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.

Man, FUCK the Catholic Church

Seriously, when you think of all the people the Vatican has fucked over and wants to continue fucking over? Totally fair and just course of action. If the Vatican had a basketball team or a barbershop quartet of its own (who knows, maybe they do!), they really should be called the Woman-Hating Wonders (replace final word with Wanderers for the basketball team...).

It's tried to avoid the allegations of child sex abuse victims for years, and as I pointed out in my post on abstinence, they haven't even got rid of some offenders, just transferred them! Classic evasion tactics, vah vah. In further evidence to prove that they will very resolutely do nothing, or at the very least, the minimum possible, the Pope called for 'continuous prayer' to deal with the problem of paedophile priests. Gee Benedict, I don't know... couldn't you ease off on priests a bit so that they don't have to be celibate? That way they might not turn to preying on whoever they can get their hands on (children aren't the only ones... if you've read Karen Armstrong's Through The Narrow Gate or watched The Magdalene Sisters, you'll know that women were/are also, unsurprisingly, victims of sexual abuse by priests). Alternatively, if a priest has had accusations levelled at him - FIRE THE FUCKER. Better safe than sorry, and what with the Catholic Church's antediluvian attitude and image, it might provide some much-needed positive PR.

Child sex abuse aside, let's not forget that the Catholic Church don't believe in contraception (just GREAT for all those male Catholics in poor countries who can keep on knocking up their poor wives, whether they like it or not!) and are rabidly anti-choice (ditto). Let's now look at two very recent cases where the Catholics continue to prove that they should really not have the privileged legal and political status they have. Sarah Palin was roundly and rightly condemned by many for her views, but she was one individual. This is a whole fucking group of patriarchal nutters - AND they have special observer status within the UN, meaning they can stick their oar in on things which don't have anything to do with them, like human rights.

Firstly, the frankly disgusting and horrifying case of Eluana Englaro. The Guardian ran a very thorough article on this which I can't recommend enough. Eluana had been in a vegetative state for 17 years, and her father wanted the tubes to be removed, in accordance with her wishes. The poor man is currently caring for his wife, Eluana's mother, who has cancer. So what did the Vatican - working through Berlusconi, of course - do? Kick up a fuss about it, declaring it 'a crime against humanity' (what about your paedophile priests, eh?! Surely that's 'a crime against humanity'?) and according to this Times article, describing it as a 'monstrous and inhumane murder.'

This is a woman who has been vegetative for 17 years and whose brain is so severely damaged that doctors have stressed that she will never 'come round', as the Guardian article states. That charmer Berlusconi justified his decision by saying: 'I would be failing to rescue her. I'm not a Pontius Pilate' (Clearly he thinks he's Jesus...) and - get this - saying that she couldn't be allowed to die because she is still 'in the condition to have babies.'

Wow. Just wow. I think that's the only appropriate reaction here, don't you? Thankfully, with the quietly diligent work of the doctors, Eluana died before any more meddling could take place, and Italy's own President refused to side with Berlusconi. It is gobsmacking though. I remember reading an aghast comment somewhere about this, saying something along the lines of: 'So who would they get to impregnate her, then? Rapists?' Well, quite. Clearly the Vatican does not have the FIRST FUCKING CLUE about what constitutes 'human behaviour'; they are masters of misogyny (and I believe that the Vatican should be renamed 'The Ministry of Misogyny' or 'Misogyny Capital of Italy'...). Perhaps Berlusconi would perform the deed and then claim it was immaculate conception. Or a virgin birth, seeing as how he thinks he's Jesus.

The latest story to raise my hackles is this, on the rape of a nine-year-old girl. Nine-year-old girl gets raped, most likely by her stepfather who has now been arrested, and becomes pregnant with twins. Her mother takes her to have an abortion, which y'know, makes sense because she's just a nine-year-old child who has suffered sexual abuse. There is absolutely no way she can be made to take responsiblity for this happening to her.

Abortion is only permitted in Brazil in cases of rape and where the mother's life is at risk...

So, clearly one-nil to the Catholic Church in Brazil - their political stranglehold is making life hell for every woman in the country who wasn't raped/in danger of death and wants to make the decision to have a baby or not for herself.

and doctors say the girl's case met both these conditions... The Catholic Church tried to intervene to prevent the abortion going ahead but the procedure was carried out on Wednesday.

So... more of the same humanity, compassion and understanding from our frock-wearing friends! The fun doesn't stop there though, oh no:

Now a Church spokesman says all those involved, including the child's mother and the doctors, are to be excommunicated.

Jesus wept. If I was that girl's mother, I'd be glad my daughter still had a life ahead of her, not bothered about whether some religious nut had excommunicated me or not.

The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, told Brazil's TV Globo that the law of God was above any human law.

He said the excommunication would not apply to the child because of her age, but would affect all those who ensured the abortion was carried out.

Oh, how generous of you. Who knows, maybe in a few thousand millenia, you won't be forcing women and girls to bear the brunt of male-inflicted rape and abuse! Then again... I won't hold my breath.

However, doctors at the hospital said they had to take account of the welfare of the girl, and that she was so small that her uterus did not have the ability to contain one child let alone two.

Bastards, bastards, absolutefuckingBASTARDS. This bit actually made me want to cry and/or be sick. That poor, poor little girl.

As with the case of Eluana Englaro, I'm absolutely delighted that the Catholic Church hasn't claimed any victory, but really, the Italians must do better. Peter Tatchell's Cif piece was very good, measured and so forth, but really, considering that the Italian taxpayers fund the Vatican's ongoing existence, it's time for a change. It's time the Italians got all 'what the fuck? You're not the boss of us, or anyone else worldwide for that matter, biatch. God's representative, my ass. Oh wait, I think my ass would in fact be a fairer and more reasonable representative of tha Lord than Benny-dick and his befrocked flock.'

To finish, a little game:

A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Replace 'all those' etc. with 'all those who damn child rape and sex abuse victims.' Then, take 'from the Catholic Church' and put it after 'all those who'. Replace 'secure' with 'by preventing'. Lose 'an' and put an s on 'abortion.' Finally, lose the whole first part of the sentence up to 'all', and replace 'excommunicated' with 'assassinated.' What do you get? Answers in the comment-box please!


Disclaimer: if you honestly think I am advocating the murder of anyone, then please read my previous post for clarification and get a grip, ferChrissakes.

'Bankish' Behaviour - Sexism at the BoE

As regards the title of this post, just follow the link and READ THIS STORY. READ IT.

I am really quite angry. I didn't think such ridiculous things could irritate me that much, but no, the feminist tiger has been roused and she'd like to rip the head off the 'image consultants' who ran this thing, if nothing else. Though REALLY, what she'd like to do is get some choice 'alone time' with the fuckers at the Bank of England who arranged this. Don't shoot the messenger, etc. etc. etc.

I mean, FUCK YOU. The word 'bankers' has become Cockney rhyming slang for 'wankers' and I tell you, it's feeling like a pretty fitting epithet right now. Although of course, that's hardly fair because not all bankers are, and not even everyone at the Bank of England is.

We're going to use an extreme comparison now to attack what is occurring here. Y'know how, (as anyone who's read/watched Persepolis will know?) the 'Vice Squad' in Tehran roam around policing women's clothes so that they show the acceptable amount of modesty? Well, this is just another version of that, really, but in Britain and done without religion or violence being involved. Not that that makes it any more acceptable for it.

This parallel I've just drawn may seem extreme to some of you, but let me explain:

A memo leaked from the meeting details the advice given to staff, including the warning that wearing certain accessories would make women workers look like prostitutes.

This is the bit that sent me over the edge of calm and hurtling dangerously into the lava-paved fields of rage. Firstly, my brain screamed: WHY? WHY should women not look like prostitutes if they want to? Let me elaborate.

1) By taking this decision in the first place, women are being told how to dress - just like in Tehran - and not being credited with intelligence enough to not dress like sex workers. Ruth Lea, former Centre for Policy Studies director and current economic advisor to the Arbuthnot Banking Group, had this to say:

"Surely it is up to men and women, and their peers at work to decide for themselves what is suitable to wear. If you can get a well-paid job, surely you have the nous to choose the right clothes."

Amen, sister! Seems simple, don't it? Yet this whole fiasco is not just insulting to the female employees and a sheer fucking pisstake at a time of intense economic difficulty for the whole fucking country. It's also insulting to the men who work there.

As Craig David used to popularly sing, re-re-wind:

'wearing certain accessories would make women workers look like prostitutes.'

Here we are, back in the familiar terrain of 'Oh NOOOO! Female sexuality! SHIT! Lock up your sons and fathers and brothers!'

I'd frankly be curious to know what they had in mind here. Maybe they were thinking nurses' uniforms, thigh-high stockings, kinky boots ending above the knee? Or maybe this is just supposed to cover anything that makes you look the tiniest bit attractive and not like someone's stern aunt, or Margaret Thatcher? I have to return here to saying: and what, if women look like prostitutes?

2) If you're working for the BANK OF FUCKING ENGLAND, I think you'll know better than to turn up looking like a prostitute, as observed above. I'm sorry, wanky image consultants, but a woman wearing something which is cut slightly lower/fits slightly tighter/is shorter than you might like is part of a wonderful thing called Choice. It tends to go hand in hand with a concept known as Real Life Is For Living, and although I'm sure the BoE is full of old-ish white middle-class male types, the times they are a-changin'. Plus, it's winter. You certainly wouldn't catch me dead in a PVC maid's dress in this current snowfall!

3) As to insulting the men, I'm quite sure that, er, they're able to discern that the women they have been working with all year are not prostitutes. To be honest, giving the following advice:

'wearing certain accessories would make women workers look like prostitutes.'

is firstly infuriating because it proves that, time and time again, even the merest showcase of female sexuality is a problem for some men - and despite it only being some, all the women must be suppressed accordingly, and also because it wildly insults the intelligence of their male cohorts. Having been hired by the Bank, she knows she's not a fucking prostitute; having worked with her, he knows she's not a fucking prostitute.

The 'logic' that I can see spiralling out of this idiocy runs as follows:

Women dress like prostitutes. This presents a problem for poor, helpless males who let themselves reach the point of unbearable strain. Women subsequently sexually harassed/raped/bullied - go on to take BoE to court and money stands to be lost. Unhappy faces all round!

So, the answer to the kind of bullshit institutional sexism and recycling of outdated gender stereotypes is *gasp* not trying to educate those men who can't cope with a woman wearing a slightly shorter skirt, it's to waste a load of fucking money during a recession period telling women to 'Dress For Success.' The common sense of simply crediting the men with the awareness that their fucking co-workers are evidently not sex workers - and explaining very slowly to the especially thick/bigoted ones - is lost. Do they not think men have enough self-control to avoid leaping on their colleagues at the slightest flash of thigh and humping them unconscious? Do they really think men are that utterly lacking in self-control? Jesus H. Christ.

Interestingly enough, just to dispense with this, I like how women's sexuality is being pummelled into projecting just the right sort of mother/older auntie attitude here. By all means, don't turn us on - but don't confuse us either! Tomboys and androgynes (my coinage) not welcome!

"... always wear a heel of some sort – maximum two inches; always wear some sort of makeup, even if it's just lipstick,"

(BUT WHY?!)