Castle: Apparently, "drunk" girls deserve what they get.

It's safe to say I'm not really a fan of the program Castle. Any show with a male lead who is a sleazy tool who isn't actually qualified to do anything but drive a porsche yet is somehow smarter than the qualified woman isn't something I generally watch. However, I am running about packing for #RadFem2013 and it was on in the background.

This weeks episode features a sleazy man [a la Girls Gone Wild dickhead-in-charge] who is murdered by a beautiful woman with her bra. Many, many jokes about women with large breasts ensue. It features lots of gratuitous shots of women in very little clothing being used as objects. I left it on as inspiration for a weekend of ranting with brilliant women.

Right up until the moment, the "good girl" [over-achieving, super-smart daughter of the sleazy tool] comes home from university to visit Daddy who is worried about her blog. Daddy mansplains' the big wide internet world to his baby girl [who is 18 and way smarter than her father]. They reference the Girls Gone Wild videos and teenage daughter explains that Daddy shouldn't worry about her because she's a super-smart university student and not one of "Those Girls" who get drunk and "flash their tits".

Because women who get drunk deserve whatever happens to them.

Because women who "flash their tits" deserve whatever happens to them.

I fucking hate the Patriarchy.

There are no such thing as "sluts" or "good girls". There are women. Just women. And, none of us deserve to get hurt because of something we do or do not do.

Castle is now on my ban list. 

SmashtheP shared this article in response to my rant on twitter. It's one of my favourite articles by Feminist Current.

Read More

#StopBiggestLoser: The Myth of Parental Consent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our reality television culture obsession needs to end.

Our children deserve better.

And, parental consent is not an excuse. 

Read More

Kim Kardashian is Pregnant: Let the Slut-shaming Commence

Kim Kardashian has announced her pregnancy with Kanye West. As a general rule of thumb, I try to ignore celebrity pregnancies since they are none of my business, but then I tend to feel that way about most women who are pregnant; the obsession with the contents of other women's uteruses is the hallmark of the patriarchal control of women. However, Kim Kardashian is the quintessential Circus Freak Show Act in our Reality TV obsessed culture. She is a frequent object of ridicule with every  minute detail of her life dissected in the media. Yes, she bears some responsibility for placing herself in the public eye but that does not negate our own behaviour in participating in this culture of bullying. I have no idea what Kim Kardashian has supposedly done to become such an object of ridicule; unless she's a serial killer or funded the War on Women, I'm going to guess she doesn't deserve it. 

And, personally, I doubt very much that Kardashian agreed to release her "sextape". Like Pamela Anderson and Paris Hilton before her, Kardashian knew all to well that she had no real legal recourse once the tape was leaked online. Once something is on the internet, there is no way to "unleak" it. Kardashian was a victim of sexual violence, just like Pamela Anderson, Paris Hilton and Kate Middleton. She may have settled her lawsuit with the distributor, but, let's be honest here, she had no chance of actually winning the lawsuit. A woman's sexual behaviour is always up for public speculation and insult. It is always for sale and, usually, without our consent.

Now Kardashian is pregnant, the slut-shaming will start again. Kanye West will receive congratulations but Kardashian will receive nothing but comments on her behaviour and her weight. Once she gives birth, Kardashian will be judged on her failure to lose weight immediately or on how fast she lost the weight. She will be judged for breastfeeding or not breastfeeding. She will be judged on her parenting skills. She will be judged for having the support of a night nurse or nanny or she will be judged for not having help. She will be labelled fat, selfish, and a bad mother and this is without acknowledging the issue of racism.

She will be judged.

She will be found lacking.

No matter what she does.

We all know that pregnancy is one of the most vulnerable times for women; even without the added risk of domestic violence. Our default position for *all* pregnant women should be one of support.

So, congratulations Kim Kardashian. 

And, shame on those who are already lining up to insult, denigrate and mock you. 

No one deserves the treatment you will receive over the next year.

After all, we're all trying to survive in the Capitalist-Patriarchy the best we can.

Read More

So, Every Women Wants to be Objectified?

I probably would have ignored this story if it hadn't been for this article in the Huffington Post. Cameron Diaz's comment to the Sunday Times suggesting that its healthy for women to want to be objectified is, well, stupid and arrogant. But, we all say stupid and arrogant things from time to time, so, whilst her comment pissed me off, I was going to let it slide. Diaz clearly does not speak for most women; even those who've bought into the "empowerfulising" discourse [here's a hint: if a man doesn't have to do it to be empowered, it's misogynistic bollocks]. These kinds of comments just reinforce Patriarchal constructions of women's sexuality and are best ignored.

As I said, I would have ignored it if it weren't for the daft article in the Huffington Post which ends with this:

The comments are sure to raise some eyebrows -- just as her recent interaction with Robert Pattinson raised a few. 

Earlier this month, it was reported that the actress was spotted flirting with the 26-year-old "Twilight" star, who recently reconciled with his girlfriend, Kristen Stewart. 

"She was pretty obvious," a source told Us Weekly. "Cam was seated next to Rob at dinner. She was touching his arm, doing her big Cameron laugh at everything he said and trying really hard. He was polite, but not having it."

I'm struggling to work out what the link is between Diaz spouting some dire "choice" feminism twaddle and her possibly flirting with a man who may or may not be in a relationship. I'm not googling to find out because I genuinely don't care if he is in a relationship or not. What I do care about is the constant reinforcement of slut-shaming in our rape culture. The Huffington Post piece pretends to be impressed with Diaz being confident in her own sexuality, whilst snidely swiping at those who object to Diaz's statement, and then it slaps Diaz back into place. The hypocrisy in one piece is breath-taking.

God forbid a woman find a man sexually attractive. And, tell him so. I am so fucking over this slut-shaming arsehattery.

Yeah, I think Diaz's comments were stupid and arrogant but I'm angry with what she said; not because she may like having sex. Or, may have decided to hit on some guy. It's not relevant and it has nothing to do with the story except as a silencing technique.

Oddly, The Huffington Post posted an article by Nico Lang in defence of Kristen Stewart and the serious slut-shaming she faced after kissing someone who was not Robert Pattinson back in September. I think there a few people who need to revisit that article.

Read More

FeMEnism: Netmums Re-Invents "Choice" Feminism

Netmums, the other British parenting website, has undertaken a survey on feminism. In it, I have learned that I am aggressive, undermine motherhood, oppress men and I need to use Botox. Needless to say, this is not my feminism. My feminism is about the liberation of women as a class. It is about women’s rights legally recognized: our right to reproductive freedom, employment, and the freedom from violence. Feminism isn’t about individualism and personal choices. I am white, middle class and have 2 post-graduate degrees with several academic articles published. I have "choices" that many other women will never have. To pretend that racism, classism, homophobia, disablism and misogyny don’t limit the “choices” of other women is hypocritical. It is a lie perpetrated by the Patriarchy designed to isolate women. 

According to the Telegraph , that noted hotbed of Radical Feminism,

(s)ocial commentators have dubbed this new movement 'FeMEnism' as it gives women the right to live very varied lives without judgment from their peers - rather than be dictated to by the 70's-style 'sisterhood' with a solitary viewpoint.

Now, I've had a quick google and I can't see anything, which suggests that anyone is using the term feMEnism. And, really, who would? It sounds rather pretentious; although I'm not sure I'm a good judge on this since I use ‘FeMNist’ to denote my membership of the Mumsnet Feminist board. We are a collective. FeMEnist implies that the only person who counts is the individual woman, which is utterly silly. It is also disingenuous at best. Choice feminism has been around for more than 15 years. It is called Third Wave feminism. It is odd for both Netmums and the Telegraph to be buying into a discourse, which is false. However, since Netmums founder Siobhan Freegard also buys into the idea that “traditional” feminism is “aggressive, divisive and doesn’t take into account (women’s) personal circumstances”, it’s not surprising that they are trying to advertise themselves as a new form of feminism.

Freegard doesn’t understand Second Wave feminism; at least, I think she is referring to Second Wave Feminism with the word “traditional”. It’s entirely possible she means the Suffragettes. Either way, I don’t know any feminists who hate all men or who view them as the “enemy”. I know many who hate the men who have physically, sexually and emotionally abused them. I hate them too. I think that’s a rational response to being violated. There has never been “a battle of the sexes” on the part of feminists. That is a story spun by the media who are too invested in the Patriarchy to actively challenge the myths surrounding violence against women and feminist political theory. Heck, in the case of the Daily Mail, they actively perpetuate the myths in order to sell their own brand of woman-hating to those unwilling to give up their privilege. In fact, and I know some will find this truly shocking, feminists actually have fathers, brothers, and sons. If you find this a surprise, do feel free to take some deep breaths, because it gets worse: some feminists are even married. To men. Actual men. With penises and everything.

There are so many things wrong with this survey that I don't know quite where to begin. Obviously, the refusal to acknowledge the political structures in which women live is, well, stupid. It is the failure to understand that other women's lives, even in the UK, are fundamentally different from one another whilst at the same time recognising women's oppression as a class. Feminists do both. We seek the liberation of *ALL* women whilst simultaneously supporting and campaigning for the specific needs of communities of women who are Othered within a white capitalist-Patriarchy.

Feminists also don't judge women for their appearance. We are critical of the patriarchal constructions of beauty which force women to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test in order to be considered worthy of notice. Communities of women who reinforce patriarchal standards of beauty like assuming that being feminine and glamorous was once a barrier to being taken seriously aren’t challenging anything. The problem is that women aren't taken seriously unless they are "feminine". It is the performance of gender which is a barrier to women's liberation. If an individual woman having breast implants is a "choice", how can we assess women's choices? We live in a society which privileges very young women who are thin, with fake breasts and long blonde hair. This is without even considering the issue of race which works on the presumption of white = beautiful. The number of creams designed to lighten the skin of Women of Colour is incredible. The pressure on Black women to have straight hair is immense. Hell, even Chris Rock noticed and made a documentary about it. If a man can see it, why can't other women? This isn’t to say that women who have breast enlargements should be judged or bullied. You won’t find a feminist who actually argues that. You will find feminists who believe that “choice” is a word used to limit women’s ability to make decisions for themselves. It removes everything from the political context. Feminism is about the political context. It is about women as a class. 

I'm quite surprised that 82% of the women who filled in the survey "condemned prostitution". What do they mean by that? Do they mean the men who believe they are entitled to access women's bodies whenever they want and think nothing of buying another person's body for their own sexual gratification. If that's what they mean, then I'm with them. I think prostitution is nothing less than the state-sanctioned rape of vulnerable women; many of whom will have started prostituting themselves as children. Most women involved in prostitution have histories of child physical, psychological and sexual abuse. Many were victims of rape. Many are currently trapped in the self-harm of substance misuse. Many prostitute themselves because they have no other options to support their children. But, I suspect this isn't what was meant by "condemning prostitution". I suspect it is more to do with blaming the vulnerable women who are trapped than it is acknowledging the problem lies in a capitalist system which views women as commodities to be bought and sold. It's notable that 77% also felt that marrying for money was wrong. I wonder who they were blaming there: the women trying to survive the best way they can? Or, the rich men who think they are entitled to buy women. 

The chart labelled "Which of these activities are acceptable for feminists" is just utterly pathetic. FFS, they have "baking cupcakes" down. I must have missed the part of the feminist movement which bans women from baking. I think they got confused there with the Patriarchy who don't like women to eat because fat women are unfuckable. A lot of feminists have a problem with pole dancing. That's because we view as part of the continuum of violence perpetrated by the "sex entertainment industy"; an oxymoron if I've heard one. Again, this isn't about critiquing the women involved. It's about questioning the entire industry and why men feel entitled to treat women like objects. That is what is missing from this survey: the men. The men who abuse and rape women. They are who feminists are fighting; not women who vajazzle.

And, if 51% of teenage girls have never heard of the feminist movement then their parents may want to check what else their daughters aren’t learning at school since feminism appears in both the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland and in numerous places in the English/Welsh curriculum. It’s also in the media ALL the time. I genuinely don’t know how anyone can’t have heard of it; even if it’s just to buy into the Daily Mail’s “feminists are all evil, man-hating lesbians” crap. I wouldn’t expect a 7 year old to have heard the word feminist, just as I wouldn’t expect a 14 year old to be up to date in feminist theory, but a 16 year old who has never heard the word, well, I find that really problematic. 

This is the problem with both the survey undertaken by Netmums and the discussion in the media. The survey itself has inverted feminist discourse to push for a very specific end point: namely that feminism is not relevant. Now, I don’t want to cast aspersions but I do think it’s quite telling that this survey came from Netmums and not Mumsnet, which has both a very active feminist community online, as well as grassroots activists. The Mumsnet “We Believe You campaign” and the Miscarriage Code of Practice campaign came directly from Mumsnet members. Not all would self-define as feminist, but they all understand the importance of sisterhood. If I were cynical, I might think that this is part of a policy to discredit Mumsnet, which has been much maligned in the press recently for daring to be political. The Netmums version of FeMEnism challenges nothing, but celebrates choice at the expensive of collective political action.


Also, Dudes, I can count. 1300 women took your survey. That's not really represenative of anything but a self-selecting group of women who post on Netmums. Let's not get over-excited about "representing the voice of young women". 

Read More

Dear Jezebel,

I regret to inform you that we can no longer be friends. I've stuck it out through victim-blaming, poorly researched twaddle like this because, occasionally, you have moments of sheer Feminist brilliance. Unfortunately, your obsession with remaining the Official Handmaiden Cheerleading Squad has become too much for me to bear. I simply can not forgive you for writing this bullshit. The total lack of understanding of rape culture, the blaming of women for feeling denigrated when their partners treat them like fucktoys, and blaming Feminism for women wanting to have good sex on their own terms is so utterly misogynistic that I can no longer waste my time on you. Not when there are women writing about having good sex on their own terms with partners who respect them [regardless of whether or not they are in relationships or just one-night stands]. 

Yours sincerely,

Stewie

P.S I think you'll find that it was Feminists who started the campaign for women to have healthy sexual relationships and not ones based on the male orgasm. It was Feminists who changed the language of consent so that men no longer have the legal right to rape their wives. It was Feminists who examined the power dynamics of heteronormativity, PIV, pornography, rape culture and personal sexual desire. To suggest otherwise demonstrates some piss-poor research and critical thinking skills. 

P.P.S Using disablist terms like retardation constitutes hate speech. You might want to run that past your editorial team to prevent further booboos.

P.P.P.S That bit about sticking your finger in your partners anus without consent is, well, sexualised violence [or rape if you don't live in England/Wales where the legal definition of rape requires the insertion of a penis without consent].

Read More

Coco Khan: Missing the Point of Slutwalk Entirely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More

Slutwalk London

SlutWalk London 2012 

Saturday 22nd September 2012

12.30pm 

Top of Piccadilly (near Hyde Park Corner).

FaceBook

Petition

These are the details for this year's London Slutwalk. As with the Edinburgh Slutwalk in July, I won't be attending because I find the concept of Slutwalks deeply problematic. However, Slutwalk has ignited debate about victim-blaming and sexualised violence. It has also created a safe space for women to share their stories. There is no greater gift. So, whilst I stand by what I wrote in July about the Slutwalk Edinburgh, I also have to give props to the women attending. The Patriarchy must be destroyed. We're just destroying it from different angles.

 This is what I wrote about Slutwalk Edinburgh: 

I would have marched in the original in Toronto because that had a specific purpose: to raise awareness of the misogynistic discourse normalised within the police as it manifested in that specific incident. The worldwide movement to reclaim the word "slut" bothers me. There seems to have been little real political analysis of the word and its specific connotations for different groups of women due to race, class, and ethnicity. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to re-appropriate the words of your oppressors. I also think its incredibly odd to try to reclaim the word "slut" in order to demonstrate that rape isn't about being a "slut".  

Violence against women is endemic and systemic. It is everywhere and it is excused a thousand times a day in a million different ways. Slutwalk doesn't address or even attempt to analyse VAW. It only attempts to address one facet of rape myths without questioning the rape culture in which those myths are perpetuated and perpetrated. Rape isn't just about controlling women's sexuality as Slutwalk seems to imply. The act of rape [and the fear of the act of rape] are about controlling every facet of women's lives. Rape isn't about how women dress [or don't dress]. Rape is the practise of misogyny. It is misogyny that we need to eradicate but we need to do this by attacking every facet of VAW. Slutwalk privileges the lived experiences of middle class, white women. It merely reinforces the racist constructions about the sexuality of Black and Ethnic Minority women. It ignores the structural oppressions of poverty. It ignores how the structural oppressions of poverty specifically target Black and Ethnic Minority women. 

I want the eradication of the patriarchal-capitalist structures which oppress women. I don't want to reclaim or re-appropriate the words of my oppressors. I want them gone. 

I wish my sisters luck [and sunshine] for Slutwalk Edinburgh. I won't be on the march but, if Slutwalk becomes the catalyst which destroys the Patriarchy, I will be the first one to apologise.

Some interesting blogs and articles on Slutwalk:

Amplify Your Voice: In Context: Criticisms of the Slutwalk

People of Colour Organize: Four Brief Critiques of Slutwalk's Whiteness, Privilege and Unexamined Power Dynamics

Black Women's Blueprint: An Open Letter From Black Women to the Slutwalk

The Crunk Feminist Collective: I Saw the Sign but Did We Really Need the Sign? Slutwalk and Racism

The F Word: Feminist Critiques of Slutwalk Have Forgotten That Language is Not a Commodity

Gail Dines & Wendy J Murphy: Slutwalk is not Sexual Liberation 

Alternatives to Slutwalk:

Reclaim the Night

Million Women Rise

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: Eurostar's Tedious Twaddle

These are some of Eurostar's Post-Olympic ads which "invite customers to bring a little something back" with them. Granted, these aren't quite as horrific as the MyCheck ad starring Bar Rafaeli but they are so utterly tedious with the monotonous sexism. The second one definitely comes with an undercurrent of slut-shaming; just to be extra exciting.

Read More

Dearest Vagina, Once Again I have Failed You.

Dearest Vagina,

Once again I have failed you. I have previous form for neglecting you. I neither shave you nor vajazzle you. I refused to purchase the completely bizarre "smoothethegroove" in order to make you look more fuckable to men who are stupid. Unfortunately, and I think this goes without saying, I will also not be buying the 18 Again cream which is supposed to make you "tighter" and resemble the vagina of a virgin. It doesn't matter if the cream is made of the natural ingredients of "gold dust, aloe vera, almond and pomegranate". You will not experience the pleasure of the cream anywhere near you. 

Weirdly, I like you just the way you are: having birthed two children. I don't want to "feel like a virgin" either. I like being me: a woman whose body has changed and developed through age and experience. I know this means I will continue to fail the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. But, really, when have I actually passed the PFT? And, who really wants to have sex with a man who is only aroused by the anorexic body of an only-just-not-quite-a-teenager? An adult male who dates 18 year olds has some serious psycho-sexual issues they need to deal with. Who really wants to have sex with someone like that? Who wants to be with a man who only wants to marry a virgin?

So, you will remain unshaven and unvajazzled and without your own special wardrobe or creams. You will just have to remain you. After all, isn't that the point of every Disney Princess movie ever? Or, something like that. I'm sure.

SGM

Read More

The Hypocrisy of Left Wing Right-On Dudes.

Left-wing men are the worst hypocrites for normalising violence against women. You expect misogyny from right-wing conservatives who are anti-abortion, slut-shaming arsewipes. But, it's those men who think they are the Dude who are the real problem in rape culture. It's celebrities like Leonardo Dicaprio and Colin Farrell who hang out at the Playboy mansion who normalise the patriarchal construction of women as fucktoys. It's Hugh Hefner who thinks his financial support for Roe vs Wade makes him a Dude [cus, it had nothing to do with him being allowed to fuck as many women as possible without consequece]. Or, Rolling Stone magazine who have Charlie Sheen as their cover story despite his clear history of serial domestic violence and his abuse of prostitutes [not to mention glamourising his descent into drug addiction]. It's Roman Polanski and Chris Brown being given standing ovations despite taking no responsibility for the very serious crimes they committed. I never see mentions of Sean Penn's arrest for domestic violence mentioned in articles lauding his status as a Dude. PETA have given props to Tommy Lee for his financial support whilst conveniently ignoring his convictions for domestic violence against his now ex-wife Pamela Anderson. Anthony Kiedis, noted supporter of Barack Obama and PETA, isn't exactly boyfriend material with his personal history of VAW [not to mention the lyrics to The Adventures of Raindance Maggie are on the wrong side of the rape apologism debate]

Why do we only ever see female celebrities posing naked in Playboy and never male celebrities posing naked in Playgirl? Why do female celebrities have to ensure they look fuckable at 40 and have to pose naked to do so? When was the last time George Clooney, noted Dude, required to get his cock out in order to conform to the Patriarchy's beauty standards? Okay, PETA, misogynists that they are, do have male celebrities posing naked but the image of Dave Navarro in his "Ink not Mink" campaign is nowhere near as well known as the image of Pamela Anderson defined as chunks of meat by PETA. Yeah, I've been harping on about PETA here recently, but, really, they are the line in the sand. Supporting the rights of animals whilst helping to perpetuate rape culture is pretty much the essence of hypocrisy.

Really, though, the nincompoops who support Assange because he runs Wikileaks whilst insisting that he couldn't possibly be a rapist because he runs Wikileaks are the real hypocrites. The level of paranoia and serious congnitive dissonance [not to mention general stupidity] involved in their leaps of illogic are something spectacular. This was posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed this week:

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

It's just a #facepalm moment. Now, I haven't read the whole of this blog but the first bit was enough to make me think the author was a dingbat with some serious paranoia issues. And, I'm sorry, but hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London whilst having a tantrum about being questioned [and not arrested] just makes Assange look like a complete prick [not to mention guilty]. Assange supporters could join with Ched Evans supporters and form a supergroup of whiny-arsed, stupid nincompoops with serious delusions of grandeur. We could call them: The Quintessential Nincompoops.

It is perfectly possible to campaign against racism or investigate corruption in government or be an environmental activist and still be a misogynist and rapist. The Occupy Movement went out of its way to disassociate itself from the women who were raped in their camps in Glasgow, New Haven, London, Baltimore, Cleveland, and Dallas [and the list goes on]. These Dudes implied, rape after rape, that the women weren't actually "involved" in the movement or were "vulnerable" and shouldn't have been there, or were "prostitutes". Because, women who get themselves raped clearly brought it on themselves by being vulnerable or prostitutes or pretending to be activists. Or, some other fucking misogynistic horseshite. It just made it easier to for the right-wing arseholes in government to dismiss the entire movement.

It would be nice if those men who self-identify as "Right-On Dudes" got off the hypocritical bandwagon in behind the anti-choice, slut-shaming arsewipes and started taking the systemic violence against women seriously. Feminism needs more men who are willing to stand up in the fight against domestic violence and sexual violence. But, we need men who aren't hypocrites. We need men that understand the systemic nature of VAW and who are willing to start changing the misogynistic discourse which places all women on a spectrum of Patriarchal Fuckability. We need men who do understand that Hugh Hefner's "relationship" with his multiple girlfriends were abusive. We need men to understand that abusing the body of a prostitute is VAW; that pornography is VAW.

We need men who understand that misogyny is just as harmful to society as racism, homophobia and disablism are.

We need men who aren't hypocrites.

Read More

Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and "Western" Hypocrisy?

I've been following the legal trials of Pussy Riot for several months now. I've been increasingly uncomfortable about the directions the press has taken with this case and with the level of celebrity endorsement, particularly on the issue of free speech. Whilst I do think this issue is fundamentally about the right to free speech, I don't think it is the right to free speech that the media suggests. I have always felt that the right to free speech only supports those in power or a very small group of those with no access to formal power but who can engage with the media. I don't think discussions about the right to free speech are ever supportive of marginalised groups; no matter how much left-wing men swear it is. Free speech is the rallying cry of pornographers, neo-Nazis, rape apologists, and racists who assert that their right to be a jackass is more important than the harm they cause. Hearing people defend the tenets of free speech always makes me twitchy. Free speech, like pacifism, is a position only available to people with privilege. After all, the right to free speech is irrelevant if you live in abject poverty in a place with no access to electricity and, subsequently, have no real medium in which to assert that right.

A couple of weeks ago the journalist Miriam Elder, who is the Moscow correspondent for the Guardian, tweeted this:

Curious: do you think there would be such a campaign against Pussy Riot if they were men? And such a campaign of support in the west?

I've been pondering this since she tweeted it but haven't quite been able to articulate my concerns about the way the media is constructing Pussy Riot. I'm a big fan of anarcho-feminist punk bands, or any feminist musicians,  and feminist performance art but there is something wilfully disingenuous about the uncritical way in which Pussy Riot are being portrayed in the "Western" media. This is not to say that I think Pussy Riot deserve to be convicted for hooliganism in this case. Far from it, I think arresting non-violent protestors is one of the Patriarchy's favourite power plays. It's a nasty silencing technique. The three members of Pussy Riot should never have been arrested; never mind convicted. However, I do have concerns about the media's treatment of Pussy Riot; particularly since Pussy Riot were not protesting the right to free speech. Free speech is somewhat of red herring here. The debate for "free speech" is just the same old "Western" hypocrisy and benevolent sexism pretending to liberate women when all it does is further constrain us.

Until last night I thought I was the only one with these concerns. Then, Rowan Davies tweeted a link to this article on RadFem Hub: A Radical Feminist Collective Blog. I had no idea about Pussy Riot's connections to Voina. To be fair, I hadn't actually heard of Voina either. A perusal of google suggests they are a political performance art group; that is usually code for general misogynistic pornography pretending to be "art". PETA has a similar policy and I think they are all misogynistic nincompoops too. Voina are, simply, quite vile, nasty misogynists. It would be very hard to argue the right to free speech based on their campaigns which is why the creation of Pussy Riot was both a necessity for publicity and a way of obfuscating Voina's misogyny.

The relationship between Pussy Riot and Voina disturbs me but it also explains why Pussy Riot are getting so much "Western" media interest. Generally speaking, the media's interest in Feminism is either to force women into accepting the pornographication and objectification of their bodies or to belittle, humiliate and denigrate feminists. I don't think Pussy Riot would have received media attention in the "West" if they were male. I don't know anywhere near enough about the internal workings of the Russian government so I can't really comment on whether or not I think a male punk performance band would have been arrested in similar circumstances. But, I do believe that Pussy Riot is only garnering support in the "West" because of the holdover of the anti-communist hysteria, anti-feminist discourse and because of "benevolent sexism". The inclusion of "free speech" is about the free speech of pornographers; it's not about the free speech of feminists.

Pussy Riot are getting support from male artists like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Paul McCartney, and Stephen Fry because of "free speech". I think their various personal histories of misogynistic discourse make their definitions of "free speech" both hypocritical and lacking in political analysis. I do truly believe a lot of their support is because Pussy Riot have vaginas and are young and pretty. It is benevolent sexism: the protection and support of pretty women whose personal voices are erased in order for the Menz to feel better about themselves [or ignore their own inappropriate behaviour]. Benevolent sexism is incredibly harmful to the Feminist movement because it gives the appearance of male support without acknowledging the conditions of that support; notably passing the Patriarchal Fuckability Test as Pussy Riot do.  I don't think that this is necessarily a conscious decision on the part of some of their male supporters but I think it is there. This is not to say that Pussy Riot aren't either deliberately using the PFT as a way of garnering support or that they aren't aware of being used in this manner. It's certainly not the first time women have used the benevolent sexism card to push through their legal demands.

It's also worth acknowledging that the only major world artist whose been attacked for their support is Madonna who was labeled a moralising "slut" by Dmitry Rogozin, a deputy minister. Madonna expressed her support at a performance in Russia; as did the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Paul McCartney. I haven't heard of anyone referring to members of RHCP as sluts. And, let's be honest here, Anthony Kiedis' sexual history isn't exactly that of a man who respects women.  I also don't see a group of celebs lining up to pay for the legal costs of Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, Maria Alyokhina and Yekaterina Samustsevich as, apparently, Banksy did when he paid the bail of several members of Voina when they were arrested at a previous demonstration. Nor, do I see anyone really upset about the possibility of Alyokhina and Tolokonnikova's young children being taken into care. After all, the loss of their children into foster care isn't about the right to free speech for men. 

I also don't think Pussy Riot were just arrested because they were criticising the Russian government. I think they were charged with hooliganism motivated by religious hatred because they identified as Feminist activists. This case is as much about silencing feminists as it is about the right to "free speech". It is about patriarchal approval for the right kind of feminists: those who think that prostitution and pornography are valid "career choices" rather than the abuse and torture of vulnerable women. I doubt very much that the male celebs lining up to support Pussy Riot would be doing so if the women were also anti-pornography and anti-prostitution campaigners who refused to use the language of pornography in their campaigns. Similarities to the Ukrainian feminist group Femen, who have support in the "West" are striking.

I do believe the right to free speech is an important requirement in a democracy. But, we don't have it now and we never really had it. Free Speech is about rich, white men being allowed to say whatever they want, whenever they want it. It's about allowing pornographers to abuse and torture women's bodies without taking any responsibility for the harm. So, whilst I have supported the campaign to free Pussy Riot, I have not been doing so uncritically under some misguided construction of feminism or free speech. 

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because no one deserves to be imprisoned for singing and dancing.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to change the discourse around free speech so that it applies equally to minority groups.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because we need to stop using women's bodies as political tools.

I have been supporting Pussy Riot because the #waronwomen is destroying women's lives everywhere.

Some interesting articles on Pussy Riot, "Free Speech", political protests and constructions of "Art":

Pussy Riot: Whose Freedom? Whose Riot?

Their Closing Statements

Pussy Riot Trial: "We Are Representatives of Our Generation"

Starting a Pussy Riot

Pussy Riot Trial Worse Than "Soviet Era"

The Pussy Riot Trial Court Documents

Pussy Riot Claims "Victory" in Letter to Supporters

Let's Start a Pussy Riot

Free Pussy Riot Comes to Ace Hotel

Pussy Riot Supporters being Arrested in New York

Associated Press Guide To Pussy Riot's Music

And, Viv Albertine, who is just cool:

Read More

Jezebel: I'm Not Sure if We Should Be Celebrating or Crying. I think I'm Going With Crying

I read Jezebel. I'm not proud of it but, really, where else can you get real feminist analysis and anti-feminist handmaiden shit all in the same place? TMZ and Perez Hilton are just facile, woman-hating shite. Jezebel has moments of genius; you know, when they're not insulting and denigrating actresses for having sex or labelling models fat or the whole breast-feeders are Nazis schtick and what have you. I'm never entirely sure how they manage to flip between feminist activism and the Official Handmaiden Cheerleading Squad. But, they do. And, I can't help myself but be amazed at their hypocrisy and their frequent tendency to completely miss the Feminist point.

This article being a case in point. It starts like this:

On Saturday, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a law that will force strip clubs to pay an additional tax, which will in turn be used to fund programs aimed at preventing sexual assault as well as counseling sexual assault victims. The new tax is expected to haul in about $1 million a year for rape prevention programs, funding that even critics of the tax think is sorely needed.

Well, this is a lovely law except for the whole bit about it expecting rapes to happen. You want to stop the increased rapes which occur near strip clubs, then you ban strip clubs. You don't tax them to pay for the treatment of the rape victims who were raped because of the existence of the club. It's ridiculous. And, circular. And, stupid. But, at least, they are acknowledging the relationship between the "sex entertainment industry and increased sexual violence; even though they are solving it in the stupidest fashion possible.

This, however, is Jezebel's conclusion:

You'd have to be some kind of epic asshole to disagree with the way this additional revenue will be used, but implying a definite link between strip clubs and sexual assault carries the danger of further stigmatizing a business that already implies a certain degree of sleaze. Ultimately, this tax might not affect club owners like Ocello as much as it might affect the women who work at Ocello's clubs.

Talk about missing the freaking point. Guess what? The research does suggest that rapes and other forms of sexual violence increase in and around strip clubs and lap dancing clubs. And, this is without considering the sexualised violence that the women working in these clubs experience. That increased risk is to random women who just happen to be unlucky enough to live or work near one. And, yeah, I think the sex industry is sleazy. It harms all women whilst deliberately targeting vulnerable women for exploitation: women are poor or lack formal education or are already victims of sexualised violence (usually as a child) or women with serious drug or alcohol dependency issues. The idea that women "choose" to end up in this industry would be laughable if it weren't so harmful. The sex entertainment industry [an oxymoron if I've ever heard one] is about the objectification, abuse and torture of women's bodies. It is sleazy. And, it will always be sleazy.

A cursory search on google would have found lots of research and articles discussing the correlation between the increase risk of sexualised violence and the sex entertainment industry. Here's an article in the Telegraph about a police chief in Newquay objecting to sex entertainment establishments because they increase VAW. Object has countless resources listed here outlining the prevalence of sexualised violence near lap dancing clubs. The writer at Jezebel was either to lazy or too constrained by Patriachal discourse to even contemplate that the objectification of women's bodies does make other[ed] women unsafe. 

We need to face up to the fact that prostitution, pornography and "sex entertainment establishments" help perpetuate rape culture. It is disingenuous and unkind to suggest otherwise.

Read More