Ok, so it's been a while... and sadly, I don't think this post is going to signal a return to regular updates either, though there's a few bits and pieces that might be turning up here soon.
In my time-off, I've been to Europe, which was fantastic, finally got some counselling, which has also helped things, made more friends, been more busy, and generally got one of these Life things that people have been going on about.
I've started doing a bit of writing for an online magazine called Sabotage, which is well worth a read, though I've only got one article up there so far. If I can get myself together, there will be more.
In terms of shouty feminism - I'm trying to lay off; pick my battles, and not get too involved in stuff I can't change right now, or I will bash my brains out on that brick wall. My opinions haven't changed, but I'm trying not to court opportunities for me to express them quite so much.
Though, having said that... There was this article in the Guardian...
I don't think I even need to explain why that is so badly wrong, and utterly, utterly counterproductive to any idea of increasing the rate and accuracy of rape convictions.
In terms of shouty politics... well, let's just say that the Con-Dem Nation has been giving me plenty to go on. Not least this latest suggestion that the long-term jobless should be forced into "work" (at what works out as less than minimum wage) or see their benefits cut.
You see, that could have been a great idea - give the unemployed a chance to boost their CV with some voluntary work, whilst still on JSA* so they can support themselves whilst still working towards their career.
But no. This is the usual Tory bullshit which assumes that all people on welfare are scroungers and Chavs, and we shouldn't have to pay for them to be layabouts, so we'll make them pick up litter until they get a proper job.
Oddly enough, even the people on the BBC's Have Your Say section (not usually noted for being a bastion of common sense) have actually some sensible things to say about what a pathetic idea this is. And when even they're starting to sound more sensible than a government proposal, you know something's wrong somewhere...
Even the Archbishop of Cantebury's chipping in on this one (though the link isn't working for me to link to), and as usual is being eminently sensible.
I think there's plenty of comment out there without my needing to chip in my $0.02, so I'll leave it for now. Suffice to say that when asked to list my 4 biggest Turn-Offs in a man, one of the first things I thought of was "Tory".
Anyway, life goes on, tum te tum...
*I keep thinking of this as Justice Society of America, and getting visions of Clark Kent in the dole queue... You can tell I spent too long working on a PhD in Comics...
Monday, 8 November 2010
Monday, 2 August 2010
Sea Change
Ok, so, this last week has been a hell of a ride, as weeks go. There's been a whole load of shifts, and some pretty big decisions made.
Among them has been the decision to drop the English PhD that I've been working on, and instead, make a go of it writing full-time.
I realise I'm in a really privileged position to be able to do that, and, without sounding like an aknowledgements page, I'd like to say that I couldn't do this without the love and support of my friends and family, to whom I'm immensely grateful.
As far as this blog goes, this will probably mean a slight shift in focus away from quite so much loud and shouty feminism - simply because I'm not going to be exposed to as much.
There will, however be more arts-and-writing related stuff; (which is what this blog was originally set up for) and there may even be reviews and possibly even some original fiction.
Inasmuch as I have readers here, I hope you guys stick with me. Who knows? You may even enjoy it...
Among them has been the decision to drop the English PhD that I've been working on, and instead, make a go of it writing full-time.
I realise I'm in a really privileged position to be able to do that, and, without sounding like an aknowledgements page, I'd like to say that I couldn't do this without the love and support of my friends and family, to whom I'm immensely grateful.
As far as this blog goes, this will probably mean a slight shift in focus away from quite so much loud and shouty feminism - simply because I'm not going to be exposed to as much.
There will, however be more arts-and-writing related stuff; (which is what this blog was originally set up for) and there may even be reviews and possibly even some original fiction.
Inasmuch as I have readers here, I hope you guys stick with me. Who knows? You may even enjoy it...
Thursday, 24 June 2010
The New Bromantics
I've discovered a new word that I hate!
It's "Bromance" defined in Urban Dictionary as: "Describ[ing] the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males."
The word itself might not be in the OED, but the concept it embodies is not as neologous (sp?) as the term. Male/male friendships, with that degree of intimacy, have only recently (I'd guess around the late 1890s...) fallen out of fashion. I'd need to consult someone who actually knows more about Queer theory than me to be sure. But just to take one example, there are quite a few M/M friendships depicted in Shakespeare which later productions have chosen to depict as homosexual (Sebastian/Antonio, Romeo/Mercutio, Antonio/Bassanio) despite one of the two men later going off and getting married. Not that I'm saying such an interpretation is wrong - I think it's just as valid as any other - but I see such pairings as being more akin to today's "Bromances". At any rate, the concept has been around forever.
This is not, I wish to point out, that I deplore the concept - quite the opposite - I think it's great, and if we can start expanding the definition of masculinity to include the ability to be intimate, to show emotion rather than bottle it up, and to consider and rely on other people, rather than having to stand as an island on your own all the time, then so much the better.
But do we have to call it a "bromance"?
Do we have to call it anything, in fact? Because giving such friendships a special name - one that specifically conjures up romance, only to shut it down - betrays such latent homophobia it's unbelievable. It's suggesting that men can only ever be close to someone if they are sexually attracted to them (the male/female version of which is also popular - When Harry Met Sally, anyone?) which is firstly rubbish, and secondly it's saying that such a sexual relationship between two men is so wrong that people have to distance themselves from even the possibility that their own close M/M relationship could be percieved as such, by using this inelegant little neologism.
***
In other news!
Australia has a new PM :)
And despite the title, the media actually seem to want to talk about her politics rather than her gender. Which makes me a very happy person.
It's "Bromance" defined in Urban Dictionary as: "Describ[ing] the complicated love and affection shared by two straight males."
The word itself might not be in the OED, but the concept it embodies is not as neologous (sp?) as the term. Male/male friendships, with that degree of intimacy, have only recently (I'd guess around the late 1890s...) fallen out of fashion. I'd need to consult someone who actually knows more about Queer theory than me to be sure. But just to take one example, there are quite a few M/M friendships depicted in Shakespeare which later productions have chosen to depict as homosexual (Sebastian/Antonio, Romeo/Mercutio, Antonio/Bassanio) despite one of the two men later going off and getting married. Not that I'm saying such an interpretation is wrong - I think it's just as valid as any other - but I see such pairings as being more akin to today's "Bromances". At any rate, the concept has been around forever.
This is not, I wish to point out, that I deplore the concept - quite the opposite - I think it's great, and if we can start expanding the definition of masculinity to include the ability to be intimate, to show emotion rather than bottle it up, and to consider and rely on other people, rather than having to stand as an island on your own all the time, then so much the better.
But do we have to call it a "bromance"?
Do we have to call it anything, in fact? Because giving such friendships a special name - one that specifically conjures up romance, only to shut it down - betrays such latent homophobia it's unbelievable. It's suggesting that men can only ever be close to someone if they are sexually attracted to them (the male/female version of which is also popular - When Harry Met Sally, anyone?) which is firstly rubbish, and secondly it's saying that such a sexual relationship between two men is so wrong that people have to distance themselves from even the possibility that their own close M/M relationship could be percieved as such, by using this inelegant little neologism.
***
In other news!
Australia has a new PM :)
And despite the title, the media actually seem to want to talk about her politics rather than her gender. Which makes me a very happy person.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
Wet Wet... What?
Ok, just spotted this on the news this morning.
I think I've gone over the shameful way that celebs seem to be given a free pass when it comes to rape, DV and even borderline child abuse (Roman Polanski, anyone?) so I'm not going to dwell on that aspect too much.
Suffice to say, why is it that DV offenders seem to always get reffered to counseling or other psychiatric programs, rather than prison/something that's actually punishment, when the same injuries sustained in an assault/GBH/ABH case would result in a jail term? What's so special about DV that it should be treated so leniently? Oh wait, it's because they hit a woman, and women aren't really people.
Not that I'm saying that advocating rehabilitation rather than retribution is a bad thing necessarily, but the way it seems to be being applied here is problematic to say the least. Apart from anything else, it sends a really screwed up message about the relative severity of DV as a crime. And the threat of being made to attend a few seminars is hardly much of a detterent.
Actually though, the bit I wanted to look at was the closing remarks of the article:
I think I've gone over the shameful way that celebs seem to be given a free pass when it comes to rape, DV and even borderline child abuse (Roman Polanski, anyone?) so I'm not going to dwell on that aspect too much.
Suffice to say, why is it that DV offenders seem to always get reffered to counseling or other psychiatric programs, rather than prison/something that's actually punishment, when the same injuries sustained in an assault/GBH/ABH case would result in a jail term? What's so special about DV that it should be treated so leniently? Oh wait, it's because they hit a woman, and women aren't really people.
Not that I'm saying that advocating rehabilitation rather than retribution is a bad thing necessarily, but the way it seems to be being applied here is problematic to say the least. Apart from anything else, it sends a really screwed up message about the relative severity of DV as a crime. And the threat of being made to attend a few seminars is hardly much of a detterent.
Actually though, the bit I wanted to look at was the closing remarks of the article:
Sentencing, Judge Shani Barnes ... said: "It is shameful that you should come before the courts at all - let alone for using such violence against your partner.
"I have no doubt that you are a mild-mannered gentle man by nature.
"Domestic violence is never acceptable, even if the young woman gave as good as she got, the injuries she sustained were far more impactful than anything she could have done to you."
I'm sorry... what??
"I have no doubt you are a mild-mannered gentle man by nature"?? To someone who punched his wife in the face??
Aside from the obvious disconnect there, that statement has a lot of worrying implications. The obvious one being, if he was so mild-mannered, what (or should we say, who) provoked such a violent response? And that's one step away from outright victim-blaming in my book.
The other thing is; criminals don't obviously look like criminals. Often don't behave like criminals outside of their crime. And that goes double for crimes commited within the household, like DV and a lot of sexual abuse. So to say that Mitchell is a gentle man (apart from when he decides to hit his wife) is really not helpful, because it perpetuates the myth that otherwise "nice" people don't commit attrocities. Which is what makes it so hard for victims of abuse to come forward. Because everyone thinks that that lovely bloke you know who lives round the corner couldn't possibly be beating his wife because he's such a nice guy. I'm sure he didn't mean it, maybe the silly bitch was asking for it... etc etc etc.
Also, the rest of that comment; "Domestic violence is never acceptable, even if the young woman gave as good as she got, the injuries she sustained were far more impactful than anything she could have done to you" shows an utter ignorance of the circumstances under which DV is usually perpetrated - where the woman has usually been isolated and had her self-confidence broken down to the point where she doesn't feel able (or sometimes justified) to fight back. And wtf? Is that chivalry I see coming out of that last part? Don't hit women because they're weaker and can't hit back? As opposed to don't hit women because they're people too and violence against other people is never the answer?
Really, seriously, I think we should expect more from the judiciary. And if there was ever a case for judges to specialise in the kind of crimes they are equipped to deal with, then how much more evidence do you need, your honour?
"I have no doubt you are a mild-mannered gentle man by nature"?? To someone who punched his wife in the face??
Aside from the obvious disconnect there, that statement has a lot of worrying implications. The obvious one being, if he was so mild-mannered, what (or should we say, who) provoked such a violent response? And that's one step away from outright victim-blaming in my book.
The other thing is; criminals don't obviously look like criminals. Often don't behave like criminals outside of their crime. And that goes double for crimes commited within the household, like DV and a lot of sexual abuse. So to say that Mitchell is a gentle man (apart from when he decides to hit his wife) is really not helpful, because it perpetuates the myth that otherwise "nice" people don't commit attrocities. Which is what makes it so hard for victims of abuse to come forward. Because everyone thinks that that lovely bloke you know who lives round the corner couldn't possibly be beating his wife because he's such a nice guy. I'm sure he didn't mean it, maybe the silly bitch was asking for it... etc etc etc.
Also, the rest of that comment; "Domestic violence is never acceptable, even if the young woman gave as good as she got, the injuries she sustained were far more impactful than anything she could have done to you" shows an utter ignorance of the circumstances under which DV is usually perpetrated - where the woman has usually been isolated and had her self-confidence broken down to the point where she doesn't feel able (or sometimes justified) to fight back. And wtf? Is that chivalry I see coming out of that last part? Don't hit women because they're weaker and can't hit back? As opposed to don't hit women because they're people too and violence against other people is never the answer?
Really, seriously, I think we should expect more from the judiciary. And if there was ever a case for judges to specialise in the kind of crimes they are equipped to deal with, then how much more evidence do you need, your honour?
Saturday, 12 June 2010
New Things!
Ok, so this post is a special Multi-Purpose post!
Mostly, it's to let everyone who reads this know (who didn't already know) that I am still alive, and will be angry and articulate enough to write something here soon.
Secondly, it's to point out - just in case you missed it, y'know - that this blog is being updated and given new shiny things, like a background that isn't just blue. So if it suddenly starts changing around a bit, don't worry. Or do worry if you're the kind of person who hates change. In which case, what are you doing reading my blog?
For the minute I've decided to go with a stars at night kind of theme, to more acurately reflect the whole "galactic" element to the teabag. I was toying with a couple of other designs though, so I may try each one out for a bit, see if I like it better.
The third reason for writing this post, and will probably explain why I've tried to take as long as possible to tell you that the blog is changing around a bit, is that because of the new layout, the previous post - the one with the YouTube links to the awesome Twingo ads? - Those Twingo ads are now flopping over the sidebar, and you can't read it. And since I am a technological muppet, with no clue how to remedy this, I'm trying to write a nice long post that will push the Twingo down, so you can actually see the stuff in the sidebar, like links and archives.
There.
Hope that's done it.
:)
Mostly, it's to let everyone who reads this know (who didn't already know) that I am still alive, and will be angry and articulate enough to write something here soon.
Secondly, it's to point out - just in case you missed it, y'know - that this blog is being updated and given new shiny things, like a background that isn't just blue. So if it suddenly starts changing around a bit, don't worry. Or do worry if you're the kind of person who hates change. In which case, what are you doing reading my blog?
For the minute I've decided to go with a stars at night kind of theme, to more acurately reflect the whole "galactic" element to the teabag. I was toying with a couple of other designs though, so I may try each one out for a bit, see if I like it better.
The third reason for writing this post, and will probably explain why I've tried to take as long as possible to tell you that the blog is changing around a bit, is that because of the new layout, the previous post - the one with the YouTube links to the awesome Twingo ads? - Those Twingo ads are now flopping over the sidebar, and you can't read it. And since I am a technological muppet, with no clue how to remedy this, I'm trying to write a nice long post that will push the Twingo down, so you can actually see the stuff in the sidebar, like links and archives.
There.
Hope that's done it.
:)
Friday, 28 May 2010
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Dear Mr Troll
As some of you may be aware, I've been having a little problem recently with some rather offensive posts on my facebook status, on the subject of "domestic violence and how some women get off on it". Said posts have now been deleted, and said person de-friended. After that, I wrote a letter - not necessarily to send to the person involved, (though I still might do that) but as a sort of form-letter to send to all future trolls, annoyances, MRAs, and other people whom I have just had to give up on for one reason or another; usually because I lack the time or the sanity.
Please, if you are having a similar problem with trolls and the like, and do not want to waste the energy on them, then please feel free to copy and edit this letter as best fits. Then you can get back to whatever else you were doing, which was almost certainly far more important.
...
Dear Mr Troll,
We all hate losing arguments. Especially when we are so sure that we are right, and the other person is wrong, but when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, either something has got to give, or people are going to just get hurt and upset.
As it is, I think our argument is getting nowhere, and I do not have the time or sanity to spare to continue it, nor to put up with the personal attacks leveled at me, which have nothing to do with the argument in hand.
It is obvious that I am never going to change your mind over this, since you have demonstrated repeatedly that you either do not understand, or do not care about my opinions. From what I can see, you have made no effort to see things from my point of view, or even contemplate the possibility that other people's opinions might be as valid, or even more so than your own.
I have tried to explain why your argument is unsound, insulting, and quite possibly dangerous, but still you keep insiting upon it, as if repetition would make it true. I have provided you with sources which will explain again, in a more comprehensive and eloquent fashion than I can. And I now feel that I must leave it up to them to continue where I find I am forced to leave off - not because I conceed defeat, but because it is increasingly obvious to me that you will not, and I do not wish to spend the time fighting a lost cause. If you truly want to learn and debate this topic, then please return to those sources, read until you fully understand the position, then come back and talk to me about it.
While I would love to think that the force of my (and their) argument is enough to make you challenge some of your preconceptions, go away and reassess your position on this issue, I do not hold out much hope.
I don't particularly care about "winning" or proving a point. I merely want to help people to understand. You either don't or won't. And I have better things to be doing than trying to help someone who is more focused on the winning. I am now going to go off and do them.
Yours, unapologetically,
Ms Teabag.
Please, if you are having a similar problem with trolls and the like, and do not want to waste the energy on them, then please feel free to copy and edit this letter as best fits. Then you can get back to whatever else you were doing, which was almost certainly far more important.
...
Dear Mr Troll,
We all hate losing arguments. Especially when we are so sure that we are right, and the other person is wrong, but when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object, either something has got to give, or people are going to just get hurt and upset.
As it is, I think our argument is getting nowhere, and I do not have the time or sanity to spare to continue it, nor to put up with the personal attacks leveled at me, which have nothing to do with the argument in hand.
It is obvious that I am never going to change your mind over this, since you have demonstrated repeatedly that you either do not understand, or do not care about my opinions. From what I can see, you have made no effort to see things from my point of view, or even contemplate the possibility that other people's opinions might be as valid, or even more so than your own.
I have tried to explain why your argument is unsound, insulting, and quite possibly dangerous, but still you keep insiting upon it, as if repetition would make it true. I have provided you with sources which will explain again, in a more comprehensive and eloquent fashion than I can. And I now feel that I must leave it up to them to continue where I find I am forced to leave off - not because I conceed defeat, but because it is increasingly obvious to me that you will not, and I do not wish to spend the time fighting a lost cause. If you truly want to learn and debate this topic, then please return to those sources, read until you fully understand the position, then come back and talk to me about it.
While I would love to think that the force of my (and their) argument is enough to make you challenge some of your preconceptions, go away and reassess your position on this issue, I do not hold out much hope.
I don't particularly care about "winning" or proving a point. I merely want to help people to understand. You either don't or won't. And I have better things to be doing than trying to help someone who is more focused on the winning. I am now going to go off and do them.
Yours, unapologetically,
Ms Teabag.
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Con-Dem Nation*
Ok, so I'm resigned to the fact that we will have a mostly Tory government for the next few years. Amd my dearest hope at the moment is that the Lib-dems will be able to curb the worst of any social conservatism. In fact, if we do get what some people are predicting - a socially liberal, economically conservative government - I think we might well be onto a good thing.
Even if we do have to put up with gitface Cameron as PM.
There is only one problem. One Major problem that I'm looking at. Take a look at the new cabinet. Do you see any women? Do you see any ethnic "minorities"? I can't really say about sexuality, because that's not something you can necessarily tell just by looking at people, but I'd be willing to bet they're all straight as well.
Come on people! This is the 21st century! Why is it that the only people who can represent us at the highest levels of government have to be older, straight white guys? I can sort of understand, (though not condone, I'd like to add) in a predominantly caucasian country why there might not be much in the way of racial diversity, but I'm sure we could manage better than this. And there should be absolutely no excuse whatsoever for there being no women in cabinet. We make up 52% of the country, there should be no shortage of us. We've been supposedly equal for about half a century, why the hell is this not reflected in our governing body??? Sorry, but if you want proof of inequality, the fact that under the previous government less than 14% of MPs were women, and that number is set to go down with this new lot should be conclusive enough.
The other news that's getting me down today? Harriet, despite having been made acting leader of the Labour party (and consequently winning my vote) she has apparently ruled herself out of the running to replace Gordon (thus my vote is lost again).
*sigh*
* Thanks must go to Sam for providing me with the title of this post. :)
Even if we do have to put up with gitface Cameron as PM.
There is only one problem. One Major problem that I'm looking at. Take a look at the new cabinet. Do you see any women? Do you see any ethnic "minorities"? I can't really say about sexuality, because that's not something you can necessarily tell just by looking at people, but I'd be willing to bet they're all straight as well.
Come on people! This is the 21st century! Why is it that the only people who can represent us at the highest levels of government have to be older, straight white guys? I can sort of understand, (though not condone, I'd like to add) in a predominantly caucasian country why there might not be much in the way of racial diversity, but I'm sure we could manage better than this. And there should be absolutely no excuse whatsoever for there being no women in cabinet. We make up 52% of the country, there should be no shortage of us. We've been supposedly equal for about half a century, why the hell is this not reflected in our governing body??? Sorry, but if you want proof of inequality, the fact that under the previous government less than 14% of MPs were women, and that number is set to go down with this new lot should be conclusive enough.
The other news that's getting me down today? Harriet, despite having been made acting leader of the Labour party (and consequently winning my vote) she has apparently ruled herself out of the running to replace Gordon (thus my vote is lost again).
*sigh*
* Thanks must go to Sam for providing me with the title of this post. :)
Thursday, 6 May 2010
VOTE!
If you're British, not in jail, not sectioned under the mental health act and not the Queen, then there should be no excuse.
Go out and vote.
I'm not lobbying on behalf of any particular party, just on behalf of the democratic process. Even if you spoil your ballot - do something with it. Make it count.
People died for this y'know. And I'm not being funny - people, less than a century ago, actually died fighting for your right to vote. People are often complacent about it, seeing their right to participate in democracy as a given, but it's not. It's surprisingly recently aquired - for some more recent than others. Please don't take it for granted. Please don't think there's no point, or that your vote doesn't matter - if everyone thought like that then nothing would ever change or get done ever. It does matter, it does count, and it is important.
Also - it is my considered opinion that if you don't vote, you don't have a say in how the country is run. And if you have opted out of having a say in something, then your opinion of it obviously doesn't matter much. Thus I will be ignoring all coments and complaints about politics, and all political opinions from anyone who doesn't vote. If you don't want to make your voice heard, well, I for one will stop listening :) And if you want to complain about the electoral system itself, and how it's no longer fit for purpose, then there's still no excuse to sit on your hands - vote Lib Dem because they're planning on reforming it.
Go out and vote.
I'm not lobbying on behalf of any particular party, just on behalf of the democratic process. Even if you spoil your ballot - do something with it. Make it count.
People died for this y'know. And I'm not being funny - people, less than a century ago, actually died fighting for your right to vote. People are often complacent about it, seeing their right to participate in democracy as a given, but it's not. It's surprisingly recently aquired - for some more recent than others. Please don't take it for granted. Please don't think there's no point, or that your vote doesn't matter - if everyone thought like that then nothing would ever change or get done ever. It does matter, it does count, and it is important.
Also - it is my considered opinion that if you don't vote, you don't have a say in how the country is run. And if you have opted out of having a say in something, then your opinion of it obviously doesn't matter much. Thus I will be ignoring all coments and complaints about politics, and all political opinions from anyone who doesn't vote. If you don't want to make your voice heard, well, I for one will stop listening :) And if you want to complain about the electoral system itself, and how it's no longer fit for purpose, then there's still no excuse to sit on your hands - vote Lib Dem because they're planning on reforming it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)