Tag Archive

So many great blogs to choose from…hmm…

Feministe has an interesting blog on Christian Bale and the accusations against him

Unapologetically Female asks: does advertising show us men want breasts, or not?

And posts this awesome video:

Brownfemipower looks at the plans for a new Disney film

Courtney Martin assesses the idea of marriage

Today’s Big Thing has a video of some women kicking the girls-are-bad-at-sports stereotype where it hurts

And feministing has made my life complete by introducing me to this wonderful, wonderful woman:

Another great blog to read - Rainbow Girl. It’s been around a while I believe, but I’ve only recently started nosing around the feminist blogosphere. Thanks to Derek’s blogroll, this is now easier!

Check out the latest post - it’s clever, funny but at the same time reveals yet another rather depressing element of society - victim blaming when women are assaulted.

It’ll cheer you up after that stupid advert, it’s just so sensible =]

Hat tip to The F-Word, who in turn have tipped the hat to Punk Planning

I have neglected you. It was my exams and then my birthday, then my party and, immediatly after, a 5day trip to Paris, which I returned from on Friday, only to return to work on Sat and Sun! So I’ve had no time for a breather until now… I hope to return in even more detail now that I have the Summer (although even this is proving rather less free and rather more busy than anticipated), and to keep you going I give you this to mull over:

Yeah, I know. Hideous, huh?

I just died a little inside. Not in the Shakespearian way, as the HLA will be pleased to know - oh to see their faces if their site had given me an orgasm…

Moving on to the point, I’d like to introduce you to the Human Life Alliance. Not only does it advocate abstinence until marriage (with the great ‘duct tape experiment’ on page 16 - check it out if you’ve got a strong stomach, it always makes me a little sick to read such idiotic claims) but it also makes the usual anti-choice lies about abortion and claims to answer the ‘rhetoric’ of pro-choicers -RE rape:

It is a despicable injustice when a woman is violated and raped. If a crime of this nature occurs and a child is conceived, HLA believes strongly in bringing the criminal to justice, however, we stand firmly in defense of the woman and the innocent new individual now existing - for neither have committed a crime.

choice:

What then is abortion? Does it fall in the category of choices that we ought to condemn or condone? First, it is killing. Abortion renders something that was demonstrably alive, demonstrably dead. Second, what is killed is human. The fetus that grows in a mother’s womb is not a duck. The female reproductive system is designed for the precise purpose of carrying this living being. Therefore, abortion is the killing of a human being. People cannot hide behind the argument of saying they are personally opposed to abortion but wouldn’t want to restrict someone else’s “right.” Try that argument in the following situations: “I’m personally opposed to slavery…”; “I’m personally opposed to gassing Jews…”. Furthermore, it should be quite obvious that even though people will continue to do wrong things, the solution is not to redefine right and wrong or to enable people to more easily carry out wrong things. The government does not legalize theft just because lots of people do it (and get injured doing it) and will continue to do it despite what the law says.

Young women getting abortions:

The women who have the most abortions are between ages 20-24. This is why HLA concentrates so much energy on reaching college students with the truth about the harmful effects of abortion and the humanity of the unborn child. HLA hopes to reach these students with the truth before they choose to suffer the pain of an abortion and the physical and psychological risks that follow.

There is a reason that I’m showing you this. A good friend of mine just sent me the link to their latest form of propaganda - a magazine for young women and men all about how great abstinence is, how terrible abortion is, how boys just don’t listen to girls, how girls are all crazy-emotional and marriage-obsessed, and all the other handy tips and facts that your newly-brainwashed ‘youths’ need to know. Hell, they even define love in one easy sentence!

I think the idea of such magazines on campus or in youth groups or schools is despicable. Spreading anti-choice lies is not acceptable. Yet here they are, a newly formed society, already spreading the word.

They have a response, of course.

9. How dare you put this on my campus and upset all these girls like this. This is too controversial to have on a college campus. Don’t you people have any respect for women!

HLA has great respect for women. It is because of our great respect for all human life that we are determined to educate people on the issue of abortion. Abortion harms women. Talking about abortion can be very upsetting for people, but it would be even more devastating to them if they had an abortion.

Of course. They don’t know how it will affect them, they don’t understand. Even if they wanted an abortion, that’s just because they’re ignorant. Poor youngsters who want to make their own decisions, we must help them realise that they are wrong in desiring autonomy. Psssh, women.

I won’t be blogging much for a while, as have a fair few exams which are going to decide the next three years of my life - going to focus on them for a while.

But when I return, I shall get down to informing you about the Bluestockings women who I learnt about in the exhibition I mentioned a month or so ago - I’ll start you off with Elizabeth Montagu now.

As a young woman, Elizabeth became a friend of Lady Margaret Harley, who had a strong influence over her early desire to learn. They corresponded weekly when apart and were inseparable when together. She spent time with Lady Harley in London and met many of the celebrated figures of the 1730s, including the poet Edward Young and the religious thinker Gilbert West. In Lady Harley’s household, men and women spoke as equals and engaged in witty, learned banter. (source)

When she was older, and married, Elizabeth was central to the Bluestockings movement of the 1750s (and onwards…), opening up her house (legally her husband’s, Charles Montagu’s) for “breakfast parties and evening conversations”. As one of the wealthiest women of her time, she devoted her time and money to encouraging authors, poets, painters, etc. Although she didn’t write much herself (only An Essay on the Writings and Genius of Shakespear, from a quick search - she may have written more but this was the only work she published, in praise of Shakespeare), her enthusiasm helped form and maintain the Bluestockings movement.

Her gatherings did not consist solely of women, but encouraged a meeting of minds, with the likes of Samuel Johnson alongside Elizabeth Carter…

For Montagu, and the other women who made up the Bluestockings Movement, this was their chance to learn and converse equally in a time when only men were seen fit to educate. As the ‘education’ of women stretched only to needlework and cooking, the nature of the Bluestockings’ meetings becomes even more extraordinary - these were women who fought to learn, and to be heard, if not by society then at least by each other. Montagu gave herself and these women a platform, and showed that women could be educated and remain in good health, and as rational beings (contrary to common belief that educating a woman could give her cancer, or would make her a nymphomaniac).

It has been claimed that the Bluestockings group “preserved and advanced feminism”, addressing social issues for women as well as furthering their own educations.

Elizabeth continued to encourage the movement until her death, using the money from her husband’s death to build two new houses in which she continued to hold meetings. She died in Montagu House in London on August 25, 1800.

I did a mock in English Literature the other day.

It was a really amazing question about Blake, and there was so so much to write about - the ideal question! Only I had a problem with it, one I had to ignore in order to write a good essay rather than descending into argument.

Here’s the question:

“In Blake’s view of the world, nature liberates : man imprisons” How far does your reading of the Selected Poems lead you to agree?

So yes, there was a lot to say - so much of Blake’s poetry is about nature or the restrictions of humanity (mind forg’d manacles, anyone?) and the answers just pour from the mind to the pen to the paper to the grades. But I really didn’t like the way that the question refers to humanity as ‘man’ - for a 21st century question, when it takes at least a year for them to give an exam question the OK, you’d think they’d have picked up on that one.

Because yes, it’s a term which was used (and accepted) to refer to all of human life. And yes, in many cases it still is. But to use it in this question goes one step further than having to read texts in which it is assumed that ‘he’ can count for all people and things, as it forces the student to do the same - one cannot answer the question without referring to the quote in detail, and so whole paragraphs turn into ‘man imprisons his emotions, his thoughts and his beliefs’ and suddenly women are excluded.

Reading texts which use the male pronoun throughout make me feel like an outsider, even if the intention of the author was to refer to men and women. My teacher argued that intention is all that matters - I call bull. I think that while intention is important, there are some things that regardless of how they are intended, should not be said. For example, returning to a previous post, the intention of a man who says ‘thanks babe’ in a shop should of course be acknowledged. For all we know, he means well, he thinks he’s being polite. But look at the implications of the term, and the cordiality which is being assumed between strangers, and regardless of his intentions the use of the word ‘babe’ is unacceptable. Similarly, regardless of the intentions of the author, or in this case the examiner who wrote this question, the wording of the question is exclusive and offensive.

If you are a woman who feels that the use of a male pronoun as all-encompassing is unnecessary, unequal and, indeed, unfair, then to have to answer a question in which you have to use said pronoun throughout just seems flat out unacceptable. When the question chosen faces so much scrutiny, the examiner should have to think twice before using sexist terms in their question.

I spoke to my teacher and a few fellow students about this, and it became quite heated. It ended up being me and another girl against my teacher and a couple of other guys (surprise, anyone?), and it was clear that they just weren’t listening to what we were saying. Now don’t get me wrong, my teacher is amazing. He’s normally very level-headed and seemingly aware of the inequalities in society, and he teaches accordingly. But in this case he was simply blinded to the obvious. My partner in crime (coincidentally, the same woman who I agreed with in Philosophy) pointed out that if they were to read an entire book in which humanity was referred to as ’she’ then it would be a very different story. But because they never have to experience it, they don’t recognise the issue and so feel that it’s ok to reduce it to intentions alone.

One response to this was ‘you don’t care about the question, you’re talking about changing the whole English language!’. Well, yes and no. No, in that the question was what I was frigging arguing about. Sorry mister, but I do care or we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. But yes, I think that the English language needs some work, as it has so much of its basis in patriarchy. That, however, was not my point. My point was that the wording of this particular question was unnecessary and, if I may say so, backward. It forces men and women to accept an element of our language which has already been questioned. An element of our language which has already been dismissed by many. So my issue was not so much that the language itself needs to change, it was that our language IS changing, and this question does not allow for that.

It was also said that the question uses a quote - surely the quote must therefore have been from before the days when people cared about such petty things as pronouns? This is possible. But of all the hundreds of quotes that could be used about Blake, they chose this one. Also, as far as my understanding of these questions goes, they are not always real quotes - rather, they are expressions of a view point which the examinee must discuss. Therefore, the quote was either a modern one, invented by the examiner her/himself, or was badly chosen.

Ultimately, however, the argument came back time and time again to intent.

For me, reducing it to intentions discounts the emotions of the recipient, assuming the importance of what you are thinking over the reactions of others. I think I made my point a bit clearer by this example - in a lot of rap music, the word nigger is used. The intentions may have been good, but the word itself has a negative effect. The very use of the word seems to condone racism and a divide between white and black, enforcing the division rather than destroying it. Of course, I can never truly know how that word feels to a black person, just as my teacher and his followers cannot know how it feels for a woman to face a text which instantly treats her as subhuman, but I can recognise, acknowledge the power of words. You’d think that a chief examiner, for English Literature of all subjects, could also make that connection.

And on that note - adieu.

Because we should. It’s important to remember and appreciate the achievements of the women before us, to see just how much they have done for us already. Sure, there’s a way to go yet. But without Second Wave feminism, and indeed all its precursors, we wouldn’t have half the freedom women have nowadays.

So check this out, and check out her blog generally, it’s great

With thanks to The F-Word for this recent discovery…

And on that note - adieu.

We had an interesting discussion in philosophy today. Somehow, the Obama calling a reporter ’sweetie’ incident came up and we ended up talking about whether we saw it as acceptable for men to call women sweetie or darling or love, etcetera etcetera…

Personally, I can’t stand it. One girl in my class made a point that I certainly agree with - she said that often, it’s about power of the man over the woman, about being condescending. We are not children, nor are we lesser than men, but calling us darling or other ‘terms of endearment’ suggests that we are. Also, I think it is inappropriate for a stranger to call you affectionate names…

What do you think? I’d be interested to know…

And on that note - adieu.

At work last week, my boss continued his sorting of his extensive cd collection. It’s certainly an interesting mix, and I like most of it. But this one was just too far:

Just - WHAT? A song about a man who stops loving his wife because after having children she is ‘fat’, so he ‘has to kill her’?

Oh wait, it’s humour. Funny, yeah. The ultimate excuse, and yet again I’m playing the humourless feminist. Ever occur to anyone that rather than being humourless we just find FUNNY things amusing? Rather than songs which make a joke of frikking murder.

Apparently complaining about this makes me ‘militant’. Boo hoo. I’ll take whatever names are thrown at me, I will not sit by thinking this shit is bad and not say anything. People need to think about what they are saying and listening to.

And on that note - adieu

I’m feeling really quite sick right now, because THIS is apparently funny. Thanks to menstrualpoetry for blogging about it.

to say that you should go to the Bluestockings Exhibition in the National Portrait Gallery in London if you get a chance. It’s fantastic. I’ll do some research on the women and blog properly, but thought that as it’s till the 15th June I’d mention it now so you have some time to get down there

Here’s the link to the relevant page of the NPG site…

And on that note - adieu.

Utterly.

And it appears that over the last year, nothing has changed.

So there we go. I can’t say anything about them as I am too tired and therefore my writing ability has diminished considerably. Also best not to write when angry.

And on that note - adieu!

makes me sick. But it’s always there, and complaining about it gets so darn tiresome. And ruins the breaks between perfectly decent, non-sexist programmes (cos there actually are a few…)

This one has really got me riled, and I didn’t even see it on TV, but on The F-Word

It is very distressing that this has been shown on tv. It’s like, we have a society that is supposedly gradually moving forwards, we have laws against things like sexism and yet advertising is allowed to ignore them and appeal to everyone’s sexist, prejudiced sides. If only there were more of us who don’t have them!

Oh goodness. I just found this and I feel really, really unwell now. I simply can’t understand why people would want to do something like this:

and this is ridiculous (the oh-so-rare-but-still-so-wrong objectification of men…) :

and perleeeeese, this is so stupid:

On a brighter (kinda) note, in America tomorrow they are doing something marvellous - a Day of Silence “to highlight the bullying and harassment of LGBTQ students, and their supporters”, something which has apparently been going on since 1996. If I’d only known earlier I’d have tried to organise something - as it is, all I can do is say props to those who are doing it in America, I think it’s wonderful and I wonder why England hasn’t followed suit. I only wish that such a day weren’t necessary in the first place.

See more in this vid, which is amazing and has my favourite actor from Grey’s Anatomy in it (he plays George :D)

http://www.logoonline.com/?popThis=popVideo(214880)

And on that note - Adieu!

…or at least, that is what one is led to believe by the promise of many new ‘Hooters‘ bars cropping up all over England. Hoorah, another way of normalising the objectification and degradation of women.

I’ll link you up to the criticisms on The F-Word, and the relevant Facebook group and petition, but first have a look at what Hooters have to say for themselves:

The element of female sex appeal is prevalent in the restaurants, and the company believes the Hooters Girl is as socially acceptable as a Dallas Cowboy cheerleader, Sports Illustrated swimsuit model, or a Radio City Rockette. The Hooters system employs over 25,000 people - over 15,000 of which are Hooters Girls. The “nearly world famous” Hooters Girls are the cornerstone of the Hooters concept, and as part of their job, these all-American cheerleaders make promotional and charitable appearances in their respective communities. Hooters hires women who best fit the image of a Hooters Girl to work in this capacity. The chain hires both males and females to work in management and host, staff, service bar, and kitchen positions. The Hooters Girl uniform consists of orange shorts and a white tank top, short-sleeve or long-sleeve T-shirt. Pantyhose and bras are required.

Claims that Hooters exploits attractive women are as ridiculous as saying the NFL exploits men who are big and fast. Hooters Girls have the same right to use their natural female sex appeal to earn a living as do super models Cindy Crawford and Naomi Campbell. To Hooters, the women’s rights movement is important because it guarantees women have the right to choose their own careers, be it a Supreme Court Justice or Hooters Girl.

Women occupy management positions all the way from Assistant Manager to Vice President of Training and Development, Kat Cole, who started her career at Hooters as a Hooters Girl.

The chain acknowledges that many consider “Hooters” a slang term for a portion of the female anatomy. Hooters does have an owl inside its logo and uses an owl theme sufficiently to allow debate to occur over the meaning’s intent. The chain enjoys and benefits from this debate. In the end, we hope Hooters means a great place to eat.

Hooters characterizes itself as a neighborhood place, not a typical family restaurant. Sixty-eight percent of customers are male, most between the ages of 25-54. Hooters does not market itself to families, but they do patronize the restaurants. Ten percent of the parties we serve have children in them. Hooters is in the hospitality business and provides the best possible service to anyone coming through the door. For this reason, the chain offers a children’s menu.

Oh I could continue quoting, but you might as well read the page if it interests you. I’ll just add this one bit:

Sex appeal is legal and it sells. Newspapers, magazines, daytime talk shows, and local television affiliates consistently emphasize a variety of sexual topics to boost sales. Hooters marketing, emphasizing the Hooters Girl and her sex appeal, along with its commitment to quality operations continues to build and contributes to the chain’s success. Hooters’ business motto sums it up, “You can sell the sizzle, but you have to deliver the steak.”

Lovely. It’s one of those ‘the majority is always right, therefore the perceived majority is always right, therefore the media is always right and therefore we are’ decisions. Pretty questionable if you ask me. What they don’t seem to understand is that their company reduces women to mere ’sex appeal’, and normalises the view of women as constantly sexually available, as there for male pleasure and as subservient. As Laura Woodhouse from The F-Word puts it,

Some women may have no problems working there or dealing with the customers. But some women choosing to work there doesn’t mean that the Hooters’ view of women is OK. As long as women are primarily valued and viewed as sex objects for male pleasure/entertainment, all women suffer, because that status allows us to be discriminated against and “justifies” male sexual harassment of women, the myths about rape (she asked for it because she had her breasts out, she wanted it really etc etc), paying us less or barring our access to certain jobs. We will not be seen or treated as equals with equal rights as long as the culture of which Hooters is a part insists that our greatest asset is our breasts, and that these exist for men to look at and make money out of.

Other women have to take any job going, and they shouldn’t have to put up with the Hooters uniform and sexual harassment in order to make a living. Callers on the show last night who claimed that no one has to do a job they don’t like are naive. You think people CHOOSE to empty bins or clean toilets day in, day out for years on end? People have to make ends meet, and they should not have to put up with the Hooters environment in order to do so. I don’t think the women who choose to work there should have to, either.

Here are the anti-hooters links: Both blogs at The F-Word , Facebook group, PETITION, Guardian article.

And here’s the agreement that all of the ‘girls’ have to sign - read paras 2 and 3.

I’d be intrigued to know what you think about this. Personally, as you may have gathered, I’m astonished that this should even be suggested, let alone accepted, as a new branch of restaurants, pleasantly titled ‘breastaurants’ by one of the lawyers for Hooters (which, really, says it all), in England.

Goodness, that’s a bit of a long sentence, sorry. I hope that there is some way of stopping them, really I do. The fact that they are celebrating their 25th Birthday in America is depressing enough, let’s hope they never get to celebrate their first one here.

[Edit: It would appear that actually they have been successful in getting permission for a Hooters in Southend on Sea. Damn damn damn damn. But that does not mean (obviously) that we just give up and accept their existence in our country. Or indeed anywhere. Keep fighting the good fight, my friends. And on that note, as ever, adieu.]

…so today, well tonight, I will relish my last moments of holiday, of escape. I’ve given up on things lately - work mostly, depression about the state of the world (made easier by trying to avoid the news and any research), people. Keeping my room tidy. Reading what I’m supposed to read.

It was only for a few days. And now I know that My Life As It Really Is must resume soon - tomorrow, in fact. Those three essays I’ve ignored need to be done. That presentation on my project about women in science? Yeah, gotta do that. The revision for my History and English exams? Ought to dig into that at some point. What’s that? I have to see friends and family and walk around and breathe as well? Great.

As a final flourish of the Free Flag, then, I will provide you with some lovely things that have managed to distract me for a few hours. Enjoy. After this it’ll no doubt get gritty again.

Oh and by the way - some of these things are weird

A movie in a minute …yes, I just said movie. That’s what they’ve called them. I’m on holiday, I can’t complain

They do books too

Hello Boys and Girls, today we’re going to make music…count and play your rhythm sticks, if you have them This site just has loadsa sound bytes. These are my favourites so far!

Bullet + Crayons = fun

These two have whole books. On teh internetz!

The Mockery of the Bible. Worth it for the foolery section alone. Obviously there are issues with all of it - but today is holiday day and I’m not going into them.

You know the words you can put on your fridge? The magnetic ones of joy? There’s a huge fridge in cyberspace all for you…and everyone else in the world…YAY

A title generator (for stories, poems, you name it )

This is what my house will look like when I’m all growed up.

Scrap that. My house will be all of these. Combined.

But if you really want something disheartening, as that is what this blog usually seems to bring to your attention, try this. It’s pathetic. Have something that’s depressing in a cheery way to make up for it : *smiles*

Back in the dream world - ooh, an online typewriter thing

Some of these photos are incredible - I love the 5th one the most =]

A pac man game with SCOUTING FOR GIRLS! Hoorah, all of my dreams have come true

Bible Google! Hahahaha wow. I’m happy.

Story in a sentence. Kinda like postsecret in a way. But nowhere near as good. Some interesting ones though

The Beatles make me happy. Bit of a weird link tho.

I. Love. Words.

And I love this

Sarcasm. Society. Need I say more?

In fact, no. I think I’ve said enough. I fear I must now resign myself to sleep, fully aware that when I wake the work will descend and there will seem to be no end. There we go, that’s life.

And on that note - adieu!

Cos we’ve never heard that one before.

THIS isn’t, apparently, a touchy-feely, “women are more emotional in the workplace” kind of argument.

No, instead it’s a ‘men are just emotionally incapable and LIKE to see others fail, while women make a good judgement not to get involved with aspects of business that require more commitment time-wise’

. . . .

Male performance is boosted simply by having to compete, while female performance is automatically lowered by competition, according to studies that tested fourth-grade schoolchildren under different running scenarios in gym class.

Because, of course, fourth-grade schoolchildren are perfect examples of working women and men. And anyway, why o why o why the generalisation?! Some women perform better when they have to compete (I sure as hell do), and some don’t. The same goes for men.

“More women than men think they’ll do poorly, even when they perform very well,” Dr. Pinker says in the book. “In the competitive sphere this can look like discrimination, when in fact women may be withdrawing from the race of their own accord, based on their faulty self-assessments.”

This, of course, is natural. Women expect to do badly. This couldn’t possibly be a learnt personality trait, could it?

Oh no, let’s not even suggest that. That’s crazy talk. Women just think like that, ok?

To be fair, I’m judging from the article rather than reading the actual book. But really, Dr. Pinker, shouldn’t we have learnt by now that all people behave/think/process information differently? What can we possibly gain from such ‘research’ other than a confirmation of this, which has been gendered? Surely the only thing that this book does, then, is promote the idea that it’s ok for there to be so few women in the higher jobs in business because some women don’t want it, and that men are incapable of real emotion/compassion?

Thus, the power of patriarchy is yet again affirmed - we’ve even got women saying that it’s natural for women to not want to be promoted/paid more! And while we’re at it, let’s confirm that idea of the RealMan - he’s masculine, he’s strong, he likes to compete and WIN, oh yeah, and he just doesn’t do any of that girly compassion bull.

Perleeease. Give me a break.

…when you ought to be sleeping.

Two videos for you to watch. The first - men being asked what feminism means to them. The second - women being asked. I think they’re from about a yr ago, but still pretty telling.

I’m off to bed now

This, while (sadly) unsurprising, is certainly an interesting read. Women, it would seem, as still seen by 1 in 4 people in Ireland to be partly (if not wholly) responsible for being raped.

As I have said before, I find this idea ridiculous. One of the statistics shows that

38% believe a woman must share some of the blame if she walks through a deserted area.

If someone was walking through a deserted area and was robbed, would they be blamed? While, of course, one should be aware of their own safety, this blaming of the victim is simply unacceptable.

Still, as “dagnymeetsassisi” says, this can also be viewed positively:

” More than 30% think a victim is some way responsible if she flirts with a man or fails to say no clearly. “

Or, 2/3rds believe a woman is NOT responsible despite flirting…. a commanding majority. How would that figure have looked in the 1970’s?

…

“37% think a woman who flirts extensively is at least complicit, if not completely in the wrong, if she is the victim of a sex crime.”

63% - again a commanding majority - do not believe the woman is complicit or wrong.

“One in three think a woman is either partly or fully to blame if she wears revealing clothes.”

Two of three do not believe the woman is partly to blame; most respondants, that is.

“38% believe a woman must share some of the blame if she walks through a deserted area.”

Again, 62% do not beleive a woman shares some part of the blame. Most people, in other words.

I’m not sure how far I agree with this, as 1 in 4 is still distressing regardless of the wiser 3 that believe the rapist to be the criminal, not the victim.

Intrigued, as ever, to hear your thoughts.

And on that note - adieu.

This is for Andy and the others who were in creative writing today. And actually, for anyone who happens to be interested…

Today we had a discussion in Creative Writing about rape/the safety of women in England now. I’ve found some links that I think are relevant:

• Government money for rape centres
• Rape conviction rate: 37% in 1977, to 5.6% in 2005

“While they conclude there was some evidence of poor investigation and lack of understanding of the law, the main problem was the culture of scepticism among both the police and prosecutors.” (Second source above)

• The rape conviction rate for the last couple of years has proven much more difficult to find than I anticipated. I think we may be wrong in saying that it is as low as 2%, I think it is actually more likely that it has remained at 5 or 6%. (This, from 2007, says 5%…) This is still shocking, as the rate has dropped. By 31.4%.

• This, from 2007, covers a great deal of the issues and inbuilt stereotypes in society RE rape, and discusses both the issues and solutions.

“Judgements about the credibility of charges of rape are often influenced by impressions of the woman’s attractiveness, demeanour, dress and alcohol consumption which are in fact irrelevant to the real issue of consent and the perpetrator’s culpability.”

“Prevalent public attitudes about rape also have a clear influence on the investigation and prosecution of rape cases and at court, and contribute to the low rape conviction rate. Police, prosecutors, judges and, perhaps most importantly, jurors are as likely as any other members of the public to internalise common attitudes about rape, and misconceptions about who are ‘real’ rapists and victims.”

• Responses to the question ‘Why are rape conviction rates so low?’, this January.
• An incredible performance poet, speaking about rape (in fact, check out her site cos she really is amazing)
• And finally (as I think I’ll have to continue this another time because I’m getting so tired and depressed), this - it shouldn’t still need to be said, hell it should never have needed to be said, but it is still relevant and a pretty powerful post. Also the source of my title - see the comments.

On a completely unrelated (and yet, as ever, related in some way) point: this guy’s poem is really powerful.

And on that note - adieu.

.

and the generations before

.

and before that

.

and even before that. Nothing seems to change.

..

Read an interesting article in the Woman section of the G2, deeply depressing but interesting nonetheless. Especially as the number of ‘gentleman’s’ clubs in Brighton seems to be increasing, which is insane. They should not exist in the first place, but to build more? New ones? It pains me greatly to think that this is seen as acceptable. This, also relevant but from last year, is fascinating but so sad. Ditto with this timewise - it just confirms what is said in both other sites I’ve referenced - that young women are being sexualised.

..

On a lighter note, this is promising.

..

And, to counter it, as for every piece of good news there is ALWAYS at least 10 pieces of bad news, try this.

Ok, so I was going to link to this article on Feministing about a guy whose brother raped his wife by pretending to be the husband. Disgusting, especially considering the response from the agony aunt who was written to about it. But as I went to pick up the link, I saw something new. The link I have actually given you makes me feel physically sick. Truly, to the bottom of my stomach.

In fact, being the over-emotional-hysterical woman that I am, it makes me cry. That other women can ridicule a woman who has been mutilated…it begs belief. I just have no words to even begin to explain how foul it is to mock a woman for her abuse.

In a supposedly ‘developed’ country, why is it we are faced every day with such disgraceful disregard for women?

. .

It makes me wonder what the point is, really. As I said before - I’m talking bout my generation, but it’s the same for so many generations gone by that one begins to wonder if it’s possible to progress at all.

Perhaps progress is in fact a myth, and all we get is veiled digression. Nothing seems to change.

..

And on that note - adieu.

..

(But for those who want to depress themselves further about the reality of this shithole we call Earth, here’s the brother-rape story. And if you want to see whether the earlier link was a one off from jezabel.com, try this. I weep. Especially as sometimes she seems to have something decent to say, too.)

I’m sticking to uber brief posts at the mo as I have too much to do.

But how’s this for a bit of fun misogynistic crap you can send your friends on Facebook? :

Words fail me. I weep.

It has not been a good day.

Here’s somthing amusing to cheer you (*ahem* ME) up

Oh and hell, have a rather fab poem as well:

USE OF ENGLISH

The phrase ‘politically correct’
is not at all what you’d expect.
But how has it been hijacked so?
I’m going to tell you, ‘cos I know.

You’d think it should mean kind and smart
Radical and stout of heart
A way of living decently.
Well, so it did, till recently.

And then some cringing, nerdy divs
Sweaty, misogynistic spivs
Sad, halitosis-ridden hacks
all wearing lager-stained old macs
with spots and pustules and split ends
and absolutely zero friends
(Yes, living, breathing running sores:
The right wing press’s abject whores)
Were all told, by their corporate chiefs
To rubbish decent folks’ beliefs
To label with the phrase ‘P.C’
All that makes sense to you and me
And write off our progressive past.
Their articles came thick and fast
The editors gladly received them
and loads of idiots believed them.

You’ll find that most who use the term
Will only do so to affirm
Sad, bigoted, outdated views
they’ve swallowed via the Murdoch news.

by ATTILA THE STOCKBROKER

And on that note: Adieu!

…is the name of this article. It was written by Alex Gibson, a modern history student at Magdalen College, Oxford. Apparently, “He is very proud to add feminism to a list of ‘isms’ he cares passionately about, and is quite fond of making his friends uncomfortable in the pub by talking about it”. Go him - I’m glad that there are men out there that identify with feminism. But while I’m happy for him that he can add feminism to his impressive list, I had a few issues with his article.

In essence, it was fair enough. Men have to face gender stereotypes and that sucks for them. Poor things. But right from the title, I was perplexed. “Why Men Should Care About Gender Stereotypes”…well, why should they? The message is clear - because it affects them, too. In fact, some stereotypes about men are “allowed to flourish in - dare I say it - a much more brazen way than the stereotypes about women”. Of course, if it only affected women then, one is led to assume, men shouldn’t care about gender stereotypes.

While I agree with him over several of his points, this overall principle, that the reason men should care is because it affects them too, marred my opinion of the whole article. Not only this, but also his attitude to feminism as though it were purely for advancing women. While there is a clear focus upon women within feminism, as it is, more often than not, about equality and women being treated equally to men, his article seemed to suggest that feminism only rejects the ludicrous ideas held about women and that, indeed, there is nothing that addresses the issue of supposed ‘masculinity’.

The problem is, while women are encouraged to reject the ludicrous ideas that are held about them, men are supposed to embrace them.

The idea of all women rejecting gender stereotypes is a wonderful one. What bliss, when all women are raised by feminists who ensure that they shed gender stereotypes and consider themselves as individuals. But that is not reality. When so many women and men are brought up in the clutches of gender stereotypes, it is not right to say that women reject gender stereotypes while men are expected to embrace them. Both ‘genders’ are expected to conform to the stereotypes that are rife in modern society, but I would never go so far as to say that stereotypes about men are allowed to flourish more than those about women. When the ‘worst’ swear word in England, cunt, describes the female anatomy, when women are portrayed on tv, in programmes and adverts and films and in books, cartoons, and games as conforming to ’stereotypes’, when there are still ‘girls mags‘ which expect women to only care about make-up, clothes, shoes, and, of course, men, when feminism comes under ‘life & style‘ if acknowledged at all in national papers, when to ignore the advances of other men makes you a ’slut’, how can you say that stereotypes about men flourish more?

I’d love to know.

Yes, Alex isn’t an anti-feminist. And he wouldn’t want to undermine the wrongs done to women - I appreciate this. However the way that he has approached the issue is deplorable, as he not only sees it as an issue for men just because they are also victims of it, but also seems to think that men have a harder time than women when it comes to gender stereotypes

I would never dare to suggest that men have a harder time than women in general society, because that’s just patently untrue, but in terms of stereotypes we fail utterly.

Yes, he has some good points. The main one, of course, is that men also suffer from patriarchy.

Men are often characterised as spoiled, helpless brats utterly unable to perform simple household tasks, too stupid to remember anniversaries and appointments and completely unable to understand these strange female creatures and their hysterical emotions. We’re base brutes ruled by our overactive sex drives who simply can’t help being crass and immature, because that is the way God made us. Basically, we are mentally deficient lumps who require a female carer to function in society.

But to then say that

This is precisely the kind of ridiculous stereotype that, if applied to women, would be torn to shreds in intelligent debate.

seems rather naive. Yes, in intelligent debate it would be. But so would ridiculous stereotypes about men. However, more often than not we aren’t dealing with intelligent debate. We’re dealing with one-sided views, we’re dealing with people who have grown up being told what girls do and what boys do, so have been socialised into accepting these stereotypes. We’re dealing with anti-feminists who believe the stereotypes that they have been fed with.

Also, to assume that the stereotype of men as ‘mentally deficient lumps’ is the prevalent one could also be misguided. There are a great deal of stereotypes that say that men are more intelligent, more capable of achieving, better at academic studies while women are supposed to flourish creatively. However, Alex clearly hasn’t experienced these as he believes that male academics aren’t celebrated.

Let’s stop putting sports stars on a pedestal and start celebrating poets, writers, scientists and artists.

Actually, male poets, writers, scientists and artists are celebrated widely. Hell, the new freebee with the Guardian is ‘Great Poets of the 20th Century’ and guess how many women poets were great?

One.

Out of seven.

Of course, Plath was amazing. But anyone would believe she’s the only woman that’s ever written decent poetry.

Anyway, I feel that I have dwelled on this for too long. Basically, I agree that gender stereotypes are wrong, both logically and morally. But to suggest that male stereotypes are almost worse than female? I have an issue with that. Also, to suggest that the only reason men should care is because they are affected by it is ridiculous.

I’d be interested to hear what y’all think of the article, and, to balance it, look at this un:

Yay

She talks about supposedly ’sexist’ feminism, and about the ideas put forward by Alex about male stereotypes. And there are some good links to male ‘movements’ at the end

And on that note - Adieu!

The Gender Mirror - pretty interesting way to approach modern issues - invert them! It certainly makes you think…

Feminism is bad for your health. This is from last year. Gah.

And, unrelated - uk teenagers may have to, among other things, pledge allegiance to the queen. Um - no. It’s a rather mixed article actually…

Some laughs :

The style and content of the events should be “re-energised”, perhaps with a rendition by schoolchildren of the pop song We Are The World, last year’s report said.

(Seriously, I laughed a LOT…just picture the teenagers you know in the UK. Now picture them singing We Are The World while declaring their joy to be a British citizen and their love of the Queen. Please.)

Some ideas that are almost good:

Lord Goldsmith has also hinted at updating the national anthem by removing verses which are rarely performed.

I’d just change it altogether though, tbh. It doesn’t reflect England properly and it is such a tuneless piece of crap.

Some realism:

People born and raised in this country are often far too cynical about being British and it seems to be a national pastime to put down British institutions and our way of life.

Aaaand…some SHOCK:

It has been reported that laws, such as sleeping with the wife of the heir to the throne, which carries life imprisonment, would be scrapped or reformed because they are regarded as outdated.

What, outdated?? You mean, like, life imprisonment for adultery isn’t still the norm? And heirs to the throne don’t have to be married? Or men? Never. *Sigh*

And on that note - adieu!

So, yesterday was International Women’s Day. I wore a badge to work, and one woman said to me

‘Oh my goodness, is it Women’s Day?? I have a degree in women’s studies and I didn’t know!’

Which says a lot, really. Awareness of this supposedly international day, in England, is very poor. Unless you’re already looking into it, or you live in central London, the likelihood of the average Jane knowing is slim. It’s infuriating, really - the one day that the whole world is supposed to be celebrating women, and England doesn’t really give a shit.

Anyway, it’s delayed but there is one woman I have discovered recently, while trawling through vids from Whose Line is it Anyway? rather than working, who is really quite something. Her name, my friends, is Josie Lawrence, and she’s a FANTASTIC comedian It’s unusual to see women on comedy shows (See Mock the Week, Have I Got News For You etc), and it would appear that only a few years ago this wasn’t the case - Josie and many other women took part in the Whose Line is it Anyway sketches…

Nowadays, we don’t hear so much about her. But she’s still going strong. She’s done some work for radio, her latest being on Just a Minute, is playing the lead role in Tom Stoppard’s Hapgood at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, and had guest appearance in Skins. She has made great contributions to charity - in 2003 Josie spent eight months walking across China, Cuba, Peru and Tanzania for Breakthrough Breast Cancer and in 2005 she climbed Mount Kilimanjaro for Sunfield – a school for children with learning difficulties - of which she is a patron. She is also a supporter of the National Autistic Society’s Make School Make Sense campaign.

So today (in place of yesterday) is my celebration, and while I celebrate women everyday, I’d like to take today to celebrate Josie Lawrence, and all the other female comedians who deserve to be remembered. There are so many brilliant, funny women out there, we just need to give them back the limelight that is rightfully theirs.

Enjoy: She’s So Great

(Oh, there are so many…tis tricky to choose from!)

I’d also like to take a moment to despair. There are no words. Just…despair.

As the wise Bo Burnham says:

George Bush won’t he just yell and rant

But he’s a presiDONT who ameriCANT

Anyway. At work the other day this guy came in, and stayed for AGES. He wanted some music for a talk he was doing about wildlife in Sussex [I kid you not, our conversation literally went like this:

Me: So what's this music for?

CrazyGuy: Oh, for my talk. I do a lot of talks, this one's about nature.

Me: Oh, how lovely.

CrazyGuy: Yeah, it's incredible. If you just show someone a picture of a woodlouse they'll be unimpressed, disgusted even. But with the right lighting, the perfect music, it can bring a tear to your eye.

Me: ...uhhuh.

See - crazy.] Oh, laughter is difficult to silence but silence it I did. However, I didn’t do so well when I was playing CrazyGuy some Einaudi (amazing composer, and it was a cd of someone else playing his piano concertos which I am rather excited about buying at some point). He was enjoying it, I was pretty taken with it myself, and this other guy, let’s call him ObnoxiousIWishHe’dGoAway Guy, ObnoxiousGuy for short, came over to the counter with his daughter. He looks at us and this follows:

ObnoxiousGuy: You could listen to this music all day, couldn’t you?

Me: Yes, definitely (*pleased as CrazyGuy has been monitoring the responses of other customers while in search of emotive woodlouse music*)

ObnoxiousGuy: It’s so…dull. You can just let it wash over you. I mean, there’s nothing to it. A six year old could play this.

Me: …

*My boss continues to serve ObnoxiousGuy, I try to ignore him and then…*

ObnoxiousGuy: It’s like…what’s that awful woman’s name?

ObnoxiousGuy’sDaughter: *laughs in a really irritating weedy way* Oh daddy, do you mean Amy Winehouse?

ObnoxiousGuy: Yeah, Amy Winehouse. Doesn’t she look a state.

Me: Oh, that’s a shame (see, polite :)), personally I really like Amy Winehouse’s voice.

ObnoxiousGuy: Well, I…

Me: And as far as my opinion of music goes, it’s more how it sounds and how much enjoyment I get from the piece of music rather that what the singer looks like that matters.

ObnoxiousGuy: But she is a state. I can’t bear her.

At which point I registered the evils my boss was giving me and shut up. But it’s always the way! Sure, he was one ObnoxiousGuy and he was ridiculous about Einaudi too, but it’s so unusual for someone to say ‘Oh, that Mark Ronson, he’s such a mess. I won’t listen to his music’ or ‘God, Elvis let himself go, I can’t bear to listen to his music now’ but female singers/bands are instantly judged on their appearance and their lifestyles. At some point, sure, their talent is considered. But look at Amy Winehouse - she’s incredibly talented. But so many people hate her, because of the way she leads her life. I think she needs help, yes, and she would probably perform better if she were more healthy. But while I may look at her lifestyle with concern, I won’t let it affect my enjoyment of her music.

Anyway, so that was the ‘fall out’ at work - my boss said afterwards that it’s best to leave things like that (because then ‘they leave the shop much more quickly’ - if it weren’t for me he’d not have stuck around contaminating the shop…) but there are some things that I just won’t let lie. If a customer says something that I strongly disagree with, I’ll say. I won’t say it rudely, and I’ll accept their right to an opinion, but I’ll not silence my own. So that’s that.

And on that note - Adieu!

Just saw this on a friend’s facebook - um, wtf?

Oh also - I’ve changed the blog from Esse Quam Videri to The Token Feminist - it makes more sense than the web address being a totally different blog name

So there are two things that I wanna talk about. One: National Women’s Day. And two: surnames and hyphenation. Handily connected in my title *is pleased with self*

International Women’s Day is celebrated on the 8th of March, so it’s soon! And I’d like to do something at college to join the celebrations, or at least to acknowledge it…any suggestions??

Here’s some background:

IWD is now an official holiday in Armenia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan and Vietnam. The tradition sees men honouring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc with flowers and small gifts. In some countries IWD has the equivalent status of Mother’s Day where children give small presents to their mothers and grandmothers.

The new millennium has witnessed a significant change and attitudinal shift in both women’s and society’s thoughts about women’s equality and emancipation. Many from a younger generation feel that ‘all the battles have been won for women’ while many feminists from the 1970’s know only too well the longevity and ingrained complexity of patriarchy. With more women in the boardroom, greater equality in legislative rights, and an increased critical mass of women’s visibility as impressive role models in every aspect of life, one could think that women have gained true equality. The unfortunate fact is that women are still not paid equally to that of their male counterparts, women still are not present in equal numbers in business or politics, and globally women’s education, health and the violence against them is worse than that of men.

However, great improvements have been made. We do have female astronauts and prime ministers, school girls are welcomed into university, women can work and have a family, women have real choices. And so the tone and nature of IWD has, for the past few years, moved from being a reminder about the negatives to a celebration of the positives.

All this and more found here

What do y’all think? Do we need a day to celebrate women and their achievements? I personally think that it’s important, as it is one day of the year where it really isn’t taboo to talk about women’s issues and speaking out is…well, pretty much expected. For once. BUT that is only if people have heard of the day - not many people I know of are aware of when it is…or even that it exists!

I also just discovered the Brighton and Hove group: here and there’s a comedy night on Thurs…I wonder if I could go…

Anyway, I digress. If anyone has any ideas for IWD at my college, nothing too large scale because a) I have very little time, and b) There’s not a great deal of support there…then I’d appreciate them!

As for surnames…

Today, I was talking to a friend about Jessica Valenti’s book, Full Frontal Feminism, who had read an extract, and she said she disagreed with what Jessica had to say about the changing of surnames. It turned into a rather big discussion, and I was the only one there saying that changing one’s name is significant. That it still is the tradition for women to take their husbands name. And that, at some point, the patriarchal system of passing on the husband/father’s name has to be addressed.

So, here’s what was said by t’others…

• Surnames don’t matter. They are just names, after all.
• Women can do what they like with their names now, everyone knows that.
• Surely feminism should focus on something else, something more important?
• Hyphenated names are ‘annoying’ and just mean that your child has to choose which part of the name to keep.

Of course, as the proud owner of a hyphenated surname, the last one rubbed me the wrong way a little. But I think that it’s a good solution. As is forging a new surname between you, moving on from the family ‘line’ and starting anew. I don’t think that your surname is your identity. But I think that it can still be important to you, that there’s power in a name (as most fantasy novels will tell you!) and so to dismiss it as a non-issue is saddening. Especially as it was almost a symbol of ownership, of a woman moving from being their father’s property to their husband’s. I for one am not happy with that, however traditional it may be.
Also, feminism really doesn’t focus on surnames. There’s no one focus, unless you say that it’s taking action towards equality. I often get that argument, if I ever take issue with the presentation of women in films/tv, or something similar. Why should I care, why doesn’t feminism focus on more important things?

Hell, one man (a teacher, surprisingly) even said to me ‘why do you focus on feminism when there are children dying in Africa?’. He was rather surprised when I said that I think feminism could help that, for if women were treated equally to men then they wouldn’t be raped in Africa, and they would be allowed access to contraception, so they wouldn’t have so many children and HIV wouldn’t be so widespread. Then there would be less mouths to feed, so less children starving, and more children would still have their mothers, rather than losing them to HIV.

Yet again, I digress. What do you think RE surnames? Do women still take their husbands name out of respect for tradition, or do they keep their own? Is it still surprising for men to take their wife’s surname? (Interesting, in regards to this, that in 1990 people were starting to see the sexism in surnames, yet in 2003 they appear to have digressed to an acceptance of the husband’s surname again…) Are hyphenated surnames irritating? And do they really matter at all, in the end? Perhaps we should drop them altogether, as this woman did…

Oh also, on a side note - I am almost exploding with anger over this…Charlotte Allen clearly lacks any intelligence or logic whatsoever.

And on that note - adieu.

…I was in my POS class, and my teacher was telling us to vote for this guy who he used to teach in some skiing competition. So we watch his video (as you can tell, our lesson was very productive) and he falls over a bit but he’s alright.

Anyway, so we’re all talking about it and it reminded me of this article on Feministing (click here) where they were talking about women not being allowed to compete in skiing at Olympic level. So I asked, all innocence, “are there any women in the competition?”

And the WHOLE class (yes, including my friends), looked round at me like ‘wtf?’ and laughed. Because I’m hilarious, right? Cos I have this crazy-ass notion that women matter, and am getting a reputation as ‘that outspoken feminist girl who finds women’s issues in everything‘? It’s driving me CRAZY!!! So I said, rather quietly into the table, ‘it was a genuine question’ and the teacher said no, it’s the male section of the competition.

Is there a female section? Response: I dunno. Great.

So that’s my complaint for the day. Or for the year. Oh what I’d give to meet someone who just said they were a feminist without having to be TOLD.

*Sigh*

Oh and I just rediscovered some links I’d saved as ‘ugh’:

Poker

Hillary ‘Fun’

Rape Jokes Are Not Funny

Just…sick

And on that note - adieu.

I’ve been loving me some Mary Wollstonecraft of late. Her ‘Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ is terrific, you should read it (if you haven’t already). Some interesting quotes, other than the title:

” I, therefore, will venture to assert that till women are more rationally educated, the progress of human virtue and improvement in knowledge must receive continual checks”

“Taught from their infancy that beauty is woman’s sceptre, the mind shapes itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to adore its prison”

“Perhaps, if the existence of an evil being were allowed, who, in the allegorical language of Scripture, went about seeking whom he should devour, he could not more efficiently degrade the human character, than by giving a man absolute power”

“Man is active, full of movement, creative in politics, business and culture. The male shapes and moulds society and the world. Woman, on the other hand, is passive. She stays at home, as is her nature. She is matter waiting to be formed by the active male principle. Of course the active elements are always higher on any scale, and more divine. Man consequently plays a major part in reproduction; the woman is merely the passive incubator of his seed…the male semen cooks and shapes the menstrual blood into a new human being.”