Marks & Spencer's uses Womanism to Sell Knickers: Or, why Google is your friend

Here's a hint to all those folks working in advertising: before you launch a new campaign, you should probably google just to make sure that new word you're "inventing" doesn't already mean something else. It's really not that hard: go to www.google.com and type in the word. Then hit search. 

This simple piece of information prevents all kinds of embarrassing booboos: say, for instance, using the term "womanism" to describe your company.

You could even go straight to Wikipedia and type in, for instance, womanism and discover that it's already an actual thing.

Even if you don't have a history of tokenism when employing non-white women in your advertising campaigns, it's probably best to stay from using a term that's existed for a couple of hundred years but whose current definition involves the acknowledgment of the erasure of women of colour from mainstream 1st and 2nd wave feminism. Not to mention their current marginalisation from media representations of feminism [see: Guardian's coverage of UK Feminista Summer School which focuses only on white woman as if no women of colour were involved].

Really, it's not that hard to double check to see if you're making a huge fuck-up in your new campaign. Surely, there's an unpaid intern running about with a smart phone who could check for you if you're too busy being a super-important advertiser to check whether or not you're supporting the White Supremacy. 

And, Vagenda, whilst I thank you for raising awareness of this disgraceful event, I do think the swipe at intersectional feminism was a tad unnecessary.

Read More

Feminism, Racism, Misogyny, and Privilege

I started this blog post several months ago after I entered a discussion about the existence of Islamaphobia (it does) and whether or not its possible for individuals to "see past stereotypes". It started as an attempt to clarify my thoughts following the discussion but I couldn't quite articulate what I wanted to say. As a white, middle class feminist, it felt arrogant to try to write this piece. It felt equally arrogant not to write. I also lost a friend because of that discussion. So, I took the chickenshit way out and didn't finish writing this piece.

This piece would probably have stayed as a draft in my file marked "too scared to post" had it not been for yet another debate on whether or not Beyonce is a feminist [Frankly, I would have thought that was a question for Beyonce to answer rather than white women deciding for her but, apparently, no]. Now, I haven't read the article in Ms Magazine which has, once again, kickstarted the debate so this isn't so much a response to that article as it is burblings from my brain. For a proper response to that article, please read this post on Gradient Lair. 

Really, I shouldn't be conflating these two issues but I'm still trying to work out what I want to say. It's so hard to articulate effectively in a medium like twitter wherein people seem to want to take offence the moment you disagree with them without actually listening to why you disagree with them and others who want to take offence no matter what you say. I don't like this idea that there is an official arbiter of who is and who is not a feminist. I also don't like this idea that we can not have disagreements about feminism without people deliberately taking offence when none was intended. I also don't want to cause hurt unintentionally. I am afraid I will be by writing this or, at least, I'm afraid that I can't write this without sounding pompous, patronising and utterly ridiculous. At the same time, not writing feels like I'm deliberately ignoring my sisters.

Basically, I don't think it's possible to not be racist, homophobic, disablist or misogynist in our Capitalist-Patriarchal culture. I want to claim that I am none of the above but that feels, well, arrogant, considering we live in a culture in which I, as a middle class white woman with a high standard of patriarchy-approved education, have a tremendous amount of privilege. Regardless of how hard we try, it is almost impossible to live, as a privileged white woman, without reinforcing the White Supremacy. We reinforce the White Supremacy in a myriad of small ways daily; many of these are unintentional but they still function to reinforce the oppression of our sisters.

As privileged white women, it is our responsibility to stand with our sisters: to listen, to support and to challenge those engaged in abusive language or behaviour. In real life, it is generally easy to know (or feel safe) when to call someone on behaviour or language which is offensive: to know when calling a man on offensive language will result in him listening or when it will result in violence. I very rarely call men out directly because I am afraid of male violence. I call the police but that rarely results in the police doing anything. It is hypocritical of me to call women out more than men, when male violence is the problem, but that is our culture. I am less afraid of having my jaw broken when calling out a woman than a man. This does result in reinforcing the patriarchal construct of holding women to a higher standard of behaviour than men but I am not sure how to change this without getting assaulted.

On twitter, it is so much more difficult to know when to call someone out. You cannot know how the person will respond and whilst there is no immediate threat of physical violence, abusive language [and getting their mates along to threaten] does silence people. These tactics on twitter are getting more common and more abusive. There is an assumption that everyone must call everyone out over every written word. There is little attempt to have constructive dialogue; the first response is abusive language followed by having a mob descend on a person. Whilst some people are lost causes [see Dr. Christian], having a large number of people descend on one person using abusive language doesn't actually help especially if that person did not intend to cause offence. Call out culture on twitter isn't about changing the language which, sometimes unintentionally, supports the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. Frequently, it feels like a group of people with boundary and anger issues taking out their personal issues on other people. 

Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that we stop calling people out for reinforcement of the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. I am suggesting that we pause before attacking and assess the situation, particularly when it is privileged white women doing the calling out. Yes, we absolutely have to stand up for sisters but we also must ensure that we aren't speaking for them either. Many of the "call out" rucks I have seen on twitter have been by white women-born on behalf of other women. Whilst it is important that we examine our own privilege and participate in the call-out culture, far too often I have seen women taking offence on behalf of an oppressed group and then speak for them. This is equally unacceptable as it contributes to the Othering of women.

I have called out numerous people on twitter but only those who I think will listen or those whose followers might listen in the case of celebrities. Frequently, I do so via DM because I find people respond better to polite suggestions than angry ranting [although angry ranting at Dr. Christian is quite therapeutic]. I do this for people who clearly intended no harm. I report those who are clearly trolling with abusive language because they are only after the fight. I won't engage in debate because they genuinely don't give a shit who they hurt. They just thrive on the attention and we need to stop giving them the attention.

In the personal case I mentioned above, I thought it was safe to call my friend out publicly on twitter as she is a feminist who I have campaigned with for several years. We have never agreed politically on many issues but that has never been a requirement of friendship for me. I thought we had a relationship where we could listen to one another and learn from each other.

I was wrong.

Our friendship ended because I thought she would hear me when I said Islamaphobia exists: that most people cannot see out with the cultural stereotypes they raised within. I was sad at the end of our friendship but I felt happy that I had called her out for racism. Hell, I felt smug. 

A few months later, I read a blog by a WofC expressing her distress at the number of white feminists who hadn't called out The Onion for their disgusting "joke" about Chris Brown and Rihanna ending their relationship. My first instinct was to tweet them with a link to the blog I wrote about it. Thankfully, I engaged my brain before sending the tweet since a white woman hopping up and down shouting "look at meeeeeee" is precisely the problem. I went straight for cookie validation without even pausing to think how I was reinforcing white supremacy.

That was a huge kick to the gut, a necessary one, but nonetheless very painful. And, one that we need reminding of constantly so that in our effort to support our sisters we don't end up silencing their voices, that we don't ignore the multiple oppressions of our sisters, that we don't end up replicating the very same patriarchal structures which punish all women.



I wrote the above two months ago but did not publish. I'm not sure I've expressed myself well enough. I'm not sure I would have ever published had I not come across this piece on racism by Michele Braa-Heidner. She is a radical feminist for whom I have tremendous respect and I love her blog, however, I disagree with her most recent post on the murder of Trayvon Martin.

Michele Braa-Heidner argues that the Trayvon Martin murder is not a radical feminist issue because it is male on male violence and that women can not be racist against men. I do agree that calling radical feminists racist for choosing not to focus on the Trayvon Martin case is hyperbolic since Radical Feminism is about women. People are entitled to campaign about that which they deem personally important. I would not call a member of the LGBT community racist for focussing on campaigns that affect them personally. However, I do think that radical feminism cannot exist out with the White Supremacist Patriarchal culture. We are racist as a default position [just as we are disablist, homophobic etc]. Radical feminism's focus on women's experience and activism cannot survive without acknowledging how the multiple oppressions of race, sexuality etc change the experience of women within the patriarchy.

My focus, as a radical feminist, is on male violence against women and girls. The murder of Trayvon Martin is important to me because of clearly it demonstrates the gendering of legal culpability within the criminal justice system. The comparison with the Marissa Alexander case is important because it demonstrates how the life of a Black man is considered more worthy of media attention that the life of a Black woman; that stand your ground laws are only beneficial to men. It clearly delineates the hierarchy of race in American culture and how race affects gender.

I believe the murder of Trayvon Martin is a radical feminist issue: he was a child killed because of the structural racism and misogyny in our patriarchal culture. This doesn't mean I expect every radical feminist space to devote their time to discussing this case at the expense of other female victims of male violence but that I don't agree with Braa-Heidner that this is not a radical feminist issue.

What is important to me is that radical feminists have a safe space to discuss these issues and that we listen to the voices of all our sisters. We don't have to agree with one another but we do need to hear one  another.

Read More

Trayvon Martin

I have not blogged about this case because I couldn't. I could write a whole load of plausible excuses here why but they wouldn't be true. I haven't written because I cannot believe a child has been murdered for walking home at night in a hoodie. I don't know how to express my anger and my distress and my guilt for being white in a White Supremacy; for being responsible for perpetuating a culture which believes the life a child is worth nothing. 

I cannot write anything that doesn't sound like I'm trying to excuse myself from being held responsible.

 But, I am responsible.

We are all responsible.

I have lived with the hope that George Zimmerman would be found guilty; that the life of a child would be declared valuable in court.

I knew it was unlikely but I hoped. And, I prayed.

And, Trayvon Martin has been declared unhuman in a court of law; murdering a black teenager is now legal (as it always has been).

What worries me, as a British-Canadian citizen, is the rhetoric that this is an 'American' crime that couldn't possibly happen here.

 Do I hope that this is true?

Of course.

But, it isn't.

Black teenagers die in the UK and Canada. 

And we don't care.

A child was murdered for being the wrong colour. 

If a similar case happened in the UK/ Canada, I believe a similar verdict would occur. 

I don't want to believe this. I want to believe we lived in a post-racial society.

We don't.

And, the murder of Trayvon Martin suggests we never will.

Read More

Thank you Gradient Lair. I will miss you.

I wrote this piece on Thursday to publish today as part of my Silent Sunday round-up of inspiring blogs written by women. Gradient Lair's hiatus is over but I'm still going to publish this post because, well, I want to. Gradient Lair is one of the best blogs I have ever written and I was genuinely sad that I would not get to read something by this amazing blogger for a while. Women's voices need to be celebrated:


The Gradient Lair blog is now on haitus. It has only been going for a year but has been an incredible source of inspiration to me. I will miss it tremendously.

These are some of my favourite pieces from Gradient Lair:

The Truth about Media, Police and Prison

Corporate America Hates Me and I Hate It

Demanding Flattery is an Oppressors Tool

Womanism/ Black Feminism and Race in Feminist Discourse

Examining White Supremacy and Heroism: When Both White and Black People Value White Lives More

I hate Night Clubs (They feel like street harassment to music)

Why Whites Call People of Colour Racist

White Men Who Write about White Privilege

The Beauty Binary, Street Harassment and Rape Culture

Read More

This week in Missing the Point Completely: Maria Miller and the WBC

According to the Guardian, Maria Miller has come up with yet another completely pointless but expensive program to deal with The Problem of Girls. This time she's got the Women's Business Council, which was only set up last year, making recommendations which demonstrate just how out of touch they all are with the reality of the lives of girls who aren't white and born to wealthy, well-educated parents. Miller is going to produce information packs to teach parents of girls how to bring up "aspirational" daughters. You see, the only reason that the number of women in the upper echelons of management and on FTSE 100 boards is because girls lack "aspiration".

It has absolutely nothing to do with systemic oppression which privileges boys over girls from the start of their lives. 

It has nothing to do with educational practise which favours boys.

It has nothing to do with girls being socialised to defer to boys their whole lives.

It has nothing to do with girls being taught that having an opinion or being intelligent doesn't count unless they pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test.

It has nothing to do with sexist hiring practises. 

It has nothing to do with the fact that women are penalised for being mothers before actually being mothers [and the assumption that all women want to be mothers].

It has nothing to do with poverty or class or race or disability. 

The Fawcett Society has clearly been blithering on about absolutely nothing for years.

The only problem girls have is a lack of aspiration. We know this because a bunch of well-educated, mostly white women who are very privileged have gotten together to say so.

I could rant for hours about Miller's complete lack of understanding of the reality of the lives of most girls in the UK. Government policies to encourage FTSE 100 companies to have a minimum of 25% women on their boards won't change anything if the vast majority of girls in the UK are being left behind for no other reason than not being born to privileged parents.

There are two things that will increase girls "aspirations":

1. The Welfare State
2. Feminism

That is it. We need a fully functioning welfare state which supports everyone. We need universal and affordable child care. We need a social care network which helps care for family members who are disabled or elderly. We need a culture where men do 50% of the childcare and the housework. We need a culture where women's choices are supported and not used as a stick to beat them with.

We don't need information packs to teach parents how to raise "aspirational girls". Our girls are already aspirational. We need nothing less than a complete destruction of the capitalist-patriarchy so that our girls can grow up to be who they want to be without being pilloried, insulted and denigrated.

Read More

Femen: This Time They're Burning Crosses

I am not a huge fan of Femen. I find their protests generally offensive, attention-seeking and lacking in any kind of compassion which is actually rather depressing because their original campaigns against sex trafficking were so very important. Now, they seem more interested in media attention from shock tactics than feminist analysis. They are also no strangers to accusations of Islamaphobia and racism with their anti-burkha protests.

Their newest campaign against the Barbie Dreamhouse exhibit surprised even me. I've already blogged my intense dislike for the exhibit but the idea of burning a cross with Barbie attached to it just blew my mind. When I think of burning crosses, I think of the Klu Klux Klan in the US and the lynchings of African-Americans. For me, burning crosses are symbols of white supremacist culture. The usage of it by feminists to protest Barbie is deeply offensive to me. 

Perhaps I am reading too much into this because of my cultural heritage as Canadian, but, for me, burning crosses can never be separated from the KKK. They are a symbol of racism and nothing more. 

There is also something deeply ironic about women who pass the patriarchal fuckability test protesting Barbie. But, that could just be me too.

Read More

Silent Sunday IX: The Weekly Blog Round-Up

Money is Not a Substitute for Consent at Feminist at Sea

So, you think you're a dyke at The Arctic Fox

It has always fascinated me - the ageing at Carregonnen

Just because you like it doesn't make it feminist at Feminist Current

I Hate Nightclubs (They Feel Like Street Harassment to Music) at Gradient Lair

Why is Gary Francione Slandering Eco-Feminists? at The Vegan Pensieve

So Gwyneth Paltrow is the Most Beautiful Woman in the World at The Negress

You Teach People How to Treat You. Really? at Dear Patriarchy - Die

The Problem With Puppy Love at RoleReboot

Annulation de RadFem2013: quand les Queers et les masculinistes font cause commune at Woman's Liberation Without Borders

Another Week, Another BBC Predator at HerbsandHags

Silent No More at Portia Smart [with trigger warnings for child rape]

The Stuart Hall Case Should put to rest the debate over anonymity for rapists at Sianandcrookedrib

Why Whites Call People of Colour Racist at Gradient Lair

This is white privilege at Renieddolodge

This is white privilege: the response at Renieddolodge

Read More

April 4rth is International Topless Jihad Day!

I was really hoping that this was an April Fools joke or that the Femen FB page had been hacked. But, no. They genuinely seem to be under the impression that is a good idea; that it is brave for a bunch of white women to post topless pictures of themselves online; that there is no racism at all in their statement below [taken directly from their FB page]. I've blogged my concerns over Femen before including their forays into racist, colonialist discourse. I am genuinely perplexed as to why they are garnering support from women. The media I understand: after all, the Sun has made it clear that breasts sell newspapers but for feminists, like Kira Cochrane, to take Femen seriously and not mention their racism, well, it frightens me. Have we become so immune to Islamaphobia and racism that the statement below seems acceptable? 

If Femen are the new face of feminism, I want no part of it. Racism won't liberate women. It's just the same old patriarchal bullshit. 

Femen's statement: 

We have appealed to the world for support and the world has answered! The fate of the Femen - Tunisia activist Amina Tyler has shaken up and united thousands of women across the globe. Amina's act of civil disobedience has brought down upon her the lethal hatred of islamists inhuman beasts for whom killing a woman is more natural than recognizing her right to do as she pleases with her own body. For them, we now see, the love of freedom is the most dangerous kind of psychiatric illness, one demanding radical forced treatment in the spirit of fascist punitive medicine. The "Arab Spring," for the women of North Africa, has turned out to be a frigid sharia winter that has deprived them of what few political rights and liberties they enjoyed. 

Stoning and flogging, kidnapping and rape, forced psychiatric treatment and other sorts of physical and psychological torture are what the new Sharia Caliphate has in store for women. The union of religion and state gives rise to inquisitions, and inquisitions ignite the purgatorial bonfires of religio-political terror, bonfires burning with the bodies of women as fuel -- such is the message the bloody history of medieval theocracies cries out to us. Any educated, free-thinking woman is, for [the inquisitors], a witch deserving of condemnation and murder. [Muslim men] shroud their women in black sacks of submissiveness and fear, and dread as they do the devil the moment women break free to light, peace, and freedom. Religious dictatorship begins by enslaving women, but a woman's act of self-liberation is the first step toward destroying the sharia regime. Topless protests are the battle flags of women's resistance, a symbol of a woman's acquisition of rights over her own body! 

Femen declares the 4rth of April the day of relentless topless jihad against Islamism! 

Show solidarity with brave Amina Tyler from Tunisia! Come to the embassy of the Republic of Tunisia and protest topless, with "My Body Against Islamism!" written on your body, take a photo of yourself, and post it on your social network page, as well as on the Femen Facebook Fan Page at http://www.facebook.com/Femen.UA. 

This day will mark the beginning of a new, genuine Arab Spring, after which true freedom, freedom without mullahs and caliphs, will come to Tunisia! Long live the topless jihad against infidels! Our tits are deadlier than your stones!

Stoning and flogging, kidnapping and rape, forced psychiatric treatment and other sorts of physical and psychological torture are what the new Sharia Caliphate has in store for women. The union of religion and state gives rise to inquisitions, and inquisitions ignite the purgatorial bonfires of religio-political terror, bonfires burning with the bodies of women as fuel -- such is the message the bloody history of medieval theocracies cries out to us. Any educated, free-thinking woman is, for [the inquisitors], a witch deserving of condemnation and murder. [Muslim men] shroud their women in black sacks of submissiveness and fear, and dread as they do the devil the moment women break free to light, peace, and freedom. Religious dictatorship begins by enslaving women, but a woman's act of self-liberation is the first step toward destroying the sharia regime. Topless protests are the battle flags of women's resistance, a symbol of a woman's acquisition of rights over her own body!

Read More

Barbara Kingsolver's The Poisonwood Bible

The Poisonwood Bible was the most recommended book on the Mumsnet Feminist Book Club board when I started my #readingonlybookswrittenbywomen. Honestly, you'd think I'd admitted to kicking puppies for shits and giggles due to the level of shock by my admittance that I hadn't read it.

For those heretics who have not yet read it, The Poisonwood Bible is the story of an American family who travel to the Congo as missionaries in 1959. The father is an emotionally abusive, misogynistic and racist evangelical Baptist who drags his wife and 4 daughters across the planet in order to "save the savages through Christ". He's an arsehole whose arrogance tears his family apart. The redemption of his daughters in postcolonial Africa is the story of women paying for the crimes of men but it's also the story of sisterhood and the binds of family that tie us together. 

I could go on forever blathering about my love for this book but the best review was from a woman sitting near me on train who told me she was jealous that I was reading it for the first time. Now, I feel the same. I am jealous of those just reading it for the first time.

Read More

In the missing the point entirely category today:

We have this somewhat ridiculous article by Kamila Kocialkowska on whether or not the cultural appropriation of the Plains Indian War Bonnet is offensive. Now, I fully planned on blogging about this last night after reading the article but the thought of, once again, having to point out that it doesn't matter if white Dudes think it's okay to run around pretending to be 'Indians', it's still rude. White Dudes have a habit of thinking all sorts of things are okay despite them being obviously racist, homophobic, disablist or misogynistic. As a general rule of thumb, if white Dudes think something is socially acceptable, it's probably best to take 2 minutes to double-check. Just in case.

I decided to have a bubble bath instead. I know this isn't a very helpful response to this level of nincompoopery but this will be something like the fourth time I've written about cultural appropriation in the past two weeks and I'm starting to bore myself. 

Here's the thing, I think the cultural appropriation of the Plains Indian War Bonnet by Lana Del Ray, No Doubt and Victoria's Secret is incredibly rude, offensive and totally lacking in critical thinking skills. Frankly, this total refusal to listen to the opinions of other people sets my teeth on edge. That's why we have a Tory party. If you don't belong to them and you are spouting the "it's P.C gone mad" line, you might want to rethink your political position. Or, acknowledge that you're an asshole. Or, both. Probably both.

Pretty much the entirety of Kocialkowska's article pissed me off with it's total refusal to engage with the opinions of others but I found this section particularly telling: 

The truth is that nowadays, cultural assimilation has become so all-pervasive it’s almost unnoticeable. Popular culture has always consisted of mining, borrowing from and subverting the cultural heritage of the past. In fact, Frederic Jameson went so far as to see this as a defining factor of the postmodern age. For him, the past and its symbols no longer exist, "except as a repository of genres, styles, and codes ready for commodification”.

This has vast implications for political incorrectness - no symbol can truly be said to be culturally isolated any more. The eagle-feathered headdress which inspired such extensive outrage on the Victoria's Secret runway doesn't belong to the Native American repositry alone. It's origins date back to widespread early cultures, including Aztec warriors, early Gaelic clan chiefs and Slavic hussars. Now it’s been assimilated into contemporary culture and passed into the collective unconscious. Its original meaning is melded and mixed in a sea of new, secular meanings.

In other words, in a postmodern, post-ironic, globalised world, can anyone really be said to have ownership over their own heritage?

First off, Victoria's Secret were referencing the Plains Indian War Bonnet. They were not referencing Aztec warriors or Gaelic clan chiefs or Slavic hussars. So, let's not play the "other-people-did-it-so-its-totally-not-special" game as it makes everyone look like a buckethead. Secondly, we all know that things-which-one-sticks-on-one's-head are frequently used as signifiers of power. That is because it is a simple and visible way to denote power relationships; see: the Victorian top-hat. Minimising or dismissing these signifiers, as Victoria's Secret did, is rude and is, inherently, racist. Thirdly, even if you were too dim to get this, First Nations, Metis, Inuit and Native Americans have been saying this for years. 30 seconds on google would have been evidence of this. Fourthly, invoking the "John-Wayne-and-Clint-Eastwood-were-in-movies-about-Injuns" argument just makes you look more racist and dim. The fact that they engaged in racist stereotypes does not make using those stereotypes acceptable. It just means there are a whole lot of racist, culturally insensitive, dim people running about the continent. 

Finally, we may be living in a world where postmodernism is God but that doesn't mean that postmodernism is actually God. Or, that most of the people running about claiming to be postmodern have any understanding of postmodernism. The word postmodernism is bandied about a lot by people who think it makes them sound clever when, frequently, it's the opposite. So, yes, people are entitled to have ownership over their own heritage. There is no grey area over this. Deliberately, or undeliberately, minimising, mocking or otherwise plagiarising the cultural heritage of other people is ignorant, arrogant and rude.

There is no such thing as post-irony either. That's the same twaddle as people suggesting we live in a post-feminist, post-racism world. It's just nincompoopery.

Oh, and what  Kocialkowska neglects to mention in her article is that the model in the War Bonnet image was meant to represent the month of November: the month where Americans give thanks for committing mass genocide. Because that wasn't at all stupid either.

Read More

Lana Del Ray's Ride

I have only recently come across Lana Del Ray and that is only due to the Feminist backlash to her being named GQ's Woman of the Year and being the only winner to be nude on the cover. Coincidentally, she was the only woman. It's fairly obvious that her value to GQ was for her body rather than her career as a talented musician; a situation which isn't exactly abnormal in the music industry. Today, for the first time, I have actually watched one of Del Ray's music videos: Ride. I came across whilst researching the backlash to No Doubt's newest video for my piece of Victoria Secret's cultural appropriation of the Plains Indian' warbonnet which is frequently used as a cultural signifier for the entire Native Peoples, First Nations, Metis and Inuit of North America. The reductive use of the warbonnet as a cultural signifier is, simply, racist so I was disappointed to see yet another female singer using the Plains Indian warbonnet as part of their sexualised eroticisation of abuse.

Lana Del Ray's video is beautifully deconstructed here and here. There is very little I can add to these deconstructions except to say how incredibly depressing and distressing I find the eroticisation of sexual abuse and the forced prostitution of women's bodies. It is that same old "the child is responsible for their own abuse and continuing self-harm as an adult" with no contextualisation whatsoever of how the adult woman came to be in trapped in self-destructive behaviour. The video features Del Ray as a "wild child" who "believes in the country American used to be". Manifest Destiny anyone? The whole issue racism exhibited by Del Ray running about being "crazy" in a Plains Indian warbonnet aside, the video is an incredibly disturbing tribute to the sexual abuse of a young woman at the hands of many men, most of whom are old enough to be her father. It is both racist and misogynist and Del Ray is far too talented for this type of shit.

Read More

Victoria Secrets' Annual Demonstration of Misogyny: This Time With a Side of Racism

Victoria Secret's annual Fashion Show is testimony to the mainstreaming of the pornification of women's bodies. It represents everything which is wrong in the Patriarchy rendering women not only into objects for men to wank over but commodifying their bodies with the woman given the honour of wearing a $2.5 million dollar diamond studded bra considered The Ultimate Woman. It isn't so much a fashion show as a live action soft porn show with titillating photos of the models leaked online prior to the broadcast. I won't link any here but the images are the same poses as found in Playboy or any other mainstream soft porn magazine. Victoria Secret's trades on an image of respectability despite the fact that it uses the same techniques as porn to entice men. They reinforce rape culture by parading women in their underwear for male audiences. They are not selling underwear to women but the image of fuckable women to men who then by the underwear for their partners who can not be expected to look like the models who routinely go on crash diets involving only liquids in the run-up to the show so they don't look "fat". It normalises the Patriarchal Fuckability Test on women who have no hope of passing it.

The women-hating and exploitation of Victoria Secret's has become so common place that I don't even notice them anymore but this year they added racism to their bow. One of the themes of the production this year was the calendar and November was represented by a white model wearing a fairly racist signifier of "Indian". The use of a Plains Indian Warbonnett as a signifier for all Native Americans, First Nations, Metis and Inuit people is racist because it is reductive. You can not reduce huge, disparate cultures down to one item which was worn by men who had earned the honour and pretend it isn't anything but culturally insensitive. The cultural appropriation of such item on the objectified body of a white woman is doubly insensitive.

It really isn't that hard to take ten minutes and think about cultural appropriation. It isn't that hard to think about the links of a nearly naked white woman dressed in cultural signifiers of 'Indians' when Native American women are 2.5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than any other group of women in the US. The majority of the perpetrators of this sexual violence are non-Native men. Yet, the representation of white women dressed in outfits sexualising a construction of Native Americans derived from racist discourse in 'Cowboy and Indian' films has become a trope in our visual culture, one which has been repeated multiple time in the last couple of months. Lana Del Ray's latest video is possibly the most offensive of the recent insurgence in cultural appropriation; interestingly she seems to have received far less backlash than No Doubt or Victoria Secrets. Whilst I don't think No Doubt's apology is a proper apology what with the whole we have non-white friends trope being called up, they at least seem to understand that they have caused offence. Neither Del Ray nor Victoria Secret's appears to have understood at all. No Doubt pulled the video within days of the complaints arising. It seems unbelievably arrogant for Victoria Secrets not to take 10 minutes to rethink the outfit a week later.

And, FFS, using a cultural signifier for 'Indian' in the month of year where the major American holiday is a celebration of their genocide seems, I don't know, really fucking stupid. 

Read More

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

We're a Culture Not a Costume:

I love Halloween. It is my favourite holiday ever. When I was a child, Halloween was about making the most original costume possible. Witches, skeletons and cats were dull. I have been a ladybug, a broken heart, a cabbage patch kid and a punk rocker; my mother being far more artistic than me. Unfortunately, the push to be creative at Halloween involved costumes based entirely on offensive and racist stereotypes. I frequently find myself with clenched teeth handing out candy to small children dressed as "Indians" wondering why their parents thought it was a good idea to dress their child up as a racist stereotype.






Last year, a group of students from Ohio University's Students Teaching about Racism started a campaign called "We're a culture, not a costume' on this issue. These are some of the brilliant posters from this years campaign whose tagline is "You wear the costume for one night. I wear the stigma for life". For me, this is a feminist issue. The Patriarchy requires racism as much as it requires misogyny to keep functioning. We can not destroy the Patriarchy whilst this type of racism remains socially acceptable.

Read More

Chris Rock's Good Hair

I genuinely like Chris Rock. He is incredibly funny and usually on the ball with things which are important. Okay, he frequently misses the whole issue of sexism with his tendency to reinforce it in the same breath as claiming to want a better future for his daughters. He is, however, not on my list of Dudes: the hypocrites who think that voting for Obama and claiming to be pro-choice cancels out any violence against women that they perpetrate. [I'm speaking to you here Zack Braff]. Chris Rock is one of those men who should be too intelligent to be debasing themselves with misogynistic jokes but do it anyways. Every time he opens his mouth, I twitch waiting for the inevitable Kim Kardashian joke. Now, I've never actually see the Kardashian show[s?] because I don't do reality TV. I think it's vile, nasty bullying of vulnerable people. Anyway, apparently, Chris has joined in with the Kim Kardashian bashing which disappoints me. And, pisses me off. I have no idea what Kim Kardashian has done to deserve such nasty bullying off everyone but unless she's a serial killer or personally paying the entire costs of the War on Women, I'm going to guess she doesn't deserve it. So, Chris, you need to stop hangin' with misogynists. They are stupid and you, supposedly, are not.

Good Hair is classic Chris Rock. He is equally snarky and lovely. Plus, it has Maya Angelou and who doesn't love Maya Angelou? I only have two real criticisms. The first is that Rock doesn't ever really delve into the issue of men's hair. It is referenced by Reverend Al Sharpton but many of the other men in the documentary had shaved heads which left me wondering about how much pressure men feel under to have "real" hair. But, that's not a very fair criticism since the documentary was about African-American women's hair and constructions of beauty. This is where I had a problem because I think Rock pulled his punches.

Rock should have been using the terms racism and misogyny but he didn't. He talked about the construction of beauty being about white women with beautiful hair and how damaging it was to the self-esteem of young African-American women. He also talked a lot about how expensive it was for African-American women to buy weaves but, at $1000 minimum each, how many can actually afford to buy weaves for their hair? Or, can afford to buy the "relaxing" cream [which is effectively poison]? Again, I felt Rock skirted around the issue of poverty. He just didn't make the clear correlation between race, poverty and the construction of beauty. Maybe I'm asking too much of Rock and expecting a feminist critique but I just felt he didn't push hard enough. I don't mean he should have questioned the women he interviewed harder. One of the nice things about Rock is that he genuinely seems to enjoy chatting to pretty much anyone and actually listens to what they say [rather than what he thinks they should be saying]. I just wanted Rock to go farther with his own political analysis. I wanted him to be bell hooks and Audre Lorde. 

I wanted Rock to talk about more than his daughters.

I wanted to hear a male celebrity talk about misogyny, racism and poverty.

I didn't want him to subtle; I wanted to hear him say those words. 

I wanted him to call out the billion dollar industry which profits from racism and misogyny.

Most of all, I wanted to hear Chris Rock yelling "Fuck the Patriarchy" so I could mail it back to him and politely request that he stop being so rude about Kim Kardashian. Instead, he ended the documentary with a quote from Ice-T, a man who is not noted for his respect for women.

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