Where I retract my statement: Louise Mensch isn't a Complete Nincompoop

Literally 4 days ago, I declared Louise Mensch a nincompoop for her stance on depression and her article on intersectionality in the Guardian. I am still cross about both of her stances as it demonstrates a complete refusal to engage in the reality of the lives of women who aren't white and middle class.  As with Maria Miller's new pamphlet to fix the lack of "aspiration" in girls, Mensch is blinded by her privilege. They both make me very cranky.

However, the fact that their politics and their privilege make me cranky does not mean I discount them completely as Mensch's latest blog on child rape demonstrates. I may disagree with them fundamentally on some, very important, issues but equally I agree with Mensch's position that child porn does not exist; it is a term used to deflect male responsibility for the harm caused by the sexual abuse, rape and torture of children. 

I also firmly believe that feminists must listen to the voices of all women. It doesn't mean we have to agree but just that we cannot silence the voices of other women. The Capitatlist-Patriarchy already does this to women. Feminists must be different. 

We need to listen to one another and learn from one another. We also need to apologise when we are wrong. Being wrong isn't a weakness. Apologising isn't a weakness. 

Feminism is a journey and we are all at different places on that journey. We need to share our journeys with one another. We need to share our experiences with one another. 

I may disagree with Louise Mensch [and think she's frequently a nincompoop] but the idea that I should discount everything she says because I disagree with some is ridiculous. And anti-feminist. I don't read Mensch's blog on a daily basis because it's a fashion blog and I am not interested in fashion. I will read pieces of her blog which are retweeted into my timeline that sound interesting. This is how I came across the incredible blogs of Spectra Speaks and Gradient Lair. 

I know I've said this before but my feminism is about privileging women's voices. I started this blog to take a stand against cultural femicide. 

I will also not be told who I can and cannot speak to or whose work I must ignore because they do not meet some arbitrary definition of feminism. I am so privileged to have friends who cross the whole spectrum of feminism. I feel so privileged to have these women in my life and I will not dismiss them because others don't believe they are "good enough feminists".

We are all "good enough feminists": mistakes, warts and all.

Read More

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intersectionality - Round V at Black Feminists

Intersectionality for Dummies at Black Feminists

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

Standing on the Shoulders of Giants by Renie D Lodge

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

Being a Mentalist at Put Up with rain

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

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

Read More

Whiny Man Says Stupid Shit in the Guardian Shocker

I know. My mind was boggled at the Guardian publishing an article by a man whinging about the Matriarchy, after all, the Guardian never publishes misogynistic twaddle. *cough Ally Fogg cough*.

Anyway, today's Arsenugget Du Jour is one Jack O'Sullivan having a whinge about men being silent from the debate on masculinity in the media which is BAD. I'm not entirely sure how he's missed the fact that entire media is dominated by men blithering on about masculinity and their collectives penises but he has.

Fucks know what cave in Antarctica he's been living in to write this twaddle:

Men's absence from the debate has dramatic consequences, making it overwhelmingly negative. In recent weeks the focus has been on abuse of teenage girls, porn, male unemployment and misogyny. But next month it could be "deadbeat dads", domestic violence and harassment in the workplace.

The reason that everyone has been on about this "crisis in masculinity" is because of the sheer amount of violence men, as a class, have been committing. If men don't want women to take about the abuse of teenage girls they could start by not abusing teenage girls. If they don't want to be called "deadbeat dads", they could start by actually financially supporting the children they have. It's fairly obvious that if men don't want to be convicted of domestic violence, they probably shouldn't commit domestic violence. 

These all seem fairly obvious to me but apparently went straight over O'Sullivans head.

Really, though, there's no point in trying to engage intellectually with a man who is so stupid as to believe that misandry is as common and as aggressive as misogyny. Anyone who argues this isn't worth the effort:

But feminism has reinforced rather than challenged – or even acknowledged – matriarchy. It is an environment in which male spokesmen for change are unlikely to be nurtured. When they do articulate their views or concerns, they are often ridiculed or ignored by women. Misandry can be as nasty as misogyny and is as widespread (just check the internet). Smart men play safe and stay out of it. We're so conditioned, we don't even talk to each other.

On the other hand, the feminist smackdown on twitter has been incredibly funny. Perhaps this piece was meant to go in the funnies section? I mean, no man could seriously be this stupid, could they?

Read More

Nick Cave is a Better Feminist than Feminists

Obviously, the Nick Cave is a better feminists than feminists theory has been around for a while. He was blithering on about it in an interview in New York Mag in 2010. This is the full quote:

You write a lot about sexual neurosis, which has gotten you into some trouble. Do you consider yourself a feminist?  

Well, I don’t consider myself not one. I’m not a misogynist, so you can dispense with that. I think I’ve done wonders for the feminist movement. I get criticized for a lot of what I write about, but as far as I’m concerned I’m actually standing up and having a look at what goes on in the minds of men, and I have the authority to talk about it because I’m a man. Women don’t have the authority because they don’t know what goes on in a man’s head, so largely what they say is kind of irrelevant. My songs and stories and books are character-driven, they talk about the way people are and the way men are and women are. I’m actually confronting certain issues that some women appear to feel are now redundant.

Bless his little socks. What we think about what goes on in men's heads is irrelevant. I'm glad he thinks that because he won't like what I'm thinking right now. And, I'm sure he understands that I know what he thinks about women is complete twaddle: sexist twaddle at that. I do like the arrogance of Cave's being able to understand what women "are" when women are too incapable of understanding men.

Yep, nothing inherently problematic or anti-feminist with that piece of nincompoopery at all.

And, now, Cave has an awesome new album cover to prove his feminist credentials. One which does not objectify women's bodies in any way. After all, it's totally normal for men to be fully clothed whilst women are naked. And, it's totally normal for the man to be clearly ordering the woman from the room whilst the woman looks ashamed. Covering her face and breasts while displaying her vulva just looks pretty. Or, something.

Normally, this kind of crap bypasses me. I only came across it via Media through a Feminist Lens. I've read a huge chunk of the discussion of this album cover on Nick Cave's FB wall and all I can say is that is full of dingbats and nincompoops. This, however, is the best 'how to miss the point completely comment' by one of his fans on his FB wall: 

"How about waiting to listen to the album BEFORE you decide the image is offensive?"

Honestly, I had to read it about six times before I actually got that the quote was as dim as I thought. I had no idea my listening skills were required to analyse an image. 

You learn something new everyday.

[I am aware that the image is that of Cave's wife. I think that makes it creepier personally but it's the construction of clothed, powerful man and naked, shamed woman which I find so utterly Patriarchal and unpleasant.]

Read More

So, Kanye West, Uber-Feminist, Has Been Pondering The Word Bitch

As one does on Twitter. After penning a song by the same title. At least, I hear he's penned a title by the same name. I'm not exactly a Kanye West fan; what with him being a misogynistic nincompoop. Not that I follow West on Twitter what with the whole following only women to combat cultural femicide policy that I have. It also has a positive effect on my blood pressure since I rarely ever have to come across West; in any way shape or form, unless I'm reading Jezebel. It was the lovely round-up on Jezebel that lead me to West's utterly bizarre meanderings on Twitter.

Here's a clue: if you have to ask if something is offensive, it probably is. Especially, when what you actually ask is this: 

"To be more specific, is it acceptable for a man to call a woman a bitch even if it's endearing? Even typing it in question form it's still feels harsh?"

The word bitch has never been anything but offensive, with the possible exception of Meredith Brook's song Bitch but, even then, I'm not terribly convinced. And, bitch has never been a term of endearment unless you're a misogynistic arsewipe. You know, like Kanye West is. If your partner uses the word bitch as a term of endearment, you should be dumping his arse as fast as you can.

Read More

Look! More Offensive Clothing. This Time For Babies.

I love Twitter. Where else would I come across such examples of sartorial elegance for babies. Well, I didn't find them. It was @OSLioness who found them on Amazon. 

Available here

Available Here

Now, I know Mumsnet has an undeserved reputation for judginess, but I'm going to have to hoick up my judgey-pants here. If you put your kid in one of these, I'm going to assume you're a nincompoop. 

Read More

So, Prince Harry Got Naked in Vegas and I'm Supposed to Care about HIs Right to Privacy

As ever, I think the media, and the all dipsticks in a frenzy over this, have got themselves mixed-up in some sort of David-Bowie-inspired-Labyrinth debacle. This isn't about the constraints on the British Press which prohibit them from invading the privacy of the Royal Family. This debate should be about everyone's right to privacy. No one should find pictures of themselves being drunk, stupid and naked on the web; even over-entitled white boys with some serious privilege issues. And, let's be honest here, the media sources making po-faced statements about not being allowed to show pictures of Harry's penis are actually whinging about not being allowed to. I doubt even channel 4 news would have managed to refrain themselves from showing all the footage of Harry's penis if they though they could get away with it.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about Harry. I think he's a buckethead and I have no time for him or the rest of the nincompoops in his family. I do, however, care about his right to privacy and that of ordinary people; especially those who are vulnerable. I think Paris Hilton is nincompoop but no one deserves to have their sex tapes available on TMZ [or whoever posted them. I'm not going to google this to double check which parasitic media outlet actually published them]. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted in this manner. And, here, I do mean sexually assaulted. Having pictures of your unclothed body posted about the net for others to sneer at or masturbate to is sexualised violence.

And, yeah, I'm sure some will read this and think I'm over-reacting; that Harry is just being a jack-the-lad and it's all a bit of a fuss over nothing. I would agree that Harry playing naked billiards with his mates is neither news-worthy or surprising [although, let's be honest here, possibly a bit unsafe playing it drunk]. But, it is sexualised violence to post pictures of his body naked without permission. Frankly, I'm not overly-fond of the issues around consent and naked pictures in general. I think far too many vulnerable people get pushed into both being photographed or filmed naked and then lose the rights to their images but are somehow led to believe they have "consented" through "choice" [and, seriously, do I loathe "choice" feminism and it's insistence on pretending to "empower" vulnerable women through their sexual exploitation].

There is also a gendered dimension to this issue which the press is conveniently obfuscating. Harry, age 27, running about naked is a bit of a laugh; Vanessa Hudgens, still pretty much a teenager, sending a man naked pictures of herself is a "slut". This is without even getting into the serious misogyny which has punished both Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. The old slut-shaming double standard always rears it's ugly-head in these situations. As @londonfeminist tweeted this morning:

Just imagining today's headlines if Prince Harry were Princess Helen.

We all know the Daily Fail would be running headlines about a Princess Helen being disgrace to the crown, a slut, a whore and a whole passel of nincompoopery. They'd publish the photos. They wouldn't care about a Princess's right to privacy; not in their desperate attempt to label her a whore.

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.

Read More

Assange: The Quintessential Example of White Male Privilege and Their Silencing Techniques

I haven't blogged about the lying git that is Assange yet because it makes me both homicidally angry and thoroughly depressed at the number of people who are on the left of political spectrum but also seem to be clinically stupid. It is perfectly possible to have some good political policies whilst remaining a misogynist with a history of sexually abusive behaviour. Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy both being cases in point. Being critical of the Military-Industrial complexes isn't a get-out-of-jail free card for rapists. Anyone who claims it is is, simply, a rape apologist who is perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. We shouldn't be allowing the existence of that kind of misogynistic bollox.

I haven't blogged about Assange because I don't want to add to his messiah complex. He is quite clearly an attention seeking whingefest of the most egregious sort. I didn't bother to watch his speech from the balcony either. I don't want to waste my time on someone who has their head jammed so far up their ass that they think they are The Second Coming. I genuinely think the media need to stop covering this case. That attention seeking arsehole doesn't need the publicity. After all, the official Wikileaks twitter feed published this a few weeks ago:

Despite not even being charged, Assange is the most rape-smeared man in modern history. 2x to 4x that of DSK, depending on how you measure.

He doesn't need the media feeding his messiah complex too. Assange supporters could join with Ched Evans supporters and form a supergroup of whiny-arsed, stupid nincompoops with serious delusions of grandeur. And, then decamp to some remote island somewhere so the rest of us don't have to listen to their shit.

As much as I hate the idea of giving this arsehole even more publicity, I think keeping silent whilst supposedly intelligent journalists, like, say, John Pilger, are spreading myths is immoral. We need to change the language we use to discuss this case. We need to stop confusing Assange the person with Wikileaks. We need to stop pretending that being right about one thing means that someone is right about everything. It is perfectly possible for Wikileaks to be an important political tool whilst recognising that Assange is a nincompoop. After all, he isn't the only person who works for Wikileaks AND it's not like Assange doesn't already have form for leaving Wikileaks supporters high and dry. We need to start challenging the myth that celebrities don't need to rape because they could get anyone woman they want. These are exactly the kinds of men who are rapists because they believe they are entitled to whatever they want whenever they want.

The only reason we should be talking about Assange is to support victims of rape; including the two women Assange sexually assaulted. We need to start taking real action in the face of rape myths to support women who have been raped. After all, we all know that one of the reasons many, many women refuse to report their rape is because they are afraid of being disbelieved. The woman Ched Evans raped has had her reputation and name smeared across Twitter by Ched Evans supporters. The two women in the Assange case, who deserve to have their anonymity protected, have had their real names trashed across the internet.

The only reason to be mentioning Assange's name is to ensure that rape victims know just how many people believe them and will support them.

We need to make our voices louder than the rapists, rape apologists and their handmaidens.

And, we need to get Assange to shut the fuck up.

Read More

Thankfully, Misogyny Returns to Live Another Day: The Olympic Closing Ceremony

So, The Olympic Closing Ceremony has returned us to normalcy with Misogyny making it's big comeback; along with Freddie Mercury and John Lennon. I do have to state, for the record, that I went to bed during The Who and I haven't bothered to read any blogs or media reports on the Closing Ceremony yet so it's entirely possible I'm just repeating what everyone else is saying. But, I don't actually care. The Closing Ceremony was just an embarrassing celebration of nincompoopery and misogyny. Spending two weeks celebrating the talents and athletic ability of some truly incredible and inspiring women to end it with 2 women famous for wearing clothes seems a bit, well, pathetic. Not to mention, the whole Kate Moss cocaine issue and Naomi Campbell with her violence problems. Moss, at least, wasn't too out of place considering the rest of the show seemed to be a Who's Who of British Drug Addiction. Why Pete Doherty wasn't invited is anyone's guess.

I thought most of the Closing Ceremony was tedious, ill-conceived and poorly executed nincompoopery. I can't begin to imagine why anyone thought One Direction was a good idea or what dimwit was in charge of sound and hadn't planned enough music for the Athlete's Parade so that they were forced to repeat music from the first half; cleverly highlighting who had been lip-syncing. All in all, it was nowhere near as good as the Opening Ceremony lacking any sense of story-telling or political protest. I was holding out for a Pussy Riot protest art piece and the Kaiser Chiefs singing I Predict a Riot. I was sorely disappointed by the lack of both. Although, I do have to give whoever was in charge props for celebrating two charming British institutions: the traffic jam and police kettling tactics. Unfortunately, those were simply not whimsical enough to maintain any sense of fun during 3 tedious hours of bad British music: performed by some who should have been better [and I'm looking at you here Beady Eye].

But, what really fucked me off was the Ode To Misogyny which was the second half. That should have been accompanied by Soul II Soul's Back to Reality wherein men are celebrated (fully clothed) for their talents and women were running around half-naked. Then, at least, we could have pretended it was meant ironically. And, yeah, I'm fucking incensed that Moss and Campbell's images were paraded around the venue on the back of a truck: because objectifying women's bodies is just so cool and, you know, unusual. Or, something equally tedious.

That alone was just beyond fucking sexist bollocks but Eric Idle surrounded by (fake?) Victoria Secret's Models in angel gear was the final nail in a night of extreme stupidity. Monty Python aren't exactly reknown for their realistic portrayal of women but accompanying Always Look on the Bright Side of Life with a bunch of angels in their underwear is just beyond ignorant. They had a chance to do something truly spectacular and original with the Monty Python sketch and instead went with the same tedious misogyny; much like they did with the inclusion of rape apologist Russell Brand. It was disgraceful. He is disgraceful. The less said about him, the better.

The ONLY redeeming feature of the whole night was Darcey Bussell. She is just an incredible athlete and a true celebration of British talent. That sequence with the Phoenix and the brilliant dancing was the best part of the Closing Ceremony. As soon as someone with better computer skills than me puts the Phoenix sequence on youtube, I will post it because it was genius. 

The rest was a gigantic pile of shite. And, I can't even begin to work out what Annie Lennox was on about. If this Olympics was a real celebration of women athletes with Saudi Arabia sending women competitors for the first time, Lennox should have been singing her anthems of women power: Sisters are Doing it for Themselves or Sing. Oh, and George Micheal's Freedom should have been performed by women in Pussy Riot outfits. Just because. But, it wasn't. It was the same tedious misogynistic constructions of patriarchal conformity celebrating the hyper-sexualised objectification of women's bodies that Playboy peddles daily. A waste of money and time.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: @BittyLabs "Reclaim Your Wife" Awfulness

It's a company that sells baby bottles by telling men that women's breast belong to men. Because, God forbid, a woman use her breasts to feed her child. You know, like every other freaking mammal does. Nope, even in the first few precious months [or years!] women are expected to remain nothing more than fucktoys for their husbands. It's the one time in your life that you should feel proud and beautiful about your body which gestated a child for 40 odd weeks and then birthed that baby. No women should be made to feel worthless for not passing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test but targeting a new mother is just pathetic.

Alright, it was "just" a twitter campaign, but, come on, who actually thinks this shit is appropriate? Who thinks men are this stupid? And, if you do happen to run into a man who thinks this is funny, you probably shouldn't be reproducing with him. Jealous, infantile arsewipes do not make good men. Nor do they make good fathers. I can pretty much guarantee you any man that finds this funny will be out the door within a few years, won't pay any maintenance but will feel the need to ruin your child's life by pissing about with access visits.

These are the actual tweets Bitty Labs sent out:





Just in case you've missed the obvious "women are nothing more than fucktoys" reference in the first tweet, they conveniently sent out a second one to appeal to that subsection of extremely stupid arsewipes. This is such an epic social media failure that I genuinely can't get up the energy to email them to complain. Anyone who can tweet this wouldn't be bright enough to understand my critique of the capitalist-patriarchal anti-woman bullshit they are propogating.

So,they've made a half-hearted attempt at an apology but, let's face it, this is still a piece of misogynistic twaddle:

Ladies, We’re really sorry about the twitter campaign run last week. It was a huge miss understood [sic] and resulted in offensive messages. It was taken down yesterday. The messages had nothing to do with putting a husband needs before the baby’s needs, it was more about having a little extra time for the rest of the family. Obviously the whole campaign was poorly executed. We apologize deeply for this miss understanding and assure you, from now on the campaigns will be closely monitored before they go out. Thank you for a second chance.

Really, if you aren't going to bother apologising properly, there's really no point in bothering. It just makes you look like an even bigger nincompoop.

Oh, and not to put to fine a point on it, but the name Bitty Lab itself is pretty much the definition of misogynistic nastiness.

Read More

A Bunch of Men Got Together to Pretend that Domestic Violence Rates are Falling

And, guess what, they were lying through the teeth. Or, are complete nincompoops with no understanding of statistics which seems a bit far-fetched considering their various academic credentials. Now, when I read Alan Travis's article in the Guardian, I did think the whole thing smelled fishy. I haven't actually read the Office for National Statistics report but the idea that domestic violence is decreasing would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous. I had planned to read the report myself to discover just how wrong the Guardian report is but, helpfully, the Liberal Conspiracy has already done that for me.

I was right. There has been some rather loosey-goosey playing with statistics to come up with the theory that domestic violence is decreasing. As Ally Fogg writes in her blog:

The whopping great mistake in all these reports (which may or may not originate with the ONS themselves) is to include ‘friends and acquaintances’ as domestic violence casualties. They’re not. Many of these ‘acquaintances’ may be rival drug dealers, for example. In fact, in 2010/11, the “friends and acquaintances” category was by far the largest subset of the group, accounting for 204 murders – more than twice as many as female DV victims. Every previous year shows the same pattern. The full category also includes children killed by parents; parents (including elderly relatives) killed by their children; sibling murders; husbands killed by wives and various ‘other’ combinations. Rather than accounting for over two thirds of murders as Cohen claims, in 2010/11 only 17% of homicides were women being murdered by their partners.

Now, I'm not big into conspiracy theories but I do have ask how a number of highly intelligent men could misread the statistics so appalling. I'd also like to know just what they think domestic violence is because I think the rest of us are working off entirely different definitions of DV. I'm rather fond of the Nia project's definition since it concise, intelligent and doesn't confuse acquaintance murder with systemic VAW:

Domestic/intimate partner violence – a pattern of coercive control, which includes combinations of physical, sexual, psychological and financial abuse by a current or former partner. In extreme cases this includes murder.

I notice none of the articles I've seen on this "trend" reference any organisations working in the field of VAW, like Nia or Women's Aid.

As lovely as the thought is, domestic violence isn't decreasing. It remains a constant statistic with the serious long-term consequences for families. Apparently, services dealing with domestic violence cost England 5.5 billion a year. The Scottish government suggests that domestic violence costs us 2.3 billion a year. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that the government is deliberately running a campaign to pretend domestic violence is decreasing in order to justify their massive, debilitating cuts to services for women.

But, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just don't think a lot of people care very much about domestic violence and VAW in general. If they did, journalists wouldn't be writing such poorly researched flights of stupidity.

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

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

The Vicky Bliss Mysteries: Great Feminist Books; Unfortunate Use of the word Misandry

I loved these books. They totally inspired my inner history nerd especially as I know *nothing* about art or art history. I love museums and art galleries but my retention of who did what and when is appalling. I have fairly plebian tastes about art and am firmly convinced that all outdoor art installations are meant to be climbed on by small children. There is no point in art existing if we all just stand around staring at it. Art should be engaged with and small children crawling all over outdoor sculptures is engagement.

The first Vicky Bliss book by Elizabeth Peters, Borrower of the Night, dates from 1973. It is an overtly feminist book with the character of Vicky Bliss announcing her stance as a feminist in the first chapter. She is an art historian with a PhD teaching at a small US college [who then starts working at a museum in Germany by stint of some excellent blackmail]. She is bright, funny, intelligent, and ambitious; all required characteristics of a great feminist.

But, and its a huge but, Peters insists on using the word "misandry". I hate this word, especially when its bandied about to describe one man. It is perfectly legitimate to hate one man because they are a rapist or a misogynist or a racist or homophobic or a thousand other things. But, misandry isn't the word to use here. It's just hate. Misandry is a word bandied about by Misogynist Rights Activists [MRAs] who like to think that 'misandry' is equal to misogyny which is complete and unmitigated nincompoopery.

Misogyny isn't just hating women. It's the structural, institutionalised, and endemic hatred of women which is (re)created and replicated in political, social, religious and cultural systems. It is embedded in every facet of society and isn't just about disliking one women; it's about engaging in behaviours which replicate the patriarchal subjugation of women. It is everything from sexist jokes to pornography to rape culture. It's about millions of women dying needlessly every day because they are women through all kinds of violence including malnutrition from not being valued enough to be given enough food to eat. It's the laws on rape which favour male rapists over female victims. It's in the piss poor child maintenance and domestic violence laws. It's in the basic practise of women being paid less than men for the same job or being considered responsible for all the childcare and housework. It is the practise of rape as a tactic of war on female bodies to "emasculate" their male "protectors". It is in every music video which requires a talented female musician to gyrate half-naked in order to sell their music. It is everywhere. And, it is everything.

Misandry only exists in the minds of whiny-arsed men afraid of having to give up their privileged positions. Misandry only exists in the minds of misogynists. It is not real.

Read More

FFS: School Uniforms DON'T improve children's learning or behaviour.

It doesn't matter if you stick a bunch of preschoolers in ties or teenagers in bright orange prison jumpsuits, dressing children the same doesn't make them better learners. It doesn't make them behave better. Children learn best in safe environments where they are respected and where the staff and management respect one another. I know I've ranted about this before [and all over MN] but I have NEVER seen any research-based evidence that says uniform increases student outcomes or changes their behaviour positively. I have seen lots of studies which imply this [and media coverage which swears blind that this is the case] but in these studies the inclusion or formalising of school uniforms has always been part of a wide-ranging number of changes to the schools including a new management team and a new behavioural contract policy.

This article in the BBC just made me want to rip my hair out. Now, I don't necessarily agree that teenagers calling their teachers by their first names is a good thing. That's the type of behaviour that comes after positive relationships already exist between the students and staff [and I frigging loathe the diminutive "Miss" for women teachers. Totally demeaning that shit is]. But, this pretence that British children learn better wearing ties and shorts in the winter is just nincompoopery. American, Canadian and German children don't wear uniforms and their children aren't running about like Barbarians blowing up schools and assassinating their teachers. Violence does occur but that is reflected, particularly in the US, in the exclusion of poor, ethnic minority students into sinkhole schools and gang culture. It's about poverty and racism. Children aren't stupid. They can tell when their school is funded properly or when they are being dumped somewhere with teachers who don't care and they respond accordingly.

Could we just stop with this freaking cognitive dissonance about ties making kids learn better. It just seriously farks me off.

Read More

Apparently, Angela Merkel has a vagina.

I know this because @IndiaKnight, and others, are gleefully insulting her "camel toe" on Twitter. Now, this could be some of my weird-arse feminist principles coming into play, but Angela Merkel's vagina or vulva or whatever genitalia is currently being belittled is possibly the least interesting thing about her. [Unless she has a corn on her toe. I don't actually care about that either.] The important thing here is that she's the Chancellor of Germany; like the only financially stable country in Europe right now.

The woman has actual fiscal power to help end the recession [not to mention that pesky issue of the more women in power, the more likely issues specific to women are to get government attention]. Merkel is a hell of a lot smarter than The Double Nincompoop Act of Sarkozy and Berlusconi and I thank the Goddess everyday that those two are gone. But, I don't remember Twitter insulting the various genitalia of those two and, frankly, their sexually predatory behaviour is well-documented.

But, Merkel has a vagina. And, it doesn't matter what she does or how she does it. All that matters is that, today, Merkel has a "camel toe" and, therefore, is an object of ridicule. My crazy-arse Feminist principles don't care how Merkel looks. I care what she says and the consequences of her actions. They have the real ability to cause serious harm or fix a serious situation. Her vagina does not. So let's stop playing the Patriarchal Fuckability Game and start worrying about what Merkel is doing [along with every other European politician] right now.

Read More

FemFresh: Got to love a Feminist Smackdown

I do love a Feminst smackdown. There is nothing like a full on Feminist smackdown of Patriarchal arse-hattery. And, the Feminist smackdown of Femfresh is just genius. And, do they deserve it. Not just for selling a product which labels women's bodies disgusting and smelly for being real but for the total inability to use the actual NAME for those body parts. Because vagina and vulva are such horribly dirty things that even their name is tainted by their disgustingness. I wouldn't have linked the FB page except the comments by Feminists are freaking hilarious. 

These are some of the blogs I've been reading : 

Cath Bussey

Stavvers

Girlonthenet

London Feminist

OhHellWhatTheHell

Who says Feminsts aren't funny?

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