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

#StopBiggestLoser: The Myth of Parental Consent

Anyone who reads this blog will not be surprised by my stance on reality television. I think its the 21st century version of the 19th century freak show. Our main source of entertainment is the deliberate and malicious humiliation of vulnerable people. I have no interest in any kind of reality television from X-Factor to Dancing with the Stars to Celebrity Big Brother to anything featuring Gok Wan. They have no value except in their exploitation of people for the entertainment of others. I genuinely don't understand why people watch them; or why people think it's acceptable to make snide and offensive remarks about the physical appearance of the contestants.

Reality television is cruel when it's X-Factor; The Biggest Loser takes it to a whole new level of violence. The fat-shaming is indefensible and inhumane. That is without getting into the quite serious health consequences of crash dieting. Yoni Freedhoof MD has written eloquently on the physical and emotional harm caused by The Biggest Loser in the Huffington Post linking to a study which "demonstrated that watching even a single episode of The Biggest Loser dramatically increased hateful weight bias among viewers -- an effect that was heightened among non-overweight viewers". The Biggest Loser buys into the worst kind of hateful choice rhetoric which blames individuals for their "poor choices" without acknowledging the political, social and personal structures within which their "choices" are made.

The Biggest Loser is hateful, fat-shaming misogyny at its most insidious; dressed up as entertainment for bullies.

This season's The Biggest Loser has taken the bullying a step further and allowed three children to "participate" in the program: two of whom are only 13. They are 13 years old and their parents have consented to their public humiliation and bullying.

There are a few things which parents should be legally prohibited from consenting to on behalf of their children and participation in reality television is one of those things. No child should be placed in a position wherein the outcome would be their public humiliation and that includes MTV's My Super Sweet Sixteen to Toddlers and Tiaras and it's spin-off Honey Boo Boo. Children deserve the right to grow up safe and secure. Placing them in front of cameras and labelling them fat or spoilt or stupid is not allowing children to be children. It is adults profiting from the emotional and physical abuse of children. No parent should have the legal right to put their child in this position.

Children are not possessions and we do them tremendous harm when we treat them as such.

We need to stop treating our children as possessions and we need to stop pretending that parental consent trumps all (and that's without getting into the whole your baby, your choice or a happy mamma = a happy baby twaddle which is used to excuse all manner of nincompoopery). There are already many things in which parental consent is invalidated due to state laws. We need to expand this to prohibit the appearance of children on reality television.

Parental consent is not a get-out clause. It is a myth. Parents should not have the legal right to make decisions on behalf of their children which will cause them imminent harm. Appearing on reality television is harmful. Allowing our children to be bullied and humiliated for "entertainment" is harmful.

But, this isn't just about the parents who consent to "allowing" their children to appear on reality television. As I have said in the Huffington Post: "(b)efore we start blaming others, we need to check our own behaviour, examine our own privilege, and stop financially supporting an industry based on the abject humiliation of others". We need to prohibit the appearance of children on reality television but we also need to stop allowing children to watch reality television. 

We need to stop exposing our children to "entertainment" which gives them permission to verbally abusive to others.

We need to stop exposing our children to "entertainment" which tells them that fat-shaming and slut-shaming are acceptable behaviours.

We need to stop exposing our children to "entertainment" which tells them that they deserve to be publicly humiliated for being "different".

We need to stop telling our children that being a "celebrity" is more important than their emotional well-being.

Our reality television culture obsession needs to end.

Our children deserve better.

And, parental consent is not an excuse. 

Read More

Misogynisitic Advertising Walk of Shame: PETA Redux

I bet everyone's shocked to read that PETA have yet another misogynistic advertising campaign out: this time featuring domestic violence. I know I was. After all, PETA have such a great history of working for the end to animal testing of make-up and preventing animal abuse within the mass farming industry without engaging in any kind of misogynistic nincompoopery. Or, erm, something like that anyway.

I genuinely don't get how anyone with an ounce of empathy can take these misogynistic arseholes seriously. Make no mistake, PETA is a deeply misogynistic organisation. This isn't them being sexist because we live in a patriarchal society and they don't have the critical thinking skills to see they harm they are doing. PETA actively campaign for animal rights by romanticising and eroticising violence against women. They did it with their banned Superbowl ad featuring women having sex with vegetables [which they ripped off from the misogynists of Voina before they came up with Pussy Riot] and they did it by carving Pamela Anderson into a piece of meat. Their comparisons with slavery are crass and the use of the Holocaust to make a point just vile but criticism of the hurt caused by their campaigns has never stopped PETA. If anything, their level of violent, abusive nincompoopery has served only to encourage stupid celebrity after stupid celebrity to join them, proving once again that the best way to be famous is to be an arsehole. There is a PETITION HERE. This is the text of the petition:PETA launched a new campaign encouraging people to go Vegan by promoting violence against women. Violence in any form is never okay. In its latest ploy to correlate being vegan with sex, PETA has over stepped every line in a campaign that would make anyone cringe. The campaign is called: BWVAKTBOOM: "Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom out of Me." Appropriately titled for a series of advertisements that not only display [without any trigger warnings], but highlight and romanticize sexual violence against women. In its latest ad, PETA portrays a disheveled and physically & sexually battered woman who is the “latest victim” of a boyfriend who went vegan and then “knocked the bottom out of her”. She is seen with bruises all over her body and even has to wear a neck-brace. PETA further proves its ignorance around violence against women by boasting a new website for the BWVAKTBOOM campaign where videos can be readily viewed, and there is a [intended-to-be] humorous “call” to prevent BWVAKTBOOM-related injuries. Violent messages are sent, such as: “For years, women have been open to the physical, emotional, and karmic benefits of veganism. But now, more and more men are discovering the perks of a plant-based diet. More specifically, a dramatic increase in their wang power and sexual stamina. Unfortunately, the consequences of all this mind-blowing intercourse can often lead to sex injuries such as whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.” PETA has clearly overlooked any regard for survivors of sexual and domestic violence in this new campaign, while making a mockery out of the seriousness of violence against women. In taking a stand that there is NEVER an excuse to promote or diminish the real-life impact of violence, I demand the full termination of the BWVAKTBOOM campaign.

PLEASE SIGN HERE

Read More

Coco Khan: Missing the Point of Slutwalk Entirely

I wasn't going to write anymore about Slutwalk this week; especially after Slutwalk London came out on the side of rape apologists. Then, in the it never rains, but pours construction of life, I came across this piece of nincompoopery in the Huffington Post. Yes, Coco Khan claims to be aware of the criticisms surrounding Slutwalk and chose to attend in spite of her misgivings. But, I'm struggling to see how one can claim to be aware of the criticisms and support of Slutwalk and then write this: 

I didn't stay long, I was too angry, hurt and disappointed - it's the same feeling as watching your underdog football team (Feminism FC) get all the way to cup finals and then crash and burn because they still hadn't ironed out that formation problem from Round 1. It was the liberal and constant use of the word 'victim' that infuriated me, it was the speeches that assumed Assange did it, like a speech the year before assumed DSK did too. 

It was the insipid use of facts such as '93% of rapists get away with it' as though every single man accused was guilty. Feminism isn't about assuming every accused man is a rapist. It's about equality, and freedom, or specifically fair trials and fair treatment. I was equally upset to see a youthful crowd, a new generation of feminists whose interest had been piqued, being completely misdirected. It's important to stand around and cheer, to raise our firsts in the air, to weep at the tales of the people we fight for and be inspired by them too. But it's also important to get organised.

I mean, where do you even start? Yes, 93% [give or take a few percentage points] of men accused of rape are never convicted of rape but, that's because we live in a rape culture where men are constructed as victims of lying whores. Thing is most men accused of rape are guilty of rape. They may not be found guilty in a court of law but that's because the law's an ass. Very few accusations of rape are false. Even the government and the FBI, neither of whom are hotbeds of radical feminism, agree with these statistics. So, why would any woman write anything so utterly ridiculous? Did Khan completely fail to see how offensive and arrogant that is to rape victims? Last time, I checked feminism was about the liberation of women from male violence and equality, fair trials and fair treatment for women [and children]  who were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. It is they who get unfair treatment in the criminal justice system. Not rapists. I genuinely can not express how unbelievably angry I am at that.

As for the references to Julian Assange and Domique Strauss-Khan, well, they were kind of obvious weren't they? Imagine an anti-rape demonstration not mentioning the two most famous rape trials of the past two years? Two cases involving powerful, wealthy, white men where the men have been constructed as victims of some sort of evil feminist conspiracy because both self-define as liberals. It is the very rape myths surrounding these trials that Slutwalk is attempting to address. Yeah, I don't agree with the way Slutwalk is addressing the issue by using the word slut, but, FFS, criticising an anti-rape demo for talking about rape cases is beyond stupid. 

And, yes, I'm sure the speakers at the rally used the word victim constantly. Just as I'm sure some of them will have used the word survivor constantly. Women who were raped are more than within their rights to define themselves as victims or survivors as they see fit. There is debate within the feminist and other anti-rape movements about which word is more applicable but Khan doesn't seem to be addressing this debate. She seems to be dismissing the idea that many women are victims and/or survivors of sexualised violence. It's a very odd statement to make.

And, the "it's time to get organised" bit, is, well, weird. Isn't that exactly what Slutwalk was doing: organising a feminist demonstration. Giving women a place to share their stories . It seems rather hypocritical to be criticising someone for not organising feminist activism at a piece of feminist activism. The conclusion to the article does nothing to negate the damage caused within it:

What Slutwalk has achieved can never be disregarded. It energized a growing and inexplicable discontent amongst women and directed it in a way that academia never could. It stopped preaching to the choir and took it the streets. For all its flaws in its punchy, explosive name, the reality is no one will come to a rally that sounds like an essay and Slutwalk should keep doing what they are doing. But this event is not enough to carry the bright flame of feminism single-handedly; two chapters in, the story has barely begun.

Yep, I'm a big supporter of the whole moving away from Slutwalk into more critical discussions of rape culture but I'd prefer to start by moving away from the premise that most women lie about rape and most men accused of rape are victims of an evil conspiracy. Could just be me though. Doing that whole over-thinking thing feminists are always being accused of. 

Read More

How to Identify a Misogynist: Neil Wallis takes a Tour through Narcissism.

Otherwise entitled: Reason 347 why I don't follow men on twitter: unrelenting levels of nincompoopery. Really, no one should be bothering to read anything written by a man so dense but, unfortunately, Neil Wallis is also a former deputy editor of the Sun. You know, one of those aresholes responsible for the Page 3 phenomenon. Suffice it say that I had never heard of Wallis until I read his self-righteous, utterly narcissistic defence of the Page 3 in the Huffington Post complete with unbearably smug quotes of tweets which make him sound like a Hugh Hefner wannabe .

Normally, I wouldn't even bother responding to the whinging twaddle of misogynists being called on their misogyny but this is such a brilliant piece of mansplainin' twaddle helpfully called: "Why the Self-Serving Wimmin Who Want to Ban Page 3 Are So Wrong". Anytime a man uses the term "wimmin", you know he's going to be a misogynistic areswipe. When men use words like "hysteria" and "shrill" to describe women they disagree with, you know they are misogynists. 

Anytime a man suggests there is something more important in the world for feminists be focusing on, you know he's a misogynist. And stupid to boot. Apparently, Wallis is unaware of campaigns on FGM, white slavery , sexual stereotypes, forced marriages and under-age sex. I'm guessing at that rant that Wallis has never actually met a feminist. Apparently, the people who read The Sun are the ones who worry about feeding their kids and paying the rent; not those of who think that Page 3 is nothing more than the objectification of women's bodies. Yep, that's us crazy feminists. Worrying about how to pay the rent AND the increasing pornographication of our society. Gosh, it's like women might be able to think about more than two things at once and that would never, ever do. We get actual opinions backed up by real research and then where would we be? Armageddon perhaps?

Clearly, I missed the memo where feminists are one of the Four Horses of the Apocalypse. I will undertake riding lessons soon so that I am fully prepared for our battalion. After, I manage to make enough money to pay the rent, feed my kids and pay for those pesky riding lessons. Possibly, also after someone finds a cure for horse allergies.

Do feel free to sign the petition against Page 3 here.

When you are free in between learning to ride horses and saving white women from slavery.

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