Headless and scapegoated
Posted: 31 December 2011 Filed under: beauty fascism 1 CommentOur government’s MO becomes more obvious all the time: transfer ever-more wealth from the poor to the wealthy, dismantle the welfare state, look after the interests of wealthy campaign donors, including bankers and far-right Christian groups, and pander to every ugly stereotype in existence in order to get the 99% to blame austerity measures on each-other rather than on the elites who are truly responsible.
This is why we have punitive changes to the benefit system coupled with endless rhetoric about “scroungers” and “benefit cheats”. The cuts to benefits will save an insignificant amount of money (and will cost more than they save in the long term), but saving money isn’t the point: the point is to set the 99% against each-other; people who see their lives becoming more difficult as a result of cuts to the NHS, benefits, and education, are encouraged to blame not the government and bankers who caused this mess, but the supposed “scroungers”. This is why the government encourages us to report our neighbours to the police as “benefit cheats, and disabled people say that hate crime against them has increased as a result. This is why government rhetoric about “broken Britain” and the importance of (heterosexual) marriage not-very-subtly blames single mothers for society’s ills, and why David Cameron privileges Christianity above other religions in a bid to promote racism and Islamophobia.
Facebook Link Roundup: 21-Dec-2011
Posted: 21 December 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentFeminist Action Cambridge also has a facebook group here, which people use to post feminist links and have discussions. Not everybody uses Facebook, so here’s a roundup of the latest links, along with some (anonymised) comments on them for context.
The very last item is a roundup of responses to Cambridge police’s Christmas victim-blaming. As it includes some responses in quotes, it’s behind a “Read More” link – just click through to read them. Opportunities for activism here if you’d like to add your responses to the existing ones on Twitter!
- I Am So Not Sorry About My Vagina, And Other Apologies We Should Retract
- Is this really what a model–or any woman–should look like?
I think it’s sad when articles like this dehumanise the women who are skinny and have that frame naturally. They aren’t emaciated skeletons or unreal, they are our sisters.
I think the thing that frightens me isn’t the person, or the body shape, but the social forces which cause that person to be chosen over other people, and the pressure others will feel because of the choice that was made. I don’t think Brashich’s body is what’s at fault here. But that horrible language keeps slipping in to these conversations. Her body isn’t our property to comment on.
I think it makes sense to criticise the image and not the model. The model herself probably doesn’t look like that 99% of the time, and she probably had no control over how she was photographed. But I do strongly object to that image, and the hundreds of similar images we see every day. The image treats women’s bodies as commodities, while enforcing a strict beauty standard for women: white, very young, very thin, and very passive. How sick is that?
The narrow margins of fashion and what is seen as desirable is ‘sick’ as you put it but that woman exists and she probably receives a lot of hatred daily for the way she looks. Her body type is a valid and beautiful one, we just can’t let it be the only kind we see in the media. Not really disagreeing but yeah, dismantle the institutions, not the people caught in them.
Yeah, I think we’re both saying that no-one deserves to receive hatred for the way they look.
Gross beyond belief – I can’t believe someone actually sat down and came up with this ad…
Toward a “Dental Hygiene Model” of social justice conversations (and also, of every other kind of conversation)
Posted: 20 December 2011 Filed under: feminism, relationships Leave a comment“When you believe that you must be perfect in order to be good, it makes you averse to recognizing your own inevitable imperfections, and that lets them stagnate and grow.” – Jay Smooth
This is possibly the laziest blog post ever, because it mostly brings together some ideas from other blog posts and video presentations. I’m going to start by riffing off Brene Brown’s TED presentation: The Power of Vulnerability.
Brown, a sociology researcher, says that what gives meaning to our lives is a sense of connection to others. What prevents us from forming connections is shame; shame is fundamentally the feeling of being unworthy of connection. She found that people who do feel connected are willing to be vulnerable, to take risks, and to accept their own imperfections. They accept that they are imperfect and nevertheless feel compassion for themselves – and it turns out that those who don’t feel compassion for themselves, also have difficulty feeling compassion for others. Perfectionism, the need to feel that you never do anything wrong, gets in the way of vulnerability and compassion. I’m not summarizing it very well but it’s a really entertaining presentation, go watch it!
Gail Dines Lectures on Pornography: Video Links
Posted: 12 December 2011 Filed under: pornography, violence against women and girls 1 Commenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yiiY1nV2aU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUUlC333iLI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFXbC1RLRUM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHqbzO7lhMw&feature=related
Facebook Link Roundup: 10-Dec-2011
Posted: 10 December 2011 Filed under: Uncategorized Leave a commentFeminist Action Cambridge also has a facebook group here, which people use to post feminist links and have discussions. Not everybody uses Facebook, so here’s a roundup of the latest links!
- Taking Back Feminism — A Manifesto
- Patriarchy Makes Us Mad! (Why one in four women is on psych meds)
- Ryanair: stop selling your staff
- Nadine Dorries’ ‘abstinence for girls’ Bill – what you can do
- UK Feminista is currently recruiting for two positions
- How can the Conservatives win back women’s support?
- The Most Ridiculous Response To Reporting A Crime Ever
- The racism of tram woman is only the tip of the iceberg
- Occupy Wall Street’s women struggle to make their voices heard
- Moral panic? No. We are resisting the pornification of women
- English riots: sentence severity for young offenders worries prosecutors
- Quotations: Feminism
- Move over, Elle: Karlie Kloss is hailed the new ‘Body’ as she poses nude for Vogue
- Why is British public life dominated by men?
- H&M Puts Real Model Heads On Fake Bodies
- My body, my rules: a case for rape and domestic violence survivors becoming workplace organizers
- Are sex offenders and lads’ mags using the same language?
- Feminism and Advertising: Killing Us Softly 4
Domestic Violence: Another woman and child murdered
Posted: 9 December 2011 Filed under: domestic violence, sexual violence, violence against women and girls 2 CommentsTrigger warning: domestic violence
Samantha and Genevieve Day died yesterday.
Genevieve was 7 years old. Her mother Samantha was 38, and was a nursery worker at Swallowdale Primary School. They lived in Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire. Samantha’s other two children, 15-year-old Kim and 13-year-old Adam, are in hospital with stab wounds. They are also now orphans, because after their father Toby had murdered his wife and youngest child he committed suicide.
There is an epidemic of domestic violence in this country and in every single country in the world. Internationally, one billion women have been raped, abused or beaten. In the UK, 2 women are killed every week by a current or former partner. Patriarchy is killing us. It’s killing our sisters, our daughters, our friends. How many more women and children are going to die before society takes this seriously? How many more children are going to be left without their mothers? How many more abusers are going to be let out on bail so that they can kill their former partners?
Samantha Day has been silenced twice. First by her husband. And now, less than 24 hours after her and her daughter’s death, by the patriarchy-controlled media. They are not naming these murders as domestic violence. They are not talking about two victims and one perpetrator. Male journalists instinctively empathise with the male murderer. They feel sorry for him because he’d just lost his job and was “depressed”. They quote his friend on what a “great character” he was. They talk about the bravery awards he won as a police officer. They even get the headline wrong: the story here is not “Former Rutland police officer, his wife and daughter die in tragic incident in Melton”, these 3 people did not die together as a family in some freak hurricane. In all these articles, Samantha and Genevieve barely get a mention – it’s all about him, his personality, his life, his possible motives. In death as in life, they like all women and girls are mere extensions of him, a wife and a daughter who exist only in relation to the man who owns and controls them.
Enough. We’ve had enough of male violence, enough of rape, enough of beating and burning and humiliation and silencing and killing. We know that things can be different, that the world we dream of where there is no violence or inequality or fear can be real and we can make it real. We need to demand changes in the law. We need to promise to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls. We need to speak out for all the women who have been silenced, either by shame and stigma or silenced by murder at the hands of their own partners as Samantha Day was yesterday.
For domestic violence support, contact your local Women’s Aid or Refuge.
The Militants
Posted: 6 December 2011 Filed under: Militancy, War, Women's Army 4 CommentsFeminism has been called the peaceful revolution, because it has been able to make huge social changes in the west without using violence against individuals: riots, beatings and bombings etc. But is this reluctance to use violence, or more militant aggressive tactics holding us back from further progress? Does it mean that feminism isn’t taken seriously by men as a political movement because its not threatening enough? Although some women might join in with male-lead movements, including riots and violent protests, its pretty much inconceivable to imagine an all-woman riot in which hundreds or thousands of masked women take to the streets to smash shit up, spit at the police and throw homemade Molotov cocktails at cars for The Cause.
The Suffragettes can be split [or should i say patriarchy wants to split them] into two factions- those who used peaceful methods like protests and petitions and worked together democratically, and those headed by Emmeline Pankhurst who used aggressive tactics. They smashed shop windows, torched postboxes and abandoned buildings, broke into private property, grafittied, and cut telegraph lines. They also worked in a hierarchy- like and army. Emmeline Pankhurst demanded total loyalty to the cause and she was nicknamed ‘the General’ by her followers. In her famous speech ‘Freedom or Death’ in 1913 she says ‘I am here as a soldier who has temporarily left the field of battle in order to explain … what civil war is like when civil war is waged by women’.
Just before the outbreak of World War I the campaign for the vote had been going for almost 100 years in Britain and The Suffragettes were becoming increasingly desperate. They had been using explosives as suitcase bombs to blow up empty buildings and it’s my impression they were coming close to real violent action i.e. attacking others, rather than attacking property, but had not crossed that line yet. Without a say in the democratic process this became the only option. These actions are never lauded as the justifiable and courageous acts of freedom fighters, but undermined even now in literature about The Suffragettes as ‘a step too far’ or ‘a hysterical overreaction’.
Do we refuse on principle to use violence because it is so routinely used against us by men? Because we know that a violent retaliation from men is promised everywhere we step out of line? Or are we too afraid to take militant action because of the feminine conditioning we receive: submissiveness, ladylikeness, to be kind and nurturing and to never show anger or aggression? Feminist women are often told that if we just toned it down, used less strident language or behaved more reasonably [i.e. demurely/deferentially] then our ideas would be comprehended and progress would be made. Or, to translate out of patriarchy-speak: ‘if you plead and cajole in a way that is sufficiently feminine we might MIGHT consider giving you that individual thing you want on this one occasion, but first you must demonstrate your commitment to the idea of our superiority and your inferiority by being pleasing to us’.
Could there ever be a justification for feminism having a paramilitary wing? For example, by forming a Women’s Army for our collective defence, whose job is to harm- by literal attack- those systems/governments/organisations and people that oppress/exploit/degrade us? No revolutionary movement related to class oppression- the French/Russian/American Revolutions for example, has had to justify using these methods. And no movement to do with racial oppression- Anti-apartheid in South Africa or Civil Rights in the US, has had to either. There was regrettable violence that was ultimately necessary for wider human freedom and rights, is the tagline of these movements. If women become militarised as a group for the women’s movement [currently unacceptable] instead of being armed individually as part of a state army [currently acceptable in small numbers in some places], will there be such a thing as feminist extremism? Or is it necessary for our full freedom that we have a body of women who will literally police men’s violence towards us where they will not police themselves?
Andrea Dworkin said that for women, the concept of non-violence has to begin with the refusal to be violated, because male notions of non-violence or pacifism never condemned systemic violence against women. In the over-culture it is considered over-aggressive for women to even defend themselves from violence on an individual level. It is called militant to even suggest in writing that women could fight back. To come together and use force as a group is culturally barred for us.
The blogger Nine Deuce has an interesting collection of writings about the war on terror, in which she redefines the American Constitution as belonging to/including women, states that Patriarchy is therefore terrorism against the women-people of America, and declares a real War On Terror: http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/05/19/war-on-terrr-begins-graphics-at-11/ http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/05/19/the-war-on-terrr-part-1-shut-up-asshole/ http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/05/20/the-war-on-terrr-part-2-shes-such-a-slut/
You must be logged in to post a comment.