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

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

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

Dear Cannes Film Festival, Roman Polanski is a Child Rapist.

 Dear Cannes Film Festival,

Roman Polanski is a child rapist.

I know I've written this exact same letter before, although last time it was to the British Film Institute. I'm sure you are bored of hearing this. I'm certainly finding writing this over and over and over again somewhat tedious but people seem to be struggling with this issue. Still.

So, for the record, Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist who is also a fugitive from justice.

It doesn't matter how many "good" films he makes, or how many stupid people make excuses for him because he's an "artiste", Roman Polanski will always be a convicted child rapist.

Roman Polanski gave a 13 year old a quaalude in champagne and then vaginally, orally and anally raped her.

I know Polanski has trouble understanding the fact that raping children is a despicable crime for which he should still be in prison. After all, there are no end of rape apologists telling him that it was completely okay for him to rape a child [see: the entire audience the night he won the Oscar for the Pianist].

There is a reason he's blithering on about equality for women being a bad thing and the birth control pill "ruining romance". Polanski does not want to take responsibility for the child he was convicted of raping nor does he want anyone to question the clearly illegal sexual relationship he had with Natassja Kinski when she was only 15 years old.

Every single person who pays to see Polanski's films is supporting rape culture.

Every single actor who appears in a Polanski film is supporting rape culture.

Every single organisation that gives Polanski awards for his films is supporting rape culture.

Every single person who uses the word "historical" to refer to Polanski's rape conviction is supporting rape culture.

Every journalist who does not mention Polanski's conviction for rape is supporting rape culture.

Roman Polanski is a child rapist who fled from California because he did not want to go to prison.

Roman Polanski gave a 13 year old a quaalude in champagne and then vaginally, orally and anally raped her.

He should be in prison; not receiving awards at your Festival.

Louise Pennington

Read More

Posted in #celebrityculture, #rapeculture, Child Rape, Male Violence Against Women, Misogyny, Rape Culture, Roman Polanski, Violence against Women, War on Women | No comments

Silent Sunday IX: The Weekly Blog Round-Up

Money is Not a Substitute for Consent at Feminist at Sea

So, you think you're a dyke at The Arctic Fox

It has always fascinated me - the ageing at Carregonnen

Just because you like it doesn't make it feminist at Feminist Current

I Hate Nightclubs (They Feel Like Street Harassment to Music) at Gradient Lair

Why is Gary Francione Slandering Eco-Feminists? at The Vegan Pensieve

So Gwyneth Paltrow is the Most Beautiful Woman in the World at The Negress

You Teach People How to Treat You. Really? at Dear Patriarchy - Die

The Problem With Puppy Love at RoleReboot

Annulation de RadFem2013: quand les Queers et les masculinistes font cause commune at Woman's Liberation Without Borders

Another Week, Another BBC Predator at HerbsandHags

Silent No More at Portia Smart [with trigger warnings for child rape]

The Stuart Hall Case Should put to rest the debate over anonymity for rapists at Sianandcrookedrib

Why Whites Call People of Colour Racist at Gradient Lair

This is white privilege at Renieddolodge

This is white privilege: the response at Renieddolodge

Read More

#DickheadDetox : David Bowie, Jimmy Page and that Small Issue of Child Rape

I won't be buying David Bowie's new album today. I've been a fan for years. Right up until I read this blog post on the 70s rock scene in LA and the obsession with "Baby Groupies" in. I genuinely did not realise this was a thing until I read the blog last year: what kind of man has "sex" with a 13 year old child?

Apparently, a whole lot including Bowie but also :

• Iggy Pop
• Johnny Thunders of the New York Dolls
• Jimmy Page
• Mick Jagger
• Dee Ramone
• Marc Bolan
• Alice Cooper
• Rod Stewart
• Bill Wyman

The child David Bowie raped, because no 13 year old can consent to sex with an adult man, was part of the "Baby Groupie" scene. I'm not going to name her here despite her name being easily available on line because I believe that all rape victims deserve anonymity. The young girl was then abused by Jimmy Page for more than a year and half. Their relationship started when his manager "kidnapped" her for Page. The young woman was repeatedly locked in hotel rooms by Page and his manager because of her age and their fear of the legalities of the situation; you know that whole child rape thing.

The media sources I have read about these two men claim that the 13 year old "lost her virginity" to Bowie and was in a consensual loving relationship with Page. She was a child abused by two adult men who have never really taken responsibility for their behaviour. 

Bowie and Page may be brilliant musicians but they deserve to be on the #DickheadDetox.

I won't be buying their music ever again.

Read More

Another Celebrity has been arrested for child rape.

And, all I can think is "wow, ITV are actually removing Michael Le Vell from Coronation Street pending the outcome of the trial". Seriously, how fucked up is that? My first response is that a major television program is taking an actual stance on a man charged with child rape. I thought they'd go for the old "we can't possibly say or do anything until a conviction has been secured" twaddle which let's rapists get away with rape. 

Le Vell has actually  been charged with 19 sexual offences including one count of child rape, indecently assaulting a child and sexual activity with a child. Obviously, I await with glee the rape apologists whining about poor ickle Michael being held accountable for his crime.

The BBC story is here.

Read More

The LFN protests against the Polanski Retrospective

This is a quote from Alison one of the organisers of the protest last Saturday against the BFI's retrospective on child rapist Roman Polanski. I felt it needed to be shared [and is shared with permission]:

Just a quick line about why I am helping to organise this protest. Polanski has fled from justice for the rape of a girl, and is living freely in Europe -  this sends a clear message (one of many) that men remain free to rape women and girls with little consequence, especially if they are rich and powerful, and there will probably be minimal attempt, if any, to stop them. Far from being rejected by the mainstream film industry, he is embraced, he continues to have a successful career, and the satisfaction of being lauded as a brilliant director. He continues to benefit financially, personally. So there is the issue of Polanski and his failure to face justice, as well as drawing attention to the misogyny of the industry and individuals within it who are happy to ignore abuse of women and girls particularly when it is carried out by powerful or 'brilliant' men.  There is also the timing. When the Savile scandal is so fresh, with investigations continuing into sexual abuse of women and girls at the BBC, or by well-known media personalities, another institution, the BFI, sticks its fingers up to that and goes ahead with a two month retrospective of Polanski's work, making no reference to the fact that he is a child rapist. (and actually in the year prior to the rape for which he was convicted, I have seen it reported that he had a 'romantic relationship' with the 15 year old Nasstasja Kinski (he was 43), so raises a question of whether he, like others, had a pattern of pursuing very young women and girls. He married his current wife when she was 23 and he was 56.   

Outside of that, there are many stories every day of rape and murder of women and girls, or of misogyny and sexism, and so at the same time it isn't that this story is remarkable. I wanted an idea to take along to the last London Feminist network meeting, something current, something we could develop into an action. And I became aware of the retrospective on a forum where women were expressing their anger about it, encouraging each other to complain to the BFI, and wondering what other actions they might take, and so I could see that there could be support for a protest. But it is quite random in that sense - it could have been so many issues.

I wanted to share this because it demonstrates just how effective one small piece of activism can be. It feels like we are constantly fighting a war that we will never win and I get so tired of the same thing coming up over and over again. These protests, organised by so many amazing women, inspire and motivate me. As someone who can't physically take part in many protests, being able to support these women is a privilege. 

Read More

Protest against the Polanski Retrospective at the BFI

The East London Feminists and the London Feminist Network have organised a protest against the Polanski Retrospective at the BFI Southbank.

This is their press release: 

Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to the charge of drugging and raping a thirteen year old girl in 1977 but then skipped the country to avoid sentencing. He has not served any time in custody for his crime.Join us in showing the BFI our disgust at their decision to celebrate and finance the rapist Polanski by hosting a retrospective of his work.
We will demonstrate before and during the screening of ‘Tess’ on Saturday 2nd February to register our outrage and to show our solidarity for all survivors of rape who so often see their attackers go unpunished.

The Protest starts at 1:30 in advance of a 2:40 showing of Tess; a film in which the 43 year old director began a "sexual relationship" with the 15 year old star Natassja Kinski because, obviously, he is not a creepy old man at all. Or, a child rapist.

Whilst I can not attend (what with the whole not living in London issue), I will be there in spirit with my sisters holding a convicted child rapist responsible for his crimes despite most of Hollywood misplacing their brains and deciding that being an "artist" is more important than holding an adult male accountable for giving a 13 year old child a qualude in champagne and the orally, vaginally, and anally raping her. 

Read More

Jimmy Savile Did Not "Groom the Nation"

I thought this was obvious. I didn't think it was something that feminists would have to start shouting from the rooftops:

Met Commander Peter Spindler was correct when he called Savile a "predatory, serial sex offender".

Spindler was wrong about Savile 'grooming the nation".

Jimmy Savile did NOT groom the nation.

Millions of people had no idea he was predatory, serial sex offender.

But, people did know.

We know they knew because Savile was not allowed to be involved in Children in Need.

We know people knew because they have been telling us they knew.

We know the police and CPS were aware because people told them.

Jimmy Savile did not groom the nation. He was allowed to continue abusing because he was a 'celebrity'. Pretending that he "groomed the nation" allows those who knew to minimise and obfuscate their guilt. Those who knew and did nothing are guilty of helping Savile in sexually assaulting hundreds of children and adults. I say hundreds but we will never know how many.

The term "grooming the nation" only serves to silence victims. It serves those predatory, serial sex offenders who are still harming people. It makes Jimmy Savile a one-off case that will never be repeated. 

But, Jimmy Savile isn't the only one. He will never be the only one. 

"Grooming the Nation" is about making bystanders feel better about having done absolutely nothing to protect vulnerable children and adults from a serial sex offender.

It not only absolved bystanders of responsibility; it gives them a space to be feted and petted in the press by journalists unwilling to look too closely at their own responsibility for reinforcing rape culture.

Jimmy Savile was a predatory, serial sex offender because people stood by and did nothing to stop him

How many other men are there today harming children and other adults safe in the knowledge that those around know and will do nothing to stop them?

(A longer version of this piece has been published by the Huffington Post)

Read More

Another Man not held accountable for Child Rape.


This week, I read yet another story of an adult male who wasn't held accountable for child rape. Technically, Steven Pollock was convicted of sex with a minor but he only received a community service and "the stipulation that he attend a sex offenders' programme." According to Kaye Adams in the Daily Record : "(t)he original charge was rape but prosecutors weren’t confident of convincing a jury that the girl did not consent and so they reduced the charge." Steven Pollock put his penis into the body of a 13 year old girl. Even if she was sober, a 13 year old girl isn't capable of consenting to sex. The fact that Lord Turnbull thinks that "the offence arises out of consensual conduct rather than any form of force, grooming or manipulation” demonstrates just how pervasive and destructive rape culture is.  We need to keep repeating these messages until men start listening: a 13 year old girl is not capable of consenting to sex. 

An adult woman who is extremely intoxicated is not capable of consenting to sex.

A child is never capable of consenting to sexual activity. 

The judge's summation is a disgrace.

Steven Pollock's sentence is a disgrace. 

Read More

Another Day, Another Man Minimising Rape.

This week it's Ryan Gilbey, the film critic for the New Statesman, who seeks to minimise Polanski's responsibility for raping a child because Polanski makes 'great films'. I suppose we should be grateful that Gilbey actually mentions the fact that Polanski raped a child. The British Film Institute managed to forget that piece of information when planning their retrospective on Polanski's work. They also tried to claim it was irrelevant when challenged on the issue. 

Now, I'm sure Polanski's films are brilliant. I've only seen the Piano so I can't really comment on  his artistic merit, however making good films does not negate the fact that Polanski drugged a 13 year old child and then sodomised her. A child of 13 is not competent to consent to sex. They have never been competent to consent to sex. 

An adult man who puts his penis in the body of a 13 year old is a rapist. 

But, Gilbey would like everyone to forget the fact that Polanski raped a child, or at the very least, seeks to minimise it by suggesting it was "historic" and "ambiguous":

He also spent a spell in prison and then under house arrest in 2009 and 2010 on historic rape charges  dating back to 1977. A thorough documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, examines the case and its ambiguities.

There is no "ambiguity" to what Polanski did: he raped a child. 

The fact that the justice system in the US, as with everywhere, is incapable of dealing with the rape of children effectively does not make rape "ambiguous". It means we live in a Patriarchal-Misogynistic culture which privileges the male right to put their penis wherever they like without consequence.

Polanski drugged and raped a child.  

Those who seek to minimise Polanski's act of rape are just as guilty as those who ignored Jimmy Savile's sexual abuse of children.

Those who seek to minimise Polanski's act of rape are guilty of perpetrating and perpetuating rape culture. 

You are the problem.

Ryan Gilbey, you are part of the problem. 

Read More

"Underage Girls": Victim-Blaming by Proxy

I always have these half-formed blogs posts that I never quite finish and then some journalist, in this case Deborah Orr, comes along and writes it. With this piece, it was partly my lack of confidence in my ability to explain what I meant but also the realisation that naming men, especially celebrities, would inevitably involve naming the young women they abused. I wasn't sure if I wanted to write about child rape in a manner that would label another woman's experience as part of the spectrum of sexualised violence. Do I have the right to do so without their consent? On the Relationships board of Mumsnet, there are frequently posts by women asking if their experience constitutes rape or some other form of sexualised violence. In those cases the answer is, inevitably, yes and the threads become both places of support and places to share stories safely. But, taking the story of someone famous (or identifiable in their own community) and labelling it as child rape without them using the term feels invasive. But, at the same time, is it not silencing to refrain from discussing these stories which leads to further normalisation of unhealthy relationships and sexualised violence? I'm loathe to label experiences for other women whilst simultaneously believing we need to. I've had these conversations before but I am never sure where the line should be drawn: insisting that we do not obfuscate or minimise sexualised violence whilst worrying about harming those who have not yet labelled their experiences.  

I've been thinking about the line between obfuscation and the power of labelling since the documentary on Jimmy Savile was first announced. In particular, I've been thinking about the use of language to label and define child sexual abuse since I'm increasingly concerned as to how language is being used to obfuscate both the sex of the children and their age in an attempt at victim-blaming-by-proxy. I think its important that we identify the sex of the victims. All to often the calls to remain gender neutral, designed to ensure that male victims of sexualised violence aren't omitted, serve only to silence the fact that the vast majority of victims of sexualised violence are women and girls. It also elides the fact that the vast majority of sexual predators are male. Frankly, I'm getting more than slightly angered by the constant attempt to be gender neutral. No one disputes the fact that men are victims of rape. No one disputes the fact that male children are victims of rape. All we are asking is for the acknowledgement that the vast majority of victims of sexualised violence are women and children and that the vast majority of perpetrators are male. To argue otherwise, silences victims and lets perpetrators continue to get away with harming others. 

I've also become increasingly concerned by the the conflation terms of "paedophile" and "underage girls". Now, I do believe that paedophilia is a psychiatric illness but I find it incredibly bizarre that every man who rapes a child is called a paedophile when it is simply not true. The term paedophilia is used indiscriminately to obscure the fact that many men, perhaps even most, who rape children do so because they want to without having any underlying psychiatric condition. In fact, men who are paedophiles also rape children because they choose too. A psychiatric illness does not always negate criminal responsibility. There are some which limit or restrict personal and criminal responsibility but paedophilia isn't one of them and, technically, Savile wouldn't be classed as a paedophile since the girls he raped were post-puberty. Conflating paedophilia with child rape allows rapists to elide and conceal responsibility for raping 15 year olds because they aren't "children".

The competing use of the term "underage girls" also feels like its obfuscating the fact that these are children. We can't use the term "girl" anymore to label a female child since it now refers to adult women; effectively erasing the question of legality and the definition of child rape. The use of "girl" confuses the boundary between adulthood and childhood making it easier for male sexual predators to claim ignorance about the exact age of the child they are abusing. "Underage girls" puts the focus on the victim, not the abuser. The abuser makes it all their fault. It is not a compliment to be labeled a "girl". It is a way of silencing criticism of male predatory behaviour towards teenage girls. If all women are "girls", then there is no reason why an adult male can't have sex with a 16 year old. 

The use of the term "underage girls" has simply evolved into victim-blaming. It is their fault an abusive man groomed and then raped them. It is their fault for looking 18 instead of 15. But, we never question why men who are 25 or 35 or 50 want to fuck 18 year olds. It is about power. It is about control. Why are these men worried about the very fine line between legal and not legal. A sexual relationship between a 15 year old girl and 35 year old man is illegal. A sexual relationship between an 18 year old and a 35 year old may not be illegal but it is still creepy.  The power dynamics are wrong. This isn't about love relationships. It's about fulfilling a desire for power and control. We should be criticising and questioning these men; not congratulating them for joining Hugh Hefner in the abuse of young women.

We need to stop obfuscating with language and start using words like child rape to refer to relationships between 15 year old girls and 35 year olds. We need to start asking men why they find an 18 year old sexually attractive because it isn't just about women who pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. It's about the real definition of the Patriarchal Fuckability test: being young, frequently malnourished, sexually available at any time but only to fulfil the male orgasm. The male orgasm is the only point that matters in sex. The sexual desires of adult women are eroded and subsumed into a rhetoric of domination. 

But, then we also pretend that teenage girls should be pleased that middle aged men find them sexually appealing rather than being utterly creeped out by it. We groom them into thinking that being desired by older men is something to aspire too; that their only value is in their sexual availability. We need to stop celebrating men who date young women barely out of childhood. We need to start asking these men why they can't date women their own age. What is the difference between an 18 year old whose birthday has just passed and a 17 year old a week away from her 18th birthday? What makes adult men think this is reasonable behaviour? What are we teaching our girls if we are raising them to believe that having sex with a man old enough to be their father is all that they deserve. If women and girls were truly valued, we would not be obfuscating the line between consensual sex between two competent adults and the sexual abuse of young women and girls by older men.

And, let's be clear here. The level of child rape in the Jimmy Savile case isn't confined to the BBC. It's everywhere. We've just been pretending it doesn't matter for so long that we have completely silenced our children. Pretending that it was a problem for the BBC in the past is a vile lie which simply serves only to perpetuate and perpetrate rape culture. Our children deserve better than this. 

Read More

Reddit: Free Speech is the Privilege of Men

I promised myself I wouldn't write about this case. There is nothing I can say that a thousand other Feminists haven't been saying for years about Reddit's stance on misogyny. They are all for it. I mean, I've never used Reddit but it's a social media platform. It doesn't matter which one you mention, they all support misogyny [and racism, disablism and homophobia]. They all hide behind the construct of "free speech" to protect the right of men to say and do what they want without any thought to the harm their actions/ speech cause. It is the very essence of male entitlement and privilege. As I've said elsewhere, publishing photos, nude or otherwise sexualised, without consent is sexualised violence. This is an issue of consent and of the right to privacy. It is not something that should be covered under the construct of "free speech". Free speech is the legal protection for the right to critique the government and other political/ cultural structures. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be a jackass. The fact that a large number of men are confused by this is their problem. We shouldn't indulge their desire to allowed to be as violent as possible just because they want to. There is no right to "Free speech" for those who are actively harmed in the perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture. We need to stop pretending that the right to free speech is more important than anything else. 

It is the issue of "creepshots" which has brought Reddit to the attention of mainstream press but not because rendering women into objects by uploading photos their sexualised bodies without consent is wrong. Nor is it because the issue of creepshots creates some serious legal implications in terms of the right to privacy and what constitutes a criminal offence. Nor is it because of questions the the construction of "sexuality, entitlement and public consumption."  That's not why men are having whiny-arsed tantrums and the media is running stories on it.* Nope, the issue has come up because Feminists have taken the step to publicly out the men perpetrating sexualised violence.

The hypocrisy of these men whining about their right to privacy having been violated by being named online when they have deliberately and maliciously participated in the sexualised violence of women by posted "creep" shots of them without consent is unbelievable. I am so very glad that someone with the computer skills tracked them down and named them. Yes, the expectation of privacy whilst in public is non-existent but that's but that's because we perceive women's bodies as public objects. Women have as much right to privacy as does the statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square. The level of male entitlement to women's bodies of which they should have no access is unbelievable. If we complain about being objectified, then we are abused and humiliated; labelled whores and fat and ugly and stupid and frigid.

We need to hold these men accountable for their sexual predation. If the law won't support us in criminalising these forms of sexualised violence, then we too should have the right to free speech without limit. We should be legally entitled to name and shame these men as they have named and shamed us. Michael Brutsch didn't want to be publicly identified as Violentacrez because of his family. Yet, he did not care about publicly humiliating women or perpetrating rape culture. If he did not want his real life name attached to Reddit sites  publishing photos under the terms: jailbait, rapebait, incest and misogyny, then he shouldn't have put them up in the first place. His behaviour is the problem. Not the Feminist activists who are holding him publicly accountable for the sexualised violence he perpetrated. If James Silverwood and Dominic Terry were actually concerned about their right to privacy, they shouldn't have started a Facebook page called "12 year old sluts". These men need to be held accountable for the harm caused by their behaviour and we should have the right to call them on it. Otherwise, free speech is nothing more than a joke; a privilege of men denied to all others. 

So, a huge thank you to my Feminist sisters who have called these violent sexual predators out.

This is nothing less than a War on Women.

It is a war whose battlefields are women's bodies.

We have every right to fight back with every piece of technology available; after all, men are using the same technology to destroy us.

*The vast majority of news stories I've come across have been written by Feminists like Kira Cochrane. However, I do not believe the media would be running these stories in mainstream press if it weren't for the fact that Feminist activists have started outed the sexual predators involved in taking and distributing the photos. These sites have been running for years without any real comment on the level of misogyny they perpetuate. 

Read More

Justin Lee Collins: Just Another Right-On Dude But One Who Inspired the #dickheaddetox

Another day; another abusive man is basically forgiven for being a violent thug. I'm getting bored of writing about all these arseholes. I'm beyond fucking angry at them continuing to be feted and forgiven for the abuse. 

Justin Lee Collins is a vicious, violent thug and it is an absolute fucking disgrace that he only got 140 hours community service for harassing, stalking, and scaring the ever-loving shit out of his ex-partner. He deserves to be in jail but he is not because the judge bought into every myth about domestic violence possible.

There is nothing I can say about Collins that the Fleet Street Fox has not already said more eloquently here: 

Judges know the power of words. They know that hearing "140 hours community service" is not as frightening as "six months' jail", and they also know that stealing a case of mineral water in a riot is not as serious as assaulting your partner over a period of seven months.
They also know, because the High Court ruled on this in July, that only words which contain a genuine and intended threat can be considered criminal. The judge in that case said people "are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel".

So idiots who write unfunny jokes about murdered five-year-old April Jones, set up silly Facebook pages mocking the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, complain about British soldiers in Afghanistan or upset the grieving by writing about having sex with the dead are - and this is important - not criminals. They're idiots, they're offensive, but they cannot in law reasonably be thrown in jail.
But they were. 

A man, famous or otherwise, who reduces his partner to a constant state of fear, who assaults her, bullies her and admits only the part of her story she was canny enough to catch on tape IS a criminal. Justin Lee Collins is a thug, a bully, and a liar. He CAN be reasonably jailed.
But he wasn't. 

I don't think that was because he was famous, or because he could afford a good lawyer. I think it was because a change in the law recognising that words said by a partner are part of domestic abuse, and equally as if not more damaging than a punch or a smack, will not be in force until next March so it was impossible to prosecute this little toad as he should have been. 

And it's also because we get incredibly angry about the words we see written down, forgetting that means we can tear them up, delete them or burn them, and not about the words we hear which wriggle into our heads and stay there until we are able to shake them out.
The most important words in your whole life are not the ones you see but what you hear - hello, goodbye, I do, I'm pregnant, it's bad news I'm afraid. You might forget precisely what was said, but they change your life one way or the other and you never forget where you were, and what you were doing when you heard them. 

If only judges heard what everyone else does.

If you haven't already clicked the link to Fleet Street Fox's article, do so. Now.

Then, read Eva Wiseman's Naming and Shaming article in the Guardian. We need to start naming and shaming these violent misogynists. It's a disgrace that Charlie Sheen who has got form for domestic violence against more than one partner, "accidentally" shooting then girlfriend Kelly Preston in the arm, as well as the abuse of prostitutes now has another hit television series.

I'm sick of Chris Brown who violently assaulted his partner Rihanna.

I'm sick of Mike Tyson who has a conviction for rape and a history of domestic violence. I'm sick of the rape apologists who've financially supported Tyson's new career as a "motivational speaker". I'm pissed off at Spike Lee for directing Tyson in a one-man play which whitewashed Tyson's violent history. I'm pissed off at the rape apologists wearing Tyson's branded clothes.

I'm sick of the child rape apologists claiming that Roman Polanski's status as an "artiste" is more important than the child he drugged and sodomised. I'm pissed off at every child rape apologist who stood up and gave the man a standing ovation at the Oscars.

So, I'm with Eva Wiseman. Let's start calling these "men" out for what they really are: violent misogynistic thugs who deserve our contempt and our hatred. Let's do her dickhead detox.

James Brown: domestic violence*
Hugh Grant: abusing a prostitute
Ched Evans: rapist
Sean Connery: domestic violence
Ike Turner: domestic violence
Mel Gibson: probation for domestic violence [not to mention the issue of racism]
Harry Morgan: domestic violence
Tupac Shakur: sexual abuse
Richard Hatch: domestic assault
Tracy Lawrence: domestic abuse
Dennis Rodman: domestic abuse
Mickey Rourke: domestic abuse
Sean Penn: domestic abuse
Paul Gascoigne: domestic violence
Stan Collymore: domestic violence
Bill Wyman: child rape**
R. Kelly: domestic abuse [amongst some other horrifying accusations]
Micheal Lohan: domestic violence
Larry Fitzgerald: restraining order for domestic violence
Santonia Holmes: multiple arrests for domestic violence
Tommy Lee: domestic violence
Alec Baldwin: emotional abuse
Steven Tyler: child rape**
Iggy Pop: child rape**
Jerry Lee Lewis: child rape**
John Peel: child rape**
Jonathon King: child rape
Gary Glitter: possessing child pornography and child rape**
Johnny Thunders: child rape**
David Bowie: child rape**
Jimmy Page: child rape**

*I'm using both domestic abuse and domestic violence because the terms reflect the legal status of the crime in the jurisdictions in which the men were charged. 

** None of these men were convicted of child rape. But, that's because we live in a society that celebrates male violence and doesn't give a shit about children.

Read More