Baby-killing lesbian witches: Why I have the word Feminist tattooed on my back

 A few weeks ago, I got my first tattoo. It's awesome. Seriously, look at it:

Like I say: awesome.

I've known that I would get a tattoo from the age of 13. In that time, I've thought long and hard about what I wanted, and where I wanted it. When I was 13, I'm pretty sure that I had my heart set on a tribal armband around the upper arm. Thank goodness we don't let 13 year olds get tattooed. As I grew older, I understood more about why I wanted to be inked.

It was probably coming across Michel Foucault and the concept of inscription that really solidified the pretty ephemeral "Oh I'd like a tattoo one day" into "I want a tattoo that is a piece of art unique to me, which demonstrates my relationship to the world around me through my own relationship with my body." 

My final piece reflects so much of what's been important in my life - the teacup not only reflects my love of tea (as legendary as that may be), but the thousands of cups of tea I've shared with friends and family over the years. The pattern on the teacup is an adaptation of an arabesque from Alhambra mosque - it represents the education I have been privileged to receive. Books have been intrinsic to that education, as well as providing a means of escape. 

And then there's FEMINIST.

It's been the element of the tattoo that has caused most comment from those who've seen it. Some folk have loved it, others have been concerned that it could be inflammatory. One man even expressed concern for any man who would need to look down and see it during sex. How inconsiderate of me to interrupt their objectification of me!

But then there's the brilliance of how it has sparked up conversations with all manner of people. It's allowed me to engage in feminism with all manner of people, and the big theme that has come up has been about what a feminist is. 

Obviously I've told them the truth. A feminist must do all the following:

• kill their children (and encourage other women to kill theirs)
• hate men
• be lesbians
• practice witchcraft
• destroy capitalism
• grow their body hair
• consider all men as potential rapists
• eschew make-up
• stop making sandwiches

The first 5 come from one of my favourite quotes of all time, from US politician Pat Robertson, uttered in 1992:

Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

The final one comes from the Tumblr Women Against Feminism, which is greatly amusing if you're ever at a loose end. Basically, you get a bunch of women who have enjoyed the privilege of education and freedom to express their thoughts explain why feminism is a bad thing for all of those who haven't got those rights, or have the audacity to ask for equality. Usually it's framed as them arguing that feminism has turned into a war on men, where men are all vilified and seen as potential rapists. But then...

Then there are moments of such glory that I think they are surely taking the mick, that it's all a brilliant send-up of the nonsense that is women who are using the rights that feminism brought them to argue that feminism is awful.

Like Sandwich woman. Sandwich woman doesn't need feminism because:

recieving special treatment based on your gender is exactly what feminists claim to dislike, which makes it nothing more than hypocritical ignorance. [sic]

Yep, because feminists are the ignorant ones here. For seeking the same treatment as men. Bless her wee misguided heart, she then goes on to give my favourite defence of anti-feminism ever:

 I don't want feminism because the will to be equal to men in every aspect does not kill spiders, carry things that are heavy, or protect me. I also really enjoy making sandwhiches. [sic]

Firstly, I am confused. I know, I am a woman. But I am amused that our special treatment is apparently all about the will to be equal to men. I could have understand her - very, very wrong - argument if she was basing it on the idea that feminists want to rid the world of men. But no, this is hypocritical ignorance.

But that's not the biggest problem.

No, the biggest problem is that Sandwich woman really enjoys making sandwhiches [sic], preferably in a world free of spiders with no heavy lifting, whilst feeling protected (presumably from pesky feminists dropping their wombs all over the shop whilst attempting to move stuff). It is a well known fact that if feminists were to get their way, then we would have roving mercenaries snatching bread knives from the hands of women everywhere, whilst enslaving men the world over to provide for all of womankind's sandwich needs. The HORROR.

Or, y'know, we could just let anyone who wants to make sandwiches do that. At last check, I didn't find that my vagina had a lot of input in the sandwich making process. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

I want to speak to Sandwich lady. To tell her that being a woman (however you define it) isn't a set way of being. That I would rather lift heavy things than make sandwiches. That we shouldn't live in a world where anyone NEEDS to be protected, that I can walk home alone and know that I will be fine.

But most of all I want to ask her why she is contributing to a movement that is happy to take the gains from feminists past, whilst refusing the opportunity to progress for other women. Women getting equal rights doesn't mean that you won't be able to make sandwiches, or that you will be forced to do heavy lifting. But it does mean that women who are receiving less pay get the same. That women have access to necessary healthcare. That there will be a cultural shift where men don't feel the need to prove their masculinity through violence towards others. That girls will stop being forced into marriage, and suffering the catastrophic effects of childbearing at a young age. That girls get equal access to education, and the opportunities to give their voices in parliament.

Feminism isn't hurting you. But you are hurting other women through your engagement with the anti-feminist movement. I'm not forcing you to accept the label of feminist, but simply asking you to not shout down others who are trying to stand with the rest of humanity, for the good of humanity as a whole.

Feminism isn't a monolith, there are huge disagreements within, but fundamentally we are fighting for equal rights for all. I stand with my fellow feminists. I wear the word with pride.

Happy International Women's Day!

Why I'm Voting Yes

I've deliberately steered clear of making my views heard on the Independence referendum tomorrow. There are lots of people who are much better qualified than I am who have been making lots of salient points about the issues which they think matter. But I had a realisation today - there are very few people engaging in the debates about the things that I think matter. Whether I can add any light to this, or simply give a random collection of the issues that I find most important is debateable, but in the interests of joining an unprecedented debate, here goes...

It's probably best to talk about what I want from the referendum. I want a fairer and more just society. I want to see Scotland flourish and make the best of the resources we have. I want to see a Scotland that is more democratic.

In short, I will be voting yes.

Currently we live in a society that is willing to spend at least £15 billion replacing Trident but left over 71,000 people (including more than 22,000 children) in need of emergency food parcels from the Trussel Trust last year. I want a society where we try to ease the suffering of humanity, rather than contemplate the use of devastating weapons necessitated by a foreign policy built on desperately seeking the top table. That's why I'm voting yes.

Of those folk in need of food parcels, nearly 50% were the direct result of benefit problems. We have a government which has chosen to demonise the poor as benefit scroungers rather than dealing with the tax avoidance of big companies. Scotland has taken the lead in standing up for the vulnerable by neutralising the 'bedroom tax' as it affects our citizens. That Scotland should have to step in to prevent the poor, vulnerable and disabled in the first place is an appalling indictment of our place in the Union. That's why I'm voting yes.

All of this comes down to what I feel is the crux of the debate - Scotland needs democracy. The policies of the Coalition do not reflect the views of Scotland. We recognise that we need to invest in our public services, that we need to take care of the most vulnerable in society, and that we need to steward our resources better. We recognised all this in 2010, yet we have endured the governance of a party over 83% of Scots never voted for. That's why I'm voting yes.

What I've found disheartening over the past few months is that the focus of this debate, at least in the media, has not been on these issues. Instead, we have seen interminable arguments about the future of the pound, the stability of oil stocks and threats from banks and big businesses.

I understand that we need to have the means to fund what may seem like a bit of a utopic vision, but let me say this: there is no certainty in remaining as part of the status quo. The pound may go up or down whether Scotland uses it or not. Nobody knows for certain how much oil we have, but even the most conservative estimates in a volatile oil climate could provide Scotland with a huge amount of resources, to supplement the rest of what our industries have to offer. And finally, I'm not happy to put my vision of social justice on the back burner because of the worries of profit margins for big businesses.

I find it greatly amusing that two years after denying Scots the option of Devo Max, David Cameron has demonstrated his great love for the Scots as part of the Union by offering greater powers days before the vote. The blatant self-preservation of the man is hilarious; as if we wouldn't notice that his intention in forcing an Independence/Status Quo referendum was to rely on the feeling that the Scots wouldn't risk going it alone. What poor, misguided Dave didn't expect was the unprecedented political engagement of such vast swathes of Scotland that 97% of us are now on the electoral roll. People who've never voted in their lives have become well-versed in economic arguments and are excited to have a voice. The democratic spirit is alive and well in Scotland - I want it to live on; that's why I'm voting yes.

On the eve of what may be the most important day of my life thus far, I'm filled with hope - we might have the chance to bring about a fairer, democratic society. If we succeed, it's unlikely I will always agree with the political leaders, but at least I'll know the majority of my countryfolk voted them in.

Of course, the vote is likely to be decided by a hair's breadth. Nearly half the country is likely to be disappointed come Friday morning. I just hope that regardless of the vote we can harness the spirit of the past few months.

This is a genuinely exciting time for us - I just hope that we can capitalise on it.

Mourning Maggie?

In the few short hours since the death of Margaret Thatcher a number of posts have appeared on my Facebook newsfeed along the lines of "Show some respect, she was still a person". It got me thinking about how we mourn, and how the deceased informs that process. I've touched on it here a little after the death of Christopher Hitchens, where I argued that it was inappropriate to say RIP for him.

As a public figure, I believe that it is not only appropriate, but necessary to point out that Thatcher has been a hugely divisive figure. Indeed, for many, Thatcher will be remembered as the woman who destroyed their industries and savaged communities, creating divisions that are still painful today.

There is a temptation at times like these to almost deify the dead. To make it clear, Thatcher was no angel, and we need to be able to say that. To ignore the bad political decisions she made is disingenuous to those who have been, and are still being, affected by those same decisions. We may weep for Thatcher, but what about the generation of youngsters who've grown up in old industrial communities where jobs are in low supply? Personally, that is a much sorrier case, and more deserving of my laments.

I respect Thatcher for reaching the top - I don't think I can remember any other women who has seemed at all likely to make PM ever since. Fair play to her for that.

I don't recall an outpouring of sadness at the deaths of more unpopular leaders - Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez etc, even if there has been a solid base of support amongst their own subjects, like Chavez did.

As I said at the start, how we mourn (or not) is affected by who the person who has died. Just as importantly, the context in which we speak of the dead. It would be inappropriate to rock up to the front doors of her children and tell them that she was a terrible political leader who has ruined lives. They would be entirely delusional if they believed that everybody agreed with everything she did and said, but I really doubt that reading about other people's disagreements with her political conduct will increase their sadness at her passing.

I didn't agree with her as a political leader and I can't say that I am particularly sad to see that she has died. I wish comfort on her family, and good judgement on those who will appraise her time in government.

Gender-Based Violence Bingo and How Not to Get Raped: A Checklist

So my dissertation came and went, and with it went my motivation to write, or even think, for a few months. Thankfully I've been kicked into gear by this amazing commitment to feminism both older and new:

This beauty was done by Cesar at Body Garden Tattoo in Birmingham, credit to them for the photo and the tattoo!

This beauty belongs to my good friend and chief inspiration Camilla, who can be found giving terrifically erudite and passionate thoughts on feminism and Catholicism, especially women and priesthood, in her blog which can be found here.

In the time I've been away, I've been heartened to find that a number of feminist issues have been debated more widely in the public domain. From the seriously disturbing to the hang on a cotton pickin' minute, I've been keeping a whole heap of rage to myself, so apologies for the mega-post, but there is a reward at the end!

India's Sexual Violence Problem and GBV Bingo

Perhaps the biggest issue has been the case of an Indian student who was gang raped and eventually died of the catastrophic injuries she was left with. The case has brought the raw tensions of those fighting for women's safety to the surface in India and beyond, but I am wary of the tendency of many in the UK to consider violence against women to be a third world problem. Perhaps I should create a form of Gender-Based Violence Bingo, where we can mark off the old cliche's that crawl from the woodwork at times like this:

• It's because they don't have the respect for women that we do (HA!)
• It's because they are Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Asian/Poor/Insert any other group that otherises both victim and perpetrator
• It's because the men are so sexually repressed
• I'm glad that never happens here

Keep an eye out as the accused have their day in court - bearing in mind that this is something that Assange has not yet seen.

Absolute Madness with Joanna Lumley - How Not to Get Raped and Other Tales of Ridiculousness from Showbiz

In pull-your-hair-out-WTF-were-you-thinking-please-stop-talking-I'll-do-anything-to-shut-you-up-including-gouging-out-my-own-eyes-with-rusty-spoons-and-using-them-as-earplugs?! news, we have the startling case of Joanna Lumley, who dons her best Lion King suit to inform young women that they should avoid the following to avoid being raped:

• Being laddish - I don't know how one is 'laddish', perhaps donning a rugby shirt and being a jolly-good fly-half (which I believe to be some form of rugby lad terminology?!)
• Don't look like trash - hopefully not literally, as I would caution all that dressing as trash, perhaps in a pedal-bin dress with banana moccasins that this is just not a good idea. Think of the germs. Ew.
• Don't get drunk - how drunk I don't know, maybe a touch tipsy and you emit a signal which tells all potential rapists that you would in fact like to engage in sex that you don't consent to?
• Don't be sick down your front - but sick down your back is a repellent.
• Don't break your heels - I have strange visions of women deliberately breaking their heels at the end of an evening. Maybe it's to use as a potential weapon against men who've seen their vomit-strewn front and can't help themselves? Eh Joanna, EH? Never thought about that, did ya?
• Don't stagger about in the wrong clothes at midnight - I *think* that she may have got this mixed up with another misogynist myth that led to the murders of innocent women, given that 12 is indeed the witching hour. Maybe time to set her straight?
• Don't behave badly - I'm not even going to attempt a definition of bad behaviour here, she's definitely lost me.

But Ms Lumley is not simply there to point out our faults, she has solutions - handy if, like me, you don't relish the thought of rape!

• Look after yourself properly
• Behave properly
• Be polite
• Be punctual (Seriously, WTF?!)
• Dress properly, but NOT dully - just not in a "silly dress"

And with that, you are immune from the predatory advances of all would-be rapists. Simples!

Also in celebville, there is the mind-boggling choice of the American programme Special Victims Unit, which dramatises the policing aspect of sexual violence, to cast the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. You do wonder sometimes, eh?

Ach, Stop Your Yammering, it Doesn't Matter - Or Does It?

This week saw the decision of the Advertising Standards Agency to dismiss 600 complaints about the sexism of an ASDA Christmas advert. I'm not going to link the ad in question, as most will have imbibed it over the length of December, but for anyone else, hark your mind back to ye olde adverts for cleaning products to scrub your house top to bottom each day before you greet your husband with a pair of warm slippers and you'll be on the right lines. 

I find it interesting that ASDA justified the campaign by market research which found that 8 out of 10 cats mothers found this to be their experience of Christmas rather than an outdated stereotype. HA! Meanwhile, the ASA found that it did not condone any negative stereotypes of gender or harmful discriminatory behaviour. I question how the ASA can not find the placing of the entire burden of Christmas (including present-buying, cleaning, preparing for guests, cooking and looking after children) as a negative or harmful stereotype.

All of this is fascinating when seen in the context of the debate that has been ongoing in the Guardian this week on women trying to attain Professorships. Less women are being promoted to Professorships than men, and those who do tend to take longer to make it there. I wonder how much of this is down to the expectation that they undertake the second shift at the expense of their career?

Anyway, as a reward for reaching the end of my ramblings, a wee song:

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.

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.

Why I am a Terrible Person...

Over the past week or so, I've come to realise I'm a terrible person. I give you this as a way of cleansing the soul.

Last week, I was feeling a bit ill but decided to power on through and go into the lab anyway. An hour later and I realised that actually this was a really bad idea and I should curl up on the sofa with a cup of tea. So, feeling a bit rubbish, I embarked on my walk home. And that is where it started...

As I passed the main library, my mood dropped as I realised I'd need to run the gauntlet of charity baking stands.

I don't mind a charity baking stand.

I begin to get a bit snarked off with two.

Three is beyond the pail.

Four - FOUR - makes my fists clench as I need to dodge numerous false smiles and iffily decorated cupcakes in order to get past.

That day, my friends, was a four stall day. So it was already looking bad. But even worse, there were numerous people accompanying said stands. This upsets me as a walk past which would normally take about 30 steps becomes 380 million steps past people not looking where they are going but still moving around. [An aside - who does that?! Your head faces the general direction in which you are going when moving about in a populated area, it's generally accepted etiquette. Hmph.]

But the cakes are for charity, so being the charitable kind of lass I am, I began the side-stepping without grumbling [audibly, anyway].

Which is very nice. Until the person you are dodging decides to jump in front of you.

WHY?! Why would you do that?! Yes, I wear glasses. But that doesn't mean that my peripheral vision doesn't stretch two whole feet to the stands of cakes groaning under the weight of poorly decorated cakes which I'm pretty sure have a higher than average incidence of salmonella. (Firstly, student kitchens aren't universally renowned for cleanliness. Secondly, your cakes are outside. In Scotland. In February. For hours. Eww.)

If I wanted a salmonella cake, I would have taken a moment to stop at one of the numerous cake-offering stalls surrounding me. I can see them. I know if I want to buy a cake, I go and ask someone manning the stall if I can buy a cake. Simple economic practice. What I don't need is for someone to leap in front of me on a cheeriness scale of 11 to point this out.

What I want to do is gouge your eyes out with a rusty spoon. Then feed them to you.

Or we could live happily if you get out of my way and let me home to rest for a cup of tea.

Oh charity baker, this time I managed to keep this soliloquy of venom internal. Let us both hope there is no next time.

[On another note, the word 'scrobble' really annoys me. Gah, another word on the list of things that make me irrationally angry.]

The Willful Ignorance of Underfunding RE

[This may be a bit befuddled - I'm a wee bit ill!]

Have you ever felt the need to roll your eyes and utter such joyous phrases as "you're an ignorant muppet hell-bent on proselytising about how you don't want to be proselytised to" or "how long did it take you to come up with that clever little sarcastic comment demonstrating how free thinking you are (which is suspiciously similar to every other comment)"?

I do.

And when times like these strike, there is only one place where such solace can be found - the Guardian Faith Section. It is a bastion of idiocy in which one can delight in rolling one's eyes right to the back of their head and then for a few more spins. Ahhh.

But occasionally, these comments appear elsewhere. A bit like when you find that tenner you'd forgotten about at the bottom of your handbag, in amongst the 20 million receipts. And today's post is brought to you from such a time...

As I was innocently reading the Guardian website this evening, I stumbled across this article. It details the struggle of a former RE teacher to fund the basics in her subject, and provides an interesting insight into how RE is viewed by those in charge of the purse strings. In summary, it was worth less than £1 per pupil per year in her school.

Yet this sum is decried as "£1 too much". Evidently apart from the commenter's horrific spelling in the rest of his/her post, s/he has no grasp of numbers since the article explicitly states that it is less than £1 which is spent. But pointing that out would be facetious of me.

Other comments claim it is a pity that there are any RE teachers left, and an assertion that the money would be better spent in science. I've already touched on the science vs humanities debate on the blog, but in short, such an argument is reductive at best.

Yet it all comes down to how worthwhile we consider RE (and various permutations) to be. It is hardly surprising, that as a Religious Studies graduate I believe RE to be invaluable. Indeed, I genuinely can't understand how anyone could argue otherwise.

We live in a world shaped by religion, even if we live in the secular bubble of those denizens of the Faith comment threads. They may argue until they are blue in the face that religion does not and should not have any place in their lives, but they encounter the influence of religions and beliefs daily (and I'm not even getting into the 'atheism as religion' debate here). By seeking to ridicule and belittle religion, these people engage with belief on a fundamental level: choosing whether, and how, to believe. For many kids, the only place they will gain the tools to embark on this debate is in RE. This is especially true as the number of families who can be described as 'non-religious' or 'secular' (particularly those who don't really choose any position but ignore the present of religion) increase. It is easy to ignore religion in Britain, if you are willing to ignore debates on faith schools, atheist bus campaigns, Qur'an burning, abortion limits, hijabs, continuing campaigns on LGBT rights, equality of women, religious festivals, multiculturalism, stem cell research, religious symbols in public places, and the justifications of wars, to name but a few particularly pertinent topics.

But to ignore religion on a world stage is willful ignorance.

To 'educate' a generation of pupils at less than a pound each is to bring up our next generations of politicians, generals, businesspeople, teacher, holidaymakers etc without vital knowledge.

And worst of all, we will have no-one with enough knowledge to troll the Guardian faith pages.

2011: Resolutions and Reads

Happy new year! As is traditional, if unoriginal, one should recap on the previous year, so here goes...

In terms of resolutions, I tend to set challenges. For 2011 I wanted to:

1) Swim a mile in under half an hour

I did it! I was very, very pleased with myself afterwards. And tired. Really rather tired.

2) Not wear trousers to work for an entire year

A bit of a strange one, but I was sick of the trauma of trying to find trousers long enough/belts/hitching them up/trousers that were not the horrific black of school trousers so I wondered if I could go one year without trousers, whatever the weather. Turns out I am a convert. They are eminently more practical and just generally nicer.

3) The big one - read 40 books in a year

This target changed a few times. From 40 it became 52, then 60, then 65. Final total was 68. I had a wee look at some statistics on Shelfari yesterday, and found that I had read 20,210 pages during the year. Ratings wise, the list is as follows:

1) Dante's Inferno - Dante Alighieri (5/5)
2) A History of God - Karen Armstrong (3/5)
3) The Book of Certainty: The Sufi Doctrine of Faith, Vision and Gnosis - Abu Bakr Siraj al-Din (4/5)
4) A Good Hanging - Ian Rankin (3/5)
5) Islam: A Short History - Karen Armstrong (4/5)
6) Lady Chatterley's Lover - D.H. Lawrence (5/5)
7) The Falls - Ian Rankin (3/5)
8) Madame Bovary - Gustave Flaubert (4/5)
9) The Communist Manifesto - Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (4/5)
10) The Book of Mrs Noah - Michele Roberts (5/5)
11) The Plumed Serpent - D.H. Lawerence (4/5)
12) Case Histories - Kate Atkinson (3/5)
13) Sexual Ethics and Islam: Feminist Reflections on Qur'an, Hadith and Jurisprudence - Kecia Ali (5/5)
14) The Wise Virgin: The Missing Link Between Men and Women - Annie Wilson (1/5)
15) A Dangerous Delight: Women and Power in the Church - Monica Furlong (1/5)
16) Women in Love - D.H. Lawrence (4/5)
17) One Hundred Years of Solitude - Gabriel Garcia Marquez (5/5)
18) Kidnapped - Robert Louis Stevenson (3/5)
19) Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law - Catharine A. McKinnon (5/5)
20) Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - Hunter S. Thompson (4/5)
21) Mrs Dalloway - Virginia Woolf (4/5)
22) Globalized Islam: The Search for a New Ummah - Olivier Roy (4/5)
23) The Virgin and the Gipsy - D.H. Lawrence (4/5)
24) Metamorphosis and Other Stories - Franz Kafka (5/5)
25) Lolita - Vladimir Nabokov (5/5)
26) The God of Small Things - Arundhati Roy (5/5)
27) A Thousand Splendid Suns - Khaled Hosseini (5/5)
28) The Kite Runner - Khaled Hosseini (5/5)
29) The Reluctant Fundamentalist - Mohsin Hamid (3/5)
30) Tortilla Flat - John Steinbeck (4/5)
31) Sons and Lovers - D.H. Lawrence (3/5)
32) Lanark: A Life in 4 Books - Alasdair Gray (5/5)
33) The Yellow Wall-Paper, Herland, and Selected Writings - Charlotte Perkins Gilman (5/5)
34) BUtterfield 8 - John O'Hara (5/5)
35) Jamaica Inn - Daphne du Maurier (4/5)
36) Because I am a Girl - Tim Butcher, Xiaolu Guo, Joanne Harris, Kathy Lette, Deborah Moggach, Marie Phillips, Subhadra Belbase & Irvine Welsh (5/5)
37) Crome Yellow - Aldous Huxley (3/5)
38) Three Short Novels: Heart of Darkness/Youth/Typhoon - Joseph Conrad (2/5)
39) The Castle - Franz Kafka (3/5)
40) The Nice and the Good - Iris Murdoch (4/5)
41) One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kesey (5/5)
42) Hungry Hill - Daphne du Maurier (3/5)
43) Finding Dad - Daniel Lee (5/5)
44) The Rainbow - D.H. Lawrence (3/5)
45) Hotel World - Ali Smith (5/5)
46) The Accidental - Ali Smith (5/5)
47) On the Road - Jack Kerouac (2/5)
48) Sexing the Cherry - Jeanette Winterson (5/5)
49) Girls of Riyadh - Rajaa Alsanea(3/5)
50) Women of Algiers in their Apartment - Assia Djebar (5/5)
51) Feminist Theory and the Body - A Reader - Ed. Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick (5/5)
52) Take a Girl Like You - Kingsley Amis (1/5)
53) Marriage and Sexuality in Islam: A Translation of al-Ghazali's Book on the Etiquette of Marriage fro the Ihya - al-Ghazali, translated by Madelain Farah (3/5)
54) The Rape of Lucrece - William Shakespeare (3/5)
55) A Passage to India - E.M. Forster (3/5)
56) Bodies That Matter - Judith Butler (4/5
57) Gender Trouble - Judith Butler (5/5)
58) The History of Sexuality (Volume 1): An Introduction - Michel Foucault (5/5)
59) Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud - Thomas Laqueur (3/5)
60) Foucault: A Very Short Introduction - Gary Gutting(3/5)
61) Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction - Catherine Belsey (3/5)
62) The History of Sexuality (Volume 2): The Use of Pleasure - Michel Foucault (3/5)
63) Honor - Frank Henderson Stewart (4/5)
64) My Antonia - Willa Cather (3/5)
65) Persopolis - Marjane Satrapi (5/5)
66) My Cousin Rachel - Daphne du Maurier (4/5)
67) Dracula - Bram Stoker (4/5)
68) Oedipus Trilogy - Sophocles (4/5)

Favourites were Sexing the Cherry, Persepolis, A Thousand Splendid Suns, Lanark and Lolita.

Least favourite was Take A Girl Like You because of the ending.

*spoiler alert*

The basic plotline - a girl who was unsure as to whether she wished to lose her virginity or not, wasn't brilliant, but the fact that the ending, in which she awakes in a drunken stupor to find her boyfriend having sex with her and her reaction is 'oh well, at least that's it done with', and no-one seems to see that it is rape, makes my blood boil.

*and done*

For 2012, I am going to keep a 40 book target, with an added caveat of at least 5 books published this millennium, and a 50/50 split between fiction and non-fiction.

Also, I want to swim an iron man distance (2.4 miles) in a single session.

Check back in 2013 (hopefully) for the results.

Anyway - happy New Year to you and yours!

Christopher Hitchens RIP?

This week, Christopher Hitchens died. Author, journalist and celebrated atheist, Hitchens was brilliant at what he did. His work on religion, perhaps what he is most famous for, is, at times, both infuriating and exactly what I want to shout out. He was incredibly erudite, and had a way with words which is rare. Reading his own reflections on the cancer which would eventually kill him was a terribly moving experience. This Vanity Fair article is upsetting for the honesty and the vulnerability of humanity that Hitchens came to know: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009.

We disagreed on the afterlife, but I respect his opinion on this. It was the result of a surety based on his assessment of the evidence on show. For that reason I won't say 'RIP'. To do so would be to disrespect his belief that death is the end; instead, I praise his achievements in life. For all the reasons listed above, I am grateful that he was alive.

What on Earth?!

Question: what search term could produce the following list of results on the University of Edinburgh's "searcher" function?

"Violence: Recognition, management, and prevention: Assailant's' Sexual Dysfunction During Rape: Prevalence and Relationship to Genital Trauma in Female Victims"

"Feeling the Heat" (with subjects listed as sport clothes and merchandising)

"ARE YOU SURE you're still a VIRGIN?" (With the funny capitals as well)

"Serum biochemical reference intervals for wild dwarf ornate wobbegong sharks (Orectolobus ornatus)."

[All results from the first page of results]

Answers on a postcard, please...

16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women

This is something that I meant to post on Friday, but technical difficulties mean that it has been delayed.

Friday the 25th November was the International Day Against Violence Against Women, and the 10th December is International Human Rights Day. The sixteen days connecting these dates have been taken up across the world as the 16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women. By connecting these two days, it is hoped that the message that women's rights are human rights, and are an international issue, will get across.

Some of the issues that are being taken up are as follows: domestic violence, sexual violence, childhood sexual abuse, prostitution and exploitation and human trafficking.

I've been facilitating this campaign at work, which means I've had the opportunity to liaise with numerous fantastic organizations, including Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre and Shakti Women's Aid. These guys have been kind enough to provide me with copious amounts of materials, from posters to leaflets to in-depth info.

What it has also made me realise is that this blog doesn't actually link to any support agencies, despite it's sometimes distressing content. To rectify that I have summarised the basic info for the 4 main agencies I worked with:

Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre: http://www.ewrasac.org.uk/

EWRASAC provides support for women aged 12 and over and members of the transgender community who have experienced rape and sexual abuse, from support and advocacy to specific problems like dealing with panic attacks and self-harm. They also have information for families of those who have been raped or sexually assaulted.

They can also be contacted by telephone on 0131 5569437

Edinburgh Women's Aid: http://edinwomensaid.co.uk/

They support women and children at risk of violence (of any kind, not just physical) by partners or ex-partners. Services include refuge accommodation, young people's services and resettlement.

Telephone: 0131 315 8110

Shakti Women's Aid: http://www.shaktiedinburgh.co.uk/

For women of black and ethnic minority communities, including Eastern Europe, South East Asia and the Middle East.

Telephone: 0131 475 2399

Rape Crisis Scotland: http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/

The national centre for rape crisis work in Scotland, they operate the out of hours telephone service and run fantastic campaigns.

The 'not ever' campaign: http://www.notever.co.uk/the-campaign/

This is not an invitation to rape me: http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/

Telephone: 08088 01 03 02

Information and help after rape and sexual assault, a Scottish Government Document - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/350957/0117632.pdf

Babies v Buses: Can Men Not Push Buggies?

I stumbled across this article earlier:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/mums_rev_up_for_new_fight_over_pram_ban_1_1965185

Pretty much a rehash of the ever-joyous baby v bus debate that pops up to annoy Lothian Buses annually.

However, it really, really upsets me that this is all about mums with buggies. I won't deny that when I do take the bus, the majority of those getting on with babies are women, but this has sparked an interesting chain of thought: can men push buggies? Are men so pumped up with testosterone that their masculinity makes them baulk at the very sight of those toothless wonders? Indeed, does the penis actually prevent one from pushing a buggy?

And then I remember that, actually, I frequently see men with babies on buses. Heaven forfend, even men with babies in buggies on buses.

It calls to mind the endless scenarios I've seen of parents telling off their little boys: "stop pushing that buggy; you're not a girl!" It saddens me that girls are socialized from a young age to care for children, whilst boys are warned off it - and for what purpose? For the preposterous notion that doing 'girly' things makes them gay? Do we want to see our sons as bad fathers?!

The perpetuation of male breadwinner/female caregiver stereotypes exemplify the everyday fights that we all need to partake in. This may seem like a 'small' issue in a supposedly equal society, but it is in the small things that we find the roots of inequality.

News So Appalling That I May Transform into the Hulk

This is one of the most horrific articles I've ever read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/turkish-court-reduces-rape-sentences

A 13 year old girl was sold by two men for sex which subsequently resulted in her being raped by26 men. I may have to repeat that: TWENTY-SIX. These men included teachers and civil servants who have been sentenced for disturbingly short sentences (those who sold her for 9 years and the rapists for 1-6 years). Yet now, those sentences may be cut further because she "consented".

?!

How, in the name of all that is good can a 13 year old girl actually consent in this situation? I've mentioned before that I disagree with consent-focused rape laws, but I don't think I've ever given a full explanation of why. So, oh lucky ones, I shall. Gather round and listen to my words of wisdom kiddly-winks...

Consent is, by it's very definition, an agreement reached by two people in a position of equality. Now, I won't go so far as some have, and claim that due to the ongoing power of patriarchy all sex between men and women is not actually 'consensual' as they can never be equal. I think this is a very monolithic view of patriarchy, and if we do not understand the specific permutations at work then we can, in fact, credit it with too much power, whilst ignoring the real battlegrounds.

Instead, I argue that consent is essentially meaningless in the realm of sexual negotiation. The law does not really have the means to provide legislate for the minutae of power relations at work in the sexual realm, so it takes a 'single common denominator' approach. To give consent, in the eyes of the law, is to remain silent, to not fight back, to not kick and scream... This is based on two major misunderstandings: 1) the myth of 'real rape' where innocent young virgins are violently violated whilst their continued attempts to fight are overcome by the sheer strength of the vile offender - for a bit of a rant about this see my post on the Ken Clark controversy earlier this year; 2) a complete lack of forethought about the choices a person is framing during the course of their relationship with that person/the attack. It is all very well and good to say that you'd fight back, but what about if you suspected you would be subjected to further violence? What if the attacker had a weapon? What about if the attacker had threatened your family? What if silence is the easiest way for you to deal with the attack? The coercion and violence inherent in the act of rape as demonstrating power on the body of another takes place at a level the law cannot truly legislate, at least if it continues to rely on the overly broad and meaningless concept of 'consent'.

We don't know what sort of choices this child was framing when she was raped, but placing oneself in the shoes of a child being forced to have sex with adults who hold very real power over you is rape. For goodness' sake, she was SOLD - how can she have consented?!

There are two issues at stake in the more specific Turkish context here too - 1) these men may be released because this legal wrangling is stretching the case past the timeframe for prosecution and 2) killings of women increased 1,400% between 2002 and 2009. I can't even begin to comprehend such a figure.

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...

Postgraduatedom in Numbers: Week One

After a year of waiting, 3 months of grappling with the Career Development Loan folk, and innumerable visits to the NLS, I began my Masters this week.

There have been 3 lectures.

One assignment sprung on us with very little notice.

45 hours of working at my job because I didn't know that either of the above were happening.

5 6am starts.

3 1am finishes.

1 expletive filled rant.

1 bout of sobbing.

Oh, and 2,323 words on an assignment on Dual Agency and the Evolution of Thought in the Work of Fatima Mernissi.

I'm pretty tired, but I'M BACK, baby.

Surely that's a Misprint? and Deals with the Funding Troll

This week I was invited to a panel discussion entitled God & Sex. Sounds interesting, and particularly relevant to my research. Alas, on further investigation this does not seem to be the case. Indeed, it would seem that God really doesn't have much to do with it at all:

Does the Church talk too much about sex? Are any of the Church’s traditional teachings on sex relevant today? Should Christians rethink their approach to sex? Or stay out of the discussion entirely?

This panel discussion on God and sex, held at the University of Edinburgh, features:

Richard Holloway, outspoken ‘after-religionist,’ former bishop of Edinburgh, and champion of LGBT causes
Dr. Sara Parvis, lecturer in Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, feminist, and devout Roman Catholic
Fr. Ian Paton, rector of Old St Paul’s

Chaired by the Rev. Harriet Harris, Chaplain to the University of Edinburgh.

Now I'm not saying that this isn't a very valid and necessary discussion to be having, far from it. The way the church treats sex and sexuality is pretty dire in my opinion. I also like the idea that Christians should rethink their approach to sex, it brings up all sorts of images of a Cosmopolitan-esque magazine imploring Christians to branch out from the missionary position, or even giving more 'holy' names to existing, erm, approaches. Anyhoo...

However, I get rather irate when 'God' and 'Christianity' are treated as synonymous. This may be a case of miscommunication, but there is certainly a very virulent vein of thought in which Christians either forget that other people have a claim on God as well, or in which they are so arrogant that of course their idea of God is the only true conception and they, and they only, have the right to use the term 'God'.

*Did you notice that I was keeping an eye out for how it would affect my research? That would be because I have finally come to an agreement with the funding troll - that he can follow me around for the next four years shouting in my ear that I owe him money - in order that I can do my Masters. Induction happened on Thursday and I start back proper tomorrow. Eek!

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.