Liz Jones is Back Complaining About Mumsnet & Their Bloggers

So, Liz Jones hates "Mummy Bloggers". This isn't exactly news to anyone who has ever used Mumsnet. Frankly, it shouldn't be news to anyone who has ever read Liz Jones' column: she hates everyone and everything. Whilst I loathe everything Jones writes, I don't think she's a troll. I still think she's a deeply unhappy woman who has simply never experienced just how powerful and beautiful the Sisterhood is. Yes, the article in the Daily Mail is vile tripe, deliberately written to belittle and humiliate Stay-at-home-mothers. But, you know what, the countless threads on MN today slaughtering Liz Jones are also belittling and humiliating. 

MNHQ knew perfectly well that this would be Liz Jones' response to the Blogfest. It's why they invited her. The publicity they will get out of her column today will be huge. There are already countless blogs slagging off Liz Jones. I understand the feeling. I'm frequently over-whelmed by the desire to kick Liz Jones viciously in the shins but this isn't productive. It doesn't help Smash the Patriarchy. It's just another way for the Patriarchy to isolate women.

Liz Jones may wish to be the Quintessential Handmaiden but, mostly, she's an incredibly unhappy woman who has a public platform in which to humiliate herself daily. I'm disappointed MNHQ used her for the publicity because no woman deserves the ridicule and vitriol Jones will receive today. I know the old adage is "if you can't take it, don't dish it out" but I think it's horseshit. Sometimes, we need to take ten minutes and spare some compassion because, unlike the incredibly talented MN Bloggers, Liz Jones has very little to write about in a celebratory fashion.

Read More

Handmaidens, Feminism and Reclaiming the Internet

I'm never entirely up-to-date on who, exactly, the official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy is actually meant to be. I'm sure we're supposed to have one; that one woman who gets a bit uppity and therefore deserves our public scorn about their body and their intelligence followed, inevitably, by threats of violence. Liz Jones usually occupies this place. The Daily Mail sets Jones up weekly to make a spectacle of herself and we (or, at least the readers of the Daily Mail) buy into this woman-blaming discourse by insulting and denigrating Jones. For the past few months, Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch have been taking alternating turns for the position of Official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy. They've also been taking swipes at one another, jockeying for the role of definer of "new" conservative feminism. I do not like the politics of either Dorries or Mensch. Their stance on abortion means that neither will receive my support for their political ambitions. I also have no intention of participating in their denigration because of their physical appearance.

I have spent the better part of the week with my teeth clenched at Dorries decision to do a reality TV show. Now, I've never actually watched a reality TV show but I'm fairly sure they don't involve attending constituency meetings. Dorries' decision to do the TV show was simply a bad decision. It was inevitably going to result in her being chastised publicly by Cameron. Part of me thinks Dorries is being set up, either consciously or unconsciously, to take the fall for her anti-abortion stance; that Dorries' public humiliation will force her to shelve the more destructive of her anti-abortion plans allowing the men of Conservative party to look "kind" by reducing the abortion time-limit to only 20 weeks in the spring. She is being sacrificed to make male Conservative politicians look "reasonable".

I wasn't going to publish this blog because I didn't want to add to the never-ending number of people lining up to humiliate them. The Patriarchy's favourite foul trick to further isolate women is by having other women police their behaviour. Then, it turns on those women by denigrating them for failing to stand up to the very vocal Patriarchal bullies. It is so disheartening seeing women, even women I disagree with, being disparaged, insulted and denigrated by all for doing things men do with very little criticism.

This week, I've read three pieces written by women which have reminded me both why I am a Feminist and what it means to be a Feminist online. CherryBlossomLife's blog on Serving the Man is a beautifully written reminder of what it takes for women to survive in the Patriarchy and how we need to keep reminding ourselves of that so that we do not judge individual women harshly for that which is out of their control. Exiled Stardust has written the 6 Step Evil Overlord Plan to Discredit Women in the Public Sphere showing just how Dorries and Mensch have been set up. Today Natasha Walter wrote equally beautifully of how women are taking back the internet and directly targeting the Patriarchy in open combat. And, winning.

There are countless examples of the power and space women are carving for themselves online from parenting sites like Mumsnet which are dominated by women to the online Women Under Siege, Women's Room UK, iHollaback! and Everyday Sexism Projects which are recording women's experiences of violence under the Patriarchy. Despite their very obvious roles as Patriarchal constructs of control, Twitter and Facebook are equally being reclaimed by Feminists. Personally, I have benefited from friendships developed on Mumsnet and strengthened through online activism and nurtured via Facebook. The women of Mumsnet diagnosed my PND and held my hand whilst I got well. They gave me the courage to follow through my dreams. They gave me the courage to write this blog. They gave me permission to be me. I have 'met' many other women on Twitter whose courage and strength never fail to amaze and inspire me. Without them, and their constant encouragement and support, despite them not actually 'knowing' me, I would never had written this blog, nor would I have joined the Mumsnet bloggers network or the Huffington Post UK bloggers. I've even started a new blog collecting examples of misogynistic advertising because of the women (and a few men) on Twitter; particularly @Cellar790's encouragement. Though Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst trying to silence the voices of women, the Sisterhood is fighting back.

I started reading only books written by women because I was just so angry at V.S Naipaul dismissing women's voices as irrelevant because they have vaginas. The women of Mumsnet joined me in this policy [which actually came from another MNer]. We are fighting back against the publishing industry's misogyny by financially supporting women writers. I am angry that Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst silencing the voices of women. This is why I only have women friends on Facebook and follow a few men on Twitter. I deleted the vast majority of men I was following in March. Strangely, the level of misogyny I was reading decreased astronomically; although people insist on retweeting Stephen Fry who is not as smart as he thinks he is and is a woman-hating arsehole to boot.

I care about making spaces safe online for women so, whilst I will never support the policies of Dorries and Mensch, I do think we need to stop belittling and denigrating them. It is possible to criticise their policies without making it personal and supporting the Patriarchy in silencing women. That is what we do when fall into denigrating women. We are effectively helping to silence other women's voices. Instead, we need to reclaim the Internet and make it the most subversive weapon we have against the Patriarchy.

Read More

Femen: Because they really bug me

Femen are back in the media once again.* This time they are running about Ikea with their breasts bared to protest Ikea’s decision to edit out all the images of women in their catalogue for the market in Saudi Arabia. Now, I’m quite offended by Ikea’s decision but I’m not sure what protesting in the Ikea in Paris two weeks after the story broke is going to change. In using women's bodies as a canvas of protest, Femen are using some fairly basic signifiers of woman as object. Their message is obscured by the medium of their protest because the medium conforms to the normalised construction of the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. As Exiled Stardust says, getting naked or stripping aren't acts of Feminist defiance or resistance. They are simply appeasement since “(m)en don’t care if you write incendiary messages of revolt all over your naked body, as long as they get to see that body.” Femen's activism using the objectification of women's bodies to make a political point isn't new. It isn't clever. It's just the Patriarchy trying out a new hat. After all, as Megan Murphyhas pointed out, PETA's been doing this shit for years. Their male supporters include a veritable who's who of celebrities with criminal convictions for Violence against Women.

Femen’s use of the female body is a tactic deliberately chosen in order to get recognition in the western media and they seem more interested in the attention than any specific feminist goals. They have already joined the Free Pussy Riot movement and, frankly, there are very few attention-seekers who haven't hopped on that bandwagon. It's proving to be quite a profitable one for everyone but the two women currently being transported to a penal colony. Inna Shevchenko demonstrated her "support" for Pussy Riot by destroying a crucifix in Kiev with a chainsaw. This stunt coincided exactly with the court in Moscow finding Pussy Riot guilty of hooliganism; make of that what you will.

Femen have also occupied the Louvre to protest the rape of a young woman called Mariam by two Tunisian police officers. Personally, I think the women of Tunis taking to the streets is a more important and braver protest than a bunch of topless women running around the Louvre. Equally problematic are Femen's anti-burkha protests. Femen attacked an easy target; veiled Muslim women are some of the most frequently silenced of women's voices. But Femen aren't really doing anything really radical here. Instead, they are just doing exactly what western neo-liberal men do: attack a visible target with little to no power. Running about in front of the Eiffel Tower stripping off burkhas to reveal young, thin white women in their underwear isn't very interesting. Setting up a "bootcamp" in Paris to teach French feminists how to tackle the Patriarchy using tactics developed in the Ukraine is also not very clever. A reversal of the normal imperialism it may be, but it nonetheless shows a rather incredible lack of self-awareness. Thing is, which protests get more coverage? And, which ones really deserve the media attention?

And, this is the problem. The issues Femen claims to want to discuss are important. They are very, very important, particularly the issue of sex trafficking and prostitution in Eastern Europe. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable and poor women is increasing at astronomical rates. But, this isn't what the media is discussing. Femen's insistence on baring their breasts, regardless of what they are actually protesting, just reinforces Patriarchal norms. They have become objects for men to wank over rather than feminist protestors. Whatever message they had is obscured. Instead, their breasts are what are deemed important. 

We won't destroy the Patriarchy by reinforcing its constructions of "acceptable" women. We won't destroy the Patriarchy by targeting one small group of women and demanding that they remove their veil, without even considering the political and cultural structures in which they are either forced or, in some cases, choose to wear the veil. We cannot demand the government of Tunisia tackle the issue of rape by police officers, by running about art galleries naked. We won't change the control that the Church has by chopping down crosses half-naked. Protest needs to be vibrant, engaging and culturally specific but we will not smash the Patriarchy by reinforcing its belief that the only women who matter are those who conform to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test.

As many a wise feminist has said: if the penis is keen, it probably demeans. And, that's the problem with Femen.** Men aren't listening to the message. They are wanking to the image.

*I submitted this piece to the Huffington Post on Monday; just before their servers went down due to Hurricane Sandy. It hasn't been published and I'm assuming they are currently swamped as I haven't had a reply from them. Or, they didn't like it. Either way.

**Apparently, this originally comes from the I Blame the Patriarchy blog. 

Read More

Clarks: Shoes for Girls that you can't play in.

Just in case you were totally confused about what shoes are for, Clarks has come up with the snazziest, non-confusing name ever: No Playing BL. That way, girls know from being very little that the only thing shoes are for is for looking cute. Little girls aren't supposed to climb trees or play football or play hopscotch or jump rope or What Time is it Mr Wolf in the school playground. Girls have to sit quietly and read Grazia so they know how to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test before their 14th birthday. 

Then, they won't find the whole not-being-able-to-walk-in-5-inch- heels weird when they get to be teenagers. Who cares that these shoes do exactly the same damage as the banned practise of footbinding in China. Girls are just ornaments to be admired. It doesn't matter if they don't get to play. Their worth is limited only to their fuckablity as teenagers. We can't have them thinking they are worth anything more than that. They might get ideas and opinions. They could learn their favourite activity is Smash the Patriarchy. 

Do feel free to contact Clarks here to explain why you won't be buying these shoes for your daughter.

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

This week I've Been Mostly Reading About Other Women's Vaginas

Naomi Wolf's got a new book out about her vagina. I'm not a fan of Wolf to begin with as I think she's an essentialist who confuses sex and gender under the guise of "feminism". And, that was even before she started in on the "Assange is the Second Coming and therefore can't be a rapist" shite. The kindest thing I can think to say of Wolf is that she's a great self-publicist; although having read her book on motherhood it's not really a kind statement to make. But, how can you be nice about someone who writes a book about what its really like to give birth in the US but who doesn't get that their experience as a privileged white woman WITH HEALTHCARE is completely different to huge swathes of American women. Wolf just doesn't get how unrepresentative her experience is and doesn't get how foolish she sounds when making up shite about archaeology and neuroscience. The fact that Esquire thinks she's "out-of-touch" just demonstrates how utterly ridiculous Wolf is. Even the MRAs think she's a joke.* 

I haven't even read Wolf's book [and have no intention to as I still want back the 3 hours it took me to read Misconceptions] but this discussion about her vagina has come out at the same time as I've been reading Monique Roffey's With the Kisses of His Mouth: A Memoir. I loved Roffey's The White Woman on the Green Bicycle. I am not loving her memoir. It started off as a brilliant discussion of the destruction of her relationship following her partner's affair and the beginning of her new life. I'm only half way through it and its veered off into support of tantric sex. This obsession with the male penis validating women's sexuality is just depressing. 

The vitriol with which Wolf is being attacked is partly because of the bad science but it's also because the book is about female sexuality. If there is one thing the Patriarchy loathes, it's women discussing their bodies and their sexuality [both in theory and practise]. Women having honest conversations with one another about how they achieve orgasm or whether or not they masturbate or even if they have ever had an orgasm shifts the Overton Window. It makes the pornographication of society more evident. We need more women speaking about sexuality, both personally and theoretically. Unfortunately, Wolf chooses to universalise her experience and try to validate it under some very suspect science. Roffey's memoir is far more honest since it is her personal journey. I just wish her journey involved loving herself more than it does about finding sex. Or, maybe that's what bothers me so much about it. I will finish Roffey's With The Kisses Of His Mouth but first I'm reading Margaret Atwood's Moral Disorder. Sometimes, Atwood is the answer to every question. And, right now, I'm questioning a lot of things which I took as read even three months ago.


* Here, I am being maliciously unkind to a purpose. Actually, I think the very valid criticisms of Wolf's book have been buried under a load of misogynistic twaddle but more about that later. 

Read More

Bridezillas and Vaginas: Hello Misogyny. We Have Missed You.

No, seriously. There hasn't been enough misogyny in my life this week so I'm incredibly grateful to the Huffington Post for running no less than two misogynistic, women-blaming pieces of vileness yesterday. Without them, I might have become confused and forgotten we live in a Patriarchy. I'm so glad Ashley Hames was available to tell me that women spend too much time talking about their vaginas. Because men never ever talk about their penises. Nope, it's only women boring men senseless by talking about a subject that men aren't really interested in [unless they are sticking their cocks in one and even then we aren't supposed to talk about it]. 

Hames is apparently bored rigid by feminists banging on about their vaginas. Weirdly, I'm not bored by men talking about their penises. I'm angry about men talking about their penises. I'm angry at the proliferation of pornography which prioritises the penis above all else. I'm angry about the rape and torture of women and children by men who think their right to orgasm is more important than women's bodily integrity and health. I'm bored by men who think that any topic of conversation which does not revolve around them or their desires isn't worth having. On the other hand, I do agree with this statement by Hames: "(b)ut this constant reinforcement of The Vagina smacks of insecurity"; except, I'd replace vagina with penis. Because that's what Hames is really talking about: his own insecurity about his penis and it's status in society. Why else would he claim to be "bored" by women having conversations without him? It's not like he's been kidnapped by a bunch of Feminists and locked in a cupboard whilst they recite the Vagina Monologues at him. Unlike women, who have to live everyday with snide remarks and pornographic images delineating the 'woman as fucktoy' trope.

And, an even bigger thank you goes to Kate Thompson for reiterating the woman are all hormonal, insane crackpots in desperate search for a penis to cure of us any attempts at independent thought in her ode to Bridezillas; which should have been called Bridezilla: Women-Shaming Wrapped Up in a Shiny Tiara. There really is no excuse for such women-blaming misogynistic nincompoopery. God forbid, we actually hold men accountable for the consequences of their behaviour; instead it's always the fault of women who are just trying to survive in a Patriarchal society which devalues everything we do. It's always the fault of women for wanting too much or, you know, actually wanting to get their basic needs met. It's women's faults that they are insecure or jealous or irrational because, hey, that's what happens when you have a vagina. Men are never irrational. Possession of a penis prohibits irrationality.

What really fucks me off about the Huffington Post publishing such misogynistic shite is that they also published a searing critique of the abuse and violence directed at Kristen Stewart over an alleged affair she had with a married director. Rupert Sanders, of course, is completely unresponsible for the affair. It's all Stewart's fault. Nico Lang's article is the antithesis of the misogyny perpetuated by Thompson and Hames and I'm so very glad it was published because the situation is appalling. But, it's actually quite sad that Lang's defence of Stewart sits along side such unmitigated twaddle. Does the Huffington Post have an editorial policy which requires two pieces of vacuous nincompoopery to combat any pro-women articles?

Oh, and if we're going to play the "teams" debacle, I'm on Team Stewart because NO woman deserves the treatment she has received. 

Read More

Apparently, Naomi Wolf is Going to Apologise.

Naomi Wolf claims to regret this letter she wrote in the New Statesman concerning the Assange rape case. She said so on a webchat on Mumsnet yesterday. Of course, she also said: "I do not write or post rape myths. My concern is always to support rape victims and support prosecution and conviction of rapists." I'm thinking she and I have very different definitions of what constitutes a rape myth because the letter, dated December 7th 2010, is basically one gigantic rape myth. But, heh, it's Naomi Wolf and it's not like she's ever really worried about the truth. If she was, she would have fact-checked before writing this letter:

Dear Interpol:
As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.

I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke. I understand, from the alleged victims' complaints to the media, that Assange is also accused of texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one of the women's apartments while on a date, and, disgustingly enough, 'reading stories about himself online' in the cab.

Both alleged victims are also upset that he began dating a second woman while still being in a relationship with the first. (Of course, as a feminist, I am also pleased that the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings. That's what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!).

Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone -- there is an entire fraternity at the University of Texas you need to arrest immediately. I also have firsthand information that John Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, went to a stag party -- with strippers! -- that his girlfriend wanted him to skip, and that Mark Levinson in Corvallis, Oregon, did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER.

Terrorists. Go get 'em, Interpol!
Yours gratefully, Naomi Wolf

Now, I'm not really holding out much hope that Wolf will actually apologise properly for the rape myths in this letter. Hell, I'm not even sure if she will ever recognise the myths. The only thing she really regrets is getting the case wrong since this was never about consensual sex. Regretting writing something factually incorrect isn't the same as apologising for deliberately and maliciously slandering the reputation of two women whose only crime was to report their rapes to the police.

The webchat on Mumsnet is a complete car crash. As ever, the women of Mumsnet prove to be brilliant, hilarious and, well, fucking awesome. Wolf comes across as an essentialist writing about several subjects that she knew very little about; particularly the section on neuroscience. I find it utterly depressing that the media continues to promote Wolf as a feminist when she is mostly a parody of herself. Her new book Vagina, the technical topic of the webchat, seems to be a mishmash of nincompoopery. I've only read snippets published online but even those were enough to make my toes curl in embarrassment for Wolf. However, Wolf needs to write back to the New Statesman and make a full and unreserved apology for the hurt she has caused and for continuing to perpetuate rape myths whilst claiming to support survivors. Frankly, she is the last women I would want supporting me after being raped. 

Read More

Pussy Riot: whose freedom, whose riot?

BY HUB NEWSFEED

Please reblog this radical feminist analysis of the Pussy Riot controversy. [via RadFem Hub]

Recently there has been lots of noise around the arrest of three members of Pussy Riot, a Russian anarchist female punk band. The media almost unequivocally represented them as the modern heroines of our time, fighting for freedom, democracy, sexual liberation and peace against a dark and ruthless dictatorship (articles are to be found in the NYT, Le Monde. The Guardian, etc.) Feminist groups all over the Western world are sending links and petitions to “free pussy riot”, anddemonstrations have even been organised in support of the group by big institutionalised organisations such as “Osez le féminisme” (dare to be a feminist).

Now while I support without ambiguity the liberation of Pussy Riot’s members, it’s worth pausing for a minute to ask ourselves, as radical feminists, what the political dynamics are here. Why would Western media denounce so passionately the repression of feminists in Russia, when it usually only diffuses information that supports male supremacy and patriarchy? Feminism has long disappeared from any malestream media, except when journalists can turn it into male masturbation material, that is pornify either our suffering or our resistance to it. What’s going on here?

Before learning more about the case, the first thing that made me frown was the fact progressives were hailing Pussy Riot as the “new feminists”, despite that their name is fairly insulting to women. It is certainly not apolitical, since we are in a context in which pornography has deeply colonised our movement and the only groups that the media presents as feminist are those that either insult us or reclaim the very instruments of our subordination, that is, male sexual violence, PIV, pornified femininity and all the associated harmful cultural practices. These tactics of destroying the meaning of feminism form part of a general worldwide backlash against women.

I found it suspicious that Pussy Riot was getting so much media attention, even for pseudo feminist standards. You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?

Well, under closer inspection I discovered that the high level of coverage was related to – though indirectly – promoting men’s right to women’s sexual subordination and the pornification of our movement. The arrested women actually form part (and are victims of) a mixed anarchist group called “Voina” (meaning “war”), founded in 2007 by two men called Oleg Vorotnikov and Leonid Nikolaïev, who regularly engage the women in extreme and degrading women-hating pornography as part of their public “political stunts”. Some of Voina’s men have actually already been incarcerated in 2011 for hooliganism – which is punished for 7 years of prison in Russia, but their bail was paid for by an artist named “Banksy” four months after their imprisonment. (More information can be foundhere and here)

Included in their anti-government actions are a “public orgy” in the national museum of biology in a room full of stuffed bears, where several men anally penetrated their female partners in a position of submission, including one heavily pregnant women, as a metaphor to “bugger/fuck Medvedev”. “Medved” means “bear”, hence all the stuffed bears – this was meant to be symbolic, artistic and revolutionary according to the activists. Here the male anarchists literally used women as dead bodies or receptacles through which to make a political point to other men. Violating women as a means to offend other men is nothing else but an age-old patriarchal mechanism – behind which the intended target are us, for men to bond over our annihilation.

Another planned stunt in the name of “sexual freedom”, inspired by extreme forms of pornography such as zoophilia/ necrophilia, includes a member of Pussy Riot masturbating with a dead chicken in a supermarket under the watch and camera of the anarchist males, after which she inserts the dead chicken entirely into her vagina and hobbles with the chicken inside her out of the supermarket. This is how the male members themselves describe their act of “liberation”:

“How to Snatch a Chicken: A Tale of How One Cunt fed the Whole of the Group Voina… in honor of their hero, a 19th century political philosopher/prisoner, Voina’s president’s wife dubbed “Vacuous Cunt With Inconceivably Huge Tits,”smuggled a chicken out of a grocery store in said “Vacuous Cunt…”  [the journalist comments] : First, the troupe searched for a large and fresh enough chicken. Then, the store isles and CCTV cameras were blocked by the members of the group holding up banners with “FUCK WHORING YOURSELF!” smeared on them in I-don’t-want-to-know-what. The blockade allowed Vacuous Cunt to promptly stuff and smuggle the poultry out of the store, which was then presumably cooked and eaten.[1]

The president is presumably Oleg, and the woman in question, apparently his wife – a situation which would qualify as domestic abuse and sexual slavery given the level of violence, women-hatred and humiliation directed at the women involved. The woman is reduced to a corpse to be ‘stuffed’ in the most degrading and insulting way. No woman would desire such things as inserting a dead chicken in her vagina in public were she not under heavy control and terror. Also of note is the fact that one of their children was brought to this stunt, visibly no older than four. Sexual exhibitionism in the presence of children may also qualify as child sexual abuse. How deeply has women-hatred sunk into men’s minds, that they are incapable of imagining a riot without it being a by-the-book copy of a gonzo porn film? Here again, we see men instrumentalising women and using sexual torture of women as a means to communicate a political message (which if not totally vacuous, communicates nothing other than their hatred of women).

Perhaps the most saddening action of all consisted in filming one of the women naked, covered in cockroaches, meant to be understood as “sexy”. The association of women to filth and parasites to be eliminated couldn’t be clearer. This is women-hating, genocidal propaganda at its most dangerous form. Voina’s men give the world to see where women’s place must be, even when fighting against authoritarian regimes: head down, underneath men and fucked by them.

Now what does this mean for us, what can be understood from the media’s silence about Voina’s pornographic exploitation of women, when all the attention is focused on promoting Pussy Riot as our modern heroines? The effect and intent is political. While all the public eyes are set on the Russian representatives of the state and religion as the ultimate fascists, dictators and machos, we are made to forget that the primary oppressors and tyrants of these particular women are the men closest to them, that is, Voina’s men and their use of pornography to demean, oppress and enslave their female comrades. They are their everyday police, the fascists and colonisers breaking the women’s resistance, occupying their souls, sentencing them to public humiliation and subordinating them through sexual abuse. We are made to forget that these women are doubly victimised: first victims of the violence by the men of their own group, they are then punished and held responsible for the abuse committed against them.

By holding Pussy Riot as examples of resistance, being silent about the pornographic violence and denouncing the state and religious authority as the only oppressor, it follows that the media is complicit with the men from Voina. It protects the anarchist’s individual impunity, and more generally, furthers all men’s interest in promoting rape and women-hating propaganda. It also prevents women in general from identifying men’s sexual violence and the harms of the penis as the primary agents of our oppression. It distracts and disgusts women away from feminism. What kind of dignity and respect for our movement can women have if the only models of resistance given to us by the media are those to be seen by millions of men as humiliated, soiled and degraded in this way?  Even the most brave and valiant women, who fight bare handed and alone against Putin and the religious authority, must be shown by men to the world as surrendering and conquered.

If we want justice for the women imprisoned and to show true solidarity, we need to not only denounce the injustice by the Russian state, but also denounce the violence by the men from Voina. We need to recognise and openly denounce the pandemic levels of sexual violence present in most male-centric leftist or anarchist activist groups, whereby women are often pimped by the men of the group for pornography or expected to submit to extremely violent or degrading acts in the name of “sexual freedom”. What counts for these men is to fight for men’s total public access to women, especially militant women, because it really serves to put all women back in line. The weapon of mass destruction against women is the penis and this is why all men are focusing on making Putin look bad while they say nothing about the bastards of Voina.

For our sisters, for all women, we need to say out loud that this is not feminism.

–  HUB Newsfeed

Read More

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

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

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

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

Just how seriously fucked up is that?

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

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

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

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: It's PETA. Again.

Look, it's PETA being misogynistic. Again. Anyone else shocked by this? No? 

I'm an animal rights supporter. I don't buy from companies which test products on animals. I genuinely don't understand people who buy mascara which is tested on rabbits and I support the proposed EU ban on testing cosmetics on animals. However, I don't understand why PETA insists on perpetuating rape culture in order to save rabbits. Are they that stupid that they can't tell the difference? I think the celebrities who endorse PETA are hypocrites; yeah Naomi Campbell, I'm still looking at you.

There is NO reason why PETA has to advertise its campaigns by objectifying women. They perpetuate rape culture because they choose to. That is fundamentally the problem of PETA. They just aren't intelligent enough to critique capitalist practises without supporting patriarchal conformity.

Read More

Child maintenance: Or, Why You Shouldn't Stick Your Cock in a Woman if You Aren't Prepared to be a Father

There is no birth control which is 100% effective. Most women know that every time they have PIV, they are risking pregnancy. We have sex because we enjoy it; despite the knowledge of all the possible lifetime consequences. We know the difficulties of choosing whether or not continue the pregnancy. We know that many women do not have a choice; whether it is because there is no access to abortion in their area or if poverty will force a "choice" on them. We know what pregnancy can do to our bodies in a "normal healthy" pregnancy; never mind one in which we could potentially have SPD, anaemia, gestational diabetes, hyperemesis, or pre-eclampsia. We know the all the possible consequences of giving birth; vaginally or via caesarian. We know the possibilities of post-natal depression, tearing and even the fact that domestic violence frequently starts or gets more severe during pregnancy. We know the statistics because we know the realities. We see them every day in our families and our friends. 

The real question is why do so many men (and their handmaidens) assume that men should face no consequences for fathering a child? And, why does the government support the right of these losers to fuck women with impunity whilst slut-shaming those women for having sex? Why are women the only ones who have to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions? Why does the government think it should punish some women for withholding contact from abusive men without punishing those same men for the abuse or their failure to pay maintenance? Why do men get to do whatever they want whenever they want with no legal or moral requirement for them to act like an adult?

Here's the thing: I think withholding maintenance is child abuse. If you help create a child, then you damn well better financially support them. Men who withhold maintenance to punish the mother are committing child abuse. Failure to support your child is neglect and should be legally recognised as such. If the primary carer, otherwise known as the mother, could go to prison for child neglect for failing to adequately feed and clothe their child, then why shouldn't the erstwhile "father"? These men aren't "good fathers" and the pretence that they are actively harms children. Children need good, kind men in their lives. They don't need abusive arseholes who prioritise fancy cars and booze above the basic needs of their children.

And, yeah, I think men who don't bother to financially support their child, shouldn't be allowed access. Deliberately withholding support should be a legally valid reason to deny contact. Men who use access to control their ex-partners should be prohibited from contact. Men who commit domestic violence against their partners shouldn't be allowed contact with their children. If you assault your partner, then you can't ever be a good father. Good fathers are not abusive. Children deserve the right to be raised in a happy and secure home; not one in which their "father" gets to dictate everything that happens just because he has a penis.

Failing to support your children means you aren't a real man. You deserve to be named and shamed. You are responsible for the feminisation of poverty.

You are the reason our old government had to subsidise single mothers through tax credits and income support. You are the reason that these same women will be pushed further into poverty by our current government of misogynistic arsehats. These are the people who are destroying our families; not single mothers who are desperately trying to feed and clothe their children whilst dealing with abusive men and a society that doesn't think men should be held responsible for anything. Ever.

Canada has a much better track record with child maintenance than the UK. The assumption there is that men should pay to support their children in order to prevent women's dependence on the welfare state. Perhaps our current government of nincompoops should have looked into that instead of slashing the welfare budget creating a whole new generation of vulnerable children being raised in poverty. These are the consequences for failure to pay in Canada

• Make deductions from wages (maximum of 40% gross wage); 
• MEP can take money payable to the debtor from bank accounts, mutual funds, rent or contract fees; 
• Garnish income tax refunds, GST rebates, Canada Pension Plan income, and Employment Insurance payments; 
• The debtor may be prevented from transferring any property he or she wishes to sell, and allows MEP to seize assets including vehicles, shares and bonds; 
• The debtor may have his or her driver’s licence, registration, licence plates, or abstracts restricted or suspended; 
• Recreational licences for fishing and hunting may be restricted; 
• MEP may cancel current driver’s licences for account more than 60 days in late payments; 
• Passports can be revoked; 
• MEP may prevent an owner from re-mortgaging or selling real estate without first making payments. In some cases MEP may force sale of real estate; 
• Failure to make child support payments may be registered as bad debt and affect credit; 
• If assets are being kept in the name of a company, MEP can apply for a court order allowing the company’s assets to be used to pay for the debt; 
• MEP may seize assets the debtor tries to sell; and/or 
• If assets are being put in someone else’s name to avoid collection, MEP can apply for a court order allowing for their seizure 

It's easily assessed via personal income tax which is filed yearly. Yes, there are real holes in the system and some men do get away with child financial neglect but, at least, Canada recognises that men who refuse to support their children are committing a crime which has long-term consequences for those children. The UK needs to take a real stand against abusive men and start forcing men to take responsibility for where they decide to ejaculate.

Gingerbread Campaign on CSA

Read More

Top Ten Feminist Friendly Movies All Kids Should See

The Huffington Post's Puff-Piece du Jour is the Top Ten Movies Kids Should See Before They're 10. Some of them are pretty good movies but most are the usual misogynistic twaddle; 4 of which are by Disney. Now, Disney makes some great films but most of them are documentaries about animals made over 30 years ago and are not available on DVD.

10. Up: I haven't seen this so can't really comment but, let's face it, the two main characters have penises. Like every other fucking movie ever made. It needs to be dumped. I'd replace this with Racing Stripes. Now, I need to go on record here and say I fucking hate this film. Every time I see it, I want to cry. However, it's a great film for young girls because it really is about a girl defying all forms of patriarchal conformity and doing exactly what she knows she can do despite being told she can't do it.

9. Matilda: I'd keep Matilda. Okay, it has some problematic portrayals of mother and headteacher but it's a little girl who defends herself and her friends by being intelligent, resourceful and kind. These are characteristics that we need to be teaching ALL children.

8. The Never Ending Story: I love this movie so it's staying in. Should have starred a girl but still a brilliant film.

7. Wizard of Oz: I have never understood the fascination with this film. It stars an adult woman trussed up like a child complete with bound breasts. There are some seriously creepy subtexts about sexuality and misogyny in the film. I can't think of a musical that I would replace it with since the whole genre is riddled with misogyny. I'd replace it with Hoodwinked since it has two great female characters; one of whom is a snow-boarding, cookie baking grandmother.

6. Mary Poppins: I love this film and I don't care how bad Dick Van Dyke's accent really was. It's a film about suffragettes, male stupidity and questions patriarchal conformity. What's not to like?

5. The Jungle Book: The soundtrack to this film is utterly brilliant but the film itself should only be watched whilst questioning gender conformity and racism. 

4. Labyrinth: A film starring a teenage girl where she doesn't get naked, give blow jobs or is clinically stupid. That alone makes it a worthy feminist film. The fact that she's also brave, intelligent, and kind is just an added bonus. It stars Jennifer Connelly who is a brilliant and criminally under-used actress. I've never entirely understood the fascination with Bowie but he's a great creep.

3. Home Alone: This must have been nominated by people who hate their children because I can't imagine why anyone would force their offspring to watch this. Kiki's Delivery Service is an utterly brilliant film about a young girl coming of age, making friends, and learning to take responsibility for herself and not a whiny self-involved child surrounded by whiny self-involved adults who don't listen to one another.

2. Lion King: The Lion King was a piece of misogynistic twaddle about a couple of whiny, self-involved men ruining everything for everyone else. That's without the not-so-subtle subtext of racism. I'd dump it in favour of the Wild Thornberries which is another great film about a young girl coming of age and learning to take responsibility for others. It's about relationships between sisters and parents and caring for one another without losing yourself.

1. Toy Story: Oh look, another movie by Pixar/ Disney where Only Those Who are Three Dimensional Characters Get To Have Adventures. Otherwise known as: Only Toys with Penises Count. None of the Pixar Films are feminist-friendly and I don't want to hear about the freaking Incredibles. Mrs. Incredible covers up for her useless husband's abusive, self-destructive behaviour whilst wandering about wondering if her ass is fat. Teenage Incredible's special power is invisibility: which makes her exactly the same as every other teenage girl with low self-esteem. Hardly, what I aspire for my daughters.

Mulan is way better: a young woman defies gender constructions, the Patriarchy and kicks arse saving her "man", the Emperor and the rest of China. She's also brave, resourceful, intelligent and doesn't take shit from anyone.

And, every child should be given a copy of Miss Representation.

Read More

Liz Jones: The Quintessential Handmaiden?

I don't buy the Daily Fail for the usual reasons of it being utter hypocritical, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and disablist twaddle. Just seeing Liz Jones' name makes me twitch. I consistently dislike what she writes as it is inevitably pro-patriarchal handmaideny nincompoopery. Problem is, I don't think Jones is the quintessential handmaiden. I think she's a very unhappy and angry woman who is [ab]used by the editors of the Daily Fail. She is a caricature of "woman" and, as such, is an object of mockery. We are supposed to hate Jones and everything she stands for, which, in Daily Fail terms, is pretty much anyone with a vagina. A responsible editor and friend wouldn't allow someone they care about to make such a public spectacle of themselves but the Daily Fail sets Jones up weekly. And, we buy into this woman-blaming discourse by insulting and denigrating Jones at every opportunity.

Jones isn't her own worst enemy; although she certainly seems to try very hard at doing this. The patriarchal arsehats who pay her to be publicly humiliated are her enemies. Like with Samantha Brick, it is those that give Jones the space to publicly humiliate herself who are the main problem. But, standing up to contribute to the vilification of Jones is also inherently unkind and perpetuates women-blaming culture. She is, at best, an unhappy woman whose self-loathing is played out daily in the press. We need to stop giving platform for anti-feminist diatribes written by women who are fundamentally unhappy with themselves. We need to stop reinforcing the women-blaming culture which gives a platform to women like Liz Jones who deserve our compassion and not our ridicule.

Yes, I get that Liz Jones writes a lot of stuff which is unbelievably unkind and hateful about other women. What she writes pisses me off [and I've not linked to any of her work because I don't want to increase the Daily Fail's advertising revenue]. However, Liz Jones is part of the 21st century version of the 19th century circus freak show. Like with all reality TV, from the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Towie to X-Factor and the Voice, our society gets off on the public humiliation and denigration of those deemed "unworthy". We are raising a generation of children who think they only have value for being a "celebrity" irrespective of how they become famous. How do we expect anyone to be happy in a culture that privileges humiliation over self-worth? Frankly, I think reality television meets the UN definition of a harmful cultural practise and all of it should be banned. We need to stop mocking those who are different and start celebrating those differences.

Read More