Category Archives: rage at the system

I have revised my opinion of Wikileaks: it’s trash

Content note: this post discusses prison, suicide, transmisogyny, rape and violence against women

A little over five years ago, I wrote an article titled “I think Julian Assange is a rapist. I still like Wikileaks.” As per the disclaimer on my site, my views have evolved. I now think Julian Assange is a rapist and I also think Wikileaks is absolute trash.

Today, it was announced that Chelsea Manning–who was responsible for the leaks which made Wikileaks a household name–faces indefinite solitary confinement or a harsher prison, almost a decade added to her sentence, and she may lose her parole. She faces this as punishment for already having had such a horrible time in a men’s prison that she attempted to take her own life. And of course, she is only in prison in the first place because Wikileaks failed to protect her, despite all their branding suggesting that they would. (AssAngels will at this point go on like she confessed and blabbed to a man Wikileaks already identified as a threat, because I think this is the Assange-approved talking point. OK. Say that’s true. Wikileaks should’ve definitely at the very least briefed her on basic advice: “don’t tell anyone else, and if arrested, don’t confess.” That they didn’t even do this reflects horribly on them).

One would think that a woman facing torture would be a subject which Wikileaks might deem worthy of comment, even if they weren’t responsible for her being in the hands of the torturers in the first place. One would think.

The news broke this morning, and there has not been a peep on the topic from Wikileaks, although their social media accounts and website have been active.

No. Instead, Wikileaks have been focusing on some pretty uninteresting emails showing that political campaigners squabble among themselves and get mean to media outlets–something which a seven year old could have told you. Also, this leak may or may not have been orchestrated by Putin. But don’t worry. This week, Wikileaks have also been leaking information from a country undergoing severe political turmoil! Yeah, like leaking the details of millions of Turkish women at a time when their government is about to aggressively crack down.

It’s becoming abundantly clear that Wikileaks has an agenda, and it isn’t a very nice agenda. It’s a classic, bog-standard, right wing misogynist agenda, much like the governments they claim to oppose.

I should stop using “they” for Wikileaks, to be honest. I’m not convinced Wikileaks consists of anyone else but rat-faced probably rapist Julian Assange these days.

So anyway, mea culpa. I once liked Wikileaks. I now realise it is utter trash. Wikileaks appear to have thoroughly forgotten Chelsea Manning as much as the state who wish to kill her wish the rest of us would.


Owen Smith is a misogynist masterpost

Content note: this post discusses misogyny and domestic violence

I am going to start this post with some disclaimers:

  • I’m writing this because dudes keep asking me for “evidence” that Owen Smith is a misogynist
  • Just because I think Owen Smith is a bellend doesn’t mean I support Jeremy Corbyn
  • Just because I’m pointing out the misogyny of Owen Smith doesn’t mean some of Corbyn’s supporters aren’t misogynists
  • I didn’t think Angela Eagle was all that either
  • Basically, the Labour Party is a wretched hive of scum and villainy
  • This is not an invitation to honk like a sea lion “debating” whether this stuff is misogyny or not. It’s misogyny. If you don’t think so, you don’t care. And also, I don’t care what you think.
  • I cannot believe The Discourse™ has got so puerile that I need to say any of this

Right, all that out of the way, let’s get on with why Owen Smith is a misogynist.

He opposes mandatory all-woman shortlists

All-woman shortlists are the weak, milky tea of feminism. If your feminism wants women in elected positions (as opposed to the abolition of this hierarchical system), they’re a way of addressing the structural misogyny and ensure a woman ends up in place. Recently, Owen Smith committed to using all-woman shortlists in targeted seats. The qualifier “targeted” here is potentially pretty important, in the context of his previous comments on all-woman shortlists. See, Owen believes (and as far as I can see, has not retracted), that local Labour parties should be able to veto all-woman shortlists if they want to. If a local party doesn’t want an all-woman shortlist, Owen reckons, they shouldn’t have to have one.

Let’s assume that the misogynist Momentum CLP infiltrators exist for the purpose of this. Under Owen Smith’s own assertions, if such woman-hating entryists take against the idea of an all-woman shortlist and kick up a stink, they don’t have to have one. 

His “normal” life

Let’s remember that within the last fortnight, Owen Smith wasn’t just running against Corbyn, but also Angela Eagle, who is a lesbian. When asked if he was normal, Owen decided to explain that of course he’s normal, he has a wife and three children. Perhaps he was taking aim at Corbyn with this comment, simply forgetting about Eagle’s own domestic situation (a wife, no children). However, under patriarchy, it’s women who are hit hardest by this suggestion that they’re weird for not having children. Hell, just a week before Owen Smith made these comments, Theresa May’s leadership contender Andrea Leadsom was rightly called up on her internalised misogyny for having a pop at May for never having had children.

It’s 2016. Some women aren’t just ambulatory baby factories. Deal with it, Owen. It’s the new normal.

The leader of a political party only gets on TV because she’s a woman

Plaid Cymru is one of the major political parties in Wales. It’s led by a woman called Leanne Wood, who is, being the leader of a major political party in her country, on telly a fair amount. Owen Smith felt a little bit bitter about this, and was recorded sulkily saying she got on Question Time instead of him. Wood rather fairly pointed out that maybe this was to do with party balance, to which Owen Smith replied “I think your gender helps as well.

This is a pretty classic case of sexist sulking. When women get more visible, men feel like the women are only getting these opportunities because of political correctness gorn mad, not because of, say, the kind of merit that got you elected leader of your party. Mediocre men think the sun shines out of their special snowflake bottoms, and do not realise that a lot of the time, there is a better woman there.

I recommend watching the short 30 second video in the link above, and listening to the tone he adopts as he says “I think your gender helps as well”. It oozes bitterness, and he spits the word “gender” as though it tastes bad to him.

“That was called a joke, Susanna”

Apologies for another video, but I find watching a man interact with women is one of the greatest indications of how he feels about women. In Owen Smith’s case, his behaviour appears to communicate disdain and contempt. This short video features Owen on a breakfast TV show recently, being asked if he ever took Viagra while working at Pfizer (let’s be honest, you don’t exactly go into the hard-hitting stuff at 6.30 in the morning). After giving an evasive first answer, the woman host, Susanna Reid suggests a more straightforward answer would have been “no”. Once again, Owen’s mask slips, as his tone goes from attempting to get people to like him, to your bog standard sexist creep. “That was called a joke, Susanna,” he says coldly, then immediately slips back into warmer tones as co-host Piers Morgan takes over in the questioning.

Again, this video is worth a watch, even as the dismissive “it’s a joke” defence, as though women have never heard of the concept of humour, will be painfully familiar to all of us.

The domestic violence reference

Owen Smith reckoned the Coalition government was like an abusive relationship, and decided to articulate this in the most flippantly insensitive way he could: “Surely, the Liberals will file for divorce as soon as the bruises start to show through the make-up?”

At the time, women’s groups called him up on it, and he backed away from his comments. However, he doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson as just this week, he decided to bring out imagery involving violence against women once again.

Smashing Theresa May on her heels

I’ve seen defences of the phrase “smash her back on her heels”, and none of them sufficient. Some say it’s a common turn of phrase, but it sounds like something someone says on Catchphrase just before being told “it’s good, but it’s not quite right”. Apparently it’s so common that a google of it simply brings you Owen Smith’s comments. Here’s the thing: Theresa May is pretty famous for wearing heels (and her choice of footwear is an endless source of fascination for misogynists). Here’s another thing: it’s generally not considered good form to express a desire to “smash” a woman. And here’s one more thing: this wasn’t an off-the-cuff malapropism. This was a phrase in a prepared speech Owen Smith gave. A speech about equality. Evoking images of violence against women.

But don’t worry! Owen has an excuse. It’s just rhetoricIs this the new political “just banter”?

__

I’ll likely add examples to this post as I see them. Also, heed the disclaimer. This really isn’t an invitation for debate.


Theresa May as Prime Minister would be a disaster for women

Content note: this post discusses border violence, benefits violence, rape, violence against women

It is looking remarkably like Theresa May might be the next Prime Minister, elected by the approximately 0.3% of the population that are members of the Tory party. I would have expected widespread terror at this option, but apparently most liberal white feminists simply seem excited that there might be A Lady in power: Suzanne Moore, for example, is excited:

Untitled

The pathetic scope of the media feminism has never been more apparent. Theresa May as PM would be bad news for pretty much every woman in this country, and all that would trickle down from her would be death and despair. Let’s have a little look at some of the terrible things she’s done which are harmful towards women.

Yarl’s Wood

While Theresa May cannot be given full responsibility for having opened the place–that honour goes to Tony Blair–May has certainly done her damndest to keep the place open and silence any news coming out of it. Yarl’s Wood is a detention centre for women, where they are held, usually before they’re deported. That in and of itself is violence against women: innocent women are imprisoned against their will simply for where they were born. However, Yarl’s Wood manages to double up as a hotbed of rape and abuse. Women are sent there to be raped.

Theresa May, rather than dealing with the problem, allowed it, and now chooses to cover it up. She blocked information about the scale of the issue coming to light, because it might damage the commercial interests of the private sector company running this repulsive place.

Humiliating vulnerable LGBT women

Let’s get one thing straight: Theresa May. May has a history of voting in a homophobic direction, such as against repealing Section 28, and against lesbian couples having fertility rights. That’s long in the past, though, and from her position as Home Secretary, she’s developed new ways of attacking LGBT people.

Take, for example, the institutional humiliation of LGBT asylum seekers. One case study here is Aderonke Apata, a lesbian woman from Nigeria who sought asylum in the UK because she faces the death penalty for her activism. Theresa May’s Home Office wanted evidence of Aderonke’s sexual orientation. This included a sex tape of Aderonke with her girlfriend. And even after this humiliating treatment, Theresa May ruled her “not lesbian enough”. Another lesbian woman was ruled “not lesbian enough” for wearing lipstick to court.

Her stance on human rights

Theresa May absolutely fucking hates the Human Rights Act. A lot of this is likely to do with the fact it presents a great big humane obstacle to her deporting whoever the hell she likes, whenever the hell she likes. She’s been a consistent opponent of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights; with her last call to ditch human rights coming just weeks before the referendum.

Sure, she’s reversed her opposition to human rights now she has a sniff of power, but given how consistent and single-minded she’s been in this crusade, can we really trust her?

Repealing the Human Rights Act and/or leaving the European Convention on Human Rights would have devastating consequences, because women are humans. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, the police must act in cases of domestic violence or rape (if the survivor wants that), privacy must be respected–and it protects the human rights of marginalised women. So, forgive me if I’m concerned about the disproportionate impact abolishing human rights might have on women.

Austerity

Speaking of disproportionate impact on women, do you know what’s had an absolutely devastating impact on women? Austerity.

Austerity has had a horrifying impact on women: rape crisis services closing, women being forced to stay with violent partners due to a lack of services and having nowhere to go, limiting family size… the list goes on and on and on and on. It’s widening the general gender equality gap, and, of course, hitting women who have intersecting oppressions even harder.

Every step of the way, Theresa May has voted these violences against women through. May’s hands are soaked in the blood of women.

Do you want to see her position on migrant women rolled out to all women?

In her current position, Theresa May can only abuse migrant women. She can only humiliate migrant women, tear apart their families, and incite violence against them. Having seen her viciousness for six years, I’d like nothing more than to immure her, hide her away where she can harm nobody.

The violences she has already enacted are enough for a thousand lifetimes, and I cannot believe there are those who would seek to give her more power. However, if you’re the kind of white heterosexual middle-class abled woman who has a media platform, you’ll probably be fine. She’ll probably look out for you, while destroying everybody else.


Brexit was an enormous game of Chicken that we all lost.

I hate being right. It’s only been hours since the UK voted, by a very narrow margin to leave the EU, and everything has already gone to shit. In fact, it’s gone so much to shit that I can’t even be particularly happy that the Shinyfaced Pigfucker has finally fucked off.

I am fairly sure that a lot of leave voters did not quite understand what they were voting for. It was sold to them, everything was sold to them, as a bargaining chip. They did not necessarily think that it would actually happen.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
It happened. They shat the bed and now we all have to lie in it.

I am also unsure as to whether there has ever been an exit strategy. David Cameron has performed the political equivalent of dropping an eggy fart in a room and then swanning on out. It will be up to the Brexit faction to pick up the pieces and try to deliver the Garden of Eden that they promised. And they will not be able to do that, because it was not possible, and it never will be possible, and curbing immigration isn’t exactly going to help when the economy has tanked, businesses have ragequit, nobody will trade with the UK, Scotland secedes, university research collapses and on and on and on.

David Cameron’s successor, whichever godawful dingleberry it is, is likely going to find themselves as the least popular Prime Minister ever. Yes, perhaps even less popular than Shinyfaced Pigfucker Who Absolutely Ruined The Country himself. After all, they will be completely unelected, and utterly failing to deliver on any of the lofty snake oil promised before they took us to the polls. Again, I wish I could gloat over this: if it were a TV show, it would certainly be a gripping plot.

I’m not even convinced that Nigel Farage actually wanted to win this referendum. His strength lies in opposing, and now he’s got what he said he wants, he will become obsolete. He has even reversed on a key campaign promise–an extra £350million a week to the NHS–within minutes of the result coming out.  There was no strategy beyond “leave the EU”, and he has nothing to offer now that the decision is made.

What happened in this referendum was a massive game of Chicken. It was posturing, bravado, a game the right thought they could use to make their position stronger. Among the politicians, their victory could only be in apparent defeat. But the thing about playing Chicken is that sometimes you get run over.

It was treated almost like a game among politicians, and perhaps even many voters. Some, like mass killer Iain Duncan Smith, thought it was “fun”.

It was a gamble with devastating consequences.

I wish over the next few days, weeks, months, years, I could take comfort in the downfall of the terrible people who engineered this. I wish I could laugh at the regret on the facts of those who were taken in, looking no further than their own sense of xenophobia. I wish I could take a detached sigh as they have nobody left to blame for the absolute mess, with immigration down and the EU no longer something to point at.

I wish I could watch from a distance as the right wing drown in the slurry they created. But I cannot, because these drowning men will drag us all down.

They played a game, and we all lost.

 


I don’t love the EU, but I’m voting remain out of apathy and spite

I could make sensible appeals based on fact to vote to remain in the EU: that it will likely destroy an economy already circling the drain. I could counter some of the lies being fed to the populace, like the comical assertion that Turkey are joining the EU soon, or that the EU is somehow responsible for destroying the NHS. I could even point to my friends and family, EU citizens in the UK, and UK citizens working in EU countries, and say that I don’t want life to get harder for them.

But honestly, all of this has been said before, over and over. And it’s not like the Remain campaign has done a job that is in any way competent in making either a case against the right wing rhetoric of shower of bastards in the Leave camp, or stirring up any interest in the EU.

And furthermore, I actually don’t care all that much: I veer between antipathy and apathy to the political process, and this is definitely my feeling towards the EU.

And that’s why I’m voting Remain.

The EU isn’t great. It kind of sits there, a mostly-neutral force which doesn’t do much (despite what the Leave lot would have you believe). It’s nice to be able to travel through Europe without having to faff about with passports, and I like that so many of my pals live in various European cities where they can work freely and I can go and visit them. At the end of the day, that’s about the long and short of my own personal feelings towards the EU: lukewarm.

This all-powerful bureaucracy of the EU is pretty much a myth, and one which was largely engineered by Boris Johnson, who, in his own words was given “a weird sense of power” for doing it. I know that the EU doesn’t really do much, and certainly isn’t responsible for the failings of capitalism, and a government driven by violent ideology.

Nonetheless, I like the things that the EU is blamed for. I like that it makes life harder for those who want to implement xenophobic immigration policy. I like that it makes life harder for those who want to turn every job into a Sports Direct-style sweatshop. I like that it makes life harder for those who want to force everyone in a city to breathe polluted air. I like that it makes life harder for those who want to abuse the marginalised.

Basically, the EU makes life a little harder for some horrible people who want to do horrible things. I don’t even know the extent to which it does or does not actually tie them up, but since they’re blaming the EU for all this I’ll give the EU a bit of credit for it.

A vote to leave is essentially a victory for some terrible people with terrible ideas. There is no left Brexit, and almost all of its prominent supporters aren’t singing any more. There is only empowerment for the right–and potential disaster.

We are balanced on a knife edge, and I am thoroughly unconvinced by the right’s repeated assurances that leaving the EU wouldn’t completely tank the economy, which would have devastating consequences for those like me who are precariously employed. What absolutely will happen–because they’ve promised this and banged on and on about it–would be a crackdown on movement of people, and I don’t want to see any victory for those who dehumanise refugees and immigrants alike.

I don’t want horrible people who treat fellow humans like animals to emerge triumphant.

The Remain campaign has failed miserably in its aims, mostly pandering to the right wing rhetoric of the Leave camp and agreeing with them that human beings are a problem to be solved. One of the few exceptions was Jo Cox, and she’s dead now, probably killed for that.

The Remain camp don’t really deserve to win this referendum, having exhibited a willful incompetence of opposing the far right.

And yet, the far right deserve to win less.

And ultimately, that’s why I’m voting Remain. Out of spite. Out of spite to those who would willingly tank the economy and turn their country into a petty, lonely island, simply because they don’t like the fact that sometimes people have brown skin or speak Polish. Out of spite to those who believe human rights to be a problem, rather than an absolutely necessary protection. Out of spite to exploitative bosses and bigots alike.

Fuck them. Vote Remain.


Rape-enablers getting whacked round the head with baseball bats is fine. Sorry not sorry.

Content note: this post discusses rape culture, rape apologism and physical violence

In case you didn’t know, a woman called Tabitha Brubaker is in jail for having taken action against a man who, day after day, for months, stood around holding a sign encouraging rape. You can donate to her legal fees for taking this drastic action, because she should not be punished for this.

Predictably, men who have been conspicuously silent on other men encouraging and enabling rape, have suddenly gone all pacifist and think that hitting people is wrong. 

Well yes. Hitting people is wrong. But do you know what else is wrong? Encouraging rape. Threatening to rape. Enabling rape.

Holding up a sign saying “You deserve rape” is a direct threat to all women. A physical intervention is not just an act of self-defence, but an act to defend all women.

I’d honestly rather we lived in a world where nobody smacked anybody with a baseball bat. Unfortunately, we do not yet live in this world. Rape is a fact of life. It is something that happens to far too many women, and something all other women fear. It is frighteningly common, and so entirely ingrained that men can literally hold placards stating their intention to rape while other men leap to their defence. A man encouraging rape is not even seen as inciting violence, but that is exactly what is happening. Rape is an act of violence, and yet defending oneself against it is the violence that men get their knickers in a twist over.

If you don’t want to see a man threatening rape getting whacked with a baseball bat, there is an incredibly simple solution: stop his violence. Intervene before it gets to that point. Make it so that his threat of violence, his encouragement of rape, is so completely acceptable that he fucks off. Snatch his sign from his hands and shout and scream over him. Involve the auth-

Oh wait. When hate speech happens, the law tends to sit around with its thumb right up its arse. When men make violent threats, the law does not give a tiny little rabbit dropping. Is it any surprise, then, that those affected are having to take matters into their own hands?

The law, completely and utterly disinterested when a man is helping out rapists, suddenly comes to life when a victim of his violences takes defensive action. The law protects rapists at the expense of those who think rape is wrong. This is why it is so imperative that we help this brave woman with her legal fees: the state would sooner help out men who would rape.

None of this needed to happen, if men were anywhere near as offended by rape and rape enablers than they are by one getting hit. There is no moral high ground when we have already been dragged down so low. The only way to prevent rape enablers getting beaten with baseball bats is to prevent rape enablers themselves.

Donate to Tabitha Brubaker’s legal fund.


Shit I cannot believe needs saying: don’t blame women for men being crap at sex.

Content note: this post discusses sex and sex shaming

It’s a fashionable linkbait topic which comes up every now and then, and so I shan’t be actually linking to the latest incarnation of this terrible trope. Here is its title–and yes, that completely adequately reflects the content:

A screenshot of a headline from the Huffington Post, reading: "Here’s What Happens When Women Refuse to Be Masturbation Sleeves" by Jenny Block.

Women who consent to penis-in-vagina sex are “masturbation sleeves”, apparently. Take a moment to consider just how profoundly misogynistic that statement is. “Masturbation sleeve” sounds like something a pickup artist might call a woman. Surely Jenny Block is just saying what men think? Nope. She makes it abundantly clear that she thinks that of women who consent to PiV, and blames them for everyone else having shit sex.

"The language might sound harsh. But the message couldn’t be any more important. Woman have to stop allowing themselves to be penetrated by men who think that putting their penises into a vagina constitutes sex, let alone pleasurable sex for both parties."

Yes. We need to stop “allowing” it. Like a cock in your cunt? Tough titties, that makes you a sex scab. You’re making sex terrible for everyone else.

The reason I’m not linking to the article is it’s a blatant play for clicks, and it’s also cissexist as all hell. Jenny Block does not understand that vagina does not equal woman: again, much like a misogynist.

What follows in Jenny Block’s article is a peculiar mash of a complete failure to understand basic biology.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

What Block describes here is, quite literally, a vaginal orgasm. An orgasm which comes from stimulating the vagina. Yes, it involves the clitoris, but, specifically, the bits of the clitoris which hang out in the vagina. Going unmentioned are the other bits packed up a vagina which are also incredibly fun to poke and prod, such as the vaginal prostate (g-spot). The vaginal prostate and the internal clitoris can only be accessed by stimulating the vagina, and some people with vaginas can orgasm from this type of stimulation alone, because it’s not just an empty tube, but stuffed with bits and bobs which would have had a reproductive function had the in-utero hormone balance been different, and without a purpose purely exist for funsies.

Do you know who thinks vaginas are simply unpleasurable masturbation sleeves? Misogynists.

Block seems to think it’s a lesbian thing, this rejection of any vaginal pleasure. I beg to differ.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Ultimately, it’s absurd to be so prescriptive about sex, and what women should and should not do in the bedroom, because we are all built differently and into different things. For example, this thread, from a friend with syringomyelia, who experiences both hypersensitivity and a lack of sensitivity which can affect sex, explains exactly where Jenny Block is going wrong. Likewise, some people choose to have sex for others’ pleasure:

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

And, of course, sex shouldn’t just be about orgasms, and framing it as being simply a matter of chasing the orgasm, like Jenny Block does, does no good for people who cannot orgasms, do not orgasm, and enjoy sex nonetheless. Sex is about a lot more than orgasms: it can be about intimacy, about scratching an itch, about working yourself until you’re exhausted. The orgasm is nice, but not essential.

Does Jenny Block think I should stop eating pussy, for example? After all, my mouth contains fewer nerve endings than a clitoris, and I’m not going to orgasm from it. Exactly what sex does Jenny Block recommend, from which everyone can orgasm at once, but nothing goes into a vagina? I can think of maybe three things: 69s, circlejerking and scissoring–none of which I’d really include on my desert island sex list (the first two, I find throw me off my game in both giving and receiving pleasure; the latter I find comically awkward and distinctly Not For Me). So, no thanks, Jenny. I’ll stick with what works for me.

Ultimately, what works for some people in the bedroom doesn’t work for others, and it does nobody any good to stick with the positively medieval notion that the vagina is some empty vessel that is incapable of pleasure. I know for a fact that my own vagina is capable of producing an orgasm with the right stimulation, and that these orgasms are qualitatively different from external clitoral stimulation alone–and I also know that I’m not the only person with a pussy who feels this.

There is no right or wrong way to have sex as long as everyone involved is consenting, and being prescriptive about it does nobody any favours.

Yes, there is undeniably a problem among cis men that too many of them seem to believe a cock in a cunt is enough for pleasure (or the many who don’t even care at all about their partner’s pleasure). However, this is not the fault of those who consent to penis-in-vagina sex: it’s the fault of men being shit at sex, and nobody telling them otherwise. Blaming women for this, as Jenny Block does, gives men a pass. It exacerbates the problem. It does nothing to teach men that every woman they have sex with is going to enjoy different things, and they must learn what’s good for their partner if they are to be passable lovers.

And this goes for everyone–including Jenny Block herself.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31,291 other followers