tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59028579654296308272024-03-13T10:06:10.972-07:00Forty Shades Of GreyForty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-76528312862768674252012-10-19T03:14:00.002-07:002012-10-19T04:06:18.876-07:00Women - just unwilling mothers in waitingToday the Telegraph offered us a charming little piece on emergency contraception. Titled "<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9618015/Five-day-after-pill-to-be-sold-at-chemists-without-prescription.html">Five-day-after pill to be sold at chemists' without prescription</a>", the first glimpse into the overall tone of the article was the subheading<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2 style="background-color: white; color: #404040; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-weight: normal; line-height: 1.2em; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 10px;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">A contraceptive pill which enables unwilling mothers to prevent unwanted pregnancies up to five days after sex, is to be made available to buy at pharmacies for the first time without prescription.</span></h2>
</blockquote>
Heard that ladies? Your default state isn't 'human being', it's 'unwilling mother'. If you're not a mother after every time you have sex, you're a baby-murderer. Never mind if you don't want, can't have or already have children, every sperm is sacred, and you're Stalin.<br />
<br />
It continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20.71666717529297px;">The Co-Operative Pharmacy chain is to sell the ‘five-day-after pill’ for £30, with no requirement for women to have had a doctor’s consultation beforehand. Instead they will see a pharmacist.</span></blockquote>
The demands that women should consult with GPs about emergency contraception are never borne of medical need. It is perfectly adequate to be spoken to by someone who is aware of the correct way to use a medication who can also explain any side-effects. The demands are, instead, borne of the desire to see women get a patronising little lecture about what a harlot she is before being allowed access to medicine. It is also about inconveniencing and wrong-footing us. It shouldn't be possible to just buy these things on demand, because that would stop us having to take a morning off work, go to the GPs, wait around for ages and then have to ask someone for <i>permission</i> to access a contraceptive - and that's if you can even get an appointment within 72 hours. We see this desire to patronise illustrated in the next paragraph:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20.71666717529297px;">The firm said it was taking the step to offer women greater choice, but critics said it would encourage “a more casual attitude to sex” and contribute to rises in sexually transmitted diseases.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Do these critics honestly care about women's safety? (Spoiler: no) People are very aware of the need to practice safe sex, and there are a myriad of reasons other than 'having sex without a condom' why they would need to access emergency contraception. For instance, someone in a monogamous relationship who usually takes the pill, but has become ill and vomited up one of her doses. They may have been using a condom, which split. They may have been raped. Do these 'critics' honestly think that someone will have the resources available to pay £30 to buy an obscure pill each time they have sex in order to avoid pregnancy, yet have never heard of condoms? This is just another example of using 'concern' as a mask to advocate the destruction of bodily autonomy.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20.71666717529297px;">They also said that ministers had originally given assurances that morning after pills would only ever be prescribed in "exceptional circumstances", but they had slowly become more widely available. There were also concerns that the rules would be flouted and under-18s would gain access to the pill.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Why has the morning after pill been more widely prescribed since becoming available? Because it works and didn't cause the destruction of society as we know it! They have become more widely available because people realised that women didn't need a stern telling off when they needed to access it, because they can make their own decisions about their body! Also, under-18s are both precisely the people who need this pill and the ones who will benefit least from its over-the-counter availability. Why? Under-18s are generally less likely to be well informed about contraception before they have sex, and more likely to be scared of going to a doctor to obtain it and possibly also more likely to give into pressure to not use condoms. However, they also don't tend to have stacks of £30 lying around, so are unlikely to be able to buy it in the first place.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="fourthPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
Called ellaOne, the pill is thought to work by preventing ovulation and fertilisation, and by making the lining of the womb less receptive to a fertilised egg.</div>
</div>
<div class="fifthPar" style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 10px;">
<div style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 1.4em; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
It is significantly more effective than the most commonly used morning-after pill, Levonelle, which can be taken up to three days after intercourse.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Remember this bit of science, it will come up later.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20.71666717529297px;">Some 250,000 women use emergency contraception every year, overwhelmingly paid for by the NHS.</span></blockquote>
<br />
Except this won't be, it will be paid out of women's own pockets, so what's your point? Even if they <i>did</i> get all the pills on the NHS, that's a <i>fantastic </i>deal for the government. Assume the unlikely scenario that all 250,000 cases of pill-usage actually prevented a pregnancy, and that the NHS paid £30 per pill (which they don't, it is much less, but let's go with the high estimates to make a point). So the state has just paid £7.5million to avoid these pregnancies. OK. Now let's imagine that they <i>weren't</i> prevented. So now we have 250,000 foetuses waiting to be born. It costs <a href="http://www.privatehealth.co.uk/private-healthcare-services/private-maternity-services/private-maternity-costs/">£2880</a> to give birth at the Portland Hospital in London. Now, that's for a vaginal delivery with no complications and an overnight stay. No fuss, no muss. So even though the Portland is private, I'm going to take £2500 as my 'average birth cost', since the lower actual-money cost of an NHS delivery will be averted by non-textbook births being accounted for too. We now have a bill to the state of £625million, which is 83 times as much as the most that the emergency contraceptives could cost, and that's before you factor in child benefit, child tax credit, education, healthcare throughout life etc. etc.<br />
<br />
But all this is a moot point. I'm not trying to put a price on a human life, or to say that we should promote or push people into not having children, I'm just saying that it's a bit stupid to drop sarky remarks about how selfish women are being using the public purse to pay for contraceptives when a) this story is about women paying their own money for contraceptives and b) it's cheaper than the alternative.<br />
<br />
So what do the Co-op have to say about their new policy?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Jane Devenish, clinical service pharmacist for the chain, said it was “an emotive subject”.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">But she said: “We believe that this service will be an important step to offer women access to a wider choice of emergency contraception in a community pharmacy to enable them to make an informed decision.”</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">She continued: “It is not our place to make a judgement on people’s motives or lifestyles and there can be numerous reasons for seeking medical help.”</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">When a woman came in asking for emergency contraception, she would be offered a private consultation with a pharmacist, who would advise her which option was best. Only over 18s would be able to buy ellaOne, she said.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Pharmacists would also recommend customers were tested for sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and reminded that only condoms could protect against them.</span></div>
</blockquote>
This part kind of annoys me - because the Co-op are doing the right thing, but having to state that they think it's important that women aren't forced into pregnancy in the most appeasing, apologetic manner. It's not an emotive subject. It's been made emotive because of people insisting that every time a woman has sex but doesn't want a child she is just an 'unwilling mother'. The people accessing this pill all have the same motive - they don't want to get pregnant. The people usually brought up when spewing this 'motives and lifestyles' bunkum is most often the imaginary feckless wastrels from earlier who just go around drunkenly shagging people willy-nilly, condoms having apparently passed them by, then taking great delight in seeking abortion before going to spend all their money (benefits probably) on more WKD and doing more feckless fecking. Firstly, I have to ask how common this stereotype is, because I've certainly never met anyone who fits it - or is it, like the 'scrounger' rhetoric, taking the most wildly exaggerated possibilities and attributing these characteristics, actions and motives to everyone in a certain class? Secondly, and probably most importantly, even if these people <i>do</i> exist, why the fuck would you want them to have children? They sound like they'd be <i>really bad</i> parents guys.<br />
<br />
Anyway, the rest of her sop to the wannabe-Gileadeans has been discussed above and should assuage their 'concerns' - the pills won't be sold to under-18s, people trying to get them will still have to face a patronising lecture, they will be informed about the nature and existence of condoms and so on. But lo! What is this? Someone is still not happy! I wonder who it could be?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">But Paul Tully, general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said the organisation had a “profound objection” to ellaOne because “it works on some occasions by terminating the life of the early embryo”.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">“We feel women should be told this is one of its modes of action,” adding that SPUC also objected to Levonelle on the same grounds.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">He also criticised the Co-Operative Pharmacy for “taking away the safeguard of the appointment with the GP, who has access to the woman’s medical history”.</span></div>
</blockquote>
Oh, <i>that</i> wanker. So Tully objects to this pill because it 'terminates the life of the early embryo' and 'women aren't told about this'? Remember that thing I told you to remember from earlier?<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20.71666717529297px;">preventing ovulation and fertilisation, and by making the lining of the womb less receptive to a fertilised egg.</span></blockquote>
So not allowing an egg to implant is now the same as abortion? Well holy shit, my periods have killed more babies than Herod in that case. A person is not pregnant until the egg has implanted on the wall of their uterus. Not allowing this to happen is <i>preventing</i> <i>pregnancy</i>, not <i>aborting</i> <i>a foetus. </i>And guess what Tully? Women are being told! Look, I got told about three paragraphs above in this very article!<br />
<br />
So Tully is at best an absolute fucking idiot, and at worst a lying monster who wants to control everyone with a uterus (and probably a few more besides). Now there's another quote. We've had the head of sales and a frothing misogynist speak, so I wonder if any actual scientists will comment on how the pill wo... oh fuck, look who's turned up now:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Norman Wells, of the Family Educational Trust, said ellaOne was “likely to act" by inducing abortion, and that widening access would serve to increase STI rates.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">He said: "When the morning-after pill was first licensed for use, the government gave assurances that it would be kept under the control of doctors and only supplied on prescription in exceptional circumstances.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">"But since it has been made available over the counter in pharmacies, and in some parts of the country is being provided free of charge to girls and young women, its use has multiplied."</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">He also argued research showed morning after pills had failed to reduce abortion rates.</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">“Instead, young people in particular have been lulled into a false sense of security, taken a more casual attitude to sex, and become exposed to an increased risk of sexually transmitted infections," he said.</span></div>
</blockquote>
Oh yeah?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/%22Citation_needed%22.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/%22Citation_needed%22.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #282828; font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 1.48em; padding: 0px 0px 0.7em;">
<span style="background-color: transparent;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; line-height: 1.48em;"> </span></div>
</blockquote>
The article finishes with a short paragraph detailing where the Co-op sales trials will be held.<br />
<br />
So there you have it. If you want access to emergency contraception you're:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>an 'unwilling mother'</li>
<li>a slut</li>
<li>probably riddled with STDs</li>
<li>a scrounger</li>
<li>need lecturing about your morals</li>
<li>a BAYBEE KILLER</li>
<li>advocating for teenagers to have risky sex</li>
</ul>
<br />
How many times does this article mention reasons other than 'feckless idiocy' for wanting emergency contraception? None. So, off the top of my head, here's a list of a few:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Failure of regular LARC</li>
<li>Split condom</li>
<li>Not allowed to access contraceptives by abusive partner</li>
<li>Rape</li>
<li>Couldn't take time off work to renew LARC prescription</li>
<li>Can't access a GP because of homelessness</li>
</ul>
<br />
That list took about 30 seconds, which I'm sure is a hell of a lot longer than 'Medical Correspondent' (<i>really?!</i>) Stephen Adams took to stop judgement-wanking over women who need emergency contraceptives with his super-Christian, anti-science misogynist buddies to do some actual research into this story.<br />
<br />
<br />
PEE ESS: Formatting will be fixed later, when I'm not busy.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-79797188896077171882012-07-26T03:26:00.000-07:002012-07-26T08:47:06.732-07:00Breaking news: Tories are disingenuous idiots. Again.Well, I said that I'd soon get my fire for writing back, and nothing could have performed the job better than the soul-enema-inducing hogwash peddled in the Graun on Tuesday. Written by Amber Rudd and Andrea Leadsome (so incorrect it took two of them to shovel the lies in), '<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/24/harriet-harman-wrong-conservatives-feminists?cat=commentisfree&type=article">You're wrong Harriet Harman, Conservatives make better feminists</a>' is the duo's ode to Thatcherism, and makes the spurious claim that not only may one be a Tory and feminist, one is a better feminist when a Tory.<br />
<br />
To which I say:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3rbNhXew3I/UBEAsbRixVI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/QITEi_DH2zs/s1600/Photo+on+2012-07-26+at+09.31.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t3rbNhXew3I/UBEAsbRixVI/AAAAAAAAAJ8/QITEi_DH2zs/s320/Photo+on+2012-07-26+at+09.31.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">I use my massive fingers to smite Cabinet members on the weekend.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Crude as my feelings may be, I think I'm justifiably pissed off when a national newspaper prints the feminist equivalent of the Cottingley bloody Fairies.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
As I've said before to Louise Mensch, <a href="http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/cut-out-and-keep-guide-to-feminism-for.html">I do not think that word means what they think it means</a>.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
I'll start by critiquing the pair's rabid attack on Harman. They claim she's only slamming Tory "feminists" to further her own career, to 'polish... her reputation as the hard woman of Labour' - a claim which is frankly laughable. Truth be told, I quite like Harman. Although I make it a rule to generally despise politicians, she's always stuck to her guns and has got so much flack for it it's unbelievable. Blackshirt enthusiasts The Daily Mail make a running joke of her commitment to equality and diversity by constantly referring to her as 'Harriet Harperson' (because OMG wanting commitment to not being a bigoted arsehole is soooo hilarious). Even more liberal publications joke about her 'radical feminism' (she thinks women are <i>people</i>, how adorable). Anyway, Harman's been blowing the left-wing feminist trumpet for a long time, and really doesn't need the publicity of stating the obvious to further her career. You know who might need publicity by critiquing opposition members? Two backbench MPs no-one's had the misfortune to hear of before.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the next paragraph, Rudd and Leadsome point the figure at the real menace to egalitarianism, TEH UNIONZ. You see, apparently if we watch a film that's set in the 1960s, we might see some sexism. The horror. OK, their argument goes like this: film shows trade unionists (in the 1960s) opposing equal rights for women. Trade unionists are linked with Labour, Labour are linked with the left-wing, therefore anything anyone on the left says is automatically null and void because... something. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Now let me get my ranting gloves on for this. All right-wing economic societies are automatically sexist, because it benefits them massively. By denigrating the work done by half the population, one may overvalue the work done by the other and therefore get them more credit/recognition/cash monies. So in a capitalist society, saying that 'women's work' has no value allows you to underpay them and allow them fewer rights (for starters). I expanded on this idea <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/why_im_an_anarc">here</a>, but I think the quote "women work two-thirds of the world's working hours, produce half of the world's food, but earn only 10% of the world's income and own less than one percent of the world's property" sums the situation up nicely. </div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Let me also add that of <i>course </i>the TUs in the 60s opposed rights for working women. First of all, it was the 60s, women hardly had any rights. When the film was set, abortions had been allowed to be performed in hospitals instead of filthy alleyways for about six months, there was no equality legislation and women being permitted an education was still a generational issue. Not exactly enlightened times. Secondly, as I mentioned above, key to the capitalist regime is to divide people into 'worthy' and 'unworthy'. If the plant had got rid of the women, then men would have taken their jobs. Since society at the time was utterly convinced of men's 'worthiness' over women, then it's hardly a chore to see why the TUs wouldn't stick up for them. Unless you are a complete ninnyface of an MP, apparently.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Oh and while pearl-clutching about the horrors of unionism and the Labour party in the 60s, they conveniently forgot that during the first part of the communist revolution in Russia (before Stalinism), women got full reproductive and working rights - this was before they were allowed to vote in America for fuck's sake.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
They then discuss all-women shortlists. I'm not their biggest fan (imagine a parliament with 600 Nadine Dorrieses), but whatever. They claim that AWSLs prove that Labour are evil sexists, because they're only used to counter their members' innate hatred of women. Yeah, they probably are used for that, but surely that's better than nothing? There's 81 female Labour MPs and 45 female Tory MPs (which include such distinguished figures as Theresa May, Nadine Dorries, Louise Mensch, Maria Miller and Priti Patel, so maybe only 40 female <i>human</i> MPs). So Rudd and Leadsome's solution appears to just allow people to be as sexist as they want and maybe at some point for no reason they will change their minds? Huh.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The next paragraph is so silly it requires quoting almost in full:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding: 0px;">
Give a woman a Conservative prime minister and we will increase opportunities for her to get jobs, for children to get a good education, for hardworking families to improve their lives, for young women to get apprenticeships and for entrepreneurial women to start businesses. Conservative feminism is about boosting women to their full potential. We are optimistic and ambitious for women. Labour's policy towards women is still about the state protecting them. They don't believe women can achieve for themselves. What patronising rubbish.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</blockquote>
OK, we have a Conservative PM. What have we got? <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/01/gender-in-politics-women-politics-and-the-crisis/">Cuts in corporation tax redistributing money from women to men</a>. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/16/jobs-are-a-feminist-issue?CMP=twt_gu">Savage cuts in female-dominated areas, which are more likely to target the women in those areas</a>. <a href="http://refuge.org.uk/2012/01/11/almost-half-of-domestic-violence-victims-will-not-be-eligible-for-legal-aid-under-proposed-new-legislation/">Measures to preclude beaten women from accessing legal support</a>. <a href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1237">Surestart centres? Gone. Access to Violence Against Women Services? Almost gone. Benefits for mothers? Slashed. Housing allowances? You what? </a> <a href="http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/news_show.php?id=73">Rape crisis centres? Nuh-uh</a>. <a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/03/abortion-groups-attack-louise-menschs-proposal/">Disgusting attacks on reproductive rights</a>. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/05/nadine-dorries-abstinence-bill-girls-sex">Provably bloody harmful 'abstinence based' sex ed being taken seriously</a>. <a href="http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content.aspx?CategoryID=574">Charges to access child maintenance</a>. <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8612610.stm">Charging us money to not have a husband</a>.<br />
<br />
Some of this shit might have been shot down, but it was all proposed seriously by our benevolent Tory overlords. I don't know about you, but I feel far more patronised by a government that claims to know that a) If I have sex it's because I'm a slut, b) if said sex results in pregnancy I'm too stupid to know what to do about it, c) I should make sure I have money stashed away for if I'm beaten or raped, d) if I lose my job due to their cuts I'm a sponger who doesn't deserve benefits et-fucking-cetera.<br />
<br />
As <a href="http://twitter.com/skipjack451">@skipjack451</a> said, "it's the same bullshit as when they try and claim that they're better for the working class than Labour - even the rationale is the same, 'we are better for you because we force you to fight extra hard for every little thing'". If hard work is so good for people, how come none of the Tories have ever lifted a fucking finger? Oh, I'm sure Cameron fought so hard to go from Eton to Oxbridge to being given a £90,000 first job by his wife's family. I mean, diddums! He might have broken a nail!<br />
<br />
The rest of their article is Mean Girls-style sarcasm combined with yet more historical cherry-picking and tiresome party promotion, and it's frankly not worth my time to go through.<br />
<br />
In sum, Rudd and Leadsome are terrible writers, woeful historians and quite possibly have had their heads up Cameron's backside for so long that they've not actually heard what Tories do for women, because as we have seen, what Tories do for women is to treat them as idiotic brood-mares who simultaneously both don't deserve jobs, yet should pull themselves up by their bootstraps to get them. But don't expect equal pay, because your company could pay you in buttons and there'd be <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/12/pay-audits-gender-liberal">no way to find out</a>.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-67376431646254319592012-07-12T11:25:00.000-07:002012-07-12T11:25:08.489-07:00IMPORTANT NEWS: I AM NOT TRAPPED DOWN A WELLHi all, this is just a quick post to keep everyone up-to-date with what's going on with me.<br />
<br />
You've probably noticed I'm not on Twitter or on the blog much any more. I started a job about 4 weeks ago. I'm having a really good time, I'm working from home testing things and evaluating stuff for Google (can't say much more than that I'm afraid). The conditions are great, I get to choose which hours I work and as long as I do more than 10 and less than 40 a week, I get to choose how many too. Unfortunately, when I can do something and have an incentive I will work like a fucking dog at it, so at the moment I'm trying to find a balance between working, writing and socialising. At the moment writing has really taken a back seat, since I'll spend four days of the week putting in 40 hours then need to spend the other three days doing literally nothing just to make my brain function again. I'm looking to redress this balance, but after 10 months of being unemployed my brain's in a cycle of 'EARN ALL THE MONIES! NOW SPEND ALL THE MONIES ON GIGS AND BEER!'.<br />
<br />
So yeah, I don't know when I'll be back, but hopefully soon, because I miss writing and I miss everyone on Twitter. In the meanwhile, I've not turned my back on politics or activism, I just don't really have time to discuss them. I'm currently organising a Clit Rock gig to benefit <a href="http://www.dofeve.org/index.html">Daughters Of Eve</a> which will be in <a href="http://www.facebook.com/events/426087944091963/">Brighton on August 5th</a> and going to some <a href="http://smashedo.org.uk/">Smash EDO</a> demos, as well as other various causes. I'm also in talks with a UK-based feminist group to do some fundraising for them and starting to get more involved at the <a href="http://www.cowleyclub.org.uk/">Cowley Club</a>. Finally, I'm looking to start publishing some vegan recipe zines soon, so if you're interested in that, hit me up.<br />
<br />
If you need to get in touch with me or just fancy a chat, I'm immediately alerted to any @-mentions on <a href="https://twitter.com/TheNatFantastic">Twitter</a>, comments posted here or anything on the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/FortyShadesOfGrey">Forty Shades</a> Facebook page, so I haven't disappeared off the face of the earth.<br />
<br />
Be excellent to each other, and I hope to see you all soon.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-5568031786404692392012-06-17T09:43:00.001-07:002012-06-21T06:04:01.786-07:00A small FAQ on anarchismHey readers. Sorry for the lack of content recently, I've been working hard on transcribing all the talks from Intersect (which can be found <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers">here</a>), and in more shocking news, I've been offered a job which starts tomorrow. So yay that. Hopefully I can return to blogging a bit more regularly when I'm settled in with the job and everything.<br />
<br />
A couple of weeks ago I wrote <a href="http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/so-youre-not-one-of-those-feminists.html">a post</a> in which I castigated myself for not explaining my views and opinions in easily accessible ways, and said I was going to try do a bit more to explain myself and try educate people beyond my bubble about ideas and theories. Last week, someone asked me if they could pick my brains about some questions they had about anarchism. I agreed and we exchanged emails. With her permission, I've decided to reproduce the emails here because the sort of questions she was asking are ones I hear a lot, and I thought they might be useful for other people to look at. Quick disclaimers first - I'm not saying these are comprehensive answers, I've reproduced the emails without editing or adding anything in and I was answering the email when I was somewhat pressed for time. These answers can only be read as my personal opinions and ideas and not automatically ascribed to anyone else, I'm not trying to speak for all anarchists everywhere.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Hello Nat, </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions, I really appreciate it! I'm sorry if they come across a bit silly, I am pretty new to political theory, just trying to make sense of it all. If you can explain quite simply that would be brilliant because I'm still not quite sure of terminology. Determined to learn though. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I understand that essentially anarchy is absence of a government or a leader, but I don't understand how that would work. Obviously anarchists are not crazy, violent folk, but if there's no control whatsoever would that not put a huge amount of people at risk of violence, poverty etc? </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
How would we produce anything? Food being the no.1 priority, I suppose even if there is no moral obligation to farm crops people would still do it for themselves out of necessity. But what about the people that can't do work like that, disabled or without access to the materials that they need? It would be cool if it was mutually beneficial, so no one ends up starving in the street. Maybe I am thinking of communism. (Also assuming that in an anarchist world we are all vegan and so don't farm - or harm - animals. If we did then it wouldn't really be anarchy because there's still a hierarchy, am I wrong?) </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Also what about property? If there are no laws then surely no-one "owns" anything? With buildings and things I get it - no one should have to sleep on concrete when there's a house with a free bed 10 minutes away, so I'm all for buildings being usable by everyone. However, personal items like a box of teabags you just traded some carrots for, would that not 'belong' to you? If someone stole it, that would be a bit shit. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Perhaps I am getting entirely the wrong end of the stick! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
If you can recommend any books or articles that would be great. Thanks again for your time! </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Best wishes </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- J</blockquote>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Hi J, </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I'll try take your points in order, let me know if I miss anything or I'm not clear.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Anarchy's not just the absence of a government or a leader, it's the belief that the only true democracy we can have is one in which everyone has a voice. To start at the very beginning, there are various types of anarchism, and some which actually do have the flaws that you're raising. For example, anarcho-capitalism (yes, really) is basically the belief that everyone should just go their own way without government interference and if someone fails, well that's too bad for them. This is basically just Ayn Rand style Economic Libertarianism under another name, and it sucks. Another very problematic strand of anarchism is anarcho-primitivism, which doesn't account for people's medical needs, and that also sucks.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I'd say I'm an anarcho-communist, which is probably the most popular 'type' of anarchist. Usually if people say they're an anarchist, they mean they're an anarcho-communist and will specify with the use of a different suffix if they're not that. In this email, when I just refer to 'anarchism', I mean 'anarcho-communism'. Anarcho-communism is basically what you were alluding to, it's communism but without leaders. The way this works is through the use of meetings and collective organisation. So, for example, there's a general meeting of all the people in the group, which will make broad decisions (i.e. 'we need to re-tile the loos in the social centre, we need to organise a demo about X cause, we need to make food to serve at the film night and we need to update the Y campaign website'). The general group will come to agreements about basically how to tackle those things, then will split off into smaller groups which handle the in-depth work and decision making. You can see this type of organisation in anarchist communities already, there's anarchist social centres in lots of major cities who organise together and try to create spaces away from the influence of government and the state. So, collective housing, community allotments, fundraising events, protests, skill-teaching classes, etc., which are all done according to anarchist principles and consensus decision making in order to create mutual and community benefit.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
One important thing to realise about anarchism is that it's not designed so that all of the people in the country make all the decisions about everything. It's designed to work in small communities, who may work together if it's mutually beneficial - for example, several communities could get together to run a hospital which they all use, because there wouldn't be enough people with the knowledge to do it in one community.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Secondly, you raise the concern about violence and people not following moral obligations. Just because there's no state-mandated law doesn't mean there'd be no rules or no consequences for breaking them. Consider other places that aren't run by the state, like a book club or something. There are minimum expectations on you, say that you'd at least read the book and bring a bottle of wine to the group, and if you consistently don't even do that, you won't be welcome back. Well if you consistently didn't do what you could to help or attacked someone, you could be ostracised by the community (at worst, obviously there'd be levels of stuff in between that). </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
You also raise the question of ill and disabled people. Well, if we recall the old Marxist slogan, 'from each according to his ability to each according to his needs'. That still holds true if there's no leaders. No one would be expected to do something they were incapable of when there's loads of other ways they could help contribute. There are a couple of other points to make here: firstly, a lot of what we think of when we think about 'disability' is actually imposed by society - for example, poor accessibility to public spaces means people can't get around outside the house or the inflexibility of working means that people can't get jobs where, for example, they could take a two hour break to sleep every three hours. We can realise this, plan around it and change it, which would enable people to do more things than they do now. Secondly, on treatment-based healthcare and associated issues, there's a lot of questioning of anarchism which is along the lines of 'but where would we get doctors?'. Moving into a society based around collectivism wouldn't mean we'd lose knowledge, it would just mean knowledge wouldn't rest solely in the hands of those who can afford it. We'd still have higher education, skill-sharing and learning, they just wouldn't cost £9k a year. We'd still be able to develop medicine, it just wouldn't then be patented to be sold off to only rich people. With the specific examples of medical doctors, we could have people who are trained to the level of the average doctor now, but we could also have people who are trained in treating minor illnesses/accidents, which wouldn't take as long and could be more widespread knowledge.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
On the assumption that we'd all be vegan, I'd tend to agree with you - there's a strong representation of vegans in the anarchist movement, and most anarchist social centres I'm aware of are vegan-only (meaning that all the food etc on the premises is vegan, not that you have to be a vegan to step foot in it!). However, I also know that there are anarchists who disagree with veganism as a central tenet, because they only concern themselves with human hierarchies. I disagree strongly with them, but I'd consider that a small community keeping chickens and a couple of cows is possibly an acceptable compromise between full veganism and the industry-scale factory farming we have now.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
On individual property, yeah, I see your point, but I'd distinguish between carrots and teabags and, for example, things like CDs or a scarf. The reason I make this distinction is that if you've got collective farms and allotments and suchlike, the food and associated stuff it belongs to everyone, so you just wouldn't have the situation you described, if that makes sense? I'm not saying it's all communal cooking for the whole group all the time, but I'd compare it to an anarchist group I know in Brighton who grow loads of veg, and they've squatted a shop and people just come and take what they need. With regards to stuff like CDs and scarves, I don't think it's something that would be endemic or more common than usual, like, if your friends come to your house now they wouldn't just start pinching things. People are a lot better at sharing than we give ourselves credit for, we lived in communities like the ones that I've described for hundreds of thousands of years, capitalism is a mere dot in comparison. And, as I said above, no government =/= no rules or consequences.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I hope that answers your questions, feel free to email me any follow-ups if you want. I've got a busy few days coming up but will try get back to you when I can. I didn't really have any pertinent point to include these above, but I'd also like to mention a couple of other 'types' of anarchism. Firstly, anarcha-feminism, which is what I'd primarily consider myself. This is basically the same as anarcho-communism but makes special note of the oppressive role that gender inequality plays in our lives, and that we must get rid of that before we have a truly hierarchy-free society. Secondly, anarcho-syndicalism is fairly popular and not mutually exclusive from anarcho-communism. I'm not totally au fait with it, but it's basically collective organisation of workers and not having bosses. The wiki page on that can probably tell you more than I can: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism"><span class="s1">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism</span></a> </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Finally, on books and websites I'll have to get back to you later, especially with books. My partner knows a lot more about that stuff (and even sells some) so I'll ask him and let you know. I hate reading political theory, I much prefer just talking about it and learning that way!</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p3">
Nat<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE: </b>Chris from <a href="http://zinecore.co.uk/">Good Lookin' South</a> has provided this list of books and websites on anarchism:<br />
<br />
<b>Books:</b><br />
<br />
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><a href="http://www.zinecore.co.uk/distro/work">Work - Crimethinc</a></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">A critique of capitalism</span></div>
<div class="p3">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><a href="http://www.zinecore.co.uk/distro/everything-you-wanted-to-know">Everything you wanted to know about anarchism, but were afraid to ask…</a></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Basic primer on anarchist concepts and FAQs</span></div>
<div class="p3">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b><a href="http://www.afed.org.uk/publications/pamphlets-booklets/163-introduction-to-anarchist-communism.html">Introduction to Anarchist Communism - Anarchist Federation</a></b></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1">Really good introduction to anarcho-communism, covers history, concepts and deeds in a fair bit of detail, without being too heavy going</span></div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p3">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><b>Websites:</b></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s3"><a href="http://www.crimethinc.com/">Crimethinc</a></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span class="s1"><a href="http://www.afed.org.uk/">Anarchist Federation</a></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s3"><a href="http://libcom.org/">Libcom</a></span></div>
<div class="p2">
<span class="s3"><a href="http://www.schnews.org.uk/">Schnews</a></span></div>
</div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-17470400294926581042012-06-05T05:39:00.002-07:002012-06-06T22:40:05.895-07:00CeCe McDonald<br />
<div class="p1">
CeCe McDonald is an American trans woman of colour who was yesterday sentenced to three years and five months in a male prison in Minneapolis for manslaughter by negligence. CeCe was arrested after her and her friends were subject to a brutal attack by a group of white people outside a bar. They began by hurling racist and transphobic slurs at CeCe and her friends and when CeCe objected, one of the group smashed their glass into CeCe's face, which punctured her cheek all the way through to the salivary gland. CeCe tried to run away and was pursued by her attackers. A fight ensued and in this fight one of her attackers was fatally stabbed with a pair of scissors CeCe carried in her handbag. CeCe was originally charged with second-degree murder, but accepted a plea bargain by admitting to manslaughter, because she didn't want to run the risk of a 40-year jail sentence.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I've set up a Google group to start two letter writing campaigns - one to send letters to CeCe to remind her she's not alone, and one to write to other groups/individuals to campaign for her release. If you'd like to join, it can be found <a href="http://groups.google.com/group/cece-mcdonald-letter-writing?hl=en">here</a>.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Here's some other links to details of CeCe's case and other projects to get involved with. I'm doing this very quickly because I'm quite busy, so if you have any other good resources, please feel free to put the links in the comments: </div>
<div class="p1">
</div>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://supportcece.wordpress.com/about-2/background/">SupportCeCe.wordpress.com</a></li>
<li><a href="http://freececemcdonald.tumblr.com/">FreeCeCeMcDonald.tumblr.com</a></li>
<li><a href="http://transplantportation.com/2012/06/04/what-the-cece-mcdonald-sentencing-says-to-me/">transplantportation.com</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.blackandpink.org/revolt/cece-mcdonald-sentenced/">blackandpink.org</a></li>
</ul>
<strike><b>UPDATE: </b>A Change.org petition has been created to urge the state to transfer CeCe to a women's prison. I know how people feel about the effectiveness of online petitions, but here's the link anyway. It only takes two minutes to sign and might be worth a punt.</strike><br />
<strike><br /></strike><br />
<b>UPDATE 2: </b>The Change.org petition has been stopped at the request of CeCe's official campaign team, so I've removed the link above (thanks Daz for reminding me). However, if you go to the <a href="http://supportcece.wordpress.com/">official Support CeCe</a> website, on the left hand bar are instructions for sending letters to CeCe and a link to donate to the campaign.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-80155835038270118572012-05-30T13:40:00.003-07:002012-05-30T13:40:55.009-07:00So you're 'not one of those feminists'?Today I saw a blogpost written by someone who was clearly just getting into feminism, and something in it made me very mad for a bit. It doesn't matter what the post was or who said it, because this isn't a call-out or a rage piece. You see, after a few hours I started thinking about it again, and <i>yes</i> what the blogger had said was wrong and <i>yes </i>it directly insulted me and lots of people I know and <i>yes </i>it played into big stupid patriarchy-holes and blah blah blah, but I kind of realised that (on this occasion) anger wasn't the answer. Explaining was.<br />
<br />
Because I too was once like that blogger. Well, not <i>that</i> blogger, but we all have to start somewhere and we all have to learn things and no one gets it right first time, and this is why the internet is so great. We can read pieces written for people like us by people like us instead of dreary academic tomes on the nature of kyriarchy or whatever. YAY INTERNETZ.<br />
<br />
A lot of my beliefs are so far from the mainstream that it's hard to even explain them to newbies, and it's bloody frustrating to try for the eight-hundredth time why CAPITALISM IS BAD M'KAY and so on, so I kind of rarely bother. Most of my readership by now know me and know what I mean when I talk about the kind of weighty issues surrounding feminism, intersectionality, anarchism or whatever I'm rambling about on a given day and so I don't have the impetus to word my posts in ways everyone can understand, and that is <b>not cool of me</b>. I've always tried to link to definitions when I first use a word from the social justice lexicon that people might not have come across, but I shouldn't get mad that not everyone can understand me immediately, I should be more accessible.<br />
<br />
Which is why I am not shouting at this blogger or any other blogger who says similar things.<br />
<br />
I've always advocated giving people a chance to show their true colours in potential call-out situations. You know, asking them to not, e.g. say the word 'retard' and <a href="http://www.schuylersmonsterblog.com/2011/05/just-word.html?m=1">explain why</a>, then go full on RAGE if they object. I'm usually pleasantly surprised, and I'm not surprised by the people I'm not surprised by, if that makes sense? *side-eyes Vagenda and Jezebel*<br />
<br />
Anyway, introductions aside, I'd like to do a bit of a <a href="http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/">Feminism 101</a> today. Maybe that blogger will see this, probably she won't, but other people who were about to say or have said the same thing (it's shockingly common) <i>will </i>see it and think 'Yeah actually, Nat has a fair point there and also she likes cats so I'll trust her on this and stop saying it'.<br />
<br />
Here is a picture of a cat to prove I mean SRS BSNS:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/7/20/e7428b1a-a92f-4265-89a8-b2bb67f274d3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/7/20/e7428b1a-a92f-4265-89a8-b2bb67f274d3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So today we will be discussing why it's wrong to say things like </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b>"Yeah, I'm a feminist, but I'm not like, a shaven-headed, hairy legged lesbian bra-burning one."</b></blockquote>
This is wrong for several reasons, and I'll try to address them as best I can. Firstly, there's the glaring historical inaccuracy - <a href="http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.asp">the burning bra thing is a lie</a>. If you are going to smear the more radical actions of a group, at least make them historically accurate please. Also, you had better have a good definition of what is 'too radical' because that vote you have? Won by suffragettes who <a href="http://www.counterfire.org/index.php/articles/75-our-history/7697-the-suffragettes-black-friday-and-the-two-types-of-window-smashing">smashed windows</a>, <a href="http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cat_and_mouse_act.htm">went on hunger strike</a> and <a href="http://www.badreputation.org.uk/2011/09/12/revolting-women-the-ju-jutsuffragettes/">taught themselves ju-fucking-jitsu in order to fight the police</a>. So, you know, radicalism isn't half bad sometimes, especially when it comes to winning basic human rights.<br />
<br />
So now that we have our short feminist history lesson out of the way, let's address the rest of the statement...<br />
<br />
When you say 'I'm not a shaven-headed, hairy legged lesbian', what you're doing is two things that roll into one big bad thing. Thing one is that you're implying that those of us who shave our hair (or bits of it), or don't shave our legs or are fond of shagging other women don't have legitimate viewpoints and shouldn't be listened to. That what we have to say isn't valid because we're just big weirdos who are probably wearing silly trousers and everything. This is where Thing two comes in, and just like in the Doctor Seuss novel they work together to mess everything up and leave before your parents come home. Like gits. Anyway, torturous metaphors aside, this is also bad because you're buying into an INCREDIBLY patriarchal and misogynist idea which is doing feminism, and so YOU SPECIFICALLY, no favours whatsoever.<br />
<br />
Because what you are doing is reducing women - all women, yourself included - into People Who Men (And Patriarchal Society At Large) Deem Fuckable and People They Do Not. What this does is implies that a) this is a correct and good legitimate thing to do and b) only people in the first group deserve to be treated like human beings.<br />
<br />
This is a BAD THING.<br />
<br />
To start with, who gets to say who's fuckable? Dominant trends and concepts of desirability vary wildly through history and different cultures - hell, even in a matter of decades tastes and concepts change. Still think this is the definitive level of hot?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/29978529/Nick+Carter++10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/29978529/Nick+Carter++10.jpg" width="292" /></a></div>
<br />
Thought not. But it illustrates my point. Actually, even if you DO think mid-1990s Nick Carter is still in full possession of the sexyum, it proves my point, because it's rare to see people with hair like that now, so even if your tastes haven't changed, you can see how our society's tastes have.<br />
<br />
And why should any of us have to justify our rights because someone doesn't particularly want to stick their penis in us? I mean, there's plenty of men I wouldn't want to sex up, but I still support their right to a basic standard of living. No one thinks men are lesser people if they don't want to fuck them, yet here we still are having to make sure we're boner-ific before someone will deign to give us a job or listen to anything we have to say. Which is very much something feminism, and you as a feminist, should be concerned about.<br />
<br />
Whether someone is hairy or smooth, pretty (according to your and society's subjective standards) or not, long head-haired or short head-haired or paints themselves bright fucking blue and wears ponchos on the weekends, they still have thoughts, opinions, feelings and rights which they deserve to have listened to.<br />
<br />
So please stop apologising for being a feminist, and stop trying to justify being one by essentially saying 'I'm a feminist but you can still stick your penis in me!', because reducing women to objects who can be fucked never did us any favours.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>I'm giving this about three comments before someone tells me they don't want to stick their penis in me so therefore I am a) wrong about everything and b) jealous and hate sex, thus proving my point perfectly.</i></span>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-19674258917779300102012-05-21T04:41:00.003-07:002012-06-17T09:05:26.365-07:00Intersect, Bristol 2012<br />
<div class="p1">
Last Saturday saw the (possibly inaugural) <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/">Intersect conference</a> in Bristol, which was a feminist conference featuring speakers from different communities discussing the intersecting oppressions they face and what we, as feminists and allies, should be aware of and what we can possibly do to help them. Before I talk about the day and the fantastic speakers we had, I'd like to talk about why I decided to put on Intersect, and the logistics of actually doing it, in the hope that it encourages others to do the same.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
About six months ago, I applied for a job with a well-known feminist organisation where one of the roles would be to organise talks, conferences and other events. I really liked the idea of it and started thinking about the kind of things I'd like to put on, but also started thinking about the problems I'd had with feminist conferences in the past, which had put me off attending*. I didn't get an interview for the job, but the ideas I'd had wouldn't leave. Now that I'd thought about My Super-Ideal Feminist Conference, I wanted to make it happen. I wanted to see a space which a) wasn't based in London, b) was explicitly intersectional and didn't exclude anyone on any grounds but instead promoted them and gave them a platform and c) went some way towards making people aware of and tackling some of the biggest problems facing women and didn't feel rooted in academia or theory.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I began to consider the logistics of organising such an event myself. There were several barriers to overcome, but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a good idea. There's a lot to be said for pointing out problems, but a lot more to be said for doing the best you can to get off your arse and offer a solution. So I mooted the idea on Twitter to gauge people's interests, and it all seemed really positive. Now that I knew there was a desire for such an event, I started looking into doing it. I've got a fair background in gig organisation and promoting, so I started thinking about it from that perspective. The first step was to find a venue. At the time, I was living in Bristol so it seemed obvious to hold it there - there's a great <a href="http://www.bristolfeministnetwork.com/">feminist community</a> in place, so I knew people who'd offer help and advice too. I searched the internet and asked people I knew for suggestions about venues. Eventually I stumbled across the perfect place -<a href="http://www.hamiltonhouse.org/"> Hamilton House</a> in Stokes Croft. It's a fully-accessible, non-profit community space which was very much in keeping with my desire to have a relaxed setting where people could discuss their lived realities comfortably and not feel like they were being incredibly formal. Also it is attached to one of my favourite pubs.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Here came the first stumbling block - I needed a 50% deposit to secure the room, and I was on the dole. So, buoyed by the interest that people had expressed in the event, I put out an appeal to crowdsource the deposit. I gave it two weeks to reach the required amount, and said that if we didn't get it, I'd accept the lack of interest and scrap the whole idea. Thanks to people's incredible generosity, I reached the target in six hours. Obviously this meant I was now totally committed to the event which was terrifying, but also tremendously exciting.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I began to look into groups that I'd like to see speak at the conference. The basic idea had always been to give a platform to women who faced intersecting oppressions that I and many others are privileged enough not to face, in order for us to learn and to push towards making feminism more accessible to all. I began researching and speaking to several groups I had particular interest in, as well as people who didn't represent any specific group but faced intersecting oppressions because of their identity as women as well as another factors. I already knew <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/daughters-of-eve">Nimco Ali</a>, <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/ariel-silvera">Ariel Silvera</a> and <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/paris-lees">Paris Lees</a>. A call-out on Twitter provided me with <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/emma-round">Emma Round</a> and <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/becki">Becki</a>, and after asking <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/kate-smurthwaite">Kate Smurthwaite</a> to host, she put me in touch with <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers/women-asylum-seekers-together">Women Asylum Seekers Together</a>. A dream team was born, and I can't thank these women enough for their dedication and tremendous talks.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
So eventually I'd found enough people who were able and willing to share their stories and experiences to fill a day's worth of talks. There were groups and people I'd have loved to have seen talk who weren't able to make it, which is part of the reason that, despite the hard work, I wouldn't rule out holding another one. So many tremendously important stories and ideas were shared on Saturday, but we only scratched the surface.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
After this, I needed to sell tickets. I created <a href="http://www.facebook.com/IntersectConference">Facebook</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/INTERSECTcon">Twitter</a> and email accounts for the event, so I could provide people with information and ways to contact me. My partner Chris designed a logo and a website and sorted all the techy things that I have no idea how to do, and we were off.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
But this wasn't it by a long shot. As mentioned above, I wanted to make the event as accessible as I could, and just making sure a wheelchair could get into the venue doesn't automatically mean you've catered for all people with disabilities! Chris managed to find a way we could livestream the event and record it for people to watch later (<a href="http://bambuser.com/channel/intersect">available here</a>**), which meant that those who couldn't attend could still participate and hear what was being said. I continued to take donations so I could make the ticket prices as low as possible so as not to economically exclude anyone, and spoke to a local friend who works with women in extreme economic difficulty to offer them some free places. I tried my hardest to source some British Sign Language interpreters, but was unsuccessful, so I've also provided transcriptions of each speaker's talks on their pages on the <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/speakers">Intersect website</a>. We also live-tweeted the event and used the hashtag <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/search/realtime/%23intersect">#INTERSECT</a> on Twitter to enable people to see what was being said and offer their own contributions from home. I don't list what I did in order to give myself a pat on the back, and I know I'm not perfect. I'm just trying to demonstrate what I feel we should be aiming to do all the time, and welcome suggestions as to how I can improve. </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
My final big task was to compile a programme, in which I also included articles on the topic of feminism and intersectionality from other groups and individuals - Women's Views on News, s e smith and Black Feminists UK all contributed to this. I wanted to do this to allow voices other than attendees and speakers a place at the conference. These articles are <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/blog">available on the Intersect website</a>, along with my introductory piece, but if anyone would like a physical copy of the programme, I have a few left, so please get in touch.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Finally, six months of work came to a head as Saturday rushed towards me. I had some great volunteers helping, my mum came down from Bradford, an attendee called Syca offered to lend whatever help necessary on the day and Chris was his every-generous self, sorting out all the tech issues and calming me down as much as possible (by 08.30 I was so stressed that I'd already burst into tears because there was some stuff I'd forgotten to do and I couldn't get a cup of tea. Both issues were rectified quickly though). </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Eventually, we'd all settled in and Kate opened the conference, talking about the need to talk about the issues we'd be discussing on the day as they are 'the coalface' of feminism, which is exactly the way I feel. She then introduced Nimco, who with typical flair and enthusiasm discussed the problem of FGM and the difficulty of stopping it, with focus on girls in the UK who are at risk of it. After Nimco came Emma, who delivered a wonderful talk on the rights of disabled people and how feminism can exclude a lot of women with disabilities, whether consciously or unconsciously. She also discussed the issues facing people with disabilities as a result of the government's austerity measures and the media's demonisation of them with the 'scrounger' rhetoric. After that, I read a piece from my friend Becki about her experiences of trying to escape an abusive relationship as a disabled single mother of five. After lunch, two women who are involved with WAST spoke heartbreakingly about their experience of the asylum system. Ariel followed them, talking about trans and queer rights in Ireland, and the place of trans people in activist circles. Finally, Paris discussed her work as a trans rights activist with Trans Media Watch, Trans Media Act and META mag.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
I couldn't have asked for better speakers. They all opened our eyes and really helped us see what we need to be fighting against. I knew vaguely what to expect from them, but the information they gave to us was shocking. More than anything, it absolutely hammered home the point that "<a href="http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/10/10/my-feminism-will-be-intersectional-or-it-will-be-bullshit/">our feminism will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit</a>".</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
And that was that. I couldn't be more grateful to everyone who spoke, helped, donated, attended, watched online or just took notice of what happened on Saturday. I left knowing just how much we have to fight, but also just how damn important it is that we do, and that we can do it!</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Some people have asked me about putting on another event, or talked about putting on their own conferences, and I'd really encourage them to do that. I'm happy to help out in any way I can - even happy for people to use the Intersect name and branding to do so, as long as they keep to the spirit of the original. If you're interested in doing this, drop me a line at conference@intersect.org.uk and I'll give you as much or as little help as you need.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>*I'm not saying no feminist conference does this, because there are some great events out there. Just not enough of them.</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>**Except Nimco's speech, which is transcript only.</i></span></div>
<div class="p1">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br /></i></span></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-39681986441327299942012-05-09T04:41:00.000-07:002012-05-09T04:41:02.109-07:00On Laura Gabel and transphobia in 'alternate' scenesThe singer of Against Me! has come out as transgender in an interview with <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-gabel-of-against-me-comes-out-as-transgender-20120508">Rolling Stone</a>. She announced she's about to start hormone and electrolysis therapy soon and wishes to be known as Laura Jane Grace, and will remain married to her wife Heather. YAY HER.<br />
<br />
I mean, we don't need to know all that. I don't really care about her hormones or her hair or her relationship. All I need to know is her gender is female, and what pronouns she wants to use, so that if I'm writing something about her I get it correct. The rest of it is none of my damn business or yours.<br />
<br />
I'm thrilled for her that she's happy and that she's managed to come out and that her wife supports her. Hopefully her profile will make it easier for other people in her situation to feel able to come out, and make their transitioning easier because others are more aware of the issues.<br />
<br />
Hopefully.<br />
<br />
But then I made the mistake of going below the line on PunkNews (I'm not linking to it, because fuck PunkNews), and my hopes... didn't so much as wane as were beaten to death with a big stick. When I looked, there were around 500 comments, each falling into one of five categories. I'll list them and discuss them separately:<br />
<br />
Firstly, there were some good comments. And by 'good comments' I mean 'fully supportive <b>and</b> used correct pronouns'. Unfortunately, there weren't many of those, but they were definitely there. Secondly were the people who were broadly supportive but kept saying 'he, him, s/he?' etc. This was probably about half of the commenters. I get it, you think this is a Good Thing, but it really isn't fucking hard to say 'she', or whatever the person wishes. I know not everyone is clued up on trans issues, and at least you're trying...but you don't get a cookie.<br />
<br />
Then cometh the trolls. The first camp under the bridge <i>insisted</i> on referring to her as 'he', because <a href="http://freethoughtblogs.com/nataliereed/2012/03/28/bilaterally-gynandromorphic-chickens-and-why-im-not-scientifically-male/">BIOLOGY, YO</a>. The one's who were, y'know, just 'keeping it real' and telling the 'truth'. Cuz like, it's just 'not natural'. And as we all know, punks are all about natural. That's why none of them ever dye their hair, or get piercings and tattoos....OH NO WAIT.<br />
<br />
And then there were the second type, who were Against Me!'s 'biggest fans', but were either a) 'worried' that hormone therapy would make Laura's voice change and OH NOES WHAT SHALL WE EVER DO, THERE'S <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZxxhxjgnC0">NEVER</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkmLpTXbNDQ">BEEN</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLfDJxNbVRM&feature=relmfu">ANY</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV2S1NCED58">GOOD</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZfihHGjvxs">WOMEN</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWBxjT09Jhs">VOCALISTS</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b8zpkyT-As">IN</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogypBUCb7DA">PUNK</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyXGblps64M">EVER</a> or b) so totally fucking 'disgusted' that they just <i>wouldn't ever be able to listen to the music ever again</i>. Poor babies. Just to clarify, here are some good reasons to be so disgusted you don't want to listen to music you enjoy: the singer is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist/a capitalist, and you find their views so objectionable it stops you enjoying their music (see me and Amanda Palmer). Here are shit reasons to stop listening to music you enjoy: you give a fuck about what's in the singer's pants. GROW UP. Newsflash: If a singer's gender identity stops you being a band's 'biggest fan', you're not their biggest fan.<br />
<br />
And finally, we had the dudebros who managed to make this all about <i>their</i> dicks. Now, amazingly, these people managed to (presumably unintentionally) completely transcend cissexism, and just go straight back to regular sexism. You see, the problem these guys have, the deep, burning problem that's just so <i>fucking great that they must shout about it on the internet</i> is that <b>they won't fancy Laura as a woman</b>. Someone call Amnesty International, this is truly the greatest human rights violation of our time. Apparently unconcerned with Laura's face/clothes/body when they thought she was a dude, this is now what is actually important. Because as we all know, women only get into punk for bonerification purposes, and if a woman does not immediately make the crotch of your jeans burst open at its seams, she's not doing her job.<br />
<br />
So, a message to anyone who recognises themselves in those latter categories:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MbbqY8deD8Q/T6pVziz5K4I/AAAAAAAAAI8/gQ68PlQ64CA/s1600/Photo+on+2012-05-09+at+12.31+%232.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MbbqY8deD8Q/T6pVziz5K4I/AAAAAAAAAI8/gQ68PlQ64CA/s320/Photo+on+2012-05-09+at+12.31+%232.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Punk's supposed to be about tolerance, acceptance and embracing other people's lifestyles, and more than anything - it's about <i>choice</i>. If you're going to be a shit to people because of their gender, their sexuality, or any other expression of themselves, you're about as punk as Nick Clegg. Ooh, you want to preserve 'traditional' repressive notions of fixed binary gender roles, how fucking radical. Go fucking cut your hair, start listening to Skrillex and shit off out of my scene, you posers.</div>
<br />
<br />Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-12960702719976606572012-05-03T08:43:00.000-07:002013-09-30T00:30:10.848-07:00Who are the men's rights activists?Today I saw a BBC article titled <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17907534">Who are the men's rights activists?</a>. It contains interviews with several MRAs on the so-easily-refutable-it's-dull pressures they perceive themselves to be facing thanks to the lady-fascist gynotopia they reckon they're living in, including 'men always lose custody of their children' (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/02/shared-custody-laws-dangerous?CMP=twt_gu">no they don't</a>), 'men are more likely to be victims of violence' (at the hands of other men), and 'men are more likely to be conscripted into the military' (by other men because women are perceived as too weak).<br />
<br />
Special mention has to go to the seemingly indefatigable Tom Martin, the man who <a href="http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2012/mar/court-rejects-student-tom-martin%E2%80%99s-claim-anti-male-bias-london-school-economics">spectacularly failed</a> to sue the LSE for 'sexism against men' earlier this year. Tom's got some fairly interesting ideas when it comes to discrimination against men, including '<a href="http://manboobz.com/2012/03/16/tom-martins-anti-male-discrimination-case-against-the-london-school-of-economics-dismissed-he-responds-by-calling-his-critics-whores/">hard chairs are a feminazi conspiracy against men</a>', '<a href="http://manboobz.com/2012/03/20/highlights-of-tom-martins-recent-visit-to-man-boobz-keywords-london-school-of-economics-lawsuit-tossed-out-whore/">Saudi Arabian men are victims of the lazy whore Saudi women</a>' and '<a href="http://manboobz.com/2012/03/23/fuck-your-civil-rights-you-lying-whores-yet-more-words-of-wisdom-from-tom-sexismbuster-martin/">women who don't know who their baby's father is should be sent to the gulag</a>'. Believe me, I'm missing a lot of his other views out there, including 'female penguins are whores' (see second link). So, what utterly traumatic event happened to young Tom to make the scales fall from his eyes to realise we're living in a whoriarchy (his word!)? Well, brace yourselves:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 1.077em; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-rendering: auto;">
He says he was radicalised while working as a barman in a club in Soho. "I could see that male customers were being abused at every point," he says.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 1.077em; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-rendering: auto;">
Men had to queue and often pay while women got in free. They were goaded by bouncers to leave, while women were treated with respect. But worst of all, he believes they were used by women to buy drinks.</div>
<div>
</div>
</blockquote>
THE HORROR. I mean... I.... the POOR MAN. Where will the scandal of women being allowed into clubs free because they're seen as bait to entice men in end? If you thought it was with the poor lads offering to buy women drinks in order to get into their knickers, you're sadly mistaken. As Tom continues:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div id="story_continues_4" style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 1.077em; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-rendering: auto;">
"Since the pill, women have been told they can and should be having orgasms. And because they haven't been, they categorise that as men's fault."</div>
<div style="background-color: white; clear: left; color: #333333; font-family: Arial, Helmet, Freesans, sans-serif; font-size: 1.077em; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 18px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-rendering: auto;">
He concludes that "it's women's job to make themselves sexually happy, it's not a man's burden.</div>
</blockquote>
Those bitches, wanting sex to be enjoyable for all concerned. Those evil, evil harpies. Now, far be it from me to pass comment on someone's sexual prowess (but I'm totally going to), it's not a conspiracy against Tom that he apparently can't make women come. Most people, if they realised their partners weren't enjoying themselves, would talk to their partner and discuss what their needs were. See if there was any way they could improve. Work on their techniques. Maybe get a new partner who they were more compatible with. But no, Tom just (apparently) screams 'FUCK YOU, YOU WHORE. THIS IS YOUR PROBLEM, NOT MINE', and that's women's fault. Somehow.<br />
<br />
Now, it should be pretty self-evident that Tom Martin and those of his ilk are boring, self-entitled whiny nitwits who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag filled with scissors. But do I think that's true for all of those campaigning for men's issues? Of course not. Big props go to the seemingly only sensible man mentioned in the BBC's article, An Broc, who is founding a men's refuge in Ohio. That's great. Men can be victims of intimate partner violence and they shouldn't be afraid to speak up and get help. The fact that this is apparently the first men-only shelter in the US is a scandal (as far as I'm aware, usual procedure is for women's shelters to provide a man with a hotel room, which gives him an escape but doesn't get him access to other services provided by the refuge).<br />
<br />
But people like Broc are a tiny, tiny minority in the festering bog of misogyny known as the 'Men's Rights Movement'. This is literally the first positive thing I can think of someone described as a 'men's rights activist' having done. Because all I have ever seen of them is a group of laughable bigots who think that not holding women as property is the biggest affront to human rights since WWII. A check on <a href="http://manboobz.com/">Manboobz.com</a> provides daily updates of the streams of hatred towards women - often so extreme that the SPLC have named the MRM as a <a href="http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women">hate group</a>.<br />
<br />
The MRM as a whole manages to hold extremely hypocritical, disgusting views on women - we're apparently simultaneously entitled cunts who steal men's jobs and should be kept in the kitchen or the bedroom, and lazy bitches who are living off our partner's dime while he breaks his back at work. Sluts who are ruined after our first encounter with cock and so deserve to be raped, or teases who torture men by not sleeping with them and deserve to be raped. Women are demons who will 'murder' or 'kidnap' men's children and not give them any custodial access but also spermjacking hags who trick men into impregnating them and then live the high life by 'enslaving' the men into child support payments. Women secretly control the world and all the governments in it, all while being ridiculous, hysterical, over-emotional vagina-babies who are too stupid to breathe on their own, for the most part.<br />
<br />
I wish I was making this up. It's not even the half of it. I haven't even begun to mention 'all rape claims are false/women can have men locked up FOREVER on a whim' and shit like that. This is what they think 'men's rights' are. A gender war for the right to get their dick wet on demand. And the fact that the BBC is reporting them - a fucking <i>hate movement</i> - with any sense of legitimacy is fucking disgusting.<br />
<br />
When your fight for 'rights' boils down to 'WHY CAN'T I STARE AT WOMEN IN THE STREET WITHOUT BEING CALLED A CREEP?!? THAT'S <a href="http://manboobz.com/2011/11/13/showdown-mencallmethings-versus-the-catalogue-of-anti-male-shaming-tactics/">SHAMING LANGUAGE</a>, YOU MISANDRISTS', frankly you deserve to be laughed at. When it's 'PUBESCENT GIRLS DEVELOP EARLY JUST TO ENTRAP MEN INTO SLEEPING WITH THEM AND <a href="http://manboobz.com/2012/04/23/new-reddit-theory-underage-girls-develop-early-in-order-to-send-guys-to-prison/">SEND THEM TO JAIL</a>', you probably should be in jail. When your 'moderate' sites advocate that 'female babies should have their voiceboxes torn out at birth'...well, fuck. But no one in the MRM bats an eyelid. They all goad each other on instead. If a feminist blogger came out with this, they'd be condemned straight away - <i>by other feminists</i>.<br />
<br />
I'm all for tackling some of the shit that hits men. Western cultural notions of masculinity, like femininity, are pure bullshit. We should be tackling the endemic problem of prison rape. We should be offering help to men in danger of suicide. We should be fighting for shared parenting to become the norm. But it's not feminism or women's rights that's causing these things, it's the bullshit 'GRR I AM A MAN I DO MAN THINGS, MAN NO HAVE FEELINGS LIKE STUPID BITCH WOMEN' trope that lies at the fucking heart of the dolts in the MRM.<br />
<br />
<br />
TL;DR - until your movement actually pretends to give a shit about men instead of just whining on the internet about how rights should be taken away from women, you're not 'men's rights activists', you're whiny, nasty misogynists.<br />
<br />
<i>All links in this post, except the SPLC one, are from Manboobz.com, a site dedicated to mocking misogyny. There are two reasons for this: 1) it's a great site, with a brilliant set of well-informed and funny commenters, who are well worth reading, 2) I don't particularly want the scum I quote to find this blog and put me on the feminist equivalent of Redwatch (it does exist, it's called Register-Her and is dedicated to providing details of women they don't like to be used for harassment/stalking purposes). The links I have provided contain links to the original sources.</i>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com34tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-53920063364528766792012-04-29T06:20:00.000-07:002012-04-29T06:20:24.607-07:00Won't somebody think of the rich, white children?Today on Twitter I made a joke. Well, it wasn't really a joke, since it wasn't that funny. But it was said not-in-full-seriousness. What I said was "I saw a group of Hare Krishnas in town yesterday. They really shouldn't let white people who've 'found themselves' join. It's embarrassing". <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Maybe I shouldn't have put it that way. Twitter's 140-character limit really can be a bitch. Had I had unlimited characters I would have added "...because the appropriation of deeply-held spiritual beliefs, the othering of the 'exotic' and the fetishisation of poverty that accompanies these gap-yah twits is embarrassing".</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, people jumped down my throat because <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/apr/29/london-olympics-missiles-rooftops">the State is putting surface-to-air missiles on the top of residential blocks in order to protect some stupid overblown international Sports Day that we didn't even want</a> but thinking about that sounds hard and y'know, THINK OF THE RICH WHITE CHILDREN HERE, FOLKS! This is the <i>real</i> scandal.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So now I'm going to explain myself even further, in the hopes that some people will read this and realise that life really is too short to moan about how I portray some of, if not the most, privileged kids in society.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eKFjWR7X5dU" width="560"></iframe>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
People who go on gap years (see caveat) are usually terribly dull, well-off children who decide that the best way for them to experience life before university is to go off to far-flung places and patronise foreigners for a while on their parents' dime. Sure, that's not true of <i>all</i> of them, but in a world where the price of an education is rising exponentially for each year you don't go, plus the ridiculous debt once you have, plus there being <i>no fucking jobs</i>, and when they are, they're either ridiculously intense so demand all your time, or don't provide enough hours so you're still living at home eating beans on toast, I would suggest that there's not that many people paying for their own 'spiritual experience'. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And this is what really pisses me off. This is the crux of the matter. The idea that getting pissed and stoned on a beach in India is somehow totally different to doing it next to Filey Brig because it's 'totally spiritual, man'. When I hear things like that I give so much side-eye that I can see in to next week. Why is it more spiritual? Oh right, because you were surrounded by those 'mystical' 'exotic' foreigners with their deep, innate spirituality, instead of Karen from above the chippy. Can we see why I think this is bullshit? How about the idea that living on rice and beans for a dollar a day to be, like, in touch with the locals, is more 'spiritual' than someone who's living off ASDA smart-price noodles because they can't afford anything else? </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So bollocks to them, and bollocks to anyone that's going to be disingenuous enough to suggest that I'm propagating systems of discrimination by mentioning that 99.9% of these over-privileged younglings are white. I somehow doubt that one tweet from me is enough to buck the status quo and lead to them being arrested unfairly, denied jobs or housing, or being attacked in the street. But nice try, I bet you really feel you made a difference.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
(<b>caveat</b>: VSO placements and the like are not, for this purpose, 'gap years')</div>
<div>
<br /></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-14956001680824491672012-04-24T04:05:00.001-07:002012-04-25T09:05:19.814-07:00Brighton Punx Picnic 2012 - Review and RantLast weekend saw the second annual <a href="http://punxpicnic.wordpress.com/about-us/">Brighton Punx Picnic</a>, a three-day long gig featuring around 25 bands from all over the country. This year the event was raising money for the <a href="https://network23.org/snob/">Squatters Network Of Brighton</a>, Brighton Hunt Sabs and <a href="http://brightonantifascists.wordpress.com/">Brighton Anti Fascists</a>.<br />
<br />
It was a really good weekend, and massive props have to go to the organisers who managed to make the weekend go smoothly and made sure it was accessible to as many people as possible by implementing a strong <a href="http://www.zinecore.co.uk/blog/safe-spaces-at-shows">Safe Space policy</a> and installing wheelchair ramps in the venue (<a href="http://thehydrantbrighton.co.uk/">The Hydrant</a>). YAY THEM.<br />
<br />
There was also great vegan catering from members of The People's Kitchen and The Catering Arm Of The Revolution (if you're in Brighton and need something like that you can get in touch with George on 07707 559649 - highly recommended), and awesome distros from the likes of <a href="http://www.schnews.org.uk/index.php">Schnews</a> (including a great selection of DVDs from their offshoot, Schmovies) and <a href="http://smashedo.org.uk/">Smash EDO</a>. The weekend was unmarred - and perhaps even improved - by the <a href="http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/creeping-stupidity-day-racists-came-to.html">chance to embarrass a load of racists on the Sunday</a>.<br />
<br />
There were too many great bands to give them all a mention, but there were a few who really stood out for me -<br />
<br />
<a href="http://richieblitz.bandcamp.com/">Richie Blitz</a> - Anti-government folk punk. Basically like Frank Turner except Richie's really good.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/coponfireearth">Cop On Fire</a> - Belgian anarchist dub-punk featuring members from The Usual Suspects.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mattblackandtheemulsions.co.uk/">Matt Black And The Emulsions</a> - brilliantly energetic four-piece from Brighton who mix punk and hip-hop with politics and Buckfast for a great result.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/headjamuk">Headjam</a> - a long-running South London based dub-group with some metal bits and one of the best female vocalists I've heard in a while.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/primevalsoup">Primeval Soup</a> - Brighton band who sound like AOS3, Citizen Fish and Propagandhi had a vegan orgy in a squat and they were the baby that resulted.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<a href="http://www.myspace.com/spannersintheworks">Spanner</a> - militant anarcho-ska punk from Bristol with a great message and sound.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Sporadics/106988692674877">The Sporadics</a> - bouncy ska-punkers with a bit of dub from the South coast.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.innerterrestrials.co.uk/">Inner Terrestrials</a> - another dub-punk group (but trust me, they all sound different and they're all really good!). Probably the biggest genuinely DIY band on the UK scene.<br />
<br />
They all played stonking sets, you can follow the links for their music.<br />
<br />
Right, that's all the good stuff. Now it's time for a rant.<br />
<br />
I was seriously pissed off with a few people this weekend. A minority of people, thankfully - but way more than I'd want to deal with. I'm talking about the '<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Up%20the%20punx">up the punx</a>' types who don't give a shit about any of the politics or helping the scene in any way whatsoever, just proving how 'totes punk' they are. The thing is, it's not just not giving a shit - it's one thing to not be interested in politics, it's another entirely to actively try to ruin the work of people who are. It's one thing to not be able to/want to put gigs on or get involved in the legwork of the scene, it's another to act like such a fucking arsehole that the promoters who do put gigs on might not be able to in future.<br />
<br />
I'll illustrate what I'm talking about with a couple of examples - on Saturday a woman turned up wearing a jacket with a fox head on the hood and a tail on the back. Like, from an actual literal dead fox. To a huntsab benefit. There were people there who have dedicated their lives to stopping bloodsports, and she just blithely turned up like it wouldn't be a problem - even going so far as to act offended when people told her that it was sick, and claim that she was being 'attacked'. I mean, what the fucking fuck did she expect? Everyone to coo and tell her how lovely it was?<br />
<br />
There was also the guy who wasn't even attending who started complaining on Facebook about the safe space policy. The reason he wasn't attending? His band were kicked off the line-up last year for having a <a href="http://www.zinecore.co.uk/blog/rape-is-no-laughing-matter">song that promotes rape</a> (link to article about it, not the band/song). He then also pulled the 'it's much worse to say that we have a song that promotes rape than for us to actually promote rape, what about our safe space?'. OH POOR BABY.<br />
<br />
There was also the massive problem of people not respecting the venue. I'm not saying everyone should tiptoe round being quiet and well behaved - get drunk, put some stickers up, scrawl a bit of graffiti in the loos, that's not a problem. But for fuck's sake, don't break things just because you can and DO FUCKING NOT stuff a loo full of beer cans then piss and puke on them. I know you think you're totally edgy (body fluids! Ha!), but someone has to fucking clean that up. I tell you now, when you're being paid minimum wage, the last thing you should have to do is clean up after some snotty wanker who thinks they're better than you. The Hydrant is pretty much the only venue in Brighton for punk shows now, and if they get sick of us, what are we going to do?<br />
<br />
Here's the thing - be angry, be destructive, be snotty. But do it to people who deserve it, not the ones who are working their fucking arses off to keep you entertained and make the world a better place while you sit on your backside drinking Special Brew and joking about poo.<br />
<br />
As I said at the beginning of this piece, it was a great weekend and everyone involved deserves massive credit for it. I'm really looking forward to next year - I'm just hoping some people get a clue in the mean time.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-83072948588294773912012-04-23T07:45:00.000-07:002012-04-24T04:08:03.974-07:00Creeping Stupidity (the day the racists came to town)<i>This post was written with Chris from <a href="http://zinecore.co.uk/">Good Lookin' South</a>. It was a busy day yesterday, so we can only report what we saw. This article from <a href="http://www.schnews.org.uk/stories/FASH,-BANG,-WALLOP/">Schnews</a> mentions some things we didn't see.</i><br />
<i><br /></i><br />
The day started bright and early yesterday (by a Sunday's standards) when we arrived in Brighton city centre at half eleven in order to counter-demonstrate against the '<a href="http://stopmfe.wordpress.com/">March for England</a>' (who are basically the EDL in a bad wig). We met up with some like-minded anarchists and assorted anti-fascists at our tactically chosen meeting point of The Clock Tower at the bottom of Queen's Road, decided upon for its difficulty to kettle and central location meaning it was easy to quickly reach any of the possible routes the march was due to take, and were disappointed to only see about 30 anti-fascist demonstrators there. We had a quick sit down and a cigarette while we shared updates and sightings of police and fascist activity with some friends in other locations around the city and found out what was going on. While we were doing this, a very suspicious-looking woman with a long lens camera started taking pictures, ostensibly 'of the [police] horses', but unless any of us had police horses on our faces, I remain doubtful and await my imminent debut on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redwatch">Redwatch</a>. A few minutes later some friends passed us, trailing some known Portsmouth EDL faces. The EDL (about 3-5 of them) squared up to our friends when they realised, then settled down in the Wetherspoons on West Street, presumably to defend cheap lager and bacon butties from any roving <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPD8qHhtVU">Muslamic Ray Guns</a>.<br />
<br />
When we regrouped, we decided to go meet up with some more people we knew who were further up Queen's Road (closer to the fash's starting point of Brighton Station), and were heartened as we turned the corner to see about 400-500 counter-demonstrators lining both sides of the road, with <a href="http://uaf.org.uk/">UAF</a> (bless 'em) kettled right next to the station. We went as far up as we could without hitting police lines and waited for the racists to start their shuffle against Islamacism.<br />
<br />
Just before 1pm, with knuckles scraping gleefully on the floor and sunlight glinting off their heads, the March for England finally set off considerably later than they had intended. With the patriotic zeal that can apparently only be mustered by the imported lager they were swigging, around 90 of them came lurching out of the station, determined to defend our shores by wearing stupid 'English Flag' hats and trying to subtly sieg heil. This is not an action that lends itself very well to subtelty, incidentally.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-it10-2lWG9E/T5VGEhLDJPI/AAAAAAAAAIs/CePkj1qWwmU/s1600/acab.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="239" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-it10-2lWG9E/T5VGEhLDJPI/AAAAAAAAAIs/CePkj1qWwmU/s320/acab.jpg" width="320" /></a>When they set off, groups of anti-fascists ran into the road to try and block their path. In what can only be described as disgracefully heavy-handed facilitation of racists by the police (<i>quelle surprise</i>), mounted officers began chasing individual protesters with horses (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_iEH_BymDc&feature=youtu.be">video</a> from slightly further along than we were, showing just how bad the police were). One guy we met later in the day was chased by a horse then dragged aside by four cops who twatted him in the face with a baton, leaving a deep gash right next to his eye (see right - click picture to make it bigger and see just how bad it is).<br />
<br />
Those of us lining the road managed to get pretty close to the fash, so we were able to call them arseholes to their faces, which was nice. They were in a moving kettle, protected by a double line of police (including officers from Kent, Surrey, Thames Valley and the Met). We shouted 'racist scum, off our streets' and followed them along the route while they grinned and tried to rub two braincells together to come up with a chant of their own (I didn't hear them chanting once, all they were doing was telling anti-fash to 'fuck off' and grunting a bit). At one point on Queen's Road their lot were throwing bottles at counter-protestors, while officers with their back to them were threatening me for giving racists the finger.<br />
<br />
The march was unexpectedly re-routed down Church Street, which is about halfway down Queen's Road, to avoid the rest of the counter-demonstration. Thankfully, that area of the city is built in parallel blocks, so we were able to run down the next road and meet them. Church Street is fairly narrow, and again we trailed them, shouting and taking the piss out of them, while they showed considerable bravado from behind their publicly funded protection. One of their 'security' was trying to stare me down while his 'brave lads' sieg heiled behind him. He couldn't explain what nazism has to do with 'English pride', but I also doubt he could tie his own shoelaces without a map.<br />
<br />
All of a sudden, there was a bit of confusion, and we realised that a load of our lot had run ahead and had spontaneously constructed an impressive barricade of recycling bins and barriers across the width of the road. Which we were on the wrong side of. After some quick fence-hopping we had rectified this problem, only to face the hairiest part of the march. The police and the fash reached the barricade and started trying to push through it. The police put horses at the back of us, and seemingly their most thuggish, clearly-spoiling-for-a-fight officers at the front of us who started pushing us and hitting us with batons to make us move back. Into the horses. Presumably we were supposed to levitate away? All the while the fash were throwing glass bottles at us and the walls we were being pushed into so we'd be showered with broken glass. Some of the anti-fash were throwing things too, while the anti-racists were taking care not to cause the horses any more discomfort than the police already were, the facists had little concern for animal welfare and were happy to throw broken glass in their path. We finally reached a side street and escaped down it, doubling back to meet the rest of the demo further down the road. Their march continued in the same manner the whole way down Church Street, taking about an hour to cover what would normally take five minutes.<br />
<br />
When the racists and the police (although the two terms are not mutually exclusive) reached the bottom, they turned off into Victoria Gardens, where the Eddles were put in a pen which, embarrassingly, they only filled about a fifth of. There were at least 600 counter-demonstrators in the rest of the park (although various sources have put our number anywhere between 500-2000, so it's anyone's guess. We outnumbered them by at least 5:1 at any rate). The cops formed a ring around the fascist's pen, so we couldn't see them any more (thank fuck), but we carried on singing 'We don't give a fuck where you're from' and 'If it wasn't for the coppers you'd be dead'. We had also cut them off from the provided portaloos, which they required a police escort to access, and if the advertised speeches took place we certainly didn't see any of it, since they would have been drowned out by non stop oppostion. After a while we got bored of taunting the 'master race' and it was sunny so we went to have a dance with the Punx Picnic sound system. There was a beautiful moment where a big group of us were dancing to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTD2TiHz1_s">Bastard Coppers</a> by The Filaments in front of a line of riot cops who were clearly fuming at their inability to take action because they had to defend the scum. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it. Anyway, we had a really nice time listening to music and sitting in the sun while the fascists just stood around looking nonplussed (more so than usual), and we showed them how a demo should be done. They didn't even bring anything that makes noise, for crying out loud! All they had was a couple of flags and some kind of papier mache affair on sticks, which was clearly constructed by the EDL's Red, White and Blue Peter division. At about 3pm it was clear our work was done as the police were preparing to hastily escort the fascists back to the train station so they could return to wherever it was they came from, a lot of counter-demonstrators had left and we could sense the police closing in to try kettle us in order to facilitate the scum's escape, so the punk bloc made a getaway to go put on the final day of the <a href="http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/brighton-punx-picnic-2012-review-and.html">Punx Picnic</a>.<br />
<br />
Later we heard reports of three people arrested, but have no idea who they are or what they were arrested for, so can't comment on that. We also heard from reliable sources that the racists had been allowed in The Marlborough and Belushi's (two more pubs for the <a href="http://www.zinecore.co.uk/distro/good-lookin-south">Shit List</a>), but were chased out of The Fishbowl by the great regulars there who didn't fancy sharing a pint with nazi scum.<br />
<br />
All in all, it was a good demo, for a great cause. Racism has no part to play in our country, and the sooner that the fascists realise they don't speak for anyone apart from them and their tiny-minded group of mates, the better. These streets are our streets, and they don't belong to bigoted scum like them.<br />
<br />
The Eddles have also provided their '<a href="http://twitpic.com/9cv0ma">unique</a>' <a href="http://twitpic.com/9d2sp3">takes</a> on the days events.<br />
<br />
Finally, I've got to give a big shout-out to Leon McCreery - <a href="http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/features/article/32/the-extremist-defence-league">known fascist</a> with terrorist connections who's been <a href="http://1millionunited.org/blogs/blog/2010/07/18/exclusive-dudley-two-contempt-for-law-reapeated-breaches-of-bail-terms/">repeatedly arrested</a> for his violent actions on demos and away from them - for making me laugh more than I have in ages by trying to report me to the Sussex Police Twitter account because I'd been tweeting about the march, and then accusing me of 'racism against police' because I'd used the hashtag #ACAB while tweeting about the police trying to push us into the path of horses. Oh, and he also called me a 'violent moron'. Genulolz.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o_pfNdPwqZ8/T5Vd9kQXMZI/AAAAAAAAAI0/U8uCRRGF7mI/s1600/LeonACAB.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="207" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-o_pfNdPwqZ8/T5Vd9kQXMZI/AAAAAAAAAI0/U8uCRRGF7mI/s320/LeonACAB.png" width="320" /></a></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-35700769334873997652012-04-20T06:30:00.001-07:002012-04-20T06:43:24.909-07:00Help a sister out! (INTERSECT update)<br />
<div class="p1">
Time flies - <a href="http://intersect.org.uk/">INTERSECT</a> is now less than a month away! As expected, planning has gone into hyperdrive. There's loads of stuff to be done - and here's how you can help us out:</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
1) Do you know any BSL interpreters in the Bristol area who might be interested in donating an hour of their time? Travel expenses will be paid, but since INTERSECT is a non-profit event, I can't offer anything more. This would really help us to be accessible to a lot more people.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
2) Could you volunteer to work the door for an hour or two? You will get free entry if you do! I'm looking for 3-5 people to do this, as I will need to be in the conference room organising things.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
3) Do you want to buy advertising space in the programme? It's now only £10/half page - email conference@intersect.org.uk for more information.</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
4) Would you or a group you're affiliated with be interested in telling your story about feminism and intersectionality in the programme? I'm looking for written pieces around 300-800 words long. Get in touch at conference@intersect.org.uk if you are. (Contributions may be anonymous/pseudononymous.)</div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p2">
5) <a href="http://www.facebook.com/IntersectConference">Like</a> us on Facebook, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/INTERSECTcon">follow</a> us on Twitter and tell all your friends about how good it's going to be! </div>
<div class="p2">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
6) <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/tickets/bristol-2012">BUY TICKETS</a> - we need YOU to make this awesome!</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>
<div class="p1">
Thanks to everyone who's offered help/donations/advice/a patient ear so far, you're all brilliant and I couldn't have got this far without you.</div>
<div class="p1">
<br /></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-25252519310026423322012-04-18T06:31:00.000-07:002012-04-18T06:31:15.619-07:00National Stalking Awareness Day<i>Before starting this, I'd like to apologise for not writing anything for a while. I've just moved house and had a lot of family stuff to do recently, and I've not been feeling particularly inspired about anything enough to write about it. I've also been busy because it's the INTERSECT conference in a month's time (yes, this is a hint for you to go <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/tickets/bristol-2012">buy a ticket</a>).</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
Today is <a href="http://www.stalkinghelpline.org/about-the-helpline/nsad12/">National Stalking Awareness Day</a>, and so I thought I'd tell my story. I'm hoping that telling it will help show people how easy it is to be stalked, and how horrible and scary it can be. I'm also going to tell you about the reactions I've had when I've told other people, and hope that this will show you how not to respond to people who go through it.<br />
<br />
*wavy lines*<br />
<br />
It all started at the end of 2010. I had split up with my ex-boyfriend, who I'd been with for 5 (horrible) years, and started going out with friends again. About six weeks after the split, I met J. J lived around the corner from me, and was unemployed, while I was working odd hours at a pub. We started hanging out together almost every day, going out for a few drinks, chilling at mine listening to music, going shopping... you get the idea. I knew he liked me, but I made it very clear that there was no way I was going to start dating anyone so soon after getting out of a half-decade long relationship.<br />
<br />
People warned me about him. He was an alcoholic with a history of breakdowns and lots of other problems. He was fucked up. I didn't care, because I was fucked up too. He was nice to me, and when you've been told every day for as long as you can remember that you're the scum of the earth and never shown any appreciation, you cling to that. For a short time, he was genuinely helping me deal with my breakup.<br />
<br />
Anyway, after the first couple of weeks, J started to get really clingy and repeatedly asked me to be his girlfriend. I repeatedly told him no, and after about three or four weeks, I told him I didn't want to see him for a while if he couldn't accept that I wouldn't go out with him. He 'accepted' this, and I didn't hear anything from him for a couple of days. I went to a pub we used to go to together, where it turned out he'd told everyone that I was his girlfriend. Needless to say, I was Not Pleased. That night he texted me asking if I wanted to hang out, and I replied telling him I didn't want to see him at all any more, because I couldn't trust him to respect my wishes about the nature of our relationship.<br />
<br />
That didn't go down too well.<br />
<br />
For the next six weeks, I couldn't escape him. He'd text me between 100 to 300 times a day. He'd call 20 times a day. I'd maybe respond to 1/60 texts, but only to tell him to leave me alone. It was utterly incessant. Every few days he'd start sending messages purporting to be from someone else worried that J was going to kill himself, trying to guilt me into replying. I remember going for a meal for my nana's birthday and all I could concentrate on was my phone vibrating literally every two minutes for the whole time we were there. He turned up at my house repeatedly, demanding to 'talk' (funnily enough, my ex had a habit of doing the exact same thing at the same time. I do not like answering the door now). I can't go into much more detail than that, because it's a period of time I try not to think about too much. It's like your life isn't your own any more. You can't have fun, or do nice things, because the moment you start to enjoy yourself, you get a reminder that they're thinking about you, or watching you. You worry yourself sick wondering what the next thing will be. It seemed to take forever, but his contacts finally dwindled away.<br />
<br />
During the whole time, I barely told anyone. How could I? Pretty much everyone I knew had told me not to go near him and that something bad would happen, and now it had. The people I did tell tried to offer help, but it was always with an air of 'I told you so', so I stopped telling them, or only made jokes about it and never let on how scared I was. I didn't tell people who genuinely could have helped, like my family, because I felt stupid for 'getting myself into that situation'.<br />
<br />
Eventually, I told the story on a forum I was a member of, and the responses unanimously blamed me for 'leading him on' and basically implied he was just a '<a href="http://icedteaandlemoncake.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/feminsim-101-nice-guy-syndrome/">Nice Guy</a>' or a hopeless romantic, and I was a stuck up bitch. But hey - at least he hadn't actually committed a crime, right?<br />
<br />
It took me a long time to get over that and to know they were wrong. I mean, a LONG TIME. I still have doubts now.<br />
<br />
But <b>fuck that shit</b>. He was not 'entitled' to any of my time, attention or affection. No person is, and to suggest that putting a woman in fear just proves how keen you are on her is fucking disgusting. It's wrong and it's just another example of a pervasive culture where the victim must always be at fault - if the victim is a woman, at least. In a way it's almost like an abusive relationship. You think they will change. You think you must 'deserve' it. You're too scared to tell the people who can help stop it all because you don't want them to think you're stupid or weak. Your whole life and your movements are controlled by the other person and what kind of mood they happen to be in.<br />
<br />
This does not need to happen. No one who truly loves you or cares for you will stand by while you are scared and judge you because someone else decided to scare you. If anything like this is happening to you, PLEASE tell someone you trust or get in touch with the National Stalking Helpline (details in link at the top). The thing about behaviour like this is you never know if it's going to escalate until it does. I was lucky. It doesn't matter whether the person has 'broken the law' or whatever - if a person is making you feel uncomfortable or unsafe, tell someone. You are not being over-cautious or stupid, and more importantly, you are not alone.<br />
<br />
Remember, other people choosing to do something to you is NEVER your fault.Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-84383210943456813962012-03-20T02:19:00.000-07:002012-03-20T02:19:00.359-07:00Can sex work exist in an anti-capitalist society?<div class="p1">Yesterday, a friend asked me if I thought sex-work would, or even could, exist in an anti-capitalist society. Having never considered the issue before, I decided to explore my feelings on it, as I think it's a really interesting question.</div><div class="p1"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br />
</span></i></div><div class="p1"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Disclaimer: What I say here, I say as a person who is very pro-sex worker rights, and do so purely as an intellectual activity in a hypothetical scenario.</span></i></div><div class="p2"><br />
</div><div class="p1" style="text-align: center;"><b>Would sex-work exist in an anti-capitalist society?</b></div><div class="p2"><br />
</div><div class="p1">The first important thing to define here is what is meant by 'sex worker'. My base definition of this would be 'someone who engages in sexual activity with another person for a material reward, where the other person's reward is the sexual activity'. For reasons of simplicity, I won't include creators of pornography (i.e. actors, actresses, models etc.) in this definition, because there are different issues surrounding that (I can explain this in greater detail at a later point if required).</div><div class="p2"><br />
</div><div class="p1">The second important question is 'what would my definition of an anti-capitalist society be'? I'd envisage a society based on co-operation where everyone's basic needs are met by the people around them. For instance, house building, food growing, education and child rearing could be done in collective groups where everyone brings forth their skills to help reach the end goal. Natural groups would form to cover other desires and aims - for instance, organising gigs, theatre, etc. This may already be seen in several UK anarchist social centres such as Kebele in Bristol and the Cowley Club in Brighton, who organise practical, social and educational events from the skills of their members. </div><div class="p2"><br />
</div><div class="p1">So, would sex work exist in this type of society? I think to examine that we must look at the reasons people get into sex work. Firstly, you have people who are forced in to it through trafficking, abusive partners etc. Hopefully this would not exist, and to discuss it further would cloud the issue. Secondly, you have people who are forced through poverty and personal circumstances into seeing sex work as their best option. In my utopian idea mentioned above, there'd be no one threatened with eviction or starvation to the point where their only realistic choice was sex work, so I will discount these people too.</div><div class="p2"><br />
</div><div class="p1">Finally, there are people who get in to sex work because they genuinely like it and enjoy it as a job, and it is on these I will focus, since they are the ones making the truly free (issues of patriarchy in our real society notwithstanding, and also I am talking about all genders) decision to enter into sex work. I think it would be perfectly possible for people in this category to do sex work in an anti-capitalist society, being a sort of working group (like the plumbers), with the reward they are given being living in a society which takes care of all their other needs. However, a very strong caveat should be the belief that no one ever has a 'right' to sex, and I do not think it should be necessary in a society where I would hope that everyone was liberated enough to make most of the reasons people visit sex workers (can't meet partners, have peccadilloes they feel the need to hide etc.) would be obsolete. This, conversely, could also possibly have the effect of more people wanting to get in to sex work, by de-stigmatising the issue.</div><div class="p1"><br />
</div><div class="p1">I'd like to know people's thoughts on this in the comments. Please, however, remember to be respectful and also that we are debating hypothetical scenarios which have no bearing on the society we are currently in.</div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-58882162329915675672012-03-13T05:30:00.000-07:002012-03-13T05:30:59.407-07:00Who'd believe me?<i>Trigger warning: rape, sexual violence, victim blaming.</i><br />
<br />
Last night I went to a gig. I had a few pints, and I probably danced like a bit of a tit, as I sometimes am inclined to do. I got talking to some people about bands we like, and accepted an invite to go to theirs for a beer. Upon arrival, they (cis men, for the record) got a bit sleazy with me, so I left. Nothing harmful happened (I was pissed off, but whatever).<br />
<br />
But let's imagine something did happen. Suddenly, not only would my life be upside-down, what could I do about it? Would I report it? Honestly, no.<br />
<br />
If something had happened, and I said something publicly, people would be queueing up to tell me it was my own damn fault. I was drunk. I went to a strange man's house. I was wearing a minidress and leggings. It was late. What did I damn well think was going to happen? Actually, I thought we were going to go listen to some punk music and talk about it while drinking beer. Notice how that previous sentence does not contain the phrase 'have sex'.<br />
<br />
I'm not a man-hating feminazi, primarily because such a thing doesn't exist, but also because I'm mates with a lot of guys. So before anyone jumps in with accusations of 'misandry' (also a thing which does not exist, by the way), consider this - I want to hang out with guys. I want to be friends with guys. I want to have sex with guys. I just also want to be assured that if one of those people rapes or sexually assaults me, I won't be blamed just for being in the same vicinity as him while not being a cis-man. What actually IS misandric is the suggestion that no one should be friends with men in case they rape them.<br />
<br />
Did you know <a href="http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=16618">one third</a> of the UK's population would have said it was my fault if I'd been raped last night? Thirty fucking percent of people think that if a woman touches alcohol, she's declaring open-season on her genitals.<br />
<br />
FUCK THAT SHIT.<br />
<br />
Why am I telling you all this anyway? Well, last night, a hashtag got going on Twitter, titled <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23ididnotreport">#ididnotreport</a>. This was inspired by the Mumsnet '<a href="http://www.mumsnet.com/campaigns/we-believe-you-mumsnet-rape-awareness-campaign">We Believe You</a>' campaign, designed to highlight the hidden problem of rape and sexual assault. On it, thousands of people - men and women told their personal stories of why they didn't report their rape or sexual assault. And it's because of this VICTIM BLAMING BULLSHIT. Some trolls got on the tag, including a confessed rapist by the name of <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/NiceGuyBrianG">@NiceGuyBrianG</a> (SERIOUS TW for that link), who thinks that the law on spousal rape shouldn't just be reverted, but should apply to anyone in any kind of relationship. Presumably only women should be allowed to be raped, because if I took him back to mine and tried to assfuck him with a strap-on, I'm sure he'd have some quite loud opinions.<br />
<br />
I REPEAT, FUCK THAT SHIT.<br />
<br />
It is NOT your fault if you are raped. No ifs, no buts. It is only a rapist who decides to rape people. It is NEVER A VICTIM'S FAULT. And I want you all to know that and shout it with me.<br />
<br />
Rape apologists, I'm going to give you a quick lesson in human interaction, because you sorely need it: YOU ARE NOT OWED SEX. NO ONE OWES YOU ACCESS TO THEIR BODY. PERIOD.<br />
<br />
"But Nat, what if [insert convoluted scenario, possibly involving drink, usually espousing just how darned confusing this whole 'consent' thing is]??!?!?!"<br />
<br />
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH SOMEONE, ASK THEM. POLITELY. IN FACT, IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE POLITE. "WANNA FUCK?" WILL USUALLY SUFFICE. IN SOME CASES IT WILL NOT.<br />
<br />
IF YOU ARE UNSURE WHETHER SOMEONE ACTUALLY WANTS TO HAVE SEX WITH YOU, WHETHER IT'S BECAUSE OF DRINK OR YOU PRESSURING THEM OR WHATEVER, DO NOT HAVE SEX WITH THAT PERSON.<br />
<br />
THE EASIEST WAY TO AVOID BEING ACCUSED OF RAPE IS TO NOT HAVE SEX THAT MAY BE RAPE.<br />
<br />
UNLESS YOU ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY IRON-CLAD CERTAIN A PERSON WANTS TO HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH YOU, DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH THEM.<br />
<br />
I genuinely can't make that any clearer. If you wish to comment with a wonderful scenario of your concoction about just how gosh-damn tricky it is to not stick your penis in people, I suggest you take your scenario and shove it up your rape-apologising backside. Here's some (long but awesome) posts on consent:<br />
<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-one-no/">Rad Trans Fem</a></li>
<li><a href="http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/on-good-consent-part-one/">NSWATM</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/24/why-rape-isnt-one-big-misunderstanding/">Washington City Paper</a></li>
<li><a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/consent-culture.html">Pervocracy (1)</a></li>
<li><a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/01/rescripting-sex.html">Pervocracy (2)</a></li>
</ul><div><br />
</div><div>And if anyone feels the need to talk to someone about something that happened to them, here are the details for <a href="http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/">Rape Crisis</a> (women and children), <a href="http://www.pandys.org/lgbtsurvivors.html">Pandora's Project</a> (trans* people) and <a href="http://www.survivorsuk.org/">Survivors UK</a> (men).</div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com28tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-38684282134383769942012-03-08T03:41:00.000-08:002012-03-08T03:41:02.709-08:00INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!I <i>love</i> International Women's Day. It's basically Christmas for feminists. This year I'm hoping Solanas Claus brings me some E-Z Burn bras and some genuine emasculated bollocks as earrings. Then we're all going to sit down together to eat whichever man first crossed our path this morning, drink baby blood and be merry.<br />
<br />
Joking aside, I bloody do love IWD. It's a great time to celebrate the achievements made by women and get all mushy-eyed about how great feminists are. Yeah, there's some problems. Yeah, we're still way behind on where we should be after this many years of feminist campaigning (not helped by the fact that misogynists keep shifting the goalpoasts - now women in America have to justify not only abortion, but also birth control? In 2012?!), and yes, there are some parts of the feminist scene I really dislike (*side-eyes Jezebel*), but FUCKDAMMIT WE'RE AWESOME.<br />
<br />
So, accordingly, I'm going to try and give you a present today. This is going to come in a few parts - first, a blogroll of some of my most-read feminist sites, then my favourite feminist Twitter accounts, then some links to posts about great feminist music and then a SUPER-FUN BONUS GAME which is my gift to all the brilliant lady-bloggers out there.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>(Disclaimer: I compiled these lists by looking at who I follow on Twitter. If I'm not sure where someone writes, or they write for multiple sites, I've included their Twitter handle rather than a site. If you're in this category and would like to have a site linked to you, let me know on Twitter. If I've not included you anywhere, it's not because I think you're a shitty feminist, it's because I think you're awesome for other reasons. Or I forgot you, because I'm rubbish. Again, get in touch and I'll rectify this. If I haven't included you because I don't follow you on Twitter, please feel free to add links to your blogs in the comments section - I'd love to see them.)</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i><br />
</i></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Blogroll</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/" style="text-align: -webkit-auto;">The F-Word</a> - Biggest UK feminist site (<a href="http://twitter.com/thefworduk">@thefworduk</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.badreputation.org.uk/">Bad Reputation</a> - Feminism and pop culture (<a href="http://twitter.com/BadRepUK">@BadRepUK</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/">Women's Views On News</a> - Daily women's news and current affairs service (<a href="http://twitter.com/newsaboutwomen">@newsaboutwomen</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com/">Sian and Crooked Rib</a> - Bristol-based feminism and politics, now with publishing arm (<a href="http://twitter.com/sianushka">@sianushka</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://madamjmo.blogspot.com/">Madam J Mo</a> - Pop culture, feminism and suffragettes (<a href="http://twitter.com/MadamJMo">@MadamJMo</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://ontoberlin.blogspot.com/">On To Berlin</a> - Feminism, politics and Christianity (<a href="http://twitter.com/boudledidge">@boudledidge</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.bitchbuzz.com/">BitchBuzz</a> - Fashion, tech, food and feminism (<a href="http://twitter.com/BitchBuzz">@BitchBuzz</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://blackfeminists.blogspot.com/">Black Feminists</a> - Looking at the intersections of feminism and race (<a href="http://twitter.com/blackfeministUK">@blackfeministUK</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://thebeautifulevil.wordpress.com/">The Beautiful Evil</a> - Feminism, classics and religion (<a href="http://twitter.com/scriptrix">@scriptrix</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://stavvers.wordpress.com/author/stavvers/">Stavvers</a> - Thoughts and rants from another angry woman (<a href="http://twitter.com/stavvers">@stavvers</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://angrynotsoyoungwoman.wordpress.com/">Angry Not So Young Woman</a> - Feminism. We shouldn't still need to be angry about this! (<a href="http://twitter.com/JennieSue">@JennieSue</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/meta-magazine/id500168560?mt=8">META Magazine</a> - By trans people, about trans people, for trans people (<a href="http://twitter.com/META_Mag">@META_Mag</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://toomuchtosayformyself.com/">Too Much To Say For Myself</a> - Feminism, politics, journalism (<a href="http://twitter.com/cathelliott">@CathElliott</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/strangesanum91/featured">Strange Sanum</a> - Vlogs on feminism, Islam and comedy (<a href="http://twitter.com/strange_sanum">@Strange_Sanum</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://kaygeeuk.tumblr.com/">Kaygeeuk</a> - Beware when mums get cross and organise (<a href="http://twitter.com/kaygeeuk">@kaygeeuk</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://arewomenhuman.me/">Are Women Human?</a> - US feminism, politics and intersectionality (<a href="http://twitter.com/graceishuman">@graceishuman</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://queerswithbeers.wordpress.com/">Queers With Beers</a> - Podcasts about gender and sexuality (<a href="http://twitter.com/ariel_silvera">@ariel_silvera</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.boltmagazine.net/">BoLT Magazine</a> - Magazine for LGBTQ women in Ireland (<a href="http://twitter.com/BoLTMagazine">@BoLTMagazine</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/">Shakesville</a> - US feminism, politics and rape culture (<a href="http://twitter.com/shakestweetz">@Shakestweetz</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.birdofparadox.net/blog/">Bird of Paradox</a> - Feminism, trans* rights, politics (<a href="http://twitter.com/Helen_BOP">@Helen_BOP</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://manboobz.com/">Manboobz</a> - Mocking misogyny (<a href="http://twitter.com/DavidFutrelle">@DavidFutrelle</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.girlonthenet.com/">Girl on the Net</a> - Sex theory/advice/ideas (<a href="http://twitter.com/girlonthenet">@girlonthenet</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://tigerbeatdown.com/">Tiger Beatdown</a> - Kumbaya motherfucker central (<a href="http://twitter.com/TigerBeatdown">@TigerBeatdown</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://notazerosumgame.blogspot.com/">Not a Zero-Sum Game</a> - Angry feminism (<a href="http://twitter.com/marstrina">@marstrina</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/">The Pervocracy</a> - Sex. Feminism. BDSM. And some very, very naughty words (<a href="http://twitter.com/pervocracy">@pervocracy</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://cruellablog.blogspot.com/">Cruella Blog</a> - Feminism, secularism and stand up comedy (<a href="http://twitter.com/cruella1">@cruella1</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.womanist-musings.com/">Womanist Musings</a> - US-based womanist theory (<a href="http://twitter.com/womanistmusings">@womanistmusings</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.racialicious.com/">Racialicious</a> - The intersection of race and pop culture (<a href="http://twitter.com/racialicious">@racialicious</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://brokensinglemum.blogspot.com/">Broken Single Mum</a> - Life as a single mum of five, living with chronic pain and disability (<a href="http://twitter.com/brokensinglemum">@brokensinglemum</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://pseudo-living.blogspot.com/">Pseudo Living</a> - A lefty feminist coming to terms with living in modern Britain while disabled (<a href="http://twitter.com/pseudodeviant">@pseudodeviant</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://transgriot.blogspot.com/">Transgriot</a> - US-based black trans issues and black trans history (<a href="http://twitter.com/transgriot">@transgriot</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://reclaimthecunt.wordpress.com/">Reclaim the Cunt</a> - Feminism, art, cunt-loving (<a href="http://twitter.com/toastandglitter">@toastandglitter</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://amaditalks.tumblr.com/">Amaditalks</a> - Queer, disabled, socialist, Jewish, feminist WoC (<a href="http://twitter.com/amaditalks">@amaditalks</a>)</li>
<li><a href="http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/">Rad Trans Fem</a> - Radical Trans-feminism (<a href="http://twitter.com/radtransfem">@radtransfem</a>)</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Groups/Campaigns/Events on Twitter</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul><li><a href="http://twitter.com/feministlibrary">@feministlibrary</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BrightonFemCol">@BrightonFemCol</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BrightonPC">@BrightonPC</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BloomsburyPCA">@BloomsburyPCA</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/40daysofchoice">@40daysofchoice</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/FreeBeiBei">@FreeBeiBei</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/legalfeminists">@legalfeminists</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/woman_kind">@woman_kind</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/CLIT_Rock">@CLIT_Rock</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BristolFawcett">@BristolFawcett</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/TransMediaAct">@TransMediaAct</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/One25charity">@One25charity</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/femfreq">@femfreq</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Abortion_Rights">@Abortion_Rights</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/WTFrock_Comedy">@WTFrock_Comedy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Feminist4Choice">@Feminist4Choice</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BitchMedia">@BitchMedia</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/MisogynyWatch">@MisogynyWatch</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/DaughtersOfEve">@DaughtersOfEve</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/riotgrrill">@riotgrrill</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/irishfemnetwork">@irishfemnetwork</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/feministhulk">@feministhulk</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/RefugeCharity">@RefugeCharity</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte">@AmandaMarcotte</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/bristolfeminist">@bristolfeminist</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/TransMediaWatch">@TransMediaWatch</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/HollabackWY">@HollabackWY</a></li>
</ul><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Brilliant Twitter Feminists</b></div><div style="text-align: left;"><ul><li><a href="http://twitter.com/sonniesedge">@sonniesedge</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/sandyd68">@sandyd68</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/enterblisstonia">@enterblisstonia</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/anotherleila">@anotherleila</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/dolbsterthepoet">@dolbsterthepoet</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/incurablehippie">@incurablehippie</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/ParisLees">@ParisLees</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/flergh">@flergh</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/cathredfern">@cathredfern</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/EllieCumbo">@EllieCumbo</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/BigMouthedWoman">@BigMouthedWoman</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/scattermoon">@scattermoon</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/natachakennedy">@natachakennedy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/rozkaveney">@rozkaveney</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/voqo">@voqo</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Feminist_Inti">@Feminist_Inti</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Prusey">@Prusey</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Bolli_Bolshevik">@Bolli_Bolshevik</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/squeakinglyjen">@squeakinglyjen</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/msgracefh">@msgracefh</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/dustsister">@dustsister</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/MissEllieMae">@MissEllieMae</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/annifrangipani">@annifrangipani</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/NimkoAli">@NimkoAli</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/interama">@interama</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Trishie_D">@Trishie_D</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/ami_angelwings">@ami_angelwings</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/J__Williamson">@J__Williamson</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/QOFE">@QOFE</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/mortari">@mortari</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/flossieraptor">@flossieraptor</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/Hilary_W">@Hilary_W</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/fionalaird">@fionalaird</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/SaiPang">@SaiPang</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/MaryTracy">@MaryTracy</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/RayFilar">@RayFilar</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/redlightvoices">@redlightvoices</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/JulietJacques">@JulietJacques</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/ayiasophia">@ayiasophia</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/ksej">@ksej</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/lucypaw">@lucypaw</a></li>
<li><a href="http://twitter.com/beatonna">@beatonna</a></li>
</ul></div></div></div><div style="text-align: left;">YAY FEMINISM.<br />
<br />
Also, this International Women's Day should be a time to celebrate fuckawesome music made by women. So here's some posts I wrote about <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/its_a_great_ple">brilliant</a> <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/current_female_">female</a> <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/farewell">bands</a>, which you should go look up right now.<br />
<br />
Now, it's present time! Here I give to you, my wonderful feminist friends and inspirations, the <b>Official Forty Shades of Grey Feminist Website Commenter Bingo Card!</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wRG2ldazGoA/T1iaS_yDfWI/AAAAAAAAAIk/3K_XoGpDujU/s1600/BINGO.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="235" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wRG2ldazGoA/T1iaS_yDfWI/AAAAAAAAAIk/3K_XoGpDujU/s320/BINGO.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Use it wisely, and keep smashing at that patriarchy. You're all fantastic :)</div></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-68411050880214763442012-02-25T12:17:00.001-08:002012-02-26T00:54:50.068-08:00Life on benefits<i>I've been thinking about writing this post for a while, and I've always put it off because I couldn't be arsed with the hassle and abuse I've feared that I'll get for writing it. But it seems like the right time to do it now. All I'll say is - if you're thinking of slagging me off on Twitter or in the comments section, go fuck yourself. I'll take your terribly important job for a month and you can be on benefits if it's so damn easy.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
I've been unemployed for six months now. In fact, I've been unemployed so long that my contribution-based JSA will run out in a week and I have to switch to income-based JSA. I've taken out what I put in to the system and am now officially A Burden. That's a crappy feeling in and of itself, and it's not helped by the 'scrounging youth' rhetoric so beloved by the Tories. I mean, I worked in a pub to support myself for five years - through college, university and after, while I tried (and failed) to get a proper job. I'd often find myself with only one full day off every three weeks. I'm not a shirker.<br />
<br />
So, what are benefits like? Well, each week I get around £62 in Housing Benefits and £53 in JSA. Of my JSA, £13 immediately goes towards topping up my rent (£75p/w) - luckily, my rent includes utility bills and council tax. That leaves me with £40 a week left, or £160 a month (quick note - two thirds of all my benefits go to my landlord).<br />
<br />
How do I spend this throbbing great amount? Well, it goes a bit like this:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>I spend about £30 a month to travel to see either my partner or my family (I live around 300 miles away from each). </li>
<li>I spend £40 on food. I have the luxury of having the time and ability to cook all my meals from scratch, and being vegan means I can ease by reasonably cheaply.</li>
<li>£30 goes on tobacco. I'm not going to defend this, it's probably a bad choice. But a saving of £7 a week and nothing to really do with it leaves me with little incentive to quit.</li>
<li>I also have to pay £10 for my mobile (my only means of communication with most people) and £5 for internet access in my house.</li>
<li>I pay my bank £10 a month because, being so utterly bloody skint, I'm at the bottom of an overdraft and have to pay interest on it. </li>
</ul><div><br />
</div><div>That's £125 gone, like that. Which means that each month, I have the grand sum of £35 to spend on myself. There's always a niggly something, like a birthday or having to replace essentials like toiletries which takes £5 of that, so at the end of the month, I get £30. £7.50 a week to spend on anything else I might want. Which leads me to the isolation.</div><div><br />
</div><div>You can't do anything. You can't make friends, and you lose the ones you had because you can't see them. If I want to go to a gig (£4 entry, 3 pints at £3 each), that's two weeks of disposable income gone. I literally can't do anything else that whole time. I mean, I'm lucky because when I'm with my partner he'll pay for me to go out and do things. But I hate that. I feel like a leech. When I'm away from him, I only leave the house to go to the supermarket and the job centre. This year, my little sister had to give me money so I could go for a few pints with her on her birthday.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Sure, there are things you can do for free, but it's still incredibly isolating. I've stopped getting involved in activist stuff down here because I don't know anyone, and when you're at the meetings you're focussed on the issue at hand. I tried, but if you can't socialise with people outside of meetings, they don't know who you are when you're there. Hard to believe, but I'm just the quiet girl in the corner. When I leave, no one will notice I'm gone, because no one noticed I even arrived. </div><div><br />
</div><div>So what do you do instead? Well, if you're me you buy a few bottles of the cheapest cider the supermarket sell (£1.50) to entertain you in the evenings, and you don't leave the house, and you let the depression and anxiety kick in. As much as right-wingers would like me to, I don't search for jobs all day, every day. I spend a fair bit of time looking, but the more applications I send to jobs which I could do but I don't have the necessary (unpaid) experience for without hearing anything in return, the harder it gets. I don't feel like I'm good enough for any job. I'm so used to not leaving the house or speaking to people or having to live up to anyone's standards, the thought of being made to do it five days a week terrifies me to the point of tears. I desperately search for jobs I can do though, fearing that the DWP will arbitrarily decide to stop my JSA or put me on Workfare.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The rest of the time I spend just occupying myself. I educate myself about issues I'm passionate about. I'm planning a <a href="http://www.intersect.org.uk/">conference</a>. I read books, I play games, I watch DVDs. I do anything to keep myself from going into a pit of despair. I count the hours I have to kill until I get to go to my partner's next (133 hours, or 78 if I don't count when I'm asleep). I write, long rambly things like this and usually delete them before anyone else can see.</div><div><br />
</div><div>It always comes back to me though. I'm not good enough. No one wants me. I'll never be a proper person. <i>Scrounger</i>.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Things are changing though. I'm moving in with my partner next month, which means moving cities. That brings new challenges though. When I move in with him, I'll stop being 'a jobseeker'. This is good as it means I don't have to spend half an hour a week convincing some drone at the Jobcentre that I'm not tabloid-worthy workshy dolescum and instead <i>need</i> the benefits that I'm supposedly 'showered' in. However, it will mean that my partner will receive Working Tax Credits (of around the same amount as JSA) to support me. As in, I will have no independent income, and instead have to ask him for money whenever I need to buy anything. So now on top of everything else (I'm a horrid, pathetic waste of space who hasn't done anything in the two years since I left university and will spend the rest of my life being useless), I now feel like a failure to feminism too! I worry about this. I worry he'll get sick of paying for everything for me. I worry he'll get sick of working to pay the bills while I'm a useless shit. I'm worried about being a burden. </div><div><br />
</div><div>I also worry about the other people in the same financial situation as me. Comparatively, I'm lucky. I don't have kids to support, or have to worry about a massive unexpected bill coming from somewhere. If I were in the situation where I wanted (or needed) to leave my partner, I have family and friends who would help me do it. How are you supposed to get money to enable you to move away from an unhappy relationship if your partner controls all the money? </div><div><br />
</div><div>I don't really know what I've been trying to say in this post, but it's basically that being on the dole is shit. It makes you alone, friendless and feeling like crap. It makes you so wary of your precarious financial situation that even something awesome like moving in with the man you love just makes you worry about how you would cope if that wasn't the case. And then it makes you feel like a total shit for moaning when other people have it even worse. Asylum seekers, for example, get <a href="http://www.progressivewomen.org.uk/women-for-refugee-women/">£35 a week</a>, if that.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Actually, I think I can put it even more succinctly than that: <b>Fuck anyone who thinks a person would voluntarily put themselves through this shit and is living the high life. I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemy*.</b></div><div><b><br />
</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<u style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE:</u> Please go read <a href="http://notevsie.livejournal.com/1561.html">this wonderful and moving post</a> by commenter Evsie on being a single father on JSA. </div><div><b><br />
</b></div><div><span style="font-size: x-small;">(*I would wish it on Tories and other people who think that benefits is easy and everyone's a scrounger, but only for a month to show them how hard it really is.)</span></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com36tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-42266694839515971622012-02-23T04:46:00.000-08:002012-02-23T04:46:42.177-08:00INTERSECT conferenceSome of you may remember that back in December, I decided to set up a one-day feminist conference in Bristol, called <a href="http://fortyshadesofgrey.blogspot.com/2011/12/crowdfunding-for-intersect.html">INTERSECT</a>. Well, after lots of behind-the-scenes organisation and discussion, and thanks to the many generous people who donated to help get the project off the ground, I am pleased to announce the launch of the <a href="http://intersect.org.uk/">official INTERSECT website</a>!<br />
<br />
On it you will be able to find all the details of the conference, including pages for all the awesome speakers we have lined up, travel routes, information about accessibility and remote viewing. Also (and most importantly) <b>tickets are now on sale</b> - priced at £3 for concessions (students/unwaged/NMW) and £6 full price.<br />
<br />
You can follow progress with the conference on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/IntersectConference">Facebook</a> and on <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/intersectcon">Twitter</a>, or email conference@intersect.org.uk with any questions you may have.<br />
<br />
Looking forward to seeing as many of you as possible on May 19th - and if you can't be there in person, the conference will be live-streamed and you'll be able to take part in Q&A sessions on Twitter. Tell your friends!Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-8886916798845420382012-02-10T08:13:00.000-08:002012-02-10T08:13:56.538-08:00The Pill: Destroying civilisation since 1957<i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Disclaimer: Since the piece I am responding to is very cissexist and holds up notions of 'uterus holder = mother, sperm-giver = father', I will address it in these terms. It's stupid and wrong though, like the rest of the piece.</span></i><br />
<i><br />
</i><br />
I read a lot of people saying really, really daft things on the internet. But sometimes something is just so utterly bizarre that it surprises even me. Step forward Michael Brennan Dougherty and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who have co-authored a piece titled <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2">Time To Admit It: The Church Has Always Been Right On Birth Control</a>. I'm going to go through it with my <span style="color: red;">trusty red pen</span>, because you really have to see this in its entirety. While reading, please bear in mind that MBD is a politics editor and P-EG is a senior research analyst (i.e. in theory, very intelligent and not wild-eyed conspiracy-peddlers). So, here we go. From hereon, my words are in <span style="color: red;">red</span>, theirs are in black. No links or words have been changed.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Painting the Catholic Church as "out of touch" is like shooting fish in a barrel, what with the funny hats and gilded churches <span style="color: red;"><strike>and systemic coverups of rape, child abuse and paedophilia</strike></span>. And nothing makes it easier than the Church's stance against contraception. <span style="color: red;">And the other stuff.</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Many people, (including <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/catholic-church-birth-control-2012-2"><span class="s1">our editor</span></a>) are wondering why the Catholic Church doesn't just ditch this requirement. They note that most Catholics ignore it <span style="color: red;">(actually a whopping <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/07/us-usa-catholic-birthcontrol-idUSTRE8161ZT20120207">98%</a>)</span>, and that most everyone else finds it divisive, or "out-dated." C'mon! It's the 21st century, they say! Don't they SEE that it's STUPID, they scream. <span style="color: red;">PERHAPS BECAUSE IT IS STUPID?</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Here's the thing, though: the Catholic Church is the world's biggest and oldest organization. It has buried all of the greatest empires known to man, from the Romans to the Soviets <span style="color: red;">(either they kept that damn quiet or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union">it didn't happen</a>. Given these guys' extremely tenuous grasp of history, my money is on the latter)</span>. It has establishments literally all over the world, touching every area of human endeavor. It's given us some of the world's greatest thinkers, from Saint Augustine on down to René Girard. <span style="color: red;">ALL GREAT THINKERS EVER HAVE BEEN CATHOLIC. THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age">THE ISLAMIC GOLDEN AGE</a>. SOCRATES WAS A CATHOLIC. ARISTOTLE WAS A CATHOLIC. IN FACT, UNTIL CATHOLICISM EVERYONE LIVED IN CAVES AND SHAT WHEREVER THEY FELT LIKE. (NB, I'm not saying there haven't been great Catholic thinkers (or at least, great thinkers who lived in times and places where it was dangerous to not be a Catholic), but let's not pretend they're the only ones by a long stretch of the imagination, or that all Catholics are good - as far as I'm aware, Professor Steven Hawking is not a Catholic, but Robert Mugabe is. Just saying, y'know? Shades of grey and all that)</span> When it does things, it usually has a good reason. <span style="color: red;">Profit? Domination? More people in their club than in the other clubs? </span>Everyone has a right to disagree, but it's not that they're a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages. <span style="color: red;">Except when they are a bunch of crazy old white dudes who are stuck in the Middle Ages.</span> </blockquote><br />
<blockquote>So, what's going on? The Church teaches that love, marriage, sex, and procreation are all things that belong together. That's it. But it's pretty important. <span style="color: red;">I drew a diagram to illustrate my problems with these ideas. Here it is:</span></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NMvMaCkhqHw/TzUyoRCc3sI/AAAAAAAAAIc/nsd0QnfEjqk/s1600/chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NMvMaCkhqHw/TzUyoRCc3sI/AAAAAAAAAIc/nsd0QnfEjqk/s320/chart.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And though the Church has been teaching this <a href="http://www.catholic.com/tracts/contraception-and-sterilization"><span class="s1">for 2,000 years</span></a>, it's probably never been as salient as today.<br />
Today's injunctions against birth control were re-affirmed in a 1968 document by Pope Paul VI called <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6humana.htm"><span class="s1">Humanae Vitae</span></a>. <b>He warned of four results if the widespread use of contraceptives was accepted:</b></blockquote><br />
<ol><li>General lowering of moral standards</li>
<li>A rise in infidelity and illegitimacy</li>
<li>The reduction of women to objects used to satisfy men</li>
<li>Government coercion in reproductive matters </li>
</ol><br />
<blockquote><br />
Does that sound familiar? Because it sure sounds like what's been happening for the past 40 years. As George Akerloff <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1996/11/why_kids_have_kids.single.html"><span class="s1">wrote in Slate</span></a> over a decade ago, by making the birth of the child the <i>physical</i> choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a <i>social</i> choice of the father. Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That's a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for "fatherhood." <span style="color: red;">Things that did not happen before these slutty women got their harlot-mitts on the pill: Sex outside of marriage. Children outside of marriage. Absent fathers. Absent mothers. Parents splitting up. What I find interesting about this though, is the quote they pick from Slate. Because what they are actually saying is that "if we DON'T give a woman a physical choice about whether or not she has a child, a man will have to stick around". They DON'T WANT WOMEN TO HAVE ANY PHYSICAL CHOICE IN WHETHER SHE HAS A CHILD. Excuse me while I go vomit my uterus out. </span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>How else are we doing since this great sexual revolution? Kim Kardashian's marriage lasted 72 days. <span style="color: red;">I'm confused. A minute ago they were all about the hetero-marriage. Now divorce is caused by IUDs? PLEASE TELL ME HOW CONTRACEPTIVES SPLIT UP KIM KARDASHIAN'S MARRIAGE, HEAT MAGAZINE MIGHT SEND ME A T-SHIRT FOR A WORLD EXCLUSIVE. </span>Illegitimacy: way up. In 1960, 5.3% of all births in America were to unmarried women. <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_02.pdf"><span class="s1">By 2010, it was 40.8%</span></a> [<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/pdf"><span class="s1">PDF</span></a>]. In 1960 married families made up <a href="http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6798"><span class="s1">almost three-quarters</span></a> of all <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#"><span class="s4">households</span></a>; but by the census of 2010 they accounted for just <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html"><span class="s1">48 percent</span></a> of them. Cohabitation <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P1MG601"><span class="s1">has increased tenfold</span></a> since 1960. <span style="color: red;">Gosh dammit, these sluts are so slutty with their coils and their implants and their live-in partners that they're having children with. How absolutely dare they use contraception to be slutty and have illegitimate children all over the place with their (usually) monogamous partners. Doesn't it make you sick? And of course, we never had any illegitimate children before 1970, heavens no.</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>And if you don't think women are being reduced to objects to satisfy men, welcome to the internet, how long have you been here? <span style="color: red;">Since the early 80s! Not me personally, of course, but... you know. Anyway, I'll add 'objectification of women' to my list of 'things which did not occur before 1970'. </span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Government coercion: just look to China (or America, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-declares-war-on-the-catholic-church-an-explainer-2012-2"><span class="s1">where a government rule on contraception coverage is the reason why we're talking about this right now</span></a>). <span style="color: red;">Contraception means that the government can coerce reproductive rights! Let's get the government to ban contraception in order to stop that happening! </span></blockquote><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/jesus-facepalm_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://www.themeparkreview.com/forum/files/jesus-facepalm_0.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<blockquote>Is this all due to the Pill? Of course not. But the idea that widely-available contraception hasn't led to <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/briefing/articles/1996/11/why_kids_have_kids.single.html"><span class="s1">dramatic societal change</span></a>, or that this change has been exclusively to the good, is a much sillier notion than anything the Catholic Church teaches. <span style="color: red;">Dramatic societal change like not punishing women for having sex like the filthy beasts that they are. Nope, we've truly regressed now. We were so enlightened when we used to force women in to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum">Magdalene asylums</a>! By the way, the Catholic church teaches that the same stuff that makes Flying Saucer sweets turns into bits of human flesh once you say the right words over it and that all babies are evil when they're born because of talking snakes. Which I happen to think is a much sillier notion than "I think it is nice that people can partake in consensual sex without fear and I don't think that this has brought about society's downfall".</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>So is the notion that it's just OBVIOUSLY SILLY to get your moral cues from a venerable faith (as opposed to what? Britney Spears?). <span style="color: red;">LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE! Sorry, but what? I don't believe in Jesus so I'll just phone up Justin Beiber and ask his opinion on whether or not it's OK to steal, shall I? Then I'll email Jedward and ask what I should do if someone covets my ass. It's true, this is what atheists do ALL THE TIME. When I was growing up, instead of going to Sunday school to learn how to be a good person, I just read Smash Hits and watched MTV. And I grew up to know that it's wrong to rape people and abuse children. Britney Spears 1, Catholic Church 0. </span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>But let's turn to another aspect of this. The reason our editor thinks Catholics <i>shouldn't </i>be fruitful and multiply doesn't hold up, either. The world's population, he writes, is on an "unsustainable" growth path. The Population Bureau of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations <a href="http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf"><span class="s1">sees</span></a> (PDF, h/t <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/paxdickinson/status/167283452872359937"><span class="s1">Pax Dickinson</span></a>) the rate of population growth slowing over the next decades and stabilizing around 9 billion in 2050…and holding there until 2300. (And note that the UN, which promotes birth control and abortions <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/time-to-admit-it-the-church-has-always-been-right-on-birth-control-2012-2#"><span class="s4">around</span><span class="s2"> </span><span class="s4">the</span><span class="s2"> </span><span class="s4">world</span></a>, isn't exactly in the be-fruitful-and-multiply camp.) More broadly, the Malthusian view of population growth has been resilient despite having been proven wrong time and time again and causing lots of unnecessary human suffering. For example, China is headed for a <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/will-china-get-old-before-it-gets-rich-2011-7"><span class="s1">demographic crunch</span></a> and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/china-demographics-skewed-sex-ratio-2011-11"><span class="s1">social dislocation</span></a> due to its misguided one-child policy. <span style="color: red;">I'm too lazy to take these figures apart (if anyone wants to in comments, please be my guest) but seriously. We have around 7bn people on Earth. This is up from 6bn in <i>just over ten years</i>. Millions of people are starving. There is no room. We are running out of natural resources. Even 2bn more people is a really, really bad idea.</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Human progress is people. Everything that makes life better, from democracy to the economy to the internet to penicillin was either discovered and built by people <span style="color: red;">(as opposed to those damn freeloading non-people).</span> More people means more progress<span style="color: red;">, more war, more famine, more disease, more every other bad thing too!</span> The inventor of the cure for cancer might be someone's fourth child that they decided not to have. <span style="color: red;">Or the baby someone didn't have because they were pregnant with another child. Or didn't have sex while they were ovulating. Or died from starvation as a child because there were too many humans to feed. Or were birthing more damn babies instead of in a laboratory. This game is fun!</span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>So, just to sum up:<br />
<ul class="ul1"><li class="li3">It's a good idea for people to be fruitful and multiply; and</li>
</ul><ul class="ul1"><li class="li3">Regardless of how you feel about the Church's stance on birth control, it's proven pretty prophetic. <span style="color: red;">Sorry guys, but: <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_gIi7b6JMms" width="420"></iframe> </span></li>
</ul></blockquote><br />
<br />
So, there you have it. Before 1970 everyone got married as virgins, stayed married their whole lives and had lots of babies. Nothing bad ever came of this, and there were absolutely no deviations from this formula ever. Like, say, prostitutes in the Bible or anything like that. I'll finish with this:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0la5DBtOVNI" width="420"></iframe>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-71944832838583593542012-01-24T19:21:00.000-08:002012-01-24T19:21:25.179-08:00A cut-out-and-keep guide to feminism for Louise Mensch<span style="background-color: white;">CHRISTMAS HAS COME EARLY AT FORTY SHADES OF GREY TOWERS!!!</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Normally I would roll my eyes at this non-linear procession of time as it would mean I have to put up with more people blathering about fairy lights and bows and other things I generally make it a rule not to give the tiniest atom of a flying fuck about. I mean, I'd welcome the general proliferation of hot booze (an essential part of any balanced diet), but it would also have to be balanced against the chance of snow and ice and hearing a Mariah Carey song and seriously, fuck that shit. Anyway, I digress. There has, to my knowledge, been neither a forwards nor backwards temporal shift. But I have a present! </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Oh... it's the non-festive equivalent of a shit in a box hastily wrapped in the Daily Star - it's Louise Mensch writing about how she <i><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/24/tory-women-bring-feminism-out-ghetto">totes is a feminist no matter what the mean feminists say</a></i>.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">Now, I generally make it a rule to not posit myself as the Queen Of Feminism and dictate who may, or may not label themselves as what. I mean, there's plenty of feminists I disagree with and who I would quite like to give a quick whisper to in order to steer them in the right path. But in this case I am going to make an exception, channel my inner Inigo Montoya and say:</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<b><i style="background-color: white;">"Louise - I do not think that word means what you think it means."</i></b><br />
<b><i style="background-color: white;"><br />
</i></b><br />
<span style="background-color: white;">I'm going to take out my trusty <span style="color: red;">red pen</span> now and fisk Mensch's article, in order to illustrate why I feel this to be the case.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-size: x-small;">Until further notice, text in black will be Mensch's piece, text in red mine. All links and wording in Mensch's piece as they appear. Continue at your peril.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b style="background-color: white;">Tory women bring feminism out of the ghetto</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: red;">WOAH HOLD ON. The fucking <i>ghetto</i>?! I'm not sure if Mensch wrote this or if it was one of those pesky subs, but misappropriation of oppression much? This does not bode well.</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white; color: red;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">The latest <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/23/david-cameron-soars-in-poll" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Guardian: David Cameron shrugs off welfare battles to soar in poll">ICM poll</a> is good news for the blues. David Cameron enjoys a five-point lead over Labour at a time when it should be miles ahead, opposing a coalition government that has to make drastic spending cuts and keep our heads above water as Europe threatens financial implosion. Faced with these conditions, Mr (red rosette) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Potato_Head" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Wikipedia: Mr. Potato Head">Potato Head</a> ought to manage a substantial lead in mid-term polling. </span><span style="color: red;">That's... lovely Louise. I'm really glad you got a party brag into this piece (although I suspect maaaany more to come from the woman who hailed the deposition of Colonel Gaddafi as a '<a href="https://scribe.twitter.com/#!/LouiseMensch/status/105389310190174208">genuine triumph for David Cameron</a>'). There's a part of me concerned about how she refuses to even name the Leader of the (Bloody Joke of an) Opposition - instead dehumanising him and making fun of his appearance. I would think that a self-styled <i>superfeminist</i> such as Mensch would realise that judging people based on their physical appearance is actually a really nasty thing to do and that patriarchal expectations of female beauty are one of the main things used to keep women down - just <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12161045">look at</a> the way the BBC have gotten rid of talented female presenters because they are considered 'too old' and 'not attractive' enough to be taken seriously. NOT COOL MENSCH. WE DO NOT USE SYSTEMS OF OPPRESSION TO SNEER AT OTHERS. IT JUST CONTINUES THEM BEING USED AGAINST US.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Details of the poll will be particularly concerning to the two Eds: Labour is nine points behind in the Midlands (good for me, in Corby). The Tories are also nine points clear with men and have a two-point lead among women. </span><span style="color: red;">Translation: More women hate Tories than men do but it's not as bad as Labour so yah boo sucks! </span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">This last number is particularly cheering. For some time now the Labour party, led by Yvette Cooper, has made a sustained pitch to British women that the government is not on their side. They draw out selective research on the cuts and say it will particularly hurt women. They take Cameron's joking remark – "<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211577" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="BBC: David Cameron criticised for 'calm down dear' jibe ">calm down dear</a>", which ripped off a Michael Winner TV ad – and offer it as an example of sexism. They drop gender into every intervention and speech and have tried to claim feminism as their own, a thing of the left. </span><span style="color: red;">This marks the first point where I lose my shit. Right. First up: the cuts FUCKING DO HURT WOMEN. <a href="http://www.leftfootforward.org/2012/01/gender-in-politics-women-politics-and-the-crisis/">Cutting corporation tax redistributes money from women to men.</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/16/jobs-are-a-feminist-issue?CMP=twt_gu">Cutting public sector jobs and freezing their pay hurts women.</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/10/welfare-plan?CMP=twt_gu">In-work conditionality hurts women.</a> <a href="http://refuge.org.uk/2012/01/11/almost-half-of-domestic-violence-victims-will-not-be-eligible-for-legal-aid-under-proposed-new-legislation/">Stopping victims of intimate partner violence being eligible for legal aid hurts women.</a> <a href="http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1237">YOUR GOVERNMENT NOT JUST HURTS, BUT FUCKING KILLS WOMEN.</a> Second up: patronising women and implying that they are too '<a href="http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/">hysterical</a>' to do their damn job is sexist. When I see Cameron smirking around men and making the same implications as he does to women, I will believe that he's actually just a giant scumfuck and not a giant <i>misogynist</i> scumfuck. Thirdly up: when you're oppressed in every part of society, you tend to see it in every part of society. Mainly because... well it's there. No, it might not be for Mensch, but it fucking is for the rest of us. If she had any idea what it was like to not be an over-privileged rich person, she might realise this, but no. She's toeing the party line as per usual and sticking her head, ostrich-like, in whatever stuff it is rich people would use instead of sand. Fourthly up: I'm not saying feminism is a thing of the left, solely, but I am saying there is no damn such thing as a feminism where you only help yourself - which is <a href="http://ontoberlin.blogspot.com/2012/01/phrase-du-jour-new-tory-feminism.html">all Tory 'feminism' is</a>.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Tory women aren't having it. A grassroots backbench movement of women MPs (with several sound male feminists who have our backs) determined that we would not give Labour the monopoly on women's issues. We sit behind a frontbench that we know to be relentlessly focused on social justice and women's issues. </span><span style="color: red;">Who ARE these Tory grassroots backbench women? Who ARE these Tory male feminists? What do they DO? How is your front bench in ANY FUCKING WAY committed to social justice or women's issues? I mean REALLY. FUCK THIS. Look at the damn links above to see how damn committed this bunch are to 'women's issues'. Unless they actually think that what women are concerned about is "Oh, I just DON'T KNOW HOW I WILL GET BEATEN TO DEATH OR STARVE TODAY". I <i>demand</i> to see evidence of this 'movement'.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Tory feminism is holistic, not the ghetto feminism of the <a href="http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8017247" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Local government: Equality impact assessments (EqIAs) ">impact equalities assessment</a>; it looks at women as a whole. Case in point: 80% of the lowest paid public sector workers exempt from the pay freeze are women. Changes to the state pension that will end penalties for women who take career breaks to care for their families are being put forward. Sustainable funding cycles for rape crisis centres and victim support have been proposed. Theresa May broke ground on flexible parental leave, thus helping to ensure that employers would no longer look askance at women of childbearing age (remember Labour peer Lord Sugar's remarks on pregnant employees?). The list goes on. </span><span style="color: red;">Fucking 'ghetto feminism'? Does Mensch seriously think that we should be focusing <i>less</i> attention on women who are the most oppressed and <i>more </i>attention on women who are the least? Another thing - pointing out that 80% of the lowest paid public sector workers are women is a) admitting the need for feminism in the first damn place, b) admitting that there's a huge problem with women being underpaid, c) showing us which gender is seen as the more 'disposable' employee. Also, 'sustainable funding...for rape crisis centres'? Damn, if I wasn't so sure Mensch had private healthcare I'd ask for the number of her GP so I could get whatever she has. Because it ain't looking so <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ix=hea&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&site=webhp&source=hp&q=rape%20crisis%20funding%20cuts&pbx=1&oq=&aq=&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&fp=db81930ee44bc0ab&ix=hea&ion=1&ix=hea&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=db81930ee44bc0ab&biw=1050&bih=715&ix=hea&ion=1">damn rosy</a> from where I'm sat. Also, when you read the part about women of childbearing age I'd like you to imagine the 'wrong answer' klaxon from Family Fortunes. It sounds like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_FmADVggCk">this</a>. Because this became illegal way back in 1975 under the Labour government. Sorry Louise, you won't win the speedboat at this rate. (I will concede that Alan Sugar is a sexist arsehole, but would like to point out that he doesn't represent the whole party and even a clock as stopped as Mensch may be right once in a while. DAMMIT. This makes it sound like I'm <i>defending</i> Labour. Just to make it clear: I would never do that. I just dislike lies.)</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Last week, Ed Balls <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16605945" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="BBC News: Ed Balls on Labour's cuts policy">capitulated</a> and accepted the need for Tory cuts. The Conservatives' growing lead on economic credibility resonates with women, too. As mortgage holders – 70% of all women work outside the home – they benefit from George Osborne's low interest rates. They relate to restraint on council tax, a regressive tax that hits pensioners and those on fixed incomes hardest. </span><span style="color: red;">Well hot-damn, this is an interesting use of statistics. Now, I do not work outside 'the home'. This is mainly because I don't have a 'home', per se. Or a 'job', per se. I am one of those poor unfortunate ONE MILLION young people who are on the dole. Anyway, I used to work outside 'the home'. However, I did not have a mortgage. My sister works outside 'the home'. She does not have a mortgage. In fact, of all my friends who have jobs, I can count a teeny-tiny number (one, off the top of my head) who have mortgages. So that's not 70% of women benefitting. That's 70% of women <i>have jobs and if they happen to have been in a fortunate position and single quite a few years ago now they might have a mortgage.</i> Also, since when did only women benefit from cheap interest rates <strike>caused by the fact that everyone is fucking skint</strike> instituted by our beloved Gideon? And, if I must say this again I will damn well scream it from the rooftops: WOMEN SUFFER MORE WHEN SERVICES ARE CUT WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU REDUCE THINGS LIKE COUNCIL TAX AND ONE WAY TO STOP THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE TO TAX RICH PEOPLE MORE NOT FUCK POOR PEOPLE OVER. </span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">When speaking of the deficit, in magazines or on the airwaves, Tory feminists use the language of other women – the debt we pass on to our children, and our duty to lift that burden off their backs. The more we shift away from the bad old days of economic dependence on a wage-earning man, the more women notice the tax-and-spend policies that affect all wage earners. </span><span style="color: red;">Well, not my language. I don't have children. In fact, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10786279">around 20%</a> of women choose to remain child-free - which is around 5.8 million women the Tories aren't speaking for. And, forgive my mistake, but surely having children isn't just something women spontaneously do? MEN ARE PARENTS TOO. See, this shit is Feminism 101 - PARENTHOOD IS NOT JUST FOR THE BEARER OF THE UTERUS. Also, I'm sure children would prefer to have an alive mother and more 'deficit' when they grow up rather than a mother who got beaten to death in front of them because she couldn't get a restraining order because she couldn't get legal aid. Just saying, like.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Most Conservatives would define feminism as supporting equal rights and opportunities for women. In that sense it is a movement of women, not of right or left. But I like to think that, somewhere at the margins of all this, the noisy reclamation of the feminist label from the left is having an impact. </span><span style="color: red;">The problem is though, as I am nearly bashing my head against the keyboard while I am saying this <i>a-fucking-gain</i> - Tories do NOT support equal rights and opportunities for women. What they support is 'well us women are fine, I really don't know what the rest of you are fussing about!'. LOOK AT THE GODDAMN LINKS ABOVE. So, by her own definition, Mensch IS NOT a feminist.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">Conservative women are having a moment: Gaby Hinsliff's <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/08/tory-women-mps-new-feminism" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="Observer: Tory feminists: the true blue sisterhood">wonderful Observer cover story</a> was the culmination of months of Tory feminists advancing our case whenever a media opportunity arose. Last December, Jane Ellison launched an all-party parliamentary group on female genital mutilation. Claire Perry works on opt-in options for internet porn. Amber Rudd MP, who is pro-choice, looks at alternate ways to combat teenage pregnancy. I stood up on anonymity for rape suspects and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9348724.stm" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="BBC Newsnight: Naomi Wolf and MP clash over naming of rape accusers">wound up debating</a> with a feminist hero of mine, Naomi Wolf, on Newsnight. I also <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b019fxj9/Womans_Hour_18_01_2012/" style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #005689; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-decoration: none;" title="BBC iPlayer: Woman's Hour">debated</a> Tory feminism with Labour's Stella Creasy MP on Radio 4's Woman's Hour – a chance to explode the myth that "Tory" and "feminist" are oxymoronic to millions of women. </span><span style="color: red;">And I just chopped my own damn arm off, but it's totally cool because I have this sticking plaster I had to make myself out of reused gaffer tape and an old tissue BECAUSE OF TORY CUTS AFFECTING WOMEN SO BADLY.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="color: #333333;">As a Tory feminist, you want to play in front of Labour's goal, advancing the case for social justice, welfare reform and Iain Duncan Smith's universal credit (which should lift a million people and 350,000 children out of poverty). Yes, we anticipate the colourful comments under our articles, but that doesn't matter. Tory feminists are looking for your support, looking to convert you. I am an MP today only because in his very first speech as leader, David Cameron – the most feminist leader the Conservative party has ever had – made it his business to challenge dinosaur attitudes that led us to a 91% white male parliamentary party. His work in opposition continues in government. </span><span style="color: red;">I'm actually bored of dissecting this horseshit now, so, here we go. 1. Party pointscoring. 2. Child poverty is <a href="http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/5710">predicted to increase</a> under the universal credit scheme. 3. David Cameron is also the most 'likely to have grown up in the 70's' leader the Tories ever had. That does not make him John Travolta. 4. I couldn't give two glittery unicorn shits if the Tory party was 100% female, because it would mean 306 Louise Mensches and my poor laptop could not cope with the stress of debunking this tripe that many times.</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;">While we all expect that this poll lead won't last, the fact that we have recovered our ground with women is immensely comforting this far out from a general election. After all, the Tories have never won without women – and never will. </span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/4/1325683650843/Louise-Mensch-007.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="192" src="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/1/4/1325683650843/Louise-Mensch-007.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Fucking feminism, how does it work?</span></span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;">Back to me in black text now.</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;">OH MY HOLY MOTHER OF <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avimimus">AVIMIMUS</a>, WHY DID I DO THAT TO MYSELF? </span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;">I shouldn't be surprised, ever. I've spoken to Louise Mensch once or twice on Twitter, and every damn time she's insisted she absolutely is a feminist, but when challenged on what she actually does to stop women being oppressed, or told how <i>her party is oppressing women</i>, she clams up. Funny that. So now, for her benefit - as I'm sure she actually would like to be a feminist, she's just not sure of the first things about it, I am going to put my Queen Feminist crown on (it's red leopard-print and decorated with the bollocks of men I have emasculated) and write up a quick cut-out-and-keep one do and five don'ts of being a feminist.</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: -webkit-auto;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center;"><b style="background-color: white;">DO</b></div><div style="background-repeat: no-repeat no-repeat; border-collapse: collapse; margin-bottom: 13px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; text-align: center;"></div><ol><li><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Commit to fostering equality for all women</span></span></li>
</ol><div><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><b> </b></span></span></div><div><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><b>DON'T</b></span></span></div><div><ol><li><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Insist that because you're not oppressed, no woman ever is</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Think that all women are (or are even capable of being) mothers, and this is all they want/are good for</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;">Shut down services essential to women's livelihood, safety, economic power or wellbeing</span></span></li>
<li><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; line-height: 18px;"><a href="http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/03/abortion-groups-attack-louise-menschs-proposal/">Insist that other women are too stupid to know what to do with their own bodies</a></span></span></li>
<li><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">Write facile articles that purport to be about feminism that are actually just party-political broadcasts, cheap jibes about the opposition and actually fuck-all to do with any feminism ever</span></li>
</ol><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;">I hope this helps.</span></div></div><div><span style="color: #333333; font-family: arial, sans-serif;"><span style="background-color: white; font-size: 14px; line-height: 18px;"><br />
</span></span></div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com19tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-9397308726895832042012-01-18T13:32:00.000-08:002012-01-18T13:32:52.167-08:00Should feminists be vegetarian/vegan?When I was growing up, my mum and dad were vegetarian. When I ate with my parents, I ate vegetarian food. When I was at my grandparents' houses, or at school, or out anywhere else, I ate meat. When I was eleven, I did a school project about battery farming and vivisection and promptly became vegetarian (halfway through a chicken curry). Over the past year I've been eating less and less dairy and eggs. This is a consequence of dating a vegan, dairy and eggs being really fucking expensive and a growing discomfort with eating them. A little while ago I decided to nail my colours to the mast and go vegan.<br />
<br />
What does it mean to be a vegan? It's defined <a href="http://www.vegan.org/about_veganism/index.html">here</a> by Vegan Action as:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, san-serif; text-align: -webkit-left;">someone who, for various reasons, chooses to avoid using or consuming animal products. While vegetarians choose not to use flesh foods, vegans also avoid dairy and eggs, as well as fur, leather, wool, down, and cosmetics or chemical products tested on animals.</span></blockquote>That's a fairly accurate summary of what I do (or rather don't do). There's different ideas and feelings and loads of wonderful lefty infighting surrounding veganism - I've genuinely seen an argument about whether it's 'truly vegan' to have a wormery. But the main thing for most people is to avoid animal products wherever possible (no one expects you to starve to death or severely endanger your health rather than consume an animal product, and the little boundaries are yours to define for yourself).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://shs.osu.edu/posts/images/tribemagazine-big.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://shs.osu.edu/posts/images/tribemagazine-big.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><u>He's a level 5 vegan. He won't eat anything that casts a shadow.</u></span></div><br />
Why am I telling you this? Because yesterday my interest was piqued by a podcast titled "<a href="http://rabble.ca/podcasts/shows/f-word/2011/12/should-feminists-be-vegetarian">Should feminists be vegetarian?</a>" (accompanying article <a href="http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/f-word-collective/2011/12/should-feminists-be-vegetarian">here</a>). I mentioned it on Twitter and lots of people seemed surprised that some people draw a connection, so I thought I'd write about the show and my reactions to it so people were aware about another branch of feminism they possibly hadn't heard of before.<br />
<br />
The show was set up in (to my eyes) a very odd manner. The first half of the show was an interview with Kathryn Paxton George, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Animal-Vegetable-Woman-Feminist-Vegetarianism/dp/0791446883">Animal, Vegetable or Woman? (A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism)</a>, who does not just argue that no, feminists do not <i>need</i> to be vegetarian, but rather that feminists <i>should not</i> be vegetarian. This mainly consists of her knocking down strawmen (strawwomen? strawcows?) and exorcising what seems to be some unspoken personal issues. It is then followed by an interview with Sheri Lucas, who wrote a rebuttal to George's book titled <a href="http://ethik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Lucas__S._2005._Veg_and_Fem._defence_16187585.pdf">A Defence of the Feminist-Vegetarian Connection</a>, who spends most of her interview time rebutting George's (frankly odd) strawmen and about two minutes listing what some people seem to be the connection between feminism and vegetarianism/veganism. If I had done this, I would have interviewed someone who actually argues all feminists should be vegetarian/vegan (Lucas does not, she is a vegan for purely ethical reasons but is aware of the parallels drawn) and then interviewed someone arguing against them. But that's just me.<br />
<br />
To make this article read a little better, I will list the main arguments in favour of the feminist-vegetarian connection with no comment, then will list George's arguments with Lucas' (and my own) rebuttals, and then offer an opinion of my own.<br />
<br />
The feminist-vegetarian connection is usually illustrated using the following arguments:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Feminists should be against all oppression, not just one kind - especially as oppressions are so often interlinked</li>
<li>Women often speak about being treated 'like meat', and are often called names of animals to be degraded (cow, bitch etc.)</li>
<li>Animals, like women, are exploited for their bodies and what they can do</li>
<li>It's usually female animals who are exploited the most (male animals are studs or killed) - shown through the consumption of eggs, milk and so on</li>
<li>Women speak about being 'objectified' - when an animal is killed for food it is literally turned into an object</li>
</ul><div>Carol J Adams wrote about some of these arguments in her book <a href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_uK-RFEqfu0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=the+sexual+politics+of+meat&ots=eDPX2Caa2J&sig=AORNBGvMw64AbLC32X7TCusQm9A#v=onepage&q=the%20sexual%20politics%20of%20meat&f=false">The Sexual Politics of Meat</a>, which has been discussed by vegetarian feminists <a href="http://youngfeministadventures.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-vegetarianism-feminist-issue.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/05/are_you_a_breas">here</a>.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Now before we can look at some of George's 'interesting' arguments, I want to quickly share the history she shares on the show. George turned vegetarian in 1986 after reading philosophical works on the matter (these seemed to be written by academics that she knew, she herself is a professor of philosophy). After a few years, she was reluctant to give her child a vegetarian/vegan diet (which is unclear), and had what appears to be a very messy split from the academic vegetarian community. Far be it from me to cast aspersions onto a respected academic, but one must wonder if the fervour with which George denounces the diets and the ludicrous and easily solved arguments she comes up with against them are the result of a personal vendetta against a community rather than the result of 'real' concerns.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The first argument George uses is that 'all the research' on the safety of vegetarian/vegan diets was originally conducted on men. Not only this, but because women and children have different dietary needs, this is positively anti-feminist as, she asserts, a vegan diet requires 'keeping up with men'. She then, for some reason, flat-out denies any environmental benefits to a vegan diet. As you may imagine, I have several problems with this. To start, lots of things were originally tested on men and excluded women. Medicine, for example. In fact, I'm fairly sure plenty of medicines require different doses for different people because of their fat:muscle ratios, height, body mass etc. I don't see anyone decrying that as 'anti-feminist' (oh and biological essentialism and binary gender theory much?). Also, I fail to see how women taking care of their bodies in different ways from men is 'keeping up with men'. It's just being healthy. Sheri Lucas points out that a well planned vegan diet can be suitable for all, and adds that slight nutrition problems in humans which can be rectified by a small change in diet or the use of supplements is trivial in comparison to animals suffering in factory farms and being killed. I'd like to further add to this that not only is it <a href="http://www.viva.org.uk/goingvegan/vegannutrition.html">perfectly possible</a> to have a healthy vegan diet, even a quite crappy vegan diet will be healthier than an average meat-eater's. *awaits flaming*</div><div><br />
</div><div>George then brings up the argument that because a vegan diet is not possible to everyone in the world it is somehow 'elitist' (although she does acknowledge at this point, and at several other points, that it is perfectly possible to have a healthy vegan diet 'in industrialised societies'). What, she asks, are we to say to Eskimos? They had to eat meat, you can't really grow vegetables on the Arctic tundra. Do vegans hate the Inuit people?!?!? Well, in a word: No. Lucas slays this straw-polar bear pretty easily (it's straw, straw is vegan, she can kill that), pointing out that just because some people can't afford to buy clothing that's not made in sweatshops doesn't mean those who can afford not to should buy it. The fact that some people are forced to make those choices is the issue we should be concerned with. She also points out that it's more 'elitist' to know that you could easily make an ethical choice but not do it because of your greed. When discussing Inuits specifically, and the fact that traditionally women have been involved with seal hunts, Lucas points out that not all traditions are inherently good by virtue of being 'traditional', and tradition has always been used as an excuse for sexism, racism, homophobia etc. For instance, 'traditional' circuses involve animals being abused, and that's not something people (even non-vegetarians) are prepared to put up with. Finally, a vegan diet is a personal choice about a person's own personal diet. It's not up to us to tell people (or cultures) what to put in their mouth, it's about what we want to put in our own, and no one is expected to starve in frozen wastelands rather than eat a bit of blubber.</div><div><br />
</div><div>At this point, the presenter asks George about one of the vegan-feminist arguments - that speciesism equals participating in oppression, and that feminists should be against all oppression. George brushes this off by talking about how the Animal Welfare Act means animals have to be killed humanely, therefore there's no oppression. Aside from the fact that adding the word 'humane' in front of it doesn't really change the definition of 'killing'. She says that women, on the contrary, are oppressed and have violence committed against them so men can enjoy greater social freedom. Yep, can't see any oppression or violence in a chicken being kept in a tiny cage and having its beak clipped off with burning tongs. </div><div><br />
</div><div>George is then asked about another argument - that parallels may be drawn between the objectification of animals and the objectification of women. Apparently because morality is built around human interaction, you can't talk about morality with regard to animals. She says this after just mentioning the Animal Welfare Act, so excuse me if I just dismiss this out of hand on that basis. She also says that 'those who objectify women can satisfy their needs in other ways' - and then five seconds later admits that this is true for humans eating animal products.</div><div><br />
</div><div>She then talks for a while about some super-dogmatic vegan she once met who thought that big cats in Africa could be trained to eat grass. And I'm with her on this, that's fucking stupid. But it's also fucking stupid to think that one vegan saying something ridiculous means no one should be a vegan. By George's own logic no-one should eat meat because of all the ridiculous things she says - earlier in the programme (I can't remember where), she asserts that no one should ever be vegan because babies need breastmilk. The last time I checked, women were humans. Lucas does raise an interesting debate about what vegan pet-owners feed their carnivorous animals (spoiler: usually pet food, since being vegan is about your own diet and no one wants to hurt an animal who's dietary needs have not been fully studied for their own beliefs). </div><div><br />
</div><div>Finally, the presenter asks George if there are ethical dietary choices to be made while rejecting vegetarianism/veganism. Her solution is for everyone to eat less, then erects another double-strawman about people having to put their own dietary needs before their ethical conscience. Well, no vegan is asking someone to risk their life to satisfy an ethical choice, and there's far more negative health impacts from eating meat than from not eating it. She makes vague allusions to other arguments during the interview, and I'd highly recommend reading the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Vegetable-Woman-Feminist-Vegetarianism/dp/0791446875">reviews</a> for her book for a list of other reasons she is wrong.</div><div><br />
</div><div>After all this, Sheri Lucas is interviewed. As I mentioned above, she spends most of her time knocking down George's strawmen, but there were a couple of other things she discussed. Firstly, she discussed other arguments she's heard (from friends and family) against veganism, and a common one is what she terms 'the saint fallacy'. She illustrates this by talking about a relative who was challenging her on her diet who found out she hadn't yet registered as an organ donor, then tried to use this to say that because she wasn't perfect, she should just eat meat. All I can say to this is that no vegan is trying to be perfect. Not being the best at one issue doesn't mean that you should give up all your ethical convictions, you should just try to be better at the one issue! (Or not, depending on how strongly you feel about it - this is something we will return to)</div><div><br />
</div><div>She also points out, to people who want to try a vegetarian/vegan diet but are worried about the availability of substitutes and supplements etc. that the more people reject less compassionate options, the more ethical options become available - look at the boom of Fairtrade goods in the UK for one example of this.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Right, on to my opinions. </div><div><br />
</div><div>Do I think all feminists should be vegetarian/vegan? No. I mean, it would be awesome if they were, but at the end of the day, you don't have to be a vegan to be a feminist, and you don't have to be a feminist to be a vegan (as I have found out to my chagrin).</div><div><br />
</div><div>I think that the vegetarian-feminist arguments are important, insofar as they highlight interesting parallels to be drawn between systems of oppression and make us realise that there is no 'one struggle', but rather a system of kyriarchy under which everything is interlinked.</div><div><br />
</div><div>The main problem I have with meat eaters isn't that they eat meat - that's their choice, but rather how angry and argumentative they get when they encounter a vegan or a vegetarian. It's another interesting parallel to draw with feminism - people who perpetuate these systems of oppression seem to be equally adamant that anyone who challenges them is 'stupid' and can be argued out of their ethical choice with 'cunning' questions ("What would we do with all the animals?" and "What if some women <i>like</i> being harassed on the street?" being two eye-roll-worthy examples). Put simply, it's my body, it's my damn mouth and I'm not taking your meat away from you.</div><div><br />
</div><div>One final comment I'd like to make about this whole thing is that I see veganism as analogous to not smoking. It's a choice that's healthier and undeniably more ethical - however, as a smoker, I don't harangue non-smokers about why they're not smoking whilst citing some mild benefit that may result (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/mar/05/smoking-alzheimers-goldacre-bad-science">some studies</a> show smoking slightly reduces the risk of Alzheimer's), especially when I know that the health risks of my choice are far greater. I have made the decision to smoke, and the only reason for that is because I like it. I would suggest that it's the only argument in favour of eating meat too. But that's cool, it's your body.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Bearing that in mind, I'd like to ask that if a comment you want to make contains anything you see in the image below, you just don't bother saying it:</div><div><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4170866438_ac0255a0b8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2736/4170866438_ac0255a0b8.jpg" width="270" /></a></div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div><div><br />
</div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-53870430476192919822012-01-14T07:22:00.000-08:002012-01-14T07:22:00.135-08:00A small rant about agency and what's not your fucking businessBefore I start this post, I'd just like to say: Mum - I'm sure there's something much better you could be doing than reading this. Go on, get lost. Nothing to see here.<br />
<br />
Yesterday I wrote a post for the F Word about the problems with people telling women they are 'wrong' for liking sexual acts that the teller-offer thinks are inherently 'degrading'. It's called <a href="http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/01/your_nose_has_n">Your nose has no place in my bedroom (unless it's invited)</a>. It was meant to be a short, off the cuff post, but internet commenters are a funny old breed* and so I'd like to add a few things here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol><li>Even if you think I like something for the 'wrong' reasons (OH EHM GEE BRAINWASHED BY PATRIARCHY) - it's none of your fucking business if I'm enjoying myself.</li>
<li>I don't spend my life psychoanalysing why anyone wants to have missionary sex under the covers with the lights off, because IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.</li>
<li>If someone DOES like something and you think (or fucking hell, even if they think) it's for the wrong reasons <i>this does not make them doing that inherently bad</i>.</li>
<li>Handwringing men - please STOP trying to deny my sexual agency by saying that I *must* be brainwashed by the patriarchy. You are not so fucking big and bad that I do not know my own mind. </li>
<li>Not all men are evil sex-beasts determined to make women degrade themselves. Please trust me to identify these men and allow them appropriate access to my knickers if I so wish.</li>
<li>There are SEVEN FUCKING BILLION people on the planet. Do you really think your rules apply to everyone and every sexual act ever?</li>
<li>Can we just stop pretending that every person who likes some submissive acts is a supine individual who just can't say no to the big bad patriarchy? BOUNDARIES. THEY EXIST. WITH GOOD PARTNERS, THEY ARE ADHERED TO. IF THEY ARE NOT ADHERED TO, THE PARTNER MAY BE GOTTEN RID OF.</li>
<li>Not every person who likes some submissive/degrading acts all the time. The facial is not an entire sex 'act', it is part of a sexual encounter. It is entirely possible for partners to switch roles DURING a sexual encounter, or to vary between sexual encounters. Put simply, how do you know that just before my partner came on my face I wasn't fucking him up the arse with a strap-on and calling him 'fucktoy'? Is he brainwashed by the patriarchy, or is that bit OK? </li>
</ol><div>I'll end this with part of what I said in the comments on Marina's <a href="http://notazerosumgame.blogspot.com/2012/01/decisions-decisions-sex-in-time-of.html?showComment=1326552997982#c7150362538103898304">blogpost response</a>: </div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 14px; text-align: justify;"> we have a hell of a way to go before we can find an unfettered-by-patriarchy-and-other-surroundings expression of sexuality, and the best way to go about that is to promote communication between sex partners, destigmatise female sexuality and keep educating people to talk about GOOD consent.</span></blockquote>Not by sticking your nose in my knickers and telling me I 'just don't know any better', unless I explicitly invite you to do so. (HINT: The odds of this happening are not in your favour)<br />
<br />
<br />
(*spunkwaffling dickwits)Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-5347904179125478672012-01-05T02:42:00.000-08:002012-01-05T02:42:59.754-08:00Female Privilege Checklist-agogo!Last night, a 'female privilege checklist' that was posted on <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/o0ojw/the_female_privilege_checklist/">Reddit/MensRights</a>, (107 upvotes at time of publication) was doing the rounds on Twitter. Posted in a faux-concerned way (the OP <i>just wants women to be aware of these things, you see</i>), this list may as well be called 'Patriarchy hurts men too: A list', or possibly 'The MRA bingo card (what can we blame on eebil feminazis today?)'. Anyway, I took a bit of time to fisk it. I haven't included links (because most of these seemed pretty obvious, also I was working in a rush), but if you'd like me to explain my working or sources on anything, please just ask.<br />
<br />
(DISCLAIMER: <i>The list itself is heteronormative (to the point of homophobia) and completely cisnormative. It also only really applies to very western countries, and it helps to imagine that we're living in 1950. Also I got slightly bored towards the end.</i>)<br />
<br />
<br />
<ol class="ol1"><li class="li1">On average I will get much lighter punishment for the same crime. <span style="color: red;">- No. There is no disparity in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guideline Council. Most defences are written from the 'male gaze' - i.e. Provocation requires a 'sudden or temporary loss of control'. Men and women usually (for various reasons, all of them societal) commit different 'types' of crimes - most women are in prison for drug and property-based crimes, more men for violent crimes. If women commit a 'male' crime, they are usually judged more harshly as they have transgressed the gender boundary as well as the criminal one.</span></li>
<li class="li1">PMS is usually considered an extenuating circumstance. (<a href="http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz1.htm"><span class="s1">Example</span></a>) <span style="color: red;">- Only if it's so severe as to give the defendant the defence of Diminished Responsibility - at which point it usually takes on the characteristics of a mental illness. It's not just 'oh, I was on my period. Can't be blamed for anything'.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I am not expected to go to war or even drafted into the army. <span style="color: red;">- One of the last countries to have a draft is Israel. Who draft both men and women. 40% of child soldiers are girls. Most countries now allow women to join the army. Women are more likely to suffer the consequences of war. Wars are usually started by men. Patriarchal pressures stop women serving on the front line.</span></li>
<li class="li1">It's always ladies first. Perhaps also children first, but always girls before boys. <span style="color: red;">- There have been lots of times this wasn't the case. Also, If you give up rape culture, we'd be more than happy to give up leaving sinking boats first or being the first to go through a door. Honestly.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have special protection from domestic violence and supposedly female-only issues, unlike my male counterparts.<span style="color: red;"> - Male domestic violence refuges and helplines exist. The way to get more of these is not to have fewer for women, as men's rights activists have campaigned to do in the past. Also, if women are so well protected, why do two of them die because of this a week in the UK alone?</span></li>
<li class="li1">In a sex-related crime (e.g. groping), and in the absence of conflicting evidence, my word will have more weight than a man's.<span style="color: red;"> - Nope, sorry. You saw what happened with Herman Cain, right? </span></li>
<li class="li1">If I am raped I can safely report it and my report will be taken seriously because there is a legal provision for it.<span style="color: red;"> - Premise accepted, in cases of male victims v female victims but I do not accept that it's a privilege. This happens because women are more likely to be raped than men, so it is more common to deal with. In any case, there is still a shockingly low conviction rate, and lots of female victims are not taken 'seriously'.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can look at children for more than three seconds with no fear of being labelled a pedophile. <span style="color: red;">- If there wasn't the women = childrearers, men = sexual beings dichotomy, this wouldn't be the case.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Usually, cases of female adult on male children sexual abuse aren't even considered in court. <span style="color: red;">- Yes they are. And seriously.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Other cases of abuse are not given the same priority. Child abuse is only sexual in nature. (<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/n7gg5/just_in_case_everybody_doesnt_know_by_now_the/"><span class="s1">More</span></a>) - <span style="color: red;">I'm not sure what they mean by this.</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I get a divorce, I will invariably get child custody. <span style="color: red;">- Due to the idea of women = childrearers. Feminists would like to get rid of this too, and just have whichever parent is most suitable (if it must just be one) to raise the children, because it is another reason that women are harmed economically. </span></li>
<li class="li1">If I get a divorce, chances are I will get alimony, even if there are no children.<span style="color: red;"> - Women more likely to give up work or opportunities for career progression when married, and do more work in the marriage. Alimony is a way of compensating this.</span></li>
<li class="li1">There is much more funding for breast cancer research than for prostate or testicle cancer research. <span style="color: red;">- It's not a finite pot or a privilege. No one is stopping anyone raising money for research into these types of cancers. How about a male cancer equivalent of Race for Life?</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I marry a rich man so that I don't have to work, people will say I'm successful. <span style="color: red;">- Or a 'golddigging whore'. Also, men are not pressured to give up work, whereas women are</span>.</li>
<li class="li1">I am always protected from genital mutilation. Even in the few places where it is practised, genital mutilation is sometimes illegal, only for my gender though. <span style="color: red;">- Although I do not agree with circumcision and consider it wrong, female genital mutilation is much, much more extreme and dangerous, and usually done at an older age. In countries where breast-ironing is done, it is usually done to make the woman less 'desirable' in order to lessen her chances of rape.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have a longer life expectancy. <span style="color: red;">- due to societal factors like drinking less, smoking less, eating less fatty food (hello body shaming!) etc.</span></li>
<li class="li1">There is a much lesser chance that I will be driven to suicide<span style="color: red;">.- No, just a lower chance that women are successful in their attempts. Also to do with a culture in which men are seen as 'strong' and have to bottle emotions up.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Retirement age for me is lower than for my male counterparts in most places.<span style="color: red;"> - Not any more. Also due to men = strong, women = weak dichotomy.</span></li>
<li class="li1">The majority of the population in most of the western nations is the same gender as me. <span style="color: red;">- We have a 1% majority and much fewer opportunities. No one is practicing gendercide on men in non-westernised countries though.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can fight for my gender's issues with no fear of being labelled a whiny sexist or a chauvinist pig. <span style="color: red;">- Really, <a href="http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/">men can do this too</a>. They just so often do it while doing the other things too.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Everybody, from a very young age, is taught that they must not hit me. There is a Spanish saying, “a las damas no se las toca ni con el pétalo de una rosa”, which translates as “ladies cannot be touched, not even with a rose petal”.<span style="color: red;"> - that's not our fault, and very frequently a rule that's not adhered to. </span></li>
<li class="li1">Due to accusations of sexism, many places now hire preferentially or exclusively women (and that's even ignoring the sex industry). Such discrimination is, in some places, law.<span style="color: red;"> - Really, I can't say anything other than, no it's not, please show your working.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have a much lower chance of being injured or dying for work-related reasons. <span style="color: red;">- Societal pressures making more dangerous industries apparently only suitable for 'men'. Also, could probably be solved by greater H&S legislation, but try telling Tories that.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have no pressure to be physically strong or to do most of the physically demanding work. <span style="color: red;">- But we ARE labelled as 'abnormal' if we do.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have little pressure to be a breadwinner. <span style="color: red;">- Except if you need to be (single mother). Also, men aren't pressured OUT of careers on marriage.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can live with someone my own gender with no fear of being labelled a faggot.<span style="color: red;"> - Why is homosexuality seen as such a bad thing?</span></li>
<li class="li1">Even if I do like my own gender I'm at an advantage – lesbians are generally better treated than gay males. <span style="color: red;">- No really, this is just not true. Gay men have a (comparatively) very strong economic position, are more widely accepted to be the 'definition' of homosexual and are more positively (and realistically) portrayed in the media.</span></li>
<li class="li1">When I go to a bar, I get to decide whether or not to have sex tonight. Men are competitors; I am the judge. <span style="color: red;">- Unless the men decide it's their 'right' to have sex with me. If I am raped it is my fault for being out at a bar. Also, bars do not equal sex. </span></li>
<li class="li1">I can get free entrances to bars and free drinks once I'm in.<span style="color: red;"> - Free entrance is to lure us into bars so men can try and sleep with us, free drinks usually the same reason. Again, not everyone goes out trying to get laid. </span></li>
<li class="li1">Even if I don't, a male is usually expected to pay for me.<span style="color: red;"> - I dispute this, however, if it is true, it's because men = strong protective breadwinning provider, women = economically stunted, need looking after. Also, I'll give up all free drinks if you give up rape culture.</span></li>
<li class="li1">If there's a crime or some other wrong and I'm involved, chances are I will automatically considered a victim. <span style="color: red;">- Good job courts work with what we like to call 'evidence' then, isn't it?</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I don't like one of my (male) co-workers, I can ruin their reputation with a sexual harassment accusation. <span style="color: red;">- for fuck's sake. Just no.</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I am straight I have it easier when looking for a male.<span style="color: red;"> - How? Is this because women are supposed to be 'passive'? Have you seen how much effort women are supposed to put in to getting a man? They're supposed to change their whole damn appearance!</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I am straight I will never be friendzoned.<span style="color: red;"> - Yeah, you might. Also, 'friendzoning' only means that the person likes your company but doesn't want to fuck you. It's not a great crime committed by them.</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I get a promotion it's gender equality, even if I didn't deserve it. If a male does it's sexism and I can freely denounce it. <span style="color: red;">- Unless you're accused of giving sexual favours to secure it or jumped all over by men who have decided they must be inherently better than you so you only got it because of affirmative action.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can show skin almost without fear of being arrested. <span style="color: red;">- Just raped, and the chance to be blamed for it if it happens. Also, men can go topless in summer!</span></li>
<li class="li1">Even in colleges where most of the students are male, chances are a larger fraction of female applications are accepted.<span style="color: red;"> - Only recently, and because women outperform men in most exams. In 35. they railed against affirmative action, now they want it. Baffling.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have a higher pain threshold.<span style="color: red;"> - Even if this is true (and there's no reliable way to test it), it's probably because of childbirth. We can swap if you want.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Paradoxically I have much more protection from pain – I am never told to “woman up” or to “take it like a woman”. <span style="color: red;">- Ha! We imply you're weak and sickly and this does not benefit us! STOP SAYING IT THEN.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Maternity leave is much more common and has more benefits than paternity leave.<span style="color: red;"> - Yep, and this is another way women are pressured into giving up a career in order to raise children.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can freely show my emotions, including crying, with no fear of being labelled a pussy. - <span style="color: red;">Patriarchy hurts men too, episode #83459 - Also another example of saying women (or normative female attributes) are weak and undesireable.</span></li>
<li class="li1">If I get to retire and am still single, nobody will question my sexual orientation. <span style="color: red;">- no, just called a wizened old hag if we try have a relationship with a man our own age, laughed at as a 'cougar' if we dare try to have sex with a man younger than us and constantly patronised and told we should be distraught that we never married or had children, even if we didn't want to. Also, lots of elderly childfree single women ARE labelled lesbians, and why the homophobia?</span></li>
<li class="li1">Public restrooms for my gender are almost always spotless.<span style="color: red;"> - Oh god no, they're not. Also, you piss on the walls!</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have virtually no chance of finding a janitor of the opposite sex on the public restrooms for my gender. And even if I do, I can speak to the manager who will make sure it doesn't happen again. <span style="color: red;">- Not true.</span></li>
<li class="li1">Chances are I will never have someone of the opposite sex searching me, and my searches will be less invasive. <span style="color: red;">- Firstly, it's illegal in every opposite configuration. Secondly, you think vaginal cavity searches are not invasive?</span></li>
<li class="li1">I can find sexist overtones in every negative situation, even if there aren't, and most people will believe me. <span style="color: red;">- Trust me, even when I point to clear and concrete evidence of, say, higher instances of rape, someone will be waiting in the wings to argue with me.</span></li>
<li class="li1">When it comes to sex, I'm not required to maintain an erection for a long time or have high levels of stamina; in fact, it is I who sets the bar and can humilliate men for underperforming. <span style="color: red;">- And it is I who was told until 20 years ago that if I didn't want to have sex with my husband, he could just rape me, and still get told that men should be allowed to rape me if I have 'led them on' (usually by existing).</span></li>
<li class="li1">Most of the best parts in choral music are written for my voice, whatever it may be. Such parts for males (usually tenors only) exist, but are much rarer. -<span style="color: red;"> Oh noes! 1) The Three Tenors. 2) Most old soprano pieces were written for castrati, because they didn't want women in choirs. Again, something I'm willing to trade for, let's say… an end to rape culture.</span></li>
<li class="li1">I may verbally defuse or refuse to engage in physical altercation without it damaging my reputation or viability as a sex partner. (thanks Space_Pirate) <span style="color: red;">- Most het women I know wouldn't want a partner who was a violent arsehole. Also, this is the men = strong, women = weak dichotomy AGAIN. Blame patriarchy!</span></li>
<li class="li1">I have the privilege of being unaware of (or feigning ignorance about) my female privilege. After all, everybody knows the world is biased against females. <span style="color: red;">- YAWN.</span></li>
</ol><div><br />
</div><div>Here's the thing. I KNOW I have privilege. I know that I have privilege over people of colour, over trans* people, over people who don't pass as straight, over queer people, over non-western people, over disabled people, over people who don't pass as neurotypical, and probably a whole host more people I haven't mentioned here because of my privilege causing me to be an idiot. But not over white, straight, cis, able-bodied, neurotypical western men. Sorry, but the fact that the privileges MRAs seek (not seek for everyone, just themselves) sometimes bite them on the arse doesn't mean that they're actually benefitting women to a greater extent. Really, the best thing to do would be for people to see where we're *all* being fucked over, and work together to change it, but somehow I can't see that happening...</div>Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com27tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902857965429630827.post-39249030513697050582011-12-30T04:22:00.000-08:002012-01-02T12:22:25.247-08:00Top people of 2011After the <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/dec/28/pandagate-bbc-tian-tian-december">'pandagate'</a> row the other day, I thought about putting a list together of my top people of 2011. Then I realised that would be hard and would potentially lead to more arguing, so I didn't.<br />
<br />
However, there are some really ace people who I would like to pay a bit of tribute to, and those are the people I met off Twitter this past year, whom you should all follow. There's quite a few to get through, so I might miss someone out. Let me know if I do and I'll rectify it straight away.<br />
<br />
Without further ado...<br />
<br />
The first person I met from Twitter was <a href="http://twitter.com/juliet_mcr">@juliet_mcr</a>. A wonderful woman, who was <a href="http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/2011/01/true-story-of-daily-mail-lies-guest.html">maligned by the Daily Mail and took them to court</a>. As a result of this, now a law student. That same day I met <a href="http://twitter.com/RopesToInfinity">@RopesToInfinity</a>. Sarky but loveable git who writes <a href="http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/">No Sleep Til Brooklands</a>, a great Mail-fisking blog, when he can be bothered to update it. Boyfriend of <a href="http://twitter.com/other_red">@other_red</a>, who is awesome. Now, in order to make sense of things, I'm going to break the rest of the people up into categories...<br />
<br />
<b>People I have been out for drinks with:</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/cpoffers">@cpoffers</a> - My most frequent drinking buddy in That London. Wonderfully acerbic sense of humour and a great source of cat pictures when I'm feeling down.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/stavvers">@stavvers</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/mediocredave">@mediocredave</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/jedweightman">@jedweightman</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/seanjohalloran">@seanjohalloran</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/a_y_alex">@a_y_alex</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/marxroadrunner">@marxroadrunner</a> - very funny, fiercely intelligent people who are often found plotting the demise of the Tories, of which I wholeheartedly approve.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/ludditewebdev">@ludditewebdev</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/iamminihorse">@iamminihorse</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/karen_hackett">@karen_hackett</a> - along with some others mentioned above, got me drunk on shots and kidnapped me at Victoria Station. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Had a great time with them and they're a pleasure to follow.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/scriptrix">@scriptrix</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/LosTheSkald">@LosTheSkald</a> - Classics-loving couple. Always have an interesting angle on politics and teach me a lot with their tweets.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/sonniesedge">@sonniesedge</a> - one of my favourite people ever. Hilariously funny, totally on the ball and one of the best people to watch Doctor Who when hungover with (and one of the best people to get drunk with in the first place).<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/scattermoon">@scattermoon</a> - great woman - gave me a much-needed place to stay after London Slutwalk and got me a job (even if it didn't work out!)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/JulietJacques">@JulietJacques</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/ParisLees">@ParisLees</a> - fantastic Graun-writing trans* rights activists.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/QOFE">@QOFE</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/sandyd68">@sandyd68</a> - my wonderful Brighton-based Twitteraunties - if you could get kettled with your aunties then go get hammered with them while you scream obscenities at Question Time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/nautilusinred">@nautilusinred</a> - Trade Union activist who always has something good to say.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/voqo">@voqo</a> - very clever lady. Great fun to be around.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/Puffles2010">@Puffles2010</a> - or rather, Puffles' bestest-buddy. Offers an interesting perspective from inside the Whitehall jungle.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/interama">@interama</a> - very nice person. Incredibly intelligent and knows her baking.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/ruthiedee">@ruthiedee</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/clogmuso">@clogmuso</a> - Labour party members I didn't want to fight - a rare occurrence. Lovely Bristol-based people.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/heyhayley">@heyhayley</a> - now housemate of mine - her fault I moved to Bristol. Thankfully :)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/commuterist">@commuterist</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/amipepper">@amipepper</a> - fab couple. Commuterist has taught me a lot about economics through his tweets.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/bookelfleeds">@BookElfLeeds</a> - great tweeter on the subjects of Marxist feminism, libraries and literacy. Can handle obscenely strong strawberry cider that's served from a box on the end of the bar very well.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/bolli_bolshevik">@bolli_bolshevik</a> - very funny radical feminist and organiser of Leeds Reclaim The Night.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/Stebax">@Stebax</a> - very talented media blogger at <a href="http://enemiesofreason.co.uk/">Enemies of Reason</a> and at the New Statesman.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/DocHackenbush">@DocHackenbush</a> - comic genius and awesome at captioning images. Made my Facebook profile picture. Totally worth getting lost for two hours trying to meet him and Hackenbush Jr.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/kit_withnail">@kit_withnail</a> - the man for whom the phrase 'fiercely intelligent' was invented.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/jaykayell_">@jaykayell_</a> - helped me avoid the Royal Wedding in London. Deserves a medal just for that.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/5ChinCrack">@5ChinCrack</a> - brilliantly hilarious author of <a href="http://www.fivechinesecrackers.com/">Five Chinese Crackers</a> - gives out the not-coveted 'Tabloid Bullshit of the Month' award.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/Trishie_D">@Trishie_D</a> - laugh-out-loud funny American ex-pat. Always willing to help people. Me in 20 years time, without the being funny or American or nice.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/JenClone">@JenClone</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/pitandpendulum">@pitandpendulum</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/Oddtwang">@Oddtwang</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/SuperRetroid">@SuperRetroid</a> - one of the funniest groups I've ever had the fortune to meet. All great tweeters, and introduced me to a story I can neither erase from my memory nor tell anyone about.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/jdthndr">@jdthndr</a> - lovely student of Proper Journalism (it can be done!) and great person to have around. Cheered me up many a time.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/atomicspin">@atomicspin</a> - brilliant science and media blogger at <a href="http://atomicspin.wordpress.com/">Atomic Spin</a>. Moved countries just after we managed to have a pint together. These two events may or may not be related.<br />
<br />
<b>Bristol Feminists:</b><br />
<b><br />
</b><br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/sianushka">@sianushka</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/annifrangipani">@annifrangipani</a> - awesomely dedicated co-founders of <a href="http://www.bristolfeministnetwork.com/">Bristol Feminist Network</a>. Tireless campaigners and organisers of Bristol Reclaim The Night. Sian blogs at <a href="http://sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com/">Sian and Crooked Rib</a> and has just published a feminist anthology titled <a href="http://crookedribpublishing.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/the-light-bulb-moment-now-available-to-buy/">The Light Bulb Moment</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/NimkoAli">@NimkoAli</a> - another woman who seemingly never gets tired. Co-founder of anti-FGM groups <a href="http://www.dofeve.org/">Daughters of Eve</a> and <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/CLIT-ROCK/220135141374485">CLIT-ROCK</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/marstrina">@marstrina</a> - awesome radical feminist. Blogs at <a href="http://notazerosumgame.blogspot.com/">Not a Zero Sum Game</a>.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/madamjmo">@madamjmo</a> - writes a great feminist blog with an emphasis on book reviews at <a href="http://madamjmo.blogspot.com/">Madam J-Mo</a>. Once saved me from being stranded in Birmingham.<br />
<br />
<b>People I've met at demos and similar places:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/kateosgreatos">@kateosgreatos</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/toivoperson">@toivoperson</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/andyhaden">@andyhaden</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/sinisterpics">@sinisterpics</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/ayiasophia">@ayiasophia</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/bristolnoborder">@bristolnoborder</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/nynyflower">@nynyflower</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/iaincollins">@iaincollins</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/latentexistence">@latentexistence</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/penners_">@penners_</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/seancourt">@seancourt</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/mortari">@mortari</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/catalyst45">@catalyst45</a>, <a href="http://twitter.com/anonymoosh">@anonymoosh</a>. Special mention in this category goes to <a href="http://twitter.com/SallyBercow">@SallyBercow</a>, who took a picture of my chest at London Slutwalk and sent it to Guido Fawkes, who then put me in the 'top protest totty' section on his blog. Cheers for that Sally.<br />
<br />
<b>Super-special mention:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://twitter.com/Pani_Bufetowa">@Pani_Bufetowa</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/NeverFadingWood">@NeverFadingWood</a> - who I am sure would be the most awesome drinking buddies ever if they didn't insist on living in Poland. Wonderful, caring, brilliant, funny couple. Definitely top of my 'to meet in 2012' list.<br />
<br />
Last but not least, my lovely boyfriend <a href="http://twitter.com/Chris_GLS">@Chris_GLS</a>, who I started talking to about this time last year on Twitter and started dating in March. There's not much I can say here that won't make people vomit, but he's proper awesome and really helps me out all the time.<br />
<br />
<br />
There you have it, my favourite people from 2011. Meeting all of you has made this year so much fun, and compiling this list has also made me realise how many more people off Twitter I'm absolutely desperate to meet. So... how's everyone's diary looking for 2012?Forty Shades Of Greyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07070982468518425595noreply@blogger.com0