Nick Griffin and Rape Scaremongering

So... long time, no post. Unfortunately life got in the way a bit (moving flat, job searching and the wee matter of a 15,000 word Masters dissertation), but I've been biding my time waiting for something to make me seethe.

That time is now.

Over the past few months there have been repeated protests in Midlothian about the housing of convicted violent rapist Robert Greens, otherwise known as the Da Vinci rapist because he attacked a Dutch student near Rosslyn Chapel, one of the locations for the book.

After his release from prison, no other local authority in the UK would take him, so Midlothian has been forced to house him. Local people have been up in arms about the matter and have undertaken a number of protests, including marching outside the house and staging a go-slow in the centre of Dalkeith to slow traffic.

Now since this furore began, my main reaction has been one of discomfort. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the protesters have placed so much media attention on this man, because it distorts the perception of rape. This man is dangerous because he perfectly fits the stereotype of 'real rape'. He attacked a young victim, who was a stranger to him, and used considerable violence. I'm not denigrating the victim's experience - witnesses who found her walking startled along a road thought she had been in a car crash. The crime was repellent. However, by warning about the dangers of this man - who we know is capable of rape and assault - is likely to underplay the dangers of the majority of rapists who are much more subtle in their methods. I respect the locals' right to protest, but I worry about the message they are sending.

Then the BNP heard about the protests and decided to get in on the act. Nick Griffin made the journey North to join in but there was, as it were, a stooshie and the BNP were forced to leave. Commenting on the 'ugly scenes', Griffin said:

I hope the people who are protesting us feel ashamed and if their daughter or granddaughter is raped next - maybe they would change their minds.

Wow. There is so much wrong with this statement that my head feels as if it will implode. This is probably a good time for numbers.

1) This sounds pretty threatening. If Griffin isn't suggesting the BNP might rape these women then he is certainly suggesting that he wouldn't mind if someone else did. 'Cos then obviously we'd all turn to those bastions of morality for protection (even though there have been a number of BNP members and representatives charged with sex offences recently).

2) As my good friend Camilla has pointed out, Griffin is simply using this as a way to positively publicise the BNP rather than show solidarity with those protesting. He knows that his presence is controversial and liable to draw attention away from the matter at hand, but chose to rock up anyway. Given his response, he certainly doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the victim or the locals protesting.

3) Perhaps this sounds pedantic, but rape myths get my back up like nothing else. Only women are raped, and young women at that - and we all need to be protected by big, bad Nick and his BNP cronies. Urgh.

I'm sure there's more that will enrage me about this statement, but for now I have that dissertation to be getting on with...

But for now, needless to say - Nick Griffin has been banished to my own personal hellfire.

Massive Killer Pacman Ghosts: Why Frape isn't Funny Part 2

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote Zombie Sheep and Beelzebub' Dinner: Why Frape isn't Funny, which has become the most read post I've written. In it I ranted about how it had become acceptable to use the term 'frape' a contraction of 'facebook rape' to describe someone hacking into your facebook account, and how this has spread into a wider acceptance of rape as something to be joked about. Thankfully, in the intervening months I have seen a much lower usage of 'frape' but it seems that the underlying current that made it acceptable is still strong.

You may have heard about petitions to facebook regarding the proliferation of pages which joke about rape. They include 'You know she's playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway', 'Raping your mates girlfriend to see if she can put up a fight', 'Kicking Sluts in the Vagina', 'I know a silly little bitch that needs a good slap', and 'Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you don't want to wake her up'.

Lovely.

Given that Facebook says in it's terms and conditions that "You will not post content that is: hateful, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence", one would think that it would be easy to have these pages shut down. Alas, Facebook thinks these are all just hilarious rude jokes and to shut the down would be a violation of free speech.

Because we all know that women who have been assaulted and/or raped have a total hold over their own rights. They have freedom of movement, right? They have freedom of speeh, yeah? This week I read an account by Andrea Brenton Rushing entitled 'Surviving Rape: A Morning/Mourning Ritual' in which she describes feeling unsafe in her own home, suffering severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder where she had to take extended leave from her job as a lecturer because she couldn't write, nor even remember things. But, y'know, the fact that she woke up in her own bed to being attacked is funny. Funny because he obviously didn't know to go 'softly' enough.

Now if Facebook is going to be so blasé about this, we can take this as an affirmation of what they're doing. An affirmation of making fun of rape, and rape victims.

Facebook, you are being damned to my own special level of hellfire, along with Catherine Hakim, Ken Clark, and Jane Austen. Oh, and because I feel there would be a splendid irony to it, in that hell I will set massive killer pacman ghosts on you - you may try to run (digitally, I suppose), but you can't hide...

Erotic Capital: The Rationalisation of Rape

Catherine Hakim, an LSE sociologist has a new book out at the moment: Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. Nice.

Her basic thesis seems to be that men want sex. More sex than women are prepared to give, and so this provides a bit of a vacuum in which any self-serving women will exploit to her benefit. Apparently women have now noticed that they can use their 'sex-appeal' to get ahead, a fact which the 'patriarchy' has attempted to cover up: "Patriarchal ideologies have systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense." You can read a rather fantastic interview with Ms Hakim here.

This theme, that women don't have to go all the way and fulfil men's desires, but only to look pretty and make the guys think they might has been picked up in this jaw-dropping Daily Mail article. Ms Brick is a delightful young women, who is quite happy to spend a large proportion of her time flirting away in order to get exactly what she wants (which it seems is make-up and clothes - a touch of a vicious cycle going on there). Happy days for her. Interesting that last year she wrote this article entitled How TV is run by sexist pigs, where she wrote of how it was only through hard work she got on in her career despite sexual harassment. Anyhoo, it's the Daily Mail so I won't hold her up as an example.

However, Hakim's thesis doesn't just make my blood boil because she is boiling women down to sexual fantasies for men. I think she is pedalling a very dangerous ideology.

I came to this realisation when re-reading Catharine MacKinnon's section on Rape in "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State". She draws on the popular image of women as teases who control their sexuality in terms of consent. Men initiate sex, women consent . The terms of the initiation, consequences of refusal, and the situation a woman is placed in when deciding whether to consent or not are generally ignored. "Fundamentally, desirability to men is supposed a woman's form of power because she can both arouse it and deny its fulfilment". (MacKinnon, 1989:175) However, this notion of women as 'teases' rationalises force. She's stringing him along, thinking she will give in to his desires, but at the last second leaves him standing. Well of course she wants it, hasn't she just been giving all the signals? Perhaps she's trying to get him to work for it. Never do we consider that she actually doesn't want to have sex with him. "Consent in this model becomes more a metaphysical quality of a woman's being than a choice she makes and communicates." (MacKinnon, 1989:175)

Hakim is perpetuating this image of women as teases, even encouraging women to take ownership of her erotic capital and use it for her won ends. Unfortunately she hasn't thought it through. This isn't the dawning of a new feminine overcoming of the patriarchy, but it is lending academic credentials to a dangerous piece of misinformation.

For that reason, Hakim is being damned to my own personal hell, as detailed in previous postshere, here and here.

Rape IS Rape: Giving Ken Clarke the Keys to a Special Level of Hell

It's been a while since I banished anyone to a special level of hell. However, Jane Austen and those who use the word 'frape' have a new hellmate* (see what I did there?) Ken Clarke, our esteemed Justice Secretary has today given the victims of date rape and any form of non-violent rape a kick in the teeth by declaring that these crimes are 'not as serious' as violent rapes.

Serious rape is violent rape. It plays upon the myriad of stereotypes that continue to plague the victims of rape; indeed, Craig Palmer would love it. We all know what rape is. It's that dodgy looking creep who stalks the city streets late at night, preying on vulnerable young women. Heaven forbid that it be a woman's partner, or that she is coerced by non-violent means. Who'll take her seriously unless there are hand marks around her neck?

It's not even just a question of evidence in a trial though, it is another way to blame the victim. If she isn't covered in marks and bruises then she must have assented - he wasn't being violent towards her so how could she not have stopped it? She must have wanted it.

Clarke is explicit in his belief that there is a hierarchy of rape - when faced with the statement "Rape is rape" he replies "No it's not". As for Date rape, well: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes". Can be, not is, and when did the government introduce a Top 10 Worst Rapes countdown?!

To be fair to Clarke (an extraordinary difficult attitude to take when faced with such an idiot), the other issue he points out is that of underage sex. In Scotland, at least, there is a difference between statutory rape and underage sex, the former being the crime pursued regardless of issues of consent with a child aged 13 or under, and the latter referring to those between 14 and the age of consent. Underage sex is a less serious crime, as is reflected in Scottish law, and if there is no distinction in English law then perhaps Clarke should have thought about dealing with that before opening his trap and spouting a crock of dangerous idiocy.

Rape in the "ordinary, conventional sense" that Clarke talks about - violent rape by a stranger, is a terrible crime, but rape is rape. Even if you know that person. Even if you are coerced by non-violent means. Rape is Rape. To have the Justice Secretary disagree with such a statement is to perpetuate the myths that rape victims have to tackle daily. That is an injustice. That is a disgrace. That is why Ken Clarke should resign with immediate effect.

* Also, for anyone keeping count of those banished to hell, Nadine Dorries is there for her ridiculous opinion that child sex abuse victims brought it on themselves. A twisted misogynist who will fit right in.

I Would Spit on Him. Unless He was on Fire...

I know, I know. I'm mean and horrible. Unless you consider who I'm talking about, in which case you may be more amenable to my way of thinking...

That's right, it is the monster that is Clameron, or Camegg. I've not decided yet.

And why, oh why would these odious, duplicitous little goblins make me act in such a terribly impolite manner?

WELL.

We've got an issue that is close to my heart, even if it doesn't directly affect me - tuition fees. I will say here and now I can't imagine a time I'd ever vote Tory. Ever. Like, unless my local Tory candidate was standing against Nick Griffin, and I'd still be tempted to spoil my ballot. My feelings about the Lib Dems (or Labour if you want to accuse me of being partisan) were not quite as entrenched, but the sight of Clegg's smarmy (and worryingly indistinguishable from Cameron's) face and manner in the election debates, as well as my inability to shake off the feeling that he was the illegitimate love child of Pinkie and the Brain - all the world dominating ambition but with the ability to only say nyarf - meant the Lib Dems weren't getting my vote either.

(Side note: I'm not actually keen on the idea of party politics anyway, but the fact that my constituencies Tory and Lib Dem candidates spouted the same rubbish as their 'leaders' meant that they didn't get a vote.)

But it seems the rest of the country is STUPID and/or were mislead by greasy lies, and so we have a ConDem Nation.

It took a while, and I got over the sharp pain in my brain whenever I realised that those muppets were in power. So much so I didn't even get violent at those who admitted they voted these idiots in.

Then the cuts happened. Tripled tuition fees for many students came in, just to make sure that your universities are filled to the brim with clones of our power sharing team, who were privately educated at two of the best regarded schools in the country, and we can patronise all 'poor' students who need to be catered for with practical training, because heaven forbid they want to go to university too, or even, horror of horrors, wee Tarquin from Harrow wants to be a roof slater.

Iain Duncan Smith told people to 'get on their bikes' and look for work when no suitable jobs were available in the immediate area. Which is fine and grand. Unless the nearest suitable job requires public transport, which is going up in price. Or if you have a young family or sick relatives and need to take on caring responsibilities.

But what makes me truly incandescent with rage is the ways in which the government has targeted women in their cuts. The Fawcett Society brought an action against the government for sex discrimination, in which it was found that no gender impact assessment was carried out.

The most horrific example I have come across is the situation in Devon, where the cuts in council grants mean that three main charities working with victims of domestic/intimate partner violence have had their funding cut. By 100%. That is not a misprint, one hundred per cent. The Devon model has won awards for their success in working with some of the most vulnerable members of societies, but when the economic crisis (would it be churlish to point out the massive gender disparity in bankers here?) hits, women are disposable. As I've argued before, the myth that women are equal is damaging, and here it is being put into practice.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm keeping my saliva to myself.

Zombie Sheep and Beelzebub's Dinner: Why Frape Isn't Funny

It was all going so well. I was idly scanning my facebook feed this afternoon when my head exploded. What could cause such a reaction? Surely nothing as innocuous as a word?

WRONG.

There are quite a few words that make me shudder, scream and turn a teeny-weeny bit violent. Use the word 'banter' and I'll squirm. Use the word 'bants', as one EUSA hopeful did a couple of elections back and I will hunt you down and punch you in the face. You have been warned.

But nothing, I repeat NOTHING, gets me more riled than the word 'frape'.

I blogged about how Jane Austen is languishing in a special level of hell, but I swear whoever came up with the 'f' word is being repeatedly dipped in molten lava and toasted at Gas Mark 8 billion and 64 as the devil's own plaything. If not I'll personally drag them there.

Whoever thought that having your status hacked to say something silly was in any way comparable to the ordeal of rape victims, even in jest, deserves to have their intestines pumped full of angry killer bees and their toes nibbled off by zombie sheep before being finished off with a sprig of rosemary by Beelzebub. A number of good friends have used it before, not out of malice but as it has become an acceptable and even funny term. For those who take up the 'f' term, it may be unthinking ignorance, but please, for the love of all things holy, think about it. You wouldn't think it funny to post a racist term and I don't see any difference here. Not to mention my 1 strike and you're defriended policy.

But it doesn't end with 'frape'. Sexual assault is now the subject of some 'hilarious' comic routines (as discussed in the Guardian article "The Rise of the Rape Joke" accessible at http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/sep/10/rape-jokes-in-comedy).

Society must fight against the incipient attitude that rape isn't serious, that rape is funny and we should laugh at it.

It is estimated that between 1 in 3 and 1 in 4 women will experience rape in her lifetime, a figure which is considered conservative, with an estimated 75-85% of rapes never reported. In Pakistan, the Human Rights Commission estimates that a woman is raped every every 3 hours, every second victim is a minor and every fourth the victim of gang rape. Many victims have been ostracized, punished by the legal system, and even felt that the only response was suicide. In Congo, only now are we beginning to hear the outrage of the international community at the mass rape of over 300 women, some over 80, as well as babies. "Most of the survivors say they were gang-raped, by two to six assailants." (From a Guardian article, accessible at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/24/congo-rebels-rape-un-rwanda). Conviction rates worldwide are pathetic, and woman are repeatedly being failed by legal definitions, medical professionals and police. NUS statistics state that 1 in 7 female students has been sexually assaulted. Pretty much every woman has been made to feel uncomfortable and threatened by the sexual behaviour of (generally) a man. Who hasn't been groped in a club, or been frightened whilst walking on their own? As a woman big enough and ugly enough to defend myself, not to mention sober enough, I have been able to get out of these situations, but others aren't so lucky. How dare we make light of their plight?!

I urge you to boycott usage of the word 'frape'.

Wet shirts, Incest and Interminable Monologues: Why Jane Austen is Doomed to the 7th Pit of a Fiery Hell

A man in a sodden ruffled shirt doesn't do much for me. I don't think it ever did. However, for many, it has become the iconic scene of a BBC adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. I believe that this is a bit of poetic license on the part of the producers, but I can't know because my mind has blocked all details of Pride and Prejudice from my mind in an attempt to sand-bag my brain from the rot of simpering, marriage obsessed heroines.

Three years ago, I ploughed my way through the inane ramblings of Ms Austen. After all, shouldn't every educated woman list an Austen novel as her favourite book? At first I thought my dislike of the book was a flaw of my own, I wasn't smart enough to appreciate the writing or not romantically-inclined enough to identify with the protagonists. I tried and I tried and I tried to get to grips with Austen. Perhaps it was just Pride and Prejudice that I didn't get on with. So I tried Emma. Just as bad. Sense and Sensibility? Senseless. Mansfield Park? Seriously, incest ain't sexy.

Ah, but it's just a quirk of the time, I hear you say.

Fair enough, but for books taken as the pinnacle of romance, that's a message that makes me vomit a wee bit in my mouth.

And then the writing style... Goodness me there have been telephone books which read better.

But all of this pales in comparison to the realisation I finally came to. There's nothing wrong with me because I don't like Austen, but the societal pressure for young women to like her novels. They aren't very well written and they do go on (and on and on and on and, well you get the picture). But that isn't reason enough to decry Austen - my bug bear is that Austen has become the pinnacle of 'female literature'and their underlying message a stick with which to beat women. Her books have soppy, simpering women devoting ALL of their time to finding a husband, and finding every other woman a husband too, and that is what educated women should aspire to. Women will idealize romance, whilst men can read whatever they want, the very basis of a huge amount of inequality worldwide.

Well screw you Austen, and societal pressure, because you will burn in my imaginary hell.