Don't Be That Girl: Rape Culture in Action

There isn't much I can say that hasn't been said already on twitter. This is, obviously, rape culture in action. 

I want to say, yep that's the University of Alberta for you: bunch of misogynistic, racist, homophobic and disablist rednecks. We all know the jokes and stereotypes about rednecks. And, hey, I'm Canadian. I know all the jokes about Albertans: the Texas of Canada.

That would be the lazy way out though.

Claiming that this kind of poster is representative of a cultural stereotype of stupidity allows us to ignore our own responsibility for perpetuating rape culture [and allows the dickheads of twitter more space to pretend they are Nigels]. 

Blaming rape victims for being raped is the basis of rape culture. It isn't just some Albertan thing.

Making rape apologists The Other makes it easier for rapists to rape. 

We need to start examining the obvious: that these are stories of MALE violence instead of hiding behind cultural stereotypes.

These posters were created by men for the sole purpose of labelling rape victims liars. 

We need to name the problem: Male Violence.

Read More

Attention Seeking Women Just Need to Shut Up

[First Published at Everyday Victim Blaming]

The Telegraph is not a newspaper I read. It is pure misogyny and, in that, is pretty much the same as the rest of the British media and their policy of victim blaming. This particular article is no different. 

Rupert Christiansen, who is apparently an opera critic, has merely joined in with the rest of the Telegraph in their current series: “women whine too much”. The target of Christiansen’s offensive tirade is opera singer Angela Gheorghiu. The real target should have been her ex-husband Roberto Alagna.

Christiansen knows nothing about domestic violence. I’d be tempted to say he knows nothing about basic human relations. According to Christiansen, a man giving his wife “a clap on the face” is not “violence". He actually puts the word violence in quotation marks.  You see, hitting your wife across the face isn't real violence; not like, say, hitting a man across the face. That would be real violence.

Christiansen follows it up with this gem:

“So far it’s hard to imagine that anything more sinister than explosive exasperation of a standard matrimonial kind is involved – unpleasant and upsetting for all parties concerned, but scarcely a matter for the courts or the headlines.”

Yep, Christiansen actually thinks that slapping your wife across the face is “standard matrimonial” behaviour. I’m so glad he included the words “unpleasant and upsetting”. What with all the minimizing of male violence, I thought Christiansen was going to suggest that Gheorghiu should write Alagna a thank you letter for hitting her. Clearly, Hallmark is missing out on a greeting card.

Christiansen wasn’t quite satisfied with blaming Gheorghiu for being a victim of domestic violence or using that utterly disgusting term “volatile”, a term only ever used to minimize men’s responsibility for the violence they commit. No, Christiansen had to say that both have a “terrible reputation in business for being chronic exhibitionists”, because using the media efficiently as a celebrity means that Gheorghiu is just a whiny woman who needs to learn to shut up.

Christiansen doesn’t just imply that Gheorghiu needs to shut up but he actually states that we should ignore a woman’s story of domestic violence because it’s ‘attention-seeking’. 

Women who speak out publicly about their personal experiences of violence are "attention-seeking". And, the Telegraph saw fit to publish this piece of victim-blaming bullshit.

Read More

Shock: Male Journalist Spread Myths about Domestic Violence

Damian Gee has been convicted of assault because he chose to punch his partner in the face and then he threatened to kill her with a knife.

Damian Gee assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship because Gee had an affair. He turned up at her residence at 3 in the morning, uninvited and assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship.

Yet, Neil Hunter of the Northern Echo, wrote an article claiming that the “cheating boyfriend attacked his partner during showdown talks”. I’m not sure how turning up at 3 in the morning, whilst intoxicated and without invitation constitutes “showdown talks” but ignoring that piece of victim blaming, Hunter also points out that Gee was having an affair with the victim’s sister. Not only is the victim responsible for Hunter showing up without invitation, she is also responsible for Gee choosing to have sex with her sister. Hunter has clearly been watching Jeremy Kyle to understand the full dynamics of victim-blaming.

Hunter’s lack of understanding of domestic violence is quite obvious. Hunter suggests it’s “bizarre” that Gee accused his partner of cheating on him before assaulting him. This is classic emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as exhibited by abusive men. Frankly, anyone with access to google could discover that this behaviour is “bizarre”; it’s the normal behaviour of abusive men.

Hunter, demonstrating a further complete lack of awareness of domestic violence, ended the article with this tidbit:

Mr Mochrie said initial accusations of rape and false imprisonment - later dropped by the prosecution - had caused him trouble in jail.

"It is not over just because the prosecution decides to discontinue the case. It has tarnished his reputation in the community." “

Mochrie, Gee’s defence attorney, is worried about the reputation of an abusive man. And, Hunter buys this without mentioning how rare “false” accusations of rape really are or why the prosecution would choose to drop charges of rape and false imprisonment. Here’s a hint for Hunter, it’s unlikely because the charges were “false”. Statistically speaking, it’s much more likely because accusations of rape are rarely brought before the court and when they are, rapists are frequently not convicted. It’s also likely the victim chose not to pursue the charges.

Neil Hunter could really do with researching myths about rape and domestic violence so he doesn’t write such victim-blaming twaddle again.

The only person responsible in this case is Damian Gee. 

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

Apparently, Charles Saatchi is just a "bore": The DM's response to Saatchi's Violence

The Daily Mail is back with yet another piece of vile victim blaming. This time they are outright saying that Nigella Lawson was not a victim of intimate partner violence at the hand of her husband Charles Saatchi. According to the DM, Saatchi is not an abuser. Just a bore. Because strangling your partner is completely normal behaviour during an argument.

The entire article is a pile of misogynistic victim-blaming. Every line minimises Saatchi's history of violence and ignores the clear evidence that he assaulted his wife. The article is so full of myths about intimate partner violence that I'm not entirely sure where to start with criticisms.

First up, we have this gem of information:

Charles Saatchi is being portrayed worldwide as a wife-beating monster on the basis of scant, if any, evidence. 

Now, it's possible the "journalist" didn't actually look at any of the images of the assault but I'm fairly sure putting your arms around someone's throat, without their permission, to choke them constitutes violence.  It doesn't matter if it only happens once. It is still intimate partner violence and Saatchi is guilty of assault.

Then, we get this:

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence — which, try as I might, I just don’t buy. 

I guess this means that if you are a successful woman, you can't be a victim of violence. I would link to every study on intimate partner violence but, frankly, we all know the DM doesn't actually like "evidence". For those of you who are interested, the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the US has this handy little factoid. 

Next up, we get this:

Saatchi is indeed a volatile and physical man. Always has been. Back in the days when he began to make his millions in advertising, there were tales of him hurling items of furniture around the office like so many missiles, the better to ease any fleeting frustration. 

So, we have a man with a well-publicised history of violence but his physical assault on his wife doesn't count because she's married to him? Any man who thinks it's acceptable to toss furniture around the room when having a tantrum is a violent man. It really is that simple. Frustration is not, and has never been, a valid excuse for violence. The fact that Saatchi is white, wealthy and male should not minimise his personal responsibility for the violence he has committed.

The DM, in a moment of generosity, does suggest that Saatchi is "... pretty darned physical with his wife, too ...". I would have thought getting "physical" with one's wife without consent would be intimate partner violence but it not in Daily Mail World. It's just evidence of Saatchi being a bit cranky: 

Nevertheless, to put such unpleasantness into the catch-all basket called ‘domestic violence’ is to do grave disservice not just to this couple but also to the real victims of real horrors that happen daily behind closed doors.

I'm not entirely sure what the DM requires as evidence of "domestic violence". Clearly, attempting to strangle your wife in public isn't sufficient evidence. I'm so glad they thought to tell us that. I had no idea that attempting to strangle one's wife is normal behaviour for a man. I mean, I know that the trauma of intimate partner violence manifests itself in numerous ways and that it usually takes a minimum of 30 incidents before women report their partners to the police but I was unaware that being married to a rich, white man made the trauma less of a problem. I shall, of course, take note of that.

And, I do love the theory that Saatchi taking a police caution was a "joint decision". That, clearly, is not an example of victim-blaming at all. Saatchi chose to physically assault his wife but they both decided he should take a punishment for it. If he hadn't, would that have been Lawson's fault too? I've got myself all mixed up as what is and is not her fault, that I'm just not sure anymore.

It is also, apparently, both "patronising ... (and) insulting" to label Lawson a victim. This is the worst that could have possibly happened: labelling Lawson a victim of intimate partner violence; not being assaulted by her husband. That's just an irrelevancy that the rest of us keep whinging on about. Nope, the worst thing about Saatchi throttling his wife in public is labelling her a victim:

It is both a marvel and a sadness that what, barely a generation ago, was a vibrant movement of women jumping up and down to yell about their strengths has dissipated into a perpetual whimper about poor little us, victims all. 

Victims of harassment, victims of discrimination, victims of husbands, victims of men.
Everybody is in on it: the police, the courts, the law-makers and, as we’ve seen here, even the politicians rush to join in.

Should a woman have any manner of altercation with a man, she is instantly labelled ‘victim’ until and unless his innocence is proved — the opposite of the way our trusty system has traditionally and properly worked.

This is rather a clever "feminism is ruining the world" sub-plot. What is the world coming to when we name the perpetrator of male violence as a perpetrator? After all, the DM thinks we should feel "slightly" sorry for Saatchi for painting his character in a bad light. Poor diddums will have sad face at all the nasty feminists holding him personally accountable for his own actions. I mean, we all know that men can't ever be responsible for their own actions. That would be sacrilege. Or, something.

So, there we have it: men aren't responsible for the violence they perpetrate. Nasty feminists are ruining the world and successful women can't be victims of domestic violence.

God bless the DM for keeping us poor ickle wimmen straight on such complicated issues: putting your hands around your wife's throat in a argument is no biggie and anyone who suggests otherwise is a nasty whiner. 

I've reproduced the entire DM article below. It includes images of the violence committed by Saatchi.

Calm down! Saatchi's no monster and Nigella's no battered wife 

By CAROL SARLER

PUBLISHED: 22:40, 25 June 2013 | UPDATED: 22:46, 25 June 2013

 
 
 

24 shares

156

View
comments

Volatile: Charles Saatchi grips Nigella's neck

The time has come for all this to stop. The nation has thoroughly, if rather disgracefully, enjoyed itself by gossiping about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson for quite long enough. We have pored over every ugly picture — and ugly they certainly were — and we have gaped and gasped to our national heart’s content.

But what began as graphic titillation has started to smell altogether too much like a witch-hunt: a frenzy of speculation that is becoming as unseemly as it is unfair.

Charles Saatchi is being portrayed worldwide as a wife-beating monster on the basis of scant, if any, evidence.

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence — which, try as I might, I just don’t buy.

Saatchi is indeed a volatile and physical man. Always has been. Back in the days when he began to make his millions in advertising, there were tales of him hurling items of furniture around the office like so many missiles, the better to ease any fleeting frustration.

We know, now, that he is pretty darned physical with his wife, too — far more so than you or I might find acceptable if we had married him. Heaven knows, I wouldn’t want my throat grasped Saatchi-style, or my nose ‘tweaked’.

Nevertheless, to put such unpleasantness into the catch-all basket called ‘domestic violence’ is to do grave disservice not just to this couple but also to the real victims of real horrors that happen daily behind closed doors.

The nation has thoroughly, if rather disgracefully, enjoyed itself by gossiping about Charles Saatchi and Nigella Lawson for quite long enough

Of course I condemn physical violence by men against women and, for that matter, by women against men. But there is no reason to believe  that Charles Saatchi, though he may have a volcanic temperament, has ever hurt his wife. 

Indeed, it is telling that his previous wife, Kay — though no fan of his, this woman scorned — has gone out of her way in recent days to defend him on that score. Ill-tempered, yes. Controlling, yes. 

Violent, never.

It is telling that his previous wife, Kay (pictured) - though no fan of his, this woman scorned - has gone out of her way in recent days to defend him

Nor is there reason to believe that Nigella Lawson fits the mould of the battered wife. I do not pretend to know her well, but we worked on the same newspaper many years ago and I found her perfectly affable, quietly ambitious and wholly able to stand on her own two feet.

Her first husband, John Diamond, I knew much better, and of this I am sure: he was not a man likely to have been charmed by a dormouse.

In short, there is nothing about Nigella that puts her in the class of subjugated woman. She has no need of Saatchi’s money, being worth many millions herself. 

She is not without a place to run to should she choose to leave — her family is loaded, loving and influential — and the idea that Saatchi has somehow managed to strip her of self-esteem and independent thought is frankly laughable.

The truth about their very public quarrel is that only two people know exactly what happened, that they are never going to tell us, and that claims of an ‘assault’ lasting a full 27 minutes are, after all, only the claims of a paparazzo with pictures to sell.

All that the rest of us know, from seeing his pictures, is that at any point Nigella could have reached for her bag and left — yet chose not to do so. 

And from another picture taken on another day, we know that the pair returned to the same table at the same restaurant a week later, which hardly suggests lingering trauma.

Saatchi accepted a police caution — but that, likely as not, was a joint decision taken in the vain hope of damage limitation. She left the family home — but that, too, was probably a joint decision taken to protect their children’s privacy.

How they live is surely their choice. It is their marriage, after all. Yet still the court of public opinion will not let the matter rest.

It has even reached the stage where a marital tiff has become fodder for party political point-scoring. Nick Clegg says that if he’d been there he would not have intervened; Ed Miliband and Lord Kinnock both say they would — so nul points for the Libs and hurrah for the Labs, even if Nigella would no doubt have been first to tell the chivalrous creeps where to shove their ‘intervention’.

Nigella Lawson, famously her own woman and a goddess to boot, is being characterised as a pathetic victim of domestic violence

I do wonder, though, whether Messrs Miliband and Kinnock would be as quick to reach for the shining armour had the ‘assault’ happened the other way around. Had Nigella shoved her fingers up the Saatchi beak — do you think, then, they would have thought it any of their business?

No, me neither.

And it does happen the other way around. My guess is that if Nigella had been photographed slapping Saatchi’s face it would have been a two-day wonder in which she would have emerged as the heroine.

Indeed, mea culpa, I once entertained a packed and costly restaurant when I flung a large glass of vino over a companion’s head, and all I got as I stalked out were admiring winks from fellow diners.

A critical difference, of course, is that the cultural mindset is these days so feminised that the automatic presumption in my case was that the man must have done something to deserve it (in my case he had, but never mind) while in the Saatchi debacle the equally automatic presumption has been that Nigella is a ‘victim’.

Nick Clegg says that if he’d been there he would not have intervened, Ed Miliband says he would have

Why? Because she’s a woman. It is both a marvel and a sadness that what, barely a generation ago, was a vibrant movement of women jumping up and down to yell about their strengths has dissipated into a perpetual whimper about poor little us, victims all.

Victims of harassment, victims of discrimination, victims of husbands, victims of men.

Everybody is in on it: the police, the courts, the law-makers and, as we’ve seen here, even the politicians rush to join in. 

Should a woman have any manner of altercation with a man, she is instantly labelled ‘victim’ until and unless his innocence is proved — the opposite of the way our trusty system has traditionally and properly worked.

Some women, of course, need our help and protection, and it is to our credit that increasing awareness and resources are poured in where necessary.

There is nothing about Nigella that puts her in the class of subjugated woman, and to call her a victim is insulting

Nonetheless, to confer the title of ‘victim’ where it is not warranted — and it is hard to think of a better example than that of Nigella Lawson — is worse than patronising; it is actually insulting.

I might feel slightly sorry for Charles Saatchi, insofar as the response to his behaviour, beastly and boorish as it undoubtedly was, has painted him far blacker than is probably appropriate.

But I feel a great deal more sorry for Nigella. Not because of what he did — she’ll take or leave that and make decisions about her marriage as she sees fit — but because she has become the subject of such prurience.

From the day those pictures reached the Sunday newsstands, all the hard-won, well-deserved admiration she has enjoyed for years for being a strong, independent woman faded to nothing in a tidal wave of public pity. And that, I’ll bet, hurts a lot more than her nose.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2348439/Charles-Saatchis-monster-Nigella-Lawsons-battered-wife-Carol-Sarler.html#ixzz2XJUZbDUM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read More

Call it what it is — MALE violence against women

This is another brilliant post by radical feminist Elaine Charkowski. Her writings really should be published in book form.

Call it what it is — MALE violence against women

By Elaine Charkowski

Breaking the silence by naming an atrocity ¬- and its perpetrators - is the first step toward ending it. Patriarchy is a 6,000 year-old, male-supremacist social system. To maintain it, 

"Women's agony at the hands of men must never be revealed. If women steadfastly and courageously began to tell the truth and would not stop, would not be co-opted, would not become afraid, the truth of our enslavement would be undeniable and the jig would be up,” 

said Sonia Johnson in "Telling the Truth,” which is chapter 10 of her book Going Out of Our Minds-The Metaphysics of Liberation.”

Male violence against women must be named specifically in order to isolate it so it can be eradicated. Women, who outnumber men, are the single largest group of oppressed humans on the planet. Men have oppressed women nonstop for the longest length of time of any oppressed group, roughly 6,000 years (“The Chalice and the Blade” by Riane Eisler).

A young woman once told me that dealing with male violence "was just part of being a woman!” However, it's the moral responsibility of the group holding the most power to keep its members from oppressing people in groups holding less power.

Thus, all men are responsible for stopping male violence against women. Violent men must stop assaulting women. Non-violent men must not sit by and allow male violence against women to continue. To do so is to condone it. Their inaction-or indifference-is passive male violence against women.

Silence is complicity.

Here are some popular evasions often used to avoid naming male violence specifically and to avoid holding all men responsible for ending male violence against women:

1. "Not all men are violent."

No one said they were. Since men collectively hold more power than women, and since all men benefit from living in a sexist, male supremacist society, non-violent men are also responsible for stopping male violence against women.

In the same way, whites, who collectively hold more power than people of color (in the U.S.) are responsible for ending racism, even whites who don’t commit racist acts. This is because all whites benefit from living in a racist society that gives whites unearned advantages.

2. "Women are violent too."

Two wrongs don't make a right. Mary Daly calls this “universalism.” Muddying the waters, it blurs the specific focus on male violence against women by blending it with violence in general (universal violence) and casting it as a gender-neutral human issue (see examples of universalism in excuse #3 below).

Also, under patriarchy, women are blamed for their own degradation (being violent, collaborating with men against women, etc.) As Mary Daly wrote in her book “Pure Lust, (p.365) "Within the Virulent State of phallocracy, women have been attacked and divided against our Selves. From the earliest times of the patriarchy, countless mothers have been broken and the resulting broken daughters have carried on the chain of fragmentation. . . .

“They have been reduced to responding to the fettered/fathered urge to reproduce their altered–(that is, patriarchally identified selves)– in an endless circle of Self destruction. Such forcibly altered women have appeared to be normal within the man made milieu."

Although it exists, female violence pales in comparison to male violence. Men commit 88 percent of violent crime (US Bureau of Justice statistics). Women don't build rape camps to torture and molest men to death. Women don't control the U.S. government which spends more than half a trillion dollars a year on mass murder (war). Globally, women can't walk alone without the possibility of men assaulting them. The reverse is not true.

Even though some broken token women may collaborate with patriarchal men to gain power (Condi Rice, Margaret Thatcher etc.) it doesn't change the fact that patriarchal men are in charge and allow selected token "honorary men" into the boys club–if they identify with, and behave like, patriarchal men.

3. “Since violence is a human problem committed by both sexes, and since women also commit violence against women, male violence against women doesn’t have to be isolated and named specifically.”

Here are some examples of universalism (“women are violent too” etc.) The power disparity between women and men is the reason for some women’s dysfunctional behavior. It is not an excuse for it:

• “Some lesbians also better their partners”

This results from internalized dysfunctional heterosexual behavior absorbed from a patriarchal society in which the dominating partner (the man) batters the woman. Male violence against women is the blueprint for lesbian vs. lesbian battering.

•“Some women also commit racist violence against women”

Racism (male violence based on race) was created and implemented by dysfunctional men to “divide and conquer.” Male violence based on the “otherness” of the oppressed is the blueprint for racist attacks inflicted by some women upon “other” women. This results when women internalize racism and identify with the dominating race (including men)-instead of bonding with oppressed women. Racism is only possible when inflicted by the race possessing the most political and economic power (racism=prejudice+power over). Thus, women of dominated races cannot commit racism against women of the dominating race-only prejudice.

Male violence against women of the same race is clearly seen as sexism. However, male violence against women of different races is often obscured by being seen as just racism instead of racism and sexism.

•“Some women also exploit women sexually and economically

Hatred and contempt of women-including themselves-is the underlying issue. Women who exploit other women identify with and see themselves through the eyes of the oppressor (male supremacists who have contempt for women).

4. The absent referent

The "absent referent" refers to something without naming it. Mary Daly in her book “Quintessence” wrote, "Naming the agent is required for an adequate analysis of atrocities." As linguist Julia Penelope has shown in her book, “Speaking Freely: Unlearning the Lies of the Fathers' Tongues,” "agent deletion is a dangerous and common mind-muddying flaw."

Agent deletion is common, concerning male violence against women. Timid terms such as "sexual violence," "domestic violence" "gender-based violence," and "violence" refer to men without naming them, even when describing instances when it was obviously men who raped hundreds of thousands of women in Bosnia, Darfur, Rwanda and many other nations.

Even Amnesty International, which calls it "a global scourge," uses the term "violence against women" and “sexual violence” instead of "male violence against women."

5. "Men also rape men and boys."

Rape is a male hate crime against women. However, the use of universalism (see #3) attempts to portray rape as a gender-neutral atrocity. The fact that men also rape men and boys doesn’t change the fact that in every nation on earth, in all levels of society, men rape women. Even when men rape males, contempt for women is the underlying issue. Men rape males to degrade them by treating them like raped women.

If white supremacist men batter black men, it’s clearly seen as a racist hate crime, even though white men also batter white men. In the same manner, rape is a hate crime against women, even though men also rape men.

6. "What we resist persists."

Supposedly, opposing something directly "gives it more power." If racism and sexism were not opposed directly in the U.S., black people would still be enslaved. Women would still be men's property, unable to vote, own a business or keep their own wages. If the Nazis were not opposed directly, they would now run the world.

Opposing women's oppression directly is only one tactic. Another is being proactive by supporting women in their efforts to gain universal human rights. This can be done by volunteering at women’s shelters, donating to groups that help women in impoverished nations and many other ways. Both tactics are necessary.

7. The “passive voice”

In English grammar, using the passive voice (women were raped by men) instead of the active voice (men raped the women) shifts the focus from the perpetrators and their actions (men doing the raping) to their victims (the women being raped).

8. "Boys will be boys"

Patriarchal cultures promote "nature over nurture" (biological determinism) and claim men are "naturally violent." This legitimizes and perpetuates war and men's abuse of women. Abnormal violent "manhood" is regarded as the norm.

However, men are naturally peaceful. Archaeological evidence shows men enjoyed and maintained 1,500 years of peace in ancient Crete! It's proven today by famous non-violent men such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. and many other men who organize against warfare and who speak out against male violence against women.

It takes years of traumatic conditioning (while being immersed in a violent society) to make men violent. "Military training camps, police academies and even some self-defense pros are constantly searching for more effective methods of suppressing the human revulsion to taking human life." - See "The Science of Creating Killers" http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F08%2F13%2FINGKFKDJHC1.DTL

If men were “naturally violent,” years of brutal conditioning by violent media and in boot camps would not be needed.

9. "Societies were always patriarchal and men have always dominated women."

Thousands of years of women's history have been nearly erased by patriarchal men. Marija Gimbutas, the world-renowned archaeologist who wrote “Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe” unearthed many relics from around the world that proves men didn't always dominate women and that women and men once shared power in peaceful non-patriarchal Goddess worshipping. societies. Riane Eisler's book “The Chalice and the Blade” cites many more instances proving this.

“Democracy does not yet exist anywhere”

Robin Morgan wrote "The Demon Lover" which is a study of the link between terrorism in the home (domestic violence or more accurately, male violence against women in the home) and global terrorism. Terrorism, both in the home and the world, supports patriarchy and is a necessary component.

Morgan said, "The majority of the population in virtually all nation states is female and is forced by patriarchy to obey, be silent, and acquiesce-which means that ‘democracy' does not yet exist anywhere.”

The necessary foundation for the creation of democracy is universal human rights for women. This can not be achieved unless global male violence against women is eradicated. The question is how can we accomplish this? Men have had more than 6,000 to stop their endless war against women. So it falls to women to accomplish this.

From “The Ship that sailed into the Living Room” by Sonia Johnson

“My formative years were spent during men’s so-called Second World War*. From that war and from reading since, I learned some of the tactics that had had to be invented to prevent the escape of prisoners. Generally, when a group of men was captured, as soon as possible the captors got them into some sort of holding corral—some cordoned-off space—and set guards to watch them.

“ Among the prisoners, leaders would soon arise, those men who might, for instance, urge others around them not to cooperate with the enemy until they were all given water. In some way, those who were less afraid, surer of themselves, and therefore most likely to organize rebellions or escapes, soon identified themselves.

Their captors discovered through trial and error that to prevent trouble they had either to execute these leaders immediately or to put them in solitary confinement—one man to one cell with his own private guard. The analogy is obvious. When men dreamed of controlling women and hence the world, every woman was just such a leader—one of those who would disrupt and defeat their hell-plans. So during the war men have fought against us for thousands of years, they have had either to kill us or to put us in solitary confinement—one woman to one guard in one cell . . . .”

“ There has been only one war fought literally worldwide, affecting every living thing, and that has been men’s all-out, non-stop, millennia-long war against women, a war that not only continues to this moment without the slightest abatement but intensifies hourly.”

Read More

Eve Thomas, #OneVoice and How Not to Support a Survivor of DV

SakuraAmelie asked me to post the following piece, written by her, about her experience with Eve Thomas of #OneVoice. The post is very long and I apologise for the difficulties with formatting but it is worth reading the whole post. 

The truth.

Eve Thomas has spent the last two days behaving quite disgracefully. She has accused me of several things, none of which are true.

These are the Direct Messages sent between us. I have put them in coversational order (ie she asks questions, I answer) because the chronological messages are a bit confusing. However, if anybody should wish to see the messages in chronological order I will happily provide them with a link.

There is also a twitlonger, which I will get to after the DM bit. Sigh.

So, to begin with, let's get one thing out of the way - Eve sent the first DM. And the second, actually. *I* did not contact *her*.

Please note that Eve requests that I email her, I never did as her aggressive attitude made me want to step away from her 'help'.

(I haven't blanked out Eve's email address because she makes it public in her tweetlonger and also her website.)

The reference to 'he' here is to my ex, please note that my explanation of his violence is historical - I use the past tense.

Erm, no, I don't have "another man". I have a current partner though.

All true. I was too afraid to hang up the Skype call, afraid he would go to the judge and tell her I prevented him from speaking to the children.

Here Eve requests information from me in order for her to contact the police - information I never gave her. Eve has stated that *I* asked *her* to contact the police. You can see here that this is not the case.

I don't think it is too much to ask that the man who has made a concerted effort to make me as miserable as possible for the last 8...getting on for 9 years has to take some responsibility for that. I think it is actually very important that he is made to see that his behaviour is terribly damaging.

Yes, clearly it *does* matter, I just explained how I felt about it.

Erm...nobody is being forced to donate anything. If they feel thay can spare something then great, if they cannot I certainly understand how they feel and do not think any the worse of them for it.

Also, as I explained to Eve above, I cannot get legal aid. We are not entitled to it. So the non-mol, the divorce, the access dispute, are all either going to be covered by donations or not at all. Having faced my abuser in court twice, without any representation (ie totally alone) I would rather try and scrape to pay for a solicitor with donations from strangers.

Erm, rude much? I have mentioned already that *we* can't afford to pay for a solicitor.

So....I'm not proud, independant or strong. Thanks for that.

BTW, "I'm not x but.." means you are, so you are causing offence and I suspect you know that.

Oh, and evidently I cannot hold my head high, nor do I have dignity or (self?) respect. Got it.

(self explanatory, I think)

Another offer of (or really, demand to let her) help - You can see I have asked for nothing.

It clearly *does* matter what the divorce says. I am telling her repeatedly that this is a big thing for me, and she is diminishing it!

I think I made my point there?

Great that Eve can know what is good for my children. I actually happen to agree with her on this point, it's just a shame that she can't see that it is *her* causing the stress! "trying to help the legal and moral way" So nice of you to imply that the simple act of setting up a legal fund is illegal and immoral!


Sorry, I'm confused, have I moved on, or am I holding on to the chains of my past which so heavily weigh me down?

Well, I guess that answers that then.

Another request from Eve for me to contact her.

Erm....what?

And again with the asking me to contact her.

Got every *what* set up? Are you as confused by this as I am?

Oh hell no! Did you just say you spoke to the police? On my behalf? Without checking with me first?!

I don't really know what you could say to the police, that he hurt me two years ago? That you don't actually know where I live, where he lives/is, what the hell is even going on?!

How can you 'make sure' the police now start taking me seriously? I have already discussed (and Eve evidently understood) the fact that I have been trying to get the police involved. So surely I have given them all the relevant information, and they have either decided that they don't need to be involved, or (hopefully) haven't gotten around to contacting me yet?

Yes, I *do* have to have money. The police, involved or not, are not solicitors.

I didn't say I was uncomfortable with you getting help, I questioned the validity and safety of your actions.

I didn't say he was stalking me (though I believe he is), I said my past was stalking me. You really need to be more careful to pay attention to what people are saying to you!

No, what is unfair is you misreading and twisting my words, putting words in my mouth, and trying to guilt-trip me for doing this my way and not yours!

Even if I *could* get Legal Aid for the divorce, or the non-mol order (which I can't), I don't see it being paid for protracted and difficult access disputes. So, again, IT ISN'T FREE!

Oh hell no, I have not and do not intend to, either!

Again, no, that is not what I said. I said he was violent once. One time. He 'only' ever actually physically hurt one child, once. And me, once. And you don't get to decide, Eve. You are not the Judge in the courtroom and from a relatively short DM conversation on twitter you cannot possibly have all the pertinent information.

Oh look, I corrected her there! She got it wrong and I put her straight. See how an honest person does that? Now pay attention to the next one, this is a doozy!

I'm sorry, can we see that again? I can't quite believe what I have just read!

Did she just suggest I defraud the benefits system by moving my partner out, in order to claim benefits and receive legal aid? And she has the audacity to keep implying that using a fundraising page is immoral?! I just cannot believe it.... I ....can we see that one more time please?

0.o

Moving on..

Oh, so it's okay for you to use gofund for your 'charity', but not for me to try and get justice. Oh, okay.

I really don't think I want your brand of help, thanks.

I've had enough. I do not wish to engage any further.

Either she doesn't realise that was what she was doing (which I doubt) or she just cannot believe I have called her out on it.

Yeah, that thing you just said?

So...yeah....move my boyfriend out (which means confusing and upsetting the children, would cost us a fortune we do not have and would actualy make our lives so much more difficult) and 'put the relationship on hold' in order to claim benefits and get legal aid. Right. Yeah, my setting up a donation page is *way* immoral in comparison to that!

So glad you know my boyfriend so well! And again with the knowing what is best for my children! Cos moving out the man I am having a healthy loving relationship with, in order to defraud the benefits system, would totally have no affect on them at all! It wouldn't send a confusing and damaging message, no sir!

Again with the implication that what I am doing is illegal (cos there cannot possibly be any other right way of doing things, can there Eve, not if it isn't *your* way). Yeah and putting kisses and 'honey' on the end of insults doesn't stop them being insults, it just makes you look fake as well as inaccurate.


Oh, and you may notice that I haven't actually refused anything. I have only responded and dared to question her actions.

Yeah, still not getting the point there.

I think I am pretty clear here.

IT ISN'T FREE! Just because you say a thing, doesn't mean it is so! Legal Aid is being torn apart, the rules are changing and it is MORE difficult to qualify for it. Do some research, please?! You are coming across as terribly ill-informed, and pretty pushy too, to say the least!

And give the emotional manipulation a rest too, you sound like an abuser.

I'm being polite here, by now I was starting to doubt that she had a clue what she was doing.

*head in hands, deep sigh*

I vaguely recollect mentioning this before. Did I say this already? You will let me know if I am repeating myself, won't you?

No, no it isn't.

I beg your pardon? Talk about self important, bossy.....This whole thing is about getting away from my ex in every way possible, and I am just supposed to "forget about the divorce"??!!

None of your bloody business. I have tried, so politely, to end this conversation twice already. I am not even answering this.

How is hiring legal representation *outside* of the justice system?

I don't want your help, Eve. You are belligerent and ignorant.

Way to imply I'm not in danger there. I think what you meant was "be a good little sheep and do things how I want them done cos I know best"

Yes Eve, what you are doing here, bullying a victim of domestic violence, is wrong. I just wish you could see that.

Yeah, see how words (and they way you put them together) means things?

Jeezus, how that sentence struck fear into my heart. FYI I am nobody's mission, thanks.

"You will be safe (my personal interperetation of the word) whether you like it or not!" I have seen no evidence of said safety, by the way. No police officers have visited my home, no Domestic Violence worker has called me on the phone.

Tired of repeating myself.

I have listened to you. How could I have responded to you so many times if I hadn't? Why can you not understand that you are factually inaccurate (you know, wrong), and that I don't want you interfering and possibly making things worse?

Yeah, this.
As if I am going to tell you! And again, you are speaking to agencies without my consent! Why is this such a difficult concept for you? You do not know my situation better than I do.

(The blanked name and location above came from my gofundme page. I talk about that in the twitlonger part below.)

You did just admit it again.

No, I didn't say they ignored me. I said I hadn't heard anything back from them yet. Not the same thing. And I am not your honey.



Now there is this weird bit, which started in the Twitter timeline, and spilled over into DM's.

I was asked, by a good friend, if I had considered deleting the above conversation. I replied that I wasn't going to consider it before I had screen-capped the lot, as Eve was already twisting things and lying. She then asked me (something along the lines of) "If you have nothing to hide why do you want to delete the messages" (I am paraphrasing, I blocked Eve after this so I can't actually see the original tweet anymore).

My reply..

Eve responded to this by attempting (badly) to subtweet about me.

Jeepers, I only hope you can do no more, you've already done more than enough!!

So, now I block, and think and hope that this very surreal conversation is done, that this is over with, and that I can get on with trying to secure funding for my legal whatnottery.

Nope. Eve isn't quite finished yet! She has this gem, sent out via twitlonger to several of my friends directly:

• Eve Thomas TwitLonger, 14 June 2013

In that twitlonger you will see that Eve kindly puts the word victim in inverted commas every time she refers to me, this is a clear attemp to discredit me and is damaging and hurtful. Also, it is totally unnecessary.

Eve states several times that I contacted her, went to her asking for help, which you can see above is patently untrue. Yes, I did follow Eve a few weeks ago, and yes we did briefly message. I never asked her for money though, I believe I made a joke about a lottery win. I did unfollow her because I found her habit of retweeting every interaction, and constant spamming with the one voice hashtag, to be annoying. I did not block her then though (why would I need to, unfollowing was fine).

I have never "changed my story", only honestly answered Eve's questions. She has taken them out of conversational flow and context though, to make it look as though I am fabricating my account of abuse, which is both cruel and vindictive.

With reguard to my location being on the gofund page, I was asked to input a location when I was setting the page up, I did so not realising that it would be visible on the page. As soon as it was brought to my attention, I emailed the gofund helpdesk and they kindly removed it for me.

Yes, my paypal account is in a different name. That is the name I had when I set up the account around 7 years ago. I have changed my name since then but not gotten around to changing it on the paypal account. I don't think it is too difficult to imagine why somebody who is trying to escape Domestic 

Violence might change their name, or put up a cartoon avatar instead of a photo of themselves. Eve's insinuation that my motives for doing these things are less than honest shows that she has a dangerous lack of understanding, and seems willfully vicious.

Again and again Eve states that I asked for her help, that I asked her to contact the police, and you can see from the direct messages above that this is a blatant lie. Eve likes to present herself as an expert and an advocate for DV survivors but her ill-considered attempt to 'help' by calling the police broke trust and confidentiality AND could very well have put my life in danger (not to mention the lives of my children) and is incredibly bad practise too. As for the claim that she hd access to/was being informed about any information held by police, I seriously doubt any police officer would endanger their career in such a way by violating police policy.

Here is Cath's twitlonger response, just for reference:

Eve Thomas describes herself as a survivor of domestic abuse and claims to support and assist other survivors 'stay safe.' It appears that eve has attempted to 'help' several women on twitter who have experience domestic abuse & a worrying pattern has emerged. She admits that she has contacted the police force local to certain women without their consent or permission & without any concern that she may be putting them at significant risk. Please be aware of the following information: · Eve has been offered specialist DV training three times by local domestic violence organisations & refused it. · She is promoting a bank service for women to log incidents but is not registered with data protection which is illegal. · Eve Thomas Foundation is not registered with the charity commission or anywhere else. · Information shared is not confidential. · Domestic violence organisations and Women's Services are aware and highly concerned about her approach. There are a number of well established organisations that are trained experts in supporting victims/survivors of domestic abuse. Please contact them if you need support.

Cath is an expert in her field, she knows what she is taking about.

I never panicked about anything, though Eve's questionable behaviour does cause me great concern, and nobody attacked her. My friends, quite understandably, defended me and in due course became very concerned about her conduct themselves. Conduct like revealing the full name of a DV victim which is very, very dangerous. Though I cannot speak for this person I have found her to be kind and passionate about raising awareness of DV. She really doesn't seem to want any kind of witch hunt, in my opinion.

Also, where is Eve's charitable status? If her book is already being bought, where is the proof that the charities she is claiming to donate proceeds to are actually receiving anything?

What a sorry mess.

Read More