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!

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.

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.

Arrogance and Ignorance: Religion vs Sprituality?

Facebook has been abuzz this week with debates about this wee article. Such buzz has even spread to the blogosphere, in the ever erudite thoughts of Chris, but I felt the need to put my own thoughts out there for anyone interested.

This whole article is symptomatic of the insidious arrogance and ignorance that we see in the Church every day. Ms Daniels has created a false dichotomy of 'religion' vs 'spirituality' where she makes up her own implicit definitions. Spirituality is something one creates for themselves because they are scared of the hard slog of working out one's religion in community, which is in vogue for those wishing to set themselves apart from traditional religion. Religion is about experiencing God "in the psalms, the creation stories and throughout our deep tradition", and is about community. Notice that she talks about experiencing God through intermediaries, rather than directly. And can someone please, for the love of all that is holy (as agreed by a council of appropriately appointed people over the course of thousands of very trying church council meetings), tell me what someone "who has been shaped by a mighty cloud of witnesses" is like?! Sounds like someone who has had one too many acid trips to be honest...

Ms Daniels has taken one of the most basic tenets of theology - the presence of God in the natural world - and has actually argued against someone experiencing God that way. How lovely, can you imagine meeting her for pastoral care?

"Parishioner: I totally felt God's presence the other day! I was walking along the beach at sunset...

Minister: Oh reaaaaallllyyyy? And was there a cloud of witnesses? A passing prayer group? No, ah, that wasn't God then. That was your own selfish interpretation of what God is like. Stop being so bland and become part of the all-encompassing community, that is original."

Delightful.

Not to mention that she seems to be advocating a theology in which God would only answer the prayers of the church-going. That would be an interesting conversations too:

"Plane dweller: So God...

God: Yes?

PD: Yeah, it's a bit choppy up here. Or is it down here for you? I get confused.

God: I'm all around. Although if you thought you saw me on that mountaintop, that was actually a selfish LIE made up by yourself.

PD: Well actually...

God: Oh ME, you're not one of THOSE are you?

PD: Those?

God: Yeah, those. Those folks who think they can rock up when the going gets a bit tough and expect me to answer their prayers?

PD: Um...

God: Honestly, I'm a busy deity, and I've got over a billion followers across the planet, why would I waste my time on you? You have to undertake at least an alpha course and three months worth of Sunday meetings before I'll be bothered with you..."

I know if I were on an 'airplane' (whatever that is) experiencing turbulence, I'd absolutely rather sit next to the person willing to share their innermost thoughts about how they relate to the world than by an eye-rolling minister, disinterested in my opinions because they don't take the exact form of their own. That, and sitting next to the heretic is surely a dangerous seat to be in...

Kill the Funding Troll for the Good of Obedient Wives?

Rape. Incest. Prostitution and Sex Trafficking. All terrible ills. Do you want to cure these, ladies?

You do?

Me too!

But how, I hear you ask?

Well ladies - too long have you neglected your husband's needs. Not wants, not desires but NEEDS.

Does your husband want you to share him happily with the woman next door? Let him.

Does your husband want you to dress up as a horse complete with all necessary regalia? Then gosh darn it woman find yourself an equestrian centre!

God is demanding you to become a sex goddess, whatever that may entail for you in fulfilling your husband's NEEDS.

From whence have I received this eminently sensible wisdom?

The Obedient Wives Club

Oh yes, it's God that wants you to do this. Indeed, you would not even be here if men did not have such needs:

"Eve was created because Adam had needs. Men have [sexual] needs which they can't control. And if the needs are not fulfilled, men will find another woman. God created them like that."

Now, at this point you may be feeling a little feminist rage bubbling within, but STOP. Feminism, in the guise of those sinister 'women's groups' has led you up the garden path. Talk of men being responsible for rape is just a ruse to detract from the plain and simple fact that it is his wife's fault he rapes. She has left him unsatisfied, so how could he be accountable for his actions?

It is all so self-evident, based even in the Qur'an!

Alas, alack it is almost a sadness to deny the logic available here.

You see, it is true that the Qur'an is peppered with references to sex and sexuality. The absence of Augustinian notions of Original Sin as transmitted through sex means that it can take on a divine notion. This is all very positive, and something I absolutely advocate.

The 'awra' or 'shame zone' - the areas which are to remain covered in public for all introduce a theology of the body which has, through successive commentators, become imbibed upon the bodies of women. Our bodies are vessels of honour, but that honour is perceived to be the arena of our male relatives and husbands. If that honour is damaged; however, for example in a rape, then it is our shame to live with. Or indeed die with.

This double standard forms the basis of much confused thinking about female Muslim sexuality. We have opulent Orientalist exoticised notions of Odalisques, harems and lesbianism which juxtapose with our image of the burqa-clad oppressed woman. Both images are disingenuous and it is for this reason that I propose to study the lived experience of sexuality for British Muslim women.

I have always argued that we must reconsider our current uncritical definitions of the homogeneity of sexuality, and to contextualise these within ethnic and religious lives, in order to truly get the best deal for women across the globe, and this proves the need to do this. Otherwise we end up with crackpot theories which force women to be subservient to their husbands every (and it would seem even deviant) desire and absolving rapists from the blame for their crimes.

In other words, someone kill the funding troll and let me get on with sorting this mess out.

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.

48 Women an Hour Raped in Congo

It is now two years since I first began studying rape, and over those years I have inevitably come across some awful stories and statistics. Some of them I've published on the blog - from the fact that a South African woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read, to the Pakistani statistic of a woman raped every hour, every second attack is on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. I've raged about defence lawyers' tactics - women wearing skinny jeans couldn't possibly be raped (an Italian example only recently rejected by the courts), women pinned down by the weight of a man is engaged in the missionary position (Assange's lawyers) and the opening gambit of one trial in America a few decades ago where a lawyer span a Cola bottle around and attempted to insert a pencil into the neck. Obviously a woman who doesn't want to be raped can fight back(!) Academic studies which ask women how violent their attack was, delusional muppets claiming to be academics and a textbook which finished a section on sadistic rape with a paragraph on victim impact which began "if the victim survives...".

All terrible things that have led me to rant and rave, and in many cases cry.

But as I stumbled across a Guardian article this afternoon, I had to take a deep breath before reading the article:

Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo

The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is not a new discovery, particularly in Congo, but the assertions that rape is beginning to creep outwith the areas of the fiercest conflict and especially into the home are disturbing.

12% of the female population of Congo have been raped, whilst 3% of the female population were raped in a single year between 2006 and 2007, rising to 7% in one province. More than a fifth have been forced to perform sex acts on their partners.

These statistics are even thought by some researchers to even underestimate the problem.

:(

The Puffa Paradox: Victim Blaming and Fashion Dilemmas

It would seem that women just can't catch a break this week.

First we hear that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised", according to a Canadian policeman giving students a talk on personal safety. Well blow me down with a feather. Or not, because the long-johns, jeans, camisole, vest, t-shirt, long sleeved top, jumper, cardigan and ankle length puffa jacket with Doc Martens is quite a heavy ensemble, and as I don't want to be raped I thought I'd take extra precautions. However, such an outfit would cause me to faint with the weight and heat generated, so I've had to make do with a little less.

But, wearing less could get me raped. So what do I do? Is there a cut off as to how much clothing is not 'sluttish'? Could I wear jeans and a t-shirt and not get raped? What about skirts? Heaven forfend that I advertise my vulnerability in something that is associated with femininity. Is there an accepted length of skirt? Should all skirts fall below the knee, or is that too much leg on show? And what about how form-fitting my clothes are?

Or, is it less about how much of me is on show, but on how attractive the clothing is? Perhaps a knee-length wool skirt won't get me raped, but a knee-length leather one will? Scoop neck v V neck?

What about the elderly women attacked by Delroy Grant? Did they dress too sluttishly for him to resist?

Clearly women are all undergoing the dilemma posed in this excellent advert by Rape Crisis Scotland.

Of course, there is a deeper subtext to the use of the word 'slut'. Women across the Anglophone world have had the word flung at them because they are comfortable with their own sexuality, revealing the double standards applied to women and men. Sleep with too many men? Slut. Yet reverse the genders and the almost reverent 'stud' comes into play. Sanguinetti is making it clear that women should be subject to a moral code, for their own good of course. They shouldn't sleep with lots of men, and to advertise their 'services' in the way they dress means that they shouldn't be surprised when men take advantage of them.

So, women who like sex, or dress in a way which might possibly make someone think they do, are fair game for your neighbourhood rapist.

But nobody asks to be raped. Not ever. And if Michael Sanguinetti finds it difficult to resist victimizing and raping women who dress 'sluttishly' then he should bloody well seek help.

Women who like sex with men are fair game, but, so it seems, women who don't like sex with men (although lesbianism is obviously not equated with this) are also OK to rape too. I've blogged before about the horrifying cases of correctional rape in South Africa - where men try to 'cure' lesbians by raping them. But reading this article which gives an estimate of 10 rapes and gang rapes a week in Cape Town alone brings a shudder to my spine.

As a women, you can neither like sex with men, nor sex with women, lest you be raped. And then it would be your own fault. Dress in a way which might advertise either of these facts and you are asking to be raped. Oh, and if you have been raped, then you'll have done something to deserve it - your sexual history will be debated, your alcohol consumption questioned and your honesty doubted - but somewhere along the line you will have done something to deserve it.

Difficult being a woman, eh?

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.

Too Serious for a WikiLeaks Joke

As I've watched the saga of the rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange unfold, I've been horrified to see celebrity after celebrity demean the alleged victims, painting a picture of a team of for-hire honey traps sent by the CIA to trap Mr Assange any way they can. They 'know' that the allegations are rubbish, they 'know' that Assange is being set up and anyone who doesn't 'know' that is facilitating the big, bad governments in silencing democracy.

Well I want to 'know' why such knowledgeable folk haven't been snapped up as a super celebrity crime fighting team, because they seem to have an impressive record on investigating serious crime on an international level.

I do not pretend to know the truth behind these allegations; indeed, I've only just come across the full allegations myself. According to the Guardian, Miss A alleges that, despite consenting to sexual intercourse with a condom, Assange forced her to engage in unprotected sex, pinning her down throughout. He stayed in her flat for a number of days after the assault, during which she moved from her own bed and eventually into a friend's flat due to her discomfort at being in the same flat as her attacker. Miss W alleges that after having (protected) consensual sex, the woman awoke to Assange having unprotected sex with her. The basic fact is that both acts were not consensual*. Both women had consented on the basis that a condom was used; therefore permission was withdrawn when a condom was not used.

However, the way Assange's supporters have responded is worrying, to say the least. Ridiculing the accusations as 'not rape' - the disturbing term "sex by surprise" and making fun of the place of condoms in the act is completely unacceptable. I've written time and time again about how important I believe it is that society accepts a wider definition of rape than the stranger lurking down a dark alleyway motif that dominates the public imagination, but I repeat - these allegations detail rapes, not a sexual indiscretion, or impoliteness - RAPE. To make light of these accusations as numerous high-profile supporters have done makes light of the plights of many rape victims and as such is entirely unacceptable.

Also frankly frightening is the fact that the identities of these women have been revealed online. Women are already scared to report rapes because they fear retribution from their attackers, particularly high-profile cases, let alone millions who have made them political targets too.

It is also important to keep making the distinction between supporting WikiLeaks and supporting rape. Far too many Assange supporters have conflated the two, and this is leading to a situation where one must choose. The simple fact is that one can support the work of WikiLeaks whilst not supporting the potential criminal aspect of the founder.

Assange may be the victim of a conspiracy. However, two women have alleged that he has raped them and the treatment of those women is symptomatic of how society has come to deal with those who allege rape - they are inevitably liars, they are out to 'get' men, they are blowing it out of proportion, they can cry rape at the drop of a hat - and it needs to stop. Assange needs to pull his supporters into line.

*My own definition of rape does not revolve around the notion of 'consent', which I believe is too flawed to protect women, but this is the legal definition of rape in Sweden to the best of my knowledge.