Spot the Difference?
Spot Facebook's Hypocrisy?
Facebook is also deleting these images:
But, leaves up groups advocating extreme sexual violence.
We need a new Feminist social media.
Now.
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Sunday, 18 November 2012
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Dear Pussy Riot Supporters,
Increasingly, I have become concerned about your inability to see the woods for the trees. Your desperate attempts at out-cooling each other as the Great Defenders of Free Speech seem to have come at the cost of your critical thinking skills. Frankly, I'm still disturbed by the articles which seemed to suggest that the only people who shouldn't be deported to the Gulag are the women of Pussy Riot because they might be raped or killed. I know you can't really mean that. No one deserves to be raped or killed because they committed a crime and, let's be honest, Pussy Riot aren't the only Russian citizens being deported for questioning the state. I have no idea what the statistics are for convictions and deportation but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Pussy Riot aren't the only political prisoners. So why are they important and others not? Why is it important they not be raped or killed in prison?
This case is manifestly not about "free speech" or the right to protest. What this case has demonstrated, time and time again, is that we, as a society, are essentially a bunch of hypocrites. The 'Western' support of Pussy Riot is not because we are the great defenders of Free Speech. Anyone who believes that is, frankly, completely deluded. Pussy Riot has not garnered support because they are feminists who are critical of the power of the state and church. In fact, their feminism, which is actually a fairly patriarchy-approved brand of feminism, has been written out of much of the media coverage. They have gotten support because they are young women dancing in public. They have been supported because they don't really challenge the status quo; although they do wear all their clothes which puts them ahead of Femen's soft porn protests. If Pussy Riot were challenging the Patriarchy in any way, they would have been slaughtered in the Western Press. They certainly wouldn't have Madonna, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and half of Hollywood lining up to support them. Personally, I think a lot of their support is because of their name. It appeals to the juvenile; those who haven't progressed emotionally from being 5 and yelling penis in the playground. And, yeah, I sniggered the first time I heard a right-wing journalist say 'pussy' on air but that's not a good enough reason to support Pussy Riot at the expense of others.
The UK has recently banned protest outside of Parliament. If there is any physical space in the UK where the right to protest should be paramount, it's outside of Parliament. Yet, we let the government deny us this right with very little complaint. Trenton Oldfield was sentenced to 6 months in prison for jumping in water to disrupt a boat race. His crime: prejudice against prejudice. You literally couldn't make it up. As Nina Power writes: "The message is blunt: if it's on TV and aristocrats are involved, then the state can deprive you of your liberty for as long as it likes." The correlations between Oldfield's conviction and that of Pussy Riot are pretty clear, yet I doubt there will be any protests to have Oldfield's sentence over-turned. Certainly, there was very little campaigning about the ridiculously harsh sentences given out in light of last years riots with people being sentenced for 6 months for, basically, shoplifting. If we incarcerated every shoplifter in the UK, prisons would be overflowing. We'd have to move all prisons to the Outer Hebrides and let them fend for themselves since no country can afford to imprison that many people.
I think the Pussy Riot case matters. I think it matters a lot. These women do not deserve to be arrested or imprisoned for what was a political protest. Political protest against the government should be a fundamental human right but let's not be hypocritical here. The right to political protest really exists nowhere. There are limits everywhere on the right to protest and Russia isn't the only country guilty for imprisoning people for political reasons. Pussy Riot aren't the only activists whose voices are being silenced by repressive regimes. Oldfield isn't the only protestor being silenced in "democracies". You only need to look at the 3 activists currently imprisoned in the US for refusing to testify in a grand jury case. Maya Evans was incarcerated in the UK for having the gall to read aloud the names of British soldiers who died in Iraq across from the Cenotaph in Whitehall. That garnered very little support. There has been very little media coverage of the attempted silencing of Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho by drug cartels. In Cacho's case, I suspect the almost total lack of media coverage has something to do with the fact that she deliberately targets the Patriarchy in her research into sex trafficking. Yolanda Ordaz De la Cruz was murdered because of her activism as a journalist. The murder of journlaist Anna Politkovskaya was covered by the media but she had no celebrity endorsements about her right to free speech [or the right to life for that matter].
I'm not saying we shouldn't be protesting or standing up for Pussy Riot. I'm saying we don't get to choose whose "free speech" we defend based on their relative attractiveness or the fact that their name inspires giggles. If we are defending the right to protest all political structures, then we damn well had better be defending everyones and not just a group of young girls in Russia. We also need to ensure that our defence of "free speech" does not happen at the expense of harming vulnerable members of our society. The use of free speech to defend pornography and prostitution is basically the acceptance of state-sponsored rape. It's the Patriarchy defending itself.
And, all those celebrities lining up to support Pussy Riot, how about you put your money where your mouth is and pay their legal representation. How about you pay for the childcare of their children required whilst their mothers are in prison? How about you financially support the grassroots activists in Russia fighting to end the Gulag system? Why aren't you financially supporting Sara Kruzan who was imprisoned for life as a teenager for killing the man who raped and trafficked her?
SGM
Some articles which need to be read:*
Why the Pussy Riot case still matters.
CeCe McDonald vs. Pussy Riot: Political Imprisonment and Perspective
Q&A: Pussy Riot's Yekaterina Samutsevich on Their Fight for Freedom
Pussy Riot's Act of Faith
From Pussy Riot to Todd Akin: The Claiming—and Silencing—of Language and Speech
What is Vladimir Putin up too?
Putin has blood on his hands
What Pussy Riot taught the world
Riot Grrl, Pussy Riot, and the Heartbreak of Seeing Feminism Attacked in Russia
Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and Western Hypocrisy
What Pussy Riot taught the world
Riot Grrl, Pussy Riot, and the Heartbreak of Seeing Feminism Attacked in Russia
Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and Western Hypocrisy
* I do not agree with the analysis in all of these articles. I have included them specifically because I disagree with them.
Monday, 15 October 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Mea Culpa here, I haven't actually read the article that India Knight is currently being vilified for. It's behind The Times pay wall and I refuse to financially support them. All I have seen of the article is quoted here on Glosswatch's blog. The first paragraph is, well, at best, questionable. Without reading the rest of the article, I can't really comment on how it ends. What I can see is, that like Moran, Knight's response to criticism on Twitter was really quite dumb. I think they both deserve criticism for their comments. Please note that I say criticism; not full on personal attacks or threats or orchestrated attacks by people who should know better.
Thing is, I think a lot of the more vitriolic responses that Knight and Moran received are because of misogyny. I'm not trying to excuse them because they both dealt very badly with their respective situations. But, let's be honest here, part of the reason they are getting such a kicking is because they have vaginas. After all, Brendan O'Neill called all child victims of rape, who did not report until after the death of their rapists, cowards.
He blamed traumatised children for being too scared to tell the truth.
He blamed children when the adults around them knew they were being raped and did nothing.
Yes, Knight and Moran need to be critiqued. Their privilege-denying tweets were utterly ridiculous. But, we need to be holding male journalists accountable for the same shoddy journalism and total lack of self-awareness.
After all, I don't see the Guardian running a response to the shit O'Neill wrote in the Huffington Post.
Or, anyone calling for massive Twitter campaigns of harassment against O'Neill.*
*Not that I want to see someone do so. Massive public humiliation, threats of violence and intimidation and general insults are playground silencing techniques. It is possible to point out just how stupid and lacking in empathy O'Neill's article was without making snide comments about his appearance.**
** Some might want to take a few minutes to review proper Kindergarten etiquette.
Thing is, I think a lot of the more vitriolic responses that Knight and Moran received are because of misogyny. I'm not trying to excuse them because they both dealt very badly with their respective situations. But, let's be honest here, part of the reason they are getting such a kicking is because they have vaginas. After all, Brendan O'Neill called all child victims of rape, who did not report until after the death of their rapists, cowards.
He blamed traumatised children for being too scared to tell the truth.
He blamed children when the adults around them knew they were being raped and did nothing.
Yes, Knight and Moran need to be critiqued. Their privilege-denying tweets were utterly ridiculous. But, we need to be holding male journalists accountable for the same shoddy journalism and total lack of self-awareness.
After all, I don't see the Guardian running a response to the shit O'Neill wrote in the Huffington Post.
Or, anyone calling for massive Twitter campaigns of harassment against O'Neill.*
*Not that I want to see someone do so. Massive public humiliation, threats of violence and intimidation and general insults are playground silencing techniques. It is possible to point out just how stupid and lacking in empathy O'Neill's article was without making snide comments about his appearance.**
** Some might want to take a few minutes to review proper Kindergarten etiquette.
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
I'm not a supporter of Slutwalk in general as I have already outlined here. I don't think its possible to reclaim a word that the Patriarchy uses to oppress us. Despite my reservations, I am, however, supportive of the number of women who have stood up to be counted in the War on Women. I hope to see these women at Reclaim the Night and Million Women Rise. We can destroy the Patriarchy from within fighting simultaneously on various fronts but we can't win the war when the very women supposedly standing up to defend women are supporting the silencing of rape victims who had the misfortune to be raped by left-wing men.
I was disappointed to read of @SlutwalkLondon's tweet from yesterday via Stavvers. Their statement of support for Women Against Rape's perplexing stand on the Assange rape case is full of fallacious statements, complete misunderstandings of the Swedish justice system and some seriously problematic rape myths:
We support Women Against Rape. We think Assange should be prosecuted, just that he should not be extradited to Sweden because it is likely he will then be extradited to the US and treated the same as Bradley Manning. We are not saying the women lied or that they should not get justice. But we think he should stand trial here. It is pretty clear the authorities are not pursuing Assange because of the rape allegations. Look at how the authorities treat rape victims - they don't give a damn. 93 out of every 100 reported rapists go free. Also, look at how the UK acted when Spain requested that Pinochet be extradited. Pinochet (a Chilean dictator) was responsible for the death, rape and torture of thousands of people, crimes far greater than Assange's. But the UK government denied Spain's extradition request and let Pinochet go free - because they didn't care about the people who died because of Pinochet just as they do not care about these women. The pursuit of Assange is not about protecting rape victims or anyone else. They want him to be extradited to the US to face trial and be imprisoned there so he can't expose what the US government does anymore. We can't let this happen because the things Wikileaks exposed will help stop wars and the rape and murder they bring happen in future. Let him stand trial here.I can't even begin to comprehend how they think Assange could be tried in Britain for a crime committed in Sweden or the naivety that Wikileaks has in anyway helped stopped wars. Assange himself has been fairly instrumental in outing sources who've then disappeared so how he gets to be the Defender of Democracy boggles my mind. Yes, the authorities don't seem to give a shit about rape and the British government's refusal to extradite Pinochet was wrong [I don't care how ill he was. He should have stood trial and then we could discuss sentencing for elderly, ill men. But, not before they get convicted for their crimes.] The whole Bradley Manning bit is utter bollocks. Manning was a serving member of the military when arrested. He has been charged under military law; not criminal law. The treatment Manning is receiving is despicable and I think its fairly note-worthy that the same Dudes running about supporting Pussy Riot's free speech haven't been half as vocal on the issue of Manning. Even if Sweden deported Assange, he would be tried under civilian criminal law and, really, the chances of Sweden deporting Assange are so much less likely than the UK who have form for deporting British citizens to the US.
How the fuck whoever tweeted this garbage thinks the two women will get justice whilst supposed feminists are running about claiming Assange is too important to go stand trial for rape is beyond me. The umbrella organisation Slutwalk Britain have already denounced this tweet but the damage has already been done. Rich, white guy can't possibly be a rapist because he's anti-government. This is precisely the language that the Occupy movement used when excusing the rapists preying on women in their camps across the world.
UPDATE: Anastasia Richardson has apologised for the statements she made using the official Slutwalk London Twitter account:
The recent views expressed regarding the extradition of Julian Assange were my own rather than those of SlutWalk London. I apologise for using this platform to express these views and hope they do not deter from the purpose of SlutWalk, which is to send the message that there is never any excuse for rape and to demand protection and justice for all rape survivors.
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Because, obviously, there can never be enough left-wing dudes supporting the Patriarchy. Chris Brown is apparently busy this week so Zack Braff has donned his Patriarchal Chain Mail in order to ensure that women understand that we are nothing but liars who like to be sexually harassed. Because, if we weren't told at least twice a day, we might get confused and think we have opinions. Or, even more shockingly, believe we are human. I am so glad Braff took time out of his busy life as a misogynist in order to remind me that, as a woman, I am nothing more than the punchline.
I mean I don't actually expect Braff to not be sexist. I've seen Scrubs. It was a serious pile of misogynistic twaddle dressed up as humour; you know, that excuse that all sexist bucketheads use as a reason for being arseholes. I still have nightmares about the episode where all the characters go off to some beach for a wedding and everyone makes fun of Carla for being "mumsy" and not sexy enough. She was pregnant with a young infant AND had serious post-natal depression but an entire episode was built around her being unfuckable because she wouldn't wear a bikini. But, it all ended okay because Carla put on that bikini to service her man. So, Braff, has always been on my list of misogynistic arseholes.
But, really, does he have to use twitter to reinforce the whole women as liars trope. Since @weekwoman (among others) challenged him last night, Braff has deleted some of the more offensive tweets like:
He did leave up:@zachbraff"Ugh, I hate it when men look at my ass on the Stairmaster"-#WomenLies"
@zachbraff "I just want a nice guy with zero drama." -#WomenLies @zachbraff "We just made out a little, nothing else happened." -#WomenLies
And, yeah, he did join in with the #MenLies hashtag making asinine comments about porn, but, seriously, reinforcing male stereotypes is harmful but it does not have the same toxic support of rape culture that insisting all women are liars does.
Oh, and before someone brings up the issue of "Free Speech", free speech is about the right to criticise governments and political structures without censure or punishment. It is NOT the right to be an offensive jackass just for the sake of it.
Tuesday, 18 September 2012
This rocked up on my FB news feed via the group Feminism! [who are definitely worth following. Just so you get the privilege of seeing this image with your coffee first thing.] I'm not sure what I can say about this that Feminists haven't already said in the comments section but, seriously, what kind of sick fuck buys shit like this? Because, I'm struggling to see how anyone who isn't a sociopath or a rapist would find this funny.
The only possible benefit would be to spot a misogynist at 500 yards but I'd rather go with not triggering victims of sexualised violence at the luggage carousel. Maybe that's just the weird feminist in me: the whole not doing anything to deliberately hurt others thing. But, this, this is why free speech is only the privilege of already privileged men. No one who actually cared about the right to free speech for everyone who defend this shit.
Friday, 14 September 2012
I've said this before and I'm sure I'll be saying it again shortly: Publishing nude photos of someone without their consent is sexualised violence. It doesn't matter if its Prince Harry, Kate Middleton or Paris Hilton. This is an issue of consent not free speech. Freedom of speech is not the right to be a jackass. It is not the right to do something just because you can. We need to stop buying into the discourse that free speech is more important than anything else. Supporting free speech in this manner only serves to perpetuate rape culture.
This is what I wrote when this same discussion came up several weeks ago but with Prince Harry as the object:
This is what I wrote when this same discussion came up several weeks ago but with Prince Harry as the object:
Publishing photos of people either naked or in other sexually compromising positions is sexualised violence. This should apply as equally to bucketheaded princes as it does to vulnerable 17 year olds. And, the media aren't the only ones responsible for perpetuating this sexualised violence. Every time ordinary people google these images, they are buying into and feeding the sexual exploitation industry and helping to increase the number of sexually exploited people. The whole reality television and "celeb" magazines industry need to die. Today. People need to stop financially supporting the sexualised violence of others. This serves only to feed rape culture.
Whilst I think Prince Harry was a victim of sexualised violence, I do think there is something qualitatively different about publishing the photos of Kate Middleton's breasts. We live in a rape culture which objectifies women's bodies as fucktoys. Prince Harry's photos were celebrated as evidence of his cheekiness. Kate Middleton is already been blamed for having the temerity of taking off her shirt in private [and this thread on Mumsnet is disgraceful. Such vicious victim-blaming horseshit]. Publishing nude photos of a woman without their consent just reinforces the very specific gendered vulnerability of women. It just demonstrates how little value women really have in rape culture.
The people who take these images are perpetuating rape culture.
The magazines which publish these photos are perpetuating rape culture.
The people who buy these celebrity magazines are perpetuating rape culture.
The people who google these images are perpetuating rape culture.
The people who think it's part of being a celebrity are perpetuating rape culture.
Kate Middleton married a man. She didn't sign up to be sexually assaulted. Her wedding vows did not include the end to her privacy. The person who took the photo should be prosecuted. The magazine that published the photo should be prosecuted.
As much as I dislike the Royal Family, I hope they sue.
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
I have already written about Naomi Wolf's new book Vagina three times now; despite not actually having read the book. Well, technically, two blogs were about Vagina; the other was about Wolf's utterly hypocritical and perplexing stance on Assange. But, that's not quite the point. Normally, I'd be the first to yell "foul" at a critic who hasn't actually read the book they are critiquing but there are always exceptions to the rules. And, Vagina is one of them. There have been some excellent analyses of the book published recently, notably by Ariel Levy in The New Yorker. Others have veered into unnecessary sexist discourse; there are enough problems with the book that need to be addressed, Wolf's physical appearance isn't one of them.
Of course, Wolf isn't exactly helping herself with her appearance on Mumsnet or with this article in the Guardian [deconstructed by Glosswatch here]. In general, I have serious problems with Wolf's research and I think evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of teleological horseshit pretending to be academic. It's not. It's just bupkis. But, increasingly, I am beginning to feel that Naomi Wolf is the American academic version of Liz Jones: ostensibly the quintessential handmaiden. Like Jones, I think Wolf is being deliberately set up as an object of mockery. The attacks on Wolf as a person, rather than on the book itself, are simply further evidence of woman-blaming culture. Yes, the book itself deserves ridicule for trying to pass off a personal story as science but the fault for that doesn't lie with Wolf alone, although her obvious inability to see outwith her own very narrow definition of truth is quite distressing.
If Vagina were an academic text, it would have been peer-reviewed. Any academic publisher with an ounce of sense would have sent proofs to academics involved in research in the field of neuroscience [and evolutionary psychology but I think they make it up as they go along so I wouldn't have put too much credence into their stance]. The problem is that Vagina isn't an academic text even though Wolf herself is an academic [yes, one without a PhD but that's hardly shocking considering the misogyny which inhabits academia; technically, I could class myself as an academic despite not having a PhD so I'm hardly going to hold that against Wolf]. Vagina wasn't properly peer-reviewed because for the publishers a text by Naomi Wolf isn't valuable for its scholarship so much as for its eccentricity; she is marketable not as a serious female academic but rather as a somewhat out-there celebrity woman. In other words, they knew they would sell more copies of the book by setting her up for ridicule than they would by presenting it as an academic text on emerging research into neuroscience, sex, sexuality and gender. Wolf is known as a celebrity, not as an academic. Her reputation is that of someone eccentric; a little bit off of centre. She is the acceptable face of feminism in the Patriarchy: kooky and apologetic. But, she's also a middle aged woman and middle aged women are supposed to be invisible and frigid simultaneously. We aren't supposed to be talking about our vaginas. Wolf's publishers went for pulp fiction under the disguise of academic research because they knew it would sell and not because they were interested in changing discourse around sexuality and feminism. They published it because it was a middle aged white woman talking about her vagina. Not just any white woman though. A celebrity. They published it because of Wolf's celebrity but also to spite it.
And, this is the problem. Vagina is being given consideration as if it were an academic publication when, in reality, it is within the self-help genre of literature. Alright, I dislike the self-help genre but that's a personal thing. There isn't anything inherently wrong with self-help books unless they perpetuate victim-blaming myths and misogyny; like that ridiculous quote by Eleanor Roosevelt: "no one can make you feel inferiour without your consent". Instead, Vagina is being advertised as blurring the boundaries between self-help and academic books. This isn't to say that academic books are morally superiour. I've read some seriously awful misogynistic and racist shite published by academics. Academia doesn't have the best reputation for supporting research about non-white, non-dead men written by non-white men. Really, in terms of hypocrisy, academic texts are frequently in a class all to themselves. The problem with the blurring in this case is that it has taken something subjective and insisted on objectivity. Most academics understand that objectivity isn't exactly an achievable goal. So, why does Vagina claim it is?
Vagina is only a feminist text in the way that Caitlyn Moran's How To Be A Woman is one. That is to say they were both advertised as feminist texts when they were really memoirs that also discuss feminism. They are books written by celebrities about being celebrities. They occupy that weird position between celebrity and news. But, they aren't feminist texts and, therefore, aren't really worthy of the scrutiny they have been given as feminist texts. It's rather like taking the biography of Victoria Beckham as representative of the experience of all mothers in their 30s.*
The real strength in Moran's book is the discussions it spawned rather than its feminist analysis. Sometimes the conversations spawned are more important than the text which spawned them. I think Vagina is one of those texts because the discussions around women's sexuality, reputation, race, neuroscience and feminist theory have already kicked off. It's just incredibly sad that Naomi Wolf's reputation is being ground into the dust. I think this is where we should have seen real feminist sister solidarity: most women would talk their friends out of publishing such a book without being more aware of the science behind it. A real sister would have counselled against taking a personal experience and universalising it as truth. A real sister would have asked questions about the cult of celebrity and ask why the Patriarchy would publish a book like this to such fanfare.
But, that's the real answer. The Patriarchy wouldn't want a serious book on neuroscience, sex, gender and sexuality published which questioned PIV, pornography and heterosexuality. Because, as white and heteronormative as Wolf is, she has challenged the pornography industry in a way that many other feminists haven't just by dint of her celebrity status.** Whether or not, we manage to change the conversation away from Wolf's yoni and into a more mainstream critique of porn remains to be seen. I may buy the book for that reason alone, although the evo psych/yoni crap will annoy me. There are important discussions to be had about this text, in spite of all its failings. But, we need to get out of the trap of insulting Wolf because of her actual vagina.
*I've got a bit of a soft spot for Ms Beckham. I dislike the hysterical hatred which surrounds her.
** For a better challenge to porn culture see: Gail Dines, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Robert Jensen, Rebecca Whisnant or here.
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-40054362-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
Of course, Wolf isn't exactly helping herself with her appearance on Mumsnet or with this article in the Guardian [deconstructed by Glosswatch here]. In general, I have serious problems with Wolf's research and I think evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of teleological horseshit pretending to be academic. It's not. It's just bupkis. But, increasingly, I am beginning to feel that Naomi Wolf is the American academic version of Liz Jones: ostensibly the quintessential handmaiden. Like Jones, I think Wolf is being deliberately set up as an object of mockery. The attacks on Wolf as a person, rather than on the book itself, are simply further evidence of woman-blaming culture. Yes, the book itself deserves ridicule for trying to pass off a personal story as science but the fault for that doesn't lie with Wolf alone, although her obvious inability to see outwith her own very narrow definition of truth is quite distressing.
If Vagina were an academic text, it would have been peer-reviewed. Any academic publisher with an ounce of sense would have sent proofs to academics involved in research in the field of neuroscience [and evolutionary psychology but I think they make it up as they go along so I wouldn't have put too much credence into their stance]. The problem is that Vagina isn't an academic text even though Wolf herself is an academic [yes, one without a PhD but that's hardly shocking considering the misogyny which inhabits academia; technically, I could class myself as an academic despite not having a PhD so I'm hardly going to hold that against Wolf]. Vagina wasn't properly peer-reviewed because for the publishers a text by Naomi Wolf isn't valuable for its scholarship so much as for its eccentricity; she is marketable not as a serious female academic but rather as a somewhat out-there celebrity woman. In other words, they knew they would sell more copies of the book by setting her up for ridicule than they would by presenting it as an academic text on emerging research into neuroscience, sex, sexuality and gender. Wolf is known as a celebrity, not as an academic. Her reputation is that of someone eccentric; a little bit off of centre. She is the acceptable face of feminism in the Patriarchy: kooky and apologetic. But, she's also a middle aged woman and middle aged women are supposed to be invisible and frigid simultaneously. We aren't supposed to be talking about our vaginas. Wolf's publishers went for pulp fiction under the disguise of academic research because they knew it would sell and not because they were interested in changing discourse around sexuality and feminism. They published it because it was a middle aged white woman talking about her vagina. Not just any white woman though. A celebrity. They published it because of Wolf's celebrity but also to spite it.
And, this is the problem. Vagina is being given consideration as if it were an academic publication when, in reality, it is within the self-help genre of literature. Alright, I dislike the self-help genre but that's a personal thing. There isn't anything inherently wrong with self-help books unless they perpetuate victim-blaming myths and misogyny; like that ridiculous quote by Eleanor Roosevelt: "no one can make you feel inferiour without your consent". Instead, Vagina is being advertised as blurring the boundaries between self-help and academic books. This isn't to say that academic books are morally superiour. I've read some seriously awful misogynistic and racist shite published by academics. Academia doesn't have the best reputation for supporting research about non-white, non-dead men written by non-white men. Really, in terms of hypocrisy, academic texts are frequently in a class all to themselves. The problem with the blurring in this case is that it has taken something subjective and insisted on objectivity. Most academics understand that objectivity isn't exactly an achievable goal. So, why does Vagina claim it is?
Vagina is only a feminist text in the way that Caitlyn Moran's How To Be A Woman is one. That is to say they were both advertised as feminist texts when they were really memoirs that also discuss feminism. They are books written by celebrities about being celebrities. They occupy that weird position between celebrity and news. But, they aren't feminist texts and, therefore, aren't really worthy of the scrutiny they have been given as feminist texts. It's rather like taking the biography of Victoria Beckham as representative of the experience of all mothers in their 30s.*
The real strength in Moran's book is the discussions it spawned rather than its feminist analysis. Sometimes the conversations spawned are more important than the text which spawned them. I think Vagina is one of those texts because the discussions around women's sexuality, reputation, race, neuroscience and feminist theory have already kicked off. It's just incredibly sad that Naomi Wolf's reputation is being ground into the dust. I think this is where we should have seen real feminist sister solidarity: most women would talk their friends out of publishing such a book without being more aware of the science behind it. A real sister would have counselled against taking a personal experience and universalising it as truth. A real sister would have asked questions about the cult of celebrity and ask why the Patriarchy would publish a book like this to such fanfare.
But, that's the real answer. The Patriarchy wouldn't want a serious book on neuroscience, sex, gender and sexuality published which questioned PIV, pornography and heterosexuality. Because, as white and heteronormative as Wolf is, she has challenged the pornography industry in a way that many other feminists haven't just by dint of her celebrity status.** Whether or not, we manage to change the conversation away from Wolf's yoni and into a more mainstream critique of porn remains to be seen. I may buy the book for that reason alone, although the evo psych/yoni crap will annoy me. There are important discussions to be had about this text, in spite of all its failings. But, we need to get out of the trap of insulting Wolf because of her actual vagina.
*I've got a bit of a soft spot for Ms Beckham. I dislike the hysterical hatred which surrounds her.
** For a better challenge to porn culture see: Gail Dines, Melinda Tankard-Reist, Robert Jensen, Rebecca Whisnant or here.
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-40054362-1']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
Tuesday, 28 August 2012
I'm assuming that most people who read my blog have already read most of the blog posts I've collated below. After all, if you're reading my blog you're probably A) a feminist B) pro-choice C) have access to the internet. So, this is more about me not losing the links to these blogs than it is anything else. Unless you haven't read them, it which case you should. Huge triggering warnings though. If you do read, please be safe.
Mother Jones: Men Defining Rape History
Asylum for Assange. But What About the Women?
Sian and Crooked Rib: Thoughts on Sexual Assault and Naming Our Experiences
Feministing: Why Rape Exceptions and Abortion Stereotypes Are Harmful
Jezebel: 10 Things the GOP's Platform Hates About You
Femiste: The Republican Rape Problem
Glosswatch: My Bodily Integrity: It Was Never Yours To Grant
Glosswatch: Feminists! How About Shutting Up in the Name of Free Speech
Penny Red: It's Trigger Warning Week
Salt and Caramel: George Galloway, Assange and Legitimate Rape
New Statesman blog: George Galloway: It Was Only Bad Sexual Technique
Too Much To Say For Myself: Rape is Not
Frothy Dragon: Wikileaks, Assange and The Hero Worship Of A Man Accused of Rape
Too Much to Say For Myself: Assange and Feminism's So-Called Male Allies
On Consent:
Herbs and Hags: What's Wrong with Consent?
It's Mother's Work: When Can I Teach My Children About Consent?
UPDATE: Even More Brilliant Blogs and Media Reports:
Hathor Legacy: What About the Father's Rights?
The Nation: We Have Met Todd Akin and He Is Us
On Consent:
Herbs and Hags: What's Wrong with Consent?
It's Mother's Work: When Can I Teach My Children About Consent?
UPDATE: Even More Brilliant Blogs and Media Reports:
Hathor Legacy: What About the Father's Rights?
The Nation: We Have Met Todd Akin and He Is Us
Who knew there'd actually be a day when I'd have to thank Jeremy Clarkson for anything? He is a misogynistic arsewipe of epic proportions whose "opinions" are merely abusive and arrogant twaddle. Why he's given a public platform for anything is beyond me. Nor do I get the obsession with cars in general. Yes, they are useful for travelling with small children and assorted paraphernalia, moving furniture and lugging groceries. Other than that, they are pretty much environmentally destructive and, frequently, unnecessary status symbols; especially the penis replacement versions favoured by Clarkson.
But, Clarkson has proved useful in one area. He's just withdrawn an injunction he took out against a former spouse preventing her from publishing statements about their marriage. Now, this is the self-aggrandising shite with which Clarkson came out as a "defence" for withdrawing the complaint:
"I've overturned my own injunction – how cool is that? Injunctions don't work, they're completely pointless and unbelievably expensive. And due to a new interpretation of the law you might have to go to trial if you take an injunction out and that's even more expensive.The one thing Clarkson has never been and never will be is cool but I think I can let that particular delusion of his stand. But, let's be honest here, he only withdrew it because social media has made injunctions and superinjunctions pointless. Whilst I am firmly on the right to privacy, I believe that injunctions [and confidentiality agreements] only protect those with power; usually that requires a penis. I don't believe that we can expand the current laws on privacy and free speech to protect women. We need to completely eradicate and rebuild the legal system so that those who aren't white men are given equal protection without caveat or exclusion from the creation of the law rather than writing clauses to cover those excluded the first time round.
"I thought 'Just let her run about saying what she wants to say' and people can say 'I believe that or I don't believe it'. Either way it makes no difference to me, it's as simple as that. Frankly I've got more important things to worry about than a woman I was married to for five minutes 30 years ago. So now I have no stress of an injunction and I can look Ian Hislop in the eye."
After all, does anyone really believe that Clarkson's ex-wife would have been granted an injunction to prevent Clarkson speaking about her publicly? I sure don't.
Sunday, 26 August 2012
I regularly get told I'm over-thinking things. Hell, my mother just told me so at dinner when I was holding forth about superinjunctions and confidentiality agreements. I think they are nothing more than Patriarchal tools to permit rich, white men to sexually abuse women whilst giving those women no recourse in law. Apparently, this was over-thinking the issue.
Anyway, we were at the St Johns Craft Fair. I may have mentally spent about £18 000 pounds. Just so much beautiful furniture, clothing, jewellery, and art; most of it made by women. There are so few spaces wherein women's art has a chance to shine that being somewhere full of women's art feels so incredibly special. The jewellery company Eclectic Shock was my favourite new find of the day.
It was all extremely lovely right up until the point I found a t-shirt for a toddler with the ever-so-lovely maxim "Lock Up Your Daughters". You know, because girls need to locked up and protected from would-be rapist toddlers. Erm, or instead of perpetuating rape culture in your baby sons, how about teaching them to respect themselves and women. How about teaching your sons that they are capable of acting like actual humans with empathy and kindness? How about teaching your sons that girls are humans too; that they are entitled to be treated with kindness and respect.
The "Lock Up Your Daughters" t-shirt for toddlers is just the normalisation of rape culture. They aren't funny or cute. They are just the same old misogynistic shite. Just this time using toddlers as advertising. I've never understood why people would dress their sons up like would-be rapists. I mean, what the hell else is that t-shirt supposed to mean? Seriously, someone tell it's actually a silly reference to a TV show that I've never heard of or the name of some celebrities pet elephant or something.
Wednesday, 22 August 2012
I think Savannah Dietrich is a pretty incredible teenager. Having been sexually assaulted by two teenage boys, she took the very brave stand of publicly naming and shaming them despite the fact that it was technically illegal for her to do so. Now, I'm a huge fan of the juvenile justice whose entire purpose is supposed to be the rehabilitation and education of young offenders. I think many teenagers end up caught in the system due to the failings of the adults responsible for them. I think sealing juvenile records and keeping their names from public knowledge is, in many cases, the best way to ensure that those teenagers have the possibility to go on to become important members of our communities. But, I have two qualifiers: those who commit sexual violence and murder need to have exemptions made on a case by case basis. A fifteen year old who shoots their stepfather who had been molesting them for 4 years deserves the chance to heal in private. A fifteen year old with every advantage who chooses to get behind the wheel of a car whilst intoxicated which results in the death of a pedestrian doesn't necessarily deserve the protection afforded by anonymity [unless, of course, said 15 year old is also a victim of abuse]. I like to live in a utopia where our teenagers are nurtured and respected and not villified for crimes caused by the Patriarchy.
The two teenage boys who sexually assaulted Savannah Dietrich don't deserve that protection. They had no respect for Dietrich's bodily autonomy. Then, they published photos of the assault on the internet. They needed to be held publicly accountable for their crime; particularly since they seem to be playing the victims of a smear campaign orchestrated by Dietrich. Here's a hint, if you commit sexual assault, your reputation isn't being smeared by being publicly named. Your reputation was smeared because YOU chose to do so by committing sexual assault. It is YOUR fault. No one else is responsible for your behaviour. Just you.
Judging by this article in the Huffington Post, I suspect the boy's defence attorneys might want to revisit the concepts of personal responsibility and free will. Or, at least, contemplate not making public statements that make your clients look even more pathetic and guilty than they already are. Yeah, death threats were a tad OTT but suggesting that the victim of their sexual assault ruined the lives of the perpetrators by holding them publicly accountable is just stupid, rape apologist horseshite. Being kicked out of the high school you attend with your victim and being forced to move are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of sexual assault. NO ONE should be forced to live near or go to school with the person who sexually assaulted or raped them. The fact that the defence attorney of one of the attackers, David Mejia, thinks that the possibility that his client might lose a potential scholarship to an Ivy League university is worse than the sexual assault his client committed just demonstrates how fucked-up rape apologists are. His client should be in therapy. He should be in therapy as part of his legal punishment to deal with the fact that he's a sexual predator.
We never hold sexual predators properly accountable for their crimes.
We always excuse them by blaming their victims.
Savannah Dietrich has kicked off a public debate which seems to be changing the discourse around sexual violence and personal responsibility. I'm glad she's taking the very brave step of naming and shaming her attackers but how shameful is it that it takes a teenager to get the media to notice the vileness that is rape apologism?
I also notice a real lack of left-wing right-on Dudes declaring Dietrich a hero for her use of "Free Speech" but that's because "Free Speech" protects the perpetrator's right to publish photos of their sexual assault and not the victim's right to publicly name them.
The two teenage boys who sexually assaulted Savannah Dietrich don't deserve that protection. They had no respect for Dietrich's bodily autonomy. Then, they published photos of the assault on the internet. They needed to be held publicly accountable for their crime; particularly since they seem to be playing the victims of a smear campaign orchestrated by Dietrich. Here's a hint, if you commit sexual assault, your reputation isn't being smeared by being publicly named. Your reputation was smeared because YOU chose to do so by committing sexual assault. It is YOUR fault. No one else is responsible for your behaviour. Just you.
Judging by this article in the Huffington Post, I suspect the boy's defence attorneys might want to revisit the concepts of personal responsibility and free will. Or, at least, contemplate not making public statements that make your clients look even more pathetic and guilty than they already are. Yeah, death threats were a tad OTT but suggesting that the victim of their sexual assault ruined the lives of the perpetrators by holding them publicly accountable is just stupid, rape apologist horseshite. Being kicked out of the high school you attend with your victim and being forced to move are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of sexual assault. NO ONE should be forced to live near or go to school with the person who sexually assaulted or raped them. The fact that the defence attorney of one of the attackers, David Mejia, thinks that the possibility that his client might lose a potential scholarship to an Ivy League university is worse than the sexual assault his client committed just demonstrates how fucked-up rape apologists are. His client should be in therapy. He should be in therapy as part of his legal punishment to deal with the fact that he's a sexual predator.
We never hold sexual predators properly accountable for their crimes.
We always excuse them by blaming their victims.
Savannah Dietrich has kicked off a public debate which seems to be changing the discourse around sexual violence and personal responsibility. I'm glad she's taking the very brave step of naming and shaming her attackers but how shameful is it that it takes a teenager to get the media to notice the vileness that is rape apologism?
I also notice a real lack of left-wing right-on Dudes declaring Dietrich a hero for her use of "Free Speech" but that's because "Free Speech" protects the perpetrator's right to publish photos of their sexual assault and not the victim's right to publicly name them.
Tuesday, 21 August 2012
I've been following the legal trials of Pussy Riot for several months now. I've been increasingly uncomfortable about the directions the press has taken with this case and with the level of celebrity endorsement, particularly on the issue of free speech. Whilst I do think this issue is fundamentally about the right to free speech, I don't think it is the right to free speech that the media suggests. I have always felt that the right to free speech only supports those in power or a very small group of those with no access to formal power but who can engage with the media. I don't think discussions about the right to free speech are ever supportive of marginalised groups; no matter how much left-wing men swear it is. Free speech is the rallying cry of pornographers, neo-Nazis, rape apologists, and racists who assert that their right to be a jackass is more important than the harm they cause. Hearing people defend the tenets of free speech always makes me twitchy. Free speech, like pacifism, is a position only available to people with privilege. After all, the right to free speech is irrelevant if you live in abject poverty in a place with no access to electricity and, subsequently, have no real medium in which to assert that right.
A couple of weeks ago the journalist Miriam Elder, who is the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian, tweeted this:
Curious: do you think there would be such a campaign against Pussy Riot if they were men? And such a campaign of support in the west?I've been pondering this since she tweeted it but haven't quite been able to articulate my concerns about the way the media is constructing Pussy Riot. I'm a big fan of anarcho-feminist punk bands, or any feminist musicians, and feminist performance art but there is something wilfully disingenuous about the uncritical way in which Pussy Riot are being portrayed in the "Western" media. This is not to say that I think Pussy Riot deserve to be convicted for hooliganism in this case. Far from it, I think arresting non-violent protestors is one of the Patriarchy's favourite power plays. It's a nasty silencing technique. The three members of Pussy Riot should never have been arrested; never mind convicted. However, I do have concerns about the media's treatment of Pussy Riot; particularly since Pussy Riot were not protesting the right to free speech. Free speech is somewhat of red herring here. The debate for "free speech" is just the same old "Western" hypocrisy and benevolent sexism pretending to liberate women when all it does is further constrain us.
Until last night I thought I was the only one with these concerns. Then, Rowan Davies tweeted a link to this article on RadFem Hub: A Radical Feminist Collective Blog. I had no idea about Pussy Riot's connections to Voina. To be fair, I hadn't actually heard of Voina either. A perusal of google suggests they are a political performance art group; that is usually code for general misogynistic pornography pretending to be "art". PETA has a similar policy and I think they are all misogynistic nincompoops too. Voina are, simply, quite vile, nasty misogynists. It would be very hard to argue the right to free speech based on their campaigns which is why the creation of Pussy Riot was both a necessity for publicity and a way of obfuscating Voina's misogyny.
The relationship between Pussy Riot and Voina disturbs me but it also explains why Pussy Riot are getting so much "Western" media interest. Generally speaking, the media's interest in Feminism is either to force women into accepting the pornographication and objectification of their bodies or to belittle, humiliate and denigrate feminists. I don't think Pussy Riot would have received media attention in the "West" if they were male. I don't know anywhere near enough about the internal workings of the Russian government so I can't really comment on whether or not I think a male punk performance band would have been arrested in similar circumstances. But, I do believe that Pussy Riot is only garnering support in the "West" because of the holdover of the anti-communist hysteria, anti-feminist discourse and because of "benevolent sexism". The inclusion of "free speech" is about the free speech of pornographers; it's not about the free speech of feminists.
Pussy Riot are getting support from male artists like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Paul McCartney, and Stephen Fry because of "free speech". I think their various personal histories of misogynistic discourse make their definitions of "free speech" both hypocritical and lacking in political analysis. I do truly believe a lot of their support is because Pussy Riot have vaginas and are young and pretty. It is benevolent sexism: the protection and support of pretty women whose personal voices are erased in order for the Menz to feel better about themselves [or ignore their own inappropriate behaviour]. Benevolent sexism is incredibly harmful to the Feminist movement because it gives the appearance of male support without acknowledging the conditions of that support; notably passing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test as Pussy Riot do. I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious decision on the part of some of their male supporters but I think it is there. This is not to say that Pussy Riot aren't either deliberately using the PFT as a way of garnering support or that they aren't aware of being used in this manner. It's certainly not the first time women have used the benevolent sexism card to push through their legal demands.
It's also worth acknowledging that the only major world artist whose been attacked for their support is Madonna who was labeled a moralising "slut" by Dmitry Rogozin, a deputy minister. Madonna expressed her support at a performance in Russia; as did the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Paul McCartney. I haven't heard of anyone referring to members of RHCP as sluts. And, let's be honest here, Anthony Kiedis' sexual history isn't exactly that of a man who respects women. I also don't see a group of celebs lining up to pay for the legal costs of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samustsevich as, apparently, Banksy did when he paid the bail of several members of Voina when they were arrested at a previous demonstration. Nor, do I see anyone really upset about the possibility of Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova's young children being taken into care. After all, the loss of their children into foster care isn't about the right to free speech for men.
I also don't think Pussy Riot were just arrested because they were criticising the Russian government. I think they were charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred because they identified as Feminist activists. This case is as much about silencing feminists as it is about the right to "free speech". It is about patriarchal approval for the right kind of feminists: those who think that prostitution and pornography are valid "career choices" rather than the abuse and torture of vulnerable women. I doubt very much that the male celebs lining up to support Pussy Riot would be doing so if the women were also anti-pornography and anti-prostitution campaigners who refused to use the language of pornography in their campaigns. Similarities to the Ukrainian feminist group Femen, who have support in the "West" are striking.
I do believe the right to free speech is an important requirement in a democracy. But, we don't have it now and we never really had it. Free Speech is about rich, white men being allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want it. It's about allowing pornographers to abuse and torture women's bodies without taking any responsibility for the harm. So, whilst I have supported the campaign to free Pussy Riot, I have not been doing so uncritically under some misguided construction of feminism or free speech.
I have been supporting Pussy Riot because no one deserves to be imprisoned for singing and dancing.
I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to change the discourse around free speech so that it applies equally to minority groups.
I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to stop using women's bodies as political tools.
I have been supporting Pussy Riot because the #waronwomen is destroying women's lives everywhere.
I have been supporting Pussy Riot because the #waronwomen is destroying women's lives everywhere.
Some interesting articles on Pussy Riot, "Free Speech", political protests and constructions of "Art":
Pussy Riot: Whose Freedom? Whose Riot?
Their Closing Statements
Pussy Riot Trial: "We Are Representatives of Our Generation"
Starting a Pussy Riot
Pussy Riot Trial Worse Than "Soviet Era"
The Pussy Riot Trial Court Documents
Pussy Riot Claims "Victory" in Letter to Supporters
Let's Start a Pussy Riot
Free Pussy Riot Comes to Ace Hotel
Pussy Riot Supporters being Arrested in New York
Associated Press Guide To Pussy Riot's Music
And, Viv Albertine, who is just cool:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
