Anthony Loewenstein line-by-line

Priorities trolling is a special kind of trolling. "Stop moaning about the pay gap, women in Saudi Arabia aren't allowed to vote". I know. The problems are actually related. I can care about more than one issue at a time. What do these dickheads do at weekends? "Is that the Cats Protection League? What about dogs!!!?", "Is that The Asthma Society? You know some people have Motor Neurone Disease."

For the record if I complain about Saudi Arabian women's rights I am called a racist and told that "things are hardly perfect here, shouldn't you focus on that first?".

Well apparently feminists - we're all doing it wrong (again). The wrong kind of feminism is helping the wrong people. 'Feminism lite' is letting down the women who need it the most says Anthony Loewenstein. Here's why he's wrong. In excruciating detail.

"Men are afraid to talk about feminism. If that sounds melodramatic, I’d ask you to count the number of articles written by male writers tackling the big and small issues around gender and women’s equality. You’ll be hard pressed to find a strong selection."

(1) To make this case you'd need to show me all the men who WANTED to write about feminism and were deterred. Maybe men, not women, are to blame for men not writing about feminism.

(2) The title suggests that this piece is going to be about how feminism needs to focus more on helping women in really tough situations. Now you think we all have to change our behaviour to help make male writers feel better about themselves?

"This is not acceptable. Men have a stake in gender equality, from promoting fair pay and no-fault divorce laws, all the way to stopping honour killings and sexual violence."

Yes poor men affected by a gender pay gap IN THEIR FAVOUR and honour killings OF WOMEN.

"We are boyfriends, husbands, fathers or friends, and yet too many of us shy away from these sensitive matters, fearing opprobrium."

Well yeah - if you write stupid things, you might get called out on it. That's free speech dude. Rather different from the rape threats I get on a regular basis I'd say.

"Too often, men worry they’ll be attacked by women for questioning a consensus position on feminist issues."

So you should be allowed to challenge "consensus positions" on feminism and women shouldn't be allowed to respond? You're no longer writing about feminism dude - you're just sitting on a massive great steaming pile of privilege muttering "must ask my butler to order more privilege".

"When Australian prime minister Julia Gillard was in power, a common refrain on the left was that she faced appalling attacks on her appearance and marital status."

"A common refrain" must be another term for "an actual fact".

"Her famous misogyny speech prompted headlines around the world after she accused her opponent, Tony Abbott, of sexism."

Yes sexism, That's what the whole feminism thing is about. Welcome to the party.

"There is no doubt that Gillard faced obstacles that men rarely have to contemplate, and that many of her ugliest critics have never accepted her legitimacy. Writer Anne Summers uncovered a litany of “vilification and denigration” against Gillard that went well beyond opposing the Labor leader’s policies. Many women applauded Gillard because they knew the daily realities of men ignoring, shaming or humiliating them at home, or at work."

So perhaps women around the world who have experienced similar prejudice and abuse felt pleased that she had called it out.

"And yet, during this entire period I found the debate depressingly staid."

What debate? The debate about whether sexism is ok? That's not a debate.

"The forums available to discuss these issues were limited, leaving (mostly female) feminists to defend Gillard from the trolls who mocked her ideas, clothes and hair." 

Perhaps you could send us the list of pitches you made to papers and journals asking for the opportunity to highlight the sexism she had experienced? Who stopped you adding your voice to this issue?

"My argument here isn’t that men should have been central in the debate – our role as privileged players in society has lasted far too long – but that mainstream feminism seemed only to feel aggrieved, and little else."

What the fuck else are we supposed to feel about RAMPANT SEXISM? Quizzical? Bemused? Aroused?

"But here’s the catch: Gillard ran a government that routinely enacted policies that harmed women, including placing asylum seekers in privatised immigration detention, backing warlords in Afghanistan’s Oruzgan province, supporting the Israeli occupation of Palestine, cutting benefits for single mothers and opposing gay marriage."

And that doesn't make it ok for her to be criticised for her appearance.

More importantly - if you care so much about these issues - why don't YOU write about them? Instead of telling feminists what they should be writing about.

It seems like you live in this fantasy world where feminists are all paid a fortune to "sort out" gender inequality whatever way we think best and we have a big feminism staff meeting every morning to decide how to spend the money. That's not how it works. Lots of people write about trolling because they have experienced it. If we didn't get trolled so much we might have the personal resources to write more about other issues.

And it comes down to what will the media publish. In my experience as a woman it is really hard to sell articles that aren't related to a personal experience I've had. Men are much more easily accepted as "experts" on varied subjects. For instance you managed to sell this piece even though you clearly haven't even thought it through.

"There are countless other examples, yet they remained mostly dismissed by the same women (and men) who lavished support on Gillard for her “feminist ideals”."

Who has been dismissing these issues? The mainstream media. Which is not run by feminists. Far from it. At last weekend's Feminism In London conference I never heard Gillard's name mentioned - I did see a workshop on Turkish women's rights, a panel on issues around motherhood and panels on things like the harms of prostitution and women in the mental health system. I didn't see you there Anthony.

"The love-fest continued in September last year when Summers interviewed Gillard in an Oprah-style format, with sell-out crowds lapping it up. This was, unquestioningly, a moment of public catharsis. Of course, there is nothing wrong with praising Australia’s first female prime minister for her achievements – but at least be honest, and admit that a few principled speeches on her part don’t compensate for years of abandoning the very gender you claimed to be helping."

Can you hear yourself? "Australia's first female prime minister". Can you not imagine for a second why that might be important to Australian women? But yes the mainstream media very rarely challenge the political establishment on these sorts of issues. Why is it feminism's job to change that? Why not yours?

"In many of my books, female voices challenge a corrupt and militarised capitalist system, and it’s these characters that inspire me."

Characters? So you invent women and then say you're inspired by them? Does your imaginary girlfriend have a well-developed sense of irony? She's going to need it.

"We rarely hear from those women in the west, and if we do they are buried under the din of articles about face-lifts and marrying George Clooney (a great recipe for click-baiting)."

Feminists have repeatedly complained about and campaigned against the over-coverage of those issues in the media. Why don't you add your voices to their rather then attacking them for "not campaigning hard enough".

"I believe that’s part of the reason why female anti-feminism is growing, especially as issues many women see as tangential gain disproportionate online prominence."

Where's your science to back up "female anti-feminism is growing"? The only thing I see growing in male anti-feminism - yours.

"In Unspeakable Things, British writer Laurie Penny argues: The feminism that sells is the sort of feminism that can appeal to almost everybody while challenging nobody, feminism that soothes, that speaks for and to the middle class, aspirational feminism that speaks of shoes and shopping and sugar-free snacks and does not talk about poor women, queer women, ugly women, transsexual women, sex workers, single parents, or anybody else who fails to fit the mould."

Yes the media generally picks up on the least challenging aspects of feminism. It's almost like they're not run by feminists.

"This perfectly describes many western women who have become media spokespeople for their gender, appearing on TV with predictable lines."

Who? Who are you talking about? What predictable lines?

"These are the same self-described feminists now salivating over the possible US presidency of Hillary Clinton, despite her record as a pro-war Democrat who believes in endless war. Yes, some feminist hero."

I don't know who you mean. But yes a female president of the US would be a big deal actually. I didn't think you actually had to have a vagina to get this but I'm starting to think you do.

"In hindsight, there’s no solid reason why I couldn’t have written this article years ago, but I’ve hesitated to do so."

So you've been held back by "no solid reason"? FEMINISTS STOP!! Hold off on ending FGM. Let rape culture run a bit longer. Poor Anthony needs time to tie his shoelaces before he gets back on with attacking us.

"I’ve worried that I would be slammed for my white, male position and dismissed as ignorant of the real problems faced by women today."

Have a cookie.

"It’s an odd concern, because I don’t worry about extreme Zionists challenging me when I call them out on their racism (and I do receive plenty of vicious attacks whenever I write about it)."

Mmmm - comparing feminists to Zionists... Ho hum, makes a change from Hitler.

"The bottom line is that writing about feminism when male is like gatecrashing a party – and I’m concerned I’ll be slammed for daring to arrive without an invitation. But the responsibility to advocate for half the population falls of everyone’s shoulders, not just women."

Advocating for half the population - great - go ahead. Telling us all we're doing it wrong while we're fighting for our own rights AND at the same time telling us that we need to prioritise attending to a vague intangible feeling of discomfort you're experiencing - consider yourself slammed you whiny waste of space. How can I put this clearly? YOU'RE NOT HELPING.

"To do it meaningfully, however, we need to focus on the issues that truly need our help the most urgently: benefits taken away from single mums; sexual violence which affects all women, but especially already vulnerable ones; endemic racism which leads to parents of colour scared to have their child shot by police forces; lack of unionising or legislation which leaves women without working rights worldwide; the right not subject to rape threats and abuse, online and offline; equal pay for equal work."

But if we talk about online abuse (like Gillard's) we're missing the point? Feminists I know are campaigning on all these issues. If you think more needs doing, good, I agree, now here's an idea: do it.

"Ultimately, I realise I’ve been been too cautious for too long, not daring to add my voice to the debate. I agree with The Atlantic’s Noah Berlatsky who states that although misogyny predominantly affects women, “it’s important for men to acknowledge that as long as women aren’t free, men won’t be either.”"

If you're only interested in helping women achieve equality because of what you, as a man, can gain from it, you're not a feminist, you're a self-interested shit.

"But to win this battle, we have to remember that the debates about celebrity red carpet dresses and celeb-feminism are designed to distract us. This is feminism lite, and is little more than white noise. Gender equality will only be achieved by hard work and uncomfortable questions."

No it's not "feminism lite" it's not feminism. Feminism is not about celebrity dresses. It's about women. Always has been. And yes gender equality (MY equality) will only be achieved through hard work but how exactly is it therefore my job to do that work. Is it not the job of sexists to STOP BEING SEXIST? Why should it be left to the victims of inequality to end inequality. The whole point of inequality is that we have less resources with which to do so.

So thanks for your input on the five hundred subjects that feminism ought to be doing more about Anthony but my schedule's actually pretty full right now. To be honest I could do without the extra work of telling you where to stick your patronising anti-feminist bullshit.

And breath.

Anna Soubry: Feminist Icon. Line-by-line.

Arggh!! Sometimes I think the Tories have an evil masterplan to disenfranchise women. Slashing benefits for carers and single parents, destroying public sector jobs, etc, etc. Then I realise their plan goes even further than that. They're actively trying to break down the credibility of women in the public eye by appointing the most stupid ones they can find to the highest offices they can spare.  Witness Anna Soubry. Weep.


"I've noticed that every public health minister has been a woman"

Great observation. Have you noticed anything else? Like your government auctioning off our healthcare service to the highest bidder? Mega corporations force-feeding junk food to children? An obesity crisis?

"and it's been seen as the soft, girly option."

I'm sure some people out there think jobs done by women are easy. That's probably because they (a) don't do those jobs and (b) are misogynist tossers. Don't let them influence your use of language here.

"It's bloody well not, it's one of the most important jobs."

Indeed it is, so you might want to think about doing it well.

"To be quite frank, when the PM said to me: 'I want you to do public health,' I thought: 'Oh boss, I respect you so much, but I'm the only woman here and I get public health – I hope there's no connection there.'"

You were the only woman at the meeting and you suspected the person who called the meeting might be behaving in a sexist way?  No shit sherlock. Amazed he didn't pat you on the bum and ask for two sugars.

"Maybe I can make people realise that this is not a soft bloody girly option, it is a big serious job."

Girly does not mean easy.

"I'm a huge fan of our prime minister … but I did sit there in the cabinet room and think: 'Boss, you do know what you've just done? You've given public health to the girl again"

Who is this "girl"? I want my government run by sensible adults though frankly I can think of some toddlers who could do better than this lot.

"except I'm not a girl, I'm a tough old bird.'"

I'm a tough old bird who loves to use sexist language to describe myself. What is wrong with "woman"? I never hear David Cameron describe himself as a "boy" or a "tough old cock".

"I came into politics to fight lefties …"

Were you drunk when you gave this speech? You came into politics to "fight lefties"? Not to make people's lives better or to serve the nation...? No, fighting them goddarn rootin tootin leftie scum. And which ones? Us lefties are constantly falling out over stuff, when we're not too busy growing organic veg and being gay.

"That's where political fighting goes. The Tory party must learn from its own history that when we fight each other, you can guarantee to lose."

And also win. Confucianism 1.0.

If you want to do something useful Anna - how about signing up to the Leave Our Kids Alone campaign? I think it's brilliant. And it would definitely be a positive for public health.

New Statesman piece about me and other blogstresses.

I'm featured in a piece in the New Statesman today about internet abuse. You can read it here.

Paleontologists Discover Evidence of Catherine Hakim's Evolutionary Line

Text by me, artwork: Tristan Rogers.

Fresh Outlooks

So the article I was interviewed for has been published here.

Bella The Welder

If you have nine minutes to spare this evening I guarantee this is more moving and interesting than whatever's on TV...

Why Am I Angry?

Last night's BBC4 documentary about the rise of modern feminism (in which I featured several times) was annoying for a number of reasons (but also excellent in other ways and definitely worth watching, which you can do here and at several points later this week on BBC TV).

One thing that I didn't like was how they kept asking the feminists they interviewed why they were so angry. As though feminism were a mental disorder. If I look at things like the 6% conviction rate for rape, the 20-30% pay gap, the pension and poverty gap, the 25% of British women who experience domestic violence in their lifetime I think how can anyone be calm? And think about this - the UK government doesn't recognise risk of female genital mutilation as a valid reason to offer asylum to women entering the UK so your tax money is actually being spent tracking girls down, imprisoning them and then forcing them on to planes to return send them to a place where they will be subjected to FGM. That's YOUR MONEY sending girls to have their CLITORISES CUT OFF. Why aren't you angry (director Vanessa Engle)? What is wrong with you?

And the notion that women "shouldn't" get angry about things is in itself sexist. When Jose Mourinho is on the sidelines of a football pitch screaming and swearing at the referee no-one asks why he's so angry. The conversation in the commentary box is usually about whether or not a penalty was the right decision. And football is a game, supposedly played for fun.

I should be angry about women's rights. You should be angry about women's rights. Vanessa Engle should be angry about women's rights. In fact I think Jose Mourhino should be angry about women's rights. A lot more than he is about some stupid penalty.

Tory Politics

I'm quoted in an article about Tory plans to "de-incentivise" (i.e. rip off) single and teenage mothers leaving them without the benefits they need to raise their children. Apparently this will make our country a better place...? You can read the full article here.

Although the quotes from me are totally accurate and I have no problem with them or the way they are expressed - I did actually say a lot more than that to the journalist and (of course) she has chosen the bits that fit the feel of her article rather than quoting me in full. Still for the benefit of Cru-blog readers: here is the full interview I gave:

(The journalist asked) There was an article in the Daily Mail recently by Quentin Letts entitled: "The First Ladette: How Germaine Greer's legacy is an entire generation of loose-knickered lady louts". Would be great to get a response from you on your thoughts on equating feminism with a)rising violence towards women, b)rising teenage pregnancies c) women getting drunk and 'immodest'.

Also would you be able to comment on the Tory policy towards women and the family - more specifically de-incentivising teenage pregnancies and single parent families by taking away social support?

(And I responded) I was appalled by the Daily Mail article, it seemed to be totally missing the point. To blame feminism for rising violence against women makes no sense to me. Women have rights and if men's reaction to women exercising those rights is to respond violently then it is men who are in the wrong and those men responsible should have their rights taken away (by being imprisoned).

Teenage pregnancies are not a new phenomenon. In fact they have been around forever. The difference over the last fifty years the big change is that we can talk about these things - rather than keeping secrets. My grandmother found out on her wedding day that her aunt who she believed had raised her after her real mother died was actually her mother. The ramifications were traumatic for everyone involved. Every family in Britain has one of these skeletons in the closet if you dig hard enough. If the sexual revolution means we can now talk about the fact that many teenagers have sex then great - that means we can also talk to them about contraception, sexual health and issues surrounding pregnancy choices and then support them when they choose to keep and raise their children without adding an extra burden of shame to their worries.

Finally the notion of women being drunk and "immodest". Well I feel that if women want to get drunk then that's their choice and we should respect it. Women still drink considerably less than men and drunk men are responsible for much greater amount of crime and disorder than drunk women. So if we think society has a problem with alcohol abuse then we should start by cracking down on men. And the term "immodest" - well - by traditional Islamic standards what you are wearing right now (and since we're talking by email I can't even see what you're wearing) is definitely "immodest". But really "immodest" in this context probably means "in a way that stands out and is conspicuous" and if young women choose to stand out and be conspicuous then I am thrilled about that and support them fully.

I don't see Tory policies on removing benefits for single mothers and teenage mothers as "di-incentivising". I see these policies as purely punishing women for having sex. What would benefit single and teenage mothers is support to help them raise their children well. Of course we should also be chasing up absent fathers who fail to contribute financially to their children's well-being. Also addressing inequality in the workplace both in terms of the pay gap (we need gender pay, promotion and recruitment audits) and in terms of companies who fail to offer flexible working to carers and who discriminate against pregnant employees would make a big difference.

Overall I guess I am just horrifed at the notion that giving women rights can be seen as taking something away from women. I may have made some bad choices in my life which I regret, but I don't regret that I had the choice to make my own mistakes.

You Lucky London Feminists!

Lots of you will I know already be coming to the Feminism In London conference on 10th October. If not then head over here pronto to find out more and reserve your place.

After the conference (and you don't have to go to the conference to come along) we are holding a fabulous feminist fun-packed cabaret show. It's downstairs at The Comedy Pub on Oxenden Street (between Piccadilly Circus and Leicester Square - SW1Y 4EE), doors open at 8pm and show at half eight, though you can arrive before that and buy tickets if there are any left have a drink in the main bar any time.

The line-up is still being tweaked but I have confirmed appearances from Eve Webster (the impressionist who shredded Ann Widdicombe at the recent Abortion Rights fundraiser) and fabulous headliners Chambers and Nettleton (pictured above).

[Update: added to the line-up: the British Bette Midler... Abi Roberts!]

[Update number two: also added to the line-up: amazing magician Katherine Rhodes!]

Tickets are £10 full price and £5 concessions. I'm not going to make any rule on who is and isn't a concession so if you can afford it, it is a fundraiser, please buy the full priced ticket but if money's an issue get a concession one and don't miss out on the fun.

Other info: The pub is over-18s only (sorry) and the venue is down a single flight of stairs. We will do whatever we can to help with accessibility so give me a shout if you need advice on that. Show will finish about 11pm and afterwards there'll be a DJ (over whom I have no control but it's usually cheery and dancy) and the venue will open up to the public until 2am.

You can buy tickets using the button below.

Full/Concessions

Full Price £10.00Concession £5.00

(Oh and by the way once you pay it will tell you to contact David at Soho Comedy Club for your ticket, but this is not necessary, I will just have a list including your name and email address on the door).

Feminism, Still Relevant 217 Years Later

Re-posted from the F-Word where I am guest-blogging for a few weeks.

The Independent has a rather poorly thought-out piece about how hip reading left-wing books is this season...? I guess since the realms of history is the only place you see any real socialism any more. One thing that annoyed me though was their dismissive remark about Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. They say "Her central argument that women are as capable of reasoning as men, and have the same right to be educated is not controversial any more".

Now this riles me no end because not a week goes by that some idiot at a comedy club decides fourteen pints is about the right level of inebriation he needs to stumble over and treat me to a fifteen minute discourse on why women just aren't funny. On a good night he's just the member of the audience who loudly left announcing "It's a bird, good time to go to the bar" as I walked onstage. On a bad night, he's the promoter. Either way it feels to me as though that's my powers of reasoning being called into question on the basis of my gender.

Meanwhile in other news a Saudi Arabian Judge has just said women are partly to blame for domestic violence if they are rude to their husbands or frivolous when shopping for a full-length black abaya (which they are obliged to wear at all times under the draconian Saudi laws).

Maybe someone should mention to Andy McSmith, author of the piece in The Independent, that the battle for the vindication of the rights of women isn't actually over yet. In some places it has hardly begun.

Feminism In London '09

Yes the conference is back again this year and already there is quite a line-up of speakers planned, including one Ms Kate Smurthwaite... I hosted the conference last year and they have asked me to come and do it again. Save the date 10th Oct.

Review: Jessica Valenti: Studs and Sluts and Virgins and Myths

Jessica Valenti, in an effort to make us all feel like we should get up earlier, has not one but two new books out. Both are released in the UK on May 7th (tomorrow).

He's a Stud, She's a Slut (And 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know) looks like one of those rather meaningless "gift books" that you buy for friends when you can't think of anything else they'd like or you've only just remembered that it's birthday drinks you're heading to when you get to the train station with two minutes to spare.

But we know Valenti better than to expect anything so simple. The "fluff" appearance of the book, no doubt soon to be appearing on every thinking woman's toilet shelf, is part of it's brilliance. You really could give it as a fun little inexpensive (£7.99 in the UK) gift to someone who'd never thought about women's rights before. Inside, chopped into sassy bite-sized chunks Valenti presents an overwhelmingly compelling case for the existence of a double standard for women in every branch of society.

The focus is on both the media and public attitudes, as she dissects why women politicians are so over-scrutinised for their appearance and why praise is heaped on men who make the slightest effort to involve themselves in the lives of their children while mothers doing the same are at best taken for granted and at worst left out of a job. The tone is witty and sassy and it comes with lashings of true stories from Valenti's own life from the toys she had as a child to her early relationships and recent media appearances.

The one place where the sass starts to grate for me is in the So... What To Do? sections which follow each mini-chapter. On the one hand I think it's admirable to offer practical suggestions for tackling sexism, on the other hand these become repetitive because what is there to do about sexist stereotyping and discriminatory media coverage? Make a point when you hear someone use it, write to your local paper and if you want to then do the things that society is telling you you're not supposed to. And I'm never one for advising people to shut up and ignore prejudice but if you really called out every time you heard one of the double standards in this book, you'd never get past the end of your road in the mornings!

Still for the uninitiated in matters of women's equality, this easy-to-read entertaining little book will serve as an eye-opener on the inherent injustice of attitudes we have all been brought up with and often ourselves accept unquestioningly. For the long term women's rights supporter of course the fun of the book is very different. Instinctively you find yourself trying to come up with more examples of double standards to add to Valenti's fifty. Here's the best three I could think of:

1) He's had unlucky with women, she goes for "bad guys". Have you heard this? A guy dates a string of women who dump him or stand him up and the reaction is "Women eh?", a woman gets beaten up by one guy, robbed by the next and emotionally abused by the third and the conclusion is "Why does she always go for bad guys?".

2) He's fit and healthy, she should go for regular tests. I'm not knocking a regular visit to the doctors for a check-up if you want to. However there does seem to be a whole pink-coloured industry devoted to letting women know that our bodies are weak and frail and liable to let us down at any moment. Of course there's no denying that it is us women getting the lion's share of the breast cancer and the cervical cancer and other specific womb-related issues. What seems to have been forgotten though is: women live considerably longer than men. Whatever it is that's killing us is doing it later, slower and less often than it does for you guys. There's nothing wrong with Ronan Keating releasing a fund-raising record in aid of breast cancer research in his mother's name but where is the female starlet belting out a teary ballad for sufferers of prostate cancer?

3) He's a lawyer, she's a female lawyer. Seems like certain jobs (good, well-paid jobs) belong to men so very specifically that any woman who dares do them will live forever with the unofficial job title FEMALE doctor, FEMALE MP and, in my line of work, FEMALE comedian. The only time the tables are turned of course is for lower-paid, lower-status jobs, MALE nurse, MALE secretary and MALE cleaner - who is probably given the better title janitor or caretaker and paid a fair bit more than the women doing the same job.

Feel free to add your own once you've checked out Valenti's list!

The Purity Myth (How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women) is a much more serious piece, though certainly not stodgy or academic. It's a systematic critique of the increasing obsession with purity and virginity in modern America and the impact this is having on young women the country over (Valenti even includes a specific section at the end on discussing the issues raised with young people - about as direct an attack on the abstinence schools programme as she could make). These groups have in recent years made minor inroads into the markedly more secular UK but their reach has so far been thankfully limited.

Nonetheless there is no doubt that we do as a nation continue to subscribe to some very old-fashioned notions of purity relating to young women's sexuality. Anyone with half an eye open recently will have seen the scandal involving Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross making unpleasant phone calls to the actor Andrew Sachs. The furore which exploded afterwards centred on the offense caused to Sachs. No-one seemed to be asking why exactly a man should be upset to discover that his own granddaughter, who is well over the age of consent and living her own independent life, has had sex. And no-one seemed to be wondering what exactly it was about said sex that somehow sullied the woman in question - Georgina Baillie - but didn't do anything to damage the reputation of Brand.

These are exactly the attitudes that this book does a wonderful job of myth-busting. Starting with the fact that virginity has no meaningful medical definition. Valenti addresses the sinister nature of the abstinence-only lobby in the US but also tackles the fallout from this for women who choose not to remain "daddy's little virgin" and are suddenly considered "immoral" and "fallen" women regardless of their hard work, their studies, their volunteer work, their political activism, their ability to care for others and countless other contributions they make to the world.

She also discusses how the attitude of contempt for women who choose to have sex hampers our ability to deal with real problems in society like teenage pregnancy, STIs, rape and the abuses that go on within the sex industry. So as long as our distinguishing line is between disgusting women who have sex and pure women who don't we cannot progress to seeing the nuances of what kind of sex women are having - is it satisfying, is it safe and is it consensual? And while we dismiss those who have sex as dirty it is also impossible to objectively tackle the abuse of women in the sex industry.

On this final point Valenti and I disagree somewhat. In fairness she doesn't reach a conclusion on the subject, she merely says that attention needs to be paid to the issue and suggests that in dealing with it it is important to listen to the voices of the women who work in the industry rather than marching in with ready-made solutions that may not fit the problems. On this I agree, but worry that the issue is more complicated than it may at first seem.

In Britain many groups exist claiming to speak for the thousands of women working as lap dancers, prostitutes, escorts, and so on. The problem is that many appear to be astroturf campaigns (i.e. grass roots campaigns, only fake) run by the club owners, agency managers and pimps promoting an agenda which largely ignores the horrors of the industry - rape, violence, abuse, addiction and human trafficking and instead demands only continued liberalisation in the hunt for ever-soaring profits. We need to be sure that we are hearing the real voices of women working in all areas of the sex industry. Maybe it is less of an issue in the US, but in the UK there is probably a need for a disclaimer on that chapter.

The rest though is bang on and will undoubtedly become compulsory reading for the next generation of pro-sex feminists.

Jean Kilbourne Yeah!

Line-By-Line: Come On Germaine!

I love to see someone whose work as a feminist I have long respected adding to the steaming heap of bullshit that makes it harder to do my job every day. Thanks for this one Ms Greer. I'll give it the careful dissection it so blatantly doesn't deserve...

"I should probably not have said, in so few words on television recently, that women aren't as funny as men."

No you should not have, not unless you could really justify it, which we are about to see - you can't.

"Put so baldly, the observation sounds like deliberate provocation, as if I was baiting feminists, or looking for some kind of a knee-jerk response."

I remember when you WERE a feminist.

"I was actually trying to present an aspect of the psychopathology of everyday life that strikes me as interesting and important."

And yet you know as well as I do that 99% of people aren't going to read past the first line of what you say and are instead going to turn up at my place of work and regurgitate your words verbatim using them to deny my right to a fair shot at doing my job. So thanks.

"Women are at least as intelligent as men, and they have as vivid and ready a perception of the absurd; but they have not developed the arts of fooling, clowning, badinage, repartee, burlesque and innuendo into a semi-continuous performance as so many men have."

So women have failed to develop the art of burlesque as well as men? Yeah that's a real problem... But seriously which clubs do you go to?Look back to Hattie Jacques and Joyce Grenfell: women have always done great comedy and they still do.

"The phenomenon of men's dominance of the comedy realm is so conspicuous that all kinds of cod explanations have been given for it."

No - the phenomenon of men's dominance of comedy is a fiction invented very recently by lad mags. It has nothing to do with reality and should be rejected wholesale.

"According to one cracker-barrel psychologist, the pleasure generated by a response to a gag is patterned on the male orgasm rather than the female."

No - Andrew Watts wrote that on the Chortle website. He's a comic not a psychologist and by his own admission (I know him) the remark was intended as a silly analogy. If orgasm had anything to do with comedy men would only be able to tell one joke all night.

"Another wiseacre has convinced himself that making people laugh is exerting some kind of power over them."

Yeah well it is - it's the power to make people laugh - and women are just as good at it as men.

"In my version, the man who opts for the role of joker in the male group is not looking for power but for acceptance; the other roles in the group are not accessible to him, perhaps because he is weaker or poorer or less imposing than his peers."

This would make total sense if all comics were weak, skinny, ugly guys - but they're not, many are big tough guys and quite a lot are fucking funny women. And anyhow if comedy were about overcoming weakness, women would be tons better at it than men owing to our weedy arms!!

"His audience has, as it were, the power of life and death over him; if he fails to get his laugh, he "dies"."

Dying onstage as a comic is just a turn of phrase - in reality you have a good gig or a bad one and while everyone tries to learn from bad gigs, experienced comics know better than to let a rowdy inattentive audience get to them.

"Men's dominance of standup has even been attributed to the phallic character of the microphone, absurdly enough."

If the microphone is a dick then you'd expect straight women and gay men to be the ones with the best idea what to do with it.

"Though it might be comforting to believe that simple misogyny prevents women being given a fair go, even this will not wash."

Yeah there's no misogyny out there. That's why when I ring round for gigs I hear "We've already got a woman on the bill that night". That's my fair go, is it? In fact even your very article constitutes misogyny because it presumes that female comics are some sort of homogeneous group, that what applies to one, is true of them all. I don't care if you've seen fifty terrible female acts, you haven't seen me and I'm an individual who deserves to be judged on my own merits not on my gender.

"The juries who give prizes to comedians are usually composed of both sexes, and audiences certainly are; but still the female performers don't make it, don't get the prizes, don't get the audiences and don't make the money. "

And women (judges and audience) can't be sexist? Didn't you quite literally write the book on this? Anyway plenty of women comics have won awards: Jenny Eclair, Laura Solon, Nina Conti, Sarah Millican, Josie Long, Susan Calman...

"I have heard it said that women can't be really funny because they aren't willing to make themselves look ridiculous."

And you bothered to listen to this? Now to me that makes YOU look ridiculous Greer.

"The truth seems to be that female comics are only too willing to turn themselves into grotesques, and to base their comedy in a disparagement of their physical selves."

Could that be because women's bodies are considered such fair game in every form of media out there that women have found humour in rejecting ideals of beauty and taking delight in the earthy realities of the female form (quote Dory Dutton at my show at Soho Comedy Club tonight: "As I get older I'm not unhappy with the shape of my body ... it's the texture ...").

"Pamela Stephenson of Not the Nine O'Clock News briefly toured the working men's clubs of Britain with a courageous routine featuring menstruation jokes, which she probably got away with because she was blonde and gorgeous."

So the odds were totally stacked against her but she did well but so it must have been because she was attractive? Whereas Jo Brand has done well because of what?

"(Since she became a sex therapist, she has given up making jokes altogether.)"

She's a highly qualified psychotherapist who despite changing careers is still much in demand on TV and who also wrote a brilliant, very witty, book about her husband.

"Dawn French and Jo Brand have both made comic material out of obesity."

So does Johnny Vegas. He must be shit.

"French and Jennifer Saunders began their comic partnership as the Menopause Sisters, and used to do one routine with tampons in their ears."

And when guys (hundreds of them) get up on stage and do knob gags that's considered funny but tampons aren't allowed? This is from the woman who told women to taste their own menstrual blood to accept their own bodily functions. You would think she'd be cheering on the menopause and tampon jokes.

"Comments sent to a blog I came across bewail the tendency of female comics to work around the themes of "bras, periods, chocolate, WeightWatchers"."

Who needs research when you can read comments on a blog? I like the blogosphere but seriously, most comments I get are trying to sell me herbal viagra - it's not a reliable source of public opinion. I know few female acts whose sets cover these issues and if they did SO WHAT!? If you can be funny on those subjects - great - go for it!

"Whatever the problem is, it's not narcissism or vanity - rather the opposite."

I don't even understand logically what this comment means. The problem with female comedy is a lack of narcissism and vanity? Then remind me to see more female comedy, that sounds wildly refreshing.

"When they are not running themselves down, women comedians are often astonishingly vicious towards other women."

Whereas when male comics attack women - that's hilarious.

"Joan Rivers's attacks on Elizabeth Taylor are legendary. Zoe Lyons has a one-liner about Amy Winehouse self-harming: "She's so irritating, she must be able to find someone to do it for her", a joke that many women would find unfunny in the extreme."

I can think of rape jokes I've heard from male comics in the last week that I find a lot less funny.

"Every year produces a new crop of women standups who will take the world by storm, and when the froth subsides very few names persist: Jenny Eclair, Jo Brand, Victoria Wood."

Maybe the reason the media doesn't pick up on and promote more women comics is because attitudes like yours are all over the place. Well done though for mentioning Victoria Wood - she did win a public vote of "Britain's Favourite Comic" recently which rather seems to throw your whole theory out of the window doesn't it?

"Shazia Mirza has been heard to say that if only she could marry a rich man she would be off the circuit tomorrow, which suggests another reason why women don't mature in the comedy business."

Yeah Shazia says that. It's a joke. A joke about her conservative background.

"Comedy is learned; you get better as you go along."

So - you would think - is journalism but honestly Germaine, I preferred your early stuff.

"Men who emerge as professional comedians grow up within a dense masculine culture of joke-making and have been honing their skills ever since they started school. Girls have nothing similar of their own and are not invited to horn in on the guys' act."

Because girls don't sit in classrooms giggling amongst themselves? Have you ever been to a school?

"When men in the audience give women comedians a hard time, it is because the sharing of the joke is an important male bonding mechanism."

No it's because they're assholes. When some drunk idiot shouts 'Oi love, get your tits out' at me during a routine it's not his evolutionary destiny that has caused him to do that, it's the beer he's drunk and the crap he's read recently in FHM.

"We might also ask ourselves why the women in the audience cannot counterbalance male uneasiness with loyalty and enthusiasm for comedians of their own sex."

They can. Women in the audiences I perform to are thrilled when a female act gives the guys a taste of their own medicine. They whoop with delight to hear someone tell it like it is from a woman's perspective for once. And what is more they line up in droves to come to women-only comedy nights which are flourishing around the UK. I hosted another sold-out one myself as an Abortion Rights fundraiser on Friday, see also Funny Women, Laughing Cows et al.

"Can it be that women are programmed to laugh at men's jokes, as they are not to the jokes of their sisters?"

Yeah cos when you see two young sisters playing together, they never giggle.

"Comedian Arthur Smith once said, "Women don't get shags after gigs. Men do.""

I've often been chatted up after gigs. And I know lots of guys who complain they get into the industry hoping it will get them laid and it doesn't. Mark Steel talks about this in his book "It's Not a Runner Bean" which Ms Greer clearly failed to read in her extensive research process.

"This may be more revealing than Smith knows. Women comedians are probably not looking for shags in any case; if they were, they probably couldn't say so."

Of all the women I know the one and only group definitely not afraid to stand up and say out loud 'God, I need a shag' is the comediennes.

'The greater visibility of male comedians reflects a greater investment of intellectual energy by men of all walks of life in keeping each other amused.'

Or a greater investment of financial resources in promoting a few guys who the media has deemed appropriate for celebrity status.

"It is now a truism that men never talk to each other about things that matter."

But the best comedy is always about things that really do matter.

"Most of what takes place when men are together is phatic communication, intended to build fellowship rather than intimacy. This kind of communication is sometimes derided by women as meaningless, but it is actually functional, because it draws the group together. Men who drink, play and joke together are boon companions, who hang together for fun. He laughs loudest who laughs last; one joke kicks off another."

Whereas you never ever see groups of women out and about joking and laughing together, let alone mixed groups. Sorry Germaine but men do not have a monopoly on having a laugh.

"The man who cannot hold his own in repartee will even learn other men's jokes off by heart, so that he can fill a void in the general banter."

Yeah and stealing someone else's material is what makes a great comic...

"Women famously cannot learn jokes. If they try, they invariably bugger up the punchline."

Famously where? Did I miss a meeting?

"The male teller of jokes is driving towards his reward, the laughter of his mates. The woman who messes up the same joke does so because her concentration is not sharpened by that need. She is not less intelligent, simply less concerned."

The funniest people are the ones most desperately trying to get a laugh then? Not the ones who don't give a fuck and are telling it like it is? Maybe watch a show next time before you write this sort of rubbish huh?

"Given an opportunity to perform a finished comedy routine, a female comedian will make you laugh as hard as any man."

Despite her lack of ambition and failure to put her burlesque skills to proper use? You're contradicting yourself here.

"Put her in an improvisation situation along with male comedians, and she is likely to be left speechless."

Screw you Germaine. Come to one of my shows and I'll take any male comic you like and improvise the shit out of them.

"Quiz show Mock the Week usually invites one woman every other week or so, and every time I have been watching she has been eclipsed by the furiously competing six males who complete the cast of the show. Before she can get a word out, one or other of them will have snatched the microphone and gone riffing away on something he prepared earlier and has adjusted for the precise occasion."

So women are rubbish at improv because men interrupt them with prepared material? And this is women's fault? And you think a show with six guys and one woman is a fair forum from which to extrapolate to sweeping gender generalisations?

"There is, after all, an element of trainspotting, of one-track-mindism in comedy that is alien to women."

And an element of tangental thinking, of linking apparently wildly diverse subjects, that only someone who really knows how to multi-task could achieve. Or are we bored with reciting trite untrue stereotypes yet?

"At the heart of the judgment that women are not as funny as men is another far less inflammatory observation: that women are less competitive."

No - at the heart of your judgment that women are not as funny as men is a big heap of random misogynist lad mag-propagated bullshit that you really ought to know better than to buy in to.

"Competition drives men to more and more outrageous and bizarre mental acrobatics, to stay ahead of the game and have the last laugh. The greater the pressure, the faster the firing of neurons in the male brain."

Call the science press - where the hell does this come from? If this were true a simple piece of brain scanning apparatus combined with some sort of rapid-fire word-play quiz would have picked it up years ago. It's just piffle.

"You get your best results from women when you take the pressure off."

Again I haven't read this in the New Scientist yet so I'm gonna call it early as bullshit.

"Men do the inspired lunacy; women do droll."

This is your big conclusion? Comedy can be broken down into two sub-types: "inspired lunacy" and "droll"? And one type of comedy, the one that's not as good, is exclusively performed by people with vaginas? I don't understand how that even could be true.

Women are fighting an uphill battle in comedy against the rising tide of poorly argued baseless attitudes like this. And ironically I've read of lot of Ms Greer's work and she's pretty funny, I really think she could cut it in the clubs if she wanted to. Except mine of course where I would politely decline to put her on the bill since her words are undoubtedly going to cost me a bunch of bookings over the next year or two.

Date-A-Troll

Most blogs have their trolls. And I wouldn't want mine to feel neglected. So here's a special link just for you. Regular readers may want to take a few deep breaths before looking at this site which arranges marriages to Eastern European women ... at "very reasonable rates". Obviously it's gross. What I really like though is the sales-pitch about the women which describes them as "unspoiled by feminism".

What a relief to know that I've been well and truly "spoiled" by feminism and am not at risk of being set up with the kind of jerk who thinks he can buy women on this sort of site!

Cru Quoted in the Guardian

I am quoted in the Guardian today. Interesting piece about the rise of grass-roots feminism in the UK. You can read it here.

Feminism in London

For those based in London - this Saturday I will be hosting firstly the Feminism in London conference (click the link for info and sign up) and secondly the subsequent comedy show at the Penderel Oak in Holborn. I suspect the latter is going to be very very full (more than 250 people are already coming to the conference, and the comedy venue seats around 100 with space for more standing) so I heartily recommend reserving your place by emailing femlondon08@yahoo.co.uk.
You don't have to come to the conference to come to the comedy night - the line-up is a totally amazing all-female bill (including wonderful Irish comedienne Grainne Maguire, pictured) but the show is open to men too - and there certainly won't be any of the "I was having sex with my girlfriend - then she woke up..."-type sexist nonsense that you get at many comedy nights. And it's only £5 (£2 unwaged) all of which is going directly to support the conference - a great cause. Please come along and please come say hello if you're a reader. See you there!

25th Carnival of Socialism

Welcome one and all to the 25th Carnival of Socialism. There's no special theme to the carnival other than "political stuff from the last two weeks that I'm interested in and hopefully you are too". If there's are posts or subject matters you'd like to have seen but didn't by the end please add it to the comments or submit it to the next carnival.

In a spirit of equality and fraternity (which if there was any real equality would of course be called "fraterni-sorority" or "non gender-specific sibling-hood") there is no particular order to the stories, just the things that grabbed me on the way round.

Starting locally we have the Glasgow Bye-Election. The SNP won following a massive swing away from Labour. But what of it? Certainly many, such as Liberal Burblings, and Lenin's Tomb have concluded this is a death knell for Gordon Brown's Labour. Others such as David Osler at Dave's Part see an even more bleak future. Now personally I am a little confused as to why David Cameron (who as Tim Ireland at Bloggerheads points out is a moron for getting his bike stolen!) is so happy about this? Maybe someone should tell him - the Tories DIDN'T win - if anything the Glasgow East result tells us that the swing towards the Tories in other areas recently has been more of a swing away from Labour's inability to deal with poverty (although Stan at Radio Free Stan thinks that might not be as bad as we fear, I am less convinced) and declining standards of healthcare and education and towards ANYONE else. This is downright stupid in my opinion, it's like saying "This cream isn't sweet enough, I think I'll have sprouts for dessert". There are other parties out there. On which note William Ewart Gladstone - still blogging 150 years on - looks at who did win - the Scottish Nationalists, and calls for big ideas south of the border. Sadly Nick Clegg's big ideas seem to be drifting further to the right, Peter Cranie reports, but at least Socialist Unity actually have some big left wing ideas.

Moving along to more international political goings-on we have Barack Obama's Visit To Germany. Here we start with Radical Blue's view that we should enjoy the euphoria around Obama while it lasts, because it won't last long. A point oddly enough backed-up by Senator Obama himself when he told Gordon Brown only today that "You're always more popular before you're actually in charge". As he also said "Once you're responsible you're going to make some people unhappy" and, as Wufnik at BazzFazz explains, there are quite a lot of unhappy Americans already. Meanwhile Jesse Taylor at Pandagon keeps an eye on the coverage of Obama's trip on the right hand side of the media.

And those seemed to be the two stories that got the most coverage in the last couple of weeks (unless of course Amy Winehouse has had a haircut or anything REALLY amazing like that, and if you're craving light-hearted reality-based entertainment why not join in with Feministe's search for the Next Top Troll and spare a thought for the sort of offensive crap us women bloggers have to put up with much of the time). Which brings us to the things the papers seem to have mostly glossed over. We start with the government's plans for the welfare state, you know, that thing that means that people struggling in society, often through no fault of their own, are not allowed to simply disappear and die in helpless poverty? Remember that? Yes well it's being "reformed". And when I say "reformed" I mean that in the way that "reformed ham" is "reformed" - i.e. all the valuable substance taken out and a load of rubbish added. David Osler at Liberal Conspiracy has the story. And it appears that Anji at Shut Up, Sit Down has noticed what's going on too, and responded in her usual verbose manner! Meanwhile Russell Eagling at Freethink wants more honesty in the debate about what is happening as well as having concerns about changes lined up in education and Gill George at Defend the NHS tackles the government's latest assault on the NHS.

And we're not the only ones with problems. Things are sliding surreptitiously to the right in Canada, DJN at If there is hope... has a thorough round-up. On the subject of Omar Khadr, the Canadian Guantanamo inmate, mirabile dictu has more in-depth coverage.

And sometimes when the media does cover a story we still don't get the full picture. For instance that whole thing about crime-gangs of illegal immigrants, as dissected by Charlie at RandomPottins. And we shouldn't forget some quality distorted media in New Zealand where, as Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty points out, some serious victim-blaming has been going on.

And if all that has left you too depressed to read on take a little heart from someone who appears to be a genuinely good leader for once! Step forward Evo Morales Ayma, President of Bolivia, on the negotiations at the WTO, in completely his own words...!

Everybody loves a party. That's one of those truisms that just doesn't hold in politics and bloggers have been highlighting the worst of leadership from around the world. Phelim gets the ball rolling, pointing out how homophobic elements of the DUP can be. Splintered Surise is no fan either on account of their entrenched Catholic position on abortion. And there's another Catholicism-related issue - the leadership in New South Wales who have failed at last in their bid to prevent people "annoying" pilgrims visiting the Pope, from Stroppy Blog. Can you imagine the kind of misogynist leadership that would consider offering a male veto on abortion - seriously on the cards in Ohio, from Feminist Philosophers, or is so paranoid about immigration that it allows arresting women in such a way that leaves their young children unattended by a busy motorway overnight, as discussed on Echidne of the Snakes. Shudder. Oh hold on, no, stop press THIS, from Shakesville, is the has got to be the worst political leader the world could have right?

And speaking of really, really bad ideas - here's one. Private defense contractors working in war zones. Bad news for women as discussed on The F-Word, bad news via Iraq-for-Sale for water-drinkers, bad news for the servicemen and families whose lives have been destroyed by faulty electrics wiring in showers built by KBR (from me) and bad news via Spot-On for anyone coming in to contact with KBR (including the US taxpayers who fund it but excluding senior management and shareholders of course who are just debating how to divide up the £40bn without allocating too much to actually doing anything more than the cursory minimum they think they can get away with). Or (daily) maybe, the worst idea ever would be to throw our stretched resources into supporting another corrupt oil dictatorship...

Of course there were a few things that didn't fit neatly into any particular paragraph so here's a run down of the other things you should definitely read right now, yes - stop working at once and read more bloggage!

Short sharp shocking statistics on abortion from Natalie at Philobiblon.
Normalisation of cosmetic surgery watch part one from M LeBlanc at Bitch PhD and part two from Jess at Feministing
And an accidental admission of the failings of capitalism from Stuart Jeffrey at Stuart's Big Green Spot.

And finally a reminder of how to be involved next time around. Nominate a post of your own or that you love for the next Carnival of Socialism to be held at A Very Public Sociologist.

Cheerio and thanks for reading! Please stick around and read some of my other stuff, if you like it you can load me in to your Facebook/Technorati/Google/etc favourites or just bookmark me and swing by again sometime.

Busy Cru-blog Day

My article on the Human Embryology and Cloning Bill is up today on the Liberal Conspiracy site. Loads of comments mostly supportive but with a few saying I'm too harsh on religious people... And it's kindof a fair point. But here's the problem with religion - any other movement: feminism, liberalism, conservatism, whatever is likely to be led by someone from that group whose view represent an average of the members. Religions are led my the MOST religious person, i.e the biggest nutter who then gives the rest a bad name. Anyway do chip in on the debate if you care...

I went along today to the launch of the Fawcett Society Sexism and the City campaign. Very interesting to hear from the speakers they had. They had Polly Courtney, author of Golden Handcuffs, a woman who had worked as a cleaner on ridiculously low pay and a woman who had worked as a lap-dancer in a bar near the city. The lap-dancer was the most shocking to hear from. She described the "no touching" rule as "a joke" and explained how she paid to perform, often came home having lost money, she also talked about there being no-one in the bar she could trust or turn to if there was a problem and how the work had affected her self esteem.

The launch finished with a speech from Tessa Jowell. Odd considering she's Minister for the Olympics, Harriet Harman is Minister for Women. Ms Jowell attempted to shoe-horn in some nonsense about the Olympics providing opportunities for women to get into construction. What annoyed me was every time she spoke about discrimination against women she seemed to be focussed on maternity pay, GCSE choices, confidence, etc. Fortunately I got a chance to ask a question (ended up being the last question) so I asked what she and the government were doing or could do to address not the difficulties of women taking maternity leave or needing flexible hours or making bad choices but the problem of women without children of dependents who had made all the right choices and still weren't getting equal pay and promotions, i.e. the problem of straightforward original SEXISM! Well the question went down very well and got me a big round of applause. Sadly Ms Jowell didn't actually answer it. She suggested I form a network with other women so that I wouldn't feel isolated, which was kind of odd since I was sat in a room with a couple of hundred other women who also care about the issue, so I've really got that covered. Anyway women in the city wouldn't feel isolated if there were more of them, would they! And anyway who is campaigning to an end to feeling a bit isolated? I thought we were after equal pay, equal promotions and equal opportunities... Sadly the format of the event didn't allow for me to grab the minister by the lapels and shake her til she agreed gender pay audits were a good idea. Ho hum.

Finally tonight I was on BBC Radio Five Live's Phil Williams show (click here, scroll down to Phil Williams and click to listen again, then you'll want to scroll through to the second hour of the show) with Holly Combe from the F-Word and journalist Vince Graff talking about whether we'd rather be a man or a woman. And in spite of it all, as I said to the team, I wouldn't take a magic sex-change pill if someone offered me one. Obviously we talked about longer life expectancy and multiple orgasms (or failing that at least longer-lasting orgasms, twice as many sex organ nerve endings, etc), but also about how much "lad" culture hurts men. Guys who feel like they can't express their feelings, can't look after themselves properly, that homophobic, misogynist culture of you-have-to-drink-27-pints-of-lager-or-you're-gay-you-big-girl... Strangely enough pretty much everyone agreed that men have a great deal to gain from feminism too.

What A Dumb-Ass Article!

I can't say I subscribe to the Journal of the Institute for Public Policy Research. They have won awards though for being the "think tank of the year" and they call themselves progressive so you would think their stuff would be worth a read. However before I even got as far as downloading the title article from their latest edition we hit a problem:

"Jean Edelstein, PPR reporter, argues that liberal middle class feminists are letting women down by frowning at rape and ‘honour’ killing headlines but not tackling this violence."

Shouldn't it be the police who tackle violence? Are we supposed to form a rampaging feminist army and march through the land? I'm up for it but I'm not sure it's the best approach.

Lets take the issues of rape and "honour" killing as two separate things (although I acknowledge rape as an "honour" crime is another well documented problem).

Rape affects women from all backgrounds - rich and poor, white and black and every other ethnicity. It IS offensive and wrong to suggest that rape is a a predominantly working class or minority ethnic problem. And that sort of thinking is one of the things that stops women coming forward because (a) they don't think they can have been a rape victim because they're white and middle class and (b) they feel they might bring their ethnic group into disrepute if they report.

"Honour" killing and "honour" violence (such as the murder of Banaz Mahmood, pictured) are problems which we see as being specific to certain cultures and communities. Now personally I see a very tight connection between the guy who murders his daughter because she refuses an arranged marriage and the (quite possibly white, middle class) guy who murders his wife when he finds out she's having an affair. It's men trying to control the women in their lives, particularly sexually. However the difference, at least in theory, is whether or not there is some support among the relevant community for those murders and the assumptions (sometimes valid, sometimes not) are that "honour" killing is done with the approval of the community and wife-murder isn't.

If however we accept that "honour" killing is a distinct issue affecting women in certain minority groups in the UK then how ridiculous for an article to blame that on white middle-class women! here's who might be to blame for "honour" killing: the actual murderers, other people from the communities where it happens who encourage the practice, those in these communities who help cover up the murders, religious and cultural leaders who condone it, police who fail to respond to calls, government officials who fail to provide adequate funding for safe houses and in-community policing, support and education, anti-feminists who spread the message that women should be treated as chattels. Here's who isn't to blame: me. I'm white and middle class and a feminist and I haven't "honour"-killed anybody, not for really ages. To say I frown on "honour" killing is like saying I think murder is naughty. No, I think it's an abomination and an outrage and if there is something I can do to prevent it - I will be there to do it right away. But there isn't.

Blaming other women for crimes committed by men against women is just a form of abuse of women. That it's being published by an organisation who claim to be a quality progressive think tank, is a disgrace.