this particular prosecuting attorney for any cases involving sexual violence pending a review. There also appears to be a judicial review of the actions of the judge as well.

The feminist activism of Everyday Victim Blaming project is directly responsible for this outcome. They lobbied for the national press to notice this miscarriage of justice. They started the petition at change.org and it was supporters of EVB who complained to the Attorney General and CPS. This is a victory for feminism, not that you would notice in the mainstream press who are busy congratulating themselves and David Cameron for doing absolutely nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a feminism I support.

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

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

Read More

Femen : This isn't Feminism

I have been very critical of Femen's brand of feminist activism. I supported their goals years ago when they were targeting sex traffickers and male violence, although not the methods they employ. Now, Femen seem to be after the media attention rather than supporting women. Femen have moved into colonialist discourse where in white women are the saviours of brown women. The recent protests against the burqha and Islam have been steeped in racism and the othering of women. Whilst I firmly believe that feminism has multiple constructions and that we are all on a journey but at different places on that journey, I find Femen's activism deeply troubling.

Today, I read a blog at LaLibertineSalon which claims that a Femen activist attacked a woman who works as a stripper on stage. I am really hoping this isn't true because I can not believe that anyone who labels themselves as a feminist would believe that physically attacking other women was acceptable. 

I am an abolitionist. I believe that all parts of the "sex industry" are harmful to women as a political class. I do understand the arguments about the 'sex industry' [from Hooters to lap dance clubs to prostitution] being the only industry in which women living in poverty or who are Othered can survive but I believe that is why we need to destroy the Patriarchy. Poverty and lack of choice are not acceptable reasons to commodify women's bodies. 

What the Femen activist did isn't feminist activism. Feminism is a political theory which attacks  political structures. We are critical of women's behaviour but that criticism can not descend into personal attacks, both physical and emotional. 

Feminism is about sisterhood and solidarity. It is about making the world a better place for all women. We cannot do that whilst engaged in sustained personal attacks.

I am deeply disturbed that a Femen activist would choose to storm a stage and put already vulnerable women in further danger. Women who work in the "sex industry" are more vulnerable to sexual harassment and sexual violence from men that other women. They don't need other women helping men to hurt them. They don't need other women physically attacking them.

I am thankful I read the piece at LaLibertineSalon as I had missed this story, however, I am equally disturbed by the personal attacks on Meghan Murphy and Stella Marr at the bottom of the article. The assumption that feminists who campaign against the 'sex industry' must be omniscient is harmful. This idea that Murphy and Marr must know every single thing every other feminist on the planet is doing and must write about it is ridiculous. 

It is also wrong. Mainstream feminists have written about the harm caused by Femen. Murphy has written several pieces on the subject. I have not seen anything by Marr but that's because I have not yet read every word she has ever written. I have read numerous pieces by mainstream feminists from Germaine Greer to Sara Salem. I've read criticisms in the Guardian, Al Jazeera and the CBC. If the author of LaLibertineSalon has not, well, I'm assuming it is because she isn't omniscient either. 

Feminists cannot and must not let personal attacks on other women go unchallenged, whether that is Femen engaged in deeply troubling behaviour to women sniping at other women about their brand of feminism.

We need to move out of this toxic discourse and start focussing on the real problems. 

We need to stop demanding perfection and total obedience from women. None of us are perfect. None of us have all the answers. Pretending that we do is harmful; as is demanding that every woman who self-defines as feminist must agree with everything we say or be booted out. 

We are not the Patriarchy so let's stop acting like 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

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

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

The Dangerous Tales of MREs and Their Allies

This blogpost is cross-posted from Sisterhood is Powerful and is written by Ruby Fruit who is one of the organisers of RadFem2013.

I don't think it matters what you're individual stance on radical feminism is, surely all women should be extremely worried that MREs are causing such extreme harassment that they can get a  venue to cancel a feminist event. If the MREs are dictating policy, are any feminist events safe?

And, frankly, if you're one of the "feminists" who thinks that the MRE harassment of radfems is a "good" thing, you need to reexamine your feminist principles because silencing women is not a feminist  stance.

The Dangerous Tales of MREs and Their Allies

* MRE = Male rights extremists.

This post is intended to shed light on all that has happened, so far, to radfem2013. What has happened should be important to those on the radical left and all feminists everywhere – but thanks to alliances made between trans/queers with MRE‘s, it’s very difficult for us to be heard in the public domain without the distortions flooding our truths and drowning them out.

There is a reason why, whenever I go to refer to anti-RF blog posts, the sticky “L” on my keyboard leads me to write “bog”. That is far more apt. Bogs which are full of misleading lies, distortions, inaccurate interpretations of what radical feminism, as a movement, is, including a continual misapplication of the law in order to attempt to censor our beliefs. Bogs which pull you down more and more into the mud of obfuscation and red herrings so that the political significance and/or consequences of the MRE ‘s (Male Rights Extremists) actions are lost

DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT RADFEM2013

I want to dispel some myths floating about right now in the social media about radfem2013 and very clearly lay them out as, it seems, that some trans/queer activists and their allies are missing both the facts and the wider implications about what has happened, so far, in relation to radfem2013.

Stavvers, a vocal anti-radical feminist blogger, did a bog post which was re-tweeted (so far) 59 times. I haven’t checked to see how many men that includes but I am sure we can assume that extremist right wing men are among them – despite her rather weak attempts to paint some distance between her political position and MREs. Her jubilant support of yet another venue folding under pressure in relation to a radfem conference booking hinges completely on her mistaken belief that radfem2013 has been rejected by London Irish Centre/the company with whom the booking is with -Off-To-Work – on the grounds of “hate speech”

I can categorically assure her that this is absolutely false. The real reason (detailed below) is due to MRE intimidation of the venue and its staff. I would also encourage her, and anyone else, to look at our conference website and see we are completely transparent with what we’re about. We wish to discuss male violence, and gender, within an international context. We want to provide a creative, supportive space for women. We support the rights of autonomous disadvantaged groups to meet. We claim a right to meet around specific issues relating to biology such as reproductive rights. None of this is unreasonable. It is far from the false accusation of “hate speech”. Our analysis of gender is not rooted in “hate”, it is rooted in the way in which gender has been structured under patriarchy to oppress women.

THE STAVVERS BOG AND ITS SMEARS

Stavvers starts her bog by tweeting “Please read and share why the #radfem2013 venue pulled out. There’s been a lot of myths spread”. The bitter irony of her last sentence not lost on me, I @rubyfruit2 attempted to explain to her that she was wrong. She merely repeated this rumour about hate speech and blocked me. That is how nonsensical the targeting of radical feminists has become. Someone in the know tries to explain rationally, and someone in complete ignorance shuts down any possibility of dialogue. You don’t have to agree with our politics, but the implications of stavvers’ words and behaviour, and that of her allies/friends, is that radical feminists are not allowed to critique gender, and the role it plays in oppressing women, without being targeted with hostility and hatred. In a dangerous reversal, she states: “To some women, the RadFem2013 conference organisers and speakers are a persistent and dangerous threat.” As one of the organisers, perhaps you’d like to tell me exactly how *I* am a threat to any other woman. That is a despicable statement and one straight out of a MRE handbook. I find this bog and its false claims based on a MRE smear campaign unacceptable and so should you, whoever you are.

MRE HARASSMENT OF VENUE

The real reason for the company’s concerns about the booking is confirmed by Off To Work, (the company which took the booking). In a facebook statement, it says the concerns are “about staff safety”. There were numerous incidents of intimidation, within less than a week, which targeted the centre, with the clear aim of putting so much pressure on the venue that it would capitulate and withdraw its commitment to honour the booking. It is no secret that the MREs claim responsibility for these acts. They say so on their website and boasted of their intentions to intimidate the venue until it caved in. In a post dated 15 April, MRA London stated, as a direct threat to the centre: “we will publically manacle you to their hateful ideology”(sic). Police reports made as a result of MRA intimidation are still under investigation. We’re not at liberty to reveal further details about the intimidation tactics which may make someone, who has inadvertently become caught up in this simply because they’re doing the wrong job at the wrong time, vulnerable. I have the utmost sympathy and compassion for the targeted staff and would, in all matters, wish to protect and support them.

Off to Work have put a statement on their Facebook page, which you can see here: https://www.facebook.com/offtowork/posts/10151561719698958 and there will be more to say at a later date either by the company or the organisers of radfem2013, but this statement makes clear that Off To Work confirms our version of events, rather than stavver’s:

“Our cancellation of the booking was a very difficult decision, but one that we have made to protect the safety of our venue staff……We wish Radfem a successful conference.”

MRE HARASSMENT OF RADFEMS

We too are targets for the MREs. Despite being a responsible and considerate organiser who has fought against social injustices all my life, I don’t doubt that I am already a target-in-waiting for the MREs. Threats have turned to us as organisers and to our attendees. There comes a time in our lives when it is right to openly speak truths. For me, that time has come. I will not stay silent when a group of thugs attempt to bully and harass their way into disrupting a peaceful, lawful conference to talk about the rights of women. They are bullying women who are already survivors of multiple abuse and who are living with trauma. That the irony of this is lost on those so blinkered by hatred towards radical feminists (and yet consider themselves champions of “intersectional” social injustices) resonates with me

There are examples all across the net of how feminists and radical feminists are targeted by this male extremist group. They offered a reward of one thousand dollars to find out the real name of a woman and, once they got it, they “doxxed” her. They showed a video of another woman and harassed her with death threats and other nasty tactics so badly that she disappeared. There is story after story on their website about how these thugs consider themselves “victims” of a feminist conspiracy of power and how (radical) feminists are out to destroy the male class through “mass genocide“. The reality and truths of women’s lives is twisted to paint men as victims and feminism as a dominant force in society

MALESTREAM PRESS DISTORTIONS

In her bog post, Stavvers relies on a quote in an article in The Sunday Times to make her argument about why radical feminists are not the innocent victims of an MRE intimidation campaign. We are currently investigating with Off To Work and London Irish centre how such a false and misleading quote came into the public domain because no one is claiming responsibility for it. So far, we’ve drawn a blank as to how it happened and have launched a series of formal press complaints about the article. It should be clear from the Off To Work statement that concerns about “hate speech” did not lead to their decision. The following statement; “We have made this difficult decision based entirely on our available infrastructure and the wellbeing of our staff [...] without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference”. In other words, accusations of “hate speech”, breaches of equality and diversity policies, or legislation, were not part of the decision-making process. I draw you back to this: The venue has made the decision “to protect the safety of our venue staff“. There is also a failure to protect a vulnerable group who have made a booking transparently and in good faith. The way the Sunday Times article is written with a first paragraph stating that there were complaints that some involved with radfem2013 “advocate violence against men”, when there’s absolutely no evidence of any such thing, suggests that MREs are working behind the scenes somewhere and it was a put up job to shit-stir, using a malestream media, to create problems for the venue and organisers and mask the truth about bully boy tactics.

COLLABORATION BETWEEN TRANS/QUEER/ALLIES AND MRES

As I watch the tweets and the bog posts mushrooming, both this year, and last, I observe collaboration between those who are uncritical about gender and MREs and similarities in approach between the 2. Here are some of them:

* Presenting the political views of radfems in an inaccurate, unfair and ludicrous light

* Once they have established the false presentation of what radical feminism is, arguing with that false presentation as if it’s fact

* Singling out individual women who call themselves radical feminist and claiming that they represent radical feminism or all radical feminist views (In fact, the movement is diverse and many claim to be radical feminist but, of course, as a movement for social change, we’d wish to discuss those differences internally)

* Shutting down debate, or opposing presentations of radical feminism, by calling an individual names (e.g. “bigot” in the case of queer allies and “man-hater” in the case of MREs)

* Using a range of intimidation tactics to prevent us from meeting such as writing emotive but untrue emails to anyone who‘ll listen, doxxing, claiming they know that what we do is unlawful or contravenes policies etc

In an incredible reversal relating to just who is aligning themselves with MRES, stavvers’ bog states: I hope RadFem2013 giving MRAs the credit for something they didn’t do isn’t the beginning of an alliance forming. Allying with those who seek to intimidate you. Yes, that makes sense.

WIDER POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS 

In my view, cancelling the booking is the wrong way of “protecting venue staff”. There are numerous ways staff could be protected but cancelling a booking for a group of women who’ve done nothing wrong sends out a very dangerous message. It says bully boy tactics get you somewhere. It has long term implications for feminism, radical feminism, and the ability of “neutral” venues to freely provide a platform for events about social injustice without fear for their own safety. Did your mum give you the same advice mine gave me when I was at risk of attack from school bullies? She said “Fight back, if you shrink away, they will do it all the more until they get what they want”. And so I did and they backed off. Businesses have a responsibility to cater for, and protect, vulnerable groups and, despite the unacceptable pressure brought to bear, that is a reasonable expectation, particularly, as everything was thoroughly discussed beforehand.

That a venue is being bullied out of offering a booking, that radfems are in fear their real life details will be revealed and “doxxed” leading to death threats, should be of grave concern for those for whom radical change matters. Instead, stavvers and friends/allies focus on myths, lies, and distortions about radical feminism, even equating radical feminism, (concerned with the well-being of females), with MREs themselves. It would be hard to find two sets of agendas more opposed – but stavver’s attempt to align the politics is an example of how queers/allies have colluded with the MREs to mask the real threat in this story. And the real threat is that women coming together to politically organise, and anyone who supports them, have, and are, bombarded with terrorist tactics until something caves.

I know it’s such a cliché but I can’t get out of my head “First they came for the radical feminists but I was not a radical feminist…” Then they came for the socialist feminists and so on across the different strands of feminism until “And then they came for the non-political non-gender conforming people and there was no one left to speak for me”. You don’t have to like all radical feminists or the politics of radical feminism but what has happened, so far, with radfem2013 sets a dangerous precedent for all women, all feminists and all those involved in the struggle for radical social change. There’s a lot of myths flying about. Stavvers, do the radical left a favour and withdraw yours.

Read More

Could We Please Leave Rihanna Alone? Or, at least, try to pretend we know something about Domestic Violenc

Yet another day. Yet another unpleasant, inaccurate, victim-blaming piece of twaddle written about singer Rihanna and her relationship with rapper Chris Brown who, in 2009, was convicted of assaulting Rihanna.

This time, it's Sarah Tetteh in The Huffington Post not only minimising Chris Brown's responsibility for his own violent actions but suggesting that Rihanna, and women like her, are partly responsible because they are attracted to "bad boys". Frankly, Tetteh's suggestion that "everybody likes a bit of a bad boy" speaks to her own experiences and socialisation within the Capitalist-Patriarchy rather than a truism for all women; no matter how much she would like to believe it. And, I'm sorry but since when is a man who doesn't commit domestic violence a "drip"? Our culture may glorify male violence but that doesn't mean we have to buy into the discourse that "real men" are violent men. Having tattoos and carrying guns does not mean women deserve to be assaulted by their intimate partners. Being a "real man" shouldn't involve violence.

Tetteh needs to consult some actual research on domestic violence. Women's Aid has conveniently written a list of basic FAQs about domestic violence that are short and easy to read. Nia have an equally well-written piece on the gendered nature of domestic violence. I'm sure Tetteh was aware that domestic violence costs the city of London £2.5 million a day or that the Center for Disease Control in the US estimates that the costs of domestic violence, intimate partner rape and stalking exceed more than $5.8 billion dollars a year. I'm sure Tetteh is also aware than approximately 1 in 4 women will experience domestic violence in their lifetime and that 1 in 8 will experience it annually. 2 women a week are murdered by their current or former partners in the UK. If Tetteh is not aware of these facts, she could also try reading Lundy Bancroft's Why Does he do that? Inside the Minds of Violent and Controlling Men or Dee Graham's Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men's Violence and Women's Lives. Or, any piece of actual research into domestic violence as opposed to defining domestic violence based on an episode of Hollyoaks or Friends.

Interestingly, Tetteh only refers to 3 African-American couples when referencing "volatile couples" in the entertainment industry. What about Tommy Lee and Pamela Anderson? Or, Sean Penn and Madonna? Or, Charlie Sheen and Brooke Mueller? Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards? Charlie Sheen and Brittany Ashland? In terms of violence against women, Charlie Sheen's twenty year history of multiple convictions against numerous partners including the "accidental" shooting of Kelly Preston rarely gets a  mention. Edward Furlong has an equally long history of domestic violence against multiple partners and his name is never mentioned either. MVAW (male violence against women) is endemic in the entertainment industry and it isn't just limited to African-American men; no matter how many people try to minimise the behaviour of white male celebrities.

No feminist ever would suggest that Rihanna "is being weak and a victim for going back to Brown". Feminists are more than aware of what domestic violence actually is since they are the ones who campaigned and fought for refuges, criminalising rape in marriage and forcing police and prosecution services to take domestic violence seriously. Feminists understand trauma bonding; something Tetteh is clearly unaware of. Honestly, anyone who can make claim that feminists think victims of domestic violence are "weak" either knows nothing of feminism or is deliberately lying.

Rihanna is just a young woman trying to survive in the Capitalist-Patriarchy the best way she can. How about we save our ire for men and the political and cultural structures they created which glorify male violence?

How about we just stop blaming Rihanna for Chris Brown's violence?

Read More

#DickheadDetox: When did John Lennon become a feminist?

Because I'm really, really struggling to understand how John Lennon, a man with a history of domestic violence against both his ex-wife and his son, constitutes a feminist. Actually, I'm a little perplexed about some of the other "feminist" men Marlo Thomas has included in her Huffington Post article, but, seriously, are there so few male feminist allies out there that we have to include a violent man? Is Thomas genuinely including Lennon for noticing that women constitute 50% of the population of the planet?

Because, I have to say, it doesn't really take a whole lot of intelligence to notice that women make up 50% of the population of the planet.

And, personally, my criteria for male feminist allies is pretty basic: don't commit violence against women and I will include you as an ally.

To be fair, though, I don't think the feminist movement needs men to be successful. After all, the true feminist allies don't need articles in the Huffington Post lauding them for noticing that half of the population in possession of a vagina. Those men who are true feminist allies are the ones who already listening, reading and asking good questions. We don't need to pander to them to get them involved because they are already here.

Read More

Amazon's Keep Calm and Commit VAW T-Shirts [with trigger warnings]

Amazon has been caught selling yet another t-shirt which glorifies sexual violence. In fact, they've been caught selling a number of t-shirts which glorify violence against women in general.  I'm not entirely shocked that they were found to be selling the following t-shirts designed by Solid Gold Bomb via the Amazon Marketplace: Keep Calm and Rape Her, Keep Calm and Hit Her and Keep Calm and Drug Her. I doubt anyone is particularly surprised by this considering Amazon's other business practices.  It's also not the first time a major international corporation has been caught selling t-shirts which normalise male violence against women: Topman was forced to withdraw these t-shirts condoning domestic violence last year:

Last week, stationary company Paperchase was discovered to be selling the following cards: 

This is what feminists mean when we talk about rape culture: these products are considered socially acceptable and men buy them. Women are socialised into believing they are nothing more than fucktoys and men are raised to believe that rape is a joke. 

Solid Gold Bomb and Amazon were both responsible for perpetuating rape culture by selling these pro-rape t-shirts. Solid Gold Bomb's "excuse" for being caught selling them is pathetic and rather disingenuous. It is available on their website but I have reproduced the full quote:

Thanks for your interest in contacting us. We have been informed of the fact that we were selling an offensive t-shirt primarily in the UK. This has been immediately deleted as it was and had been automatically generated using a scripted computer process running against 100s of thousands of dictionary words. 

Any offensive items that are remaining are certainly in the deletion queue and will be removed as soon as the processing is complete. Although we did not in any way deliberately create the offensive t-shirts in question and it was the result of a scripted programming process that was compiled by only one member of our staff, we accept the responsibility of the error and our doing our best to correct the issues at hand. 

We're sorry for the ill feeling this has caused! We're doing our best here to fix the problem.

First, they simply aren't the only company making these kinds of pro-violence against women t-shirts. These types of offensive t-shirts are easily available on every online t-shirt printing company going. Secondly, I simply don't believe their excuse about these t-shirts being "automatically generated using a scripted computer process". Thirdly, even if I did believe their excuse responsibility still lies with the people responsible for both Solid Gold Bomb and Amazon Marketplace. Computers are not responsible for accepting t-shirt slogans and then making them available online for sale; both Solid Gold Bomb and Amazon have a moral obligation to ensure that products they sell are not pro-rape. Frankly, they should have a legal obligation as well but that's the problem with rape culture. It lets those who perpetrate rape and their rape apologists abdicate all responsibility for the harm they cause.

Pete Ashton gives a technical explanation of his belief in the computer algorithm excuse here. I'm sure this sounds a perfectly rational explanation to many but I think Ashton's missing the point. There are indeed random language generators used for all sorts of things: the problem is they are programmed by humans. Humans who should have programmed them to exclude words like rape. Why would any company making "humorous" t-shirts not immediately exclude the word rape when writing or using a random language generator program? That is a question I want Solid Gold Bomb to answer.

This isn't just about random language generators though. This is about humour. There is a reason the t-shirts say Keep Calm and Drug Her and not Keep Calm and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious** or Keep Calm and Nits. It is because the latter aren't considered funny. Someone thought Keep Calm and Hit Her was funny. Someone thought Keep Calm and Rape A lot was funny. Random language generators are not capable of humour yet. Artificial intelligence simply does not have the level of sophistication to generate humorous t-shirts. These slogans may have been randomly generated but I refuse to believe that no human ever read through the random generator to see if the t-shirts were funny or not. Someone read them and someone thought they were funny enough to upload onto Amazon Marketplace to sell them. 

Amazon is equally culpable in this though. They have been forced to remove numerous products over the years deemed unacceptable. Last year, Amazon was forced to withdraw a book detailing the age of consent for teenagers in the US as it was deemed to be a guide for child rapists. Amazon has consistently refused to take responsibility for what is sold on its site. As an international corporation, no one seems to have responsibility for ensuring that Amazon behaves ethically. 

As I have argued before, the right to free speech does not equal the right to be a jackass. We need to stop allowing these companies to hide behind their fallacious legal understanding of free speech and holding them legally accountable. So, thank you to the organisation Miss Representation and the hundreds of feminists who complained to Amazon and Solid Gold Bomb about these t-shirts. Thank you for taking responsibility when our legal system continues to blame women for being raped rather than the men who raped them.

(Image from here)

*I know I've mentioned my technological incompetence on here before but I know I'm right about random language generators. I have a friend of a friend who did her PhD on natural language processing and humour twenty years ago and now works on space exploration. Obviously, I've never actually met her but I'm claiming I know all about this via her work. Clearly.

** I've genuinely got no idea how to spell that and I'm too lazy to google to 
check.


UPDATE: Here is another t-shirt for sale on Amazon (via @EVAWhd):

https://twitter.com/EVAWhd

Read More

#DickheadDetox: Nicholas Cage

Nicholas Cage, noted arsenugget, has a serial history of domestic violence.  His only arrest, as far as I'm aware, happened in 2011 but the charges were dropped 3 weeks later. Christina Fulton, the mother of Cage's eldest son Weston, sued the actor in 2009 for financial compensation over a house. The lawsuit alleged emotional abuse during the relationship.

Cage has been sued numerous times for all sorts of shit, not to mention the pesky issue of not paying his taxes. In return, he's been sued numerous times as well. He's also got a history of public intoxication and violent behaviour. His son Weston has numerous arrests for domestic violence.

On balance, another one for the #DickheadDetox

Read More