Proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activist

I had completely forgotten I wrote this response to a dreadful piece in the Huffington Post on the "Modern Face of Feminism". I wrote the rant in my joural whilst on the train to the best feminist weekend I've ever had [soon to be published as RadFem Couch Surfing]! It's a month late but I'm still so cranky at it so I'm publishing it anyways: 

This is the delightful conclusion to a rather dire attempt to start a debate on what it means to be a feminist in the newly emerging 4th wave [if you actually believe this is a thing]:

Modern-day feminism has multiple facets – from populism and pop culture to new-media and new activism – but it would seem the common denominator is inclusivity. No longer the preserve of extreme activists and intellectual theorists, feminism is shedding its stigma and going mainstream.

Feminism's apparently going Mainstream and dumping the extreme activists and intellectual theorists.

I just have a few, shall we say, quibbles here. What, precisely, is an "extremist activist"? Is it a feminist who campaigned to make rape in marriage illegal? Or, the feminists who campaigned for refuges for women fleeing violent male partners? Or, the feminists campaigning for rape crisis centres? Equal Pay? Affordable childcare? Maternity pay? 

Were suffragettes extremists for fighting for the right to vote? They were certainly labelled as such a 100 years ago. Feminists fighting for the Equal Pay act were considered as extremists by many, as were the feminists campaigning to raise the age of consent to protect children from adult male sexual predators. Hell, Caroline Criado-Perez has been described as an extremist for forcing the Bank of England to recognise already existing legislation. I can't quite work out what 'extreme' means when campaigning to force the government to recognise its own legislation.

What makes an activist an "extremist"? Is it their methods of activism or their goals? Who gets to decide what feminist activism counts as extremism? The men who denied women suffrage? The men who created a legal system which didn't recognise rape in marriage since women's number one duty as a possession was to fulfil their husband's every 'need'.  If feminists are extremists for fighting for the legal rights of women within the law, what does that say about our culture? Why are still perpetuating damaging myths labelling feminists as "extreme" when feminists have never campaigned for anything more than the legal recognition that women are human too and deserve to live a life without being subjected to male violence.

As for the brief snide attack on feminist academics and theorists, well, that was clearly written by someone who hadn't bothered to read much of their own university required reading. A lot of academic writing is drivel: see almost every book on history written by white men and pretty much the entire genre of post-modernism which seems to be predicated on an inability to use words with less than 7 syllables. Feminist academics are researching domestic violence, rape, women's history, genocide, maternal mortality. They aren't exactly The New Adventures of the Famous Five and I'm not sure the Dr Seuss' Tales of Women's Experience in Genocide is, shall we say, the kindest way to write about women's lived experiences. 

I honestly get so bored of these articles on feminism which are either shrieking about how we live in a post-feminist world [because 2 women a week in the UK who are murdered by their male partners don't count at all] or are yowling about a New Wave of Feminism. It would be nice if the media stopped publishing this drivel as "news" and started publishing factually-correct articles on feminism. It's not like the Huffington Post would have to look hard for great feminist writers. They've already got Soraya Chemaly.


So, I'm proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activists since I believe that universal suffrage and whiny men no longer being allowed to treat their wives and children as chattel are, you know, positive improvements in humanity. 

Read More

@misogyny_online : A Response

The other day I blogged about what I see as concerted attacks on the twitter account @misogyny_online. I blogged in anger and published without pausing to reread. My choice of words was harsh but I was angry and distressed watching a group of women who were trying to help other women get caught in the middle of a political discussion that they did not understand [or even know about].

@misogyny_online is not my twitter account but I do know several of the women involved and I can see how hurt and distressed they are. And, this hurts me. I don't like seeing women I love in pain. I don't like watching my sisters, who are only trying to help other women, have their efforts rubbished for walking into a long-standing political disagreement that they were not fully aware of. 

And, so, my words were unnecessarily harsh and many of the women who I labelled "attackers" had no intention of actually doing that [although I would like to point out how many trans*activists, none of whom are trans*, were clearly harassing in order to make trouble. I don't need to name since it's always the same group of women who identify as 'cis' who like to cause fights by co-opting the political struggles of other women as their own and then speak over the very people they claim to be helping]. However, when numerous people are tweeting the same thing at one person [or one person making multiple tweets about the same issue] it does feel like an attack. This may not be the intention of the person tweeting but it is how it feels.

We need to take more care, especially on social media, of how other women are feeling. We cannot work from the assumption that the woman we are talking to are not vulnerable. We cannot assume that the women on the other side of the computer have taken a specific stance because of malice or internalised misogyny. Sometimes women are struggling to keep their heads above water that they do react  in a way which is anti-women. Sometimes women are struggling with internalised misogyny and don't understand the effects their words will have on other women. And, sometimes women are just being malicious.

But, we cannot know, for certain, what position women are coming from, especially if we have never spoken or interacted with them before. 

When we react with anger or by using abusive words, we have no idea what type of response we are triggering in women. We cannot know if the words we use are similar to that of an abusive father or husband. We cannot know if the woman experienced extreme bullying as a child and is still trying to deal with that. We cannot replicate patterns of male violence with our language or our behaviour.

We have to be better than this.

It isn't fair and it will never be fair whilst we are living in a capitalist-patriarchy but we need to keep reminding ourselves that we have no idea who the women behind social media accounts really are. The only assumption we can make is that almost every woman we speak to has been a victim of male violence: whether that is street harassment, rape or domestic violence we cannot know. But, nearly every woman we speak to will be desperately trying to remain sane in a culture which hates women. 

We are all struggling and we all make mistakes. Our politics may be different but we need to focus on the common enemy: male violence. 

I apologise for the harm my harsh words caused the other day. I am not going to remove the blog because my point still stands. We need to acknowledge the good intentions of other women. We need to acknowledge that women are human and make mistakes and we need to acknowledge that most of us are victims of male violence desperately trying to fight for our sisters.

Women are not perfect and we need to stop expecting perfection from each other.

Read More

If you call another woman an "attention-seeker", I'm going to question your right to the label feminist.

I have been breaking my own rule on "not telling another woman whether or not they can call themselves a feminist" lately. I hate doing this because it is a silencing tactic. Telling women what they are and what labels they are allowed to use is a Patriarchal tool. It prevents questioning and a fundamental part of feminism MUST be the right to question everything. If we cannot challenge other feminists, we cannot grow as a movement. 

That said, I am absolutely disgusted at the "feminists" who are calling Caroline Criado-Perez an attention-seeker for demanding that Twitter and the legal system take responsibility for their perpetuation of MVAW. This is a silencing tactic and it is manifestly NOT feminism.

The feminist response to the serious threats of violence and abusive language directed at Caroline Criado-Perez is to analyse the political, social and cultural constructs which have made Caroline both a victim and a powerful spokeswoman. Then, feminism would seek to ensure that all women who experience MVAW online are taking seriously and the men [and women] who are harassing and threatening them are prosecuted. Feminist do NOT judge how a woman chooses to respond to the MVAW they are subjected to. Ever.

Do I think the fact that Caroline is white is a big reason the media is reporting this story? Absolutely. 

Do I think Caroline's gift for publicity is a big reason the media reporting this story? Absolutely.

Do I question the feminist credentials of the women calling Caroline an attention-seeker? Most definitely.

Feminism is a political movement which seeks to liberate all women. We do NOT blame women for the MVAW they experience, nor do we blame women for how they respond to that violence. If you self-define as a feminist and are calling Caroline an "attention-seeker", you need to review your definition of feminism. If your "feminist activism" consists solely of judging and insulting other women online, you need to review your definition of feminism.

I will not name names but this anti-feminist behaviour needs to stop. We need to support women who are victims of MVAW. 

I don't expect much self-reflection from the men who are minimising and erasing the MVAW experienced by Caroline. I do expect better of women who call themselves feminists. 


Glosswitch has written an absolutely brilliant piece for the Everyday Victim Blaming project on this the victim-blaming of Caroline Criado-Perez. It is a must read.

Read More

Feminists are actually human shocker

You'd think this was only directed a the arsewipes at a Voice for Men and the rape apologists hanging out at the ironically named Good Men Project but it seems a number of actual self-defining feminists are struggling with this too. 

So, here's the point:

Feminists make mistakes too. We are human and we make mistakes. 

Holding the entire feminist movement accountable for a mistake one feminist made ten years ago is deeply stupid.

Holding all [insert feminist category of choice here] responsible for a mistake one person made six months ago is stupid. 

Trashing one feminist for making a mistake once is stupid. 

Feminism is a movement and one in which we are all learning. 

We will make mistakes. We will change our minds. We will be as imperfect as every other human on the planet. 

If all you do is whine about what other women are doing and saying, then you really need to reassess your feminist principles.

We need to call each other out on racism, homophobia, lesbophobia, disblism, classism etc. One mistake should be forgiven as part of a learning process. 

A pattern of abusive behaviour should not be forgiven. 

So, for all the so-called feminists out there whining about activism of The Women's Room UK and Caroline Criado Perez, stop being so freaking self-centred and try supporting your sisters instead of wasting all your time trashing them.

And, the trashing goes for middle class white journalism too. We should all have access to education and decent employment. Let's campaign for that instead of whining about some women being more privileged than others.

The endgoal of feminism is to liberate all women, not reduce us to the lowest common denominator. Frankly, that's just offensive.

Read More

Why I want Boudicca on the £10 #banknote.

Well, to be completely honest, I've never actually had an opinion on who should be on the #banknotes since I have never actually noticed who was on them. But, that's the beauty of feminism: we aren't the Borg. Feminism is full of brilliant and inspiring women who question everything. We need campaigns like #banknotes and Everyday Victim Blaming and the Name Equality Campaign as much as we need Rape Crisis, Women's Aid and Women Under Siege. 

So, why my nitpicking over which woman gets to be on the £10 note?

I'm a huge Jane Austen fan and until last night I was perfectly happy with Austen. She's a brilliant writer: funny and snarky. She also published under her own name, which remains pretty fabulous. I only changed my mind after seeing the sheer amount of misogynistic abuse and one rape threat that feminist campaigner Caroline Criado Perez received for her campaign to ensure that a woman remained on English banknotes.

I want Boudicca to serve as a symbol of what happens to women when they question the Patriarchy: Boudicca was flogged and her daughters raped for questioning the right of the Roman Empire, an emblem of male violence and patriarchal control. 

Jane Austen remains one of my favourite authors but I want Boudicca to serve as a Fuck You to all the men who insulted and threatened Caroline yesterday. I want Boudicca to serve as a reminder to all the men who stood up for Caroline that this isn't a one-off. Male violence, and the threat thereof, is constant. 

We all need a reminder of what is at stake for women who question the Patriarchy.

Read More

We will not succeed by silencing dissent.

I have been contemplating whether or not to publish this post since the incident described below happened. I have erred on the side of not publishing hoping that things will change but they haven't. If anything, things are getting worse.

I was reminded of the incident in an email conversation with Jane Fae where I mentioned how distressing I found the situation and then said: We will not succeed by silencing dissent. Jane quoted me in a blog she wrote for the F-Word UK which is what led me to decide to publish this piece. The below post has actually nothing to do with our email conversation or her F-Word blog but it has been preying on my mind and I need to make me feelings clear on this issue. 

I also think it's important to write about this following my Twitter #FeministLoveIn post yesterday. I firmly believe we need to celebrate online feminism and the incredibly inspiring women who fight the fight against misogyny online. I don't agree with every opinion held by the women I mentioned but that is the point. We can be feminists and focus on different issues without trashing one another's activism. We can disagree without resorting to personal insults and attacks. Feminism isn't one movement. And no one has the right to decide whether or not another person can label themselves a feminist. Discussion is an essential part of feminist activism. Silencing those we disagree with us is just the Patriarchy using women to police women. 

As feminists, we need to acknowledge our differences and celebrate our activism. We will not succeed by silencing dissent.

I have redacted all names from the post below and I will delete any comments which name the women involved.

Several months ago, a teenage feminist tweeted out a question from a webchat. She did not use quotation marks but that is hardly relevant. A teenage girl just tweeted out a question about feminism and language. This teenage girl, who is little more than a child herself, was attacked for asking a question that was deemed unacceptable by adult feminists. 

A teenage girl was verbally abused and harassed into apologising for asking a question by a group of adult women who call themselves feminists. 

When did feminism get to the point that asking questions was considered anti-feminist?

When did feminism get to the point that a child cannot ask a question?

When did feminism get to the point that a child asking a question was considered worthy of verbal abuse?

Verbal abuse is just that: abuse.

It is bullying.

It is completely unacceptable behaviour, especially when the victim is a child.


Feminism will not succeed by silencing dissent.

And, feminism certainly won't succeed when adult women think they have the right to verbally abuse a child for committing the crime of asking a question.

My feminism does not punish children for asking questions. It does not punish other women for asking questions. I'm struggling to understand how any woman who treats a child in such an abusive can label themselves a feminist. It is certainly not part of any feminist movement I want to be part of. Basic kindness and respect should be the basis of feminist interactions with other feminists. Trashing a campaign for the sake of it (as seen in the aftermath of the #Banknotes win for The Women's Room UK) aren't feminism.

My feminism is about supporting women and liberating women from male violence. Harassing and verbally abusing those we disagree with isn't feminism. It is women replicating the abuse perpetuated by the Patriarchy. Whilst I will continue to celebrate the activism and wins of women whose goals I am not support, I will not be silent when feminists use abusive behaviour to silence other women.

Read More

Femen : This isn't Feminism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

​Don't let the Bank of England buy their way out of justice! Help spread the word!

Below is a letter written by Caroline Criado-Perez of The Woman's Room UK asking for financial support in challenging the Bank of England's decision to remove the only woman from our bank notes to replace her with yet another man [and, yes, we know the Queen is on the bill. If you don't understand why the Queen doesn't count, well, there's not much I can do to help you filter through the patriarchal bullshit].

WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME! Please copy and paste this letter and send it to all your friends and colleagues; if you are at university as a student or academic, please ask your Woman's Officer to send it round. We need to spread the word as far, wide and fast as possible if we are going to stop the Bank of England evading justice! 

Feel free to adapt it if you think it can be shorter - it is written with people who haven't heard of the campaign before in mind.

Suggested Subject: Please read this in full: it's important to me.

OR: ​Don't let the Bank of England buy their way out of justice! Help spread the word!

Dear [xxxxx]

I am getting in touch to ask for your help. Nearly two months ago, the Bank of England announced a new figure for our paper currency. That person was Churchill. What they did not mention in the long speeches they made at the time about the 'gilded list' that he was joining and the 'uniquely privileged position' they were in to be able to 'promote our shared cultural heritage', was that Churchill would be replacing the only female historical figure on our banknotes. This means that our banknotes will exclusively feature white men.

This matters. It matters because we still live in a culture where women's achievements are routinely undermined and erased - you only need to look at the paltry representation of women in our new history curriculum to see this in action. It matters because a growing and compelling field of research on role models shows how much impact they have on young women - including a negative impact where they are absent. And it matters because, as the Bank of England themselves say, the choice of figures on our banknotes promotes a shared cultural heritage - and what does it say about us as a country if we see that heritage as exclusively white and male?

This is why it matters - and this is what I am doing about it. To date, more than 28000 people have signed a petition, asking the Bank of England to reverse their decision to remove the only woman on our banknotes and replace her with yet another man. In response, the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King informed us that 'with respect', the Queen is on the notes, thereby completely evading the conversation we are having about merit rather than inherited privilege, and also demonstrating that, far from respecting the 28000 people who had signed the petition, he had not even read it, since the issue of the Queen is addressed there.

In a more concerning move, he also said that he was 'sure' that all people 'would' have been treated equally, despite the fact that at this point, the Bank of England had already been sent a legal letter arguing that they were in breach of the 2010 Equality Act, which is not satisfied with conditionals such as 'sure' and 'would'; on the contrary, it requires Mervyn King himself to know that he has paid due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality. In line with King's own comment, the Bank's formal response also demonstrated a lack of understanding of their duty under the Equality Act. They claimed that the duty is not engaged, but also claimed that they had complied with it; considering the positive action required under the Act it is arguable that it is possible to fulfil the duties of the Act while at the same time thinking they are not engaged. They also refused to provide any documentation regarding the decision-making process,  calling it a 'fishing expedition' - this despite the fact that the Equality Act explicitly refers to the decision-making process, meaning that evidence of how a decision was taken is paramount to demonstrating compliance. Finally, they completely changed their tone about the the significance of the people on banknotes - no longer a 'gilded list', it was an irrelevance which 'prominent dead person' replaced another.

I do not want to take the Bank of England to court. I simply want them to recognise their duties under the Equality Act - indeed a very easy way out is open to them, since Darwin is in fact an older note than Fry and therefore is due a change anyway. However, the Bank is not taking this option. Instead they are throwing all the public funds they have at their disposal into defending the decision not to have a single woman on our banknotes; their solicitors are as expensive as they come. This is without doubt a David and Goliath situation, but I do not believe that the Bank should be able to buy their way out of justice. There is no doubt that the Bank is big, powerful and rich. But what we lack in funds, we make up for in strength of numbers. We only need 671 people to donate £10 to reach our target - but time is running out. We only have until the 24th of June to make our target amount. Please help us get there: forward this email on to all your friends; tweet about the petition; share it on facebook; and please donate whatever you can to help us see justice done.

I believe we can get there, but it requires us all to pull together and stand firm against inequality and injustice. This may be a small thing, but small things add up to a toxic culture in which women are routinely discriminated against. Let's not let the small things slide.

Thank you so much for your support.

Read More

TWR & The Feminists can campaign about more than One Thing at a time Shocker

I am so bored of the concerted attacks on The Women's Room UK and the obsession of supposed 'feminists' with denigrating one form of feminist activism as not important enough. 

The women behind The Women's Room UK aren't fucking stupid. They know their campaign to increase women's visibility in the media by destroying cultural femicide isn't the only form of feminist activism.

They know that there are literally millions of other feminist campaigns which have nothing to do with cultural femicide.

They know that having women on banknotes for their accomplishments rather than an accident of birth is a small step towards patriarchal destruction.

They also know that small steps are as important as the big steps.

How about we stop wasting time having tantrums on twitter about one campaign and actually start focussing on destroying the patriarchy?


The campaign to keep women on English banknotes for their accomplishments rather than an accident of birth is here.

Read More

JumpMag: For Real Girls [which means all girls]

JumpMag is a brilliant piece of online feminist activism. It's a magazine aimed at preteen girls whose motto [coined by one of the girls] is Fluff free and Bieberless. It makes me smile every time I see it. The founder and editor, Lynn Schrieber, who is an utterly fabulous feminist, started JumpMag as a way to fight the ever increasing number of pink and sparkly magazines which were basically one giant advertisement.* JumpMag is just one of the myriad of ways feminists are reclaiming the internet and making it a safe space for our daughters.

It is an utterly fabulous feminist project.

There are lots of posts written by adults covering every topic imaginable but, to be honest, those aren't the best pieces on the site [and I say that as a contributor]. The best part of JumpMag is the section written by girls themselves. There are short stories, personal stories of feminist activism, book reviews and poems. The posts written by young girls are amazing. So many talented and brilliant young girls sharing just inspiring and powerful pieces of writing.** 

I'm at RadFem2013 this weekend sharing a space with an incredible number of brilliant, beautiful, brave and inspiring women. We're getting together to discuss, debate and share.  JumpMag offers that space to preteen girls. It doesn't matter how individual women label their personal feminism, there is nothing more important than sisterhood and solidarity. JumpMag offers this to preteen girls. 

JumpMag is run entirely by Lynn and takes in no advertising revenue. All contributors are volunteers. It's my kind of anti-capitalist, pro-sisterhood feminism.***

*Okay, it's entirely possible this post constitutes a paid advertisement since Lynn is a friend and she bought me coffee once but this is me not actually caring about impartiality. 

** Technically, my daughter wrote one of the pieces but I'm totally impartial about this bit.

*** I suspect Lynn is rolling her eyes at me here!

Read More

Silent Sunday Round-Up

If we checked and apologised for every privilege the world would be a dull monolith but ... at Flying on the Rainbow

It's Not All About You by Karen Ingala Smith

Extremism: Race, Religion, Gender and Power by Karen Ingala Smith

The Debate: Check Your Privilege, Louise Mensch at Black Feminists

On the EDL, Facebook and White Privilege at Deeva's Corner

Here's Some Reality For Ya at It's Not a Zero Sum Game

Ladies First at You are a splendid butterfly

It's heresy I know. But not all men are actually rapists at Left Eye, Right Eye

If it looks like a duck and it quacks at HerbsandHags

Myths about Single Mothers and What pundits are Getting Wrong About Them at Feimineach

This is what happens when you ban male press from a female rockfest in Afghanistan at Gender Report

Straight Allies, White Racists, Male Feminists (and Other Labels That Mean Nothing to Me) at Spectra Speaks

Marilyn Frye and the Politics of Reality: Oppression at Feminist Theory Reading Group

Womanism/ Black Feminism and Race in Feminist Discourse at Gradient Lair

Radical Beyond Pronouns: On Gender Zombies, DGR and Feminism at Abolish Masculinity

A Preemptive Strike at One Woman's Thoughts

Read More

Louise Mensch is a Nincompoop: where I ignore my rules about Feminism

Technically, this blogpost will violate all of my personal rules on feminism and not participating in attacking women for being women. I don't want to do this but I'm not entirely sure how to write about Louise Mensch without declaring her a nincompoop. Twice this week, Mensch has come out with statements which demonstrate both an incredible lack of awareness of reality and a complete refusal to even attempt to understand privilege or intersectionality.

The first statement this week basically implied that most people who are depressed just need to exercise more. Now, there is some correlation between exercise and dealing with depression but to suggest that most depressed people just need to exercise more is just offensive. It ignores the realities of depression and mental illness. I could honestly rant about this for hours but, fundamentally, Mensch's comment is further demonstration of her complete disconnect from the lives of most women. 

Mensch's second foray into nincompoopery this week was another blogpost on intersectionality which, unfortunately, was cross-posted in the Guardian. It is yet another whiny piece about how intersectionality is a big scary word that is too difficult to understand. I am so bored of these blogposts. Intersectionality isn't difficult. Most small children understand multiple oppressions. They may not have the language skills to articulate it but your average primary aged child can figure it out for themselves. Why middle class white feminists seem to be stuck on this "it's too difficult" record is beyond me. Yes some feminists may not have come across it before but 2 minutes on google would make it fairly clear what it was.

Intersectionality and "check your privilege" have both been used as silencing tactics but that doesn't make them irrelevant. It just means that a group of aggressive whiners have deliberately misunderstood the terms in order to find more things to tantrum about. Personally, I've taken to ignoring them. Why waste your time on women trying to silence other women? I wasn't going to reply to Mensch's article because I do think she's an attention-seeking troll and we should be ignoring her rather indulging her self-important dramatics had she not referenced Laurie Penny's tweet about Ron Liddle's racism. 

Laurie Penny tweeted out the phrase "don't feed the trolls" in reference to Ron Liddle's deeply offensive Spectator piece this week. I retweeted it because I agreed with her. Comedian Ava Vidal tweeted Penny to point out that a white woman telling WOC to ignore racism was a silencing tactic. Like Penny, this had not occurred to me. I do believe that feeding trolls is wrong but to not call out racism is equally wrong. We need to work harder at not feeding trolls whilst simultaneously calling out racism, misogyny, disablism, classism etc. There is a balance. I've not figured it out yet but I'm trying. 

I disagree with Penny on lots of issues but one thing Penny does is apologise.  For that, she's one of my favourite feminists. There seems to be this theory that women apologising is a sign of weakness to be avoided at all costs. Being wrong isn't a bad thing. Being wrong doesn't make you a bad feminist. It means you made a mistake or simply didn't see your privilege. Apologising is a feminist action. We need more feminists like Penny who are willing to step up publicly and admit they were wrong. 

According to Mensch, Penny's apology was a sign of weakness; a desperate attempt to be one of the 'cool kids'.  When did we get to a point where apologising was wrong? Surely, a fundamental tenant of feminism is that we are all learning from one another and will, inevitably, make mistakes? Mistakes are a part of the learning process; as is apologising. 

According to Mensch, feminists are spending too much time discussion oppression and, as such, are making male feminists sad. :( Here's a handy tip about "male feminists": if they stop listening to women because they are bored, they aren't actually feminists. I know that sounds difficult, like intersectionality, but the whole point of feminism is that we listen and learn from one another. If men don't like it, well, that's just male privilege for you; just as white, wealthy women ignoring the opinions of WOC is white privilege. 

I could spend more time explaining privilege and intersectionality but Mensch isn't going to listen. She's far too busy being smug and rich and white and arrogant. 

These are some of the excellent responses to Mensch's Guardian article:

The Debate: Check Your Privilege, Louise Mensch at Black Feminists

Intersectionality - Round V at Black Feminists

Intersectionality for Dummies at Black Feminists

Here's Some Reality For Ya at It's Not a Zero Sum Game

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants by Renie D Lodge

Louise Mensch - Take A Lesson on Privilege from the Internet by Laurie Penny

Being a Mentalist at Put Up with rain

If we checked and apologised for every privilege the world would be a dull monolith but ... at Flying on the Rainbow

Straight Allies, White Anti-Racists, Male Feminists (and Other Labels That Mean Nothing to me) at Spectra Speaks

Read More

Silent Sunday: More Inspiring Blogs by Women

This is my weekly round-up of inspiring and thought-provoking blogs written by women; as ever, I have been unable to limit to myself to 10 blogs. 

Infertility, Patriarchy, Profit and Me: Or, Kerching : Infertility, Woman-blaming, woman-shaming and woman-controlling by K. Ingala Smith

How to be Hostile for Men and Women by HerbsandHags

Sex Education, Young People and Talking about Porn at SianandCrookedRib

He sits in the Ivory Tower at One Woman's Thoughts

The Contradictions of Being a Woman at One Woman's Thoughts

Domestication at The Arctic Feminist

A letter to my Dad: Another Good Father by Portia Smart

Demanding Flattery is an Oppressors Tool at GradientLair

No Words For It by Rebecca Mott

Don't Read the Comments: Why The Hell Shouldn't I? at Week Woman

Pre-Pregant Women: Now with added iodine at Glosswatch

To Our Sisters, Morehouse at Feminist Wire

Postfeminism at Feminist Current

A Guide To Supporting Rape Survivors by LucyBottomFace

Pulling Wool Over Our Eyes by The Farm at the Back of Beyond

We've all read this but I can't not include it: An Open Letter to Facebook by Soraya Chemaly,  Jaclyn Friedman and Laura Bates

Read More

Apparently, the Queen is on our bank notes! I genuinely did not know that ...

and I would personally like to thank everyman, from Mervyn King, down for pointing that out to me. After all, my vagina makes it impossible for me to turn over the bank note to see the other side.

For those owners of vaginas out there who were totally smart enough to have worked out that the Queen is a) female and b) on banknotes, there is a petition here demanding that the Bank of England keep a woman on English banknotes. 

Do check out Caroline Criado-Perez's response to Mervyn King's pansplainin'. It made me snigger, as did Caroline's storify of every nincompoop who tweeted her to make the same stupid statement. Nothing makes me weep for the fate of humanity than a bunch of men pointing out the blatantly obvious and then getting all confused when we don't give them cookies and blowjobs for not being stupid.

Read More

Silent Sunday XIII: Brilliant Blog Round-Up

Eating Disorders, Me and Feminism at ZedCat

Dormant at Rebecca Mott

Broken Doll at Rebecca Mott

Links on Privilege, Intersectionality and Twitter at Feimineach

Interracial Relationships for a post-race my future, my ass at Life and Lima Beans

The Most Deranged Sorority Girl Email You Will Ever Read at Femimineach

A Human being Human in Public Gets Hated For It at Exiled Stardust

Building Bridges by Anne Lawrence

On Sex as Affection and Validation by GoddessDeeva

A Note to Some Feminist Black Men - Though bell hooks is Exquisite, There's 

More to Black Feminism Than bell hooks at Gradient Lair

The Dangerous Tales of the MREs and Their Allies at Sisterhood is Powerful

Read More

Cultural Femicide on a Sunday Morning

Sunday’s TV guide: 66 males and 18 females are named.

Reblogged from Tricialo

On Sunday after a morning lie-in I wandered downstairs, grabbed a cuppa and idly flicked through the channels on my TV. On every screen I flicked through, out of around 20 ‘favourites, there were only male faces, not one single woman or girl’s face showed up. It was all men talking to men, men talking about men, male actors acting out male dominated drama; there was Eddie, Nick, James, Jeremy, Simon, Frasier, Tony and on and on, on every channel. I went through them all again just to make sure; even the children’s channels were boy dominated. Some women showed up as I watched a little longer, but they weren’t onscreen when I’d first flicked through and in general women were either minor characters or absent. It wasn’t until around 10.30 that a woman fronted show turned up; something about food, with Lynda Bellingham.

People can come up with as many reasons as they like for explaining this, but I’d bet my life that no-one has ever yet flicked through all the channels on offer and seen only women’s faces. The words cultural femicide came into my head. Cultural Femicide is a term which was originally coined, (as far as I know), by Bidisha, to mean ‘the erasure of women in public life’.  This absence of women in mainstream culture, on our TV screens and radio, in theatres, movies, libraries and art galleries is hard to credit. It amazes me how little some people even seem to notice it, never mind care. The Women’s Room is one website set up to challenge this gendered cultural hegemony and provide a voice for women in media, yet even those few female voices we do hear tend to be the type that seeks male approval.

Back to Sunday; my five year old daughter was in the room with me and I considered the effect it might be having on her to repeatedly see men showing up as experts and authorities. I don’t let her have a lot of screen time, but as she grows older and wiser it’s increasingly difficult to monitor her intake and I’m not sure that it’s desirable to keep her in a protected bubble anyway. She asked me if she could have some screen time, but was bored by the boy dominated shows on offer. She seen the words Angelina Ballerina on the screen; a show we’d just missed, she’d recently seen an Angelina Ballerina book at a friend’s house and was curious about it so asked me to make sure that she could watch it when it was next on. We watched an episode together, on my laptop. As the theme tune began, my daughter commented, ‘It’s so pink. Why is everything always so pink?” The episode we watched concerned four mice, two ‘girl’ mice, (wearing pretty dresses), and two boy mice. It’s the only episode I’ve ever watched, (and ever hope to), and it actually centred on a ‘boy’ mouse called AJ. It was AJ’s birthday and the other mice were planning a surprise party for him. So, in what I imagined would be a show that was, if not ideal, at least girl centred, I watched as the two girls planned how to make a boy happy. As it ended I asked my daughter if she’d liked it. She answered that she would have liked it better if it had been about Angelina.

Later on I let my daughter watch a film; part of the Studio Ghibli series currently showing on Film Four. Studio Ghibli is a Japanese company, generally seen as being much more girl friendly than US studios such as Disney, and it’s played an important part in my daughter’s movie intake to date. There are some great Ghibli films, but as a canon it’s far from perfect, and yesterday, yet again, we watched as the girl in the story became a princess, a prospective bride and had to be rescued by male characters. The film was ‘The Cat Returns,’ in which a girl, Haru, rescues a cat from a near death collision with a lorry. Unfortunately the cat is a prince and Haru is now expected to become his cat princess. She is rescued by a team of male helpers; the heroic Baron, another male cat and a male raven. There is one female cat who tries to help her; Haru’s first comment upon meeting her is about how beautiful she is; a white cat with long eyelashes and a pink bow, not stereotyped at all then. The few other females in the movie are unsympathetic characters, such as the two cat maidservants who help Haru to dress and tell her how lucky she is because all the girl cats have crushes on the prince. Early on in the film, a delegation from the Land of Cats marches past Haru’s window and stops to talk with her. At this point my daughter piped up; “Are all of those cats boys?” Well spotted little one, best get used to it.

Read More