Inactive, but still here

How has it happened that the UK has suddenly turned into the Med? It’s boiling here, and I am sitting in a sticky stupor instead of writing my thesis, or any blog posts whatsoever.

Hmmm, I’m not really what you’d call a prolific author, am I? I suppose part of the reason for that is that there are only a limited number of topics I choose to write about, and also that I shiver with dread at the thought of putting things up here that are not close to perfect. I over-explain things to make them clear- I hate being misunderstood. It is one of my worst fears.

I am tempted to wield all my sarcasm in one go and write ‘How to discredit a survivor’, analysing methods used online and off- to minimise, mock, disregard and invisibilise the words of female survivors of pornstitution when those words threaten the enjoyments and self-image of others.

I’d be grateful for feedback on that idea- and for guidance on whether is appropriate for me as I am to write such a piece.

I would like a big bowl of cookie dough ice cream right about now. And a freezer that works, to house it in.

And here the ramble doth end.

Update

The Rules have been updated. If you’re reading and boiling with rage at something I have said or that you think I have said or will say, read before commenting. The writing’s on the wall, chaps.

In depressing news, the British National Party win two seats in the European Parliament. Make no mistake about it, these guys are fascists, with links to Combat 18 and the National Front. Some people who voted for them claimed it was a ‘protest vote’. Just what precisely were you protesting against? The rights of ethnic minorities in this country? That rape is considered to be a violent crime and an outrage against the integrity of women?

The turnout was a mere 35% in the UK. This news alone should give people a reason to vote- vote if only to vote against the far right. A higher turnout could have stopped the election of these fascists.

Comments in support of the BNP will not be published. See above, re: The Rules.

Read this

This is what we all must read, what we all must hear, if we dare to claim to care about women:

Rebecca Mott’s Say What I Can’t Say

The demand for proof

‘Prove it! Prove porn is harmful!’
This is a demand for proof, or rather for what the speaker considers to be proof, that I have seen on sex ‘positive’ and anti-feminist sites in the blogosphere. I always find myself imagining the blogger sitting on a throne, decreeing authoritatively to their subjects. I imagine them pointing out, singling out the dissenter, saying Prove thyself.

The pictures in the pornographic magazines lying all around, of the systematic dehumanisation of women, are not proof, according to the blogger. Photographic evidence of abuse is not proof. If you show them an image that even they have to concede is misogynistic, they tell you it is not run of the mill, it is exceptional, just as every rapist is a monster, every misfortune is just bad luck. A bad apple doesn’t ruin the crop, they say, despite the fact the crop is bitter to the taste. Or it is her choice. Notice how it is always her choice.

Prove it, they say. This is not proof.

Survivors are meant to take this opportunity gladly in both hands, seeking the chance to parade themselves before the demanding, disbelieving blogger. They should be happy about this, they should march up and present their case. Better have signed affidavits from your abusers. Better show how you fought. Better show proof. Prepare for cross-examination in the kangaroo court. The blogger insists that the survivor is to prove her case, she is to present herself for judgement, provide the paperwork, the cast-iron evidence for the veracity of her statements. She must not get angry with her questioners; she must visit the worst moments of her life for judgement. She must accept that they will attempt to tear her to pieces, intimidate her and then claim innocence of intent.

No matter that a survivor may have severe PTSD, and not be able to retrace her steps through hell to prove her virtue to the blogger. What weaklings you are, say the bullies contemptuously. Prove it. Afraid for your life, fearful of consequences in the everyday world in which we all live and breathe? You still better prove it.

A woman’s word has never been proof.

As the trial continues, the abusers flee into the background, unnoticed.

‘Demanding more exotic forms of slavery’

This is a video of interviews with prostitution survivors from the European Women’s Lobby. It is heart breaking, and it is triggering. And it also cuts through all the crap about legalising the purchase of sex.

The Power of Words IV

Feminists have long complained about how euphemisms are used to cover up reality. One example that immediately springs to mind is the term ‘Domestic Violence’, used to replace the term ‘wife-beating’. The problem with ‘DV’ is that obscures who is usually doing the violence to whom; the OJ Simpson trial’s neologism ‘Domestic Discord’ was a further euphemism of a euphemism. Hide who is doing what to whom, and then hide what the acts being performed actually are. Beating and raping are now ‘discordant’ aspects of a domestic situation, rather than outrages of human rights and dignity.

The latest euphemism that I’ve seen in the blogosphere has been used by some well-meaning women: slut shaming. The meaning of this seems to be to shame a woman by insinuating that she is a ’slut’, that is, a woman having too much sex/ the wrong sex/ whatever. The first problem is using the term ’slut’ at all- to give this pejorative any meaning at all is to give authority to the idea that a woman’s sexual activities are to be policed and labelled. The second problem, to my mind, is more serious, and highlights a fatal flaw in the ’sex positive’/ third wave feminist mindset: saying that X is being ’slut-shamed’ hides what is really going on. It suggests that the main problem is not misogyny, the irrational and poisonous hatred of women by men, but that it is the attitudes of men and women towards sexual behaviour. It hides misogyny.

Now, as I have said above, many insults against women are used to decry her sexual behaviour, with pretty much any type of sexual behaviour being condemned one way or another. But this attitude comes from the intense hatred of women fed and nourished in patriarchy, it does not precede it. The traditional conservative western mind/body dichotomy aligns women with the despised ‘body’ and thus with sexual activity; this hatred is expressed in violence against women, in the rape industry and in pornography. ‘Slut shaming’ is an inadequate phrase. Let us say misogyny. Let us say gynaephobia. Let us say woman-hatred.

The use of ’slut shaming’ as a descriptive label gives the impression that all that is needed is a more open attitude towards sexual activity. Now, this attitude is of course needed, but not in the way in which contemporary culture defines it- the same culture that gives us the term ’slut’ in the first place. Popular wisdom would have us believe that more sex columns, more sex advice, more pornography, more acceptance of harmful sexual practices would bring us to this improved attitude. This obscures the central issue. What is needed is women’s emancipation. Nothing less is good enough.

The Random Collection X

A Question Seen in the Blogosphere

I’ve seen this question asked (some time ago now!) when a feminist points out that a silencing technique is being used. I have provided the answer:

Q: If I’m attempting to silence you as you say, why won’t you shut up?
A: Just because I won’t shut up does not mean that you weren’t trying to shut me up.

Silencing techniques are still silencing techniques whether they work or not. When they do not work, it is a testament to the courage of the person who won’t shut up. If you are patronising, insulting or insisting of the primacy of your experience and desires when a survivor or other dissenter is speaking up then you are trying to silence.

Analogies

As far as I can see, the point of analogy is to explain something that people don’t understand in terms of something that they do. I used the technique of analogy in my previous post Thoughts on Consent, discussing the literal meaning of ‘consent’ by describing other situations in which ‘consent’ is given. Unfortunately, my use of that analogy laid me open to the charge that I was comparing sexual activity with surgical operations which was, of course, absolutely not what I was doing. My point was that the consent of the abused person is not enough to justify the actions of the abuser, and also that we can see just how much of a power imbalance we act under when it is shown that we consider sex to be an act to which one ‘consents’, rather than an act which one takes part in, in which one is an equal participant. There can be no freedom in a world in which ‘consent’ makes it okay to abuse another human being, without regard for the circumstances under which the person consenting lives. Anyway, I’m repeating myself; read the post. The point of this comment is to note that analogies by their very nature are not perfect, and can only be stretched so far, and that there is an inherent difficulty in using them. Analogies can be completely false, as some things are incompatible, such as comparing the objections to BDSM to right-wing objections to homosexuality- after all, homosexuality harms no-one. But even useful analogies are at best imperfect.

Analogies can be used to clarify or to obfuscate. We need to be aware of this, and highlight the deliberate confusion engendered by false analogies, whilst also acknowledging that even helpful analogies have their limitations, as one thing may be comparable to another, but is not *the same* as another.

More thoughts on this would be welcomed. I’m just sketching here, and would like some help.

Everyday, random misogyny

I was walking up the path to University X when I saw a man lurch towards a woman walking down the opposite way. My first thought was that he was about to mug her, so I braced myself to run towards her to help. Instead, he seemed to shout something and then run off. The woman, who turned out to be my friend E, continued walking towards me. I asked her what happened; she told me that she looked at him and he ran forward and spat on her. She said maybe if she hadn’t looked at him he would have left her alone. E was shocked, and we spoke for a few minutes. Once she was calmer and felt a little better she went on her way, and I carried on walking up to the University, a sense of fear having worked its way into my bones.

And welcome!

I have a lot of visitors today- and I haven’t written anything for a month.

More rather sketchy posts on their way. Promise!

Thoughts on ‘consent’

Consent implies nothing more than agreement to undergo. Nothing more than ‘yes’. One consents to undergo operations to save one’s life, or to reduce unbearable physical suffering. One signs the consent form without desiring to experience the pain and danger that operations necessarily entail. One does not sign a form proclaiming that one enjoys an operation.

One consents to an operation after having weighed up all possible alternatives- or so we hope. We hope that the medical profession is clear and sincere in their discussions of benefits and risks to one’s health. Having decided that the risk is worth it, that the odds are in our favour, or in extremity, that there is nothing else we can do and it would be madness not to try, we consent. But we do not want the operation itself. We will not enjoy the invasion of our privacy and bodily integrity that it entails.

Consent is nothing more than ‘yes’. Yes may mean yes, but it doesn’t mean anything else.

When we speak of female sexuality and agency, we need to care about a hell of a lot more than the ‘yes’. Not just the ‘yes’, not just the ‘consent’. Not the signing of the form. Not the grudging agreement, the inability- for whatever reason, economic, psychological, physical- to say no. Not the yes of exhaustion, the yes of emotional manipulation, the yes of poverty.

There are numerous reasons that one may consent. There are numerous reasons one may say ‘yes’ to things we do not want to do. Consent in itself is not enough. Consent can be given in the direst of circumstances. Consent can be given because the other options are worse.

If all we seek for is female consent, we ignore the person who requests the consent. Consent involves having something done to you; it assumes the subordinate position of the person who consents. The doctor we may consent to because we believe s/he is better qualified to judge our safety than us. The lawyer we may consent to because we believe s/he knows the law better than us.

Do not be content with consent. There can be no sexual freedom when we consider that the ‘consent’ of the woman is enough to wipe out the harm inflicted by the person she consents to.

We must only be content with a world in which sexual acts are mutually chosen, free from power and powerlessness, free from negative consequences for women who say NO. When sex is not something one does to an inferior, but an act chosen through mutual desire.

Do not accept ’she consented’ as an excuse for a man’s harmful behaviour towards her. Consent does not mean desire, does not mean free and unfettered choice, does not mean ‘agency’, does not mean freedom, does not mean liberation.

It means only yes. And ‘yes’ can be said in the direst of circumstances.
Consent is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It is not the whole story.

In which Laurelin clutches…

perhaps my detractors can lend me their pearls?

… at fairly cheap beads.