Why Feminism Still Matters

So, we all know what it's like on the internet, right? You put some content out there and then, if your content starts to attract attention beyond, say, your immediate circle of friends and family, any comments section can start to take on a life of its own. Armed with anonymity, the idiots come out to play. You know, the misogynistic, homophobic, hate-spewing, grammar-spurning, barely-literate morons who sit, fearless, behind their keyboards deciding that some "dum bitch shud get raped lol" or worse (oh, so very much worse). And, well, that's just how it is, right? And no-one should get upset about a few trolls who are probably just teenage boys fucking around, and not really actually dangerous right? Besides, if you can't stand the heat, get off the internet and stop being such an oversensitive pussy. Right?

Wrong.  

To say that the internet is sexist is an understatement in the extreme. It's endemic, the tentacles of sexism and misogyny are woven so tightly around just about every shoot of the web, that we barely see them anymore. Even in the enlightened, liberal online communities I have been a part of, casual sexism is part of the group banter in a way that casual racism or homophobia would never be tolerated. And speaking out about it? I might as well stamp "killjoy" on my forehead or, in the imaginations of some men, "I am old, fat, ugly and can't get laid, therefore I am bitter".

This article, though long, articulates beautifully why we shouldn't ignore this stuff. Kate Harding, the author, also addresses the nice guys who think a bit of sexist humour isn't anything to get worked up about.

"‘Cause the thing is, you and the guys you hang out with may not really mean anything by it when you talk about crazy bitches and dumb sluts and heh-heh-I’d-hit-that and you just can’t reason with them and you can’t live with ‘em can’t shoot ‘em and she’s obviously only dressed like that because she wants to get laid and if they can’t stand the heat they should get out of the kitchen and if they can’t play by the rules they don’t belong here and if they can’t take a little teasing they should quit and heh heh they’re only good for fucking and cleaning and they’re not fit to be leaders and they’re too emotional to run a business and they just want to get their hands on our money and if they’d just stop overreacting and telling themselves they’re victims they’d realize they actually have all the power in this society and white men aren’t even allowed to do anything anymore and and and…

I get that you don’t really mean that shit. I get that you’re just talking out your ass.

But please listen, and please trust me on this one: you have probably, at some point in your life, engaged in that kind of talk with a man who really, truly hates women–to the extent of having beaten and/or raped at least one.  And you probably didn’t know which one he was.

And that guy? Thought you were on his side.

As long as we live in a culture where the good guys sometimes sound just like the misogynists, the misogynists are never going to get the message that they are not normaland that most people–strong, successful men included–do not hate women."

We have to start speaking out about this stuff; to protest about the creeping normalisation of hatred, particularly amongst kids using the internet.  It's not hard to see that, if this is what the world reverts to once it's given anonymity, sexism (and racism and homophobia) must be thriving barely a scratch below the surface.  It never went away, it just learnt to keep its head down - at least in public.

Come On Then Angelina, Let's See You Really Try to 'Make a Difference'

Angelina Jolie has made no secret of her desire for more kids.  She has talked of her ideal "rainbow family" of adopted children from poverty-stricken hell-holes around the globe.  Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam: each nation has vomited up a perfectly photogenic little scrap of impoverished humanity, into the loving, and hugely wealthy, arms of Angelina.  Don't they look lovely?  Traipsing through another airport; the angelic, blonde half-Brads and the adorable ethnics: like a Benneton ad made flesh.  Madonna too has taken to scooping herself a couple of African poppets.  In her case the somewhat inconvenient objections of the kids' still-living relatives have been over-ridden by the incontrovertible fact that the children, under Madge's expensive care, will lead safer, healthier lives filled with opportunities way beyond the imagining of their former peers.  For, whatever one might think about the ethics of wealthy celebrities adopting dirt-poor kids from developing nations, no-one can be in any doubt about the benefits to the individual children involved.

Angelina has talked about this "saving" of kids who would otherwise have pretty bleak futures, and about wanting to "make a difference" but, I have to wonder, why no-one ever considers adopting a kid with a disability?  I mean, if you really want to 'save' a child who was otherwise destined for a life of untold suffering and loneliness, well there are plenty of abandoned disabled kids to choose from.  And their life chances can pretty much redefine 'limited', without copious outside help.  The sort of expensive help that is, sadly, pretty low down the list of priorities for any government, let alone one that is already struggling to feed its own people.  But for an American A-lister, with all their wealth and staff, meeting the unique needs of a kid with CP or Downe's Syndrome should be pretty simple.  

And then there's the powerful message that would be sent out if someone like Angelina Jolie brought a kid with an obvious disability into her high-profile, multi-faceted brood.  The message that these kids are beautiful too; that disability is not something that everyone rejects; that families of children with disabilities don't hide away in mute suffering, they engage with life like everyone else.  They could tell the whole world that disability is nothing to be afraid of.  Or does the rainbow family not have a place for someone who is really disadvantaged?

There's a Reason They Call Her 'The Body' and not 'The Brain'

Elle Macpherson does a great job of demonstrating that models are every bit as dumb as cliche would suggest, in The Guardian this week, by deciding to talk about feminism.

"Guardian: Are you a feminist?

Elle: I'm somebody who truly honours femininity. And I believe in individuality, and uniqueness, and that's all I'm going to say on that.

G: But you shy away from the word "feminism"?

E: It's one of those coined phrases that has a lot of innuendo and not much meaning these days. There's a stereotypical perception that a feminist is somebody who believes in equal rights for men and women. Well, I believe men and women are different and they have different needs, therefore the concept of equal rights doesn't really sit with me in many ways "

Really Elle? The concept of equal rights doesn't sit with you? Just out of interest, which rights are you looking to jettison? Voting? Education? Um... running your own multi-national company? Making a career out of parading around in your pants that doesn't end with, you know, being stoned to death? Can anyone out there make a case against equal rights? Because, I have to admit, I'm stumped.

By the way Elle, do you actually know what "innuendo" means?   Or "phrase"?  In fact, "It's one of those coined phrases that has a lot of innuendo and not much meaning these days. There's a stereotypical perception that a feminist is somebody who believes in equal rights for men and women." is so monumentally ignorant I barely know where to start.  

It's depressing.  It's the twenty-first century and there are still idiot women spouting this crap.  It's enough to make you want to burn down a bra factory.

For Danny

Turn your speakers up baby xx

Hating Heat

Heat magazine have, for the FOURTH week running, run with a cover story on body size.  "Skinny Celebs";"Curvy Stars"; "Best and Worst Bikini Bodies" - body fascism is alive and well and living in Heat Towers (sic).  They dress it up as 'concern' but it's relentless.  Women like Nicole Richie or Jessica Simpson have every pound gained or lost, charted, photographed and analysed by everyone from fashion "experts" to health professionals.  Then, the second they show any sign of becoming as obsessed with their weight as Heat clearly is, they are subjected to even more critical commentary.

A look at Heat's own forums shows that many of their own readers are sick of this absurd one-track-mind 'journalism', so why do they do it?  Two reasons: firstly it's cheap.  The same feature, usually with the same pictures that have been used (and paid for) by the magazine already, can be rehashed endlessly by a staff writer, and can fill any number of pages.  The second reason is that, despite the whining of the Heat forum, it sells.  People - women - buy this shit.  Again and again and again.  Here's a suggestion.  Don't do it.  If enough people refuse to buy any magazine that sticks a body-size story on the cover, they'll soon get the message.