Ha ha! Oh no that’s awful – kill her!! Ha ha!!! Damn, am I allowed to laugh at this? Kaveney, please give me a sign…
Bllleurrrghthhmmmthgrrtg. My brain just melted, please find me a soft cell (with others who share my gender identity, of course)…
This reblog from Girls Globe makes many pertinent points. Its original title ‘Take Action against Gender-Based Violence this Season’ along with the language and tone of its content also illustrates perfectly why the ‘inclusive’ language favoured by Western-model Liberalism actually excludes and annuls meaningful debate and any remote possibility of change. So-called ‘Gender-based violence’ describes violence commited mostly by males against, well, everybody and everything. Male Violence, or better yet, male-pattern violence is a more descriptive term, since it acknowleges that said violence is the responsibility of males and mostly perpetrated by same, whilst admitting the possibility and the reality that our system of hierarchy (patriarchy) is so pervasive, that often females can be brainwashed into adopting it, in microcosm at least. Witness that FGM is performed by women in the interests of male culture; that child-abuse by mothers and women in loco parentis is, if not endemic then certainly widespread; that corporations seemingly bend over backwards to promote their courting of female talent and that much of the focus of third-wave feminism rests on a nominal ‘equality’ in place of the previous generation’s vision of ‘liberation’.
If naming their agent(s) of oppression is the first step on the road to liberation, then today’s females, by constrast to their ‘gay’, ‘…of colour’ and ‘transgender’ (would be) compadres in activism seem reluctant. If that’s surprising to some, it shouldn’t be: the fight here is not to aquire the privileges accrued by deception and/or outright force by class male over millennia: rather, it is to disabuse said class of the notion that its privileges are righteous. ‘Gay’ men are men; Men ‘of colour’ are men; and whether ‘Transwomen’ are men is in most respects a moot point, since they anticipate retaining the same male-defined ‘human rights’ upon transition and any loss of same is incomprehensible to one raised with male biology in a male-governed (ruled) society.
If the point of liberation was to free all; then the object of equality is to subject all; from or to the same oppressive, impossible standard. Male nature provides a convenient spirit level: we may not all wish to fight; but we sure as hell all want to fuck (or as near all as makes no odds) which to those who don’t is as good a weapon as can be.
A remarkable thing happened to men during the AIDS years: sex (by which I mean PIV or, on the same pattern, PIA) became, for the first time since the advent of antibiotics, actually dangerous: a matter of life and death for men. We changed our sexual habits (on the whole) not a jot. We could read this as evidence of the inflexibility of male nature; or as proof of our own privilege; or as somewhere in between. Either way, men are the agent of gay oppression as much as they are the agent of female oppression. Transgender is a cunning wheeze to avoid either; one which only works half the time.
Somewhere along the way, the precision of second wave feminist writing – which, to exemplify Germaine Greer confronted male hatred of the female and correctly identified transgender women as ‘pantomime dames’ – has been lost. There is a rush to accomodate any deviation from the male norm as if it is transgressive when in fact we are anything but. Would ‘Gay’ even be a thing were it not for the centuries-old (and long-in-the-tooth) male idea of heteronormativity: proponents in that bygone age could scarcely be expected to have forseen today’s overpopulation and consequent climate change…
Talking about violence being ‘gender-based’ glosses over these and much else, particularly for today’s reader whose notion of what ‘gender’ is is as wooly as the language itself.
Just remembered I’m only writing a comment, not my own post so I’ll now stop waffling 😉
Many of us look forward to the holydays – to lighting candles, traditional food and spending time with friends and family. But the higher economic burden following the mandatory spending on food, gifts and decorations and the pressure of living up to the perfect-holyday-expectations put strains on the household. The risk of domestic violence is higher during the holyday season and for women already experiencing violence at home, the holydays bring with them a promise of increased plague.
Numbers presented by UN women reveal that one out of three women worldwide have experienced physical or sexual violence, mostly by an intimate partner. In some countries the numbers are as high as 70 percent. Violence against women is an urgent global problem.
Whether or not domestic violence occurs in your home or in any other home you know about, gender based violence…
View original post 476 more words
A few years ago I was dating a woman who had fled her hometown to escape a violent partner. When she mustered the courage to finally leave him following his years-long campaign of manipulation, harrassment and bullying he broke into her house and raped her at knifepoint whilst her kids slept in the next room.
Her story is far from uncommon: such crime is epidemic and endemic: and if it isn’t hate crime I don’t know what is.
So whilst I applaud the initiative on the part of Greater Manchester Police to extend their definition of hate crimes to ‘subcultures’ in a bid to raise awareness of violence targeting these groups, it seems extraordinary that crimes against women aren’t included in hate crime legislation.
Women have been and continue to be the #1 targets for bigotry. As a class they’re they’ve been perenially marginalized, undervalued and violated, worldwide and throughout human history. There are no ‘battered Blacks’ shelters’; no history of ‘Gay genital mutilation’. An incarcerated (for gynocide) biological non-female can sue for the ‘right’ to cosmetic surgery in a country that still denies born (XX) females reproductive autonomy as often as not.
They’re half the world population: more than half, actually, even though statistically, many more males are born year-on-year; mostly because our relative biological frailty and reckless behaviour proves reliably lethal, to us even more than them.
Being diagnosed XX can be a death sentence even whilst still in the womb; can connote second-class citizenship from the moment of birth; gives licence for authorities to mutilate genitals and pay less for more work. If you’re female and the victim of crime, good luck finding justice…
It’s not that Goths and Metallers don’t deserve their justice, of course they do. I was one of the latter and suffered for it during school. Sophie Lancaster paid the ultimate price in a sickening attack that shames us all; as did Steven Lawrence. But lets not forget that the Greater Manchester Police force (that) made its first ‘anti-Emo’ arrest within a fortnight of the new policy is the same force that failed for ten years to break a child sex ring for fear of being perceived racist; ten years in which dozens of girls suffered horrific, life-altering violence for the gratification of men. As I commented in a previous post ‘the integrity (and safety) of females is valued as subordinate to the integrity of ‘culture’’, cultures whose core meaning and values that are and always have been male-defined.
Detractors of ‘hate crime’ legislation and policy – usually members of privileged groups such as men and the middle-class – are right in the sense that singling out violence and discrimination against particular groups as especially serious is unproductive and fails to deal with root causes. Murder is murder; rape is rape; bullying is bullying; wage discrimination is wage discrimination. But their diagnosis of ‘political correctness gone mad’ is wrong.
Misogyny is the root predjudice; the foundation stone of hierarchy in a patriarchal system that is universal across cultures the world over. In this context, the failure to explicitly confront anti-female discrimination thru ‘hate’ legislation is disingenuous at best; scandalous at worst.
If you care about the history, reality and future of women then this is a place to invest your energy (though obviously you can only attend if you’re mercifully free of the dreaded ‘y’ mutation). For my 4oth this year I’m asking my friends and colleagues to donate here in lieu of buying me presents.
The circumstances around the death of Reeva Steenkamp are shot thru with bitter irony: she was known, amongst other things for her staunch opposition to violence against women and an advocate for self-empowerment. Shortly before her tragic demise, she Tweeted:
“WEAR BLACK THIS FRIDAY IN SUPPORT AGAINST #RAPE”
In response to South African public outrage over the brutal rape and murder of a 17-year-old: “I woke up in a happy safe home this morning. Not everyone did. Speak out against the rape of individuals in SA (South Africa). RIP Anene Booysen #rape #crime #sayNO.”
On St Valentine’s Day morning Steenkamp had been scheduled to give a motivational speech to school students in Johannesburg. “It was about empowerment and inspiration and what inspires you and how to follow your dreams,” a day that “…should be a day of love for everyone.”
For her, the ‘day of love’, and her life, ended around 4am when she was shot and fatally wounded in a home that, as it turned out wasn’t so ‘happy and safe’. As tragic as that is, the overarching tragedy is that many thousands more incidents of domestic violence, many fatal, never make the news. Despite being an accomplished and respected career woman in her own right, in death she is in danger of being reduced to an appendix to her partner, and killer, Oscar Pistorius. In human terms, his and her ‘celebrity’ changes nothing: a death is a death. But some deaths are more ‘newsworthy’ than others, a fact reflected by the byzantine speculations around cause and effect in the media:
”Roid rage’: why does our desire to triumph blind us to the dangerous side-effects of synthetic androgens?
South African gun culture and the racial divide: why is it “… inconceivable that a hero to so many millions of people would do such a thing.”
And most ludicrous of all, ‘sportsman’s instinct’ (though one can scarcely blame Pistorius‘ father in his attempt to come to terms with the family tragedy)
The simpler explanation is in danger – as so often the case – of getting lost in the mix: Oscar Pistorius is a man. The sad and terrible truth is that we, men, are responsible for the vast majority of crimes, especially crimes of violence. This is not to dismiss the possible significance of Pistorius‘ alleged-steroid use, or of gun-culture; rather to state that whether one is considering the privileged socialization of males, or a much-mooted biological predispostion towards violence, his sex/gender is undoubtedly a factor. Women do employ violence – a fact I can vouch for, having been on the receiving end – but inarguably less frequently towards men, and rarely with such ‘extreme predjudice’. Male violence is such a given, it’s rarely considered remarkable. We rape, we murder, we prosecute wars…
Stories like Savile, and Singh-Pandey, picked up and carried around the world via Twitter remind us that every victim matters, and the public cry of outrage over the latter is heartening: every death, every rape, every beating is deserving of this level of protest. It rarely happens. And in the meantime, the bloodbath continues…
The ‘y’ chromosome.
The elephant in the room.