Ok, so this is something that's been rattling around in my brain for a while - the arguments over airbrushing in magazines and the effect that it has on women's self-image.
I think we can all agree that being constantly shown images of perfection which, not only are unobtainable for you the reader, but which haven't been obtained in the first place by the model/ celebrity you're looking at, is a bad thing for your confidence. It contributes to this culture which demonsises anyone above a size 10/12. My concern is with what people are proposing to do about it - which is essentially just full disclosure. People at the moment are pushing for laws that require magazines to put a stamp, or a little notice on the bottom of the picture saying "this photo has been airbrushed".
How is that going to help?
Women (for the most part) are not stupid and/or blind to the world around them (and I wish people would stop trying to pretend that we are). We know that the pictures we are seeing have been airbrushed - we're told often enough at the moment. There are even magazines that have deliberately unairbrushed paparazzi photos of celebs not looking their best held up for women to mock (which is a fairly disgusting practice in it's own right), so we know our idols don't look picture perfect all the time in real life. Women are not stupid, so telling us something that we already know, or could probably guess, is not going to help one iota.
The problem is not that airbrushing is undisclosed - the problem is that people feel the need to airbrush at all. What magazines are doing is promoting an ideal. It may not be a real one, it may not even be a possible one (though women do tend to kid themselves that it is; whether or not they have proof) but it is held as an ideal. I don't care if they're telling me (or showing me) that such body types are achievable, they are telling me that such body types are admirable, possibly even the only ones which are even acceptable. They are saying 'look at these celebrities and models. They were gorgeous to start with, but even then they are not gorgeous enough. We must make them "better", we must, in fact make them conform to our standards of what is beautiful, what women should look like. We must bring them up to scratch, and hold them up before you as the standard to which you must aspire.'
Who cares if that standard is achievable or not? It is still being touted as the standard. In effect, by acnowledging that all their pictures are airbrushed, all these magazines would be saying is that no woman will ever be good enough. No women's bodies can ever be beautiful in their natural state - that all women, in fact, are ugly and sub-par. So we have to air brush them to make them better. Only when airbrushing stops, when real women are lauded for their real beauty (whatever size that comes in) will women start being able to accept themselves for who they are.
Friday, 26 February 2010
Saturday, 20 February 2010
Another Reason To Love Margaret Atwood
I got pointed at two Good links for writers this morning by Neil Gaiman, and found this list by Margaret Atwood. I've read quite a lot of "advice to young authors" bits and bobs over the years, but this is the first one that's really struck a chord and made me laugh at the same time.
1 Take a pencil to write with on aeroplanes. Pens leak. But if the pencil breaks, you can't sharpen it on the plane, because you can't take knives with you. Therefore: take two pencils.
2 If both pencils break, you can do a rough sharpening job with a nail file of the metal or glass type.
3 Take something to write on. Paper is good. In a pinch, pieces of wood or your arm will do.
4 If you're using a computer, always safeguard new text with a memory stick.
5 Do back exercises. Pain is distracting.
6 Hold the reader's attention. (This is likely to work better if you can hold your own.) But you don't know who the reader is, so it's like shooting fish with a slingshot in the dark. What fascinates A will bore the pants off B.
7 You most likely need a thesaurus, a rudimentary grammar book, and a grip on reality. This latter means: there's no free lunch. Writing is work. It's also gambling. You don't get a pension plan. Other people can help you a bit, but essentially you're on your own. Nobody is making you do this: you chose it, so don't whine.
8 You can never read your own book with the innocent anticipation that comes with that first delicious page of a new book, because you wrote the thing. You've been backstage. You've seen how the rabbits were smuggled into the hat. Therefore ask a reading friend or two to look at it before you give it to anyone in the publishing business. This friend should not be someone with whom you have a romantic relationship, unless you want to break up.
9 Don't sit down in the middle of the woods. If you're lost in the plot or blocked, retrace your steps to where you went wrong. Then take the other road. And/or change the person. Change the tense. Change the opening page.
10 Prayer might work. Or reading something else. Or a constant visualisation of the holy grail that is the finished, published version of your resplendent book.
There is some good advice there from other authors, so the rest of the link is also well worth a read. I just wanted to share this little gem.Friday, 12 February 2010
In Defence of Reading Into Things
Something that I seem to be hearing a lot in comments threads, arguments and discussions of all sorts of things is the accusation that someone is "reading too much into" something, that the original something was "just a joke" or was somehow too frivolous to warrant anything more than a surface analysis.
So when a group of feminists complain about a facebook group called "GTA taught me if you kill a hooker, you get your money back." the response from a lot of people (as well as the usual hate speech from a couple of users who I hope get banned sometime soon) was that the feminists were overreacting, because the group's category was "just for fun - in-jokes", and this was about a game not real life. (Never mind that the title itself uses the wording "taught me"- thus suggesting that this is learned behaviour, and that people take what they have learned in the game into the rest of their life. The title is suggesting there is a link.) But because it's not explicitly saying "go out and kill hookers because you'll get your money back" people feel they can say "you're reading too much into this" - which, reading into that statement itself, essentially means either "there is no context to this, no meaning beyond the explicit, so stop looking for it. This should be taken in absolute isolation." or "I wrote it, so the only meaning in it is what I say there is," or just "there is no ill intent here, so you can't blame us when you get offended when you look at this."
Now, I'm an English Literature graduate. I have done (and am still doing) several degrees, the entire point of which is "reading into things". I have been taught that there is no way you can take anything in isolation from its context, literary, historical or social. I have been taught that one should look beyond the surface meaning - always. I have even been taught to look at a text divorced from what it's original author intended, and my reader response is as valid as that author's intent (if not more so). Anyone who doubts that last statement should look up a guy named Roland Barthes, and an essay he wrote in 1967 called "The Death of the Author". So naturally, I feel I have to step up here, and defend... well, let's face it, the principle which my entire university education is based on.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who visits the aforementioned facebook group that it is full of vile little hatemongering misogynists, who have proved the aformentioned feminists' point for them quite ineloquently, but I'm not arguing the toss over freedom of speech here (I'll save that for a later post) I'm arguing why things that are ostensibly jokes, or otherwise frivolous comments (or called so by their creators) are actually no less meaningful than something meant seriously.
What it comes down to is this: no-one owns the English language. You do not, and cannot claim ownership of words, even words that you yourself say or write, to the extent that you can dictate what they mean. Words are very egalitarian in that respect. They mean what we all agree them to mean, and while that can change, the process takes years of continual usage and gradual change, not one isolated post, or one person suddenly deciding otherwise. You can choose what you want to say, you can choose what words you use, but you cannot choose what everyone understands those words to mean. You cannot possibly divorce words from context, because context is the only thing that gives language meaning in the first place.
What this means is that all the stuff that anyone chooses to read into a text (be that oral or written) is there. The author may not have realised, may not have intended that to be the message they wanted to convey, but that message has been conveyed, whether they intended it or not. The reader cannot help it if they are a better reader than the author is a writer. Essentially, if I get offended by something you say, then I'm bloody well offended whether you meant to offend me or not. You may have meant me to laugh at what you said, but it's not my fault if I don't find it funny.
And if someone does get offended by something you have said, then you have two options; stand by what you say and not care if you offend, or appologise. You can say that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, but what you cannot do is pretend that what you just said doesn't mean what I took it to mean. Because that's not up to you to say. You, the author, are deader than a GTA Hooker. (only joking!)
So when a group of feminists complain about a facebook group called "GTA taught me if you kill a hooker, you get your money back." the response from a lot of people (as well as the usual hate speech from a couple of users who I hope get banned sometime soon) was that the feminists were overreacting, because the group's category was "just for fun - in-jokes", and this was about a game not real life. (Never mind that the title itself uses the wording "taught me"- thus suggesting that this is learned behaviour, and that people take what they have learned in the game into the rest of their life. The title is suggesting there is a link.) But because it's not explicitly saying "go out and kill hookers because you'll get your money back" people feel they can say "you're reading too much into this" - which, reading into that statement itself, essentially means either "there is no context to this, no meaning beyond the explicit, so stop looking for it. This should be taken in absolute isolation." or "I wrote it, so the only meaning in it is what I say there is," or just "there is no ill intent here, so you can't blame us when you get offended when you look at this."
Now, I'm an English Literature graduate. I have done (and am still doing) several degrees, the entire point of which is "reading into things". I have been taught that there is no way you can take anything in isolation from its context, literary, historical or social. I have been taught that one should look beyond the surface meaning - always. I have even been taught to look at a text divorced from what it's original author intended, and my reader response is as valid as that author's intent (if not more so). Anyone who doubts that last statement should look up a guy named Roland Barthes, and an essay he wrote in 1967 called "The Death of the Author". So naturally, I feel I have to step up here, and defend... well, let's face it, the principle which my entire university education is based on.
I think it's fairly obvious to anyone who visits the aforementioned facebook group that it is full of vile little hatemongering misogynists, who have proved the aformentioned feminists' point for them quite ineloquently, but I'm not arguing the toss over freedom of speech here (I'll save that for a later post) I'm arguing why things that are ostensibly jokes, or otherwise frivolous comments (or called so by their creators) are actually no less meaningful than something meant seriously.
What it comes down to is this: no-one owns the English language. You do not, and cannot claim ownership of words, even words that you yourself say or write, to the extent that you can dictate what they mean. Words are very egalitarian in that respect. They mean what we all agree them to mean, and while that can change, the process takes years of continual usage and gradual change, not one isolated post, or one person suddenly deciding otherwise. You can choose what you want to say, you can choose what words you use, but you cannot choose what everyone understands those words to mean. You cannot possibly divorce words from context, because context is the only thing that gives language meaning in the first place.
What this means is that all the stuff that anyone chooses to read into a text (be that oral or written) is there. The author may not have realised, may not have intended that to be the message they wanted to convey, but that message has been conveyed, whether they intended it or not. The reader cannot help it if they are a better reader than the author is a writer. Essentially, if I get offended by something you say, then I'm bloody well offended whether you meant to offend me or not. You may have meant me to laugh at what you said, but it's not my fault if I don't find it funny.
And if someone does get offended by something you have said, then you have two options; stand by what you say and not care if you offend, or appologise. You can say that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, but what you cannot do is pretend that what you just said doesn't mean what I took it to mean. Because that's not up to you to say. You, the author, are deader than a GTA Hooker. (only joking!)
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
And here endeth the rejoicing
Despite being a Christian, I'm not a Catholic. For several very good reasons. Now I have another one.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. And saddened. And horrified. And downright blasphemous; to whit - what the fuck is such a backward, twisted, homophobic, bigoted, insane asshat doing in charge of one of the largest religious communities on the planet???
Ok, firstly the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is confined to (and correct me if I'm wrong) about 3 mentions total. All Old Testament. I don't believe Jesus said a thing about it. However, He did say an awful lot about discrimination - essentially that it's wrong, don't do it guys, please. The message Love Thy Neighbour is all through the Bible, it's the second most important Commandment that Christians are supposed to believe in (the first being Love God). I don't remember there being a caveat; Love thy Neighbour (but only if he's a straight white male...).
The only thing I can do now is hope to God that the bill is too far through the process of being passed that there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.
I shouldn't have been surprised, but I was. And saddened. And horrified. And downright blasphemous; to whit - what the fuck is such a backward, twisted, homophobic, bigoted, insane asshat doing in charge of one of the largest religious communities on the planet???
Ok, firstly the Biblical prohibition against homosexuality is confined to (and correct me if I'm wrong) about 3 mentions total. All Old Testament. I don't believe Jesus said a thing about it. However, He did say an awful lot about discrimination - essentially that it's wrong, don't do it guys, please. The message Love Thy Neighbour is all through the Bible, it's the second most important Commandment that Christians are supposed to believe in (the first being Love God). I don't remember there being a caveat; Love thy Neighbour (but only if he's a straight white male...).
The only thing I can do now is hope to God that the bill is too far through the process of being passed that there's not a damn thing that can be done to stop it.
Monday, 1 February 2010
And the Happiness just keeps on coming
Good for Harriet :)
Seriously, if that woman ever becomes leader of the Labour Party, I'm voting for them.
Seriously, if that woman ever becomes leader of the Labour Party, I'm voting for them.
Monday, 28 December 2009
Happy Post
Firstly, here's hoping that everyone had a very Merry Christmas; I certainly did, despite the mega amounts of things trying to stress me out this year.
One thing in particular that made me smile I'd like to share with you: it got sneaked in the news late at night on the 23rd, so I nearly missed it, but hip hip hooray and God bless Harriet Harman, she's done it. She's got the equality bill passed. :D
Here's the link for full discussion of what it will mean when the legislature comes into force, but in summation:
1) Banning pay secrecy
2) The definition of harrasment has been extended and consolidated: now defined as "unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating or hostile environment" which may or may not be related to a "protected" characteristic, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc. It also covers harrasment on the grounds of an employee's connection to a person with a protected characteristic, and harrassment from a third party.
3) Private sector employers will be required to publish information about differences in pay between male and female employees.
4) Employers are allowed to positively discriminate, and take a "protected characteristic" into account when making recruitment or promotion decisions, all other things being equal.
5) Employment tribunals which uphold harrasment or discrimination claims may make recommendations to an organisation to prevent future discrimination.
Awesome. Just Awesome. Best Christmas present this country's had in a long while.
One thing in particular that made me smile I'd like to share with you: it got sneaked in the news late at night on the 23rd, so I nearly missed it, but hip hip hooray and God bless Harriet Harman, she's done it. She's got the equality bill passed. :D
Here's the link for full discussion of what it will mean when the legislature comes into force, but in summation:
1) Banning pay secrecy
2) The definition of harrasment has been extended and consolidated: now defined as "unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity or creating an intimidating or hostile environment" which may or may not be related to a "protected" characteristic, such as race, age, gender, sexual orientation etc. It also covers harrasment on the grounds of an employee's connection to a person with a protected characteristic, and harrassment from a third party.
3) Private sector employers will be required to publish information about differences in pay between male and female employees.
4) Employers are allowed to positively discriminate, and take a "protected characteristic" into account when making recruitment or promotion decisions, all other things being equal.
5) Employment tribunals which uphold harrasment or discrimination claims may make recommendations to an organisation to prevent future discrimination.
Awesome. Just Awesome. Best Christmas present this country's had in a long while.
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
A post of very little sympathy
This article, and another one (trackback) really pissed me off today.
These stories should just not be run. It perpetuates the idea that those falsely accused of rape have such a hard time, the unspoken conclusion of which is that we shouldn't be bringing them to trial at all. Because you're *Ruining* these poor young men's lives!
Sorry, but Boo, Hoo.
Callous I may sound, here, but I don't really care. Mr Bacon can go away, re start his life (didn't even have to be in Malaysia) under a new name, and escape. What about the woman who was raped? Does she have that luxury? No. She has to live with what happened for the rest of her life. To make a comparison, the man in such a situation has had his name trashed. He can get another one. The woman has had the same thing done to her body. It is a private trashing, but therefore more personal, more immediate, and most importantly, irreversible. She cannot go down the council offices and get a new body, like he can get a new name.
Why, why, why are people (mostly men) so hung up on the idea that it is worse for the wrongly accused than for the victim(/survivor)? And then use the fact that a small percentage of men might possibly get wrongfully accused/convicted etc as an excuse for why we should not toughen up rape laws, and bring justice to the One in four* women in the Western world who will be raped at some point in their lives. Or prove wrong the 60% of rape victims/survivors who do not report their rape because they feel they will not be able to get it to court, let alone get a conviction.
Yes, it must be hard for someone to be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But please remember that more people report false claims of grand theft auto than rape. And that false claims make up less than 2% of all reported rapes.
The idea of concealing the accused's identity as well as the plaintiff's is, on the surface, quite an appealing sop to those who want it both ways, but as Ruth Hall from WAR (Women Against Rape) points out, "Most rapists are serial rapists. Many rape cases could be won if more than one woman came forward to give evidence." And if the defendant's identity is kept hidden, then these other possible victim/survivors cannot come forward.
The only scenarios in which this would not apply is if a) this is a first-time rapist (and we all know that all rapes are reported, and we always convict the bastards the first time) or b) we know the defendant is innocent (in which case, why the trial?) or c) All rapists only rape one victim, ever. And if c), then let's take another look at that troubling stat - that 1:4 women are raped at some time in their life. Lets take the lower estimate, the 1:6 even. Now, I can't find the exact stat for the gender split between men and women (I know there's ever so slightly more women in this country), but if we take it as 50:50, then that means, if every rapist only rapes one woman, that one in six men is a rapist.
So let's run through that scenario again, shall we? To argue that we should keep a defendant in a rape case's identity private (something denied to a defendant in any other crime), you are arguing that either a) we have a perfect system where all rapists are caught once they've committed rape, b) there is no such thing as rape, c) 1:6 men are rapists, or the much more likely scenario of d): it is more important for a man to preserve his reputation than it is for a woman to see justice.
Another terrifying thing is that the jury in this case took only 45 minutes to declare Mr Bacon innocent. And look at the circumstances - a woman too drunk to give consent, he carried on... where have I seen this before? And in 45 minutes, 12 people have decided that a man's right to pleasure trumps that of a woman's to bodily integrity. That men shouldn't have to go through all the bother of obtaining consent, of making sure a woman is really into it, if it's too much bother because she was drunk. That consent must be assumed, unless a woman is sober enough, rational enough, and brave enough to give a loud and clear "No!" (preferably accompanied with fighting him off, and then being found afterwards crying and showing obvious distress.). That rape is not rape, essentially, if she was drunk.
I admit I don't know all the facts here. There may be other factors to this case that I haven't considered. But this is the impression that is given out to the public in cases like this: women, if you're drunk and raped, it was your fault for getting drunk. When the message we should be sending out is: Men, if you don't want to be accused of rape, don't take advantage of women when they've been drinking. Never, ever, ever, presume consent, or that you are entitled to sex. No matter how many drinks she's had. No matter how many of them you bought her. No matter how short her skirt or low her neckline. No matter whether or not she's been flirting with you. No matter if she was happy with kissing. Not until she is getting the condom out of her handbag and passing it to you - or even better, she's asking you, actually saying those words "would you like to have sex with me?" can you presume consent. Follow that rule, and you'll never be accused of rape! Simple!**
*An oft quibbled with statistic. Which does apply to America, and is sometimes reduced to 1:6 (troubling enough even then, n'est pas?).
** and in fact much more simple than the current "rule" for women, which seems to be: don't get drunk, don't wear too short a skirt, don't draw attention to yourself, don't be sexual, don't flirt/kiss/otherwise encourage/talk to a man you don't intend to have sex with, (don't, in short, have fun or go out. Ever.) don't walk home alone at night, don't stay in the same room alone with a man, don't act/look/think in any possible way that could be interpreted as provocative, and.... well, you might still get raped. But if you followed all those rules, and told him no, screamed and shouted, tried to fight him off, and looked suitably upset afterwards, and remembered his face, and he isn't a lying f***wit as well as a rapist and doesn't fake an alibi, and you're lucky enough that the jury doesn't believe him anyway and think you're a lying little slut (because your previous sexual conduct must also be absolutely spotless) then you might, just might get a conviction. Which won't be Justice, (because he'll be out in a few years) but it might provide a tiny bit of solace and comfort while you try to put your life back together.
These stories should just not be run. It perpetuates the idea that those falsely accused of rape have such a hard time, the unspoken conclusion of which is that we shouldn't be bringing them to trial at all. Because you're *Ruining* these poor young men's lives!
Sorry, but Boo, Hoo.
Callous I may sound, here, but I don't really care. Mr Bacon can go away, re start his life (didn't even have to be in Malaysia) under a new name, and escape. What about the woman who was raped? Does she have that luxury? No. She has to live with what happened for the rest of her life. To make a comparison, the man in such a situation has had his name trashed. He can get another one. The woman has had the same thing done to her body. It is a private trashing, but therefore more personal, more immediate, and most importantly, irreversible. She cannot go down the council offices and get a new body, like he can get a new name.
Why, why, why are people (mostly men) so hung up on the idea that it is worse for the wrongly accused than for the victim(/survivor)? And then use the fact that a small percentage of men might possibly get wrongfully accused/convicted etc as an excuse for why we should not toughen up rape laws, and bring justice to the One in four* women in the Western world who will be raped at some point in their lives. Or prove wrong the 60% of rape victims/survivors who do not report their rape because they feel they will not be able to get it to court, let alone get a conviction.
Yes, it must be hard for someone to be accused of a crime they didn't commit. But please remember that more people report false claims of grand theft auto than rape. And that false claims make up less than 2% of all reported rapes.
The idea of concealing the accused's identity as well as the plaintiff's is, on the surface, quite an appealing sop to those who want it both ways, but as Ruth Hall from WAR (Women Against Rape) points out, "Most rapists are serial rapists. Many rape cases could be won if more than one woman came forward to give evidence." And if the defendant's identity is kept hidden, then these other possible victim/survivors cannot come forward.
The only scenarios in which this would not apply is if a) this is a first-time rapist (and we all know that all rapes are reported, and we always convict the bastards the first time) or b) we know the defendant is innocent (in which case, why the trial?) or c) All rapists only rape one victim, ever. And if c), then let's take another look at that troubling stat - that 1:4 women are raped at some time in their life. Lets take the lower estimate, the 1:6 even. Now, I can't find the exact stat for the gender split between men and women (I know there's ever so slightly more women in this country), but if we take it as 50:50, then that means, if every rapist only rapes one woman, that one in six men is a rapist.
So let's run through that scenario again, shall we? To argue that we should keep a defendant in a rape case's identity private (something denied to a defendant in any other crime), you are arguing that either a) we have a perfect system where all rapists are caught once they've committed rape, b) there is no such thing as rape, c) 1:6 men are rapists, or the much more likely scenario of d): it is more important for a man to preserve his reputation than it is for a woman to see justice.
Another terrifying thing is that the jury in this case took only 45 minutes to declare Mr Bacon innocent. And look at the circumstances - a woman too drunk to give consent, he carried on... where have I seen this before? And in 45 minutes, 12 people have decided that a man's right to pleasure trumps that of a woman's to bodily integrity. That men shouldn't have to go through all the bother of obtaining consent, of making sure a woman is really into it, if it's too much bother because she was drunk. That consent must be assumed, unless a woman is sober enough, rational enough, and brave enough to give a loud and clear "No!" (preferably accompanied with fighting him off, and then being found afterwards crying and showing obvious distress.). That rape is not rape, essentially, if she was drunk.
I admit I don't know all the facts here. There may be other factors to this case that I haven't considered. But this is the impression that is given out to the public in cases like this: women, if you're drunk and raped, it was your fault for getting drunk. When the message we should be sending out is: Men, if you don't want to be accused of rape, don't take advantage of women when they've been drinking. Never, ever, ever, presume consent, or that you are entitled to sex. No matter how many drinks she's had. No matter how many of them you bought her. No matter how short her skirt or low her neckline. No matter whether or not she's been flirting with you. No matter if she was happy with kissing. Not until she is getting the condom out of her handbag and passing it to you - or even better, she's asking you, actually saying those words "would you like to have sex with me?" can you presume consent. Follow that rule, and you'll never be accused of rape! Simple!**
*An oft quibbled with statistic. Which does apply to America, and is sometimes reduced to 1:6 (troubling enough even then, n'est pas?).
** and in fact much more simple than the current "rule" for women, which seems to be: don't get drunk, don't wear too short a skirt, don't draw attention to yourself, don't be sexual, don't flirt/kiss/otherwise encourage/talk to a man you don't intend to have sex with, (don't, in short, have fun or go out. Ever.) don't walk home alone at night, don't stay in the same room alone with a man, don't act/look/think in any possible way that could be interpreted as provocative, and.... well, you might still get raped. But if you followed all those rules, and told him no, screamed and shouted, tried to fight him off, and looked suitably upset afterwards, and remembered his face, and he isn't a lying f***wit as well as a rapist and doesn't fake an alibi, and you're lucky enough that the jury doesn't believe him anyway and think you're a lying little slut (because your previous sexual conduct must also be absolutely spotless) then you might, just might get a conviction. Which won't be Justice, (because he'll be out in a few years) but it might provide a tiny bit of solace and comfort while you try to put your life back together.
Sunday, 1 November 2009
One law for the Goose...
Ok, now I'm all in favour of criminals being rehabilitated, and made into productive members of society again, but this article really made me feel ill.
How come footballers can get away with this? They already get far and away too much money for what they do, and now they're being let off something like this with, effectively a slap on the wrist. This man has 13 previous convictions - THIRTEEN!! That would bar most people from being able to get a job anywhere, but because he's a footballer, he's going to get away with an 18 month sentence (of which he'll serve... how much...? Bet you not a lot.) and then he'll be back as normal. HOW is that supposed to be a detterent for him, or anyone else, to continue such crimes?
The worst bit is just how cosseted he's going to be when he comes out. Gordon Taylor, from the PFA is quoted as having said: "Everybody in life can have big problems to face and this is probably his biggest and I hope he's able to overcome it and if he needs help to get his life back on track I assure you we'll be there for him."
It's as if he's been falsely accused. Or people are treating him as if his prison sentence is as bad as what he has done to this woman, worse even. When let's face it, it's probably less than he deserves. I think a quote from his victim sums it up perfectly: "King's defence moaned that the sentence would lose him £1 million in earnings - but I've lost my face." (italics mine.)
This is the real meaning of "privilege" - Private Law. And I'm not sure if it's male privilege, or celebrity privilege, (In either case, I'll draw parallels with Polanski) but, as a society, we have GOT to stop thinking of it as a good thing.
How come footballers can get away with this? They already get far and away too much money for what they do, and now they're being let off something like this with, effectively a slap on the wrist. This man has 13 previous convictions - THIRTEEN!! That would bar most people from being able to get a job anywhere, but because he's a footballer, he's going to get away with an 18 month sentence (of which he'll serve... how much...? Bet you not a lot.) and then he'll be back as normal. HOW is that supposed to be a detterent for him, or anyone else, to continue such crimes?
The worst bit is just how cosseted he's going to be when he comes out. Gordon Taylor, from the PFA is quoted as having said: "Everybody in life can have big problems to face and this is probably his biggest and I hope he's able to overcome it and if he needs help to get his life back on track I assure you we'll be there for him."
It's as if he's been falsely accused. Or people are treating him as if his prison sentence is as bad as what he has done to this woman, worse even. When let's face it, it's probably less than he deserves. I think a quote from his victim sums it up perfectly: "King's defence moaned that the sentence would lose him £1 million in earnings - but I've lost my face." (italics mine.)
This is the real meaning of "privilege" - Private Law. And I'm not sure if it's male privilege, or celebrity privilege, (In either case, I'll draw parallels with Polanski) but, as a society, we have GOT to stop thinking of it as a good thing.
Thursday, 22 October 2009
Not Feminism for a change!
I'm just taking some time out from rushing to finish my MA dissertation and reading Naomi Wolf's The Beauty Myth, to discuss some current affairs. The big news at the moment, other than the postal strike, seems to be the fact that Question Time are proposing to give racist bigot Nick Griffin some airtime.
Now, I happen to think that the BNP have almost certainly used up their allotted oxygen quotient, and I would be quite happy if they all took a collective long walk off a short pier, BUT, I don't think this excuses the rest of us sane individuals in this country to resort to censorship.
There's the obvious quote from Voltaire, that whilst one may disagree absolutely with everything someone says, one should defend to the death their right to say it, or whilst I could refer readers to a wonderful blog post by Neil Gaiman about freedom of speech sometimes meaning that one has to defend the indefensible, I'd rather not just be glib and let someone else write my argument for me.
The BBC has long held a reputation for impartiality. Up until the Hutton Report and that whole whitewashed mess, it was taken for granted that the BBC was free from ties of government and political bias. Now, that reputation has been tarnished, but not to my mind destroyed. Censorship on a program such as Question Time would be, for me, another blow to that reputation, another example of a media institution not willing to put itself in the line of fire, for fear of not being politically correct. And I mean that just as much in the sense of not ascribing to some notion of "correct" politics. It's the job of a free press to report everything, not just the bits of politics that we find acceptable. Otherwise, we're no better than a banana republic, trying to keep its citizens happy and complient, by only telling them the authorised truth. We're above that in this country, and despite total f*ckwits like Griffin, we ought to remain so.
And I don't like the idea of people saying "we don't have to give the BNP the same rights as we'd give anyone else, because they're not a "real" political party". That's one step away from saying "I don't have to listen to you because you're a member of this group, and therefore not a real person." Slippery slope, perhaps, that's how these things start. Plus, of course, we'd be behaving just like the people we ostensibly hate. How much of a validation would that be for the BNP if we adopted their own tactics of bullying and prejudice in order to combat them?
If we didn't invite idiots like this into our media, if we demonise them and refuse to listen, that gives them further "proof" of the liberal media pandering to the governement, excluding them, etc. It gives them the opportunity to act the martyr, and makes this a debate about freedom of speech, not about what it should be about - the unacceptability of casual racism in British politics. We're being distracted by the ephemera into arguing about tangenital subjects, where the BNP are on much stronger ground. We are giving the BNP more publicity and recognition as a result of the controversy than as a result of having them on the BBC in the first place, (where at the very least his views are engaged with, and not allowed to go unchallenged while we dance around talking about the freedom of the press). As Griffin said himself: "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid. The huge furore that the political class has created around it clearly gives us a whole new level of public recognition."
On the other hand, if we stop this debate being about issues such as freedom of speech, this could actually be a fantastic opportunity for all opponents of the BNP. Their policies are shit. Not just the casual racism (though that's horrific enough), but the fact that they haven't really got a political standpoint on anything other than immigration. Challenge him on this and other issues, and people will see that they really, really don't want him or his grubby little party anywhere near running the country. The people who are going to be enthused by this are the people who would have voted for the BNP anyway. The moderates, on the other hand, might very well be alienated once they've actually had a chance to hear what the party's got to say for itself. So yes, drag Griffin in front of the cameras, have David Dimbleby and the pannelists grill him within an inch of his life, and I promise you he will be exposed for the racist, bigoted, half-witted, spineless little demagog he really is. His policies cannot stand up to reasoned debate, and his appearance in any legitimate forum will, far from conferring its legitimacy on him, show up, by contrast, just how little he deserves to be taken seriously. As the saying goes, give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.
Not engaging with an issue may save us the risk of accidentally legitimising it, but it allows Griffin's views to go unchallenged. We shouldn't be ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away, we should be fighting back, providing the counter arguments that often people don't hear, because they're hearing the BNP's views in isolation. Distasteful as it might be, sometimes we need to parade shit around, so people can see for themselves how badly it smells.
And of course, if you still don't agree with me, then you can always take comfort in one of my favourite quotes from Ferdinand Mount:
"One of the unsung freedoms that go with a free press is the freedom not to read it...."
Now, I happen to think that the BNP have almost certainly used up their allotted oxygen quotient, and I would be quite happy if they all took a collective long walk off a short pier, BUT, I don't think this excuses the rest of us sane individuals in this country to resort to censorship.
There's the obvious quote from Voltaire, that whilst one may disagree absolutely with everything someone says, one should defend to the death their right to say it, or whilst I could refer readers to a wonderful blog post by Neil Gaiman about freedom of speech sometimes meaning that one has to defend the indefensible, I'd rather not just be glib and let someone else write my argument for me.
The BBC has long held a reputation for impartiality. Up until the Hutton Report and that whole whitewashed mess, it was taken for granted that the BBC was free from ties of government and political bias. Now, that reputation has been tarnished, but not to my mind destroyed. Censorship on a program such as Question Time would be, for me, another blow to that reputation, another example of a media institution not willing to put itself in the line of fire, for fear of not being politically correct. And I mean that just as much in the sense of not ascribing to some notion of "correct" politics. It's the job of a free press to report everything, not just the bits of politics that we find acceptable. Otherwise, we're no better than a banana republic, trying to keep its citizens happy and complient, by only telling them the authorised truth. We're above that in this country, and despite total f*ckwits like Griffin, we ought to remain so.
And I don't like the idea of people saying "we don't have to give the BNP the same rights as we'd give anyone else, because they're not a "real" political party". That's one step away from saying "I don't have to listen to you because you're a member of this group, and therefore not a real person." Slippery slope, perhaps, that's how these things start. Plus, of course, we'd be behaving just like the people we ostensibly hate. How much of a validation would that be for the BNP if we adopted their own tactics of bullying and prejudice in order to combat them?
If we didn't invite idiots like this into our media, if we demonise them and refuse to listen, that gives them further "proof" of the liberal media pandering to the governement, excluding them, etc. It gives them the opportunity to act the martyr, and makes this a debate about freedom of speech, not about what it should be about - the unacceptability of casual racism in British politics. We're being distracted by the ephemera into arguing about tangenital subjects, where the BNP are on much stronger ground. We are giving the BNP more publicity and recognition as a result of the controversy than as a result of having them on the BBC in the first place, (where at the very least his views are engaged with, and not allowed to go unchallenged while we dance around talking about the freedom of the press). As Griffin said himself: "I thank the political class and their allies for being so stupid. The huge furore that the political class has created around it clearly gives us a whole new level of public recognition."
On the other hand, if we stop this debate being about issues such as freedom of speech, this could actually be a fantastic opportunity for all opponents of the BNP. Their policies are shit. Not just the casual racism (though that's horrific enough), but the fact that they haven't really got a political standpoint on anything other than immigration. Challenge him on this and other issues, and people will see that they really, really don't want him or his grubby little party anywhere near running the country. The people who are going to be enthused by this are the people who would have voted for the BNP anyway. The moderates, on the other hand, might very well be alienated once they've actually had a chance to hear what the party's got to say for itself. So yes, drag Griffin in front of the cameras, have David Dimbleby and the pannelists grill him within an inch of his life, and I promise you he will be exposed for the racist, bigoted, half-witted, spineless little demagog he really is. His policies cannot stand up to reasoned debate, and his appearance in any legitimate forum will, far from conferring its legitimacy on him, show up, by contrast, just how little he deserves to be taken seriously. As the saying goes, give him enough rope and he'll hang himself.
Not engaging with an issue may save us the risk of accidentally legitimising it, but it allows Griffin's views to go unchallenged. We shouldn't be ignoring the problem and hoping it goes away, we should be fighting back, providing the counter arguments that often people don't hear, because they're hearing the BNP's views in isolation. Distasteful as it might be, sometimes we need to parade shit around, so people can see for themselves how badly it smells.
And of course, if you still don't agree with me, then you can always take comfort in one of my favourite quotes from Ferdinand Mount:
"One of the unsung freedoms that go with a free press is the freedom not to read it...."
Monday, 12 October 2009
Men on the Internet
Harassment on the Internet is a women's issue.
Oh, and have a look at this one (warning, may make you feel sick to your stomach/ ashamed of any testicles you may posses)
But, also contained in that first post is another of these wonderful nuggets. It's one of those things that gets to me when I can SEE the problem, just can't see the solution. So when a summation of the problem occurs that inherently contains an obvious solution I want to jump for joy.
This, I believe is one such:
As I've said before, and will keep saying, here and elsewhere: Men can be feminists. Men are in fact some of the most important feminists, because they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who can most easily effect change. Bollocks to anyone who says that men can't understand (or can't be explained to enough so they do understand), or aren't allowed a say because of their lack of personal experience, or can't be "proper" feminists because they have a penis. That's being as patronizing to them as they have been to us. We need men to stamp out this misogynistic shit at the roots. Some men are the problem. The rest of men need to be part of the solution.
In essence:
Men! the Feminist Auxilliary Force needs YOU!
And if you want to join, start by reading This
And then This.
Spread the Word, people!
Oh, and have a look at this one (warning, may make you feel sick to your stomach/ ashamed of any testicles you may posses)
But, also contained in that first post is another of these wonderful nuggets. It's one of those things that gets to me when I can SEE the problem, just can't see the solution. So when a summation of the problem occurs that inherently contains an obvious solution I want to jump for joy.
This, I believe is one such:
‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…
I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.
But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one. And you probably didn’t know which one he was.
And that guy? Thought you were on his side.
And On that Subject...As I've said before, and will keep saying, here and elsewhere: Men can be feminists. Men are in fact some of the most important feminists, because they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who can most easily effect change. Bollocks to anyone who says that men can't understand (or can't be explained to enough so they do understand), or aren't allowed a say because of their lack of personal experience, or can't be "proper" feminists because they have a penis. That's being as patronizing to them as they have been to us. We need men to stamp out this misogynistic shit at the roots. Some men are the problem. The rest of men need to be part of the solution.
In essence:
Men! the Feminist Auxilliary Force needs YOU!
And if you want to join, start by reading This
And then This.
Spread the Word, people!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)