Wednesday, July 29, 2009

FUCK YOU, Florence

Feminism has been hijacked. Feminism has been hijacked to dress up certain things which are dubious and sometimes ethically sticky, and magic away any objection to them.

On the whole, I would say that ACTUAL FEMINISTS haven't to the best of my knowledge endorsed things like sex work and pole-dancing as 'feminist.' What happened was that women were told that they weren't necessarily unfeminist if they did such things, or shaved their legs, or whatever. This was conveniently manufactured into the lie that all choices women make are 'feminist.' What utter nonsense. The fact of a woman making a choice for herself is feminist. As any fule kno, the circumstances in which choices are made greatly affect how 'free' they actually are, or not.

Nonetheless, we find ourselves in the tragic paradox where some people now think that empowerment is its opposite. Feminists use this to explain why some women, who are 'collaborators' in systems that hold them back, behave this way.

When I Googled the topic of this post to see if anyone else had written about it, I got this post: Florence And The Machine – ‘Kiss With A Fist’ – Is this the new feminism? . A commentator wrote:

... this issue relates to how the exploitation of women has become much more normalised that some women themselves identify it as empowerment.

The progressive changes brought about by feminism and the left during the 60’s and 70’s have been adapted by some feminists to fit in with the Thatcherite principles of neo-liberalism.


Food for thought. I also cannot help thinking that Florence of Florence And The Machine is mistaking exploitation and empowerment. I humbly ask you to read the post above, about the song 'Kiss With A Fist,' which isn't very long.

'Kiss With A Fist' is a very troubling song which cheerfully lists a sort of escalating 'one-upmanship' of abuse between a couple until the woman burns down the bed:

You hit me once
I hit you back
You gave a kick
I gave a slap
You smashed a plate over my head
Then I set fire to our bed

That's the tamest of the verses, btw. Did I mention that the full name of the song is 'Kiss With A Fist (Is Better Than None)'?!

People routinely target rap music for its misogynistic lyrics, but this is a sunny, upbeat, MAINSTREAM POP SONG by a much-hyped group. I have to say as well, that despite having listened to a fair bit of rap in my time, I've never heard anything this repellant. I'm sure Eminem has done worse, but then again, he's marked 'Parental Advisory'. No-one exactly mistakes him for child-friendly listening, unless they're stupid and/or irresponsible.

This is an indie pop group who are effectively sending out the message that not only is domestic violence normal, but that it is an expression of love. To young girls, who are probably going to be the majority of their audience. GREAT. This isn't the first time I've seen this, either; a group I quite like, called Howling Bells, had a song called 'Broken Bones' on their first album with the uber-creepy lyric: 'Broken bones may hurt/But a broken heart will never mend.'

However, again, this group wasn't hugely mainstream and that lyric isn't really comparable to the ones above, is it? The tone of that song appears to be of a woman who cannot leave her partner and who seems to be waiting for him to finish her off. Horrible, but not obvious. I only clocked that it was about domestic violence after reading a review which implied that... Also, 'Broken Bones' is a sad song; it's not cheerfully indifferent to (accepting of, even) domestic violence the way 'Kiss With A Fist Is.'

Still, 'Kiss With A Fist' isn't even their worst crime. That honour must go to the absolutely fucking appalling 'Girl With One Eye.' This song disturbed me so much when I was listening to it last night that I refused to listen to the rest of the album afterwards and couldn't sleep for a while. The tone of the singer made it worse - she sounds really fucking pleased with herself. Maybe because, judging by the lyrics, she seems to be taking a 'male role' in this song. However, what is there to be pleased about when you're singing this?!!

Florence And The Machine
Girl With One Eye lyrics

She told me not to step on the cracks
I told her not to fuss and relax
Well, her pretty little face stopped me in my tracks
But now she sleeps with one eye open
That's the price she paid

I took a knife and cut out her eye
I took it home and watched it wither and die
Well, she's lucky that I didn't slip her a smile
That's why she sleeps with one eye open
That's the price she paid

I said, hey, girl with one eye
Get your filthy fingers out of my pie
I said, hey, girl with one eye
I'll cut your little heart out cause you made me cry

I slipped my hand under her skirt
I said don't worry, it's not gonna hurt
Oh, my reputation's kinda clouded with dirt
That's why you sleep with one eye open
That's the price you paid

I said, hey, girl with one eye
Get your filthy fingers out of my pie
I said, hey, girl with one eye
I'll cut your little heart out cause you made me cry

You made me cry
You made me cry
You made me cry

I said, hey, girl with one eye
Get your filthy fingers out of my pie
I said, hey, girl with one eye
Get your filthy fingers out my pie

I said, hey, girl with one eye
Get your filthy fingers out of my pie
I said, hey, girl with one eye
I'll cut your little heart out cause you made me cry


Ableism, rape, violence against women... The sheer level of spite and self-centredness in this song is unbelievable. Like I said, I noticed the lyrics primarily because a) I'm used to 'listening in' and b) she sounds so GODDAMN pleased with herself, like she's LOVING being in the oppressor role.

I despair. What does anyone else think? I wish there was some way to get Florence Welch to explain publicly what on Earth made her write this kind of malevolent shit. People have made a big thing of the fact that a lot of the Mercury Music Prize nominees this year are women, but both La Roux and Florence and The Machine are utterly depressing prospects. La Roux's already put her foot in it with victim-blaming, and now this. The only one who is worth anyone's time is Bat For Lashes.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Dear Mr. Editor...

Alright people, I'm about to do a Jeanne D'Arc and get myself burnt at the stake (metaphorically of course, I'm no fan of the death-by-smoke-inhalation and melted-eyeballs outcome).

I am so gosh darn cowardly that I shied from posting the proper title of this. Shied like a horse. Anyway, the title was originally going to be addressed to one Sunny Hundal.

This is the bit where, greasing up like a Hollywood agent, I clasp my hands together, tilt my hand and go 'Honey. Baby. Sugar-lips. You know I think yer the bee's knees, but fer real, sumthin gotta give.'

I am a Pickler on Pickled Politics, where Sunny is the editor. He is an awesome man, and having met him in person, let me say that his head is not that shiny. In fact, it didn't shine at all when I saw him last, AND it was sunny. Like his name...

Now, for my 'Et tu, Brute?' moment.

Sunny has had a 'blog war' bubbling under with Harry's Place for a while. This has very recently escalated over a perceived attempt to smear The New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan. I say 'perceived' because I lost the will to live about 3 lines into the relevant article on PP and failed to gauge how much smearing was going on. Personally, I'd like all those involved to just meet in person and smear each other with paint, but that's because I'm childish.

I don't want this to sound bad, but I think Sunny (and other prominent lefties) sort of don't know what exactly to do at the moment, because the left in Britain are going to be well and truly in opposition soon enough, and well, what can you do? The persistent attempts to point out that New Labour are not 'of the left' appear to have been met by selective deafness/blindness by many, and the kowtowing by Brown et al. to the evil tabloids hasn't helped the cause in any way.

So, y'know, that big ugly question:

What should the left DOOOOOOOOOOOO?!

is bobbing around like Duckzilla.

Now I'm hardly well-placed to answer that Q, but in the spirit of time-honoured busybodiness, I'm going to make a suggestion to Sunny about what to do:


Dear Supreme Leader, you claim to be a feminist. You do realise this isn't easy, right? Many feminists refuse to admit men as feminists proper; they are generally considered to be 'allies' until/especially if they haven't especially DONE anything to shore up the alleged feminist credentials.

No-one is saying you've done NOTHING, but um, agreeing with the fact that women should have certain rights isn't really enough to make a man a feminist. Quite rightly, men who want to be considered feminists have had to work to prove that they deserve the title.

As a feminist of Indian descent, I am calling on you now to step up and take the lead. It was you who organised the Liberal Conspiracy 'Blog Nation' event and posed the question of 'what can us male bloggers do to engage with the feminist blogosphere?'

Penny Red made the all-important point at the time (albeit indirectly) that language has a lot to do with this, pointing out the cruel hazing that many female bloggers face when raising 'women's issues.' The excellent Rowenna Davis pointed out how little has changed just earlier this year and promptly got this kind of comment: 'If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.'

I'm sorry, what the fuck? Since when was the default setting for serious political debate and decision-making some kind of playground mentality? Women have come forward to complain about this macho atmosphere in the City, in politics and online. The thing is, the 'blogosphere' is ENTIRELY about communication. There is no body language, no facial expression. The importance of good communication is paramount.

So, as a 'feminist', Sunny, I'm calling on you to do something truly revolutionary. Men tend to respect the behaviour of other men more than they do women, especially online, where anonymity offers prickfaces all the encouragement they (don't) need to go wild.

BREAK THE MACHO CHAIN. If you want a blog war, fight like a feminist. Take the moral high ground. It was all very well and good to use right-wing tactics in the American elections, but the blogosphere is not the American elections. The British left have no charismatic Obama figure.

Feminists understand the importance of using language carefully and clear communication. Abuse is always going to pop up in some shape or form, but why not try to avoid pre-empting it? Blog wars like the ones with Harry's Place might be important, but they don't have to be fought in such a rude, macho, aggressive way. If you challenged the political blogosphere by NOT resorting to the sort of tone and language that is commonplace, that would be truly feminist.

As a feminist, I could by all rights abuse people all the time. Feminists get some of the most unpleasant and persistent trolling and abuse, but YOU KNOW WHAT? It achieves nothing. It only makes you look pathetic, egotistical and tells your opponent what they want to hear. As a long-time Pickler, I beseech you humbly to give it a rest already. Most of Harry's Place are loons; I'm not politically savvy and I worked this out upon ONE VISIT many years ago.

You don't need to stoop to their level. Point and laugh. Fight with evidence. I have noticed that when people are concise and refrain from pointless abuse, they are (even subconsciously) afforded more respect. I've always rated Cath Elliott, Unity, Rumbold, Don Paskini, Conor Foley and others because of this very reason.

Please, as a feminist, I call upon you to help make the blogosphere a more bearable place for those of us (male and female) who find the heated macho posturing petty and infantile and to take back your place standing on the shoulders of loons - not shoulder-to-shoulder with them.


In timid anticipation,

Le krazed jelly bean.

Total Politics Blog Poll 2009...

I voted in it! You can too! Here's the rules:

1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include ten blogs. If you include fewer than ten your vote will not count.
2. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
3. Only vote once.
4. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents are eligible or based on UK politics are eligible.
5. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name
6. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2009. Any votes received after that date will not count.


I thought I couldn't muster 10 blogs, but I managed 8 right off the bat, cranked dem rusty cogs in my brain some more and voila!

Shatellyouwhoahvotedfor? Oh, go on then:

A Very Public Sociologist, Back Towards The Locus, Feminazery, Heresy Corner, Liberal Conspiracy, Penny Red, Pickled Politics, The Daily Quail, The F-Word and Too Much To Say For Myself (Cath Elliott).

EDIT: I have been forced to replace some of the blogs I voted for, because I didn't know that a couple have pulled out. Ah well...


Not necessarily in that (alphabetical) order, mind. God I knew those librarian skills would come in useful someday!

I was briefly tempted to nominate myself, then I thought 'Oh good Lord, what the hell is wrong with you?' and normal service was resumed.

If you have votes, please join in this disgusterous populist right-wing-powered (Iain Dale? Though LabourList and LibDemVoice are promoting/sponsoring) 'my blogz r bettar than urz' fest and VOTE UP SOME AWESOME LEFTYFIED BLOGS.

And yes, I have been at the banoffee pie. G'nite!

Monday, July 27, 2009

Existence-based guilt

I meant to write a post on this before. I have meant to do it many a time. Fear of making some invisible descent into irredeemable humourlessness/congealing self-pity held me back. Plus, y'know. It's BIG SHIT. It's like serving up an elephant turd in a kitty litter box. Haha. I would be presenting you with the elephant turd (existence-based guilt) in the kitty litter box (my blog) and your eyes would roll collectively back in your heads before you fainted. Or you would go 'That's not cool, man. Get over it' before continuing about your business.

But - y'know what? THIS IS MY BLOG! That basic elementary fact eludes me sometimes - rather too much - and that in itself says a lot. I've never really had a physical place in which I felt 100% 'safe,' especially not a place which could be accessed by others. That's probably why I forget that my blog is such a place. No-one has tried to hound me out (yet). It may never happen. The length of my posts probably wears them down. Haha.

Anyway, the nub of my gist is that while my place is 'publicly-accessible,' I don't have to tolerate whatever. I take a similar line to many feminist blogs, although I've not had anywhere near the level of trolling that they have. I set it up and it belongs to me, hypothetical bitches! So now, I can proceed at last to offload.

I think I've mentioned this particular issue of mine before. In this post, here <--- look! :-D I brushed over it quickly though, as if I were simply glazing pastry with milk, or egg or... Anyway. I need to explain the whole meguillah properly. 'Existence-based guilt' is when I want to die. It's not that simple, though. Take two. 'Existence-based guilt' is when I am hurting inside - for WHATEVER REASON - and then I proceed to reach into said pain, pick it up, stretch it out even further and then stab metaphorical sharp objects into it. I make it bigger and more acute. I try to make a whole, functioning personality from it, because, you know what? When I am depressed, I am like broken pieces of a mirror. Lots of little fragments which should be related, but which aren't. I chose the mirror image not for emo appeal, but because a mirror shows a reflection. It passes no judgement in its own right. That is what my mind does when depressed - it doesn't pass judgement, it simply reacts to external stimuli in a completely irrational and suspicious manner.

I don't know who I am. That's not me being melodramatic, it's the result of a very genuine FEAR and confusion. Do you know me? Have you met me in real life? Whether or not you have, let me tell you something now: I have lived my whole life rooted in fear. You may reflect now, and think that actually, yes, you can see it. You can see slices of the fear and uncertainty in my responses to things, in my social interactions. I don't think I hide it that much, though I have been told that I am 'remarkably well-adjusted.'

Plus, y'know, you get used to living a certain way. You can FORGET that that is your life until the mirror breaks.

Ever since I was little, I have been very emphatically 'the odd one out' of my family. Now, this is nothing new. It led to a situation which was also 'nothing new': the second-generation liberal Asian female child rebelling against older, more conservative, more religious Asian parents. That is FOINE. Well, it's not, but for now it is.

The problem is not that particular conflict, but another one altogether: that of the crazed, wrong and abnormal VS. the sane, right and normal. My mother must be singled out and accorded special status here. Bluntitude time: this woman should not have had children. Or married. She should have been working on projects at NASA.

However, she was born in the India in the '50s, so... dream on. Here we are today, and here I am. For whatever reason (and I strongly suspect that it emanates largely from her own disappointment and resentment), my mother has somehow bypassed the whole 'maternal instinct and human empathy' bit.

I am extraordinarily sensitive. I don't know why, I didn't ask for it and that should be the end of the story. Unfortunately, I was (as I said) born into a family much in the manner of a cuckoo appearing in a nest. I had two older sisters who were 10 years above me, and then I got a brother who was two years younger and the youngest. My sisters hence were on the receiving end of my parents at their most energetic, erratic and maladjusted. Immigrants to this country, they underwent cultural displacement, racism and a late swing towards major religiosity inspired by guilt. Great. Naturally, the deeply-conservative values that this all reinforced, were passed on to my sisters.

Social conservatives, let it be said, do not generally look kindly upon difference. Maybe, if I had not had two older sisters, or if I had been the youngest, things might have been different. I found out years later that apparently my parents thought I was going to be a boy, which may have explained a lot.

My mother despaired of me as a child. From the start I was shy, artistic, imaginative and rebellious. She thought for a while that I might be autistic; I apparently refused to do anything but draw, and would not learn to read English until my drawing was threatened. Eventually, I started to get it together and by year 2 I was top of the class and apparently 2 years ahead of my peers ability-wise.

Then, disaster struck. I got into books. My mathematical ability vanished; my artistic inclinations deepened. My natural shyness and bullishness prevented me from being especially sociable. I've pretty much been that way ever since.

My mother despaired. She couldn't understand me - so she condemned me. In the harsh Indian world she grew up in, her father smacked her hand repeatedly when she said she 'couldn't' learn times-tables. The fact that I wasn't like her, or any of the others, meant that she had nothing with which to 'manage' me, and my brother, the much-longed-for boy, made an appearance before too long. Instead of taking time to treat me as a human being, she criticised me incessantly. Why was I so slow? So lethargic? This lethargy was not only physical but mental too, according to her. Why did I not have Asian friends? Why did I give her trouble, by refusing to acknowledge teachers who were mean to me?

On its own, I might have dealt with this. However, seeing the love my brother got made me intensely jealous. One of my earliest memories of him is of scratching out his eyes in a picture everyone loved, and being put in the garden as a punishment. I paced, weeping 'Nobody loves me, nobody loves me.' I knew that what I had done was wrong, but my parents didn't allay the terrible anxiety that I had about being replaced. My brother was beloved, and I was a problem.

My sisters, supposed to be the elders, also could not help being resentful of the lenient treatment and spoiling that my brother received. While my parents constantly made a show of how we were all equal, the hypocritical truth was always there. One way my parents made us equal was to turn any telling-off of one person into an attack on all the others. Imbibing this, my sisters were resentful not just of my brother, but of me too. In some ways, this was useful for me. In many others, it wasn't. Both were training to become healthcare professionals in the NHS - a stressful job - and had to look after us too while my parents worked. Hence it became 'OK' for them to take this out on us, particularly me. My brother, detecting his inborn advantage early on, started exploiting it before very long and would cheek them constantly. In a strange way, I think they themselves ended up seeing him as superior; he was rarely punished though empty threats were frequently made by my parents.

I took their attacks because, well, I couldn't not. When you are one of six living in a house and the second youngest, where do you go to escape? I didn't have my own room, and the toilet was hardly a place to relax. I had to deal with being told that I was fat, lazy, useless etc. etc. constantly. My brother and I bickered a lot, and soon my sisters refused to intervene at all, so the only one who could avenge what he said to me was ME. That got me in further trouble. I ate my sisters' low-fat snacks because... well, it was something to do, I suppose and eating made me happy. More trouble for me. When my sisters had PMT, I knew I was going to get bullied. They often ganged up on me, making bitchy comments together. My boobs were too big. My dress sense was weird. I breathed too loudly. I dragged my feet. I thought I was 'so clever' and a 'tortured poet' (as if! Just because I wrote). My mother in particular gave me life-long insecurities about my nose. She kept saying I looked like a duck, that I had a 'duck' nose; she would then say it was going in the wrong direction, seize it and try to 'pull it back.' The others subsequently made the same comment, and I became paranoid about my nose. I only tried to stop her yanking it - and stopped doing so myself - after blood came out. Even now, I do it without noticing.

My brother joined in with GLEE when I got older, and then I was well and truly alone. My family repeatedly impressed the notion of not trusting anyone outside the family on me. I felt like I couldn't tell anyone about what was happening to me anyway, because it was normal. They all told me it was normal; no-one behaved in any way that indicated that my position was especially hard. When I threatened to commit suicide, I was laughed at. Everyone just thought I was a weirdo. It didn't matter that I was good at some subjects because in my family's eyes, they weren't useful. Besides, they were not subjects we had ever done in our family before. When I said I wanted to study English, my older sister said 'Over my dead body'.

The thing that I learnt better than anything else was that you could not question ANYTHING. Question my sisters' authority, and they and/or my parents would punish me. Do the same with my parents and ditto, but even worse. Question my own or my brother's position, and I would be made to feel guilty. Any deviance from their beliefs was asking for trouble. I spotted my family's hypocrisy over religion early on, because I became devout for a while. I did a lot of reading and realised that a lot of their actions and claims didn't match up with how Sikhs were 'supposed' to be. This led to me becoming agnostic.

The turning point came when I confessed to being agnostic. Big fucking mistake. My whole family sat opposite me. Now that I reflect, I remember that I was literally up against the wall. As if I were facing a firing squad. I sure felt like it. My second-eldest sister, who I partly wanted to be like, smugly asked me why, what my arguments were. I could make none, I was terrified. My father had just accused me of betraying him, stating that he couldn't believe that a child of his could live under his roof and say that. My brother thought it was hilarious, naturally. I didn't want to be kicked out or shunned. They kept me there for three hours, until I was wilting with tiredness, then I was watched like a hawk for months.

(Apologies if I've described this incident already...).

See, I got into a relationship and my ex-boyfriend slowly started to make me see that what was going on wasn't normal. My family had no right to shoot me down just because I didn't agree. My mother had no right to say that I was a psychopath just because I refused to obey her. I got the courage to tell friends, and slowly but surely I got to the stage where I am today.

However, the problem is that along the way, I lost my anger. Much of my teens were consumed in a burning rage, I would literally sit in my room, reflecting on things that had happened, until I was shaking with rage and crying hot tears. I wanted to kill one of them, but I sincerely believed that I would be arrested and/or killed myself if I tried. I came close to striking my mother once, and she used the guilt against me like a billy-club.

Just as girls are trained to do, not just in South Asian culture but very acutely and particularly in SA culture - I began turning the anger and hatred inwards. My parents HAD worked hard to support us, my sisters HAD been like mothers to me. I couldn't reconcile these facts with my anger at the way they'd treated me. So, I absorbed them. I got myself into a destructive relationship, repeating the same dynamic of harsh criticism and inferiority that I had with my mother. He was always seeking to change me, to 'improve' me somehow, and I thought that was good because of my messed-up values.

This relationship absorbed a lot of my self-loathing. In some ways, it was a coping mechanism - though I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. I spent five and a half years not being quite right, pouring all my energies into my partner who had problems of his own. He emotionally blackmailed me; I gave him money. I don't even think he was doing it consciously, but it happened nonetheless. My outbreaks of PMD (pre-menstrual depression) which I was then unaware of, baffled him. He could not listen; he tried to tidy me away. Like my mother, intense emotion was beyond his comprehension.

Away from him in France, I got myself into a similar relationship with a friend. Our intense friendship impacted upon my mood severely when it was in a 'down' (which it was for many months). At one point, I deliberately endangered myself, subconsciously hoping that something bad would happen to me. I wasn't sure what, but I 'reasoned' with myself that I didn't really matter enough for it to be an issue if something did. That was the first time my mind 'fragmented' and the evil depressive demon appeared. It justified my decision to me, and after I took it, I regretted it. I was reeling with guilt, and my then-boyfriend's reaction made me suicidal. The friend who had 'replaced' him expressed relief at my safety, and that brought me back to something resembling normal.

When I came together with The Libertarian, I finally got what love was supposed to be about. I realised early on that I was going to fall for him. The day we met after kissing for the first time ever - it was our sixth meeting - I told him how my sisters had shredded my self-confidence. He did not respond. He stopped walking, let go of my hand, turned me to face him and then pulled me into a tight hug. Things finally made sense in me; I felt delighted. This, THIS was what I needed! How could he understand that so instinctively, so easily, when my boyfriend of five-and-a-half years couldn't?

In a relationship with a wonderful man and realising that I had trustworthy friends after all, it was me VS. the demon depression. I determined that I was NOT going to let it wreck things like it had with my ex, even if he was wrong for me. I would prove my mother wrong; I was NOT going to turn out to be a serial killer. I was NOT a psychopath. Sadly, it's taken a lot of hard work to convince me that I can trust people and believe in myself. Even now, I belittle myself and my needs, especially when PMD strikes. I cannot believe that love - whether platonic or romantic - is unconditional.

That is where existence-based guilt comes in. A lifetime of negative thinking that was both passively inherited from, and actively reinforced by my mother, kicks in. This links neatly up with the ongoing pressure on women to be perfect, especially in SA culture. Add fear of being 'unwomanly' and a desire to change the order of things as a feminist, counterbalanced by the ugly knowledge that nowadays 'feminist' is a dirty word that carries a huge burden. I cannot settle for my contradictions, like most people can. Ever since I was young, I have to 'choose' whether I'm British or Indian. However, it's always other people who set the parameters of those categories for me. My mother framed the choice cleverly, in terms of health and the greater good. My family specialise in hyperbolic distortion with a tiny grain of truth embedded in it - and when PMD strikes, that little grain flies like a fishing hook, embedding itself in me. I wish I had never existed, I wish I was dead. I wish this because I cannot wish to be what my parents want - for emotional reasons (my mum's never happy and it's already ruined our lives) and logical reasons (they already have my brother).

I wish death upon myself because it would be 'easy.' I am not an 'easy' person, I'm always analysing shit and refusing to be gift-wrapped as 'Asian' or 'English.' After my family's bullying, the LAST thing I want is to identify myself with a group of people. A whole, hurtling boulder of pain and guilt is too much for any individual to bear. I do not want to wear out the love and patience of those who I always turn to. There are no human Atlases for me; I have outgrown mythology. That is when posts like this one pop up, and I tip the load off my back and into the depot of cyberspace. Forget gods, forget humans - machinery's the future!

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Skin deep and deeper

For the purposes of this post, I'm going to do something unprecedented:

That right there - that is me. Of COURSE I always look exactly like that :-D. As you can see, I look sort of - well, you know. Unspecified. What ethnicity would you say I was? Do you have one particular idea en tête, or would you hedge your bets?

Anyone who reads this blog regularly (not a lot of you, I'd warrant) knows that I'm of Indian extraction. The only person to ever guess that correctly, however, was a Turkish man. The most frequent guesses are Iranian, Greek, Spanish and Turkish. The first two in particular.

So, what was the point of all this apparent navel-gazing and skin-based angsting? Well, this post was inspired by a sarky comment in response to a comment of mine. The poster wrote:

Personally I've yet to cash in on my white male privilige, but if I could get one of the brotherhood to get me a well-paid sinecure, a detatched house in Shropshire & a ridiculously beautiful wife I'd be grateful. The system surely wouldn't leave one of its own living on a council estate in Stoke, would it? But I must have been absent on the day they taught us how to exploit our advantages...


This didn't make me as angry as it might've. Strange formulation that - but accurate. I think the fact that the poster didn't dismiss the notion of privilege outright gave me hope. I got a picture of somebody who doesn't fully understand how racial privilege works (fair enough, it's not particularly easy to explain or understand).

I decided to strike back at this using my own personal experience. Many white people, especially those who are of working-class backgrounds but educated (like this fella was) have a hard time accepting the fact that they have an advantage over people who aren't white. Given that there are highly successful middle-class Asians and blacks in this country, you can sort of almost see what they mean.

However, the fact is that 90% of this country's population is white, and if you don't belong to a 'model minority' (read: if you're Muslim), your life is NOT going to be easy, because if there's one thing the papers hate more than chavs, it's you. Let's not forget the fact that many who claim to be Islamophobes are actually 'Muslimphobes'. For people like that, supporters of the BNP and similar - the technicalities are unimportant. The colour of your skin says it all.

Hence this post. I have always made people uncomfortable. Sometimes it's something I enjoy, sometimes it's highly isolating. When I was younger and trying hard to be what my family wanted, I actually felt bad about the way I look. Why couldn't I look more like other Sikhs in my area? Why wasn't I a 'proper' Asian girl? Most of the Asian teenage girls I knew were identikit black-clad, feather-haired clones. However, as well as dress, their complexions and features united them. Most of them had a skin tone like Parminder Nagra's or Konnie Huq's, and were either long and skinny or tiny and skinny.

My family are all quite fair by Indian standards, but I was most definitely the freak. Naturally, this HAD to be topped off by my having a rounded body with large breasts. The day of reckoning, when I faced down my actual size, was terrifying enough without my mother's input. We were going to India soon afterwards, and I had to get bras my actual size. 'I'll get a few here and some in India,' I told her.
'No!' I knew she was appalled that I had let her down by allowing myself to be so un-Asian, but this was a bit much... 'They won't have them. Your size doesn't exist in India.'

I thought this was a joke. It wasn't. Every time we went shopping and even remotely neared a rack of underwear-type garments, I would start looking, with no success. Underwear aside, even most of the 'Western' clothes could only have been worn by me when I was hitting adolescence! My body was wrong. My face was most definitely wrong - I realised my features were not tiny and delicate, and I didn't have huge eyes like Indian women are often expected to have. Nor was I anywhere near being a Bollywood actress.

Men and women alike gawped at me and gave me hostile stares while I was in India. In France, people automatically asked where I was from whenever we were introduced, and when I was there with my ex-boyfriend (who is unmistakably Asian in comparison) we got some looks of absolute loathing. Even in this country, once I venture out of the little Asian enclave where I grew up, I notice people looking at me sharply. Some people are just curious of course, but the fact is that I make others uncomfortable. They can't 'place' me automatically, they can't fit characteristics and assumptions to me just like that. It should be fun, but it's often not. South Asian women often give me hostile and disapproving looks. I don't totally blame them for it, because Indian culture obsessively prizes fair-skinned women, leading to the coinage of the famously awkward term 'wheatish' in matrimonial adverts. Old white women have looked at me with a kind of disgust. That was just when I was with my white boyfriend!

On my own (and with him), I have had to deal with territorial behaviour and disapproving glances from Arab and Asian men alike. I've occasionally had white tourists look at me for that bit too long. I think the problem is that I look so close to white, but for those who are looking hard, my features have something oddly Arabic about them. My hair's a bit too dark. I'm not as rosy as a white person should be; nor am I white enough. Though it might sound crazy, sometimes I catch myself worrying that people look at us together because they think that I am 'not white enough for him'. Why do I even have to worry about shit like that?!

The point I'm trying to make, is that this just goes to show that white privilege does exist. Just because people aren't aware of how it works, or don't consciously choose to exploit it, it doesn't mean that it's not there. The only other people I know who've had similar experiences to mine are a) Asians/blacks who are perceived as 'wanting to be white' ('coconuts' or 'chickpeas', as I've been called myself) and b) mixed-race people. If you're white in this country, you're part of the majority and you get to be invisible. Even in London, where everyone wants to be invisible. Not even consciously, but recently I have perhaps begun trying to 'pass' more than previously. I say 'not consciously' because I do want to look different to other Asian girls, but not for research's sake - just because I love colour! The more I've tried to 'pass,' the more I see that I can't, not fully, but that it is advantageous to do so. Who thinks indie girls are 'exotic,' after all?

The whole thing doesn't generally bother me that much, because I like to have both parts to my identity: British and Asian. 'White' and 'brown.' Still, everyone has times where they want to belong, where it feels safer to be part of a pack, and frankly, I can't choose. Many middle-class Asian kids like to think they can 'choose' their identities by pretending to be black, but it doesn't really work. They are almost all eventually faced with the choice of being 'true to themselves,' being 'black' or being 'white.' Usually, 'true to themselves' means acting black for a while, then shifting back to becoming like a white middle-class person, with the extra Asian culture thrown in for good measure. White people never really get made to 'choose' unless it's the tired old narrative of 'selling out their class' by moving up socially. Even then, it's on one front. Try having to 'choose' twice over! Minority cultures dismiss their own for acting 'white,' but white people are allowed to 'act black.' For example, consider how common it is to have white rap artists (Beastie Boys, Eminem, Asher Roth, Skinnyman, etc. etc.); how many black or Asian artists can you think of who are as well-established in 'white' forms of music (country, indie, electro)? Kele from Bloc Party, TV On The Radio, er... Their (white people's) identity is not getting erased by their doing so - because they are over-represented everywhere in mainstream popular culture (and even more so in 'high' culture). To be invisible and yet omnipresent. What is that, if not privilege?

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Reader, I wept!

So - today is my birthday. I had arranged to go out with friends (for the first time ever) to celebrate. The Libertarian had been getting v.excited about my present for a long time and only gone as far as telling me that it was a book. Feeling somewhat tired and pre-menstrual, I was not sure that I would be able to handle a group of people today.

Still, he was coming over before everyone else to give me my present and I figured that all the healing hugs would help me to scrape through.

Then - after he arrived and I read the card - he suddenly began talking to me about The Golden Notebook and how he remembered that I had felt a bit let down by its main character, Anna Wulf. I stared at him in total bafflement. He was saying ' I thought you should have a PROPER feminist notebook.'

He handed me the parcel, I unwrapped it. He explained that there were feminist quotes in there... and more. Intrigued, I opened it - and was greeted by a message written in an unfamiliar hand - followed by a familiar name. I stared at him in amazement.

He was grinning and told me there was more. I carried on looking through. Do you know what that boy had done? He had contacted people via email, and sneaked out to meet others, collecting a thought on feminism from each one. These had then been either carefully printed, cut out and stuck into the notebook, or written directly in, along with birthday wishes. He had approached friends and people I admire, and would like to be friendlier with. Like Ariane Sherine and Cath Elliott. I was absolutely dumbfounded. He had gone to so much trouble to make this, got others in on it and carefully concealed it from me for about two months.

'See,' he said, as I flicked through, reading it and feeling the nausea-that-heralds-major-emotion, 'people care about you.'

He'd made it to remind me that I am not alone, and as I read two-thirds of it, I started crying. Where people hadn't responded, he had carefully left a few pages and then written in famous feminist quotes before writing a little epilogue. I couldn't stop hugging him and crying; a more wonderful present I have never received. I'm not a particularly material person; sometimes I wish I was. It'd make it easier for people to buy for me! However, I really just want things like honesty, loyalty and respect - even as I realise how horribly platitudinous that sounds. People who accept me for who I am, with my many failings and flaws and baggage, are the best gift in the world.

So, to everyone who was with me today - I love you! To everyone who helped make my 'feminist notebook,' thank you so much, I am still in shock. To my wonderful, wonderful Libertarian, all I can say is: I marry you.

Meanwhile, on a more topical note, I must highlight the absolute fucking DISGRACE of a black Harvard professor being arrested for breaking into his own home. Proof that we do not live in a post-racist society in any sense of the word, despite there being a half-black American president, a highly esteemed and intelligent American man was 'black' before he was 'innocent' in the eyes of Massachussetts police. Looks like little has changed since NWA's 21-year-old protest classic: fuck tha police.

Sunday, July 19, 2009

AAARGH! Lars Von Trier's Antichrist

AARGH. I've heard about this film a bit, which to be honest, sounds like a lot of extremely self-indulgent bullshit.

What I must flag up, though, are the following comments from Xan Brooks at the Guardian. Particularly infuriating bits in bold:

Is Antichrist a misogynistic movie? That, inevitably, is in the eye of the beholder.

Couldn't help thinking: Translation: It features a woman mutilating her own genitals, but she's doing it so that's OK. No misogyny here, folks!

Here is a film that explicitly confronts the director's intertwined fears of primal nature and female sexuality. But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does. Yes, the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her. And yet for all that, she proves more vital, more powerful, and oddly more charismatic than "He", the arrogant, doomed advocate of order and reason


AARGH! AAAAAAARGH! Where do I start?!!

First off, where the fuck does this male writer get off, deciding what misogyny is?! Especially when he has just admitted the director's 'fear of female sexuality'?

And look at that - 'primal nature' and 'female sexuality' are intertwined. Gosh, how convenient. Says a lot, doesn't it? Women's sexuality is so GODDAMN PRIMAL. It's some huge, sweeping animalistic thing, that carries not a small hint of madness. Xan himself says: 'the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her.' Wow, a crazy sexy woman - that's NOT a stereotype AT ALL! I can't help thinking here of countless VICE Dos & Don'ts, where they go on about how crazy girls are so much better in bed that 'normal' ones. Because, you know, it's up to a male to be the judge of a woman's mental state, whether he actually knows anything about her (beyond sleeping with her) or not!

Where have we seen 'crazy sexy ladies' before? That's right, kids: in Freud, of course! The idea of female hysteria predates Freud, but he took it much more mainstream. He thought that women who were 'hysterics,' were sexually repressed and/or had been abused in childhood. So you know, tying 'sex' and 'mental illness' together in a way that is both a) bullshit b) rarely done to men.

I find it bitterly ironic as well that in an article which hints at a feminist question and has the address:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/16/antichrist-lars-von-trier-feminism

that the first fucking person to be commenting is a male. Seeing as how feminism is meant to be about the equality of women, wouldn't it have been a NOVEL IDEA to put a woman's comments first? Instead of having Xan Brooks perched at the top, like he's the authority on whether a film is meant to be misogynist or not? Y'know, because not being a woman, he is so aware of what misogyny feels like...

I would apologise for the anger, but frankly, it feels good. I haven't been this clear-headed for a while. It is repeatedly disappointing to see the Guardian claiming to champion feminism in some ways and shying away from doing so properly in others.

I don't have a problem with Xan Brooks's opinion being sought - I just dislike the way the Guardian is putting him first as if to show how, even when a feminist Q is being posed, we are expected to put men's opinions first. On the up-side, it's a perfect subconscious reflection on who has the power in our societies. I can imagine people going 'Well, he is the associate editor of the Guardian website' and he does appear to have compiled the review. He could however have pushed a LITTLE further and not put himself top of the pile...

One thing I really can't forgive Mr. Brooks for as well is his literalist understanding of misogyny as 'hate of women.' This old chestnut:

But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does

has been used, far less hesitantly, by sexist and misogynist pricks online, often on feminist articles or blogs, as a way to silence women. It is another form of 'it's all in your head.'

You see, these clever clever boys (and I wouldn't be surprised to find, some women too) go: 'Well, misogyny means hate of women. I don't HATE women, because some of my friends happen to be female and I like sexing them. Ergo, I win and you talk crap because you are referring to fear.'

This is of course nonsense. Fear and hatred go hand in hand, and why people won't acknowledge this more, I don't know. They don't necessarily ALWAYS go together, but in many cases they do. Look at racists, for example, who frequently combine the language of hatred with emotive stirring-up of fear about the Other. Hence it was that during the time of slavery, black people in America were brutally depicted as dumb savages (what is dehumanisation if not the putting-into-practice of hate?) and simultaneously depicted as animal rapists, keen for the delicate white woman's body. Urgh.

People think of 'love' and 'hate' as absolute points. Points which must be worked towards. This is, of course, nonsense. You can grow up having prejudice subtly and more directly instilled into you, and become a hater - it's not necessarily always a choice. Neither are hate or love exactly like the sort of things we read, see or hear in books and films and music. For example, the depictions of love as some sort of tornado or whatever - somewhat inaccurate to say the least. Most of the time, love is so subtle that we don't even realise when it actually kicks in, until it reaches high levels. That doesn't mean that love hormones haven't already started pumping and fixing our attention on that 'special someone.'

I think hate works the same way. When sexists say 'I don't hate women,' they are not completely lying. They are partially engaging in self-deception by using an absolutist understanding of 'hate.' 'I haven't killed or raped any women; how can I possibly hate them?' Well, refusing to treat them with the respect you accord to yourself IS hateful, mate! You're dehumanising them. At least be honest and say: 'Well, according to me, I don't hate women - I just strongly dislike them.'

Some men have managed to avoid this by simply claiming they hate feminists instead. Oh dear. I can't even go into the lack of intelligence this shows. Suffice to say, sorry, you ARE still a misogynist even if all your closest friends are women. Though I'm sure that when you tell this to these women, in your head, they'll back you to the hilt. 'Cause, you know, collaborators can't be misogynists, they're female! Yay! NOT.

Let us think about it on as elementary a level as sports. Often, you - reader-person - may come across a sport or activity that you struggle to do. Did you ever convince yourself that you hated something because you couldn't do it, despite trying repeatedly? I know I have; I feel that way about making chapattis. You blissfully ignore the existence of said activity, until it emerges in your face and you can't get away from it. You feel fear - will I be humiliated? and anger - I hate it, why do I have to do it?

Naturally, not everyone will react with fear and hate/anger together, but it is likely that the more you are confronted by this activity - say, you're at school and you have it every other day - the more you will hate it. Just because you don't kill or maim the person teaching you, that's hardly proof that you *don't* hate it, now, is it?

This is precisely what happens with feminism. The more feminists dare to challenge men on their privilege, the more prickfaces turn up to feminist blogs and demonstrate their misogyny. It is really laughable, the way so many of them put the lie to their deranged belief that 'feminists rule the world and want to kill all men.' Right - they're so powerful that their blogs are hugely mainstream and read by millions. NOT. Right, they care about men so much - that is, hate them so much - that they (feminists) discuss topics with each other peacefully, whilst YOU (misogynist males) turn up unwanted in THEIR space, getting in their face and trying to troll and intimidate.

Then, steadfastly REFUSING to listen or engage whilst loudly demanding that others do to you - the trolls claim victimhood when they are inevitably banned. God, my heart breaks for you - so much so that my tiny violin is playing itself.

I must just return to Antichrist and that review. Joanna Bourke, who (bless her) acknowledges yet tries to play down the film's misogyny, contradicts herself elsewhere:

Despite the erotic beginning, Von Trier has little interest in desire; his focus is on Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment


But - de Sade wrote his stuff in order to get off, and you say VT is inspired by 'Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment,' so how is there 'little interest in desire'?


Then at the end of the interview we get:

Von Trier has admitted that, of all his films, Antichrist "comes closest to a scream". It exposes us to an untamed erotic and aggressive aesthetic without redemption.


So... the film is erotic after all?


Linda Ruth makes an excellent point, calling our tabloids on their hypocrisy:

If only tabloids campaigned against real clitorectomies, done on real baby girls, rather than fabricated ones done in fiction movies.


but then comes out with this:

Of course, Von Trier probably doesn't "mean" any of it.


Oh, well, all dandy then!


A belated round of applause for Jane and Louise Wilson:

Unfortunately, this film leaves you quite unfulfilled. It's pretty damning about the whole of human nature. And, of course, the woman gets it in the end. Of all the to-dos you could have, there's a demonised mother, a witch who seems to prioritise her own sexual fulfilment over the safety of her child.

STICK 'EM BACK IN THE FUCKING KITCHEN! Wow, von Trier, that sounds like a revolutionary sentiment to me.

Monday, July 13, 2009

Links

I am giving over the post to these two links. Please read them - they're just shocking.

'He Thought A Baby Would Keep Me In His Life Forever'

Pregnancy as a Sign of Intimate Partner Abuse.


This gives a whole new spin to those always slagging off teenage mothers, claiming that they all do it 'for the benefits and to jump the housing queue.'


On the funny side:

Heresy Corner on genies in Saudi Arabia.

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

BNP in sexism shocker!

I'm sorry. I have just come across this, and I think it MUST - absolutely MUST - be highlighted.

The BNP's abhorrent positions on race and gender in modern Britain have been highlighted many a time, by the dedicated folks at Hope Not Hate, as well as on the F-Word and Pickled Politics. There are of course many other blogs and sites keeping up the good work.

To repeat the words of a former BNP member, Nicholas Eriksen:

"Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible ordeal.

"To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that force-feeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence.

"A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched."


That's right, kids. When a man forces himself on a woman despite her NOT WANTING to have sex with him, it's sex. Y'know, SEX, the intimate physical act which two people CHOOSE to do together. CHOOSE. Rape = sex, because, y'know, if a woman's chosen not to have sex with a man, it's the same as saying yes! There's just NO inherent logical contradiction there for wannabe rapist fuckface Nicholas Eriksen!

So, yeah, the BNP doesn't like feminism or think that treating women as equals really fits in with their worldview (Why am I not surprised?). So, without further ado, I bring you:

Babes of the BNP.

... Doing absolutely nothing to bolster their delusion that they constitute the 'master race,' the interviews with the women are a particularly painful reminder of what happens when people aren't made to learn the history of their own country properly. The irony - and hypocrisy - of allying oneself to a rabidly anti-immigrant party, whilst hoping to become an immigrant oneself, is particularly rich. It's hard not to feel really quite sorry for these women. I would mock them, but they seem genuinely deluded, and not quite as self-important as, say, the largely male BNP trolls now popping up like Whac-a-Moles on PP.

Given that women's bodies have been used to sell just about everything, even fucking MOUTHWASH and 'good' causes like militant vegetarianism (I'm looking at you, PETA!), surely it was just a matter of time until the BNP leapt aboard that bandwagon too? Good grief.


Relevant recommended reading.

Saturday, July 04, 2009

In which La Roux is speared and BG thanked.

Well, I am back from my 5 days of holiday in the North of England. I spent FIVE DAYS in the constant company of another human being, even sometimes not getting enough sleep as a direct result of said human being's presence. Yet I did not swear at him, or cry. He got up waaay too early one morning, to unblock his nose, at which I apparently told him, semi-consciously, to take an antihistamine. I have vague memories of awaking to find him awake, hugging and kissing him, telling him I loved him, and then falling asleep again. I even deliberately forced myself awake twice, once to rub some cream into his chest, once to rub a cramp out of his leg. I think I'm getting the hang of this 'love' business.

It [ze holiday] put a not-unremarkable amount of life back into me, which was swiftly diminished by a) coming back home and b) the number of idiots who continue to (sadly) blare on the Internet about how Islams are all evil and call themselves 'climate science rejecters' - YES, REALLY.

What is needed sorely, very very sorely indeed, is a lengthy rant. I have been in danger of seriously losing my sense of humour as I attempt to break into the dubious world of adulthood. Doing this post is a concerted effort on the part of something survivorist in me. I cannot continue to let the atmosphere of the family home (and family) subdue me.

Firstly, I must give props to Dr. Ben Goldacre for this Bad Science column about PR and prejudice, centring on the misreporting of a study about rape. As one of the most well-known and influential scientists out there in the British media at the moment, it is good to see him giving victim-blaming his characteristically dismissive short shrift. Theoretically, feminists should not give male supporters too much credit (or 'cookies') for thinking women are people. Practically, however, there are many many men out there who can't even seem to check their racial privilege, let alone their 'superior male' status. That includes 'liberal dudes' just as much as it does right-wingers. Sooo... thanks, Dr. Ben!

Secondly, I must move onto the all-important business of slagging off La Roux. I will just declare my interest here: I was vaguely intrigued when I saw the woman who fronts it, Elly Jackson, and I like their song Bulletproof. I may also like the song Quicksand, but this is looking less and less likely with each play of it.

I know 'tis deeply unfeminist to say it, but by God, I don't half want to slap that girl one. I was pretty unimpressed when I checked out La Roux a little more. Then the F-Word posted this article, where Elly Jackson reveals herself to have some pretty unpleasant views. What disgusts me about this woman is her graspingness. It comes across not a little in the article, and in other interviews with her I've read, such as one in the July issue of Asos magazine. With the finesse of a seasoned publicity piranha, she has eagerly latched onto the coverage from various quarters which proclaims her as something 'new.'

New? New? OK, let's run through the checklist here. M/F pair in which the man does the 'real work'/wields the power - check. They claim to be a duo who share things '50/50' but let's not kid ourselves here - as the producer, he's the one who provides the necessary foundation for her ludicrous posturing. So, y'know... an 'equal partnership' in which the male's role is more important? Yeah, that's NEW.

Trying, really blatantly, to be a mishmash of people from the '80s, while being barely old enough to remember said people? I'm sure she LOVES their music or whatever, but n***a, please. You're MY AGE. Blatantly ripping off/'paying homage' to a past decade whilst pretending to be new... God, that just HASN'T BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Let us not forget that this is a white, middle-class, slim, Beauty2k-compliant (as Twisty would say) young woman. Let us also not forget that La Roux did not get where they are through the sweat of their brows; they did so through Jackson's parents giving her a 'small allowance' to pursue her music career and through her father passing their CD to a well-connected music industry friend. Wow, nepotism. SO NEW.

In fact, let us not forget that were it not for pure LUCK, La Roux probably wouldn't be where they are today. 'But they're in the top 10,' you cry. Well, yes. That's because EJ isn't totally stupid. Talented, she isn't particularly (her wailing style of singing grated subtly upon my nerves, until I realised I could only stand the songs where she was barely audible). Ambitious, she is - and an opportunist.

Y'see, there's a recession on, and what fashion needs is 'something new.' When repeated sales and portraying overpriced luxury goods as an 'investment' doesn't work, you need SOMETHING ELSE. Elly Jackson is a fucking GODSEND in this instance. As the Asos interview did, fashion and style mags and newspapers can fawn over her, and turn her into an icon to sell clothes. She gets clothes, they get free advertising. Whilst pretending to be feminist, because, look! She has red, short hair! She's pale! And she doesn't wear dresses! Yeaaah.... not new - just different.

The Quietus interview with her is equally embarrassing (and misogynistic). It plays up the stereotypical tactic of pitting superficially similar female artists, emerging around the same time, against each other. 'Girl on girl,' if you will. Luke Turner also refers to Lady GaGa as a 'fashbitch.' Luke, you are a gigantic wanker. Sadly, EJ capitulates totally to this because - wait for it - SHE'S NOTHING NEW. She's just another entitled, spoilt, attention-seeking wannabe celebrity-spawn brat.

Note how she goes on about what a 'real woman' is (how the fuck do you know? You're only fucking 21!):
If you're a real woman you can turn someone on in a plastic bag just by looking at them. That's what a real woman is, when you've got the sex eyes.


Um... so does that make you a real woman, then? Because you don't have 'sex eyes' as far as I'm concerned. You just look like a moody, self-important git.

Perhaps I am being harsh - EJ was apparently a victim of bullying - but it is a bit hard to feel sorry for somebody who eagerly trots that out in interviews whilst claiming that she ''feel[s] sick just talking about it". Also hard to feel sorry for someone who thinks that she is 'someone out there for girls to look up to who doesn't have boobs and a tan and high heels.'

Because, you know, the most important thing about women is HOW THEY LOOK. Screw unimportant little things like talent and hard work! Sod those fake-tan, abusive-man-attracting breasty bitches! What really matters is SEX EYES. Yeah, that whole thing about her offering 'something new' for women? Like, you know, judging them on their looks, just like our misogyny-steeped society does every day? BULLSHIT. Goodfuckin'lordalmighty.

We musn't forget, however, that being judged on her looks is what got lil' Elly where she is today. EJ is a symptom of the celebrity-obsessed culture that we live in. Young people nowadays, even when they claim to have some sort of purpose to their attention-seeking (as she has just claimed there), feel entitled. In EJ's case, that is, entitled to fame and success. She's getting it - but not because she's talented and fresh, but because she's opportunistic and connected. Ah, that sweet, fresh collaborator attitude, new since the dawn of time!

Check out this rant of hers against R&B, for example. She slams girls for selling records 'half naked' - but if she didn't attempt to rebel against that very aesthetic, would anyone give a shit? Hmmm. It's debatable. I certainly don't think the music on its own would hold up.

Typical white girl fucking ignorance, she says that:

"Lyrically it's just like really really bad - I think a lot of it just doesn't mean anything.

"I think a lot of it is, 'Baby I love you, I want to kiss you'. It's just like what are you on about? Shut up."


Wait - isn't that what you sing about? Yet in more pretentious terms? Have you ever heard of Jill Scott, Raphael Saadiq, Lucy Pearl or D'Angelo? No. No, you fucking haven't. Because you're NOT some wizened authority, you're a puffed-up little 21-year-old middle-class English whitey. Clever girl though, she's perceived that people have become saturated with too much of the same. RECENT R&B has been like that - and who better to fill the gap, but another white, pretty, young woman who sings about her love life and pouts? Talent and smarts are secondary. I mean, she managed to fail at getting the bloody band name right - it should be LE ROUX or LA ROUSSE, not 'La Roux.' I can imagine French friends being sardonically amused by this latest example of Anglo-Saxon self-important blindness. She also came up with this genius line, which I had to look up to make sure that I'd heard right:

'And what are feelings without emotions?'

Like I said, not new - just different. For now.