How to tell if you're racist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

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

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

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

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

Just how seriously fucked up is that?

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

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

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

Read More

Free Speech: The Right to be a Jackass?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Pimp my Whatever is Vile Misogynistic Twaddle

I can not express just how much I hate this expression. I genuinely can not believe that people blither on about "Pimp my ride" and don't get just how offensive it is. The origins of the term "pimp" are obvious. It originates in patriarchal-capitalist discourse. The term refers to the prostituting and sexual abuse of women's bodies. Pimps make money from the rape and abuse of vulnerable women.

I don't buy into this theory that we can reclaim the words of our oppressors. The meaning of pimp is the practise of rape. The increasing use of the verb "pimping" to mean promote or decorate an item is beyond disrespectful to the women's whose bodies have been abused, tortured and raped because of pimps. Language has power. The word pimp is misogynistic. It should not and can not be used in a "positive" manner. The excuse of "evolving" language should not apply to words whose origins are in racist, disablist, homophobic or misogynistic language. The women and children whose bodies and souls have been harmed by prostitution deserve better than to hear their experiences obscured by minimising language.

Read More

Language, Feminism and Reclaiming the Nincompoop

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

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

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

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

Read More