#slanegirl and why this isn't about female sexual desire

The #slanegirl hashtag refers to photographs of a teenage girl performing oral sex on at least two men in the audience of the Eminem concert at Slane Castle in Ireland. I do not know the exact details since it's hard to shift through the rumours, of which there are many, and I do not want to accidentally come across the images. I do believe that photographing anyone without their consent is wrong: I don't care if this is a child skipping in puddles, a celebrity picking their nose or Prince Harry naked. Taking photos without consent and then distributing them is unacceptable and feeds into bullying culture, particularly since most of the images shared without consent are of people in embarrassing situations.

This situation isn't just the sharing of embarrassing photos: it's sexual violence. Sharing photos of people engaged in sex, even if they are in public venue, is sexual violence. I don't care if that isn't the position of the law. It's what the law should be.  The distribution of images of sex without the full consent of all participants is sexual violence.

The fact that the photos are of a teenage girl makes this crime child sexual abuse since a teenager cannot legally consent to sex with an adult nor can they consent to their images being shared publicly. If it were images of an adult woman performing a sex act, it would still be a case of sexual violence. This is without investigating the issue of consent due to substance misuse or the fact that these images have been shared online.

Every single person who has shared or retweeted these images has committed sexual violence. The people who first put the images online deserve to be prosecuted, as does every single  person who has shared them including the people who claimed to be sharing them to demonstrate their "moral outrage" at the images being placed online. 

I hope every single person who has helped to repeatedly sexually violate this young girl gets prosecuted and ends up with a criminal record. 

That said, I am equally concerned about the positive discussions of the article #Slanegirl and the shaming of female desire on Twitter.* The article claims to be a challenge to the shaming of female sexuality but that's not quite what is happening in the piece. Ignoring the deliberate misrepresentation of radical feminist discourse of female sexuality**, which is disgraceful, the piece assumes that the young girl was an active participant in the act. As yet, we have no confirmation of this 'fact'. In fact current media reports put the young girl below the age of consent which would make this a story of child sexual abuse. It doesn't matter if the young girl was an active participant, the fact that adult men were involved makes this a crime. The Irish Independent is also suggesting that the young girl was sexually assaulted at the concert in an attack separate to that which is seen in the photos uploaded. This is a story of the sexual violation of a young girl. It is not the time to 'celebrate' female sexual desire.

Shaming women for enjoying sex is misogyny. It is about reinforcing patriarchal control of women's bodies and creating a dichotomy of good and bad women. However, whether or not individual women enjoy specific sexual acts cannot be separated from a political analysis of the treatment of women as a class. The bodies of women and children are objectified and pornified daily. Suggesting that adult men using the body of a teenage girl for their sexual gratification is something we should celebrate as an example of female sexual desire completely decontextualises sexual violence. It ignores the reality of women's lives and it belittles the pain this young girl is experiencing due to the abuse. It is rape culture.

Teenagers exploring their sexuality together is a different situation to adult men preying on young teenage girls. It is a constant in our culture and it occurs daily. The only difference now is that the authorities seem to be taking the abuse seriously. This is not to say that teenagers engaged in public sexual acts aren't problematic but that this situation involving a young child is not a celebration of female sexual desire. It's just another story of the abuse of a young girl by men and those who seek to minimise the responsibility of sexually abusive men.

This is rape culture.

A child has been sexually violated. Repeatedly. 

It is not a story of female sexual desire. This is a story of sexual violence.

* The comments underneath the article are a disgusting display of male violence, misogyny and the shaming of women. 

*This particular blogger has an obsession with radical feminism and has been caught on numerous occasions making outright lies about radical feminist theory. 

Read More

Jack Reacher: Obviously Misogynistic and I Should Have Known Better

Normally, I avoid Tom Cruise. His films usually put me on the wrong side of cranky. They are inevitably misogynistic with a side order of homophobia, racism and disablism thrown in. Despite knowing all of this, I chose to watch Jack Reacher. 

I didn't think Tom Cruise films could get any worse but I was wrong. Jack Reacher delved into a whole new level of misogyny.

We have:

• "the town whore"
• the "town whore" being used and abused
• "town whore" being publicly humiliated
• "town whore" being murdered for being "town whore"

This idea that women who have sex deserve to be murdered is old school victim-blaming. It's offensive, misogynist and vile. 

The film also includes this charming piece of dialogue:

Sandy: I don't mind the sight of blood.
Jack: Not when it means you're not pregnant.

You see, she's a whore so she can't possibly every want to get pregnant. And, we all know whores make bad mothers. It's in the Bible and everything. Course,  men who have numerous sexual relationships and cheat on their partners are still good fathers. After all, being in possession of a penis makes one a good father by default.

Jack Reacher is the last Tom Cruise movie I will watch. I'm boycotting his shit from now on. 

Read More

A Man who rapes a child is never an "effective parent".

A 52 year old man has received a suspended sentence after being convicted of raping a 14 year old girl twice and indecently assaulting her twice.

The 14 year old girl is his wife's sister. At the time of the attack, the rapist was 24 years old.

A 25 year old man raped a 14 year old girl twice and has received a suspended sentence for his crime. 

A man who raped his wife’s 14-year-old sister has been given a suspended jail sentence after a judge, Garrett Sheehan, ruled that "imprisonment would impose extreme hardship on the rapist’s family". Judge Sheehan also stated that: 

“The evidence in this case disclosed that the defendant not only has the capacity to remain an effective parent but also that it is in his family’s interest as well as society’s interest that the family unit in this particular case be preserved and supported.”

How is it in society's best interest to have a convicted child rapist loose on the streets?

Yes, the rapist now has three children: two of whom are autistic and a third child who has several medical conditions. It will cause considerable hardship to his family for him to serve time in prison. But, that is his fault. He chose to rape a child. The fact that he now has three children requiring full-time care does not negate his actions.

This man should be in prison.

Having caring duties for the children requiring extra support does not negate the fact that this man chose to rape a child.

These are precisely the reasons why we need a real social welfare state. The three children, and their mother, should be receiving extra support from the state in terms of money and care-workers. They should not be dependent on a child rapist for support. 

Rapists are not "effective" parents. They are violent men and should be treated as such. Frankly, I'm not entirely convinced at the safety of the three children who are living in a house with a convicted rapist. I don't know what Judge Sheehan thinks is a bad father but this minimisation of male responsibility for the violence they cause because they happen to have children is the very essence of patriarchal victim-blaming. 

The judge has basically stated that the life of the victim of child-rape is not as important as the family of her rapist. The judge has stated that child rape lays  

"at the top end of the midrange of the scale and, in the absence of any mitigating factors, seven years was the appropriate sentence. He said the absence of any other convictions and the fact that the defendant had “self-rehabilitated” since the offences were committed 27 years ago were significant mitigating factors."

How do we know the defendant has "self-rehabilitated"? How do we know that he has not raped other children who have been too afraid to come forward? How do we know that he won't rape another child? Since when does committing a crime 27 years ago constitute a mitigating factor? Is the judge really suggesting that the longer a rapist gets away with committing rape means that they aren't really rapists?

I have all the sympathy in the world for the family of this convicted rapists, but keeping him out of prison isn't the answer.

He should be serving the seven years in prison [and I won't even start on how pathetic that sentence is without it being suspended]. His family should be receiving extra support from the state.

Really, what this case implies is that the 14 year old victim of child rape is responsible for ruining her sister's family by reporting her rapist. This is rape culture.

[originally published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

Read More

Consent, Disclosure and the Cotton Ceiling

This is another debate I have not yet commented on but a conversation today on twitter made me want to clarify my thoughts publicly.

I do not believe anyone has the right to sex. I believe that full disclosure is necessary even for casual or one-night relationships. I believe anything less invalidates consent.  Lying about your marital status should invalidate consent. Lying about your health in a manner which could compromise the health of your partner invalidates consent.

The police officers who had sexual relationships with women in order to cement their cover whilst spying on left-wing organisations committed rape. Their lies invalidated the consent of the women involved. The fact that this is not illegal simply demonstrates how utterly woman-hating our laws of consent are.

Consent, as it stands now, is a joke. It is designed so that men can fuck whoever they want whenever they want without any consequence. Women's boundaries and bodily integrity are violated in a million ways every day. The law is designed to defend these violations by men rather than protect women. 

We need to rewrite the law completely in order to defend women's bodily integrity [and, of course, the children and men whose bodies are violated]. This means we need to start with full disclosure before any, however temporary, sexual relationship. And, yes, this will mean difficult conversations. It will also mean forgoing sex because we cannot disclose for whatever reason but including safety. 

These conversations will, I have no doubt, be more difficult for transwomen who will be faced with the increased possibility of male violence. It is this very real threat which makes it all the more important for us to smash the patriarchal construction of consent. It may very well mean a decrease in sex for many but no one has the right to sex. We are morally required to ensure the safety of others and that safety includes not violating bodily integrity.

Real consent can only be given when both parties are in possession of all the facts. It is that simple.

This is why I find the term "cotton ceiling" so disturbing. I understand the need for Trans* to self-organise to share stories of full disclosure and offer mutual support over a difficult issue, however the term "cotton ceiling" does not imply respectful discussions of consent and disclosure. The idea that lesbian women are somehow providing a barrier to sex which must be smashed just like the glass ceiling in employment sounds remarkably like denying women bodily integrity. The term itself implies a level of coercion; coercion removes consent. Lack of consent equals rape. This may not be what was meant when the term was first used but the implication is clearly there and it is supported by suggestions that lesbian women are "transphobic" for refusing to have sexual relationships with transwomen. 

Being sexually undesirable by someone who you fancy sexually is a horrible position to be in but no one has the right to sex and lesbians have the right to refuse to have sex with whomever they want. Everyone has the right to refuse sex whatever the reason. We need to have conversations about consent and disclosure but they must be done from a position of honesty. If  you cannot disclose the truth [whatever that may be] to the person you desire sexually, then you should not have sex with them. This is as valid for one night stands as it is for long-term relationships.

Read More

Some personal reflections on two recent events involving Transwomen: TW

I don't normally write about Trans* issues on my blog because I find it difficult to express my political beliefs on gender theory whilst not causing unnecessary hurt to people. This weekend I came across two stories concerning Trans which trouble me greatly.

The first, and I will not link to the source of this story for their own protection, was a Lesbian woman watching a Dyke march who came across a Transwoman, on the march, with their penis on display. It was a public march and a Transwoman felt it was acceptable to display their penis without any concern for those around them. Regardless of your political beliefs, I don't think it's too much to ask that genitalia not be displayed in public. It's not generally considered particularly people-friendly.

1 in 4 women are victims of male sexual violence. At least 25% of the women born women on the Dyke march will have been a victim of male sexual violence. Other Transwomen will have experienced male sexual violence. Displaying one's penis in public isn't a form of protest. It is the belief that you are more important than anyone else around you, including children who really don't need to be exposed to the genitalia of complete strangers in the middle of the road. I would go as far as to suggest that this was a form of sexual harassment with the deliberate intention to trigger women. 

The second incident I came across on a blog. I'm not going to link to the blog or name the Transwomen who wrote these statements on twitter. Instead, I'd like the statements to stand for themselves.

If cis women were forced into sterilisation and criminalised for having sex we would hear about it. Trans women though, few care. 

As a woman I can never have kids b/c of cissexism. Where is the outrage that trans ppl are being sterilised for being poor? Nowhere.

I was going to ignore both of these statements because, frankly, the lack of basic knowledge of 20th century is just embarrassing.  Then I googled and discovered that this complete ahistorical understanding of sterilisation isn't necessarily uncommon. It is predicated on the fact that the hormones Trans* take render them infertile. Clearly this is true. But, is it "forced sterilisation"?. I take the definition of forced sterilisation to mean without consent. Trans* take hormones with consent [except in the case of Iran where Gay men and Lesbians are forcibly required to transition in order to cure them from being homosexual]. Becoming sterile is a consequence. It isn't a nice consequence but it's a consequence many women born women experience when they have treatment for cancer, degenerative conditions like arthritis and even mental illness. It may not be a nice choice to make but it is not the same as "forcible sterilisation".

Many millions of women born women [and men] have been sterilised in the past 150 years without consent. 

It's called eugenics.

Even if you know nothing about the history of North America [and particularly the state of California], most Western-educated people should have heard of Nazi Germany. The Nazis sterilised a lot of people: for being "asocial" or "subhuman". The Nazis forcibly sterilised women convicted of prostitution, those deemed mentally unwell, people with learning disabilities, physical disabilities and anyone else who didn't meet their specific ideals of the Aryan nation. They sterilised prostitutes and women with "inappropriate political beliefs'. In the concentration camps, men had their testes removed in surgeries performed without pain killer. Women's uteruses were injected with toxic chemicals. And, these were some of the "experiments" which people managed to survive. The first people the Nazis murdered were the mentally and physically disabled to prevent them from reproducing their defective genes.

Eugenics is still codified in law across the world. Look at American states which require women [and usually only those of colour] to be sterilised in order to receive state benefits. These "non-permament" forms of sterilisation have a nasty habit of being permanent; not withstanding the issue of medicaid only paying for the original treatment. If the women react badly to the coil or other forms of not-quite temporary sterilisation, they have to pay to have it removed themselves. 

Until recently, Sweden required all Trans* to be forcibly sterilised before transitioning. That is "forced sterilisation". Choosing to take hormones which make you sterile is not the same as the government sterilising you without your consent or being required to be sterilised before transitioning. 

Claiming that no "ciswomen" have ever been sterilised without their consent is asinine and simply wrong. It demonstrates a rather remarkable inability to understand women's lived experiences. Transwomen who are poor aren't the only ones who lack reproductive choice. Many women cannot conceive and cannot afford the very expensive medical treatments required to test why they are infertile. Not all women-born-women are fertile. Some can conceive but can never carry a fetus to term. This is the reality of women.

Women are also frequently criminalised and labelled "asocial" for having sex. Ask any rape victim who has been told it's their fault or any child in Afghanistan who is forced to marry their rapist. Teenage girls who get pregnant are treated as pariahs and blamed for the destruction of society whilst the boys who help get them pregnant are never held responsible. Women are labelled sluts and denigrated in the press for having sex whilst men are celebrated for being sexually promiscuous. Prostituted women are criminalised for selling sex but the men that buy them suffer no real consequences, even when they rape or torture prostituted women. 

I know these examples are only of two Transwomen but, increasingly, I becoming extremely uncomfortable, particularly on twitter, with the discourse that Trans* should not be held accountable for the consequences of their actions or words because they are vulnerable. Millions of people are vulnerable. Making statements which are clearly fallacious helps no one. Allowing someone to state such ridiculous things without pointing out their historical inaccuracy is enabling behaviour and it is good for no one. 

Particularly not the millions of people forcibly sterilised who are erased from this narrative of victimhood.

Read More

If Men Want to Help:

This is reblogged from Radical Wind: blowing through female outerspace

If Men Want to Help:

There’s been a bit of discussion lately about how men who posture as pro-feminists are worse than useless, such as John Stoltenberg or this Dude.

I could write an entire essay about each “pro-feminist”, why and how what they write and do is wrong, but it’s a complete waste of energy and time because all we need to know is that men cannot be feminist and should not get ANYWHERE NEAR feminism or talking in the name of feminism, at all. They are not to be given any important or prominent tasks within any feminist organising, they are not to be given any position or presence (even small, let alone a public one) within any feminist group or woman’s support group, and are not to be integrated in any decision-processes or debates concerning women whatsoever; they should refuse any such position or invitation even if asked by women.

The pattern is that pro-feminist men will very easily occupy and monopolise key positions and publicity in feminism so they can posture as heroes-victims-of-masculinity, and behind the scenes, not only do they do NOTHING to help women but they continue to steal women’s work, abuse women, manipulate women, rape women, promote the work of rapists or publish misogynist content, etc, etc ad nauseum.

The foremost reality about so-called pro-feminist men however is that their mere presence (just PRESENCE, that is, without even saying anything YET) inevitably and automatically triggers in most women the illusion that men can, after all, be nice and care about women, and that it is worth staying around them investing energy and time trying to change them (and why not be my nigel?). In other words, it reinforces trauma-bonding to men, or alternatively, causes consciously-experienced fear, rage, suspicion, hypervigilance or other normal reactions to men’s presence. This means that men’s presence will inevitably be experienced as a threat by women, whether consciously or unconsciously, and will thus paralyse movement into feminism. Whether we want it or not. Encouraging trust and especially trauma-bonding to men endangers all women, exposes women to more abuse and surveillance from men, it prevents women from going to the end of our thoughts and sabotages women’s spaces and work.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg, this chain of paralytic effects on women caused by their mere presence in feminist spaces. This alone is enough to warrant their complete exclusion from all things feminist, before we even look at what scum they might be.

To make it easier for everyone, I will lay out a brief and very simple, minimalistic instruction manual as to what men can do if they are taken by the desire to give women a hand in destroying man’s dominion. It’s not an instruction as to how to be a feminist man, because as I said earlier, it doesn’t exist and men’s presence is highly undesirable and noxious to feminism. It’s not an instruction as to how to free women from men, because only we can do that. It’s just, if men want to do something for women, this is the LEAST, the VERY LEAST they can do, and it’s easy! No need to say anything! No faux-posturing or lying needed! No invading of women’s spaces! No stealing women’s work!

1. Stop sticking your dicks in women. This is rape. This is torture.
2. Stop sticking your dicks in women. NOW. For EVER!!!! Ever ever. Like, don’t ever put your dick in a woman or a girl again.
3. The above is the utmost, absolute MINIMUM men can do to help women. This does not even count men’s infinite every-day torture that surrounds rape and impregnation of women by men that they should stop too. A man who sticks his dick in girls and women is a rapist (and scum). He is not helping women.
4. Give back to women what you, and men in general, have stolen from women:
5. Women need Land. Give land back to women.
6. Women need money. Give money back to women.
7. Women need houses and rooms of our own. Give houses back to women.
8. Women need resources (food, water, equipment of all sorts…). Give resources back to women.
9. Women need time. Clean your own shit.
10. Reminder: stop using your dick against women, stay away from feminism, and refuse any credit for your what you give back to women. For a thief is not to be thanked for handing back what he stole.

This, above, is also the LEAST men can do. It’s very easy, all it takes is doing it, with no consequences to men’s personal integrity other than minor material loss. As opposed to more complicated things, like sabotaging the porn and prostitution industry, ridding us of the most violent rapists and abusers, things like that. Which men are also free to do of course, but let’s start with more simple things and see how it goes, ay?

To all women who may be reading: remember: if a man claims to help women, ask yourself (or him) what he does: does he continue to stick his dick into women? Yes? You can forget him. Is he parasiting a space meant to be reserved for women (feminism, support for victims, healing groups, whatever female only space…)? Easy: he shouldn’t be there, his very presence is anti-feminist. You can forget him too, or tell him to get out. If he doesn’t, then, bye bye. He claims to do things useful to women? Does he do any of the above, discreetly, without taking any credit for it, and making sure it goes to the right hands? Take it and don’t look back! Don’t feel grateful! It is impossible to steal anything from a man.

Read More

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

This following message is from SCASE:

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

Rhoda Grant MSP has lodged her proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which would make the purchase of sex an offence.  Many feminist and women’s organisations were heavily engaged in the consultation process leading up to the publication of this Bill and responded in a supportive way to the consultation.  The responses to that consultation are now available to view at ….

In order for the proposal to proceed to the first formal stage of the Parliamentary process, there needs to be support secured amongst at least 18 MSPs from across a range of political parties in the Parliament.  

At 6 June 2013, the MSPs who have supported the proposal are:

Drew Smith, Margaret McDougall, Hanzala Malik, Ken Macintosh, Michael McMahon, Patricia Ferguson, Murdo Fraser, Anne McTaggart, Elaine Murray, Iain Gray, John Pentland, Jayne Baxter, Claudia Beamish, Siobhan McMahon, Malcolm Chisholm, Hugh Henry, Claire Baker, Paul Martin, Elaine Smith, Graeme Pearson.

The deadline for MSPs to support this proposal is Friday 28 June 2013.

This list only has MSPs from the Labour party and Conservative party.  It is necessary, therefore, to particularly seek the support of SNP, Lib Dem or Green/Independent MSPs; without the support of an MSP from at least one of these parties / party grouping, this proposal will fall and any further discussions on the proposal to criminalise the demand will end.  The WSP support the policy intent behind the bill to put the legislative focus onto those who choose to purchase sex but believe this is only one aspect of a criminalising demand approach.  This also needs to look to decriminalise those who sell sexual activity and ensure that quality long-term support and exiting services are available

We are now asking for people to contact their MSP and ask them to support the progress of the Bill to the next stage.  This does not mean the Bill will be passed but will ensure that a full discussion can take place as to the best approach to address the harm and inequality in the sex industry.

WRITING TO YOUR MSPS

Step one: to find your MSPs (you have 8: 1 constituency and 7 regional MSPs), use the Scottish Parliament’s MSP locator: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx This will enable you to find contact details and information on the party affiliation of each MSP.  Bear in mind that SNP, Lib Dem and Green/Independent support is particularly vital at this point in time.  If your MSP is included in the list above as having already supported the Bill, you may wish to instead write to them to thank them for their support. 

Step two: prepare your letters or emails to MSPs., MSPs really value the personal approach, and so if you have a particular piece of information or local evidence that you can include, please do so.

IMPORTANT: when corresponding with your MSPs, always include your name, address and post code at the end of your letter/email.  MSPs only deal with correspondence from people within their area.  

Step three:  please let us know if you have done this, and do keep us up to date if you receive any follow-up correspondence from your MSPs, whether they are agreeing to support the proposal, or if they are explaining why they are not inclined to support it. 

Read More

Another Day, Another Man Minimising Rape.

This week it's Ryan Gilbey, the film critic for the New Statesman, who seeks to minimise Polanski's responsibility for raping a child because Polanski makes 'great films'. I suppose we should be grateful that Gilbey actually mentions the fact that Polanski raped a child. The British Film Institute managed to forget that piece of information when planning their retrospective on Polanski's work. They also tried to claim it was irrelevant when challenged on the issue. 

Now, I'm sure Polanski's films are brilliant. I've only seen the Piano so I can't really comment on  his artistic merit, however making good films does not negate the fact that Polanski drugged a 13 year old child and then sodomised her. A child of 13 is not competent to consent to sex. They have never been competent to consent to sex. 

An adult man who puts his penis in the body of a 13 year old is a rapist. 

But, Gilbey would like everyone to forget the fact that Polanski raped a child, or at the very least, seeks to minimise it by suggesting it was "historic" and "ambiguous":

He also spent a spell in prison and then under house arrest in 2009 and 2010 on historic rape charges  dating back to 1977. A thorough documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, examines the case and its ambiguities.

There is no "ambiguity" to what Polanski did: he raped a child. 

The fact that the justice system in the US, as with everywhere, is incapable of dealing with the rape of children effectively does not make rape "ambiguous". It means we live in a Patriarchal-Misogynistic culture which privileges the male right to put their penis wherever they like without consequence.

Polanski drugged and raped a child.  

Those who seek to minimise Polanski's act of rape are just as guilty as those who ignored Jimmy Savile's sexual abuse of children.

Those who seek to minimise Polanski's act of rape are guilty of perpetrating and perpetuating rape culture. 

You are the problem.

Ryan Gilbey, you are part of the problem. 

Read More

Good Men Project: Their Misogyny isn't really a Surprise.

I've been quite surprised at the response to the Good Men Project's* current foray into rape apologism. I thought most people were aware that the Good Men Project was nothing more than a front for Misogynist Rights Activists with an extremely reductive construction of masculinity based on an incredibly harmful gendered binary of sexes. I didn't realise anyone still took them seriously. I've had them on my list of arseholes for years. I had always assumed that their name was just another example of patriarchal hypocrisy. 

Personally, I'm not surprised that they ran an article written by Alyssa Royse which was nothing more than a handbook on how to be a rapist or that they've actually ran an article written by a man who is proud to be a rapist. They've been waltzing about the issue of rape apologism for a while now. They certainly have form for minimising male violence against women. And, they have form for all sorts of victim-blaming behaviour. The Good Men Project are nothing more than an attempt at mass gaslighting women into thinking that male violence is normative behaviour.

Frankly, I struggle to take anyone who who writes for the GMP seriously. I snorted with laugter at Ozy Frantz's declaration that he was parting ways with GMP because of the pro-rape article whilst simultaneously calling the editor Noah Brand a feminist. I'm glad Ozy Frantz is leaving GMP. More of their writers need to remove their collective patriarchal blinkers and part ways with GMP, but, no one who publishes an article by a rapist bragging about being a rapist is a feminist. This isn't a multiple POV issue, like GMP were claiming on twitter. 

There are only two stances on rape: either you support rape or you don't. It is a dichotomy. There are no grey areas or women who encouraged their own rape. There are only rapists. You don't get to call yourself a feminist if you make excuses for rape. Yes, we live in a patriarchal society in which rape myths are endemic but the true test of feminism is being called on your  behaviour and then reassessing your stance. Pretending that whatever issue raised isn't relevant is just the normal reinforcement of the Patriarchy (Vagenda might want to take note of this issue too). And, we all make mistakes. No one is a perfect feminist but when you publish blogs written by people defending rape, you aren't a feminist. 

I don't care what brand of feminism you think you are, once you try to defend a rapist, you aren't a feminist. That is our base line. You defend male violence against women in any form and you aren't a feminist. So, Ozy Frantz you are just wrong in your defence of Noah Brand. He is not a feminist and he clearly never was. 

UPDATE: Feministe has written a very good rebuttal to the rape apologism at GMP. They are also calling for a boycott of all the writers who either blog for GMP or who cross-post on them. I will be joining them. 

*I'm not going to link to their blog because it will increase their advertising revenue.

Read More

Pippa Middleton: Today's Object of Derision.

So, Pippa Middleton wrote a book. About party tips. Which no one is buying. Because, let's be realistic here, it's a stupid book for which she was grossly over-paid. So, obviously, Middleton deserves all of the vitriol and hatred currently being thrown her way. 

Or not.

I'm going to go with not because, whilst I think agreeing to write this book was a serious piece of nincompoopery on the part of both Middleton and Penguin, it's not really constructive to make this about her ass or to call her stupid or any of the other myriad of insults out there. If Middleton were my friend, I would have told her to skip the book as it was only ever going to end badly, regardless of the contents. She was appallingly treated following her sister's marriage. The objectification and sexual harassment Middleton received was unbearable. No one should be lining up to insult and belittle Middleton on behalf of the Patriarchy. Criticise her decision to write the book, by all means, but don't resort to asinine insults or baseless slurs. It demeans us all.

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

"Underage Girls": Victim-Blaming by Proxy

I always have these half-formed blogs posts that I never quite finish and then some journalist, in this case Deborah Orr, comes along and writes it. With this piece, it was partly my lack of confidence in my ability to explain what I meant but also the realisation that naming men, especially celebrities, would inevitably involve naming the young women they abused. I wasn't sure if I wanted to write about child rape in a manner that would label another woman's experience as part of the spectrum of sexualised violence. Do I have the right to do so without their consent? On the Relationships board of Mumsnet, there are frequently posts by women asking if their experience constitutes rape or some other form of sexualised violence. In those cases the answer is, inevitably, yes and the threads become both places of support and places to share stories safely. But, taking the story of someone famous (or identifiable in their own community) and labelling it as child rape without them using the term feels invasive. But, at the same time, is it not silencing to refrain from discussing these stories which leads to further normalisation of unhealthy relationships and sexualised violence? I'm loathe to label experiences for other women whilst simultaneously believing we need to. I've had these conversations before but I am never sure where the line should be drawn: insisting that we do not obfuscate or minimise sexualised violence whilst worrying about harming those who have not yet labelled their experiences.  

I've been thinking about the line between obfuscation and the power of labelling since the documentary on Jimmy Savile was first announced. In particular, I've been thinking about the use of language to label and define child sexual abuse since I'm increasingly concerned as to how language is being used to obfuscate both the sex of the children and their age in an attempt at victim-blaming-by-proxy. I think its important that we identify the sex of the victims. All to often the calls to remain gender neutral, designed to ensure that male victims of sexualised violence aren't omitted, serve only to silence the fact that the vast majority of victims of sexualised violence are women and girls. It also elides the fact that the vast majority of sexual predators are male. Frankly, I'm getting more than slightly angered by the constant attempt to be gender neutral. No one disputes the fact that men are victims of rape. No one disputes the fact that male children are victims of rape. All we are asking is for the acknowledgement that the vast majority of victims of sexualised violence are women and children and that the vast majority of perpetrators are male. To argue otherwise, silences victims and lets perpetrators continue to get away with harming others. 

I've also become increasingly concerned by the the conflation terms of "paedophile" and "underage girls". Now, I do believe that paedophilia is a psychiatric illness but I find it incredibly bizarre that every man who rapes a child is called a paedophile when it is simply not true. The term paedophilia is used indiscriminately to obscure the fact that many men, perhaps even most, who rape children do so because they want to without having any underlying psychiatric condition. In fact, men who are paedophiles also rape children because they choose too. A psychiatric illness does not always negate criminal responsibility. There are some which limit or restrict personal and criminal responsibility but paedophilia isn't one of them and, technically, Savile wouldn't be classed as a paedophile since the girls he raped were post-puberty. Conflating paedophilia with child rape allows rapists to elide and conceal responsibility for raping 15 year olds because they aren't "children".

The competing use of the term "underage girls" also feels like its obfuscating the fact that these are children. We can't use the term "girl" anymore to label a female child since it now refers to adult women; effectively erasing the question of legality and the definition of child rape. The use of "girl" confuses the boundary between adulthood and childhood making it easier for male sexual predators to claim ignorance about the exact age of the child they are abusing. "Underage girls" puts the focus on the victim, not the abuser. The abuser makes it all their fault. It is not a compliment to be labeled a "girl". It is a way of silencing criticism of male predatory behaviour towards teenage girls. If all women are "girls", then there is no reason why an adult male can't have sex with a 16 year old. 

The use of the term "underage girls" has simply evolved into victim-blaming. It is their fault an abusive man groomed and then raped them. It is their fault for looking 18 instead of 15. But, we never question why men who are 25 or 35 or 50 want to fuck 18 year olds. It is about power. It is about control. Why are these men worried about the very fine line between legal and not legal. A sexual relationship between a 15 year old girl and 35 year old man is illegal. A sexual relationship between an 18 year old and a 35 year old may not be illegal but it is still creepy.  The power dynamics are wrong. This isn't about love relationships. It's about fulfilling a desire for power and control. We should be criticising and questioning these men; not congratulating them for joining Hugh Hefner in the abuse of young women.

We need to stop obfuscating with language and start using words like child rape to refer to relationships between 15 year old girls and 35 year olds. We need to start asking men why they find an 18 year old sexually attractive because it isn't just about women who pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. It's about the real definition of the Patriarchal Fuckability test: being young, frequently malnourished, sexually available at any time but only to fulfil the male orgasm. The male orgasm is the only point that matters in sex. The sexual desires of adult women are eroded and subsumed into a rhetoric of domination. 

But, then we also pretend that teenage girls should be pleased that middle aged men find them sexually appealing rather than being utterly creeped out by it. We groom them into thinking that being desired by older men is something to aspire too; that their only value is in their sexual availability. We need to stop celebrating men who date young women barely out of childhood. We need to start asking these men why they can't date women their own age. What is the difference between an 18 year old whose birthday has just passed and a 17 year old a week away from her 18th birthday? What makes adult men think this is reasonable behaviour? What are we teaching our girls if we are raising them to believe that having sex with a man old enough to be their father is all that they deserve. If women and girls were truly valued, we would not be obfuscating the line between consensual sex between two competent adults and the sexual abuse of young women and girls by older men.

And, let's be clear here. The level of child rape in the Jimmy Savile case isn't confined to the BBC. It's everywhere. We've just been pretending it doesn't matter for so long that we have completely silenced our children. Pretending that it was a problem for the BBC in the past is a vile lie which simply serves only to perpetuate and perpetrate rape culture. Our children deserve better than this. 

Read More

Reddit: Free Speech is the Privilege of Men

I promised myself I wouldn't write about this case. There is nothing I can say that a thousand other Feminists haven't been saying for years about Reddit's stance on misogyny. They are all for it. I mean, I've never used Reddit but it's a social media platform. It doesn't matter which one you mention, they all support misogyny [and racism, disablism and homophobia]. They all hide behind the construct of "free speech" to protect the right of men to say and do what they want without any thought to the harm their actions/ speech cause. It is the very essence of male entitlement and privilege. As I've said elsewhere, publishing photos, nude or otherwise sexualised, without consent is sexualised violence. This is an issue of consent and of the right to privacy. It is not something that should be covered under the construct of "free speech". Free speech is the legal protection for the right to critique the government and other political/ cultural structures. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be a jackass. The fact that a large number of men are confused by this is their problem. We shouldn't indulge their desire to allowed to be as violent as possible just because they want to. There is no right to "Free speech" for those who are actively harmed in the perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture. We need to stop pretending that the right to free speech is more important than anything else. 

It is the issue of "creepshots" which has brought Reddit to the attention of mainstream press but not because rendering women into objects by uploading photos their sexualised bodies without consent is wrong. Nor is it because the issue of creepshots creates some serious legal implications in terms of the right to privacy and what constitutes a criminal offence. Nor is it because of questions the the construction of "sexuality, entitlement and public consumption."  That's not why men are having whiny-arsed tantrums and the media is running stories on it.* Nope, the issue has come up because Feminists have taken the step to publicly out the men perpetrating sexualised violence.

The hypocrisy of these men whining about their right to privacy having been violated by being named online when they have deliberately and maliciously participated in the sexualised violence of women by posted "creep" shots of them without consent is unbelievable. I am so very glad that someone with the computer skills tracked them down and named them. Yes, the expectation of privacy whilst in public is non-existent but that's but that's because we perceive women's bodies as public objects. Women have as much right to privacy as does the statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square. The level of male entitlement to women's bodies of which they should have no access is unbelievable. If we complain about being objectified, then we are abused and humiliated; labelled whores and fat and ugly and stupid and frigid.

We need to hold these men accountable for their sexual predation. If the law won't support us in criminalising these forms of sexualised violence, then we too should have the right to free speech without limit. We should be legally entitled to name and shame these men as they have named and shamed us. Michael Brutsch didn't want to be publicly identified as Violentacrez because of his family. Yet, he did not care about publicly humiliating women or perpetrating rape culture. If he did not want his real life name attached to Reddit sites  publishing photos under the terms: jailbait, rapebait, incest and misogyny, then he shouldn't have put them up in the first place. His behaviour is the problem. Not the Feminist activists who are holding him publicly accountable for the sexualised violence he perpetrated. If James Silverwood and Dominic Terry were actually concerned about their right to privacy, they shouldn't have started a Facebook page called "12 year old sluts". These men need to be held accountable for the harm caused by their behaviour and we should have the right to call them on it. Otherwise, free speech is nothing more than a joke; a privilege of men denied to all others. 

So, a huge thank you to my Feminist sisters who have called these violent sexual predators out.

This is nothing less than a War on Women.

It is a war whose battlefields are women's bodies.

We have every right to fight back with every piece of technology available; after all, men are using the same technology to destroy us.

*The vast majority of news stories I've come across have been written by Feminists like Kira Cochrane. However, I do not believe the media would be running these stories in mainstream press if it weren't for the fact that Feminist activists have started outed the sexual predators involved in taking and distributing the photos. These sites have been running for years without any real comment on the level of misogyny they perpetuate. 

Read More