Jeremy Forrest, Agency and Rape Culture

This week has seen the convictions of both Stuart Hall and Jeremy Forrest for sexual crimes against minors. Hall received a 15 month sentence after admitting to 14 charges of indecent assault. Forrest was convicted of abducting his teenage student and subsequently admitted to offences involving sexual activity with a child. Like John Peel, Roman Polanski and countless “celebrities” before them, both men are sexual predators. Forrest may only have been a teacher within a school, but as Joan Smith pointed out, schools are microcosms where one individual can cultivate a status of celebrity. Jeremy Forrest used his position as a teacher to groom a female student for sexual abuse.

She was 15.

Jeremy Forrest was 30 years old.

Despite the fact that this is clearly a case of child sexual abuse, I have seen countless discussions on Facebook and Twitter demanding that people respect the “agency” of the child in her abuse. People are genuinely discussing the “agency” of a teenage girl in her grooming, kidnapping, and rape.

A 15 year-old-girl was groomed, kidnapped and raped by her teacher; a man she was supposed to be able to trust. Instead of discussing the horrific abuse of power by Jeremy Forrest, people are talking about the “agency” of a child in her own abuse. Instead of using the term sexual predator or rapist to describe Forrest, we are discussing the “agency” of his victim.

A 30-year-old man chose to target a young girl and groomed her. A 30-year-old man chose to have sex with a 15-year-old-girl. Forrest made a choice to sexually abuse his student.

So, where are the discussions about Forrest’s “agency”? Why are we discussing the “agency” of a teenage girl and not the “agency” of the man who chose to kidnap and rape her? Why aren’t we focussing on the choices made by an adult? Why are we trying to cast a teenage girl as responsible for her own rape?

Why do we only use the word “agency” to reference the victims of a crime? Do perpetrators not have “agency”? Are perpetrators not “empowered” to make choices and be held accountable for those choices? Did John Peel and Roman Polanski not make a choice to abuse children because they could? Did Jimmy Savile not make a choice every time he abused a child? Did Savile not have “agency” over his own life?

We need to stop using the term agency when talking about sexual abuse. Agency implies that the victims were in some way responsible for their own abuse. 13-year-old girls may have stood outside John Peel’s studio but he made the choice to sexually abuse them. The only people who have “agency” in these situations are the adults. Adult men need to be held responsible for their crimes of violence. We need to name the perpetrators. We need to stop blaming victims of sexual violence for being victims.

We have a problem with male violence in our culture. We will not stop male violence by erasing the culpability of men by insisting on discussing the “agency” of children in their own abuse. We will not prevent other children from being abused by men if we insist on victim blaming.

Jeremy Forrest groomed a child. He chose to groom a child. He chose to rape a child.

This is male violence.

This is rape culture.

Read More

Andrew Parsons: Wife Murderer but still a "Good Father"

This has been cross-posted on Everyday Victim Blaming Project

Andrew Parsons has been found guilty and sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder of his wife Janee Parsons. Andrew murdered his wife in front of their young son. The murder was captured on a dictation machine that Andrew had hidden under Janee's bed to spy on her. He stalked his wife and then he murdered Janee.

Janee's crime: having an affair and ending her marriage to Andrew. Andrew murdered Janee because she ended their relationship. Yet, the judge, Patrick Eccles, summation includes the following phrases:

"You were overwhelmed in my judgement by jealous rage.

"Nobody can predict the psychological harm which will be significant to your son.

"You were and no doubt are a good father, you will suffer for the rest of your life knowing the harm you have caused to them."

Eccles has not only excused Andrew's violence by labelling it "jealousy" and, therefore, abnormal, he has also chosen to claim that Andrew was a "good father". Jealous men are not good fathers. Good fathers do not murder their former partners in front of their children. Any man who chooses to abuse or murder his (former) partner is not a "good" father. He is a violent man.

Andrew Parsons lawyer, who at least should be expected to engage in victim-blaming, claimed that Parsons was "clinically depressed" and under "extreme pressure". Many people are clinically depressed and under extreme pressure and they do not murder their (former) partners.

Janee Parsons was brutally murdered by her former husband, yet the judge has implied that it is her fault for making Andrew jealous.

There are no excuses for violence.

Jealousy is used as an excuse to diminish men's responsibility for their violence.

Jealousy is used as a way of blaming women for their brutal murder at the hands of violent current or former partners.

Janee Parsons was brutally murdered. Her son saw his mother being murdered. They are the victims of this crime; not Andrew.

Read More

#DickheadDetox: Aaron Carter's #tipsforgirls

Aaron Carter, the Dude internationally reknown as the little brother of some other dude from some boyband from way back when, has taken to twitter to reveal his dating #tipsforgirls.

Bless his cotton socks, these are the pearls of wisdom from The Younger Brother of What's His Pickle:

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER16h Confident woman are sexy to any man. Don't pretend to be someone your not just to please a man. #TipsForGirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h Be Approachable- men don't like rejection- a woman with an attitude to her look will scare a man away. #tipsforgirls 

Aaron Carter ‏@AARONCARTER17h A woman's appearance is a weapon to attracting a man- always look your best ( neatness, clothes,hair ,makeup,scent,etc... #tipsforgirls

I can not think Aaron enough for bringing these pearls to our attention, sometimes I actually forget that we live in a culture where women's value is based entirely on their ability to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. I forget that women's intelligence and love is completely irrelevant unless they are white, blonde,  and thin. I forget that women have to ensure that their behaviour and appearance are pleasing at all times. God forbid, we hurt men's feelings but not actually wanting to fuck them. 

We must always be approachable; even when we don't want to be approached because men's feelings are more important than women's safety and bodily autonomy.

Some genius has suggested that Aaron write a book about his #tipsforgirls. No one try to dissuade him from this policy; just imagine the hilarity it would cause on twitter.

Read More

According to First Response and the Daily Mail, I'm an excellent Mother

This is because I did not leave it "too late" to reproduce. The Tory party might disagree what with the whole reproducing-first-as-a-teenager thing but, I'm sure First Response is totally okay with my reproducing as a teenager since I was not, you know, "old". I am enjoying the irony of the Daily Mail labelling me a good mother. I might get a t-shirt with that printed on, but I digress.

We're supposed to shudder at the thought of old people having sex never mind reproducing. Actually, we're supposed to shudder at "old women" having sex and reproducing. After all, these campaigns are never aimed at men being too old to have sex and make babies [see: every male celebrity over the age of 40.] This is what really pisses me off about these campaigns: women who have babies too young are whores and women who have babies too old are creepy. We never see the same language used against men.

Now, I can't be bothered googling for the references because it's 9:30 on a Sunday morning and I want to watch stupid cartoons with the kids, but there is research into men's fertility declining as they get older. All of these "women must have babies between the ages of 28-32 or there eggs will get icky" campaigns ignore the research into the quality of male sperm decreasing as men get older. There have been studies linking increases in children born with disabilities to the age of both parents but guess which studies get media play?

God forbid, we talk about men's fertility and health. Instead, we celebrate older men who reproduce with younger women; many not much older than teenagers.

If we want to discuss infertility, then why aren't we talking about men? Or, environmental factors like pollution?

Where are the men in these discussions?

This is just the same old misogynistic, woman-blaming bullshit designed to punish women.>

Read More

Posted in Fertility, Infertility, Misogyny, women-blaming culture | No comments

Skint: Channel 4 Joins the Tory Party

A friend brought Channel 4's latest victim-blaming bullshit to my attention last week. I was going to actually watch the program before registering my dislike but I have just seen the ad. Again. And, it's pissing me off. The press pack on the program doesn't exactly help their case.

I know the program is scheduled for tonight but I will not be watching it. I will not watch the vilification of the poor for the entertainment of those who lack empathy; for those who have no understanding of poverty and for those who see nothing wrong in the exploitation of vulnerable people, particularly children, for entertainment. I have said this before on this blog but I do not believe that children should be allowed to appear in documentaries. I do not think parents have the right to set their own children up for the bullying that will inevitably follow their appearance in these types of programs.

Whether or not the program Skint will show what it's like to actually be skint remains to be seen but let's be realistic here: the press pack is clearly focussing on two men. Women are far more likely to live in poverty than men and their level of poverty is more likely to be long-term. Will Skint show mothers going without food to feed their children; elderly women trying to decide between heating their poorly insulated flat or buying food? Will it show the sheer number of single parent families headed by women living in poverty solely because the father refuses to pay maintenance? Will it show the sheer number of mothers who are on benefits because they are caring for children with disabilities for whom there is no childcare? Will it show the differential in pay between women and men once women are employed? Will it show the difference in benefit packages?

Will the show explain how women are far more likely to be dependent on the welfare state and the NHS because we care for our families? 

Will the show explain how the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS effects women more than men?

Poverty is gendered. 

That is forever the elephant in the room.

The refusal to acknowledge the gendered nature of poverty allows the othering of those in receipt of state benefits. By producing these types of programs, which are inevitably played for the number of viewers rather than real analysis, channel 4 perpetuates the othering of poverty. 

It's not really surprising for channel 4 though. This is the channel that brought us the racism of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding.

Read More

Her Name was Reeva Steenkamp : It's Time We Take Personal Responsibility for our Media Culture

I am so very angry at the reporting of the murder of Reeva Steenkamp. The hypocrisy and women-hating of our media never fails to shock me.

I have written numerous times on the issue of personal responsibility in maintaining the women-blaming rhetoric in our celebrity- obsessed mass media culture; the hypocrisy of the British press publishing nude photos of some celebrities without consent whilst whining about other news media publishing those of others. I've written about the mass media's sensationalising and eroticising male violence for entertainment purposes and of the harmful nature of "women's" magazines. I've written about the links between reality television, bullying culture and the lack of personal responsibility in the Huffington Post.  

The media response to the murder of Reeva Steenkamp by her partner has been just as offensive as every other story of the murder of a woman by a man. The failure to name Reeva Steenkamp and the rendering her as an object has even surpassed even my cynicism of the media's desire to reinforce rape culture and VAW. I'm not going to link to the picture in the Sun or the article in the Daily Mail since both have been shredded on twitter this morning. And, really, no one expects much from either since they both stopped publishing the news years ago. 

However, they aren't the only mainstream media who've gone with worshipping a murderer at the expense of the victim. I found the Guardian's retrospective on the life of the murderer of Reeva Steenkamp particularly galling. The Washington Post went with a quote on how some man never saw Reeva Steenkamp's murderer as "violent". He's just murdered someone. I think the boats sailed on the question as to whether or not the man was violent. The BBC can't seem to remember Reeva Steenkamp's name. The mainstream media is effectively removing Reeva Steenkamp for the reporting of her own murder.

So far, I've only read two articles on the murder of Reeva Steenkamp which weren't offensive: Mother Jones wrote about it relation to the issue of gun violence in South Africa whilst the F-Word UK wrote about the sensationalising and obfuscation of responsibility of VAW committed by athletes. It is utterly pathetic that the mainstream media has not managed to report this case with anything approaching empathy.

You can complain to the Sun about their front page by phone:  0207 782 4104 

Or, email: dominic.mohan@the-sun.co.uk  and ombudsman@the-sun.co.uk

Do feel free to tweet your anger to @rupertmurdoch

There is a petition here demanding that the Sun apologise for their front page.

Sian and Crooked Rib has written a form letter here.

There are other suggestions for activism here.

Please make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission. As EVAW has been tweeting, you can use article 12 of the Code of Practise to make your complaint.

More importantly though, we have got to start taking personal responsibility and stop financially supporting the media outlets which perpetuate VAW as entertainment. There is no point in complaining about the Sun running such an offensive front page if people are clicking on it which increases their advertising revenue. The same goes for the Daily Mail. Complaining about the hateful nature of celebrity culture  whilst financially supporting it is hypocritical.  If we genuinely want to stop this shit from being published, we need to stop buying the Sun, Daily Mail, Heat and OK Magazine. We need to stop financially supporting a culture of bullying vulnerable people for entertainment. 

The Sun may have chosen to run an offensive picture but they did knowing full well that people will buy it. 

We need to start boycotting all forms of media which sensationalise violence in society. We need to start making formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. We need to start getting our media coverage from sources interested in justice rather than profit.

We need to force our media to cover actual news without glorifying male violence.

UPDATE:

Here are some very good criticisms of the treatment of Reeva Steenkamp within mainstream media:

Helen Lewis in the New Statesman
Marina Hyde in the Guardian
Jane Fae in politics.co.uk

Read More

This Week in Missing the Point Completely: BFI on Roman Polanski

The BFI is currently running a retrospective on the films of Roman Polanksi. When questioned on their decision on their Facebook page, this is the British Film Industry's response:

Thank you for all your comments and feedback, we’re listening and acknowledge your strong views. Showing these films has been planned for over 18 months, mindful of Polanski’s 1977 US conviction. The BFI takes its responsibility to audiences very seriously and we fully appreciate that recent events have heightened awareness, however, our focus is not on the director, but the films, none of which are autobiographical or reflective of Polanski’s conviction. We recognise the important contribution Polanski’s films make to world cinema and film culture and we want to ensure that new audiences get the opportunity to see them on the big screen. By presenting his films in this way the BFI is not condoning or making any judgment on Polanski’s personal past history.

Yep, by showing Polanski's films, the BFI are "not condoning or making any judgment on Polanski’s personal past history" and the only reason anyone could possibly be raising this as an issue is because "recent events have heightened awareness". It isn't at all probable that people have been raising the issue of Polanski's conviction for drugging and sodomising a child since it happened. Us feminists only remember things like child rape exist when other famous men are discovered to be child rapists. If it hadn't been for the discovery that Jimmy Savile was a paedophile, none of us would remember that Roman Polanski is currently a fugitive from justice having fled the US to avoid a prison sentence for raping a child. 

Obviously, I'm being facetious here [and I'm telling you I'm being facetious because it is actually amazing the number of people who don't seem to understand] but, this separation of male violence from the men who commit the crimes is destructive. It silences victims whilst simultaneously creating a hierarchy of abusers with Roman Polanski being a "good" abuser because The Piano won him some Oscars. 

The "he's an artiste" defence comes up every time these issues are raised and it remains utter garbage. Being an "artiste" has never been an acceptable excuse for an adult male to abuse a child and it never should be. It doesn't matter if the "artiste" in question is Roman Polanski or Anthony Kiedis [who brags about "having sex" with a 14 year old in his biography Scar Tissue]. Both men have traumatised childhoods, Polanski is a Holocaust survivor whilst Kiedis was the victim of physical and sexual abuse as a child, but these traumas aren't excuses for their behaviour as adults. 

The moment we condone the abuse these men commit because of their status as "artistes" is the moment we stop holding them accountable for their crimes. It does not matter how brilliant their films are or how much we love their music. We can not separate the art these men produce from the violence they inflict on vulnerable women and children. 

Read More

2 More Family Annihilators Being Glorified in the Press

There have been two murder-suicides this weekend: Jovan Belcher killed his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins before killing himself.  Keith Johnson killed his wife Andrea before killing himself. Today, two sets of families on two different continents are mourning the loss of their daughters; both murdered by their partners. Two women a week in the UK are murdered by the men who claimed to love them. Despite this fact, press coverage is always about what "nice" men they were. The coverage does not focus on the women murdered but on the careers and personal characteristics of the murderers. The coverage of the deaths of Kasandra Perkins and Andrea Johnson are no different.

The BBC coverage of the murder-suicide in Cromer includes these statements:     

Mr Johnson, a former mayor of Cromer, became Conservative leader of North Norfolk District Council in May.

Fellow Conservative councillor Trevor Ivory, a friend of the couple, said: "It's a complete shock. I last saw them both on Thursday evening and they were both very happy and seemed to be enjoying life.  

"The words Cromer and Keith Johnson are synonymous. He typified what's good about the town and the district of North Norfolk." 

In a statement, North Norfolk Labour Party paid tribute to Mr Johnson. Chairwoman Denise Burke said: "The death of Keith is a tragedy and a massive loss to Cromer and North Norfolk, too.

"Keith has been a real public servant throughout his life and will be sorely missed by the whole community. He was much respected across the political spectrum.

"Our thoughts are with Keith's friends and family at this time."

If Johnson typified all that was good about Cromer, then they have some serious problems. This man murdered his wife and he will be sorely missed? What about his wife Andrea? Will she be sorely missed? Andrea barely gets a mention in the article. We know that the man who murdered her was a well-respected career politician but, his wife, just an addendum to the story. Was Andrea's death not a tragedy? Just the death of her murderer? 

Jovan Belcher shot his girlfriend Kasandra Perkins before shooting himself in front of the coach and general manager of his football team, yet this story focuses on the fans and the team:

Although the game was unimportant -- especially with neither the Chiefs (2-10) nor the Panthers (3-9) bound the playoffs -- it did provide some relief for the team and community. 

Kasandra is just as absent from this article as Andrea. There is no discussion of the grief of her family and friends. There is no mention of her life at all. Both Andrea and Kasandra are being written out of the story of their murder whilst the eulogies of their murderers begins.

This is the War on Women. Not only do we pay for the hyper-masculinity within the Patriarchy with our bodies through rape, torture and our deaths but we are also written out of the stories of our own lives.

I await with sadness the inevitable stories to follow which will blame the women for their own murders.

UPDATE: This is an excellent article by Heather Harvey on the issue of male violence within patriarchal family structures.

Read More

Handmaidens, Feminism and Reclaiming the Internet

I'm never entirely up-to-date on who, exactly, the official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy is actually meant to be. I'm sure we're supposed to have one; that one woman who gets a bit uppity and therefore deserves our public scorn about their body and their intelligence followed, inevitably, by threats of violence. Liz Jones usually occupies this place. The Daily Mail sets Jones up weekly to make a spectacle of herself and we (or, at least the readers of the Daily Mail) buy into this woman-blaming discourse by insulting and denigrating Jones. For the past few months, Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch have been taking alternating turns for the position of Official Handmaiden to the Patriarchy. They've also been taking swipes at one another, jockeying for the role of definer of "new" conservative feminism. I do not like the politics of either Dorries or Mensch. Their stance on abortion means that neither will receive my support for their political ambitions. I also have no intention of participating in their denigration because of their physical appearance.

I have spent the better part of the week with my teeth clenched at Dorries decision to do a reality TV show. Now, I've never actually watched a reality TV show but I'm fairly sure they don't involve attending constituency meetings. Dorries' decision to do the TV show was simply a bad decision. It was inevitably going to result in her being chastised publicly by Cameron. Part of me thinks Dorries is being set up, either consciously or unconsciously, to take the fall for her anti-abortion stance; that Dorries' public humiliation will force her to shelve the more destructive of her anti-abortion plans allowing the men of Conservative party to look "kind" by reducing the abortion time-limit to only 20 weeks in the spring. She is being sacrificed to make male Conservative politicians look "reasonable".

I wasn't going to publish this blog because I didn't want to add to the never-ending number of people lining up to humiliate them. The Patriarchy's favourite foul trick to further isolate women is by having other women police their behaviour. Then, it turns on those women by denigrating them for failing to stand up to the very vocal Patriarchal bullies. It is so disheartening seeing women, even women I disagree with, being disparaged, insulted and denigrated by all for doing things men do with very little criticism.

This week, I've read three pieces written by women which have reminded me both why I am a Feminist and what it means to be a Feminist online. CherryBlossomLife's blog on Serving the Man is a beautifully written reminder of what it takes for women to survive in the Patriarchy and how we need to keep reminding ourselves of that so that we do not judge individual women harshly for that which is out of their control. Exiled Stardust has written the 6 Step Evil Overlord Plan to Discredit Women in the Public Sphere showing just how Dorries and Mensch have been set up. Today Natasha Walter wrote equally beautifully of how women are taking back the internet and directly targeting the Patriarchy in open combat. And, winning.

There are countless examples of the power and space women are carving for themselves online from parenting sites like Mumsnet which are dominated by women to the online Women Under Siege, Women's Room UK, iHollaback! and Everyday Sexism Projects which are recording women's experiences of violence under the Patriarchy. Despite their very obvious roles as Patriarchal constructs of control, Twitter and Facebook are equally being reclaimed by Feminists. Personally, I have benefited from friendships developed on Mumsnet and strengthened through online activism and nurtured via Facebook. The women of Mumsnet diagnosed my PND and held my hand whilst I got well. They gave me the courage to follow through my dreams. They gave me the courage to write this blog. They gave me permission to be me. I have 'met' many other women on Twitter whose courage and strength never fail to amaze and inspire me. Without them, and their constant encouragement and support, despite them not actually 'knowing' me, I would never had written this blog, nor would I have joined the Mumsnet bloggers network or the Huffington Post UK bloggers. I've even started a new blog collecting examples of misogynistic advertising because of the women (and a few men) on Twitter; particularly @Cellar790's encouragement. Though Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst trying to silence the voices of women, the Sisterhood is fighting back.

I started reading only books written by women because I was just so angry at V.S Naipaul dismissing women's voices as irrelevant because they have vaginas. The women of Mumsnet joined me in this policy [which actually came from another MNer]. We are fighting back against the publishing industry's misogyny by financially supporting women writers. I am angry that Facebook and Twitter continue to support misogyny whilst silencing the voices of women. This is why I only have women friends on Facebook and follow a few men on Twitter. I deleted the vast majority of men I was following in March. Strangely, the level of misogyny I was reading decreased astronomically; although people insist on retweeting Stephen Fry who is not as smart as he thinks he is and is a woman-hating arsehole to boot.

I care about making spaces safe online for women so, whilst I will never support the policies of Dorries and Mensch, I do think we need to stop belittling and denigrating them. It is possible to criticise their policies without making it personal and supporting the Patriarchy in silencing women. That is what we do when fall into denigrating women. We are effectively helping to silence other women's voices. Instead, we need to reclaim the Internet and make it the most subversive weapon we have against the Patriarchy.

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

Reddit: Free Speech is the Privilege of Men

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

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

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

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

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

This is nothing less than a War on Women.

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

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

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

Read More

Positive Anti- Rape Campaigns: We Can Stop It.

I've ranted about some of the more offensive rape campaigns before, with the West Mercia Police coming for some serious criticism for the victim-blaming shite they tried to pass off as an anti-rape campaign. There are, however, some new really positive campaigns who hold the rapist responsible for rape. I attended the Rape Crisis Scotland annual conference in Glasgow last week where a few of the better campaigns were advertised. I'm going to post links to some of them over the next few days. I would, however, like to post links to any positive international campaigns. So, please send me links either as a comment to this blog or to my email: stewiegriffinsmom@gmail.com

There have been 3 very good campaigns in Scotland in the past 5 years.  Two were developed by Rape Crisis Scotland. The newest campaign called We Can Stop and was developed by the local police forces. The tagline: "Sex without Consent is Rape. We Can Stop it." is one that Assange might want to think about. The entire campaign focuses on men. It puts the onus on men to understand the legal definition of rape and consent:

Rape. Are you the type of guy who understands what this really means?
In Scotland the law relating to rape has recently changed. It now concentrates on what 'consent' means and the fact that consent can be withdrawn at any time. In addition, sexual attacks on men have been legally classed as 'rape' for the very first time.

It also directly challenges rape myths which is more than the Met managed with their fancy-pants new campaign which ended up being the same patriarchal, victim-blaming bullshit about women making themselves vulnerable to rape. You'd think that the specialist rape unit of the Met might be slightly more aware of rape myths but, you'd be wrong.

By far, the most powerful part of the campaign is the images: 

Read More

The Met Has A Truly Original New Anti-Rape Campaign

Yep, they have a tots new campaign that has never, ever, ever been done before. One in which the Sapphire Unit, noted for its support of victims of rape and having no history of incompetence or malicious disregard for rape victims,* has come up with a brand, spanking new anti-rape campaign that has never been done before. Apparently, they are going to use licensing laws to close pubs and clubs where "high levels of rape and sexual assaults take place as part of a radical attempt to create a hostile environment for rapists." Now, I'm sure this is a lovely new policy but 1) why haven't they been doing this already? Surely that's one of the reasons we have licensing laws? and 2) How will they define "high levels" considering the fact that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to the police because of their institutional disregard for the safety of women and their general policy on blaming women for being raped?**

But, this isn't the best and original bit of the new anti-rape campaign. Nope, the big exciting bit is that it "will challenge male behaviour while attempting to speak to women about reducing their vulnerability to rape." Because, obviously, there has never been a single rape campaign ever that has told women to stop getting raped. Possibly, the lovely Boys in Blue should have spent slightly more time looking at the new Scottish anti-rape campaign called We Can Stop It because it targets rapists. It doesn't blame women for being raped. It blames rapists.

Women don't need to reduce their vulnerability. The only thing that makes women vulnerable to rape is being in the presence of a rapist.

The "professionals" in the Sapphire Unit might want to visit these campaigns by Rape Crisis Scotland: This is not an invitation to rape me and Not Ever. And, stop perpetrating rape myths since this is precisely why reports of rape are down in London. It's because women don't trust them. 

Targeting pubs and clubs is a good idea. Targeting men and making other men responsible for policing the behaviour of their friends is a good idea. Telling women what to do to avoid rape is just the same old victim-blaming behaviour and it just shows how little the Sapphire unit has learned from the sheer number of deliberate and malicious "mistakes" their members have made over the years which resulted in an untold number of women being raped by men who should have been in jail.

*You know, if you don't count the monumental fuck-ups of the John Worboys case or the dude who got sacked for deliberately screwing up. The Met seems to be glossing over these minor hiccups so probably we should too. Or, something.

** Obviously, I am being facetious here but I thought I'd just double check because according to Rape Crisis Scotland a not-very-large number of people didn't get that this was ironic. 

Read More

Moran, Knight and O'Neill: Old School Misogyny Rears its Ugly Head

Mea Culpa here, I haven't actually read the article that India Knight is currently being vilified for. It's behind The Times pay wall and I refuse to financially support them. All I have seen of the article is quoted here on Glosswatch's blog. The first paragraph is, well, at best, questionable. Without reading the rest of the article, I can't really comment on how it ends. What I can see is, that like Moran, Knight's response to criticism on Twitter was really quite dumb. I think they both deserve criticism for their comments. Please note that I say criticism; not full on personal attacks or threats or orchestrated attacks by people who should know better. 

Thing is, I think a lot of the more vitriolic responses that Knight and Moran received are because of misogyny. I'm not trying to excuse them because they both dealt very badly with their respective situations. But, let's be honest here, part of the reason they are getting such a kicking is because they have vaginas. After all, Brendan O'Neill called all child victims of rape, who did not report until after the death of their rapists, cowards. 

He blamed traumatised children for being too scared to tell the truth.

He blamed children when the adults around them knew they were being raped and did nothing.

Yes, Knight and Moran need to be critiqued. Their privilege-denying tweets were utterly ridiculous. But, we need to be holding male journalists accountable for the same shoddy journalism and total lack of self-awareness.

After all, I don't see the Guardian running a response to the shit O'Neill wrote in the Huffington Post. 

Or, anyone calling for massive Twitter campaigns of harassment against O'Neill.*


*Not that I want to see someone do so. Massive public humiliation, threats of violence and intimidation and general insults are playground silencing techniques. It is possible to point out just how stupid and lacking in empathy O'Neill's article was without making snide comments about his appearance.**

** Some might want to take a few minutes to review proper Kindergarten etiquette. 

Read More