So that Steve Biddulph MN webchat: WTF?

Because, honestly, it was a gigantic pile of nincompoopery. It is safe to say that I am not a very big fan of Steve Biddulph to begin with. His normalisation of gendered stereotypes in order to sell books just pisses me off. There is very little scientific evidence to support the nonsense that boys and girls are somehow inherently different; just lots of people claiming they "observed" gendered behaviour.  This ignores the very real evidence of the cultural and historical construction and contextualisation of gender. It also conflates biological sex with gender, as if there were somehow a hormone which decides what type of child likes playing with dinosaurs. It leads to Hannah Evans claiming, in the Guardian no less, that sticks are essential to the raising of boys. It's possible Evans has never actually met a girl child, because I've got two and they most definitely play with sticks. In fact, I don't think I've met a girl who didn't understand the importance of sticks. It's called imaginative play; something that Steve Biddulph should know about considering his work with Collective Shout.

I have a number of problems with Biddulph. The first is his apparent amazement that, after spending 25 years specialising in the raising of boys, he's discovered, rather miraculously, that "its GIRLS who are in trouble". Yep, as a man whose spent 25 years arguing that  boys are "different", he's now discovered that girls are "different" too and in TROUBLE! This would be more convincing if I thought Biddulph had spent the last 25 years living in a cave because I genuinely can't imagine how any intelligent, well-educated adult could have missed the fact that the Capitalist-Patriarchy is toxic for ALL children; unless, of course, they were planning on financially benefitting from stating the bleeding obvious. After all, it's not like there's ever been a single book published about the toxicity of childhood on young girls, raising girls, campaigns on the sexualisation and sexploitation of young girls, or the fact that feminsts have been saying this for years. We know that our culture is deeply destructive for girls and girls mental health is suffering because of it.  We don't need another "expert" jumping up to tell us. We've already figured it out.

The first odd thing about the MN webchat is that Biddulph tried to claim he was not an "expert". Please credit us with a modicum of intelligence, he was clearly invited as an "expert". His disavowal of that role in an attempts to "debate" rather than answer any of the real questions he was asked was, well, rather pathetic. After all, this was the introduction to the webchat:

We're delighted that Steve is returning to talk to us about his latest book, Raising Girls. This was written as a response to the 'sudden and universal deterioration in girls' mental health, starting in primary school and devastating the teen years'. The book is both a call-to-arms for parents and a detailed guide through the five key stages of girlhood to help build strength and connectedness into your daughter from infancy onwards. Join the discussion and you will be entered into a draw to win one of five copies of Steve Biddulph's Raising Girls.

There was NO reason for him to come on to a MN webchat if he wasn't setting himself up as "expert". The whole point of the Mumsnet chat boards is the sharing of information. Why would they have a paying guest on if the guest weren't trying to flog something to us? In Biddulph's case, this is both a new book called Raising Girls and the one day seminar he is running as part of the Mumsnet Academy. Mumsnet is a business. They have never pretended to be any different so why Biddulph is waffling about the issue is just perplexing.

Secondly, Biddulph didn't seem to answer any of the questions. Several of the answers read as though they were written in advance without Biddulph reading any of the pre-chat questions. Also there is the pesky issue of one particular cheerleading poster on the thread who was rather upset at the criticism of Biddulph and who has only posted on that name on that thread. If I were to think charitably, I would suggest he fundamentally misunderstood how a MN webchat runs, which would be quite odd since he's done previous webchats (and brought his wife along). His answers were vague, patronising, pretentious and, well, twaddle. He deliberately refused to answer one question which was asked repeatedly, first by MmeLindor:

In your book, 'Raising Boys' you state 'At the age of four, for reasons nobody quite understands, boys receive a sudden surge of testosterone, doubling their previous levels. At this age, little Jamie may become much more interested in action, heroics, adventures and vigorous play... At five years of age, the testosterone level drops by half, and young Jamie calms down again, just in time for school' 
I have often seen this used - both on Mumsnet and on other parenting websites and blogs - to explain why boys are aggressive at age 4 to 5 years.  

Despite extensive searching I have yet to find a scientific research paper that supports this theory. Could you please link to the evidence of this.  ...  

I am concerned that falsely interpreted statement in your book may lead to parents accepting the aggressive behaviour of their sons, to the detriment of their daughters. 

It worries me because we are teaching our girls from a young age that the right way to react to aggression is to walk away, and we are teaching our boys that aggressive behaviour is in some way acceptable, and to be expected.
Could you please clarify your statement about this hormone surge.

I would have thought that anyone making such a claim would be capable of backing it up with links to peer-reviewed research. It's ethically and scientifically unacceptable to make claims of this nature without any evidence. It's an incredibly dangerous statement to make because it does imply that boys are predisposed to violence and, therefore, not responsible for their actions. Small boys are not inherently aggressive or violent. We live in a culture that expects men to be violent. We reward them for their violence; one only needs to look at the careers of Charlie Sheen and Mike Tyson for evidence. But, boys aren't inherently violent. They aren't born violent or aggressive. That is how our culture socialises them. 

Next up on the list of things that annoyed me was this little speech: 

Girls are usually much more wired for social awareness, and even as babies they focus more on faces and reactions. This is a strength except when they are very anxious and then friendship problems can tip them over. THEY NEED HELP WITH FRIENDSHIP because its the most complex thing we do.  

It all begins in babyhood. The secure attachment of mother and baby (or dad and baby) lays the foundations for being trusting, available to love and closeness with others. If your daughter was close to you, she will know how to be close to others. 
But its from 5 - 10 that friendship is the uppermost topic for girls, because this is their primary learning goal at this age. HOW TO GET ALONG WITH OTHERS.  

There are seven core skills involved in being a friend.  

1. Enjoying the company of others - lightening up and treating company as a chance for fun.  

2. Learning to take turns and share -you have more fun if you play together, but you have to give a little to make that work.  

3. Being able to empathize - imagining how you would feel in your friend’s shoes, and being happy for them when they “win” or “star” in the game. This is a more advanced skill, it doesn’t always come easily.  

4. Being able to regulate aggression - not screaming or clobbering your friends when you disagree. Not storming off because you are losing the argument.  

5.Apologizing when you are wrong, or have hurt a friend’s feelings.  

6. Being able to read emotions. Seeing when someone is angry, sad or afraid and adjusting your behaviour accordingly. You can even teach this with drawings of smiley, frowny, teary and shakey faces, helping your daughter recognize them, and applying this to situations when her friends have been upset.  

7.Learning when to trust or believe someone, and when not to. That people can be deceptive for reasons of their own. Your daughter will be shocked and hurt when a friend lies or deceives her. You will need to comfort her and explain that some people have not learned the value of being trustworthy. Don’t lose heart, just be a little careful.  

Each of these will arise often in your daughter’s day to day life. When she comes to you hurt or bewildered, you can pinpoint which skill is called for, listen to her feelings, but then talk to her about how that skill can be done. It will take a few goes to get right, so follow up with her over a few days or weeks. Even we adults often don’t get these right, so have respect for the hugeness of what she is having to learn, and praise and affirm her for even small steps.  

I hope this helps a bit. A just seven years of age, a lot of learning is going on, it takes years, and so calmly listening to her as she talks it through.

Ignoring the unbelievably patronising comment at the end, Biddulph has clearly not read his Cordelia Fine because this idea that baby girls are "wired for social awareness" is utter twaddle. And, if girls are really are "wired for social awareness", then surely it should be boys who need help developing friendships? Or, are they so socially incompetent that they don't know they are supposed to have friends? I can't keep this crap straight. I mean, seriously, are we supposed to believe that boys don't need help learning about human emotion or who to trust? Are they not affected by these issues to? Biddulph doesn't even try to answer a question raised about "neuronal plasticity, experience and reinforcement as determinants of behaviour and observable trait" despite the fact that this research basically proves that these studies into "observable" gender differences are, at best, inconclusive and, at worst, inherently flawed making Biddulph's gendering of children wrong.

And, honestly, I howled with laughter when I read this bit: 

In babyhood - to feel loved and secureIn toddlerhood and pre-school age - to be exploring and curious and have an adventurous approach to the world - especially important in girls, to not be restricted (by attitudes, or fussy clothes) and for adults to show and teach enthusiasm about the world.In school - aged five to ten - to learn about friendship and getting along with others. In the early teens - 10-14 - to find your SOUL, your true self.In the late teens 14-18 - to practice for being an adult woman. And finally to step into adulthood, take responsibility for your life.

These are the stages of "girl". Now, maybe it's because I don't have a son, but I'm pretty sure these stages correlate to the development of boys. I like to call this process "growing up"; as I mentioned in a comment Mumsnet deleted (which seems a tad OTT considering I said worse on the Naomi Wolf webchat).

All this webchat made me want to do is reread Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender as she brilliantly debunks all this twaddle whilst being incredibly funny and missing the whole patronising, mansplainin' thing. Delusions of Gender is worth the price just for the Daddy Rat story. Honestly. 

Do also read this piece by Glosswitch in the New Statesman and this post by SaltandCaramel.

But, don't bother with Biddulph. If you feel you need support, ask the parents around you. After all, that line about it taking a village to raise a child is true. We just need to stop paying experts to spout shite and start taking advantage of our communities. 

Read More

Women's Rights News: Missing the Point Completely

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

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

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

But, then, they also posted this: 

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

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

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

Or, a bunch of MRAs having a laugh.  

Or, both.

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

Read More

The John Lewis Window Display: Anyone Notice the Problem?

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

Read More

Walk a Mile in her Shoes: Just a Bunch of Wannabe Nigels

The 'Walk a Mile in her Shoes' images are making the rounds on Facebook. Again. They have always made me twitch. I just don't see how men walking down a road in high heels will lead to a greater awareness of male violence against women; not when rape culture is getting worse. I'd like to put them with the group of men, like those who support White Ribbon Campaign, who want to help make things better; even if they don't always get it right. But, there is something about the 'Walk a Mile in Her Shoes' campaign that just makes me really, really uncomfortable.

To be completely honest, despite it making me uncomfortable, I haven't actually thought about what the "Walk a Mile in her Shoes" marches mean or what their origins are. I've just assumed they were from something dodgy, but, then, I think most things involving men yakking about violence against women are dodgy [See also: the unrelenting white hero narrative of Half the Sky ]; unless they are doing it as an ally. Allies are good. Patrick Stewart makes a good ally. He supports women's organisations not by taking over but by using his celebrity to access a public platform to talk about how important those organisations are. Men who co-opt the movement for publicity or to make themself feel cool = bad.

I probably wouldn't have thought much further on this issue had it not been for this Facebook status update by Virginia Pele yesterday:

Dudes, u wearing high-heels shoes might be some kinda fun, but u know what would make a real change? You and your caste stopping raping womyn ! #walk a mile in her shoes, as if all womyn wore heels. They could at least criticize harmful beauty practices for womyn. Do so-called pro-feminists always have to be that ridiculous ?  

 My first response was this: 

Of course, when we point out the physical damage caused to women's bodies by wearing heels, we are told we are over-thinking things and to concentrate on something more important. But, men walking up the high street in suits and heels is totally going to end VAW and is massively important. More important than anything a woman could ever do.

Since then, I've been trying to articulate what exactly it is that bothers me about this but haven't been quite able to make sense of it but I think it does boil down to the double standard: women-only Reclaim the Night marches are jeered and insulted despite it being very clearly about victims of sexualised violence reclaiming their bodies and the public space. A bunch of men tottering about in heels is cheered and supported by all. I think it works to further silence women's voices because it makes it about men; not men stopping violence against women but a mockery* of that. Women's concerns about male violence and the sheer power of the fashion-beauty complex are being belittled by men; men who probably think they are helping.

Today, I took Virginia's advice and had a proper nosey about their website. I suggest everyone do so because it is really quite, well, arrogant and self-righteous. Apparently, "sexualised violence does not just affect women." I think we can all agree with that. Men can, and are, victims of sexualised violence; as are children. But, this isn't what the "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" men are talking about: sexualised violence affects men because of their relationships with women:

It affects the men who care about them, their families, their friends, their coworkers, and their communities. Sexualized violence is epidemic. Some of the statistics:** Every two minutes someone in America is raped. One in six American women are victims of sexual assault.That means someone you know, someone you care about, has been or may become the victim of sexual violence. It may be your mother, your sister, your friend, your girlfriend, your wife, your coworker, or your daughter.

So, they are completely ignoring the issue of male rape and focussing on rape being a problem because it might happen to some woman that men might know or, more cynically, think they have the right to possess. This, in and of itself, is really unbelievably patronising and arrogant. It also neglects to mention that the most sexualised violence is committed by men. It is committed by men on the bodies of women, children and other men. You can not have a discussion about sexualised violence without naming the perpetrators. To do so is asinine, counter-productive and, frankly, stupid. "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" has done precisely that.

I'm also finding it hard to take this line seriously: "See Photos of courageous men taking a stand against sexualized violence." Men, who have not been victims of sexualised violence, tottering about in high heels is not courageous. Women marching in Reclaim the Night marches are brave. Men talking about their personal experiences of sexualised violence are brave. Men playing dress up are not brave. They are playing. I actually find that line unbelievably disrespectful and minimising of the experiences of survivors of sexualised violence.

As irritating as all that is, the mission statement of "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" is really the most obviously stupid:

Co-creating a United Gender Movement, men will be a part of the solution to ending sexualized violence.

Walk a Mile in Her Shoes® Events are political and performance art with public, personal and existential messages. At a Walk a Mile in Her Shoes® Event there is no distinction between performer and audience. Our mission is to create a unique and powerful public experience that educates individuals and communities about the causes of sexualized violence, provides them with prevention and remediation strategies and empowers them to further develop and implement these knowledges and skills interpersonally and politically.

First off, WTF is a United Gender Movement? Because, google wasn't exactly forthcoming on this issue. Secondly, sexualised violence requires men to be more than "part of the solution". That only works if you think women rape themselves or are responsible for being raped. If men want to stop sexualised violence then they need to stop raping women. They need to stop raping children. They need to stop raping other men. Sexualised violence will, effectively, disappear if men just stop perpetrating it.

Thirdly, sexualised violence is a crime. It is not an opportunity for performance art with "public, personal and existential messages". WTF does that even mean? Women in Reclaim the Night marches aren't performers. They are women engaged in political protest. They do not have an "audience" to perform for. Men meandering about in high heels does not educate people about the causes of sexualised violence, particularly when they are too chicken to name the perpetrators. And, I can't even begin to work out how they think a bunch of men in Louboutins are learning "prevention and remediation strategies [that] empowers them to further develop and implement these knowledges and skills interpersonally and politically". 

Honestly, who buys into this twaddle? Every page on their website has a huge donate here button which probably wouldn't have set off my trolldar if "Walk a Mile in Her Shoes" weren't now part of Venture Humanity Inc. Venture Humanity only has one another subsidiary: Now House Therapy Centre which runs classes in Postmodern therapies.

I genuinely don't even know where to start with "postmodern therapies". I really don't; except to say that following the money is always a good idea. Not that I have the skills to look out their finances but I find the connection between the "performance art" of Walk a Mile in Her Shoes and the "postmodern therapies" of Now House Therapy Centre deeply suspect.

But, then, I'm always cynical about men trying to fix things without actually naming the thing they are trying to fix; just like with Half the Sky.

*This word came via a discussion on twitter. 

**This embedded link was included in the quote.

Read More

Dear Pussy Riot Supporters,

Dear Pussy Riot Supporters,

Increasingly, I have become concerned about your inability to see the woods for the trees. Your desperate attempts at out-cooling each other as the Great Defenders of Free Speech seem to have come at the cost of your critical thinking skills. Frankly, I'm still disturbed by the articles which seemed to suggest that the only people who shouldn't be deported to the Gulag are the women of Pussy Riot because they might be raped or killed. I know you can't really mean that. No one deserves to be raped or killed because they committed a crime and, let's be honest, Pussy Riot aren't the only Russian citizens being deported for questioning the state. I have no idea what the statistics are for convictions and deportation but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Pussy Riot aren't the only political prisoners. So why are they important and others not? Why is it important they not be raped or killed in prison?

This case is manifestly not about "free speech" or the right to protest. What this case has demonstrated, time and time again, is that we, as a society, are essentially a bunch of hypocrites. The 'Western' support of Pussy Riot is not because we are the great defenders of Free Speech. Anyone who believes that is, frankly, completely deluded. Pussy Riot has not garnered support because they are feminists who are critical of the power of the state and church. In fact, their feminism, which is actually a fairly patriarchy-approved brand of feminism, has been written out of much of the media coverage. They have gotten support because they are young women dancing in public. They have been supported because they don't really challenge the status quo; although they do wear all their clothes which puts them ahead of Femen's soft porn protests. If Pussy Riot were challenging the Patriarchy in any way, they would have been slaughtered in the Western Press. They certainly wouldn't have Madonna, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and half of Hollywood lining up to support them. Personally, I think a lot of their support is because of their name. It appeals to the juvenile; those who haven't progressed emotionally from being 5 and yelling penis in the playground. And, yeah, I sniggered the first time I heard a right-wing journalist say 'pussy' on air but that's not a good enough reason to support Pussy Riot at the expense of others.

The UK has recently banned protest outside of Parliament. If there is any physical space in the UK where the right to protest should be paramount, it's outside of Parliament. Yet, we let the government deny us this right with very little complaint. Trenton Oldfield was sentenced to 6 months in prison for jumping in water to disrupt a boat race. His crime: prejudice against prejudice. You literally couldn't make it up. As Nina Power writes: "The message is blunt: if it's on TV and aristocrats are involved, then the state can deprive you of your liberty for as long as it likes." The correlations between Oldfield's conviction and that of Pussy Riot are pretty clear, yet I doubt there will be any protests to have Oldfield's sentence over-turned. Certainly, there was very little campaigning about the ridiculously harsh sentences given out in light of last years riots with people being sentenced for 6 months for, basically, shoplifting. If we incarcerated every shoplifter in the UK, prisons would be overflowing. We'd have to move all prisons to the Outer Hebrides and let them fend for themselves since no country can afford to imprison that many people. 

I think the Pussy Riot case matters. I think it matters a lot. These women do not deserve to be arrested or imprisoned for what was a political protest. Political protest against the government should be a fundamental human right but let's not be hypocritical here. The right to political protest really exists nowhere. There are limits everywhere on the right to protest and Russia isn't the only country guilty for imprisoning people for political reasons. Pussy Riot aren't the only activists whose voices are being silenced by repressive regimes. Oldfield isn't the only protestor being silenced in "democracies". You only need to look at the 3 activists currently imprisoned in the US for refusing to testify in a grand jury case. Maya Evans was incarcerated in the UK for having the gall to read aloud the names of British soldiers who died in Iraq across from the Cenotaph in Whitehall. That garnered very little support. There has been very little media coverage of the attempted silencing of Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho by drug cartels. In Cacho's case, I suspect the almost total lack of media coverage has something to do with the fact that she deliberately targets the Patriarchy in her research into sex trafficking.  Yolanda Ordaz De la Cruz was murdered because of her activism as a journalist. The murder of journlaist Anna  Politkovskaya was covered by the media but she had no celebrity endorsements about her right to free speech [or the right to life for that matter].

I'm not saying we shouldn't be protesting or standing up for Pussy Riot. I'm saying we don't get to choose whose "free speech" we defend based on their relative attractiveness or the fact that their name inspires giggles. If we are defending the right to protest all political structures, then we damn well had better be defending everyones and not just a group of young girls in Russia.  We also need to ensure that our defence of "free speech" does not happen at the expense of harming vulnerable members of our society. The use of free speech to defend pornography and prostitution is basically the acceptance of state-sponsored rape. It's the Patriarchy defending itself.

And, all those celebrities lining up to support Pussy Riot, how about you put your money where your mouth is and pay their legal representation. How about  you pay for the childcare of their children required whilst their mothers are in prison? How about you financially support the grassroots activists in Russia fighting to end the Gulag system? Why aren't you financially supporting Sara Kruzan who was imprisoned for life as a teenager for killing the man who raped and trafficked her?

SGM

Some articles which need to be read:*

Why the Pussy Riot case still matters.

CeCe McDonald vs. Pussy Riot: Political Imprisonment and Perspective

Q&A: Pussy Riot's Yekaterina Samutsevich on Their Fight for Freedom

Pussy Riot's Act of Faith

From Pussy Riot to Todd Akin: The Claiming—and Silencing—of Language and Speech

What is Vladimir Putin up too?

Pussy Riot on their feminism, pseudonymity, Femens, Voina and more

Putin has blood on his hands

What Pussy Riot taught the world

Riot Grrl, Pussy Riot, and the Heartbreak of Seeing Feminism Attacked in Russia

Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and Western Hypocrisy

* I do not agree with the analysis in all of these articles. I have included them specifically because I disagree with them.

Read More

Ice Age 4: Another Kids Film, More Asinine Gender Stereotypes

I'm not sure why I even bother taking the kids to the pictures anymore. They inevitably serve to make unbearably cantankerous with the constant gendered stereotyping and, frequently, the erasure of female characters. However, it was pissing with rain and my house already looks like  a Turner prize installation art project what with the layer of paper mache, painted shoe boxes and toilet paper tube mobiles and that's without mentioning the cat who bears more than a passing resemblance to a disco ball with the amount of glitter stuck to her. So, off to the pictures we went. And, yeah, I'm cheap so it was the kids club movie which is why I'm reviewing a film that's been out for several months already.

Ice Age 4 has, at least, a few female characters. You know, the ubiquitous ones: the crazy old bat, self-sacrificing mother, and the "evil" temptress who falls in love with a cock and then learns to be good. Plus, there's the whole rebellious teenage daughter who learns that doing exactly what Daddy tells you to do is the only way to be "good". And, yeah, a character actually does refer to the grandmother as a "crazy old bat" because there is nothing funnier that disablist comments about dementia. She's also spiteful because  it wouldn't be funny if a character with dementia wasn't spiteful too.

Ice Age 4 had some funny moments but the female characters were just awful. Some of the worst written characters I've seen in a while. The evil, stubborn temptress who just needs to be rescued and fall in love with her rescuer to become a "real" woman is just so tedious and repetitive. As is the story of a teenage girl dumping her best friend to go off with the "cool dude", slags off her friend and then everyone, miraculously, becomes best mates. That's bullying. It isn't something we should be showing young children. 

Yeah, there are places where the female characters "rescue" someone but it is never as important as being rescued by Daddy/ Lover. Because Daddy/ Lover knows best. Daddy/ Lover always knows best and where would we be without the Anxious Patriarch trope? I mean, kids might actually learn to engage critically with the Patriarchy. And, then kick the ever living shit out of it. And, we couldn't have that. Nope. Not at all.

Oh, and from a completely non-feminist perspective, what is it with kids movies and lame song interludes? Sure, if the movie is supposed to be a musical but one random and seriously fucking stupid song in the middle? Just, why? Are there no competent musicians in LA who could be brought in to write non-stupid songs for children? Or, better yet, just skip the musical interlude all together.

Read More

Salma Yaqoob: Apparently, she bakes.

It is important that we know this. Also, that Salma Yaqoob is very, very slight. As in the perfect example of femininity. Just in case we got confused about what is actually important and its not that she was the leader of a political party who RESIGNED IN PROTEST because of some seriously offensive rape apologist bullshit on the part of another member of the party: George Galloway. Nope, we must remember at all times that Yaqoob is a girl and knows how to behave like one.

In the middle of what could have been a decent article in the Guardian, Yaqoob's feminine performativity is reinforced over and over again culminating in this piece of twaddle:

Yaqoob, 41, is, in person, even slighter than she seems on television – she has long, thin arms and a face miraculously unlined by a decade spent raising three boys, working as a councillor in Birmingham (she resigned for reasons of ill-health last year), running a part-time psychotherapy practice – oh, and leading a new political party. She has just had a new kitchen fitted, and the backyard of her home in the Moseley area of Birmingham is piled with cardboard boxes. The ceilings are high, and the rooms full of light. On the kitchen table sits a straw basket of chapatis she has been baking.

Obviously, if Yaqoob hadn't been baking then we would have forgotten she didn't have a penis. I mean, seriously, how is this even relevant? Who cares what she looks like or does? She's a politician; one with actual morals. How many can claim that? But, still, we minimise her accomplishments by babbling on about her appearance. 

Even more obnoxiously, that paragraph was shoved in between the reporter asking about Galloway's "Assange is just guilty of bad sex" theory and Yaqoob's answer. This is her answer: 

"I've always admired George's anti-imperialist stances and I don't regret, for a second, standing side by side on those issues. But for me, to have to make a choice between that and standing up for the rights of women was a false choice. I thought it was a blurring of something that didn't need to be blurred. It's not that complicated – you can hold two ideas at the same time." Of course, "we're all human, we can't always make perfectly worded and crafted sentences – I really hoped a clarification would sort that out." She published a statement setting out her own position, but then, as she describes it, things escalated. Although she says Galloway never got directly in contact – and still hasn't – she felt she was being personally maligned; that "under the guise of different names there were personal attacks".

Now, this might be because I'm a crazy Feminist type, but I rather think her resigning in protest at some incredibly offensive misogyny is actually a good thing. Standing up for rape victims should be normal behaviour for politicians. Instead, this kind of twaddle just reinforces gender stereotyping. It reinforces the idea that women can only be good politicians if they are also nurturing and caring and bake chapatis. It is damaging for girls to read articles about women where their actual accomplishments are subsumed under the rhetoric of kinder, kuche, kirche. This should have been an article about the splintering of a political party due to misogyny and rape apologism. It did not need a foray into the fashion-beauty complex or baking.

Read More