Tag Archives: society

Mr Kenneth Tong, misogyny epitomised

Ever wondered what misogyny is? Read this interview.

I fully understand that the concept of feminism doesn’t appeal to everyone (equality isn’t everyone’s bag, especially those who seek to benefit from inequality) but I was very, very pleased to see almost universal condemnation directed at ex Big Brother contestant, the detestable Kenneth Tong.

Popularised via Twitter over the past week for his disgraceful, irresponsible tweets encouraging women and girls to starve themselves for the benefit of his limp penis, today Tong felt the full force of interrogational journalism when Independent columnist Johann Hari’s interview with him hit both the internet and press with a bang.

Tong doesn’t believe women are fully human- rather, women everywhere are disposable playthings for him to exploit freely. Women’s flesh should be regulated. Hell, women shouldn’t even eat! How selfish of them!

Gems such as ‘A girl who has sex for free is an idiot. Seriously.’ prove that Tong views women in an incredibly twisted light- not as human beings with thoughts, feelings, wants, needs and desires, but instead as blow up plastic moveable dolls that exist solely for male utility.

This isn’t a free speech issue- far from it, because I will, and am, using my free speech to contest his free speech. And, whilst this idiot has the right to say whatever he likes, those of us who oppose his hate speech (and this is hate speech, directed at women and the overweight) can use our free speech as an effective protest.

I’ve resisted adding my voice to the crowd for a while on the premise of Tong’s attention seeking nature- but it’s obvious that he’s got his attention now, so I don’t see why not. Thank goodness that everyone thinks he is awful.

I don’t have much else to say on the issue, and I certainly don’t have anything new to add to the condemnation- Johann Hari has covered it brilliantly. Everyone should read the interview. Just read it.

Assange is busy exposing you all

I don’t know anything about Swedish law. I don’t know any more about the Assange case than what’s been circulated in the press. But I do know sexism when I see it.

The irony of the Assange case is that, not unlike the purpose of Wikileaks, these rape allegations are exposing  the latent misogyny of many commenting on the case. The Assange case is busy exposing us all, and we’re completely unaware.

Some commentators on the issue outright dismiss the allegations simply because Assange created Wikileaks, citing internet rumours ‘one of the women may have CIA links‘ or that ‘one of the women threw a party for him the day after she claimed she had been ‘raped’- a real victim of rape would not do such a thing’.  Others scrunch up their faces in disdain before informing twitter/the blogosphere that there is only one real, credible, kind of rape- the kind that involves strangers, attacks, and weapons. All other claims of rape must be false rape, then. Those women must be overreacting.

Who are these people, and on what grounds do they have permission to redefine rape?

I couldn’t agree more with this article from The Independent’s Johann Hari. In it, Hari makes his stance clear, stating ’we will never unlearn or unknow the great truths that Julian Assange has brought to the world’, as well confirming  ’I do not believe in reflexively dismissing rape claims by any woman, in any circumstances.’ See, it’s not that hard to separate the website from the rape allegations. After his article was published, Hari had an exchange with one of his twitter followers, in which he must have felt he was banging his head against a brick wall:

Wikileaks can exist without Assange. I’ve always considered Wikileaks an invaluable source of information. I doubt that will change. But this case needs to stand alone.

Glenn Beck, the American right wing tea party patriot known for his reasonable and level headed comments on American politics, has stuck his oar in, with his own take on the Assange case. Just in case those of us who are reluctant to judge until the courts do don’t quite understand just how innocent Assange is, Beck has kindly broken the situation down into a chalkboard re-enactment.  It’s quite amusing to watch this video circulated amongst men who define as left wing- amusing, as well as incredibly depressing.  Not unlike the Daily Mail, Beck must have undergone a fair amount of mental turmoil when he made the decision on who to attack.

Some say that the rape allegations is being used as an excuse to imprison Assange as quickly  as possible. It’s likely this is true. Shock Doctrine author Naomi Klein tweeted yesterday- ‘Rape is being used in the #Assange prosecution in the same way that women’s freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!’ What does this prove? That Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization that have issued a red notice on Assange, don’t really give two hoots about rape victims.  Have a root around Interpol’s website if you like- they appear to investigate criminal organisations, pharmaceutical crimes, genocide, war crimes, financial and high tech crime, corruption, terrorism, human trafficking, drugs, and  even stolen works of art- but there’s very little about rape or sexual assault. Klein is probably right- and if she is, what an insult this red notice is, to rape victims around the world. Like it or not, these rape allegations are a feminist issue.

Where do you stand when it comes to the rape allegations? To completely dismiss them trivialises rape as a crime.

Do I regret dipping my opinionated toe into the Assange case? Of course not. The amount of opposition I received for daring to suggest that we separate Wikileaks from the rape allegations has been incredible- from the reasonably tame ‘[keep] fighting your corner – hats off to you – but you should give freedom of speech to those that have already made up their mind’, to mindless racist abuse from a random celebrity watcher on twitter. But the most farcical I received was two little words - ‘typical woman’.


Thank goodness that I’ve seen evidence to the contrary in the form of countless blog posts from men who also abhor the smearing of the accusers in the Assange case. Because, if it is true that only ‘typical women’ care about rape, and that only ‘typical women’ are prepared to attempt to counteract the overwhelming tide of misogyny that’s currently enveloping opinions around the case, then by jove, we’ve got some work to do.

Please stop trivialising rape!

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was refused bail today.

The amount of people who are willing to jump to Assange’s defence and dismiss the rape allegations as ‘smears’ is worrying. What’s even more worrying is the amount of people who are eagerly willing to redefine what actually constitutes as rape. Suddenly, everyone’s an expert. Forget intent or context, apparently it’s only REAL rape if a stranger ambushes a woman with a knife and pins her down to the ground.  Some have even said the women who have accused Assange of rape are just making a big deal about nothing, that what happened to his accusers was just ‘surprise sex’.

The fact the Assange plays a crucial part in ‘opening governments’ really shouldn’t have any effect on the fact that he has been accused of rape. Those who dismiss the claims as smears effectively paint Assange’s accusers as liars before the court case has even begun.

There’s nothing strange about non consensual sex being regarded as rape, no matter how much the nay-sayers attempt to disregard Swedish law as incomprehensible.

Whilst I agree with many Assange defenders that it’s suspicious that the case was dropped in August, and then picked up again around the time that the famous cables were released, the same defenders seem too quick to jump to the conclusion that Assange created Wikileaks, therefore is a good man, therefore he has never done anything wrong in his life. I also agree with the sentiment that the Swedish authorities are using these rape allegations to imprison a man that governments across the world really want imprisoned for what they consider terrorist-like acts.  But, if anything this just proves that not many people are prepared to make a fuss about rape as a crime until someone famous is involved.

The Daily Mail has attempted to tackle the subject. Torn between vilifying liberals or feminists, The Mail opted for the feminist route. Here’s a brief dissection of a couple of stand-out points from Richard Pendlebury’s extensive, misogynistic article.

‘[Assange] is certainly a man of strong sexual appetites who is not averse to exploiting his fame.’

Translation:

‘Assange needs sex like oxygen. He can have any woman he wants. These women fell for his charms.’

And the next, discussing one of the women who has accused Assange:

‘An attractive blonde, Sarah was already a well-known ‘radical feminist’. In her 30s, she had travelled the world following various fashionable causes. While a research assistant at a local university she had not only been the protegé of a militant feminist ­academic, but held the post of ‘campus sexual equity officer’. Fighting male discrimination in all forms, including sexual harassment, was her forte.’

Loosely translated into language not dripping with sexism, this reads:

‘Sarah was a radical feminist who obviously hated men because she campaigned for equality. These facts alone suggest she’s more likely to lie about being raped. She’s attractive , which means that she probably lured him to bed- women only make themselves look sexy to flaunt their wares to men.’

I’ve come to expect this sort of attitude from the Mail, but its this same attitude from men who consider themselves ’left’ or feminist that really upsets me.

An article published on lefty website Liberal Conspiracy defined Sarah’s reaction as ‘cross’ when she allegedly discovered Assange wasn’t wearing a condom. The Daily Mail described Sarah’s reaction as ‘upset’. Both authors - who by some predictable coincidence are male- use words that trivialise the rape allegations currently being held against Assange. Both authors seemingly deliberately choose words that do not even begin to cover the sense of violation, hurt, and confusion that rape victims are likely to feel. Dismiss this argument as semantics if you will- but the choice of these words matter.

I am ‘cross’ when my day doesn’t go to plan. I am ‘upset’ when my laptop breaks down. If I gave a potential lover permission to have sex with me on the basis that he wore a condom, only for him to defy my wishes, I would be a lot more than ‘cross’ or ‘upset’.

Assange’s rape trial hasn’t even begun. We do not know if he did it or not. Just as it would be wrong to brand Assange a rapist, it’s equally as wrong to paint his accusers as liars.

Feminism, fakery and the parody of performance

Snog, Marry, Avoid- a tale of our time?

Now well into its third series, BBC3’s Snog, Marry Avoid is billed as a make-under show that promises to ‘transform OTT girls and boys into natural beauties’. Tune in and you’ll witness scores of women who are apparently in need of a  drastic make-under in order to reassure them they look fine just the way they are, and that they don’t need fake tan, nails, hair and eyelashes to look their very best. One sentiment echoed by almost every young woman hauled into Song Marry Avoid’s personal overhaul device (abbreviated into P.O.D- the harsh robot with a big heart) is that they don’t feel comfortable without make up. They don’t feel like themselves without make up. They feel unattractive without make up on, and some refuse to leave the house without at least a slick of mascara. The programme sometimes deals with interestingly decorated men too- but the majority of Snog Marry Avoid’s applicants are women.

Those of you who watch the X Factor will probably remember a young woman from Yorkshire who named herself Chloe Mafia. Chloe had a pretty good singing voice, and had also featured on Snog, Marry Avoid earlier this year. She eventually became the tabloid news’s object of ridicule thanks to her dress sense and beauty regime, which included barely there outfits, fake tan, heavy makeup and thick hair extensions. Queue vilification from the press and numerous allegations of Miss Mafia’s dalliances with the sex industry.

With both case studies, a few questions spring to mind. Why are young women so insistent on donning these extra bits and pieces, these add ons and addendums, in order to feel fully physically attractive? How did it come this? These women’s ideas of what constitutes as sexually attractive may be somewhat exaggerated, but ultimately, by toning down their image a tad, the same tired old formula of physical attractiveness = self-worth is still pushed, just at a different speed. Watch the Snog Marry Avoid ladies rush into the arms of their loved ones after their make-unders. They smile, they gush, sometimes they cry, as their boyfriends and husbands and sisters and friends exclaim ‘don’t you look beautiful!’. These make-unders aren’t as progressive as they seem.

Now, I’m no anthropologist, but I’d like to put forward the theory that the very same women who wear excessive amounts of makeup and fakery have been subjected to hundreds upon thousands of distorted and doctored images of ‘perfect’ women throughout their lifetimes. Fashion, beauty and lifestyle magazines aimed and women and teenage girls have long been advocates of using airbrushing technology and digital body sculpting in the pictures they publish. On top of this, there’s the issue of the women being photographed for those magazines being unhealthily thin in the first place (not all- but an unacceptable amount).  These magazines have the audacity to pass their doctored images off as real- as an accurate representation of what an attractive woman looks like.  These pictures are a unique kind of conditioning- over the years, if you’re led to believe that a woman is only attractive with all of these add ons, you’re bound to do it too. We shouldn’t be surprised, then, when women in their late teens and early twenties attempt to do the same with the resources they’ve got. We definitely shouldn’t pour scorn on them. All of us are guilty of emulating our icons, and it’s by no means something to be ashamed of.  The pictures are fake. Can you blame young women for aspiring to be fake, too?

Is feminism a dirty word?

It’s International Women’s Day on March 8th. With this in mind, perhaps it’s important to address the taboo of feminism amongst our generation. Why are so many young people reluctant to declare themselves as feminists? You’d think it would be common place in this day and age, given the extensive protests, essays, literature and general awareness we’ve witnessed from feminist movements over the past 100 years. But there’s a stereotype surrounding the word- one that conjures up images of angry, man hating, bra burning, dungaree clad women with hairy armpits. Singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis, also known as Marina and The Diamonds, summed it up when she recently tweeted:

“I like how women wrinkle their noses when asked ‘Would you call yourself a feminist?’…
It’s more fashionable to be sexually empowered than “intellectually” empowered, it seems.”

It could be said that the feminist battle has already been won. Women have the right to a university education, access to high power jobs, the right to vote… the list goes on. But it would be absurd to suggest women and men are now equal. What isn’t absurd is to suggest that we still live in a patriarchal society. A society where young women are indoctrinated with digitally enhanced and airbrushed celebrities, told they’re not good enough, and advised to spend as much money as possible to achieve perfection. A society that finds its young women overtly sexualised from an uncomfortably young age, and judged, first and foremost, on their physical appearance. If that’s not patriarchal, I don’t know what is.  A government funded report recently attracted a lot of attention from the press, earning comments from Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Both agreed that the sexualisation of children must stop. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that this immense peer pressure on girls and women to look attractive in order to gain approval from their peers is down to the constant, aggressive barrage of images we’re all subjected to through popular culture- in particular, the celebrities we admire. Sure, these celebs are very talented, but looking perfect is top of their list of priorities. The unobtainable look has become the norm, and any female in the industry slightly left of beautiful is an anomalous phenomenon. Susan Boyle proves this.

Take a step back and asses the situation. What’s happened to common sense? As children we were warned never to judge a book by its cover. Good looks do not equal a good person. When did beauty become an accurate measure of self worth?

In a lot of ways, this is a boring, tired old argument, one that’s been debated time and time again. But doesn’t the fact that the issue won’t go away confirm how big a problem it is? Feminism has always been about empowering and equipping females with the opportunities and education to better themselves.

In reality, there is no stereotype that can define a feminist. Feminists definitely aren’t ‘anti man’. If you believe in equality, you believe in feminism. It’s as simple as that.

For more information, visit www.thefword.org.uk or http://www.internationalwomensday.com/