A man thing

I read some shit but …

… this takes the biscuit

Well, it’s Father’s Day here in the United States. Yes, that day when men all over the country have an excuse to eat as much meat as possible, watch sports, and scratch themselves wherever and whenever they feel like it.

The real reason for writing today is to say B is the reason I live. He’s the reason I found myself wanting to wake up and keep going after my accident. He’s the reason I maintain sanity at times. He’s the reason I remain a reasonable adult when I would rather throw things and say bad words, two things I haven’t done since finding out he was on his way into this world.

Er, what about the woman who brought him into the world? Spent nine months pregnant and however many hours in labour?

Nah. My little boy. Who gives a shit about women?

PS men and meat? Ugh.

Posted in animal rights, feminism | 10 Comments

One reason why the UK is fucked

I mean, seriously?

This woman is claiming £40k a year on benefit with 12 children and looking for a sperm donor for a 13th.

Child support agency anyone?

Using the system?

The system does not work.

Well, only for some.

Posted in life | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Shit that happens to women

This extract from an Australian paper says it all about women’s experiences of being attacked, assaulted, raped, threatened with murder, or, murdered.

It also encapsulates, everything, but everything about society’s views of women. Victim blaming and shaming. Asking for it. Lucky to be deemed worthy of a rape attack (JFC!). Stupid. Of course. Women are stupid for just being alive.

And of course God. Because God. Tell that to the Mormon women students who were raped.

Sexual urges. The poor man had no money for a prostitute so he raped a non-prostitute instead. So sad he had no money isn’t it? Whether he did or didn’t is fucking irrelevant. Men’s wants do not trump women’s. What part of that is not clear? Your gross sexual urges are no excuse for rape. Or attempted rape/murder.

But read on:

I wasn’t technically raped that night. And boy do people love to remind me of that.

“I know what happened is bad and all, but he didn’t actually, you know, get it up you, did he?”

This was the question put to me by a male manager at my casual job, a week after the assault took place. My bruises hadn’t even disappeared but the implication was clear: if there’s no P-in-V, it’s not so bad, is it?

Sure, I’d been indecently sexually assaulted, physically assaulted, strangled, told I would be killed, and held at blade point. But in a phallocentric world, sexual violence isn’t measured by the trauma the victim experiences, but by the perpetrator’s assessment of the event: and if the penis didn’t get its way? Then what right should I have to expect the same supports and police resourcing that a “real rape victim” would get?

This wasn’t the only insensitive comment people made.

“You’re a pretty girl, you know. You could take it as a compliment that he selected you.” (This piece of unsolicited advice was kindly offered by a female journalist working for a women’s magazine).

“You have to admit Nina, you were pretty stupid for walking home alone”. (This gem was offered by an old friend I went to school with.)

One woman asked in all seriousness: “Do you ever think this might not have happened if you had a closer relationship with God?”

Another woman took the time and trouble to email me to inform me that she had real pity for me until, that was, she learnt that I had been “doing all the wrong things”.

Since then, I’ve been told it’s my fault for drinking. My fault for listening to music. My fault for travelling alone (as though women should only ever venture out in public if they are in the company of a chaperone).

People have called me a liar and an attention seeker.

I’ve had one stranger persistently request that I share the police photos taken that night with him.

I’ve had other strange men send me messages of sympathy, immediately followed up with a sunny little dick-pic. For condolence, I guess. (No, I do not want to commiserate with your boner).

I’ve had schools ask me if I will come speak to their female students about the “risky situations” that women put themselves in (no, I won’t, don’t ask me again).

I’ve been asked whether the problem lies in girls “not respecting themselves” (and here I was thinking that my assault happened because my attacker has no respect for women, for me, or for my right to live a life free of sexual violence.)

I’ve also had someone suggest that the poor guy probably “just had no money, otherwise he would have gone to a prostitute”. As though sexual violence isn’t about power and control at all, but a man’s simple desire to have certain sexual needs met.

Over and over I have been asked the questions that so many other survivors have also been asked: “What were you wearing? How much did you have to drink? Don’t you know how stupid you were being?”

And each and every one of these questions (and so many more) serve to silence women. They do this by deflecting attention away from the actions and choices of perpetrators, and by insinuating that women are responsible for the violence we have experienced.

And finally there was this remark made by some clever chap who wanted to discuss my attack online:

“What a conceited bitch for thinking she’s even worthy of rape. The guy just probably wanted to give her a good bashing in which case job well done.”

Charming stuff, isn’t it?

Of course, this is only a fraction of what women deal with when we speak out publicly about sexual violence. And in many ways my own assault was easier to speak out about than many others. That’s because I was assaulted by a stranger and there was physical violence involved. But most victims aren’t assaulted by strangers and rarely are there physical signs of violence, and this makes it even harder to be believed.

And this is why so women stay silent. Why so many choose not to report.

It’s also why perpetrators feel so entitled to keep on offending: because our society continually affirms for them that women are in the wrong. That women are untrustworthy. That stranger-danger rape is the only “legitimate rape”. That women make-up sexual abuse in order to assuage sexual regret. That the word of a man is worth far more than the word of woman.


And thanks to Miep whose blog had the link.

Posted in feminism | Tagged , , , | 20 Comments

Gender neutral?

We’d never had a bitch. We both grew up with dogs, but none of them were bitches. And when, as a couple in our own houses, we started to home rescue dogs, they were always male.

But Tosca was a bitch. That was clear from the extended nipples, indicating she’d recently had pups.

I asked a good dog friend who’s had bitches about any noticeable differences. I was primarily thinking about anything around when they come, or start to come, on heat. Hopefully, we would manage to get her spayed before that. (We did.)

Both my friend, and another experienced dog person, agreed they could see no difference between bitches and dogs.

And yet, the rumour mill has it that bitches are more affectionate, more loving, more loyal, better natured than dogs. Are we so hung up on gender as a society that we project our constructs of men and women onto animals?

Tosca and Snowy are the same breed, although different varieties within the Podenco family. He is smaller. Unsurprisingly, as the larger dog, Tosca usually wins the fight for possession of toys. As hunting dogs, they play hard. They growl, snarl, and (play) fight. They chase each other. Neither gives any quarter.

They both like affection and attention and like to lie next to their people, resting their head on shoulder, chest, arms, legs, feet. Snowy, being the smaller dog, will often jump up to sit on a lap.

Both are good guard dogs. Sometimes they take it in turn, sometimes they guard and bark together.

The only visible differences we can see are – surprisingly? – down to their different backgrounds. Nurture not nature in this case. Snowy came to us as a tiny thrown-out puppy, at four or five weeks old. He’s led a very spoiled and pampered life. Tosca followed Partner and Snowy home one day and our vet reckons she’s around two years old. She’ll have had one or two hunting seasons before she was thrown out. And, her trained hunting habits are evident when we go out. Snowy has the senses (scent, hearing, eyesight), but lacks the experience. Plus, Tosca is sensitive to loud noises, ie those that resemble gunshots. Snowy stands up at the window to watch firework displays!

Otherwise, they are two dogs, each with different life stories, each with their own personality. Similar behaviour. Similar intelligence.

Without the obvious anatomical differences, how would one determine which was male and which was female?

We treat the two dogs exactly the same. Why can’t people do that with each other? Why do we have to create artificial differences between men and women? Why do we insist on ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ behaviour, dress, and appearance?

Tosca has whiskers on her chin. Most unfeminine. Does anyone care? She’s a wire-haired Podenco, and that’s one of their characteristics. Yet, women are expected to shave numerous parts of their body. Legs, armpits, pubes. Why?

Those who don’t, are regarded as: unconventional, unfeminine, lesbian, ugly, unattractive. Not only that, appearance – of women – affects pay and career. It’s some years ago now that I read a book that disappointingly pointed out research showing that women wearing make-up were a) more likely to be offered jobs and b) offered salaries up to 20 per cent higher. (Clairol in America, Jouhar and Graham in Britain. Source: Spillane, Presenting Yourself, 1993.)

Not only that, but a three-year study carried out by the Center for Creative Leadership found that of women attempting to break through the glass ceiling, more than a third were rejected due to ‘poor image’.

Do men get rejected for ‘poor image’? Or have to wear make-up to get jobs or higher salaries?

Should I get judged on my ability to apply make-up rather than my intellect? Apparently.

Why should women have to conform to different standards than men?

Society needs to change.

Posted in animals, feminism, radical feminism | Tagged | 4 Comments

Let’s spend the night together

Lovely, long, lazy travel.

It’s years since I travelled by charter or even standard airlines.

Or in the words of Kipling (more or less), ‘better to travel hopefully than arrive’.

I bought a EuroRail card, travelled by train in India, and travelled on ferries in the Greek islands. All involved overnight women-only accommodation.

This century, travel has been limited to the UK and back.

Shared women’s compartments on trains and the same for cabins on Brittany Ferries. P&O doesn’t give the option for that. You have/had to buy an individual cabin.

On the train, it can be anyone’s guess as to who your pals are. Mostly they are fine.

One journey from Paris to Spain included an African (Nigerian?) woman and her daughter. We started chatting immediately. When she wanted to go to the buffet, she left young Dasha in my charge, and told her to obey her new auntie.

When we got off the train in Madrid, we met up with her family and enjoyed breakfast together.

On the same journey, the other occupant of our compartment was a French (?) woman. She met some man on the train and asked if she could bring him into our compartment to spend the night. No. Dasha’s mama and I both said an unequivocal no.

Women-only compartments are for women, and their children. Not for men.

Chatting about the cross-channel routes, I was laughing at my partner who, whenever he has gone on the ferry, has never managed the privilege of an empty shared cabin.

On the other hand, my trips on Brittany ferries, opting for a shared – and therefore cheaper — cabin, ended up with me in glorious isolation. Maybe not all women aren’t comfortable about sharing small, private space with other women. Or maybe some women can afford a private cabin just as they can a private compartment on a train.

As we chatted away, and I gloated about me getting private ferry cabins for the price of a shared one, a horrible thought hit me.

I could end up sharing a two-bed cabin, or even a four or six-bed train compartment, with a man who says he is a woman.

I really do not want to do that. While everyone is carping on about the rights of male to female trans people, women’s rights, as usual, are being trampled upon.

Can anyone tell me why I should have to share overnight accommodation with a biological man, when the accommodation is for women only?

I do not want to share women-only space with XY chromosome people (usually known as men), or men who wake up one day suddenly deciding they are female. Complete with female penis and female testicles.*

This goes beyond toilet and changing room facilities. We’re talking about spending the night together.

*For the benefit of those not oppressed by up on the trans debate, it is important to note that a penis belonging to a man, who thinks he is a woman, can often be regarded as a female appendage.

Posted in feminism, gender-specific language, radical feminism | Tagged , , , | 30 Comments

Good old-time religion

I found an interesting quote today on a blog.

K did three years at a Christian college but was kicked out for being a lesbian (she chose leaving over undergoing mandated conversion therapy).

WTF is lesbian conversion therapy?


(The comment is towards the end, and the post is about a FtM detransitioning.)

OK, we could ask why people choose a Christian college but that’s a different issue.

Hellish clever running lots of colleges and universities and schools or whatever they are all called.

But change your sexual orientation or get kicked out as an ultimatum? This is perverted. Unlike religion.

What about the Mormon university that victimises women who have been raped? Well, don’t you know they have broken the indecency honor code? By being raped?

Religion is run by men. Religion subjugates women. Religion is also a myth.

Posted in Atheism, christianity, feminism, Religion, Sexism | Tagged , , | 9 Comments

Simple sexism

The Ark and I are not best pals at the moment. Not that we ever were, but anyway, our recent exchanges give some good examples of sexism.

Firstly, we have, him telling me how to exercise following my broken ankle. I broke my ankle 22 months ago. I have to say the advice about atrophy and flexibility is a little tardy. However, one must always appreciate advice from a superior being.

Next Ark writes about abortion and draws parallels with being vegetarian.

This is a difficult one for anyone to grasp if they aren’t vegetarian, but he’s basically saying – I think – that if you oppose abortion on the grounds you are killing something, then you shouldn’t eat meat. I can follow that logic (don’t agree with it) but I doubt most people can. Or I could be wrong.

But Ark is uncomfortable with abortion:

Not in the least. I am just not informed enough on this subject.
It just makes me uncomfortable that’s all.
I in no way inferred that I would be happy to override a woman’s right to her body in any manner whatsoever.
Your attempt at trying to put words into to my mouth smacks of petulance, a trait you seem to have demonstrated quite the flair for of late.

Ah. Petulance. Don’t you just love it? Nice way to demean women.
If it was a man, it would be. Assertive. Standing up for their rights.
Women? Petulance. Nice tactic.

You interpretation is incorrect.
You did not even ask why it makes me feel uncomfortable?
But then you are not known for your tact?
(You will find the word in the dictionary
It’s near tacky.)
And now you can whistle ….
Sexist put down?
Now now, RS, you really don’t need to be be such a bitch.
What do you know indeed?

In explanation:

Abortion makes men feel uncomfortable.

Can someone tell me why I need to ask men why abortion makes them feel uncomfortable?

Periods, pregnancy, childbirth, abortion, menopause, make women feel uncomfortable.

Hmmm, but, maybe I need to ask the men first to decide about that.


This from the man who calls people dickhead at every drop of the hat.

Me, merely a public servant employed in PR.



This is derogatory, insulting, dismissive language.

And people wonder why some women are feminist?


Abortion is only the business of one person. And she’s a woman.

Posted in feminism, gender-specific language | Tagged , | 81 Comments

Workers’ rights

Workers’ rights – on the ground – are not doing too well here in Gibraltar. Life may be different in other parts of the world.

The bizarre cross-border situation that makes up Gibraltar means we have a steady stream of workers crossing the frontier daily who are willing to work for below minimum wage, illegally and in unsafe working conditions.

Want examples? Sure.

  • The firms that promise people a contract on £x an hour and when they start, the contract reflects a couple of quid less.
  • Someone offered a three year contract – to move to Gib – (no exes) and is given one for less than a year when they arrive.
  • The worker given redundancy due to ‘lack of work’ and then told they can go back on temporary three-month contracts (no security, no rights).
  • The workers working 40 or more hours a week on part-time contracts that minimise employer’s contributions and workers’ rights to redundancy claims.
  • The workers who are getting £5 an hour on the black, when the minimum wage is £6.50 an hour. The craft, ie skilled rate, is £7.69, which works out at £61 a day before tax and social. Meanwhile some people get £60 a day cash in hand, others might get £80. More than 30 years ago Partner was getting £50 a day self-employed.

Recently we tried to advertise his business on a facebook forum promoting employment, workers, job opportunities and seeking work. Apparently we couldn’t do this. It was for people who really needed money in their pocket, promoting the black economy at the expense of legitimate businesses, because, people on the black deserve the work more.

People on the black also don’t pay tax and social, don’t pay £20 annually to be registered with the Employment Board, and don’t pay £25 a year to Trade and Industry. In fact, this year, that has gone up to £100 a year to the new Office of Unfair Trading. Although the staff have moved into swanky new offices so, obviously, someone has to pay for that.

I can see why a forum won’t want to be flooded with endless adverts from businesses. At the same time, it still gripes that someone with less experience, less qualifications (if any) can advertise to do the same work, and we can’t because we have a legitimate business with all the costs that incurs. And yet, we would charge the same rates, despite our on-costs.

What about pricing? And lower wages. One argument is that desperate poor people get some money, and the customer gets a good (questionable) cheap job.

The counter argument is that this approach drives down the basic rate for everyone, ignores health and safety, and leaves people struggling to make ends meet. The real winners are the employers.

For those of you who haven’t read Robert Tressell, here is the wiki summary of The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists. And for non-linkclickers, a couple of extracts:

Clearly frustrated at the refusal of his contemporaries to recognise the inequity and iniquity of society, Tressell’s cast of hypocritical Christians, exploitative capitalists and corrupt councillors provide a backdrop for his main target — the workers who think that a better life is “not for the likes of them”. Hence the title of the book; Tressell paints the workers as “philanthropists” who throw themselves into back-breaking work for poverty wages in order to generate profit for their masters.

The hero of the book, Frank Owen, is a socialist who believes that the capitalist system is the real source of the poverty he sees all around him. In vain he tries to convince his fellow workers of his world view, but finds that their education has trained them to distrust their own thoughts and to rely on those of their “betters”.

As Orwell said, it should be compulsory reading:

Writing in the Manchester Evening News in April 1946 George Orwell praised the book’s ability to convey without sensationalism “the actual detail of manual work and the tiny things almost unimaginable to any comfortably situated person which make life a misery when one’s income drops below a certain level.” He considered it “a book that everyone should read” and a piece of social history that left one “with the feeling that a considerable novelist was lost in this young working-man whom society could not bother to keep alive.”

In Ragged, Tressell writes about people working long hard days and living in appalling accommodation. Tressell died of tuberculosis.

Less money circulating, and more money concentrated in the hands of a few does not make for a good and productive society.

What about unsafe working environments? Construction has always been risky, if for nothing else it involves falls from heights. And sometimes, dodgy scaffolding, unsafe ladders, carrying heavy weights.

Let’s look at European and Australian regs regarding bags of cement. In Europe they were reduced from 50kgs to 25kgs. In Australia they are now 20kgs.

The BWI has been campaigning since 2013 for the weight to be reduced to 25kgs throughout the world, citing lifting loads of more than 25 kgs as the biggest cause for musculo-skeletal injuries to the lower back, neck, shoulders, elbows, hernias and general physical wear and tear.

Let me remind you again of Ragged:

Tressell paints the workers as “philanthropists” who throw themselves into back-breaking work for poverty wages in order to generate profit for their masters.

On one site in Gib, Partner was told to carry two 15 litre tins of paint. He refused. Two 15 litre tins of paint well exceed 25 kgs. One isn’t far off 25 kgs.

Many workers are too frightened to refuse to do something damaging to their health, and, maybe don’t even realise the long-term effects.

And to finish on lifting, with manual handling advice from the UK Health and Safety Executive. To meet the provisions of Regulation 4 you:

only need to label a load if there is a risk of injury and it is reasonably practicable to do so.
do not have to provide this information if the effort involved in doing so would be much greater than any health and safety benefits that might result.
should reduce risky manual handling operations by providing lifting aids, splitting loads and telling people not to carry several items at once.
could ask manufacturers and suppliers to mark weights (and, if relevant, information about the heaviest side) on loads if this can be done easily.

Get the bold, mine. Because this is how HSE works (a former employer of mine). The guidance used is ‘reasonably practicable’ which basically translates to, if it costs too much money, you don’t need to bother.

Profits trump health and safety of workers every single time.

And if you argue, you get the sack.

Workers’ rights?

The working class is as downtrodden as it has always been.

      Editor’s note:

      The last time I wrote about Ragged some four years ago, Sonel found it on Gutenberg. So, it is readily available 🙂

Britons never shall be Slaves. Hmm.

Britons never shall be Slaves.

And in those four years, the working life has got worse. Or in many cases for my Gibraltarian friends, non-existent.

Warning: any replies that come out with trite comments about there are jobs for everyone, if they really want them, will not be tolerated.

Posted in work | Tagged , , , , , , | 27 Comments

Hot feminist

Browsing The Guardian today wondering what Cameron’s (prime minister of some small islands off Europe) latest cock-ups were, I found Polly Vernon’s piece in the Books section about her book, Hot Feminist, and horrors! the criticism it received. Or rather, she received too.

I knew Hot Feminist would prove contentious when I wrote it. I didn’t write it for shock value alone; or even at all. Why did I write it? To present my version of feminism: wayward, ideologically impure, politically incorrect, un-academic, flawed to hell – and no less passionately held for all that. To ease any potential readers’ feminist guilt by exposing myself as more slapdash than they; to make a case for an ultimately inclusive movement, via the example of my own haphazard, clothes-, looks- and man-oriented adventures in feminism.

I wanted to address feminism as a fashion writer, as someone deeply involved in that complicated, sometimes compromised world, with its myriad messages about women: who we should be, how we should look. I wanted to talk about feminism and sexiness; about how I don’t always mind being objectified by the male gaze, and how I am more than capable of objectifying back. I wanted to talk about my life, my experiences. Hot Feminist is a memoir. I believe a book that incorporates extensive fashion tips, alongside one woman’s experiences of abortion and of violent sexual assault, might make a point about the light and shade of the modern female’s life.

Apparently Hot Feminism received a ‘sustained barrage of hate … on Twitter and elsewhere‘. And, many of these people hadn’t even read the book, merely the negative reviews. (There was a positive review from the Daily Telegraph, which may indicate something in itself.)

So, over I popped to Amazon for a Look Inside.

      Hot Feminism
      Modern feminism
      With style
      Without judgement
      Published by Hodder and Stoughton in 2015.

Here we have the intro:



Here we have how the name came to be decided upon: because it’s porny.

It's porny :)

It’s porny 🙂

And here we have Feminist Fatigue. At this point I was reminded of violetwisp’s musings about feminism. Maybe violet would like this book if she hasn’t already read it.

Vernon pays tribute to the feminists of the sixties and then goes on to dismiss that old-fashioned tosh. What’s needed is feminism for today. Fashion! Make-up! Diets! Being objectified! Because today’s woman is so independent she can objectify and ogle right back. Jeez. Is that what feminists in the 60s onwards fought for?

Also – feminism is what you want it to be. And you decide whether or not you are a feminist. By which token you could claim to be a devout feminist if you are a fundagelical, support no contraception, no abortion, and a woman’s place is clearly in the home, tripping over 13 children.

Vernon says journalism is her trade. Well, far be it from me to pick holes, but you haven’t got trade papers have you? You might work in journalism, you might be a journalist, but if you haven’t got shorthand then you haven’t qualified.

I can't even do shorthand

I can’t even do shorthand

A qualification isn’t essential to get a job in journalism, more like persistence and rhino hide. But still, it’s annoying to see someone claiming a trade and then smirking that they don’t even have shorthand.

The devil is no longer in the detail:

I say what I am; therefore I am.

While I’m on the subject, there is nothing worse than journalists, or anyone involved in publishing for their day job, producing errors in their books. Especially in the Amazon preview pages. As for Hodder and Stoughton, suggest you look for some new editors/proofreaders.

Another common fault journalists make is to write a full book (this is some 300+ pages) in the style of a short column on a newspaper/magazine article. A book is not the same. Unless you are John Pilger. (His books are good.)

So have I bought this book? Of course not. Based on the preview it looked vapid, superfluous, over used exclamation points and brackets, and was contradictory. Goodness knows what the whole book is like.

But really, who on earth would write a book called ‘Hot Feminist’ – complete with fashion tips – and expect to be taken seriously?

And this is today’s journalism and feminism …?

Posted in feminism, journalism | Tagged , , | 49 Comments

*Draft* Comment policy

Somewhat late in the day, I realised I don’t have a comment policy here. I do have T&Cs on roughseas which sort of hints at blog policy, so I thought I should make a belated effort to provide something on Clouds.

  • First, the obvious: no homophobia, racism, sexism/misogyny.
  • Second, please don’t use abusive terms that stereotype and insult minority groups, eg calling someone lame, spastic, or various forms of referring to people as mad. I appreciate the last one is difficult when trying to discuss religious fanatics, just please use your judgement when trying to express the state of mind of fundagelicals – of any religion.
  • Third, you are however free to swear. Fuckwit and arsehole are perfectly acceptable.
  • Fourth, there is no moderation on first comments or any others. There are no blacklisted people on here. Currently.
  • Fifth, I don’t usually delete comments but if you are being totally tedious/insulting/a general PITA, I will.
  • Sixth, I don’t usually edit comments either, apart from spelling, especially when people ask/point out their typos. I did edit one comment last week, but wrote to the commenter to explain why.
  • Seventh, if you wish to insult people, or disagree with someone, please don’t have a go at their character or lifestyle (even if it might be accurate). Either criticise their views or call them an approved abusive name (see above).
  • Eighth, if there are links on a blog post, or in comments, and you choose not to follow them, you can expect to be told you should have read the links if you say something crass. It takes time to add links and it is courteous to read them before weighing in.
  • Ninth, again on links, commenters are welcome to add vids. Just be aware that I have no patience with them, but I know others watch/enjoy them. I will read all textual links.
  • Tenth, from to time I take the blog private so I can think about more important things like growing veg, flowers, walking round the beach. Any regular readers are welcome to browse previous posts by requesting access.

On a separate but related point, it should be fairly obvious to people that I sign in as roughseasinthemed. It is, quite frankly, annoying, that some people who also have an alias choose to call me by my first name. Just why? Do people lack the same respect for Arb, Ark, esme/sonmiuponthecloud, Philosophermouseofthehedge, ProfessorTaboo, tildeb? Do you ever see them called by their first names?

Unless you have special dispensation, could you possibly stick to roughseas? Many thanks.

So, there you have it. Probably nothing people didn’t know anyway.

I’ll accept any suggestions for improvement. Whether or not I carry them out is another matter.

PS. I have changed nested comments to five now. Because Arb moaned. So I am vaguely responsive.

Posted in blogging | 67 Comments


Because it’s a woman’s fault.

A third of Britons believe a woman who acts flirtatiously is partially or completely to blame for being raped, according to a new study.

If the woman was drunk, 4pc said she was totally responsible and 26pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman behaved in a flirtatious manner, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 28pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman failed to say “no” clearly to the man, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 29pc said she was partially responsible.
If the woman was wearing sexy or revealing clothing, 6pc said she was totally responsible and 20pc said she was partially responsible.
If it is known that the woman has many sexual partners, 8pc said she was totally responsible and 14pc said she was partially responsible.
If she is alone and walking in a dangerous or deserted area, 5pc said she was totally responsible and 17pc said she was partially responsible.

Yes. Of course, it’s a woman’s fault that a man sticks his penis inside a woman without her consent.

Heavens, why on earth would it not be our fault?!

How about raping a 13-year-old? Her fault too I guess?

But, don’t stop there if you aren’t aware of UK rape cases. Try this:






My heart really goes out to men who are struggling with equality and think they are having their rights taken away. Also, I appreciate the ones who give a passing gesture towards feminism. Thanks for the acknowledgement.

Meanwhile, girls are being raped in the UK FFS. This is not Somalia or Rwanda or wherever. It is meant to be a first world country. And this shit is happening. Still.


  • Low IQ

Really? I’m stupid so it’s OK to rape women.

  • Growing up without a father figure.

So no daddy means it’s OK to rape women.

  • Doing drugs.

So, it’s OK …

  • Oh, my wife died, poor me.

So it’s OK to rape a teenager and get five years because the 63-year-old thought she was older

  • Having firearms
  • Expressing regret (having committed 12 rapes)

A learning disability and a low IQ plus not taking part in gang rape is a plus.

It’s good that ordinary rape isn’t really an issue any more isn’t it?

Now it has to be gang rape before it matters.

Got to look after the poor challenged men.

Posted in feminism, Sexism, thoughts | Tagged | 98 Comments

An example of sexism

Here is an advert for a mechanic, seen today on FB.

Just. Groan

Just. Groan

While I agree with equal opportunities and that women have every right to be mechanics, this person is neither wearing overalls (note grease on body) nor toetectors.

No. It is not ‘just humour’. It is yet another daily example of reducing women to sex objects.

Posted in feminism, Sexism | Tagged , | 21 Comments

BDSM (and feminism)

I’ll be honest. I have a slight issue with women consenting to abuse. I mean, of course, to consenting to delirious pleasure that involves a fair amount of pain that results in ecstasy in the end.

Now, for those of us who aren’t au fait with whipping, flogging, bondage, handcuffs, ballgags, choking, suffocating, rape fantasies, being leaded up on a collar, et al, perhaps a little explanation is needed.

It seems even the BDSM world is no longer clear about terms.

We have tops/bottoms, doms/subs (dommes for women), and masters/slaves.

The distinctions vary between tops/bottoms only for a ‘scene’ (ie a BDSM encounter which may or may not involve sex), dom/sub which may be more permanent, and master/slave which is a total 24 hr relationship.

But, reading around, these lines vary.

Anyways, the key thing here is about TPE. Total Power Exchange. One person trusts another to do what they want with their body. In the case of so-called ‘breath play’, they go for choking, strangling, and suffocation. Because the person in charge knows what they are doing. Similarly when they beat the shit out of you.

In return, the bottom/sub/slave gets to go into a euphoric zone known as subspace. It’s a bit like when people hang themselves and have a wank and sadly, kick the chair away, and hence literally kick the bucket as well. I’ve been to enough inquests.

Mostly, luckily, this doesn’t happen in BDSM scenarios.

BDSM involves lots of ‘play’. Lots of pain infliction, humiliation and subservience.

It is, of course, consensual, so that makes abusing each other OK.

There are lots of fantasies. The obvious, schoolgirls, French maids, pirates, prostitutes, and, um rapists. I can not, for the life of me, work out why anyone fantasises about being raped.

Apparently they do. They didn’t live in Yorkshire in the late seventies.

Then, there are the daddy ones. This has me hitting the roof. Who on earth wants to fuck their father? Seriously? But we have ‘daddy’s little girl’. What is that all about? Maybe Ayckbourn had the answer with Wildest Dreams. One of the most disturbing plays I have seen. Yes, she says casually, of course I saw the world premiere for free. A perk of working for the local paper.

But, of all the fantasies, wanting to be daddy’s little girl has me thinking WTF. That and wanting to be choked, and raped.

On a lighter note, we have people who want to be pets. Leaded up like a dog or acting as a pony. Each to their own.

For those of us who live a derisory vanilla life this may be beyond our wildest dreams. Nightmares more like. Occasionally there is more to a relationship than an intense subliminal BDSM encounter. Fidelity? Companionship? Trust? Humour? Love?

Natch. All this whacky spaced-out stuff is pre-agreed. A contract is signed. Disclosures are needed. Anal. Swallowing. Fisting. Plugs (anal). Blindfolds. Nipple clips. Wax. Ice. Any type of shower (no, not water). Multiple penetration. Group sex. Rope. Chains. Body bags. Crops. Whips. Knotted whip. Paddle.

The options are endless. Not forgetting the obligatory medically certified confirmation that one is STD free.

I tell you. I’m glad I’m boringly married.

Meanwhile, on with our BDSM tour, it seems married couples go down this route to improve communication, aka he really wanted to be dominant. Oh dear.

Our relationship is more intense and we have opened up communication and blah yak blah WHACK!

It’s so good that now we do this 24/7. He orders my food at restaurants. He gives me a list of tasks for the day. I ask permission to speak or to go to the toilet.

Really? You wait to ask for permission if you have diarrhoea?

I have no idea where these women come from but it sure as hell ain’t Yorkshire.

Someone else tells me what to do 24 hours of the day? I think not.

I respect everyone’s consenting sexual preferences. No issue there. Even if they want to pretend to fuck their father or whatever. Rather them than me.

But, what concerns me about BDSM are these aspects:

  1. the perpetuation of woman as sex objects, slaves, submissives, because, however you look at it the ratio of male dominants to female submissives is higher than vice versa
  2. the rape fantasies. Jesus. No woman asks to be raped. Yet, the idea of this being a fantasy just fuels the idea
  3. the daddy fantasy. Just yuk again. Paedophilia incestual dream.

But all of this is OK because it is sane, safe and consensual (SSC)
Or, it is risk aware consensual kink (RACK)
And the BDSM community doesn’t judge. Rather, it supports these fuckwit abusive fantasies.

My underlying problem about all of this, from a woman’s perspective however, is, how much of this is deeply ingrained in us, that we are taught that a man needs to be dominant, strong, demanding and so we buy into this sexual mythology. How much of BDSM, from a woman’s submissive point of view is really consensual and not just a product of indoctrination?

This, is not acupuncture.



ETA some links:



BDSM FAQ (Frequently Asserted Quibbles), Part 2


Posted in feminism | Tagged | 79 Comments

Feminism and male homosexuality

Musing about feminism and men’s reactions, I asked my former neighbour and blogging friend of some years, Mr Merveilleux, for his views on homosexuality and feminism. From time to time, he posts on feminist issues, and, to me, it seems that male homosexuals and women both suffer under the patriarchal system because we don’t conform to gender stereotypes.

And, while he replied to me in a comment, I think it’s worth a post of its own, as it shows a similar ideology from a very different person.

Thanks to Mr M for permission to use this as a post.


My perspective on homosexuality and feminism? Not enough time for a decent post, but enough for a detailed comment.

Just two weeks ago a fifteen-year-old boy was thrown from a tall building to his death in Deir ez-Zor, one of Syria’s larger urban centres. His death sentence was dictated by an ISIS Sharia court. His crime? He was raped by senior commander, Abu Zaid al-Jazrawi. The latter’s punishment for being a rapist was to go on a mission to Iraq.

The explanation and justification for this monstrous injustice is Patriarchy, the traditional variety. It goes as far back as ancient Greece and Rome where a man who “allowed himself to be penetrated by another man” could lose his citizenship. Rape included.

So the young man in Syria was murdered because, in the patriarchal view, he allowed himself to be treated as a woman.

This odd interpretation of facts is unusually common all over the world, not just in ISIS-controlled regions of the middle east.

As a gay man I’ve lost count of the times heterosexuals have asked me: “In your relationship, who’s the boy and who’s the girl?” That question is used to ascribe value to the individual according to traditional gender roles. If one answers boy, that means one is the superior specimen: masculine, provider, virile, mows the lawn, fixes things around the house, drives. And that leaves the other gender role to the other guy who people assume cooks, cleans, irons, spends money, watches soap operas and depends on the superior being for his survival.

The ultimate fight for all minority groups should be and should have always been feminism. It’s the only struggle which genuinely subverts the patriarchal system. All others have had to, in one way or another, submit to the conformist, hierarchical standards of WMCD (white-male-christian-dominance).

In fact, gay rights have come contingent on the adoption of those values. In the past 20 years the great LGBT battles have been about being allowed to be in the military, bourgeois marriage and having one’s homosexuality ignored/overlooked rather than respected. That means we’re allowed to be gay, as long as we emulate the lives of middle-class conservative heterosexual couples—adopted babies and all.

Posted in Atheism, christianity, feminism, Sexism | Tagged | 27 Comments

Feminism 101b – What about the men?

Or, what about teh menz? as it’s more frequently called.

This follows on from The Arb’s guest post about mansplaining, as it is a) a jargon term within feminist spheres, somewhat like mansplaining and b) is another facet of male privilege with regard to women, and specifically feminism.

So, what does it mean?

Well, in essence, the phrase normally refers to a discussion, usually in a feminist forum/environment, where women are talking about an aspect of inequality/discrimination, and a little male head pops up and says, ‘But men suffer that too!’

It can be anything. Rape, domestic violence, education, health, employment. Whatever the topic, even if one man suffers from something, it is valid to derail the discussion and talk about men instead. Not about women and their continued oppression, but we must talk about the men. Because they are more important. And equality means everyone, right?

There is no argument that men do suffer from patriarchy. The difference is, men also gain and have always gained from patriarchy. Women, as a social class, do not.

Feminism is trying to redress a historic imbalance. Men are not in that position. They are not the underclass.

Some random anecdotal examples of men saying they are being victimised:


Years ago I read on a forum a post by a white working class Brit who was complaining that it was increasingly difficult to get work in his chosen trade. Printing. And there was lots of publicity about equality for women but it was really unfair that he, as a man, was struggling to find work. Because you know, employment was his entitled right. And he wasn’t getting those rights. Therefore, something needed to be done to look after the men. [See the references below about how hard done-by men are regarding employment]


We hear about the high rate of young male suicides, but in fact in the UK it’s older men who have the higher rate of suicides. The rate for female suicides is consistently lower than the male rate.

What about heart disease? Traditionally labelled as a male illness. Yet, this article says it kills more women than men, but it has traditionally been underdiagnosed in women for cultural reasons.

When women talk about health issues, it’s not relevant to start quoting statistics of higher male suicides if we are discussing underdiagnosis of heart attacks in women. Not. The. Same. Topic.


Boys’ academic results fall behind girls. It’s no good trying to help girls if they perform better than boys. Shock! Horror! The system is wrong! Do something. Not: girls might possibly be more intelligent and/or more studious than boys.

Shakesville (link to short but succinct post below with other links) sums it up nicely.

and “women earn far more bachelor’s and master’s degrees than do men” (a pointless observation as long as women still need at least one degree more than their male counterparts to make as much money

Yup. At my level as Assistant Director, I was the only one with two degrees. None of the men had them. Including medics and accountants. Yet, there were also women below me who also had two degrees. Academic qualifications don’t mean shit when it comes to employment.

Plenty of links below explaining WATM. If you only read one, read badreputation, this quote comes from there:

“Women perform 66% of the world’s work, earn 10% of world’s income and own 1% of the world’s property.” What about the men? Fine. Let’s reverse that for a new quote:

Men perform 33% of the world’s work, earn 90% of world’s income and own 99% of the world’s property.

They also suffer much less domestic violence, rape, genital mutilation, sexual shame, sex trafficking, and have far more control over their lives and bodies. Their options for work aren’t limited, they are not considered to automatically have a duty to represent their whole gender if they reach the top of a profession or political office, and aren’t scrutinised as mercilessly if their partner does.

Sums it up nicely.

But, just in case, let me say it again. Men in society have power and privilege. Women (as a class, rather than the minority number of women leaders of state, or CEOs, etc) do not.

So, when women talk about the major issues they face, eg the list from badreputation above, it simply isn’t appropriate to say, well men have problems too. It reads like an attempt to invalidate and derail genuine problems that women face. Please, don’t do it. We are pushing a rock uphill as it is. ‘How can I help?’ would be much better than whining from a position of (often white) male privilege. Or mansplaining.

A final quote from vagenda:

Men still aren’t oppressed. Men still aren’t the real victims. Men’s problems – and they can be big problems – are still experienced from within a societal and cultural context of indisputable privilege. We are portrayed as incompetent buffoons around the house because it maintains the legitimacy that housework is a female thing (we’re rarely shown being useless at sport or business or flying space shuttles are we?).

Thanks to Madalyn, whose post reminded me I was due to write another fem 101 post:

“Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress.” -Gandhi

An excellent resumé:


A humorous but accurate British pov:


Short and sweet:


Very good:


A kiwi perspective:


Posted in feminism | Tagged , , | 90 Comments

Best seller! Read the bible!

What’s more pitiful than that vacuous, bankrupt statement is the fact Ms. roughseas admits to having never read the Bible.

From, theancients on colostorms’s blog. Oops, Colorstorm.

Now it is fair to say I have not read the bible. I have read some of it in RE classes. I have even read Matthew 2: 1–6 at a school nativity.

Nor have I read Fifty Shades of Grey. Do I need to do so to form an opinion on domestic violence and BDSM? I can find better objective sources elsewhere.

I haven’t read the qur’an either. Nor the vedas. Nor the bhagavad gita although, like the bible, I have a copy of it. Nor the kojiki. Nor the popol vuh.

Does one really need to read every mythical tome to decide whether or not to believe in a religion? Or to disbelieve in it?

Will reading the bible make me more likely to suddenly believe in God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit? Extremely unlikely.

But how would one choose which religious text to believe in? The oldest? The newest? The majority viewpoint? And then, which sect? Which branch of Hinduism? Catholic or Protestant? The dilemmas are endless.

And Me! My religion is the only one! doesn’t quite do it for me.

Why, is my statement about not being able to discuss something without a Christian invoking the bible bankrupt or vacuous? Honest perhaps. And pitiful?

What is pitiful is people who can’t live without a badly written rule book. People who can’t live within themselves. People who don’t respect the rights of others. People who are hypocrites. People who lack sufficient thinking capacity to work out a moral code for themselves.

People who believe in presidents who say god sends them to war. That is truly pitiful.

People who discriminate against homosexuals are pitiful.

People who discriminate against women are pitiful.

Now. Tell me again. One. Good. Reason. Why I should read 1041 pages of the RSV?

And what happens to people who study the bible in detail? Just ask the deconverts.

Posted in Atheism, christianity, feminism, Religion | Tagged , | 126 Comments

Guardian Angel

Me? Never.

The other night I was walking up one of the back streets. I heard shouting and sounds of distress.

Not my business. Not mine to interfere in a ‘domestic’ dispute.

I walked on.

And battled with my conscience. How would I feel if someone walked on? I walked back.

The man was walking away. That was a good start.

The woman was halfway up some steps leading to the next level of streets. We have a lot of steps in Gibraltar.

‘Do you need any help? Are you OK?’

‘Yes please. I’m not really OK.’

Could have been worse. She wasn’t bleeding or bruised.

A domestic spat? Whatever, she was in no fit condition (alcohol) to get home alone with shopping bags.

So Ms Roughseas Who Really Still Can’t Walk Properly and Struggles With Steps climbed up to help. Somehow I took her shopping bags, gave her an arm, and we clambered up the remaining steps together.

Then we lurched up the street to her home.

‘Why are you doing this? Why are you helping me? Why are you my Guardian Angel?’

Many of us have been there. For whatever reason. Too much to drink, and … well … the world is not easily negotiable.

I took her into her block, she couldn’t find her flat keys so I looked in her bag for them, opened up the flat, put her bags down, suggested she go to bed (she wanted to go out again!), introduced myself and left.

Partner was a bit worried when I returned home, I’d been out longer than normal. ‘I met this woman who needed help.’

‘Oh yeah, I know her. Really intelligent. Got a good job. Needs to chill out by drinking. Lives with an arsehole.’

Well there you go. I meet a random stranger and Partner knows all about her!

I’ve not seen her since. Would I do it again? Of course. Would I wait for the man to piss off? Advisable.

Mario Lanza. Guardian Angels fell a bit short for him:

Posted in Atheism, christianity, feminism, life | Tagged , | 76 Comments

Oh dear

From Violet’s blog about MRAs.

Insanity wrote:

Actually Carmen, many of those men are genuinely having lots of sex, which than begs the question, why are there so many stupid women in the world?

It also answers another of your questions, why do I believe in God? Because the evidence of His existence is all around me, but also because I have learned that we all have a God sized hole within us, that can only be satisfied by His presence. In the absence of God people will instead pour everything else they can into the abyss of their souls, like those ‘spherians do with women.


Re: Holes

I can only speak for myself when I say no orifice on my body is anywhere near deity-sized, but I will acknowledge IB and say, any woman with a ”God-sized hole” is most definitely going going to get screwed by Christianity.

This is not good.

Let me explain why.

Looking at IB’s comment, she referred to ‘we all’.

Did she make that gender specific? Male or female? No.

Now, let’s look at Ark’s response.

He dismisses the fact that he can get screwed (by christianity or anything/one else) but says a woman with a god-sized hole will (get screwed).

  1. why does the man not have a large (god-sized) hole and the woman does?
  2. why should a woman be more susceptible to christianity than a man?
  3. because, a man could just as well be screwed by christianity up his arse (who is to say the size of one’s deity-sized hole) as a woman could up her ‘god-sized hole’. So why don’t we have that analogy?
  4. why, why, why, is a religious/spiritual reference denigrated by referring to screwing women? Because, that’s how we demean life. Screwing women takes us down to the lowest common denominator.
  5. seriously, please do not use screwing women as a way to deride christianity. Women have enough problems as it is.
  6. men are just as likely to succumb to Xtianity: W, J, D, CS et al
  7. total fail, using a woman’s vagina for ‘humour’, suggesting women are more malleable than men, and actually choosing to misinterpret what IB originally said. In a not good way.

So to all of you who found it funny, you have free rein. Comment away.

And if you think you know about feminism, dream on. Your words betray you.

Posted in Atheism, feminism, gender-specific language, Religion | 32 Comments

Eve teasing

Most of my readers, as far as I know, have English as their first language (South Africans excepted), and come from so-called advanced white western societies.

In the pursuit of feminism, many people think because women have got the vote and we have equal opportunities legislation in force, that there is no need for feminism. After all, there is no disparity. Is there? I’ll look at this in more detail when I write a post on ‘What about teh menz?’

For now though, hold that thought, and let’s look elsewhere. Because feminism and women’s position of inequality, is worldwide.

When I grew up, there were three women Prime Ministers. India, Ceylon and Israel had all beaten Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the USA to elect a woman as leader of their country.

Sirimavo Bandaranaike was in power from 1970–72 and Indira Gandhi held office from 1966–77. It was the late 80s before Benazir Bhutto was elected prime minister of Pakistan, and the first woman to become head of state of any Muslim nation. Like Indira Gandhi, Bhutto was assassinated. (Note to self: not a good idea to become a woman prime minister of India or Pakistan.) Khalida Zia became the first woman prime minister of Bangladesh in 1991.

I mention these women specifically because this post is about south Asia, ie the India sub-continent, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan primarily.

One of the sillier arguments against feminism, is that, when a woman achieves a powerful position, ergo, there is no further need for society to do anything. If a woman can be prime minister, surely that proves we have equality between the sexes?

Well, simply. No. Especially when they get killed.

Back in the UK, we had a political drive to ensure our boards were made up equally of men and women (it didn’t last long). My chair, who was a woman, said: ‘As I’m a woman, we don’t need any other women on the board, do we?’

No, Syl. That is not equal representation. One woman lording it over eight or nine men does not equality represent. Typical Queen Bee syndrome.

Although a recent study debunks the Queen Bee. Grauniad reports on this study by Columbia University.

But in the groundbreaking countries of South Asia with their early women prime ministers, we have ‘Eve teasing‘ which I learned about via Carissa’s fascinating Mumbai-based blog.

This was a new one on me, so I thought I would share it with my dear readers.

It’s basically sexual harassment that can range from verbal to physical abuse, ie from sexually suggestive comments to groping.

In itself, the name, is an excellent example of sexism in language.

It comes from Eve as the temptress, because it’s always a woman’s fault, right?

And it’s teasing. It’s fun and flirtatious to be on the receiving end of sexual comments, be regarded as an object for someone else’s sexual pleasure, and be sexually assaulted. This is not teasing. At all.

But, wait, the solution to this is to dress conservatively, or ensure one has a man with one after dark. Or probably at all times.

Carissa’s account here.

For the record I had no problems in India in 84/85, although I did have problems in Italy the same year and in the Phillippines. Morocco has been fine too, although years before he met me, my partner teamed up with a couple of women who were getting unwanted attention aka sexual harassment.

We should call these criminal offences what they are. They are not attention or teasing. They are at best insulting, but the bottom line is that they are sexual harassment, which in the case of physical contact, becomes sexual assault/aggression. Because, no, men do not have a right to touch a woman’s breasts or bottom. Or any part of her body. Or tell her what they want to do to her.

So you see, we can have all the legislation in place to promote ‘equality’, we can have women leaders, but until we change societal attitudes, we will not eliminate the discrimination against women and their status as sexual objects. (Obviously when they pass the useful sexual stage they no longer have status). And the rights of men to regard them as such.

‘What about teh menz?’ will be up soon. Ish.

Posted in feminism | Tagged , , , , , | 21 Comments

Feminism 101a – The Weary World of Mansplination

The Arb offered to do a guest post for me on feminism. Who am I to refuse? So here it is, on ‘mansplaining’. Unedited. All credit, copyright and my thanks for such a thoughtful post to The Arb.


As this is an educational piece, let us begin with some definitions. What is ‘splaining in general and then let us move to Mansplaining. Definitions can be found at Geek Feminism and the Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia. See below.

Splaining or ’Splaining: is a form of condescension in which a member of a privileged group explains something to a member of a marginalised group — most particularly, explains about their marginalisation — as if the privileged person knows more about it.

Mansplaining: To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening. The mansplainer is often shocked and hurt when their mansplanation is not taken as absolute fact, criticized or even rejected altogether. Named for a behavior commonly exhibited by male newbies on internet forums frequented primarily by women. Often leads to a flounce.


Ah, mansplaining, where do you come from? The answer can be found in the socially constructed gender roles women and men are more or less forced to exist within. From a very early age men are encouraged to engage, be active, and generally be ‘hands-on’ with everything around them. Said another way, “Boys are rewarded from an early age for going out into the world, solving problems, achieving, and competing.” The hated saying, ‘oh boys will be boys’, is a good example of the socialization and reinforcement of typically shitty male behaviour.

Contrary to male patterned socialization, female socialization is much more about being proper, quiet, not taking up space and not offending people. A small disquieting peek into what female patterned socialization is as described by Simone de Beauvoir:

“One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman. No biological, psychological, or economic fate determines the figure that the human female presents in society; it is civilization as a whole that produces this creature, intermediate between male and eunuch, which is described as feminine.”

This makes it clear that what de Beauvoir is concerned with is the process by which ‘human females’ are transformed into culturally constructed ‘femininity’ by [patriarchal] ‘civilization.’ What follows in the subsequent chapters is a detailed and quietly gruesome description of the ways in which patriarchal civilization breaks young girls and turns them into appropriately feminine and subservient wives and mothers.”

Traditional Gender Characteristics
feminine characteristics masculine characteristics
submissive dominant
dependent independent
emotional rational
receptive assertive
intuitive analytical
timid brave
passive active
sensitive insensitive

The take away here is that males and females are rewarded in society for behaving in very different ways and thus based on this socialization, grapple with society in very different ways as well, hence gender stereotypes.

The sociology 101 is necessary in the understanding of mansplaining because mansplination happens almost at the unconscious level. When a man is speaking people tend to listen because, obviously, he has important things to say. Women, on the other hand, are expected to be the listeners, not the ones laying words of wisdom on the masses. It isn’t their role to make conversational waves like men and the normative values of our society reinforce that notion, repeatedly.

Thus, the verbal playing field at its most basic is not level. This intrinsic inequality is the everyday, it is the expected, it is the norm. It is the reason why women often find it so difficult to participate in conversations and often find themselves socially sanctioned for having the audacity to participate, as a man would, in expressing themselves verbally (the assertive/bossy trope).

This unequal situation persists in almost every social venue, and almost certainly every day, of women’s lives. The social reality of this situation is stressful, annoying, and generally a drain on a woman’s cognitive resources. It is like wearing a weight belt while swimming at the pool, extra attention and energy is required just to keep afloat, thus it is harder to achieve what the other unencumbered people are doing. Now imagine that the weighted belt is invisible and represents women’s social position in the hierarchy of society and what is required on her part just to keep up with those who don’t get the weighted belt as part of their gendered expectations package. Many inferences about Feminism begin with this image, but we should stick to the topic at hand, as this is a brief introduction, and not an essay. 🙂

So, if you’re a dude and thinking to yourself, “Gosh, that sucks. I’ve never even thought about stuff like this, what can I do?”. The answer is surprisingly easy.

  1. Be quiet and listen to what a woman has to say.
  2. But but but… I know the solution to her problem/I have the right answer I need to tell her. See point #1.

This is not to say that males shouldn’t speak at all, but rather, provide the base courtesy and respect that is automatically given to other males when speaking. Make the space you give automatically to other dudes to the woman who is currently trying to express herself. You would be surprised how appreciative people are when you respect them as human beings.



Posted in feminism, gender-specific language, Sexism | Tagged | 100 Comments