The Furies of Hell... As Usual

This week, I came across this intriguing article on Women's Views on News, which references this jaw-dropping article in the Daily Mail. As some may be boycotting the DM, I will quote pertinent paragraphs to save you the trouble (always happy to help!)

The context is as follows: the actor Dennis Waterman has admitted hitting his ex-wife Rula Lenska during his marriage. Carol Sarler thinks he's an idiot, which is grand. I also think he's an idiot.

However, he is "a double idiot for admitting it so may years after their divorce". After all, "Waterman should have known, then, that the Furies of Hell would be unleashed". Wow, surely the inversion of that is to say that if Waterman was to keep this a secret - despite the fact that it would make Lenska's repeated assertions of violence seem like a lie - then that would be preferable, because heaven forfend the Furies of Hell (which, according to the article, include the domestic violence charity Refuge(!))

Sarler's snarky reference to the fact that a high profile domestic violence charity was quick ("First out of the traps, as usual") and 'appalled' is utterly derogatory, regardless of her claim that she agrees with them.

Yet, she only agrees that "[t]here can never be any reasoned excuse for brute force". Evidently there are numerous reasoned excuses for sexual and mental violence in a relationship.

She then claims that, not only is there a difference between 'beaten' and 'hit', but that many couples work this into the framework of their relationships. Wow, you may say, but our good friend Sarler has an anecdotal story to back her up.

Her friend Jean provoked (yep, provoked...) three men to slap her. But it's OK, because Jean told her she wouldn't have put up with "a proper beating", but "with a bit of a slap, at least you know who wears the trousers, don't you?"

Well, quite.

Here she invokes the insight of Waterman once more when he claims that:

"The problem with strong, intelligent women, is they can argue, well. If you're not bright enough to do it with words... I lashed out... It can happen."

Evidently he isn't bright enough to do much, but that's beside the point. Sarler gives us some dodgy sounding wisdom from a psychiatrist who has done research in refuges, where most women had an IQ at least 10 points higher than their partner, ad can therefore win verbal arguments. But (for there must always be a but):

"The trouble is, said the psychiatrist (while admitting that it's not exactly a popular thing to point out), some of them, as with Jean, would prefer not to win." Because winning is unfeminine, and (brace yourself, seriously I winced so hard I was hoping that the wind wouldn't change...) "However much goading it takes, they'd rather be slapped than victorious. When push - quite literally - comes to shove, these women prefer to have a dominant man to whom they might refer as an authority figure."

So, women are manipulating men to beat them, but why? In her best pseudo-intellectual dangerous theorising tone, Sarler informs us that, for these women "the moral high ground is instantly theirs", and further, there are men who seek out these 'aggressive' women because they "love a bit of a tussle". Think of "the highly-charged sex involved in 'making up' afterwards". Well that must be some highly charged sex, or, y'know, frequently rape...

So there you have it, intelligent women feel unfeminine when they win arguments, so deliberately goad their partners into hitting them (but not beating, because we can indulge in a touch of victim blaming, after all "at the first sign of the first raised fist, sensible women do what sensible women have always done: they walk away"). Oh, and once the beating, sorry, hitting, has occurred, women get the moral high ground and some "highly-charged" make-up sex.

Domestic violence: a win-win.

Rape Culture: A Definition

This week, my good friend Camilla (who incidentally has a fantastic blog over here) pointed me towards this article, which got me thinking.

I appreciate the writer's thoughts on the topic, and I absolutely agree that we do need to question our attitude towards rape when it focuses on the victims rather than the perpetrators. However, her argument doesn't quite hit the mark for me - to replace the term 'rape culture' with 'rapist's culture', as she seems to be suggesting, is actually a step in the wrong direction.

To be raped can sometimes seem almost ephemeral, and it is often important to reify the relationship by making the connection that one was raped by x. One doesn't simply become the victim of rape, someone needs to make the decision to rape. This isn't reiterated often enough, and it needs to be. It needs to be, because until we do, society makes the attitude that a victim should feel shame more than a perpetrator, acceptable.

But that brings me to the crux of the definition I propound of 'rape culture': it is about society. Rape culture is the state of society which engages in slut shaming, victim blaming, and propagating rape myths. Rape culture is telling victims that they have to forget that they have been raped. Rape culture is the belittling of rape in jokes. Rape culture is the use of the word 'frape'.

Rape culture is where we let rape happen. We LET rape happen.

The majority of people don't rape, but many of them perpetuate a culture where rape is allowed to happen.

Rape culture is a society which is complicit in the perpetuation of rape.

Why Having a Vagina is a Dangerous Job

I've blogged before about the 'f-word' (which can be found here). A word which sends chills down the spine of young women across Britain, setting teeth on edge and eliciting vehement denials of ever using it themselves. The f word is, of course, feminism.

Tomorrow is International Women's Day, a time where we look back at the successes won for women, and when we look ahead to the long struggles which we face to win others.

There are so, so many areas where we need to focus attention: politics, health inequalities, distribution of resources, lack of education and unfair divisions of labour are just the start. And it all comes down to vaginas.

Having a vagina makes you irrational, incapable of leadership, incompetent in dealing with your own financial affairs and futile to teach. A pretty big ask of any formation of skin, I say.

Having a vagina is dangerous. Having a clitoris may be the basis for the breakdown of society. Seriously. In some countries, the clitoris, as an organ designed purely for pleasure, has to be removed - cut, sliced, torn - and sometimes even more to curb rampant female sexuality. Without these measures, women will indulge in the sex they want to have and endanger patriarchal lineages.

Having a vagina is dangerous. It makes you the bearer of life, often whether you want to be or not. Did you know that 100% of those who had abortions last year had a vagina? If all those baby murderers had vaginas then, y'know, it's OK to stop their access to the contraception which prevents women from putting their lives in danger by going through pregnancy. (Although aspirin between the knees is a win-win situation!)

Talking of endangered lives - having a vagina is dangerous. Every minute a woman dies in childbirth. Women across the globe have little or no access to contraception, which means that births are not spaced out. The complications which can arise from your body having gone through numerous pregnancies and births in a very short space of time can be fatal. Add to this the fact that obstetrics and gynaecology are often ignored medical specialisms, after all, women are MADE FOR CHILDBIRTH, and it is unsurprising that women are dying.

Having a vagina is dangerous. The vast majority of rape victims are women, subjected to intimate violence in an attempt to desecrate their bodies. As a demonstration of power over a woman's body, vaginal rape takes on a particular character when considered in the context of war: the possibility that women will be forced to carry a child borne of violence has led to women being urged to commit suicide rather than bring further dishonour on her (male) relatives.

Having a vagina is dangerous. Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities for women aged 15-44 across the world than cancer, malaria, car crashes and war. Whilst some of the aspects I've talked about have particular significance in (usually) foreign lands, this is one of the most consistent areas of danger for women. Developed or developing, women in all countries are subject to this.

Having a vagina is a dangerous job, and that is why I continue to call myself a feminist and will continue to do so until there is no need to fight for our rights anymore.