This is a hate crime:

I know some mansplainers' going to come along and tell me I'm over-reacting and I'm too stupid to understand the law on this issue. I've been blocking dudes all day who think sharing images of a 17 year old, who is legally too young to consent to an image of her engaged in fellatio, is a 'slut' who deserves all the abuse directed at her.

I'm sure they will agree with the Crown Attorney of Ontario that sending death threats to an autistic child is rude but not a hate crime.

Here's the thing: I don't actually give a shit what the law actually states in either case. Recording images of other people engaged in sexual acts, even if both are adults, without consent is sexual violence. Telling the family of a child with autism to "move away or euthanise him" is a hate crime. The fact that the law is on the side of violent, abusive arseholes is disgusting.

The law has been created by men to protect male interests. 

We need to rewrite our legal codes to protect victims of crimes and vulnerable people. 

Anyone who sends a letter like the above to a the family of a child with autism deserves to prosecuted to the full extent of the law as a hate crime.

Anything else is simply not good enough.

Read More

Silent Sunday : Inspiring and Thought Provoking Blogs Written by Women

Someone White suggested that an "Honest Conversation" on Race can't include Racism at Gradient Lair

Quick Fixes like Changing Gun Control Laws would not have made a difference for 13 UK women killed through suspected male violence in 2013 by Karen Ingala Smith

The Silencer: An Open Letter to those quick to defend but slow to reflect at Everyday Victim Blaming

Whites being "Not Racist' is NOT Enough by Gradient Lair

Is anger always bad? by Respectfully Raising

White, Cis and Silenced at Bottomface

Rape Threats: It's a Free Speech Issue at Quite Irregular

On the pain of Violent Men, or, Why I'm not sorry about Max and Montle at Africa is a Country

Divide and Conquer by Feminist Borgia

Not that girl at Belle Jar Blog

On Becoming a Radical Feminist by Carrgonnen

I Support You at One Women's Thoughts

A Family Secret at Filthy Freedom

Online Misogyny and Magic Buttons by Bottomface

I am a Black Radical Womyn : guest post at Danielle Paradis

Why this disabled woman no longer identifies as a feminist at Disability and Representation

10 thoughts ... on mental illness, abuse and survivors at Are Women Human Too?

Read More

This week in Missing the Point Completely: Maria Miller and the WBC

According to the Guardian, Maria Miller has come up with yet another completely pointless but expensive program to deal with The Problem of Girls. This time she's got the Women's Business Council, which was only set up last year, making recommendations which demonstrate just how out of touch they all are with the reality of the lives of girls who aren't white and born to wealthy, well-educated parents. Miller is going to produce information packs to teach parents of girls how to bring up "aspirational" daughters. You see, the only reason that the number of women in the upper echelons of management and on FTSE 100 boards is because girls lack "aspiration".

It has absolutely nothing to do with systemic oppression which privileges boys over girls from the start of their lives. 

It has nothing to do with educational practise which favours boys.

It has nothing to do with girls being socialised to defer to boys their whole lives.

It has nothing to do with girls being taught that having an opinion or being intelligent doesn't count unless they pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test.

It has nothing to do with sexist hiring practises. 

It has nothing to do with the fact that women are penalised for being mothers before actually being mothers [and the assumption that all women want to be mothers].

It has nothing to do with poverty or class or race or disability. 

The Fawcett Society has clearly been blithering on about absolutely nothing for years.

The only problem girls have is a lack of aspiration. We know this because a bunch of well-educated, mostly white women who are very privileged have gotten together to say so.

I could rant for hours about Miller's complete lack of understanding of the reality of the lives of most girls in the UK. Government policies to encourage FTSE 100 companies to have a minimum of 25% women on their boards won't change anything if the vast majority of girls in the UK are being left behind for no other reason than not being born to privileged parents.

There are two things that will increase girls "aspirations":

1. The Welfare State
2. Feminism

That is it. We need a fully functioning welfare state which supports everyone. We need universal and affordable child care. We need a social care network which helps care for family members who are disabled or elderly. We need a culture where men do 50% of the childcare and the housework. We need a culture where women's choices are supported and not used as a stick to beat them with.

We don't need information packs to teach parents how to raise "aspirational girls". Our girls are already aspirational. We need nothing less than a complete destruction of the capitalist-patriarchy so that our girls can grow up to be who they want to be without being pilloried, insulted and denigrated.

Read More

The Right to Sex?

Ann Tagonist brought this case to my attention. Her brilliant shredding of the news story is here. It is a must-read. 

There is so much wrong with this story that I don't quite know what to say (or that Ann hasn't already said) which is why I've been retweeting her blog piece rather than writing about it myself. However, this thread on Mumsnet has concerned me because it is being dominated by pro-'sex industry' people who don't seem to be considering quite what actually happened in this case; at least, as it is presented in the news.

There are several competing issues at play here:

1. Is sex a basic human right? 

2. The legality of prostitution and the concept of therapeutic sex. 

3. If the patients who were groping members if staff would be classed as legally responsible for their behaviour, then why were they not charged with sexual assault? Being "frustrated" is not an excuse for sexual assault; to claim otherwise is to minimise sexual violence. 

4. If they were competent to make the decision to sexually assault staff, then why were they basically rewarded for committing a crime? 

5. If the patients were not legally responsible for their behaviour, then why did the care home not look into better procedures to protect it's staff?

6. If they were not legally responsible, then how could they possibly consent to engaging in sex with a prostitute?

7. If the patients were not legally competent to consent, then surely the care home is now complicit in their sexual abuse?

I genuinely don't know what to say about this case. This is just so wrong on every level and the idea that this case is about the legalities of prostitution seems to be deliberately misrepresenting what actually happened.

* I want to be very clear here that this is about the structural and political legalities of the purchasing of sex.

Read More

A Fate Worse Than Debt

By Heather Downs

The Coalition government offers nothing but more propaganda about ‘paying-off the national debt’, giving the perfect excuse to cut public spending and destroy the Welfare State. Around 70% of Coalition cuts so far have come from women. The cause of women’s equality is being pushed back 50 years.

Public sector cuts hit women the hardest.  The public sector has a better record on equality in pay and opportunities. Women make up most public sector workers, so cuts in jobs, pensions, and the pay-freeze, affect women more.  Services specifically for women, such as Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis, are being cut.  Refuges are turning away 230 women every day in Britain. Domestic Violence affects one-in-four women; 19 thousand women flee their homes every year.  Every week two women are killed by current or ex-partners in Britain.  That’s more deaths than soldiers killed in Afghanistan.   Women’s Aid estimate1 in 4 women are subjected to domestic violence in their lifetime and 1 in 4 are victims of sexual violence. If you know more than 4 women, you know someone who has experienced either sexual or domestic violence or will do so at some time in their lives.  Rape Crisis say only 1 in 10 rapes are reported.  Most victims know their attacker - less than 1% see them convicted.

Women of all classes and races are affected, but those who have least money of their own, are the least able to escape the violence.  They depend on refuges and free counselling to help them escape.  These services are under threat from government cuts.  Although Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid remain the most frequently used sources of support, funding is a constant challenge. Coalition cuts threaten the survival of these vital services.  The Condems pay hypocritical lip service to women’s equality but their cuts fall most heavily on women’s jobs, services and pensions. Cuts affect council housing and housing benefit making it more difficult to rebuild and heal disrupted, damaged lives. 

Women do the caring for free when services to the elderly, disabled, children and other vulnerable groups are cut and women’s jobs are lost. Sure Start children’s centres have been cut despite government promises.  Day centres for adults are under threat.  The childcare allowance of Tax Credits has been cut from 80% to 70%, making work unaffordable for many women if there is any paid employment available.  Child Benefit was a universal benefit paid to mothers as a way our whole society could support families with children. New means-testing only affects the middle class earning over £50,000 now – but an important principle has been broken.  Raising the tax threshold will not help low-paid people who don’t pay income-tax.  Raising the qualifying limit for Working Tax Credits will cost £1000’s to people unable to increase their hours.

Disabled women are at increased risk of domestic and sexual violence.  Given what we know about financial abuse and economic dependence being features of domestic violence, it is disturbing to learn that disabled people with partners earning over £7,500 will not receive any benefits once the one year time limit on ESA (Employment Support Allowance) is reached.  As Social Care becomes means tested, more people will depend on family members, including 'Young Carers' as the unpaid chidren of disabled parents ae euphemistically described.  All the worst aspects of the institution of the nuclear family, amplified.  If you don't like that institution, they'll put you in the other kind; cheaper, more efficient decimation of the rights and independence of disabled people

The original plan for Universal Credit would have closed all women’s refuges – that cut was defeated and women’s refuges are now exempt.  We achieved that by effective campaigning.  But now we face a new threat. Women’s Aid says the Welfare Reform Act and the introduction of Universal Credit is a huge step backwards for equality; it will deprive a woman of independent income including tax credits paid to her as a mother. As a result, women will have less control over household income.  Financial abuse is a common feature of domestic violence.  Women’s Aid has serious concerns about plans to pay Universal Credit to one member of the household.  It is estimated that in 80% of cases, it will be paid to the man of the house. Women will be left  dependent, with no money or support to escape violent men.

So what can we do?  Of course, we can get educated about what is actually happening.  We can use resources like False Economy, The Fawcett Society, Spartacus Report.   We can resist the propaganda war against benefits, public spending, the ‘all in this together’ lies of those who will never be ‘in’ anything with us.  Their real aim is to get back to the natural order of life before the Welfare State, the NHS, social security, equal pay,  the minimum wage. 

We can support others in their efforts to defend our living standards.  Public sector strikes are inconvenient, but not as inconvenient as the result of the race to the bottom in pension provision - led by non-unionised private sector employers whose own tax-free pensions are supplemented by obscene bonuses.  We can join with others in our community anti-cuts groups defending hospitals, libraries, day centres.  Coalition of Resistance, Keep our NHS Public and Campaign against Fees and Cuts have local branches.

This is a fight between two visions of society – one ruled by the free market, where atomised individuals take sole responsibility for themselves alone, competing for scarce resources, where the Welfare State is reduced to a safety net for the desperate; and the other based on social cohesion, and shared provision for the vicissitudes of life.  Aneurin Bevan on his creation of the NHS said it would only last as long as people were prepared to fight for it.  That fight is here.

Read More

How to tell if you're racist:

If you agree with this arsehole, then you're probably a racist. I say probably only insofar as it's equally possible you're just really, really stupid. Tom Brodbeck, of the Winnipeg Sun, has written quite possibly one of the most ridiculous examples of white privilege I've come across in a while. Basically, he's arguing that it's racist for the Manitoba government to focus on the violence experienced by Aboriginal women and develop specific strategies to help these women, despite the fact that they are more likely to experience VAW or be murdered by their partners than non-Aboriginal women. Apparently, developing any strategies which are specifically targeted at one group of incredibly vulnerable women is "racist". 

This is what he actually says about the fact that Aboriginal women are three times more likely to experience violence, in any form, that non-First Nations, Metis and Inuit

But what should any of that matter when it comes to finding more effective policing and public policy strategies to combat the problem of missing and murdered women?
Should police agencies treat missing and murdered aboriginal women differently than women from other ethnicities?

It's pretty fucking obvious that the police already treat missing and murdered Aboriginal women differently than they do missing or murdered white women. After all, does anyone really believe that Robert Pickton would have managed to kill as many women as he did if his victims weren't vulnerable Aboriginal women trapped in prostitution? I don't. 

Thing is, Brodbeck clearly doesn't give a shit about Aboriginal women. No one who cares about the racism and misogyny experienced by Aboriginal women would be so arrogant as to say this:

Singling out missing and murdered aboriginal women is racist, plain and simple. We shouldn’t judge, treat, or deal with people based on their ethnicity.

Nor would they be so arrogant as to quote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as if it was applied equally to all citizens and residents of Canada. This is just another example of white male privilege trying to minimise and isolate women to prevent us rising up as a class to Smash the Patriarchy. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just a piece of paper. It is only as good as its enforcement and, frankly, Canada's history of enforcing this legislation is shameful.

We will never be able to Smash the Patriarchy without acknowledging the way it uses racism, homophobia, disabilism and misogyny to isolate women. Acknowledging that Aboriginal women are more likely to be victims of Violence Against Women isn't racist. It's stating the fucking obvious.

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

Today, I Came Out as a "Privileged" Feminst. And, Not For the Reason You'd Think

I was having an online chat with some lovely friends yesterday about Misogynist Rights Activists [MRAs] and their silencing techniques. I came out with this gem:

I don't get anywhere near the shit that or some of the other feminist bloggers get. I'm actually really privileged in that I have a good number of people reading and commenting on my blog in a positive manner and only had 4 nasty comments on the blog itself.

I wrote this and then promptly realised just how stupid it sounds. I'm privileged because the MRAs aren't targeting my blog for abuse. I'm privileged because I've only been stalked online by a few, not very bright, MRAs. I'm privileged because I've only received two real threats of physical violence to my body. That doesn't count all the insults, condescension and arrogant hypocrisy I've personally experienced on Mumsnet from MRA trolls, certain male posters and their handmaidens. I've become so, I'm not sure here, immune to the threats? So, I think only two threats, one to shoot me in the face and a threat of gang-rape, makes me "privileged" as a feminist.

Just how seriously fucked up is that?

I am a feminist with privilege. I am visibly white in a deeply racist culture. I am heterosexual in a homophobic society. Despite being disabled, it's not "visible" so I don't endure street harassment from disablists. I have a very good university education, a niceish home, lovely children and some brilliant friends. If we're playing Intersectionality bingo, I'd lose. Every time. But, yesterday, I decided I was "privileged" only to be threatened with male violence twice. Online. I never even thought about the street harassment I've received. Being pregnant as a teenager is like having a giant neon sign above your head for disgusting men to perve after you. Or, the small scale sexual assaults I've experienced. Nope, I decided I was privileged because only two men threatened me with physical violence online.

Two Men. One who threatened to shoot me. The other threatened me with gang-rape. And, I'm "privileged".

I genuinely don't know quite where to go with this blogpost. I wrote the first part last night just after I made the comment. I've been pondering my statement on and off all night. Why would I use the privilege? I'm not sure. But, it does make me incredibly sad that I have become so immune to male violence that I measure "privilege" according to how few threats I receive rather than "privileged" by never having experienced male violence. Because, the truth is, I don't know a single woman who hasn't experienced male violence of some sort.

Read More

Free Speech: The Right to be a Jackass?

Free speech is a fallacious construct which is designed to keep the masses in denial of their lack of power.

It doesn't actually exist. It never has, but, if it did, it wouldn't be the right to be a jackass.

There is no guarantee to free speech in the UK. There never has been. People who insist we do have free speech are confused or watch way too much American television. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is technically the guarantee to free speech, you know, in the United States of which the UK is NOT a part [in case anyone remains confused about that tidbit]:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally, it only applied to laws enacted by Congress but this changed with the Gitlow v New York case wherein the Supreme Court of the US applied the First Amendment to all states via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Obviously, this is only interesting if you're a history nerd like me. The real point here is that the US, supposed protector of Free Speech, has enacted numerous laws which limit free speech. These are the obvious exceptions like child obscenity, incitement to hatred or violence and the much repeated axiom of not being allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Limits to free speech exist because some people are simply arrogant arseholes lacking both empathy and intelligence.

Even if we had the legal right to "free speech", [or believed that "free speech" actually existed] it doesn't mean we should use it. The right to free speech isn't the right to be a jerk. Free speech shouldn't mean that people get to use misogynistic, racist, homophobic or disablist language because they want to without any consideration of the hurt caused to others. It doesn't mean that comedians like Daniel Tosh should be allowed to make jokes about rape just because they can [and this is a brilliant critique of Tosh's arrogance]. The right to free speech is the right to criticise and challenge. It is not the right to be a jackass because you want to be a jackass.

I have to say the only people I ever hear going on about the right to free speech are those privileged self-entitled nincompoops who want to silence the opinions of others. It's the rape apologists who whine about the right to call rape victims liars who demand "free speech". It's the racists who insist on the right to use the words "Paki" and "Chink". It's the homophobes who think "Gay" should be an insult and those disablists who want the right to use "spaz" and "retard". Those of us with empathy and critical literacy know that the theory of "free speech" is something that is the preserve of the powerful and the ignorant; we know that it is used to control the people.

Those of us who use the social construct of free speech in order to critique and challenge do so without behaving like a bunch of abusive nincompoops. That is the real challenge in a civilised society: using the theory of free speech whilst recognising that we will always need to limit it because of the arrogance and ignorance of a few. We will always need to limit "free speech" to prevent the abuse and objectification of vulnerable people. We always need to limit "free speech" when there are nincompoops like PETA running about.

Turns out, the real theory of "free speech" is just the preserve of the powerful who use it to silence those who demand basic human kindness.

Read More

Petition against Cuts to Housing Benefit for under 25s

Yeah, I'm late to the party on this one. I've been thinking about how to write my response without getting personal but I'm not sure there is a way to discuss cutting housing benefits for people under 25 without getting into the specific examples of those who will be royally fucked over by this policy. For the sake of full disclosure here, I'm one of those feckless teenagers who got pregnant and had to be supported by the state. I had literally only moved out to got to uni and then had to move back in with my mother because I was having a baby. It was the same small 3 bed I grew up in but moving back in with a child is so very different. I had a tiny bedroom which was barely big enough for my bed, a cot, and a dresser. Having live-in babysitters was helpful as it meant I could save up to go to university [which I have done and quite successfully I might add]. But, and this is the huge but, I am one of the lucky ones. I have a supportive and lovely mother who helped me financially. Her house was big enough for me to move back into. There is no history of abuse and my mother was not dependent on benefits that she would lose by having another adult move back in with her. Many people under the age of 25 in receipt of housing benefit are not as lucky as I was.


This policy ignores the realities of people's individual lives. Cameron's parents have a large house big enough from him to have lived in as an adult but most people don't. In fact, the government is already trying to force people to downsize their houses after their children turn 18. Many people won't have a house large enough for a child to move back into; especially if they are renting themselves whilst in receipt of housing benefit. This policy doesn't take into account abusive parents. You can not force an 18 year old to remain living in a house with a physically, psychologically or sexually abusive parent. You can't force an 18 year old to hide their sexuality in order to live with homophobic parents. What happens if the child's room is now being used by an elderly or disabled relative? What happens if the parents themselves are in receipt of housing benefit and have had to move to a smaller property? 


All of these scenarios and more have been made on a thousand different blogs. There is nothing I can say that hasn't been said before. All I do know is that without housing benefit [and student loans, council tax benefit and income support during the summer], I wouldn't have graduated university with several first class degrees [both undergraduate and post-graduate]. I wouldn't be a published writer [and not just one who rants on blogs and Mumsnet]. Mostly, I wouldn't be me. And, that's what these horrendous cuts to the welfare state are doing: preventing millions of children from being who they should be. 

Petition

Dear {enter the name of your MP here}, 

Stop plans to remove housing benefits from young people 

I was extremely concerned to hear about the Prime Minister's proposal to remove Housing Benefit for people under the age of 25. 80,000 young people a year experience homelessness in this country, according to Centrepoint,  the UK's leading charity for homeless young people. Centrepoint says young people rely on Housing Benefit to keep a roof over their heads. These young people do not choose to become homeless. They are often forced out of home because of domestic violence or family breakdown. 

I am worried that cutting Housing Benefit for these vulnerable young people will be disastrous, as they simply do not have a family home to go back to.For homeless young people, Housing Benefit is a short-term solution which provides the support they need to get a job and live an independent life - a life not reliant on benefits. 

I therefore fear the Prime Minister's plans would not only lead to more homelessness, but also risk higher youth unemployment.As my local MP, I urge you to speak out against these plans and persuade the Prime Minister to drop these plans.

Read More

Language, Feminism and Reclaiming the Nincompoop

So, I've been contemplating my use of language, particularly those defined as 'rude', for a while now. I've been trying to stop using words whose origins are in disablist, homophobic, racist and misogynistic language. Words which are racist are, culturally and politically, more likely to be frowned upon; although the number of Scottish people I hear using "chink" and "paki" never fails to shock me. I also still visibly twitch when I hear British people say they are going out for a fag. For me, that word will always be homophobic. That is the context of the word where I grew up and I can not remove it from my personal-historical context. I also think its telling that the use of the word 'gay' as an insult is increasing exponentially in  teenagers as it is rooted in both homophobia and misogyny. They are both part of the backlash to Feminism as well as the Gay Rights movement [notably I think the issue of gay marriage has kicked off the homophobic backlash]. The refusal to remove these words is an example of heteronormative privilege (and the I'm all right so you must just be whiny bullshit favoured by those who refuse to acknowledge that their behaviour is anything less than perfect).

It's been much harder to remove words which are disablist and misogynist. There are obvious words like 'retard' and 'spaz' which most people, with an ounce of compassion, have already removed from their vocabulary. But, there are so many common words whose origins are rooted in disablism, particularly of people suffering with their mental health, that it's very hard to stop using them. Words like idiot and moron are so culturally ingrained that calling people on it just provokes whinging about 'political correctness' (that term bandied about by rude people demanding the right to be rude regardless of the hurt it causes others). But, these are all obvious terms of insults. It's the much more casual "are you insane" or "have you lost the plot" [which I'm ashamed to say I've used today] which are extremely harmful because they don't seem to cause harm. It's the very "innocence" of their usage which reinforces the very harmful cultural practices we should be challenging.

I know there is an argument for reclaiming words used to oppress from your oppressors but I am not sure how successful this is; after all even 5 years ago gay was being used positively. Now, it is steeped in the very homophobia it was reclaimed to contravene. It is now the insult par excellence to challenge someone's masculinity. I struggle with reclaiming words like bitch, cunt and slut. Are we not implying there are women who are still "sluts" when we try to use slut in a positive manner? How can we challenge misogyny by continuing to use words which define women by their sexuality and behaviour?  It is why I find "Slutwalk" so problematic as an anti-rape awareness campaign. The focus is on the word "slut" and not on the issue of rape. I think it reinforces the very rape myths it seeks to challenge [and that's without getting into the issue of racism and the experience of Black and First Nations women who have always been defined by their sexuality].

I've tried to stop using any words that fall under this rubric and replaced them with words like nincompoop [my new favourite word] and buckethead (a la SGB). But, really, once you've removed insults which don't originate in homophobic bullying, or demeaning mental illness or denigrating genitalia, you are pretty much reduced to poop-based insults like a 5 year old. I love the word nincompoop but even its origins are questionable. Yes, language evolves but, sometimes vocabulary should simply be erased rather than evolved or "reclaimed"; even nincompoop.

Read More