Living with Wolves

The other day I stumbled across this article by Caitlin Moran*, and it got me thinking.

Her second point - that women are tired all the time - could fill an entire book (has filled several) so I'm going to leave that for another day, but it was the first point - that women are scared of men - that struck a chord.

"Try imagining that you could only date a half-bear half-lion. 'Oh - I hope this one's nice!' That's being a woman." 

See, I don't think she's** quite on the nail about that. I think there's a better way of putting it.

Men are dogs.

I don't mean that in the disgusted, only-after-one-thing, American street slang kind of way, or even in the barely toilet-trained, always wants feeding/walking, please-stop-humping-my-leg kind of way. I mean it in the way that is summed up by this quote from Good Omens,***:

"There are some dogs which, when you meet them, remind you that, despite thousands of years of man-made evolution, every dog is still only two meals away from being a wolf..."

I love dogs. They are wonderful creatures: loyal, intelligent, affectionate. You can have life-long, very fulfilling relationships with dogs. They make excellent companions. Some people's lives are empty without dogs. We invite them into our homes and love them and care for them, and they love and care for us. We trust them to look after us. I have nothing against dogs.


But every woman is aware that some dogs can't be trusted. Some dogs you can't let your children play with - some dogs you wouldn't play with yourself. And in every dog, even the nicest, sweetest, most fluffy looking Toy Poodle in the world, somewhere in there is a wolf. And they could snap at any point.

It could be something you said, or something you did that just rubbed that dog up the wrong way. Sometimes it's just a really mean dog that was never loved enough as a puppy. Sometimes that dog has just had a really bad day. Perhaps no-one ever taught it "No" or "Sit" or "Stay". Whatever the reason, that dog is now a wolf. And we are fucked. We are Little Red Riding Hood, and no-one's coming to save us.

And that could be any dog. A German Shepherd might sit there and take all the abuse you throw at it, might never even snap at you, might be the most loving creature in all of existence. And a little Chihuahua might go for your throat as soon as look at you. You can't tell just by looking at them which dogs are really wolves. In fact, they're all wolves - just some of them it'll never come to the surface.

It's the not knowing that's the hardest part. Because most of us love dogs, and we want to trust them completely, we want to feel safe around them all the time. Breed or background are no indicators; any dog - any dog - could become a wolf in an instant, we just don't know. So we shy away every time a pack of strays comes whooping and howling down the street after dark, having fun. Some of us take courses on dog-handling and self defense. Some of us don't go out without a friend, or a dog that we trust, to protect us. Unless we are super-confident, or in a space where we feel safe, we moderate what we say or do around dogs so we seem less threatening, less likely (in our minds) to provoke a wolf response. It's exhausting sometimes.

That's what it's like as a woman living with men.

We're not scared of all of you all the time. If we thought like that we would go crazy very, very, quickly. And we don't talk about it much to you either, because you tend to get defensive - "but look at me! I'm a Labradoodle! I'd never hurt you! How can you say that?" - and we know it's a bad idea to provoke a dog in case it becomes a wolf.

We live with you every day, we work alongside you, we love you... But we are still aware that you are potentially dangerous, We are often reminded of the fact that you, just like a dog, could snap, and if you did that, it would be like being alone in a room with a wild beast ready to rip out our jugular. And there, Moran is on the money.


Edit:

I'm not saying that we should blame dogs for having a bit of wolf in their DNA - we understand it's not something you can control. It's just something to be aware of. And maybe next time, when we argue for better muzzle control or obedience training, don't jump down our throats.



*originally published in the Times Magazine
** or rather, Louis CK, who she's quoting at the time.
*** By Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. It's a good book. Go read it :)

How Labour Screwed it up

Just one link today. This one. I couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even try.

Just Conned

Ok guys, I'm back.

Sad thing to say, is so is David Bloody CaMoron and his cronies, and this time there's no Lib Dem buffer to cushion the blow.

The last week has been traumatic, painful and argumentative - and I find myself yet again in need of somewhere to bleed out the frustrations, because like fuck am I taking this and swallowing all this bile.

I've got quite a few rants in me at the minute, so this may be the first of several in the days and weeks (and God help us, probably years) to come.



But there is one thing that's really getting on my tits at the moment, and that is this. The idea that we on the political left are "bad losers" because we're getting angry about being condemned to another 5 years of slashed welfare, corporate excess, child poverty, food banks, the housing crisis, economic illiteracy, rising debt and the slippery slope to privatised healthcare*.

Some things, such as the death of human beings, governmentally instituted corporate slavery (which is what the workfare scheme seems to have become), the attempt to rip up the Human Rights Act, and policies that have forced many into abject poverty are things I will always oppose, no matter who proposes them. When we have reached this state of affairs, I feel it goes beyond petty party divisions.

Perhaps it depends on if you believe in objective truth and moral absolutes. And there has been a stunning tendency of late to fall into the fallacy that just because everyone has the right to an opinion that all opinions are therefore equally valid.** Spoiler: they aren't. (If you're interested, Ben Goldacre has a lot to say on that topic and how it relates to science reporting, but that's a topic for another blog post.)

People are talking about "shy" Tories - I'm not surprised. Wouldn't you rather stay silent about supporting a party who condones policies that have caused this country - especially the poor and needy - so much suffering, while lining the pockets of the corporate and rich? Oddly enough they're arguing on tone and blaming the Left for being too vocal and threatening, rather than having the courage of their convictions to defend their point of view with evidence...
And yet they whine when it's the Left that chooses not to engage with them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm with Voltaire in that I may vehemently disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it***. But please recognise the irony, and in some cases downright hypocrisy of what's being said. "You're not allowed to tell me that my opinion is wrong-headed! And you're not allowed to not let me tell you why you're wrong!" Oh please...

My views on the matter are fairly neatly encapsulated in this comic from xkcd. Freedom of speech is not, and should never mean freedom from criticism. Yes, there is no law to say you can't be an asshole (or vote for them), you can be an asshole if you want. But by the same token, I have the freedom to tell you when you're being an asshole, (at length and in depth, should I wish,) and to speak up about assholes in general, and the terrible things being done in the name of assholery. You still have the right to be an asshole. What you don't have is the right to be an asshole and not be criticised and judged for it. You can walk away. You don't have to listen. You don't even have to change your attitude (though I'd prefer it if you did). But freedom of expression goes both ways. Don't be surprised if there are consequences to your actions, and if you don't want people to think you support some of the more abhorrent policies that the Tories have implemented and will be implementing, don't fucking vote for them.

Having said that... as many people have pointed out to me, stating this view openly and loudly on Facebook does end up being rather divisive. And that most Tory voters aren't mustachioed villains, twirling their canes and giggling about all the poor people they're going to stomp on. Most Tories aren't assholes****.Well, yes that might be the case. But what is the alternative? Keeping silent about my own politics? Bowing to peer pressure, instead of speaking out for what I believe is right? All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. And I refuse to do nothing.

Yet still, while I still struggle to understand why so many voted conservative*****, unless it be from ignorance, fear or prejudice, I want to believe that people are basically good at heart. I wont close down avenues of discussion, unless they become abusive.

And that, ladies and gents, is why Galactic Teabag is back up and running.




*Yes, I know Labour started that one. Yes, I know they fucked up, especially with PFIs. Let's not pretend that it's not going to be exponentially worse with the current lot.
** There's a post in that with my old friend Barthes...
*** Oddly enough, in protesting against certain policies, that is exactly what I'm doing.
**** Some of them are though.
***** and will probably be posting more on that subject as well, soon enough

Feminine Hygiene

Ok, so some of you might have heard of This little Controversy, and I have a little $0.02 to chip in here.

It seems to me that there's 2 different issues here; the ability to call a spade a spade (or a vagina a vagina) and the question of feminine hygiene products in the first place.

The first point, ok, yes. It's a vagina people, let's not turn it into another 4 letter word. Calling it a Frou Frou or Mr Fluffy like it's a tiny annoying handbag rat between your legs is a little degrading, and I for one am all for the demystification of all things OB/GYN. But that said, it's not like Femcare is the only culprit for being silly about naming names. If the general public mostly rely on euphemisms in conversation, then can we really expect advertisers to do any different? They've just picked some damn stupid euphemisms this time around.

But as to the second point... I actually don't see anything in the Femcare ad copy that's shaming women for being women. The usual objection to vaginal washes (this isn't a douche, I hasten to point out, which is a completely different issue, as they are harmful to women) is that they suggest that the normal odour of vagina is smelly and horrible and you should wash that smelly thing because you smell, smelly woman. I don't think I need to explain how utterly wrong-headed that is.

But actually, like the rest of your body, you do need to wash your vulva occasionally. Not because it smells horrible or anything (unless you have Bacterial Vaginosis or something, in which case you might want to get your GP to check that...), but because that's just good hygiene. Especially if you ordinarily have a lot of vaginal discharge, or are menstruating, it can be refreshing to be able to give your vulva a quick clean up. And it's also the case that your usual shower-gels can be too strong or too heavily scented, and can cause disruptions in your vaginal flora which can lead to infections like thrush (which is likewise a whole heap of No Fun.). So I actually don't see that there's a problem with companies marketing  Ph balanced washes and wipes so that you don't accidentally traumatise your vagina while staying clean and infection free. And if you actually look at the Femcare advertising copy, it's entirely centred around the health issues. It's not saying "Wash your disgusting bits out, smelly woman!" it's saying "Wash carefully because your vulva and vagina are worth looking after." 


And I can't see what's wrong with that.

Double Tap

And one comment - in reply to who knows what - which made me punch the air. This is what I have wanted to say to every single de-railing little mansplaining PHMT shit I have ever met or had to argue with.

No, you "just shut up". You come in here and tell a room full of women that they need to stop fighting for their own rights and pay more attention to the poor mens. Fuck the poor mens. Feminism isn't about bringing men down, you illiterate fool. It's about raising women up to the level of men, to the point where we are all equal. - Grimbitter

Cause and Effect

Ok, so it's been a while.

But it is International Women's day... sometime this week maybe... so there's been a lot of things floating around that are relevant to my interests.

Firstly this.

If you don't believe we still need feminism, just take a look at the tweeted horror stories. The sheer numbers of them, all showing the same damn themes, is horrifying. This is not isolated cases, this is all women, everywhere. And these are just the ones who live in the English speaking part of the world that has twitter.

Secondly, I'd like to call your attention to this video.

It's a great video. And provides some good ideas for how girls can try and change things.

However.

We're talking about teenage girls here. And personally, I don't think it's fair to off-load all the responsibility for their mental wellbeing in the face of crappy media stereotyping on to them.

a) It's not their fault they're being bombarded with images that destroy their self-esteem.

b) They can isolate themselves from some of this harmful crap, but not all of it by any means, and there are certain parts that they can't isolate themselves from if they want to have a social life. Unless all the girls in your school aren't concerned with image and fashion and what was on TV the other night, you're going to loose out socially for not being into all of that stuff as well. And bang goes all that self-esteem.

c) They're teenage girls, ffs. That's a hard time for either gender, trying to find your place in the world is bad enough without having all the responsibility for changing it on your shoulders too.

d) This can only work as a collaborative effort. As long as society remains the same, all girls can do is damage control. Which is not to say that the suggestions are bad, or that girls shouldn't do them, just... it can't be the only thing we do.

It's a bit like those "rape awareness" campaigns that focus on what the victim "should" do to stay safe. Yes, it's sensible to not drink too much, yes, it's sensible to avoid bad areas, yes, it's sensible to use a buddy system, BUT; that kind of thing puts the focus on the victim, when it should be on the criminal, it can't prevent all rapes (though it might help one or two women. Might), and it should not be the way we tackle rape prevention. This is the same. It can only be damage reduction, and occasionally help some girls. Unless society changes, and stops forcing self-esteem destroying stuff down our throats at every turn, we're not going to solve the problem of their being too few female leaders by telling young girls to be role-models and stop reading fashion magazines.

Just to highlight my point, here are a few of the comments posted under this video on youtube...

there's a low percentage of female leaders for a reason, it's called evolution. - leakeg

by a woman's touch, do you mean it needs tidying up and some sandwiches? if so, i agree! - gnglulz

This is what happen when women go out of the kitchen - xmadxlamerx

Well as a guy, all I know is this: women are naturally emotional, sensitive, sympathetic and moody. So with these traits in mind, you can say, women are better off as a lovely worm mother than a great iconic leader.

But I already said, I don't deny that women can manage things well, but not the whole way up to be a leader. - AbuSaa

I don't deny the fact that women can manage things, but I'm against women to be in power. Thats all. - AbuSaa

Women are not meant to be leaders. - AbuSaa

Ok, so three of those are from the same person (though they aren't all that he said) and were (thankfully) opposed by more than one commenter, but when even something so positive and affirming can be hi-jacked by dipshits arguing - not over how we can encourage more women into leadership roles - but even if they should be allowed there in the first place... is it any wonder that girls are being put off? They know they'll have to slog through this negativity for the rest of their careers if they choose that path, and it won't go away, even if they achieve their goals. Looking good according to today's standards might be just as difficult to achieve as success in any other field, but when it's the one field where women are going to get some sort of approbation for getting there, can you blame girls for choosing that road?

Horror Stories

Ok, so a lot of people have been posting about the Mississippi Personhood Amendment, which is pretty damn sickening in itself, but I've just come across another utterly horrific piece of legislature under consideration in the states.

That would be the H.R. 358 Bill, which, among other things, overrides something called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Under EMTALA, hospitals must stabilize a pregnant patient who, for example, is facing an emergency obstetric condition or life-threatening pregnancy and either treat her--including an emergency abortion--or if the hospital or staff objects, to transfer her to another facility that will treat her.

Even the staunchest anti-abortion people that I know (or have argued with on the internet) will make exceptions for situations where the mother's life is at stake. And yet this bill is attempting to overturn current legislature which guarantees that.

Quite seriously, if this bill were to become law, it would be completely legal to leave pregnant women in labour to die, rather than perform an abortion that would save their life.

I'll let that sink in.

Now try this one: This bill has PASSED in the house of Representatives.

It has not yet gone before the senate, and Obama has (quite rightly) said that if the bill lands on his desk he will be exercising presidential veto, but the fact that this bill has, not only been proposed, but has gone this far is an enormity beyond words.

Rape Apology Bingo

Further to my last post, my lovely friend Captain Bitchface made me this...

All just a little bit of History Repeating...

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Julian Assange v2.0.

Or should that be Polanski v3.0?

Yet another story about how if you're powerful or rich enough, you can get away with... well, not actually murder, but certainly rape. Which is at least a similarly heinous act.

And this isn't the first time he's done it either!

This guy is described - even by this woman's *mother* as "otherwise warm, sympathetic and extremely talented"... honestly, this guy tries to rape her daughter, and she still thinks he's a decent guy for the most part? It's just sickening, the whole idea that only "good" people can be raped, and otherwise "good" men can't be rapists. News flash, people - rapists are not some special kind of person who can be easily identified because of their stench of evil and horrible behaviour at all times...

Dear God... I'm half tempted to draw up a bingo square of cliches surrounding rape, and see how many this case checks off, just to keep from banging my head against my desk in despair.

The whole thing is another (as if we needed another) example of how victims of rape are pilloried - or at the very least disbelieved.

The writer, who was a close friend of Strauss-Kahn's daughter Camille, said she was forced to fight him off. "It finished badly ... very violently ... I kicked him," she said. "When we were fighting, I mentioned the word rape to make him afraid, but it didn't have any effect. I managed to get out."

Explaining why she had not pressed charges, Banon said "I didn't want to be known to the end of my days as the girl who had a problem with the politician."

People who go on about how a charge of rape ruins a man's life should take heed. When a) someone brings up as a reason for not reporting a crime that they, not the criminal, will be branded with the stigma of association forever, and b) the threat of being reported for rape has no effect at all, we really need to take a good look at our preconceptions here...

I'm sorry this post hasn't been as coherent as usual, but I'm very tired of having to bang the same drum again and again and again and again ad nauseam. This has got to stop.

Oh, and I would have posted this link on my facebook while I was having a discussion about these issues earlier, but I think I would have ignited a flame war from people who wouldn't appreciate its tongue-in-cheek-ness, and its value as a thought experiment.

I know this trick

Wait, where have we seen this before?

I have a horrible sinking feeling that what's going to happen here is much like a trick that an unspecified person I knew used to play on her parents as a young teenager.

What would happen is she would go to a clothes shop with her mum - who was somewhat conservatively minded - and pick out the worst thing she could see in the shop. Her mum would immediately go balistic; "you can't wear that! That skirt is too short/ neckline is too low / that's far too expensive / you'll look like a street walker!" at which point said friend would look crestfallen, reply with an "ok mum..." and then would bring out the clothes that she actually wanted. And she would get them. Because, ok, the skirts were still a bit too short for Uber Conservative mum, but at least they weren't as bad as the first lot, and she felt guilty enough that she couldn't say no a second time.

I have a horrible feeling that the NHS reforms are going to do something similar. There's been massive outcry with what's been proposed, so, ok, they decide not to do that... but what are they going to propose next? And are we going to have to like it or lump it, because they've already changed it once, like we asked, and we ought to be happy because they've done what we asked - despite the fact that they may well just make it worse.

Not. Enough. Expletives...

What the FUCK!!!???!?!?!?!?!?!?!

"The AHRC was told that research into the "big society" was non-negotiable if it wished to maintain its funding at £100m a year."

WHAT???!!

WHAT IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY IS THIS PIECE OF EXCREMENT??!!?

HOW THE FUCK HAVE THEY BEEN ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS??

Ok, let's take the caps-lock off for a minute, and look at this a little more sanely.

Academics are said to be furious (YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT THEY'RE FURIOUS - THEY HAVE BLOODY GOOD REASON TO BE!!) over the fact that the AHRC funding - which any PhD student will tell you is like gold-dust made from hen's teeth at the best of times - is now only contingent on academics researching what the government wants - ie this Big Society BULLSHIT to try and give it some sense of legitimacy. THAT'S FUCKING BLACKMAIL!!

Seriously, Camoron (BASTARD, FUCKING BASTARD) and his cronies have "clarified" - yes, the Guardian are using scare-quotes here - a major piece of principle (The Haldane Principle) which says that they aren't allowed to dictate what research money is spent on. And by "clarified" we mean "trashed".

In the words of one Cambridge Academic (professor Peter Mandler):

"The government says they have rewritten the Haldane principle but they have junked it, basically. They say it is now their right to set the priorities for how this funding [is] distributed. They have got the AHRC over a barrel and basically told these guys that they cannot have their money unless they incorporate [these] research priorities. Willetts was negotiating nominally, but the word is that it has come down from the secretary of state for business, innovation and skills, Vince Cable. Almost everyone who hears the story is upset about it."

And in the words of another (A principal at an Oxford college, who did not want to be named) :

"With breathtaking speed, a slogan for one political party has become translated into a central intellectual agenda for the academy."

I just... I'm so angry I can't even speak coherently.

This is not, as one individual who is not going to be named, has said "the government's money" - if it were, I would have less of a problem with this. I would be happy to see David arsewipebastardshitforbrains Thatcher Camoron digging into his own overly-deep pockets and providing funding for whatever research he likes, thus keeping people in much needed employment, but that's never going to happen. This is taxpayer's money he's wielding like the sword of Damocles. And how DARE he. He - and this government, quite frankly - is wreaking havoc upon our society, with no fucking mandate to do so. How long before he starts attacking democracy itself, so he can stay in power? It would be a supreme irony to have helped out in Libya, all the while not noticing our own little home-grown fascist bastard of a leader.

Ethnic Minorities Can Wear Wellies as Well...

I was going to do a big old post about this debacle - but I think most of what's wrong with True-May's statement has already been adequately covered by the article.

I just want to add one little thing.

Culture and "the media" plays a massive role in, not just reflecting societal norms but creating and enforcing them. The images we see around us every day help to form our attitudes and prejudices. If we see a sleepy little English village on TV, and the Kumars on the corner and Mr Smith the (black) GP, are an integral part of it, then we are going to start seeing this as normal - and crucialy as acceptable. And can't we all agree that this is a good thing? Ethnic minorities are, and have been for a long time, part of England, and valuable contributers to this country. They have as much right to be a representative part of it as closeted, bigoted, middle-class, white dudes.
I don't care if the countryside is still mainly white* and MM is "just" a reflection of this - The Media has the opportunity to challenge social norms and the duty to be inclusive.

It all comes down to this: Do we want to challenge racism in our society? Yes? Then include non-white people in our culture to the extent that we want them included in society.








*Actually, I do care; I would love it if rural England was seen as welcoming to people of all colours and creeds, but that wasn't my point...

Boys will be girls

Ok, I have to admit that this worries me.
Not because I have any problem with transvesticism or androgyny; I'm a supporter of both, and I think on many levels it's a great thing that Pejic is able to express that side of himself in his chosen career. I have no problems with what his success means for men - quite the opposite - but I am concerned about what this means for women.

Statements like " Pejic has captivated designers, with his build regarded as nearly perfect for modelling high fashion looks. Couture wear is made for the tall, twiggy and flat bodies that most women, even models, don't have. Essentially, the clothing is quite suitable for a lean man or even a boy" are a stark admission from the fashion world that female beauty is not good enough. That women aren't "the right shape" to model clothes, because they are women. Because they have hips and breasts and it's a rare woman who can manage 5'11''. (I'm the tallest woman of my aquaintance and I'm still only 5'10''. Plus I have hips like a cello and thighs a baby elephant could be proud of.) Those things that make women women, and not men or children, are the things that the women's fashion industry can't stomach.

And that is a very damaging trend to be encouraging, not least because it encourages the dangerous dietary habits that have seen models actually starve themselves to death, and promotes a fashionable ideal of beauty that is damaging to the self-confidence and self-image of over 90% of women exposed to it, but also because of the latent mysogyny it exposes. I don't even think mysogyny is the right word, because this kind of admission seems to betray such a hatred and loathing of women's bodies that in order to make them palatable they have to be shorn of everything that makes them distinguishable from a pretty boy, and I think that goes a step or two beyond what I feel the word "mysogyny" encompasses.

People wonder why there aren't so many women designers in the fashion industry - I want to say that's because the industry isn't about women any more. It's about men, designing clothes - really - for other men.

What about Teh Menz in Football!

Am I the only person who thinks, in the wake of all this uproar about Grey and Keys being deservedly sacked from Sky, that it is either indicative of our society and all its ingrained sexism, or at least highly ironic that the Guardian, most lefty of newspapers, has put out a call "Men... Have your say on Sexism!". Because they're really the most un-biased of people on this issue, and the ones most likely to understand how sexism operates in the real world, and may even have been targets of sexism themselves giving them a unique insight into today's gender politics.

The views that actually come out of that call aren't too bad. They certainly aren't brilliant, but they're not too glaringly awful. The general thrust is mostly in the right place - though one commentator does start whining What about teh menz with his piece about how negative male stereotyping is widely tolerated. For the record, yes, I think men are stereotyped badly in the media and it is something we need to tackle, BUT a) most of those stereotypes actually hurt women just as much, if not more than men*, b) the fact that NMS exists does not mean that we shouldn't also tackle prejudice and actual discrimination against women and c) This is totally off topic. I agree that NMS needs to be discussed, but it's not relevant here, and is just derailing.

The other thing that came up, and seems to be coming up a lot at the minute, is this idea of "banter". That something is "just banter", and hence Ok. Thing is, that's like saying that there are some forms of prejudice that are socially acceptable - and that's just not right at all. If something is prejudiced and wrong, then it's prejudiced and wrong, no matter what context it's in. You cannot use the excuse that "it was just banter" or the fact that you are among friends who ostensibly feel the same way (or at least talk the same way) to excuse your own complicity. It's just fostering a culture of Public PC, Private Prejudice, which is just as bad, if not in some ways worse.

I'm going to have to quote my favourite post again:

"

• every time you don’t tell your buddies it’s not okay to talk shit about women, even if it’s kinda funny;
• every time you roll your eyes and think “PMS!” instead of listening to whya woman’s upset;
• every time you call Ann Coulter a tranny cunt instead of a halfwit demagogue;
• every time you say any woman–Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Phyllis Schlafly, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton, Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, any of us–”deserves whatever she gets” for being so detestable, instead of acknowledging there are things that no human being deserves and only women get;
• every time you joke about how you’ll never let your daughter out of the house or anywhere near a man, ’cause ha ha, that’ll solve everything;
• every time you say, “I don’t understand why thousands of women are insisting this is some kind of woman thing”;
• every time you tell a woman you love she’s being crazy/hysterical/irrational, when you know deep down you haven’t heard a word she’s said in the past 15 minutes, and all you’re really thinking about is how seeing her yell and/or cry is incredibly unsettling to you, and you just want that shit to stop;
• every time you dismiss a woman as “playing the victim,” even if you’re right about that particular woman…

You are missing an opportunity to help stop the bad guys.

You’re missing an opportunity to stop the real misogynists, the fucking sickos, the ones who really, truly hate women just for being women. The ones whose ranks you do not belong to and never would. The ones who might hurt women you love in the future, or might have already.

‘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."

What you say in private matters.

I'm going to state for the record that I take people's right to privacy very seriously, which is why it's even more important for people who are publicly prejudiced to be called on it. And even more important than that is the everyday work of undercover Male Feminists**, calling people out over the unacceptability of Private Sexism. The fewer forums we have where prejudiced "banter" is acceptable, the fewer prejudices we will be handing down and around to other people.

Some people have been going on that it's not fair that these two have been pilloried like this for one little slip up - but let's not forget that this isn't just one little mis-timed comment; this is a comment that belies an attitude that is just not acceptable any more, and needs to be publicly seen as such. No, it's not fair. There are plenty of other people, more sexist, more racist, more despicable than them who ought to have been pilloried first, it's just bad luck that these guys got caught first. But what's even less fair, is that women should have had to put up with sexism from these two -or anyone - in the first place.

On one final note though, I think we have to end. Let's not overlook the fact that Grey and Keys are out. Football - that "dark spot in the universe that feminism is furthest from" - has taken a step towards saying publicly that Sexism is Wrong. Ok, I do worry that it's more of an exhortation of "don't get caught being a sexist prick", but it is progress. It's only a bitty baby step in the right direction - but look where it is.

* ie stereotype "men are all lazy slobs" is just as much about promoting the ideal of female domesticity as anything else. Yes, it's insulting to men to suggest that they can't clean, but look a little deeper at the implications...

** And white anti-racists, and abled anti-ableists, and everyone else who works against discrimination in all its forms, who are able to participate in private discourse and shut down the avenues of prejudice. Right On, people.

Oh Nick...

Be still my heart... it seems Mr Clegg has some Lib Dem principles in there after all! And here I thought he didn't have any more to betray.

As you can tell, I'm utterly stoked about the plans to reform paternity leave... though Nick isn't quite back in my good books yet after the whole tuition fees/Education mainatainance payment fiasco. Mostly because the immediate reforms aren't enough, and though he sounds like a principled dude, whose ideas on this tally with my own, that could all just be honeyed words, and we'll have to wait for the further reforms he says he's planning to wheel out by 2015 to materialise before I'll let him off the hook just yet.

Political crying rape?

Ok, something that's bugging me (and my friend Captain Bitchface) today is the whole Julian Assange case.

Now, many other bloggers have already covered this issue, and I'm reading through them, but one thing strikes me that hasn't come up yet.

Most of the stuff I'd read before today was suggesting, hinting, if not downright accusing the USA government of trumping up these charges in order to slam the prominent whistle-blower. Now that's disturbing.

Let me just say, for the record, that I have no idea if this guy is a rapist or not. I do not know if these charges are true or not, and for the purposes of this article, I don't care: either way, we lose.

If he's guilty, then the amount of liberal support that he's been getting is... frankly concerning. It's as if we're happy to sweep the whole sex-crimes issue under the carpet for people we like... Look at how different, and yet how similar, this is to the Polanski case.

How fucked up are we as a society that we immediately jump to the defence of sexual offenders (sorry, those accused of sexual offences) based on whether we admire their politics or art? That we believe "oh, he's a nice person, he can't possibly be a rapist"... NEWS FLASH: Criminals do not always look like criminals. They are not required to carry neon signs stating as much. Rape does not become irrelevant just because you are otherwise a good person. You don't get a free pass.

If he's innocent, on the other hand, that still is not a win. Because that means that the US government has just equated rape with the non payment of income tax. It means that sex crimes in the US are treated with such blase disdain, that they are happy to throw around false accusations of it - adding to the growing pile of "evidence" that keeps getting trotted out to suggest that women always lie about rape, especially for revenge, or when they have something to gain by it. Thank you US government! For doing exactly what women all over the world keep getting disproportionately accused of! This blogger has it right on two points (though the rest of the article... hmm... no.); when he says:

The tabloid press creates an impression, by sensationalising the trials of those few women who make proveably-false fake rape claims, that lying about rape is a common thing. It isn’t, and the impression that lying about rape is common hurts rape victims and poisons the discourse about the whole subject.

And:

It utterly demeans the ordeal of women who are actually the victims of sex crime. And it’s a cold and cynical way of exploiting the horror that sex crime understandably provokes in the eyes of bystanders to silence someone...

Even if it's just, as a friend of mine put it, "suspicious timing", it's still enough to muddy the waters over questions of consent, ideas surrounding rape, and it's horrendously insulting and disingenuous to women everywhere that consideration of their rights to bodily autonomy have been dismissed and ignored as not-as-important as consideration of the sacred right to Freedom of Speech. Let's not fool ourselves that this would have played out exactly the same were this not so high-profile a defendant. The case would not be pursued with the vigour it has been - which suggests that rape is not enough to bother with in and of itself, but when it's someone that the US government wants silenced it provides a convenient excuse. The experience of these women has been co-opted in order to serve someone else's political ends.

The US government is behaving despicably. They've been caught with their pants around their ankles and now they're crying rape, and pushing women everywhere under a bus because of it. Charming.

I hope that this wont cause problems for the two women specifically involved. I hope that the trial doesn't get polluted by all the politics, and these women, and Assange, actually get the justice that they all deserve. God knows the USG won't.

With Apologies to Percy Shelley

An old, mad, blind, despised, new government,--
Leaders, the dregs of their dull race, who flow
Through public scorn,--mud from a muddy spring,--
Rulers who neither see, nor feel, nor know,
But leech-like to their fainting country cling,
Till they drop, blind in blood, without a blow,--
A people starved and stabbed in the untilled field,--
An army, which liberticide and prey
Makes as a two-edged sword to all who wield,--
Golden and sanguine laws which tempt and slay;
Religion Christless, Godless--a book sealed;
A Senate,--Time's worst statute unrepealed,--
Are graves, from which a glorious Phantom may
Burst, to illumine our tempestous day.


It is said that those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it.
I wonder, just how many of the current cabinet are History graduates? Because history is most certainly repeating itself.
Labour campaigns warned us that Cameron would be taking us back to the 1980's... and that backfired horribly, thanks to the success of Gene Hunt and the BBC's Life on Mars/Ashes to Ashes series.* But on the surface of it, labour do seem to have been uncharacteristically prescient. A conservative government, police brutality, awful fashion, worse music, recession, unemployment, "greed is good" fat-cat city-types... Where oh where have I seen that before?

Actually, do you know where I've seen this before? Way back at the beginning of the 19th Century, when the above poem was written**. It's called England in 1819. And in a lot of ways, things aren't that different now from what they were then.
England had just been engaged in an expensive war. Unemployment was massively high, and poverty among vulnerable sections of society was being exacerbated by governmental policy, which at the same time benefited the already rich. Parliament was rotten to the core and in desperate need of electoral reform. The poor stayed poor and the rich just got richer, and the system was in place to keep it that way.

Today we see the predominantly peaceful student protests, where the police have been "kettling" protesters (God, we have a word for it now? We're dressing up torture - because that's what it would be called if these people were in custody, not out on the streets - in fancy words again, so people don't realise what it is...) Well that just makes me think of Peterloo.


But let's not forget what came next back in the 1800s
Reform acts.
Reform of parliament, of working conditions in factories and mines, social reform.
And how did that all happen?
Because some people worked bloody hard to change things, and didn't give up. Politicians like William Wilberforce, and Earl Grey, social reformers like Josephine Butler, writers like Dickens, and just good old public pressure, finally forced change through. It wasn't easy - far from it*** - but there were enough people pushing bills through parliament, campaigning for a cause, pushing back the boundaries in their own specialised areas (such as Florence Nightingale's contributions in the medical field) or just raising awareness and writing about it all, that change happened.

It's easy to look at the 19th century as a whole and see just how much was accomplished in that period... it's less easy to stand at the beginning of a century, looking at the state of things and how much there is still left to do, and stay optimistic. In an age where we've got used to instant gratification, it's hard to remember that change on this scale can take years to manifest, and you've got to be determined and keep at it.

The cynical part of me which enjoys conspiracy theories might wonder if this is why Arts and Humanities funding is being so drastically slashed right about now. So no-one will wonder, or point out, that this has all happened before, that we don't have to roll over and take it, and that if we work hard enough at it there is still hope of a change.
Because there is another lesson to be learned from history on this point - totalitarian governments always attack the intelligentsia first, so there is no-one to speak out against further injustices when they come.

Cheer on those students, support them however you can, because if history is right, and if we're persistent, we may see some change come of it. Or if not... you could well be next.




*In itself a bloody good example of how BBC TV is quite patently not going down hill, and should continue to be funded. Imagine spoiling that with adverts. Or the American version.... (shudders)...
** I've changed 3 words, and missed out one. That's how little I've altered it.
*** I'd recommend reading some of the links if you want to see just how hard people campaigned for things back then. Puts our current politicians to shame, it really does.