'There ain't no way...'

... is the title of a song by a group that I quite like, called Cunninlynguists (yes, that IS the play on words that you're guessing at).

I met with Laurie today in a somewhat soporific afternoon encounter that was hopefully helpful to her (apologies if I came across as an automaton at times - having my hair out AND hot weather and sunlight to contend with, make me akin to drunk).

Now, she is a very patient and intelligent lady who tends to attract to her blog many of the sort of people who I'd frankly just like to sock one in the face. I find it amusing - I think many of 'em have followed her there from Liberal Conspiracy and wait around for her to metaphorically pat them on the head, and then she posts about REAL feminist stuff, and you get 'permanently bewildered' and victim-blaming (see her post, Perfect Slaves?, for example) among other things.

Bizarre, really, since in the main, the comments on other pieces have been largely supportive and encouraging.

Maybe it is 'radfem' of me to say so, but I confessed something to her today. I believe that things are really not going to get any better until the middle classes get their act together and start rocking the boat.

If you read this blog, I am presuming that you live in a Western country. I will say this to you now: live your principles.

LIVE YOUR PRINCIPLES. Granted, there are limits to what we can do, but I am sick of hearing, reading and seeing women and men staying with each other out of pity. Out of fear. Out of sentimentality.

It is VERY RARE to find a dysfunctional coupling where nostalgia and sentimentality don't play a substantial role. I am struck by how many women say that they are feminists, and yet in their home life they end up doing most of the work, and generally giving in...

While I know it's not easy to up and leave, or to dig your heels in - is it impossible? Is it really impossible?

Might you, after all, have the privilege of being able to live your principles?

A while back, Feministing had a post on this, but in a more straightforward sense of 'being privileged enough to educate oneself in a feminist-friendly way.' They also had a very good recent community post, where the notion of 'using privilege for good' surfaced in the comments. That came back to my thoughts today, along with a very interesting F-word post from late March this year. In America, it was apparently found that:

Wealthy families, she said, have tended, with their work-around-the-clock husbands and at-home wives, to have adopted a rather old-fashioned model of marriage, with fixed sex roles. They’ve set the tone, but the rest of the population hasn’t necessarily followed.

Something makes me think that such a scenario may not be entirely inconceivable in this country.

I'm not going to rosily claim that all middle-class people really love the Daily Fail and that working-class people are like exaggerated versions of the characters in Saturday Night, Sunday Morning (which by the way, you should totally read because it is a British CLASSIC, and also because that's how I want to write when I grow up).

The fact remains, however, that the Daily Mail - and the Telegraph, I would say, as well as the Guardian and Independent - exist as sources of information written by middle-class people, for middle-class people. We middle-class people are the source of normativity. Boo-hoo, we have it so hard, etc. Seriously though, I for one do not feel OK with the idea that I am part of that normativity (even though I am) because of my family's economic status, though that may have a little summat summat to do with my race and gender.

To recap though: WE ARE THE SOURCE OF NORMATIVITY. Even little ole privileged I. People want to write about US, the lives we lead, the foods we cook and eat, the money we spend and what we spend it on. That last factor is possibly the most important (ADVERTISING!). Basically, WE MATTER. WE MATTER in a way that working-class people don't; because our 'class' is growing all the time and because of our spending power.

You just can't reduce people to evil or pitiable caricatures when you're trying to coax their wallets from them now, can you?

So, all I'm asking is a very small thing. Though it's a good rallying cry in some ways, I'm not going to say 'People! Vote with your wallets when it comes to shit you don't like.' That involves effort and thinking and nobody likes that nowadays.

Instead I'll say: 'People! Live your principles.' We are economically and socially privileged. Let me contextualise to remind you, gentle reader, of the power you (unknowingly) wield.

In some communities in India, when a man divorces a woman, she is thrown out onto the street. Just like that. Sometimes, as is believed to have happened to a cousin of mine, the woman is married. Then, her husband and mother-in-law (almost ALWAYS that particular team, but not always) murder her and flee with the money/gifts/property rights. My cousin was praying in the house when she somehow got locked in and the building burnt down. Let's not even start on 'honour'-based violence...

Obviously, if you're in an abusive/domestic violence situation, it's going to be different and a lot more difficult. To those of you who aren't, I ask you this. Are you pressured into getting married before sex and living together can even grace your wildest dreams? Will you be ejected from your territory if you break up with someone? Is a lack of companionship and a bit of judgement from Smug-Married friends and hapless-but-well-meaning family (or friends) comparable to being burnt alive?

No. No, it's not. Your incentives for 'staying' come much more from YOU than from outside. Though there is bourgeois influence as well, no doubt. The decision is much more 'yours' than it would be in other countries and cultures. I'm currently in the process of trying to get my eldest sister (now living back with us at home, in case you forgot!) to just hurry up and tell the mofo she's divorcing him already. 'Tis a frustrating task, one that led to me writing an essay on the day it was due and then handing it in with another, which turned out to be LATE by two days (!), earlier this year. I wrote the bibliography by hand, having forgotten it entirely, 15 minutes before it was due. I subsequently found myself having a crying breakdown in my tutor's office while she was out retrieving the late essay...

My sister will be gossiped about by some in our community. Some will be pleased that her marriage failed, and many will now doom her to eternal celibacy as a result of her being divorced at the ripe 'old' age of 32. Benign-intentioned inepts will continue to suggest that she should have 'tried to make it work.' Yeahhhhh. Try to make it work with a man who spouted these gems:

He: I've lost respect for your dad now. He should have asked me before he came to pick you up.
(Translation: I own you).
She: ?! You're lucky he didn't beat the crap out of you.
(And how!).
He: (smirkingly proud) He's just an old man. I would have battered him.

When that particular exchange was conveyed to me (by phone, by my sister herself - a sign of all the progress I've made with her!), I neared tears trying to summon swearwords appropriate to my strength of feeling. Thankfully, because I was cooking, I settled for taking it out on my ingredients. Nothing like a spot of stabby-stabby for Mr. Motherfucker-you-are-my-property-and-you-will-stay-till-I-hit-and/or-kill-you, safely exorcised via chicken.

(Just to clarify: he didn't hit her and there's not very much evidence at all to suggest that he would. While undoubtedly abusive and uncouth, he does not fit the profile of the charming and cunning abuser that I have seen described on feminist websites. He just really is incredibly pathetic, compulsive, childish and deluded. Still not a reason to forgive him and 'settle,' now, is it?!).

People! Just stop and think. You are adults now - if your partner don't split the housework/other duties with you - they don't got your back. Yes, it really IS that fucking simple. You may not have the guts to leave just yet, but think twice if nothing else. Reconsider how much of your life you want to give to something that cuts right at the core of you NOW, and isn't likely to go away.

As the villains of Indian soaps so hilariously proclaim, 'just wait and watch.' You have a brain, you are not just a bag of hormones. The lulls in conversation are a chance to reflect. DON'T SETTLE WHEN YOU HAVE THE PRIVILEGE TO LIVE YOUR PRINCIPLES. That's all I ask of you.

Ladies, in particular: ROCK THAT FUCKING BOAT. Shake it like maracas. Cleanliness and neatness is not its own reward. That shit come and that shit go! There is a time for being adult (it's called PARENTHOOD!), and there is a time to fight fire with fire. If you haven't got kids with a bloke yet, you do not have to give in and do the housework. Talk to him - make him aware of what needs to be done. Give him a little 'guided tour' of the house, i.e.: 'Washing starts here, then is transferred either here if underwear, or here if in need of ironing...' Make a list of the tasks that need to be done, and split it so that it's equal or close enough.

Once you have children, it is GAME OVER on that front. Fighting for yourself will, unfortunately, become secondary. Do it while you can. If you don't, you WILL regret it (unless you get a lobotomy) and then your children will suffer. Hmmm, inconvenience yourself, or give your kids a chance to be equipped to fight the patriarchy? Even if you don't want kids, you still have YOU - ageing, society-and-culture-blasted, frail mortal YOU to consider.

I have, I freely admit, been uber-lucky. The Libertarian was raised in a household where his father did the cooking and the bulk of the washing-up. However, that didn't mean that he shirked on his parenting or housework duties - it was equally split. Once TL was old enough to help out, he got involved with everything from icing cookies to painting walls.

Again, privilege played a part in that arrangement being possible. I accept that not everyone can have it 100% equal. If nothing else though, we can avoid becoming servile. Men going out to work keeps the economy running, but women doing housework and raising children keeps society functioning. House + work = it's work too, even if it's not publicly visible. Be houseproud by all means but don't be a workaholic. Make your partner do what he can. Privileged feminists - LIVE YOUR PRINCIPLES!


Recommended Reading: Who needs two parents?

(P.S.: This is HILARIOUS). I think I am in love with an unopened jar of peanut butter. Gulp.

Totally random aside relating to this post on Cath's glorious blog: I think feminists should perhaps strike back at the men who try to portray their purchasing of sex as perfectly normal. Y'know, like you pop into Boots for a magazine, and then you go down a side street to buy a woman's vagina... They refer to themselves using the relatively innocent term 'punters.' That's what I mean, when I hear 'punters', I think of normal consumers. Not men who buy sex. So let us not let 'em off (even inadvertently). 'Punters,' my ass. I personally favour 'ratfaces' myself, but I know this is both a) unfair to rats b) somewhat unworkable. So let's be having your suggestions, please?

Cultural Relativism: Fuck It.

As Raphael Saadiq once falsettoed urgently: People! Somebody's gotta tell the truth (ooh-ooh-ooh).

(Except it was more like 'Pih-pul!').

The lady-goddess that is sonia left some absolutely awesome comments on a Pickled Politics thread that radiated so much emotion to me, I almost developed a headache. Hoo boy, it was ugly.

Seriously, she was so sterling, I wanted to print off what she said and stick it up somewhere, to fill my brain full of good thinky-juice whenever I feel tired and slightly insane, like right now at almost 03.22 a.m. as I type, high off of menstruation and wearing a pyjama top over a dress.

Er... anyway. There is a hell of a lot of cultural relativism around these days, y'know. I have noticed it before, but I thought it was starting to become less fashionable, especially given the increasing awareness and condemnation of things like 'honour'-based violence, forced marriage et al. If nothing else, the work of the Forced Marriage Unit has brought about important and very useful changes in the law. It's REAL empowerment - now, if a person is perceived to be in danger, almost anyone can request a FMPO (Forced Marriage Protection Order). That means friends, teachers, lovers - some sort of involvement has to be demonstrated so that it's not just for busybodies to intervene, but it is a life-saving change.

Hence y'see, I was getting some bona fide hope. Thankfully, sonia reminded me that there is work to be done in combatting cultural relativism. She also reminded me, unintentionally, of something I've been vaguely aware of for some time now, yet unable to express.

Cultural relativism, as we generally understand it, 'is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood in terms of his or her own culture.' Thanks, Wikipedia! From what I can see, scrolling down a little, 'many anthropologists began to criticize the way moral relativism, in the guise of cultural relativism, is used to mask the effects of Western colonialism and imperialism.'

Stop press. STOP PRESS - we have the winning phrase: 'moral relativism, in the guise of cultural relativism.'

It is good to have an awareness of the place of a person within wider society, yes? Undoubtedly. As social animals, we live this way by default. A good alternative way to think of it is as context. It's the anthropologists' way of saying: 'Hold up, context. Everything happens for reasons.' This is both commendable and necessary.

What is dangerous, is when this attitude is grossly misunderstood and misappropriated by non-anthropologists. Then, as remarked, we have the wolf of moral relativism that lurks within, all too often. It is lazy, illogical and downright fucking dishonest.

I mean, come on. Let's square the logic of that: 'It is good to understand the importance of context... ergo, I am not going to judge something because it's not 'of my culture.'

What the fuck??!!

I am Asian. I am also British. Indian culture interests me greatly. Let me make a distinction here, which is a necessary one: I like Indian CULTURE. CULTURE, as in music, books, films. SOCIAL TRADITIONS are a different thing altogether. I feel that those can, and should change.

The lazy shorthand that is often used for 'social tradition,' is what...? That's right, you guessed it - 'culture.'

It's probably OK for anthropologists to use the word 'culture' more generally, because they understand it fully. They're aware of all its meanings and applications. We lazy modern plebs, however, are not. By describing a social tradition as 'culture' in this day and age, you are doing something very dangerous indeed. You are saying that it is a product of a society. That people of a particular society produce it, as they would literature, cinema or music.

Does anyone see the flaw in that logic? Timid people, afraid of putting a foot wrong, don't want to pass judgement on 'other cultures' out of fear of racism, accusations of neo-colonialism/imperialism/etc. Yet ironically enough, when you employ moral relativism, you are doing exactly that. You are playing God, you are effectively saying 'I have the power to make a difference here, but this appears to be a product of the people, this social tradition. They obviously want it, because it goes over there. Why should I intervene?'

I am very much aware of the need for collective individual responsibility in challenging modes of thought. However, that doesn't change the fact that we grow up, and enter into a world that is almost always made for us. The traditions of the society I inhabit are hardly a product of my beliefs; they pre-date me, and I choose whether or not I fit with them. So, my choice is already slightly restrained - I cannot make the world as I wish through wishing alone. Do you see the disingenuousness of 'culture-as-product-of-society'-constrained thinking?

This also betrays a deep ignorance and, you might even say, a sense of superiority. If you assume that culture reflects society, you are thinking democratically. You are thinking in terms of your world, where life for the most part reflects art. Where, for the most part, you can behave as you like. Whereas obviously other places aren't democracies. Saudi Arabia, to give a great example. When I say 'superiority,' I doubt that it applies to all people who have indulged in moral/cultural relativism. However, for some this is true... maybe, just maybe somewhere in them, they believe that things are 'like that' 'over there' because secretly, they deserve it. Being inferior.

You may pause to scoff, blowing your tea or whatever out through your nose with derision. I will only say that the depths to which irrational prejudice can submerge itself, would surprise anyone. After seeing 'religious' people frequently damn victims of natural disaster to their fate with the rejoinder that 'they must have done something in a previous life,' I am not discounting the superiority. Remember, if fear is present, superiority is very likely present too. You don't know what 'they' are like. What if 'they' are like you? What would that say about you? Why should you know about them anyway? It's about being the better person... but maybe you are the better person. That'll teach them to scare you with their weird differences!

The worst thing is when you see moral relativism employed towards ethnic groups who are of the same nationality. When people react uneasily to events occurring within their own country, and decide that they won't pass judgement because 'it's not my culture.'

I'm sorry? Since when did we start living in giant, fenced-off glass domes? If we share this country, we share this country. We're all responsible. It would be far more honest to take the apathetic angle, than the relativist angle: 'Frankly, I don't know about it/them enough to understand it/them, so I don't really care.' Relativism is often little more than a blend of cynicism and laziness. Yet it tries to claim some sort of moral high ground for itself, by wearing the clothes of cultural relativism? RUBBISH. Call time on it, now!

Personally, I think moral relativism is generally the defence of those who don't quite have the courage to admit their ignorance out loud. It is a ploy to make oneself look tolerant and liberal; what I really think lies behind it, in many cases, is fear of the mirror.

Because, as any fule kno, we do not live in a perfect, equal society. There is just as much suffering and injustice in 'enlightened' Western societies as there is elsewhere, and things like championing of 'human rights', tolerance and education often happen in spite of, not because of, the majority. If you're Jenny or Johnny Conformist, the sort who blithely laughs at a sexist joke here and there, or occasionally agrees with something 'un-PC' without thinking about it - you are compromised already. Your moral compass is reeling, and you know it. Though we are all, of course, compromised to some extent. You can criticise Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or whatever, but somebody will strike back at you before long. Then, you won't be able to win the argument. No more point-scoring. No more winning, because from then on you live on the knife-edge of sensitivity, always reflecting, always on jealous guard of your newly-discovered integrity.

Unless, of course, you're Paris Hilton.

This, I think, is why Daily Mail readers (and the BNP) hate Islam (and Muslims) so much. They're like kin under the skin in quite a few instances. Both disapprove of homosexuality, both are dubious about feminism (to say the least), both are uncomfortable about the visibility of sex and nostalgic for times past, both believe in the values of violence as a punishment as well as a deterrent... Naturally, this doesn't apply to all interpretations of Islam, or all Muslims. However, the enthusiastic Failite will view all Muslims as though they are derangedly conservative reactionaries, whilst fundie Muslims will view all Westerners as loose infidels. The Fail (and other outlets of the MSM) choose the ad-hominem line of attack for the most part, taking on Muslims rather than engaging critically with Islam itself. Fundies, equally, will disseminate angry rhetoric about over-sexualised society, baby-killers (the Luton protest, remember?) and the like. At the most extreme end, they blow themselves and others up. Attacking, yet again, the person (although in a direct physical sense) rather than the system or the institutions to which they ascribe so much of their anger.

Clearly, a very honest discussion of race, religion and history is long overdue in this country. In the meantime though, I will say this now: things like basic respect for women are not 'moral relativism.' A pox on anyone who tries to make out that they are. The rage over MPs' expenses has resurrected a notion of which I am dearly fond, and which had suddenly slipped peoples' minds previously. Public service.

Public service. What we want from our politicians. What we want the BBC to do. What our libel laws so often work against. There have always been lies on sale, but since Thatcher made it OK to be greedy, things are reaching a serious point. I don't hold Thatcher personally responsible for all that came after her; that would be ridiculous. It must be said though, that by legitimising the idea that everyone can - and should - pull themselves up by their bootstraps, she effectively endorsed a particularly ruthless and isolationist view of others.

Living and working in an area filled with people who originate from other countries - like me myself - I see how stupid and destructive that idea was. No-one's advocating a socialist utopia, but at the very least in a democracy, there must be engagement. Public service, right? The public broadcaster and the public servants should work to reflect the interests of the people?

It hasn't happened. Getting more black/brown faces on, what has it done, apart from give Fail readers more reason to complain? It is 2009 and we are facing an actual threat of increased BNP support here in Britain - in London - even though the National Front was supposed to have died in the '80s.

The truth must be told. History must be laid bare. The BBC can just bloody well dumb down some of it and/or work it into an episode of Eastenders. Put it in as a series of subliminal messages. Put it in the news. Suspend secondary school 'Citizenship' lessons - for at least once a week - and make the truth known. Drive down the fucking streets with a loudhailer and blare it into people's plate-glassed office cubicles.

A party that wants to deport me is looking to gain power. Its London Assembly member has been invited to the Queen's party. ON MY BIRTHDAY. You want me not to take this personally? Too late. I'm sick of the Oppression Olympics. I'm sick of the lies. I'm sick of hearing how other people actually have it worse because they're more thick-fucking-ignorant than me.

PUBLIC SERVICE. THOSE WHO CAN - TEACH.

Thanks to The Libertarian, I am now obsessed with a song about a dove. God, even the short clip of Sonam Kapoor with aforementioned dove is cute enough to make me want to cry.

Dear homophobic (and/or religiously bigoted) fuckturds of the world...

'Gayness' cannot be taught. It is not a disease that you 'catch' just by hearing about it. Nor is it a choice, unlike the way that your RELIGION and fucking INTOLERANCE is. Quite simply: you chose to be odious, they didn't.

People struggle to leave religions fully after they have grown up within a particular religious culture. The 'culture' bit of the religion - not the indoctrination, not the abstract theorising (though it may to some extent stick) - but the culture bit sticks. These slices of ritual offer people familiarity and comfort. Rip them out, and you are left with a tottering, hollow shell. It is a part of identity that they struggle with for peace.

Now, think about gay people. Gay people struggle to accept their sexuality fully, having grown up (in most cases) within a particularly heterosexual culture (do you see what I'm doing here? Yeah? You better). The 'majority' bit of the culture - not the lack of attraction to women, not the society-assigned 'effeminacy' (though it may to some extent stick) - but the 'majority' bit sticks. This awareness of being suddenly and inadvertently 'outside the norm' offers people self-loathing and misery. Rip them out, and you are left with a possibility for self-development. It is a part of identity that they struggle with for peace. Graham Greene (a Catholic at that!) got it: suffering is identity.

Now many, many people in this country are somewhat unshowy by nature. They personify this verse, from Coventry ska legends The Specials' classic and angry hit, Concrete Jungle:

I won't fight for a cause
don't want to change the law
Leave me alone, just leave me alone
I want to get out on my own

Many of the gay folks I know, even if they might be out on a Gay Pride march, are hardly Peter Tatchell. Stop trying to turn them into your radical, minority 'Other.' You must feel so fucking pleased with yourself that your harassment ends up producing enemies that weren't even there to begin with. They're not paedophiles. They're not interested in your sex life (so why are you so obsessed with theirs?!) and they sure as HELL aren't interested in you.

Johann Hari's article is apparently about the Daily Heil's (formerly Hitler-supporting paper and online messageboard home-away-from-home for BNP knobs) 'vile campign against teaching kids about homosexuality.'

Oh, let me see. The Heil considers itself a 'Middle-England' paper, and by the look of the lobster-hued, jowl-and-froth 'I love herd mentality' types I've seen reading it (though, let's be fair here, there are plenty of moronic Asians and Blacks who read it too. My own fucking SISTER brings it home from the gym, sssssssssss), it unfortunately is. I have been holding my Listerine-laced breath with anticipation of the day when hackers set their sights on its website (goodbye Femail! Goodbye faux-concerned pictures of women naked/gaining/losing weight, with subtle bitching from fellow females! GOODFUCKINGBYEHAHA). In the absence of that, I'll settle for some mild hypocrisy-debunking.

If some of the Heil's target audience's precious little darlings wanted to study Performing Arts, they would probably prematurely expire at the chance of having even momentary contact with Sir Ian McKellen. Sir Ian McKellen, aka Richard III. Aka GANDALF. GANDALF is the God of wise-old-man dramatic roles, thanks to Sir Ian McKellen. He kicks Dumbledore's ass (both of them - although one of them died, so I am sorry if that is horribly offensive).

BUT - BUT - what will Jean "How about LESS sex education" from Blackburn,Lancs (no, I will not correct the fuckturd spacing error there, much as it kills me to refrain) do when she finds out...

*tremble*

... when she finds out he is A POOF!

That's right! Like so many other successful and admirable individuals on this Earth, Ian McKellen does the naughty with other men!

When you watched him, in Richard III, or Lord of the Rings, did you sit there, thinking 'Wow, sir Ian McKellen acts so well, despite his GAYNESS' or 'Wow, I would've expected Richard to start commenting on how well-coordinated the army's uniforms were, because the actor that plays him is GAY, but he didn't, he just efficiently dramatised Shakespeare's Richard in a whole new context!'

No. No, you did not. (Or maybe you did, in which case, you need help. Seriously. Urgently. Preferable in prescription-pill, or therapy, form...)

And I bet if he was running a drama workshop which your brat(s) benefited from, you might even be MALFUNCTIONING right now.

Now we know you 'Christian' (or whatever else) Mailites claim to be obsessed with what you can't see (God), and take literally that which is now past (the happenings in the Bible).

Here's a little suggestion for you. Less obsession with what you can't see (homosexuality) and more taking literally of that which is now past... but not irrelevant (Jesus's - and whoever else's - teachings). Alternatively, do as the Pope has done, and try to make it all go away by indulging in a prayathon. At the very least, that'll get you indoors and out from under our feet, while we aim for the more inclusive future, eh?

P.S: My brain has had it with the term 'PC gone mad,' and has replaced it with 'P. C gone mad.' So, when idiots start - gingerly, or frothingly - trying to rave about 'the PC brigade,' I will have a vision of a charging group of bleating IT technicians. When I hear 'PC gone mad,' I will have a delightful mental image of a personal computer going all Marvin on its owner, before growing to Godzilla size, hopping round the city, and then leaping - splat - onto the Daily Mail offices. Byu-da-full.

G20 Protests: The Problem...

I was commenting on a thread on Pickled Politics about the G20 protests, and something suddenly crystallised inside my head. I knew right then and there that I had to write this post.

The problem with the G20 protests, I realised, is that they fit into a common, polarised narrative. The reason this scares me so much is because all the protestors are doing is expressing an anger that most people have about the irresponsible way in which our financial institutions have behaved.

Note the italics. Did you note my italics? I hope so. The reason I did that is because I want to emphasise - perhaps rather pointlessly - that many of us share common ground with the protestors. Even some readers of the Daily Fail.

That's just the problem though. The mainstream media (MSM) - and let me say that in this description, I include the free daily London papers as well - has pursued a dangerously successful agenda of 'divide and conquer.' Sunny pointed out, I think in the comments, how many journalists were busy highlighting the minority of protestors who were violent, rather than focussing on the entirely peaceful Climate Camp protestors.

Going on to any site - PP, Comment is Free, whatever - I am struck how there are a range of 'stock positions' which people fall into. When I went on to Liberal Conspiracy, the commenter 'Letters From A Tory' said the following:

Honestly, Sunny - I have no idea how you can be so naive. You join a mass protest that was always going to attract a violent element, then complain that the police were keen to contain the protest.

I wrote you a letter on my blog this morning explaining why your account of yesterday’s events is at best laughable and at worst idiotic.

This made me angry. The whole thing makes me angry. Why in the fuck was it 'always going to attract a violent element'? Why do we have these expectations of events?

Prior to the events actually happening, there was more of this sort of attitude. I read a frankly infuriating column in thelondonpaper, which I will reproduce when I get back to my flat. I notice this attitude appearing more and more frequently - it was apparent in quite a few of the letters as well. It was the stupid daily column where they get members of the public to write in about something they care about - I think it has to be 500 words or something.

The author of the piece argued that the protests were putting '1 million people at risk' and that '95% of the protestors don't know why they are protesting' (um, how do you know?). He also used the age-old assumption of many a knobhead that the protestors were simply people who didn't have a job to go to (again - how do you know?), and thereby trying to ruin things for those who did.

Behind this blithe shower of bollocks (which I found all the more astonishing given that in that very issue of the paper, there were comments on how many local businesses were actually being closed and people advised not to leave their homes in order to keep them safe - hardly 'at risk') was a common belief that I see on the Internet and in newspapers (often on the Internet versions of newspapers, haha). It was the deformation of those that one does not agree with, the lionising of those that one does agree with - in short, the breakdown of a highly complex event into a battle between two opposing factions.

The MSM has been subtly priming us to think this way in the run-up to this event, and so before, during and after, people fall back into their 'stock positions.' You have the 'amused/contemptuous cynic' (as shown by LFaT above), the 'earnest and frustrated protestor/supportive journalist/victim', the 'misunderstood third party' (i.e. in this case, people claiming to be members of the police sticking up for themselves) and then a whole load of people trying to intercede somewhere between all this.

That column exemplified this 'divide and conquer' strategy that is so often. Most often, it's apparent when right-wing papers talk about non-whites and immigrants. The 'us' and the 'them.' I hadn't realised it was being practised in this instance. I was naive; I never realised that the papers could use such an ingenious method of turning apathy lucrative. People no longer interested in traditional political parties? The Labour/Conservative divide just not working any more, because they seem to be merging into each other? Great! Give the people what they're crying for! Give them division!

It's deeply insidious - I read an interview with the editor of thelondonpaper when I was doing a project on the British and French daily papers last year. He had this to say:

"Free papers acknowledge the realities of young people's lives and, pretty much everywhere in the world, they are politically neutral. All the research shows that young people dislike political bias in newspapers and they are sick of being preached at by journalists. That's why they don't want to read columnists either."

and this

"Our appeal is that we're the antithesis of their 'Little Englander' mentality."

Riiiight - that's why you regularly publish the kind of thing that was in that daily column, and letters like the slew of ones slagging off the protestors. The star letter was from somebody advising people to 'hold up a bar of soap' to the protestors because it would have the same effect as garlic on a vampire, or something along those lines. Bullshit are the free papers neutral. London Lite and Metro belong to Associated Newspapers which publishes - *gasp* - The Daily Mail. Thelondonpaper is published by News International - which publishes The Sun, The Times and The News of the World. Gee, is anyone seeing a theme here? Lord Rothermere, Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch - yeah, that's absolutely synonymous with being 'politically neutral' in my book... [/sarcasm]

It's very clever. These freesheets may claim to be neutral by not publishing anything overtly inflammatory - but by ensuring that you highlight the content sent in by your most bigoted readers and laying out your coverage of issues just so - that doesn't sound politically neutral to me, that sounds like you're surreptitiously favouring an agenda...

So yeah, as I already commented, now we have 'ordinary, peaceful, hard-working Britons/Londoners' vs 'jobless/time-wasting, violent protestors,' 'helpless scapegoat working-class City employees' vs 'middle-class protestors who are probably all in charge anyway', 'the faceless and brutal police' vs 'well-meaning but radicalised protestors', 'the trouble-making protestors' vs 'the poor police just doing their jobs'... On and on it goes. Of course, many of these battles are bundled up together, i.e. the first two. It's almost impressive - you can have many binaries operating at once - but somehow, we're not advanced enough to realise that real life isn't a black-and-white binary.

Shades of grey exist, bitches. Maybe it's about time we started taking the joke that all journalists are just failed novelists seriously?

Seriously though, we all need to be alert and wary, for dehumanising is a tactic common to - what? Think about it. War, yes, that's right! Consider that recent story about Israeli soldiers' awful T-shirts which make light of things like murdering pregnant Palestinian women. Think of the war on terror as well, and how the MSM (the right-wing papers in particular) have worked overtime to dehumanise not only extremists, but Muslims in general, as a way to avoid engaging with the fact that the 7/7 bombers were 'homegrown.' Sure, they reported it. However, as any fule kno, reporting an issue and engaging critically and analytically with it are not the same thing. If they were, we wouldn't have comment sections in papers, and there'd be no need for blogs.

Whether we like it or not, whether we'd take to the streets over how we felt about an issue or not - these protestors are 'us.' Bigots, unfortunately, are 'us.' Is there really a 'them'? There will, for the purposes of political manouevre, always be a 'them' but we are the ones who read the papers. We are the ones who feed off these divisions. The scores of annoying, smug pricks who were predicting how the protests would end were smug precisely because they are making the narrative. They know that life is perfectly capable of imitating art, so to speak. We can only try to keep some hope about the whole affair - and remember that everybody is human. Even Josef Fritzl, a perfect example of what happens when we fail to take adequate responsibility for each other. We lock ourselves into destructive cycles and never progress.

This bit:

his mother Maria, who herself had been fostered as a child, had had him "solely in order to prove to the world that she was not infertile" following a marriage which broke up because it produced no children.

"Herr Fritzl was a 'proof child', an 'alibi child'," she said, adding that this "was his only function as a child". "As a consequence he was a burden to her, something she was forced to look after". She said that Fritzl, now 73, struggled throughout his childhood to form a relationship with his mother but that "it was impossible to build up any sort of bond of trust with her".

The fear he felt by her constant absences was never more intense than during the second world war bombing raids on their home town of Amstetten. She refused to take refuge in the air raid shelter near to the family home, insisting on staying in the house and sending her son into the underground shelter instead. "As a result he suffered from an overwhelming sense of anxiety, not knowing when the air raid was over whether or not the only person in the world to whom he had any relationship, would still be alive," she said. "It's the type of fear that over time has a huge impact on a person".

... made me want to cry. I can see clearly how the leap from an unloved little boy to an incestuous rapist was made - and it is essential that we see that, and not tidy this all away as if it has been resolved. It hasn't. Humanity, if it really thinks it's superior to the animals, needs to learn to take full responsibility for itself. Just because we've invented the Internet, it DOESN'T mean we've got any less thick! Sigh...

A music video for cheer-up's sake. YEAH THE BLIND BOYS OF ALABAMA!

An article, which I've just inadvertently realised, plugs neatly into what I've just said.

Gail Trimble and the Guardian

In my previous post, I mentioned how a feminist can encounter misogyny in the most unexpected of places, namely on (supposedly) socially-liberal sites such as Comment Is Free and Liberal Conspiracy (in all fairness, both are generally OK, but the commenters on Cif tend to be prats, and you get the occasional prat on LC too...).

So today children, I'm going to take on the Guardian for some hypocrisy which verges on misogyny regarding the reluctantly-ubiquitous Gail Trimble, 'intellectual blitzkrieg' and female captain of the Corpus Christi college team on University Challenge. As anyone with functioning senses and a tendency to be exposed to the British media will know, she suddenly became an object of interest for her impressive intelligence and then linked to scandal - her team were stripped of their 2009 winners' title after it emerged that one of them was only a student during the first round of the competition.

Now, I have no real idea why on Earth so much has been made of Trimble, but I'll hazard a guess - misogyny, anti-intellectualism, desire to drum up publicity for the show, easy copy etc. I think it is great that sites such as the F-Word came out in defence of her, but to be honest, I think most people could give less of a monkey's about UC and its denizens. Though, as a publicity stunt, making a star out of Trimble seems to have worked - apparently the BBC garnered a 'record' audience of 5.3 million viewers for the final.

I want to take the Guardian to task over this article which is really rather hypocritical.

The stripping of the title from Corpus Christi is an ignominious end for Trimble's rollercoaster ride to fame.

Is just me, or is there a real element of gloating here? Firstly: who cares? Not Trimble herself - as pointed out in an article which appeared just the next day on the Guardian website, they magically remembered that she didn't ask for the attention.

While Trimble hogged the limelight, little attention was given to her team-mates, although of course that has now changed.

No - as the saying goes, a star is made, not born. YOU, the mainstream media, are the ones who thrust her into the limelight. She didn't have any desire to 'hog' it. If no attention was given to her team-mates, that's YOUR problem, not hers.

The article also begins with:

The winners of University Challenge, Corpus Christie College, Oxford – captained by "intellectual blitzkrieg" Gail Trimble

Lest we forget.


This hypocrisy is pretty impressive on the Guardian's part. In an article by the same authors appearing just the following day, they wrote:

Producing a series of barnstorming performances that made her an object of public admiration and anti-intellectual ridicule, Trimble almost singlehandedly propelled her team to victory

Sanctimonious, much? A few bloggers discussed her previously - you lot in the mainstream media turned her into 'an object of public admiration and anti-intellectual ridicule' for the sake of an easy and research-free story. Even if she DID win two-thirds of the team's points, you saying that she 'almost singlehandedly propelled her team to victory' continues rather conveniently to single her out, and all for your own ends. Let me just say that there are currently 38 articles on the website tagged 'University Challenge,' of which 14 directly reference GT. There are probably also a number of articles which mention her in the body of their text.

It really feels like the Guardian is trying to demonstrate some sort of class credentials as well, the way it continues to get mileage out of the Trimble/non-student scandal affairs. As I pointed out, their attitude in that article is pretty gloating, and just to really rub it in for Sam Kay and the Corpus Christi lot, the NINE most recent articles are about them losing their title in some way or another, often mentioning proudly how it was the Observer who found out Kay was not a student. Seriously - WHO CARES?! Pats on the back for a storm in a teacup, or what?! There were also two BBC-bashing blog-posts by one Vicky Frost, one with the smug tagline: 'Manchester's University Challenge team have surely won the PR battle today, proving graceful in defeat', as if CC were somehow being arrogant. It also prompts the question: WHAT PR BATTLE?! WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT?

Just because the Manchester lot aren't as obviously privileged as the CC lot, it doesn't mean they have to gloat - the CC team KNEW MORE. Which was the POINT of this competition. Talk about resorting to reverse-Mail tactics! One, you make a star out of someone to generate easy copy. Two, you then turn a rather minor scandal involving her team into a chance to escalate the storm and generate yet more copy, gloating about CC's fate as if they deserve it because 'they're upper-class, innit'. Three, you then undermine the Manchester University team's reaction by heaping praise on it, thus implicitly suggesting that their getting the trophy needs to be legitimised somehow. Four, you then get some woman whose opinion no-one really cares about to moan about the BBC's reaction - twice and talk about a non-existent 'PR battle', all in the name of generating more hits for the website, I suspect, judging by the tone, the references to all this and to 'Sachsgate.'

Perhaps the Grauniad's online editors have realised the standard of commenter they attract (think the Mail Online, or the type of person who frequents the BBC's 'Have Your Say' section - see here, here or here for details) and have decided to go for the jugular. As Dan Ashcroft would say: 'The idiots are winning.'


Recommended reading for everyone in the world, ever.

Misogyny To The Fore!

Oh, readers. It's not been a good week. Not in the usual emo-meltdown fashion (though there was a little of that), but in a deeper, more depressing way.

A certain listlessness, a fear about the future and increasing consciousness of the speeding-by of Time have set in. Lack of sleep, a lunatic sleep-schedule, awareness of the fact that I am going to effectively FINISH MY DEGREE in about two months' time commenced the deluge. Then, there was guilt over my responsibilities to others. I have been regularly cheering up my friend Colin with long phone chats, and trying to be a source of occasional support to my oft-insomniac friend Trish. (She has huge blue eyes which seem to get even larger as she gets worked up, and make you want, as The Libertarian said, to pat her and tell her to calm down). These moments were rare, though.

I tried to intervene between my sister and parents every now and again, including this evening. Her idiot husband wants to reconcile - so he sent her a 3-page list of her flaws, and then when she replied that she did not want to meet with him, responded with: 'I'm amazed by your reply.' Even now, some days later, he remains 'amazed.' I remain amazed that I have not *headdesk*ed yet. Or *facepalm*ed. I never realised that trying to reconcile with somebody involved systematic and repeated attempts to blame them for your relationship's failings, while also refusing to take any responsibility for anything yourself. Nor did I comprehend that, in essence, it involves behaving in exactly the same way that brought the relationship to a screeching halt. More fool me!

(Somehow, I have graciously restrained my urges to email him abuse, despite even being encouraged to do so by my mother *twitches with this saintly effort* Though if I did, I would say, quite simply: 'FUCK OFF OUT OF MY SISTER'S LIFE, YOU CHILDISH TWIT'. I might also add 'SHE MIGHT GIVE A SHIT, BUT NONE OF US DO, IF YOU NEVER MARRY AGAIN' (As he said to her). Oh Lord, that felt good).

So yeah, I'm antsy like I've bathed in chilli-powder, and have found it really bloody hard to motivate myself to work this week. It doesn't help that misogyny seems to be bearing down on me from all sides. Not just me, of course - laydeez in general, but that doesn't make it any easier to stand.

Let me just link you good people to this and this. The author of both these posts is one Chris Dillow, who I've seen showered with praise, particularly by sites I read like Liberal Conspiracy, presumably for the fact that he is a liberal/left-leaning economist who seems to know his stuff and provides good analyses of stuff. Now, I've no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the explicitly misogynistic tone of those two posts, ESPECIALLY the latter.

I left an infuriated comment on the LibCon article, which got ignored (unsurprisingly). The thing that really depressed me was that five women disagreed strongly with the bullshit on it, whereas only three men did the same. On t'other post, about 10 people said things which were supportive of women against Dillow's bullshit generalisations; there were other comments that sort of challenged him, but rather weakly. The rest of the comments included such gems as:

Sexist weekend should be a cultural institution:

What do you do if your dishwasher breaks down?

Slap her.

You've got 7 points about women here and sex doesn't appear in any of them: there's something far wrong with you, m'boy.

While I'm a roll here I'd just like to point out that political correctness was invented so that all women could nag all men, not just the ones they are married to.

and finally:

If your basic statement is "There;s nothing less attarctive than a middle class career girl who takes a perverse pride in her inability to cook and considers friday night a good time to stay in and talk about the realtionship" then I'm in full agreement. If women concentrated on buying and wearing attractive underwear the world would be a much happier place.

Only half of the non-misogynistic comments stuck up directly for women. There were quite a few mocking ones from women (not just from women), but I thought the fact that nobody just called 'misogynist' was rather depressing. The best comment came from one James Hamilton:

My experience of people possessed by one form of prejudice, such as yours against people you perceive as posh or public school, is that there's always another form of the same thing in them somewhere. So I've been expecting this. I'm surprised by what it is,though. I expect you'll get off in the same way you usually do - enough people prepared to believe that you don't mean it. I'll give you this much: I do think you're open about these things, and that you do mean it, although I think you lace them with humour. But you're not being ironic, in that crude and misconstrued blogosphere sense. Good luck.

Wherever you are, James - we love you! How accurate your predictions were, with so many people actually engaging with this kind of thing in some form or another in the comments. A poster called Katie (apparently female, then?) posted the following:

In terms of an intellectual exercise, I am not sure this is a success. Some of your points are opinions, while few are supported by evidence. It would be good to see an evidenced four way comparison: boys good, boys bad, girls good, girls bad, with every point evidence to compare for each points.

I felt like saying No, no, NO, Katie! Don't fall into the fucking trap! You should not have to engage with this, and this bullshit disguising of misogyny as intellectual ranting!

It is so shocking, as a feminist, to see this kind of thing in the so-called liberal blogosphere, just as it is in the mainstream media. It makes you feel like a real tool, because you can be quite sure that if a conservative/right-wing blogger had expressed similar sentiments, they would be roundly insulted and criticised. However, when someone like Chris Dillow does it (that post is from last year, by the way, I only became aware of it through the Valentine's post), people will look the other way as much as they can. I never saw any condemnations of that post of his on any blogs I read at the time. So, did most people just conveniently ignore it? It would seem so!

Feminists occupy a particularly ugly position, given that there's nothing that crosses boundaries quite so effectively as miosgyny. Muslims, Christians and Jews can argue about the likes of I/P forever, but many of them will find themselves in sudden agreement on the subject of how to treat women. I would argue that we're perhaps easier to demonise than any other group. There's always a particular minority group that will receive its undue share of media attention, as is happening to Muslims these days, but men of all stripes - gay and straight, black and white, atheist and religious - will come together under the banner of misogyny. It's so depressing.

Comment Is Free, for example, is a platform for Guardian writers to air their views. The Guardian is supposed to be liberal-left. Yet feminist writers are assured of being roundly shouted down when they post on there. Sometimes, as in the case of Julie Bindel and occasionally, Bidisha, this is somewhat warranted. However, even on more moderately-expressed opinions, you'll get loons going 'BUT WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ'. They also routinely try to use the argument that 'feminism is itself sexist because it's feminism.' As Lily Allen once sang, please fuck off. On an article by Zoe Williams about rape, ferinstance, in which she argued that the fact of having consumed alcohol should not have led to a rape victim's compensation being cut, the first comment was by 'thetrashheap' who lived up to his name by saying:

Better than the editorial yesterday but why just rape?

How can being drunk mean you deserve to get assaulted in any manner [Isn't that the point of the whole fucking article, you numbskull?]. Rape can be less harmfull than a serious assult. I know a man who was much more damaged by nearly being beaten to death than a women I know who was raped ['It is true because I know it to be so, based on 1 or 2 personal experiences']. Yet with the indignation over rape the guardian can say in one of its editorials

"Cuts may be justified when a victim's drinking precipitates certain violent attacks "

[Did you ever consider that maybe they were just reporting something as they were told it, and that's all there is to it?] How does being drunk percipitate a violent attack? [Gee, that's exactly what Zoe Williams is saying right here!] If somebody does an action that makes them partly reponsible for violence then so be it but being drunk isn't a reason.

So why concentrate on Rape and demean assault? Why try and lift rape as a crime above all else? Murder is worse, being left as a cripple can be worse? Being left too scared to leave the house after a serious assault can be worse on a person than a date rape.

The law needs changed but it doesn't need such righteous indignation over one particular type of assault. How many drunk men a year get less compensation for being assaulted? The problem is the law regards alcohol and culpability. Women aren't the only ones who get screwed over by this.

Can you hear the cries of 'WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ'?! I don't even have any energy left to continue ripping this shit to shreds. This is the worst kind of comment in some ways, where a small grain of truth buried amongst astounding ignorance is inflated into hand-wringing self-righteousness.

Then you have the fucking Mail website, where the most poisonously vicious articles are written by women and published alongside conveniently half- (or, as was in the case of Peaches Geldof, fully) naked pictures of younger female celebrities, so that the women can tut and feel good about themselves, and the men can do the same while having a surreptitious wank. I patently refuse to link to the pictures of PG. I don't like her, but she doesn't deserve to appear naked in the Mail in an article which slags her off for having tattoos. One of the top-rated comments when I saw it was 'What the hell does she think she looks like?'

What the fuck is it to you, eh, armchair-moralist? And what the fuck is it to the Mail? It's supposed to be an outraged comment, but it turns out to be unwittingly insightful, because of course it doesn't matter what she thinks she looks like. Evidently, she likes the tattoos. What MATTERS is that the Mail are on hand 'to do the proper thing' and trash her for them.

To top all of this off, I'm taking a course on 'British Culture In the 1950s' which has all the fun you'd expect - a surge in evangelical Christianity, colonialism, racism... but, reassuringly enough, the thing that seems to unite all the writers so far is misogyny. Don't worry fellas, when you feel that Africans and Englishmen are irreconcilably different, you can always unite in your disdain for women! I've just read City of Spades by Colin MacInnes. MacInnes was openly gay and had a major sexual obsession with black men, especially Africans.

Now, you would hope that a gay man, as a fellow sufferer of persecution, would try to avoid the rampant stereotyping and mistreatment of women that liberally (haha) garnishes 1950s novels (let's not forget, it was the era of James Bond). I got really excited when I 'met' an independent and capable female character early on, who held a senior position in the BBC. I was optimistic about a girl who was quite shy and meek, but by no means a pushover, and her sister who had apparently chosen to live with a Gambian man.

Alas, it was not to be, my friends! The BBC woman turned out to be a frigid bitch who 'discovered' her femininity upon falling in love with one of narrating characters, and then got punished for this by losing her job when she revealed she was pregnant by him in court, as well as losing the baby. Of course, she'd learnt her lesson by this point: 'All I deeply regret... is losing my child.' Yes, because you've seen the light now, and you realise that other than as a mother, you don't really matter. Without your 'fragment of him' that you loved, your life is meaningless.

The shy girl got knocked up and abandoned by the same character - after he had lived off her and perpetually left her by herself at home - just as his father had done to her mother. Her sister turned out to be a prostitute, pimped out by her own husband and last appearing in the novel in hospital because her husband had cut her face up after getting out of jail.

Of Colin MacInnes:

'I didn't like him at all,' says Diana Melly, who was a showgirl at the Cabaret Club in Soho along with Christine Keeler. 'His idea of me was just the wife with young children who cooked lunch all the time. I don't know what gave him the idea that he could get so drunk and be so rude after having his lunch made.'

This peculiarly male-homosexual disdain for women is nothing new to me, it's just really depressing. MacInnes is another one who was 'liberal' by the standards of his time. Why is it impossible for people, if they can stand other races, religions, etc., to not be the same about women?

As a socially-liberal feminist, it feels like the worst kind of betrayal when men who claim to be liberal/left-wing suddenly reveal themselves to be misogynists, or unfurl the handy caveat of saying 'I'm not a feminist.' You feel very alone, all of a sudden. If feminism doesn't have a home within the liberal-left community, then where is there a safe space for feminists? Liberal Conspiracy held a BlogNation event some time back (which I didn't attend, because I didn't 'matter' enough, and I doubt I do even now!), and the subject of trying to engage with the feminist blogosphere was raised by Sunny.

Let me offer a much-belated tip to you, Sunny: why don't you call bullshit on your ilk who profess misogynistic views? That would be certainly preferable to the following dubious comment you left on the Valentine's thread, in response to Jennie Rigg:

You see, the thing is women, rather like men, ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS. We don’t all think the same, and there is no sure fire way to please us.

Well, yes and no. Everyone’s an individual… as everyone likes to think. But people also behave in remarkably predictable ways.

Excuse me? The Libertarian, a white, middle-class man (probably the sort who Chris Dillow would loathe) who initially identified as right-wing (now, he's not so sure, because he's actually socially-liberal on the whole - what do you think I am, insane?!) has proven to be much more a feminist than some people *coughs and glances upwards* who claim to be, even though he didn't initially consider himself one.

So yes, you can bet that I've been disillusioned this week. Though it's been an accumulation of things, not just current affairs. The stuff about 'men are responsible for the banking crisis, bring in more women!' was another stab in the weeping lesion. BRING PEOPLE IN ON MERIT, and yes, we need more females in that atmosphere, but merit needs to come into the equation and we need to start challenging society's assumptions. Banking is a deeply sexist sector from what I've (repeatedly) read, it doesn't surprise me. Women within that field need to be able to know that they won't be forced to go to strip clubs and act like 'one of the boys' just to retain their jobs. I really think that bosses, the people in charge of recruitment and management decisions, should be made to show proof of feminist credentials. Male OR female. It doesn't have to be anything major - just interview the women they've worked with previously, if need be.

Anyway, I'm hauling my tired ass off to bed. I was feeling very low, but then I remembered - hey, I'm seeing The Libertarian tomorrow! How childishly excited I got! I actually wanted to send my friend a text about it as if it were news. I fought the urge to mention it in in my Facebook status. He smiles with his whole face (eyes AND mouth), and what a smile it is. Good God. I'd take his over those of cherubs or female figures in classic art anyday. The Mona Lisa? You are the weakest link, goodbye. Next to green/hazel eyes, rosy cheeks, a freckled nose and the most effortlessly alluring pair of lips I have ever known, the Italian broad can just go hang (oh wait, she is already - in the Louvre *drumroll and crash*). Admittedly, I can't help noticing his lips because the top of my head only comes up to his chin. Still, why quibble? I'm getting feminist-kissed!

Recommended Reading:

Another bigot emerges, seemingly from nowhere.

Intelligence in women - still a topic for debate in the 21st century...

Two really good pieces on women and cinema.

Upskirting - warn all the women you know.

Another woman comes along to tell us that in fact, if we willingly prop up the patriarchy, it can only be good for us. Cheezus.

Down With Anti-Intellectualism!

Down with anti-intellectualism! Down with anti-intellectualism! I have been reading some things online which have moved me to issue this war-cry.

We live in an age of MASS INFORMATION, I think you will agree. The Internet is a waterfall of differing accounts, of video and audio clips, blog posts and news articles. Waterfalls enrich and keep the supply of water coming steadily. However, if they flood, there will be deaths by drowning as the water overcomes all.

Now my alarmist metaphor might be a touch, well, alarmist, but the point stands. The Internet is a huge and wonderful thing. Some people don't like the notion that putting your data out there into cyberspace might mean that you never get it back, but life is full of risks and gambles, and for what you get in return, it is a glorious system.

The problem then, lies not with the Internet, but with us. Fucking lazy-ass humanity. We are an ineffectual lot, aren't we? We want to leap straight to the end-product of everything without making the journey. Did nobody ever tell us that it's not the winning but the participation that counts? Evidently not, and that is why we idolise Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal - we like the notion of a string of successive victories. We don't like to think about the work that goes into producing those victories and the long hard slog that results in a brief shining moment of sporting history at Wimbledon. Between the titles, a person's life is lived in single-minded devotion to training and fitness, a special diet and upon hearing that, we recoil in horror. It doesn't fit with the glamour of the brief shining moment.

To return to the Internet though - we fail to do it justice. We do not look upon it as a tumbling stream of water which could be combed into little rivulets to make it more comprehensible. Instead, we see a river bursting its banks and run, panicking, towards the opinion-ghettoes of the blogosphere or tabloid papers' websites, hiding out among those who share our views, be they justified, informed, articulate or not.

And Jesus fuckin' H. Christ, if you're looking at the Mail website or similar (which I categorically refuse to link to), it's a depressing sight. Don't be fooled - the Guardian's Comment Is Free is similarly packed to the cyber-rafters with morons, tunnel-visionaries and smart-arses. Trollish figures turn up everywhere, desecrating all our pathetic notions of humans as 'superior animals.' On the Web, it would seem, Darwin's rules don't apply. It's not survival of the fittest, it's survival of the stupidest.

Now, I know that people will be inclined towards sites that express their own views - that's perfectly natural. It is honestly sad though, to see how commentators pop up on Pickled Politics, for example, with the sole purpose of trying to be the sole right-wing maverick or whatever (I'm looking at you, Ashik!) and the numbskulls inhabiting the comments box on Guido Fawkes' blog are legendary among those with even a cursory awareness of the UK political blogosphere (that bloody word again!).

It is not about debate, it is not about legitimate criticism or disagreement, but about pathetic self-affirmation at the expense of others: I R A REBEL WOZ ERE, pretty much. Then you have Liberal Conspiracy, where the debates can descend into the most minutely finicky semantic wrestling, essentially to the point where people might as well be saying: 'You said X' and are responded to thus 'No, I said Y! YOU think I said X because that's what YOU think is right, but I think Y is right and I KNOW I'm right anyway'.

Let us move beyond words for a minute, I'm asking you. Let's break this fucking Great British tendency to complain and sound off about things, especially when we know next to nothing about them, because that's what is expected of us. The Web is a giant, giant place. Crawl out from under your tiny, little rock and actually open your eyes a little. Read articles - actually read them. Then try forming some thoughts.

I often castigate myself in the presence of people who write for a living, such as at yesterday's PP meet-up, because I can't always express myself particularly well. In fact, I'm even worse in person than in writing or print, or whatever. My tongue quivers hesitantly at the back of my throat as my brain swells dangerously, like a hen about to produce an egg. No egg is produced however - instead I get lots of strands that explode messily out, out of my mouth. Yet I do not feel shame about this. Why should I?

I talk to other people and I try to make sense of myself in the process, and that is what life should be about. Society is not something we can make disappear as if by magic, so trying to actually interact with it and the world around us might help. I am proud at the very least that I listen and take things in and try to collate grand ideas in my tiny little head. So many of us when we're forced to 'grow up' have moments where we extol the virtues of childhood. Conservatives in particular often seem to be the sort of people who wish they could 'go back' to that time (and I don't mean that in any good way whatsoever), whereas far-leftists often come off like that sulky, cynical smartarse in your sixth-form that everyone fancies for two years and then when you start uni you realise he was a total ass.

Yet it doesn't have to be so painful, it doesn't have to be all about loss. Just like the Internet should not be a series of adjacent ghettoes. It's called the fucking World Wide Web after all - a web is made of connecting threads. Let's learn a lesson from childhood in a constructive way for once, and apply the principle of homo viator. Life is a journey and when you decide to stop seeing it as a learning experience, you might as well jump in the coffin and let 'em beam you up Scotty. Or not, because you won't be going anywhere, just stagnating in the cesspit of your lazy ignorance.

There is a fine line between ignorance and bigotry and I think that a great majority of people are very much on the side of the former. So let's try and remedy that shall we? I was talking to my boyfriend and suggested that, given that the trend for reality TV does not seem to be weakening (X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing, etc.), why not take something along the lines of Secret Millionaire, Faking It and Wife Swap? Except that it must expressly be people of different races and classes. Put them in each other's shoes for a week, no holds barred (unless you're forcing a vegetarian to eat meat or whatever) and then see what they learn from it.

I would be loath to suggest something like this as I am no fan of reality TV but as my eminently sensible fella pointed out (I am actually looking forward to when I can legitimately refer to him as my 'partner'), you can't force people to do things because they'll hate it. So, given that there's a recession on - coax 'em with fame (if not money)! Generate more cheap entertainment, and do it for a good cause! I think that it should be as full-on an experience as possible, and for this reason, only the 'younger generation' should be involved, not older people. We don't want anyone having a meltdown! If it was up to me, I'd force my male cousins and brother to see what it's like for a girl brought over from India - or force them to have an extensive interview with a prostitute.

The reason that specifically comes to mind is because an (unwanted) conversation with my 14-year-old American cousin made my blood boil. He said he wants to date but remain a virgin till his wedding night (ha! Yeah right) and that he wants a virgin wife. Now, if they're both virgins, that's fair enough, I suppose. However, I'm taking this to mean that he wants to marry a woman with next to no sexual experience, while having sexual experience. When I remarked how appalling this was, amounting as it does to rape as pointed out by Jai on PP (see comment #155!), he went 'Yeah, but I think your brother and male cousin (names have been omitted) would agree with me.'

Ooooh, I BET they would! I bet they would! My wrath was about run seriously unchecked, and I hammered out something along the lines of 'Of course they would, because you're all men.' What a terrible thing to say. I was angry, but it was because they were Asian boys, growing up in a sexist, patriarchal world where every move for women is simply countered with another backslide. Not because they were male - it's never as simple as our generalisations would have us believe. So you're letting your daughters work? Excellent, because no boy in his right mind wants a gold-digger! Don't think you're going to get off the house-work though, beta, what do you think this is, India? We haven't got time to sit around all day! Do your job and come home and take care of dinner!

I am very much in agreement with Halima and Germaine Greer: there's no point trying to bring equality into an unequal world. I have resolved not to fall into the trap of ideology; if ever I have sprogs, I will lead by example and let them take the model of my own relationship rather than trying to ram my beliefs down their throat. Children are not stupid, but they need to see a total role-reversal in order to have any concept of going against the system. My man grew up in a household where the relationship between his parents is very respectful and equal and to add to that, his mother cleans while his dad cooks. Not a highly conventional arrangement, I think you'll agree. Plus, his dad spent a lot of time with him and he has never wanted for a male role model. When I compare this to what I saw in MY upbringing, I am a tiny bit jealous. However, I have ended up with the product of that healthy and admirable relationship, so I can't complain now, can I? :-D Ain't life grand.

P.S.: Has anybody else guessed who my boyfriend is? A couple of people developed suspicions which turned out to be correct. I have kept his identity completely secret so as to respect his privacy (and mine!) but most of my readers know who he is and I have referred to him previously, but I tried to be surreptitious about it... I don't know if I should just refer to him directly occasionally, because I really don't want to repeat history by going down the 'My boyfriend this' 'My boyfriend that' de-humanising route again...

The Delicate Parent-Child Relationship

I said I would discuss headscarved girls in a forthcoming post; once I can remember what on Earth I might have been out to say, I will get round to it.

Greetings, dear readers. I apologise for my habitual flakiness and my prolonged absences, but the Real World does call me forth for most of the week, so unfortunately my blog doesn't always get the love it needs. The upshot of all this is that y'all don't have to hear me bitching about work and career quite so much any more. I have decided to yield to nature and am hoping to become either an academic or a teacher. If I become an academic, I'll consider becoming a lecturer too.

I must just briefly highlight a blog post which has inspired this very post. It occurred to me that after 'the death of God,' many have been looking to replace (or perhaps, supplement) the notion of a Supreme Being by falling back onto other models. I will venture to say that this has happened more so in the Western world than in Africa or Asia or the Middle East. However, I am not making any judgements there. I am not trying to cheerlead for any part of the world.

The reason I stipulate this is because I am wary of falling into the trap of sounding like my father. 'Oh, the West had its advantages and it progressed, but now look at it, it's all coming to nothing, people want things to be how they were in the good old days.' Trans: They done gone and lost their values! Followed by: 'India is becoming a superpower, China is becoming a superpower, America is going to stop being so powerful. Just like when the British Empire came to an end - nothing lasts forever!' Add 'It's India's turn now!' to finish. The common sense and logic in this, which I agree with - that nothing lasts forever - gets unfortunately drowned in patriotism, a hint of racism and some good ol' conservatism. The West thought it knew best, but WE have values because we're still religious and we have shame, and so soon we'll make up for all those years of Whitey's rule!

That kind of thing makes me uncomfortable for so many reasons, which should be fairly apparent to anyone who's read me more than twice. Life is NOT simple, and the sooner the people of the world get that, the better. I'm aware I sound patronising, but I really could give less of a fuck. The older we get, the lazier we get, wishing to regress back to the times when our lives broke down into simply-moralistic narratives of 'good' and 'bad'. We often conveniently forget that even in childhood, we were being fed those narratives. Children are not 'little angels,' they can be perfectly cruel and thoughtless. That's because we human beings are flawed and complex (I would dare to say, thankfully so).

So on to challenge one of society's last-remaining bastions of respectability. I am a believer in D.H Lawrence, as I believe I might already have said, in the notion of challenging ideals. Ideals and institutions can be instructive in the sense of offering an 'Average' - a yardstick to measure conditions of material need by - Lawrence argues, but we must remember that the Average is just that - a fiction created to assess need. When this Average is taken to be representative of real people, we have a problem, because everybody is different and their individuality needs to be accepted. Lawrence doesn't think we need to celebrate or explain it in any way - just accept the fact of our 'otherness' to everybody outside of ourselves.

Now, I find that eminently sensible. The problem is that Lawrence was startlingly visionary, because the Average DID come to be seen as representative of more than just material need. We (humanity), began to take the beast known as Aspiration further and further. Aspiration is not essentially bad when it comes from within. However, with the 'Average' - it came from without and that was just the problem. It has been happening since before Lawrence realised it. When people talk about our 'broken society,' and cite any number of bullshit reasons, I just want to laugh in their face and tell them to read 'Democracy.'

A lot of all our problems - and this is the whole world over - come from this very tendency to hold ourselves up to others and judge unfavourably; to see what they have and think to ourselves: 'the grass is greener' or 'Must do better.' Nobody's immune, and it covers all areas of life! It's been used to keep people in check for years, from any number of religious texts to 19th-century America to the modern day.

So, I am going to make a daring proposition. If we're always judging people anyway (and come off it, we all bloody well are all the time), then why do we stop at the family? Why do we have such a reluctance to enter into that arena? 'It's a question of people's private lives,' you cry. 'We can't tell them what to do with their children.'

Errr... yes, we can. Groups of people have been (tacitly or otherwise) trying to control or influence the actions of others for absolutely forever. So let's stop with the hypocrisy, shall we? I am going to suggest here that the sort of people involved in Puritan Neighbourhood Watch (another delightful feature of 19th-C America where you could report your (married) neighbours for having had sex) are generally the sort of people who gravitate towards religion. The sort of people who need a Supreme Being, aka a giant authority figure, to complete them in some way.

(Not that all religious people are crazy or bad, mind).

For these religious people, the irony is not apparent. I'm speaking of the irony of the omnscience of God. God really is everywhere for them - because they put God everywhere. They attempt to give a sacred veneer to many parts of human life, causing a great amount of damage in the process. It is terrifying because these people with their conservatism, become God. They exercise the Supreme Will of the mob mentality, and then it almost doesn't matter what God might think of things because they have sat in judgement and delivered their verdict. 'God' might as well be the name they give to their ego, because they are busy assigning sacredness and profanity right, left and centre.

Talk about missing the point. It makes me laugh, but the way I see it: that's religion for you! I'll explain myself a bit more. In an increasingly cynical modern world, conservatives and the religious (I might as well change that to 'religious conservatives,' mightn't I?) have created a series of 'lesser gods' to which they lend the tint of holiness in a bid to stave off the ugly reality of change and progress. DO NOT BLASPHEME, or you will repent.

One of these 'lesser gods' is parenthood. There have thankfully been some writers such as Lionel Shriver who have attempted to humanise parenthood to some degree by revealing that it's not all unconditional love all the way and that parents ARE people too, you know, prone to resentment and frustration. However, much of the religious brigade HATE that kind of thing. My own parents told me that 'Your parents are a form of God'. Errr... no, thanks.

Why can we not admit this reluctance to accept that families are, after all, composed of human beings? I don't buy all that 'there has to be a mother and a father' crap either. Generally if the child has a male or female role model of some sort to help them through adolescence and plenty of love and support, why should there be a problem? It is reluctance to accuse families of being in the wrong that leads to situations such as that of the 'British Josef Fritzl' (the article I link to is highly recommended, particularly the last section of it, which probably partly inspired this). The family, and especially the nuclear family, is not 'untouchable,' the more this is clung to, the less people want to intervene when such things happen, because it makes the ugly truth resurface before us.

In seven out ten instances of rape, for example, it's committed by someone you know. Apparently, it came out in 2005 that it's most likely to be someone you know stealing your identity. Yet again, the narrative doesn't split easily into 'us' (family) and 'them' (rest of the world). Even if crimes aren't committed, your family can still emotionally abuse you, control you and mar your confidence for life. Trying to speak up about that and gain some perspective can be even more difficult, in fact, if your family were bad to you but not in a easily-stereotypable pantomime-villain way. Think about how bad it must be for women who suddenly become 'honour'-killing victims or get forced into marriage as a result of this last taboo, that of speaking against your family.

'Don't go telling your friends about what happens in the family,' my parents used to say to me every now and again. I think now that somewhere subconsciously, they had acknowledged that they weren't behaving in a totally acceptable way, and hence the guilt made them try to keep me in check, even when I wasn't telling anybody.

Despicable situations such as incest, abuse and domestic violence occur because we want to persist in keeping an aura of respectability about the families. Nothing else is left! the likes of the Mail-deluge cry. Nothing is sacred any more!

Quite right, and as I've said before, why should it be? Until we can come up with absolute, conclusive proof of God, the only thing that we can be sure of is that the ludicrous ideal standards being applied are our own - i.e. human. Even if they don't begin as our own, they become so in time!

It is your so-called loved ones who can hurt and manipulate you worse than anyone else, and that is why the familiar becoming unfamiliar (Das Unheimliche) continues to haunt us even though Freud has been and gone. Look at Fritzl and his 'British equivalent', look at Baby P, you morons, and get some perspective. I especially loved the nebula of hypocrisy surrounding the latter, where the social workers were essentially blamed for the parents' negligence while no-one mentioned that the sort of 'AARGH, NANNY-STATE POKING ITS NOSE INTO ALL OUR LIVES' screech was probably partly responsible for the social workers not intervening sooner. Oh wait, a dude on the Telegraph did (shock shock, horror horror, shock shock horror!) as did Liberal Conspiracy (unsurprisingly).

(See? The Telegraph talking sense. The world ain't simple fo' sho).

Speaking of fear, rearrange the second and third letters of 'sacred' as I often do in error, and there you have a diagnosis of carping Mail/Sun/Express-types worthy of a Freudian slip :-D. 'Scared' is all they ultimately are, like pathetic children in the grown bodies of adults. Children trying to play at paternalism, wresting the freedom of others away in their chubby snatching at authority! Freud would have had a field day, especially with the likes of Comstock (whom I can imagine hitting it off with Paul Dacre). I would say give them a slap and send them home crying, but they'd probably find a way to blame 'ZaNuLab' for this not happening... ;-D

(Il me semble que j'aie trouvé un mari futur! Scary or wot?!).

To quote the man MF Grimm: 'I love you all, till we meet again / My weapon is the pen / Same agenda, no snakes alive in the end'. (I don't take myself that seriously, but his anger is eloquently, elegantly infectious).

Round-Up of the N00z...

First off, Indonesia has banned porn. Read about it on the BBC website. I particularly love this tidbit:

"This law will ensure that Islam is preserved and guaranteed," said Hakim Sori Muda Borhan, a member of parliament from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's Democratic Party.

"It is also not in the interest of any specific religion. The law is also meant to preserve arts and culture and not destroy them."

Er... huh?! DIRECT discrepancy, I'd say, mate.


Meanwhile, the Catholic Church continues to try to project an image of 'modernity' without making any fundamentally important changes. See what SNAP had to say for my thoughts... I DO like the picture of Benedict though, he looks a lot like Red Robot from Diesel Sweeties... (see the third panel of the comic strip for an idea of what I'm talking about...).

For anybody feeling low about their writing talent, for the love of God, read this pile of steaming horseshit 'written' by Peaches Geldof, the monumentally annoying wastrel who dabbles in many occupations without being even remotely good at any of them and has thankfully fucked off to America. I don't like to indulge in pointless sleb-hating for the sake of it, but PG really really irritates me because she exemplifies for me the trend of people who are famous for fame's sake (and because their parents are/were famous). People often lump her with the likes of Lily Allen and Daisy Lowe (or whoever she's currently been seen partying with...) but I do think Lily Allen is smart, talented and witty in her own way (see her response to Marina Hyde's attack on her here!) and Daisy Lowe is actually a model. She doesn't 'pretend' to be one when the mood takes her (or when her friends decide to get her off her idle ass...). This is, to paraphrase Peaches, a 'patchwork quilt' of clangingly obvious cliches, blithe and breathless arrogance, celebration of sartorial cheapskatery (she paid a dollar for someone's family heirloom?!) and painfully obvious attempts to be Michael Palin. My bezzi called my attention to it, and I found myself ACTUALLY HOWLING in a sort of wounded shriek/laugh/weep/growl. So banal it's offensive.

The 'dark side' of joining the EU, for Romania? Really quite depressing reading, and not least because the article shows that a) we're not all as 'globalised' as one might think and b) it suggests that dictatorships (i.e. China and Romania under Ceausescu) are the only way to make construction happen fast these days... I could be ODing on the doom-and-gloom there, though.

The sort of story that tends to give France a bad name. Wine! Football-team comparisons! Bitter feuding! Utter pettiness.

Last but most definitely not least, the Daily Mash's absolutely excellent take on the bloody Brand/Ross BBC fiasco, which anyone with half a brain cell doesn't really give a crap about. They express my own feelings on the matter better than I ever could (and this just durn well tickles me pink too, as a perhaps-inadvertent satire of the type of people who tend to watch things like Strictly Come Dancing religiously. Absolutely brilliant). That most excellent man of mine turned me on to le Mash, and I thank him for't.

ONE MORE LINK! A necessary piece of tasty, sexy disco to see you through till Monday morning. This song has so effectively seduced me that I can't listen to the rest of the (not bad at all) album.

Well, this blogger is heading off for a good seeing-to this weekend... Eeeee! Catch y'all later and have a great evening/weekend/week ahead/whatever!