A different sort of female genital mutilation

I've a new post on GlobalComment


About thirty years ago, there was an informal secret society in the city of Cork. Perhaps a loose net of those with a shared interest might be more accurate. This group passed the names of certain professionals around – who could be trusted, previous experiences, and religious beliefs. The information was gathered from many sources. It was shared among women of childbearing age because none wanted a fervently Catholic gynecologist.

A fervently Catholic gynecologist might put his beliefs into practice on the delivery table. He might choose to save the life of the child over the mother, or regardless of consequences make sure the woman would conceive again, or choose to mutilate a woman’s body rather than allow the idea that the woman might choose contraception in the future.

In the grand tradition of submission to the catholic church, Irish doctors used the surgical technique of symphysiotomy, long after the rest of the developed world had discredited its practice. Symphysiotomy was developed in 1597 and was routinely used to widen the pelvis during childbirth. By dividing the cartilage of the symphysis pubis, the pelvis can be widened by up to two centimetres.

Known complications include haemorrhage, injury to the urethra or bladder, vesicovaginal or urethrovaginal fistula, stress incontinence, sepsis, and pelvic osteoarthropathy. In some cases women experienced difficulty in walking and an unstable pelvis.

The technique was largely abandoned in the late nineteenth century after improvements in the hygiene and clinical practice of Caesarean section. It is still practiced in developing countries when Caesarean section is too risky and it can save the life of the mother and/or that of the child.


However, in Ireland, women were subjected to symphysiotomy without consent for religious reasons, even though Caesarean sections were relatively safe. It was thought that women subjected to repeated Caesareans might be tempted to use contraception and that could not be allowed to happen.

[Dr] Alex Spain was the champion of symphysiotomy at the National Maternity Hospital. In 1944, he revived the technique because Caesarean sections might lead to “contraception, the mutilating operation of sterilisation, and marital difficulty.” At that time Caesarean sections were perfectly safe and symphysiotomy had fallen into disrepute. Spain admitted his decision went against the weight of the entire English-speaking obstetrical world’.

From 1944 to 1983, 1,500 women underwent this unnecessary and traumatic surgical procedure leaving many in pain for the rest of their lives because of the religious beliefs of a few men. Many survivors have spoken of feeling the saw cut through the public bone and seeing horrific injuries on their newborns. These are just two stories:

“I’ve been in pain ever since. I’ve still attending hospitals with back pain and kidney problems. I’d go to bed one night and would be ok but the next day I would not be able to get out of the bed, I wouldn’t be able to put my feet to the ground, all because of the operation, and I didn’t know at the time. I had x-rays taken of my legs to see what was wrong but they couldn’t find anything wrong.”

and

“They gave me hardly any information, whatsoever, until I got to the theatre. The only thing I remember is the nurses saying I had lovely red hair. They showed me the saw. It was an ordinary hand saw, they showed me where they were going to open the pelvic bone. They didn’t explain — they said: “You are going to have your baby now.” It was such agony, a terrible severe pain.”

Women were subject to this outdated practice because Catholic doctors believed that women would not choose to undergo multiple Caesarean sections. Such women might turn to contraception, the idea of which was unacceptable to those doctors at the time. These doctors saw themselves as upholding the laws of the Catholic church and those who are still alive show no remorse. They deny the damage they inflicted.

Continue reading here

Fellatio and fruit bats: sexual harassment vs. academic freedom

I've a new post on GlobalComment

When is sexual harassment not sexual harassment? When it pertains to the rights of an academic to discuss the sex life of fruit bats with a colleague. Add a cry for understanding, a wail of academic censorship and a quick online petition and the academic community is up in metaphorical arms.

This is the tale of Dylan Evans and his online fight to prove himself innocent of sexual harassment and to place himself as the victim of a politically correct university regime determined to undermine his academic freedom. In a presumably desperate act, he transmitted his story to the HuffingtonPost who obligingly printed his point of view, started a petition about his academic persecution and began to stir up what was to become #fruitbatgate.

His fight was undermined, however, by his publication of the relevant correspondence allowing all denizens of the internet to judge for themselves, and more recently by his lack of respect for the confidentiality of the disciplinary proceedings. In fact, it has all blown up in his face.

The online affair began as a simple claim that Evans’ academic freedom was being limited because he was unable to discuss the sex life of fruit bats with a colleague without being accused of sexual harassment. Plenty of academics all over the world enthusiastically signed the petition, probably without reading the details. As Evans’ said

If we cannot discuss scientific articles about topics directly related to our own research, published in leading peer-reviewed international journals with colleagues in the same department, this bodes very ill for informed inquiry and debate.

What Evans fails to add is that he is an evolutionary psychologist and the woman he harassed is an expert nutritionist. Fellatio in fruit bats would not seem to be a topic directly related to the research of either party.

Evans seems to have a couple of major gripes. Firstly, he did not mean to offend her. Secondly, she did not tell him she was offended. Thirdly, he wants to be allowed to discuss fellatio with anyone is chooses.

Not meaning to offend someone is neither here nor there. An offender does not get to justify hir offense. An offender gets to apologise and to not repeat the words. Instead, Evans has created the biggest “I didn’t mean to” cry by casting his plea all over the internet. If he truly did not mean to offend, then he needs to learn what can cause offence and the university-imposed monitoring and counselling can only aid with his understanding.

Finish reading here

Hunky dory billboards

Yeah I'm a humourless feminist and think that the Hunky Dory ads are pathetic, exploitative and sexist. The ads dress women in bikinins so brief that their underwear is shown and adds to the sexualisation. They mock women's participation in sport and posit women as sexualised objects to be used for body parts, primarily breasts and buttocks. Having half naked women on billboards, HD only care about their cis straight male audience.

They reinforce the culturally imposed role for women to perform femininity - No matter where or in what context women must always be beautiful, thin and be available for sex. Such advertising has proved to traumatise girls and provoke extreme dieting. In addition, how can boys learn to have healthy relationships with actual girls when all they see are airbrushed images of perfection.

Obviously Hunky Dorys don't want women, girls or gay men to buy their products and I for one am delighted to never purchase any of their products again.

The standard defence is that it's only a bit of a laugh and that anyone who objects has no sense of humour. It's not fucking funny. The company has also decided that its ok cos the photographer has done Sports Illustration's photoshoots in the past and therefore is an artiste!

Women's sports teams are undervalued in this country. They are rarely lauded on the national sportscasts or given widespread public recognition. Since HD was promoting men's rugby why didn't HD put men in revealing bikinis? If you think that idea is ridiculous, why is it ridiculous? Why are women put in this position and not men. There seems to be a prevailing attitude that people don't want to look at barely clad men. Well, bring it on. Someone should do the exact shoot with male models and plaster it all over the country with suggestive slogans. Would you still laugh and tell men who feel objectified that they are overreacting?

The French rugby team pose for a mostly nude calendar every year. There is nudity, it is very popular and it is a world away from the exploitative ads that Hunky Dory produced.

The usual non apology apology was trotted out by Raymond Coyle, chief executive of Largo Foods:

I’m sorry if some people are offended.... we don’t think the ads are sexist or too provocative. Walter Iooss, the photographer for Sports Illustrated, took the photographs and we think they are very good.”

Classic!

Well portraying women as sex objects contributes to Ireland's rape culture, which has become so evident in recent months.

The difference between these ads and the nudish photographs of the French rugby team could not be more different... engagement with the camera, the gaze and the fact that these are actual players who have chosen to wear few clothes. These two things are not the same. Compare and contrast the following (NSFW)






See the difference?

For when your vaginal odour is just not sexy enough

h/t Panti

You can just use this organic vaginal scent - Vid and site not safe for work



This is a real thing in the world.

A young girl grows up with fashion mags, tv, movies, billboards and society all implying that she is too fat, thin, tall, small, hairy, small breasted, large breasted, prudish or slutty. That's been standard for a while now.

Now that same girl is being given a whole new set of "suggestions": remove all genital hair; how about some vajazzling; why not deodorize your vagina; how about perfuming your vulva; you can also get surgery to "rejuvenate your vagina". All these actions will give you "self esteem". They are "empowering".

FUCKING BULLSHIT

Who selected these people?

From RTE.

The greatest Irish person ever? There are 40 nominees, three of whom are women. Three? The three included are Mary Robinson, Sonia O Sullivan and Adi Roche. The list does not include:

Constance Markievicz
Grace O Malley
Fionnula Flanagan
Lady Augusta Gregory
Edna O Brien
Dame Alice Kyteler
Sinead O Connor
Enya
Dervla Murphy
Catherine Tynan
Deirdre O Kane
Kathleen Clarke
Pauline McLynn
Nano Nagle
Nuala Fennell
Mary McAleese
Brigid of Kildare
Catherine Hayes
Samantha Mumba
Dervla Kirwan
Fiona O'Shaughnessy
Queen Meadb of Connaught
Nuala O'Faolain
Cecelia Ahern
Eva Gore-Booth
Maria Edgeworth
Veronica Guerin
Geraldine Kennedy
Olivia O'Leary
Mary Raftery
Aine Lawlor
Andrea Corr
Niamh Kavanagh
Mary Balfour Herbert
Katherine Plunket
Dr. Margaret MacCurtain

Presumably because it was easier to pick whatever pop star was the MOST FAMOUS EVER than think about the terms of the contribution to Irish society.

In the eternal words of Paul Gogerty, FUCK YOU RTE, FUCK YOU.

Ladies, stay young regardless of the recession

And it helps to be thin, able-bodied, mentally healthy, white and rich enough to afford all the youth-making treatments recommended by Orna Mulcahy in today's Irish Times. Here are a few snippets:

If the budget doesn’t stretch to that may I recommend an old remedy: a body brush ... will remove dead cells from the skin in a jiffy, while a whipped-up egg white, if allowed to set on the face for 15 minutes, will produce a surprisingly taut result,

That terrible photograph of Carla Bruni ... she looks all pale and weirdly frozen... she looks less like Carla, the free spirit, and more like the free spirit’s witchy mother.

But one thing that an older woman cannot do is look like a far younger woman, and that is her tragedy, particularly if her man likes far younger women.

The ideal woman for any man is half his age, plus seven years... Explain it to a man and you watch his face puzzle for a moment and then clear before giving in with a graceful smile... Your 40-year-old man realises that indeed it might be nicer to be with a 27-year-old rather than with someone his own age, who might be losing definition in all kinds of places.

[Sam Mendes]’s trading Kate [Winslet] in for a younger model, to be perfectly blunt and horrible about it.

Scientists have established that men seek out women with clear skin and shiny hair, two attributes of a healthy body, ie one that can still bear a child.

Ok, Ok I quoted more than snippets. But I almost got a bingo on the evo psych card by Aerik.

I will resist the temptation to fisk the entire article. And just say that women are people. You cannot reduce a person to a shell. Staying young is impossible. Grasping at straws and using 'miracle' treatments to stave off age ultimately ends in failure. Women are always judged by their looks: whether fat or thin, tall or short, TAB or disabled, conventionally attractive, with or without body hair, piercing, tattoos etc.

I think that Mulcahy's article was meant to be tongue in cheek or "all us girls together" but fails. Being a humourless feminist I wouldn't laugh anyway, on principle! Women are not a monolith. Amazingly, some women are attracted to other women; some women are not attracted to anyone; some women are attracted to younger men; some women opt out of participating in the patriarchal Olympics etc

Anyway, you can diet, botox, wax etc., but it is never enough. Is your vagina tight enough? Is your mons sparkly enough? Vajazzling takes care of the latter but the former requires surgery. Are your breasts big enough, small enough, perky enough...? Do you earn enough but not too much? Are you a free-spirit but not too opinionated? Do you wear revealing clothing but not look like a slut? It is never enough. It is never enough. The patriarchy will judge you and still find you wanting. Just look at the judgment leveled against Carla Bruni, considered to be one of the most beautiful women in the world.

Ryanair demonstrates lack of original thinking

From the Sindo

RYANAIR was accused last night of a "serious lack of imagination" after the airline insisted its 2010 cabin crew calendar was "art".

The new calendar, featuring two Irish employees, is more risque than previous editions.

Art? Seriously? The erotic can be art of course and art can be very sexual but that sexuality comes through agency not objectification.

The National Women's Council of Ireland (NWCI) said the no-frills carrier was "irredeemably old-fashioned" for using images of scantily clad women to raise funds for charity. But Ryanair accused the NWCI of not having "a clue how young women empower themselves".

Those humourless feminists are wreaking my right to see half naked women. Young women may empower themselves through naked photos but that does not mean that Ryanair's decision is not profoundly sexist. The managers at Ryanair (how many are women?) are using the bodies of their staff for promotion. It is one of the most cynical uses of power. They take advantage of societal sexism and their employees, rather despicable behaviour.

"What we have is one step up from last year which makes it a little bit sexier," spokesman Stephen McNamara said at the launch in London yesterday.

However, NWCI director Susan McKay said: "It shows a serious lack of imagination presenting women as sex objects."

And apparently sexy is always better, so when is their calendar of naked men coming out?

I agree with McKay, that Ryanair's decision shows a lack of original thinking. If your product requires a naked woman's objectified body to sell, then consider that your product is just a bit pathetic.

"Mothers are selfish bitches" according to Jane Kirby of the Sindo

Isn't it amazing in this modern 21st century world that mothers still bear total responsibility for raising children. Those working hussies should feel guilty for abandoning their children, according to Irish Independent reporter Jane Kirby:

Mothers who work raise unhealthier children than those who stay at home, researchers said yesterday

Mothers not parents. What about the other parent? Fathers caring for children is not taken into account. Despite the increasing number of fathers who take the primary caregiving role, and the equal caregiving by both parents, the Sindo decides to take a blast from the past and attempt to shame working mothers. It is an old tactic but pulls nicely on the Catholic guilt that most schools succeed in infusing in their charges.

Do men have no influence or responsibility for their offspring? How about children of a gay couple or a poly couple or any other non traditional family unit? Should single mothers give up work, draw social welfare, require social housing and basically become the stimatised straw dole-queen that middle class conservatives have railed against for decades?

Won't somebody please think of the children?



And the British Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health considers this a mother's responsibility, not a parent's responsibility. As usual, total heteronormative bullshit.

Mothers who worked full-time had the unhealthiest children, followed by those who worked part-time. They typically worked 21 hours per week (with a range of 16 to 30 hours) and for 45 months (with a range of 25 to 55 months). Overall, many children had habits that could lead to them becoming overweight. For example, 37pc of children mostly ate crisps or sweets between meals and 41pc mostly drank sweetened drinks.A total of 61pc watched television or used the computer for at least two hours a day.

Ah everything becomes clearer, some children have habits that could led to the dreaded obesity. Apart from the conditionals, the invocation of the sin of fat, and the lack of any sort of empirical research, correlation is not causation.

I have a couple of questions for the Sindo, as they dive into the goldmine that is the "obesity crisis". It sure does sell papers but is devoid of fact.

• Do you know that children need fat and sugar to grow?
• Do you know that the person who invented BMI (standard medical measurement) totally rejected its use to determine health of adults and never for children?
• Do you know that medical insurance companies arbitrarily changed BMI in the 80s and millions became overweight overnight?
• Do you know that BMI has been proved to be bullshit?
  
• Do you know what "overweight" looks like?
• Do you know that being "overweight" makes you more likely to survive a heart attack?
  

You cannot tell the health of a person by looking at them or what they eat. The current obsession with fat as unhealthy is dangerous.

Children know when they are being discussed and the shame gets a hold. I am fat now but I wasn't when I was a kid. Adults told me I was fat and I saw my body as hideous. That is a learned behaviour. I grew up to be fat and healthy. The emotional damage took a lot longer. I visited anorexia and bulimia until I accepted myself as I am through plenty of fat acceptance reading. Publicly worrying about children's weight is dangerous. I was not the only child that was deeply affected by adults' comments to me or about me.

In the second last paragraph of this sexist, heteronormative, homophobic piece of tripe, there is the standard classism. The Sindo says:

But when the researchers took away factors that might influence the results, such as socio-economic background, they found a definite link between a mother working and the child's health.

Yes, those mothers are so selfish as to work when we live in the Irish socialist paradise. Mothers who are the sole earners who consider the "health" of their children and give up their aul jobs.

Forget about the mortgage or rent, food on the table and luxuries like school uniforms or heat. Forget the notion of an equal partnership. Forget about equal responsibility. Forget that the definition of what constitutes a family has changed. Forget the undervaluation of mothers' work. Forget all the progress that women have made to achieve equal rights.

Because the article basically boils down to nuclear two hetero parents, in which Daddy earns and Mummy gets belittled for doing likewise. Stupid bitch, get back in the kitchen and think of the children because you cannot have a life or work outside the home without being accused of selfishness and neglect. It's all your fault for not slaving over a hot stove and feeding your children three home-cooked meals a day.

Jane Kirby is sexist, misogynistic, homophobic, heteronormative, conservative and has written a piece full of hyperbolic sensationalist lies. It's hard to believe that this piece was cleared by three Sindo editors. But then again, what can be expected from a paper that pays and gives an platform to a racist, misogynistic asshole.

WTF Ulster Bank

Just heard this on Liveline - Ulster Bank is giving any a voucher for a visit to a lap dancing club when you open a student bank account.

Sexist to say the least. Disgusting, objectifying and more.

Insulting to sex workers.

I have no words except everyone should change accounts.

Now the bank is saying they did not know what was in the fresher bag. I call bullshit.

I will write more later as am in keyboard smash mood.

I am not amused

I received this in my inbox today.

Four guys and a woman are stuck in an elevator. While they are stuck, they strike up a conversation.

The first guy says, 'I'm a Y.U.P.P.I.E., you know... Young, Urban, Professional, Peaceful, Intelligent, Ecologist.''

The second guy says, 'I'm a D.I.N.K.Y, you know....Double Income, No Kids Yet. '

The third guy says, 'I'm a R.U.B., you know...Rich, Urban, Biker

The fourth guy says, I am a D.I.L.D.O, you know... Double Income, Little Dog Owner.

They turn to the woman and ask her, What are you?

She replies: 'I'm a WIFE, you know...



FORWARD TO MEN WHO WILL SOOOOOO ENJOY IT AND WOMEN WHO HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF HUMOUR

I'm not laughing. I'm a humourless feminist when it comes to "jokes" that objectify women and posit the 50% of the world as labourers / whores for teh menz.

Stay classy Ryan Tubridy

A new Late Late Show host fumbles the ball. Pat "the plank" Kenny has handled the torch to Ryan "great connections" Tubridy. Isn't he Cathal Goan's cousin or something like that?

Stealing a little style from both David Letterman and Jon Stewert, Tubridy Tonight the new Late Late begins. It was better than dismal but Tubsy was a tad patronising to virtually all his guests and audience.

The interview with Biffo was a mix of great and fail. Bet Biffo's fist was itching to punch Tubsy at the end. But it wouldn't be good considering the FF connection. Biffo's numbers might actually rise though. At least the interview gave us such classic quotes as

"I don't drink too much"
"I rebel against politically correct culture"

I'm sorry did I write classic, I meant mildly interesting. Tubridy did bring up JOD's expenses, Biffo's drinking as well as simpler questions such as do you like being Taoiseach.

I wish I had turned off the telly then and missed Tubridy's infantilising and sexist comments about Sharon Corr. But the worst part was the disgusting interview with Brian McFadden about McFadden's ex wife Kerry Katona. McF was playing the innocent absentee father and both of them were casting Katona into the evil bitch mold. Real classy act there Tubsy - attack a women who is not there to defend herself and egg on her douchebag ex husband to wax lyrical about what a terrible mother / person / creature she is. And bringing on McF's mother to diss Katona is more of the same. It just shows that you had preplanned to tear Katona to shreds. Is there no sure thing as balance on your IKEA-decorated set? Or will Katona be on next week?

McF admitted that he knows nothing except for the tabloid stories. So why the vicious gossip-mongering and bringing on the poor Irish mammy and her son to slut-shame a woman who is not present and about whom no one has had contact? Dragging the Late Late to a new low.

Don't think I'll be tuning in on a regular basis.

This word does not mean what you think it means

Today's Irish Times has a piece of the increase of Irish women turning to and returning to sex work in part because of poverty caused by the crash and subsequent mismanagement of the economy.

In the same article Gerardine Rowley, spokeswoman for Ruhama, talks about the increasing number of underage girls and young women that are being trafficked from the developing world into Ireland for the purpose of sexual exploitation.

It is great that this issue is getting some coverage in the press but I have very unimpressed with the title of the article.

"Increase in Irishwomen engaged in street vice"

It is classic victim-blaming in our little Irish morality play. "Vice"? Really? That's the best the Irish Times can come up with. I think the IT needs to consult a bloody dictionary.

Vice
Etymology: Middle English 14th century, from Anglo-French, from Latin vitium fault, vice

1. moral depravity or corruption, wickedness, a moral fault or failing, a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming
2. blemish, defect
3. a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint
4. a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play
5. buffoon, jester
6. an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness
7. sexual immorality

So either the editor who inserted the headline needs a dictionary instead of a payrise or the IT is attempting to shame women who engage in sex work both voluntarily or not or someone on the IT staff is an old fashioned misogynist who is trying to enact a morality play.

The headline could have read something like this

"Increased demand for paid sex from Irishmen leads to sexual exploitation and trafficking in underage girls"

But we can't have a headline like that, can we. In the same way that women "get raped", sex workers "engage in sex work". The role of men is obscured.

Twas ever so in green old Erin's Isle. Blame the women and girls. Lock them up in the Magdalene Laundries, to labour without pay for the rest of their lives, while the men and boys went free.

I know the editors write the titles so I'm not slamming the journalist but I think that the paper of record needs to understand that disappearing men from an article on sex work is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to moralise about how some people make ends meet.

I write letters

Dear PR person responsible for the "Don't be manipulated" poster and the manager who approved it,

Why are you creating posters that posit women as objects rather than adult humans with full agency?

This poster says "shame on you, you mindless puppet, for not knowing that there are partisan anti-abortion agencies trying to counsel you, you stupid little girl, who cannot tell the difference".

How is a poster like that of any use with the woman-as-object, woman-without-agency, woman-as-child imagery?

You show a shocking lack of respect and a tendency to bullying yourselves.

I suggest a sincere apology, rapid withdrawal of the poster and to commit to not using women as objects in any future campaign.

I look forward to receiving your reply.

Regards,

Mór Rígan

h/t Maman Poulet

Dear Anonymous

Have a look at the evo psych rape/sexism excuse bingo card by Aerik and then reevaluate.

Gender stereotypes alive and well in the Irish Times

This piece of trash is a cheap shot at gender stereotypes and those who are unemployed.

Women have been insulated from the worst of the carnage since they had already retreated to the home full-time or took the three-day week, convenient safer jobs in the public sector, college, or set up their own low-risk small business: home-catering for one friend, counselling for another, or column-writing in my case.

Oh really? Women have been insulated from the worst part of the recession? Are you referring to women like you Carey? Upper middle class, married, het, cis women presumably. That is not the majority. Way to devalue the work that women do.

Projecting your personal experience on to the backs of other women, is a fucking disgrace, Carey. It's insulting and in error.

I think it is telling that someone with the economic privilege to work part time at column-writing during the recession is generalising her experiences. She has no idea how the rest of us live. I doubt she was one of the 200 people to line up on Grafton Street to interview for a cashier's position in Londis. I doubt she understands that money worries pervade every aspect of your life, when you don't have any. There is no "joy of autonomy" in unemployment during a recession.

Anyway, here’s our dirty little secret – whether down-shifting or opting out – life is great. We are masters of our universe. Whether working from home or in the home, women have discovered the joys of autonomy. Not completely of course – bills still have to be paid, deadlines obeyed and the insatiable needs of children to be met. But there are no tortuous Monday morning management meetings, no hellish commutes, no power point presentations and no angry clients.

Now it’s all been ruined with these husbands hanging around at home. Leaving aside the financial strain, an alien creature has invaded the house. It reminds one of the soaring divorce rate among older couples in Japan where a retired husband shows up and a 30-year marriage ends. Ireland’s unemployed husbands may not be facing abandonment but are finding their wives aren’t exactly thrilled about unlimited quality time.

I hate the chatty "between us girls" tone of this article. Carey assumes that all of us girls agree with this point of view and that all readers are the straightest straight people in the world. Another bloody hetero-nomative assumption.

Since when do the "joys of autonomy" include taking care of children and cleaning the house. It remains me of those fundie freaks that believe that housework is empowering. A big, fuck you to that.

Welcome to the 21st century, Carey. There are different family groups, sexual orientations and negotiations between partners. This article plays on the "men do not contribute to the housework" trope. It's tired and frankly pathetic.

Language matters

Ireland has gone down the tubes economically and the latest bludget is the topic du jour. Earlier today, I was avidly reading opinion pieces, blog posts and RSS feeds until I came across this piece

Our economy has been raped by a relatively small number of speculators. Sixty, seventy, perhaps a hundred greedy individuals have brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy, abetted by the craven, corrupt and unprincipled political party that now leads our government.

Now I agree with Bock on the greed and hypocrisy of the government but I was shocked out of my reading by his use of the word "raped". I was triggered. I am a two time rape survivor with PTSD. I used the usual methods to try and ride out the worst of it and then I got really fucking angry because what is happening to the Irish economy cannot be compared to rape. It is the misappropriation of my experience and the experience of other survivors.

I am living in Ireland with our shitty government. I have survived rape twice. They are not the same thing. Comparing playing politics with rape is abhorrent but it is possible that Bock did not know how offensive rape in this context is. When I'd calmed down I commented fairly politely I think.

Whatever about the banks, it’s horrible to use “rape” as a verb,

Our economy has been raped by a relatively small number of speculators. Sixty, seventy, perhaps a hundred greedy individuals have brought our country to the brink of bankruptcy, abetted by the craven, corrupt and unprincipled political party that now leads our government.

considering that one in four children and one in three women are raped in this country. Rape is not a word that should be used to describe a failing economy.

Then the author replied thusly.

It’s not being used to describe a failing economy. It’s being used to describe a conscious and brutal violation.

I tried to explain - less politely I admit.

That’s not the same as rape. You do not compare like with like. You take from what you imagine other people’s trauma and experiences to be and apply that to political decisions.

You may know that many rape survivors have PTSD and can be triggered by rape in this context. I can’t speak for every survivor of course but I did not expect to be triggered in a post about the economy and the banks.

Mostly I enjoy your blog but I can’t risk the post traumatic stress fallout that I experience because of that language.

I’m sure others will be kind enough to follow up with tasteful comments about PC police and over-sensitivity.

The reply was a classic non apology apology of the "I'm sorry if you were offended" genre.

I’m sorry if you find my choice of language painful but that’s how I choose to describe what has been done to us by these criminals. Nobody has ownership of a word in the language.

Bock is asserting his choice to use the word rape in this context and that nobody can claim ownership of a word. Well of course nobody can claim ownership of a word but words have meaning. He can choose to use the word but it is inaccurate and demonstrates a certain "don't give a fuck" attitude considering that a significant minority of his readers are probably rape survivors, at least statistically speaking.

Wikipedia says

Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or sexual penetration of another person without that person's consent.

And Websters says

An unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

There are of course older definitions but in modern language rape is as defined above.

I am not trying to take ownership of the word rape but using it in such a context trivialises the crime and the impact on survivors. Since one in four children and one in three women is raped in Ireland, I find the response very insensitive especially since Bock wrote some great posts on child sexual abuse of the Catholic church and is therefore at least partially informed on the subject.

SarahMC on Shakesville's arguments on the subject which express my discomfort with such contextual use.

Why do people use the word "rape" to describe annoyances or hardships that don't come close to being like rape? I bet much of the appeal, for such people, is the shock value of using a word for sexual assault to describe something that has nothing to do with sexual assault.

Implying that failing a test or getting killed in a video game is as traumatizing and horrible as rape trivializes rape. I have never been raped, but I have a strong reaction to the misuse of the word (usually by men). Maybe it's because rape is a crime committed primarily against women. "Killed" and "murdered" don't rub me the wrong way; I think it's because both men and women are killed on a regular basis, by people of both sexes. Our culture does not apologize for murder, deny that it occurs, and immediately blame the victims for what happened to them. And murder goes unpunished far less often than rape.

Maybe it's because of the unapologetic, brash tone people tend to take when they misuse it. When people throw the word around casually, I feel as though they are dismissing rape and failing to put themselves in others' shoes. As the comic illustrates, people who'd use the word "rape" in that context have a massive blind spot when it comes to a threat women live with their whole lives.

People can be so clueless; but they also show a real disregard for others' feelings and comfort (that, or they delight in it). Does anyone have good strategies for confronting people who use triggering or otherwise offensive language in their presence?

And in the comments Melissa nails it

When an acquaintance (associate, coworker, friend-of-a-friend, etc.) casually uses rape in my presence, to mean something Totally Not Like Rape, I usually say, "It seems to me you don't really know what rape is like. I've been raped. Would you like me to explain to you the difference between being raped and ____________?"

So yeah language matters. Meaning matters. Consideration of others matters too.

As for the non apology apology, it's more insulting to faux apologise than to tell a person to just fuck off because you just don't care.

Do not want

To Wilkinson Sword

This is disgusting. The basic message is "your body is horrible so use our product". No thank you. I am not interested in your product and I do not want to subscribe to your newsletter.

Also bonus for ticking the sexual harassment box too. How many times does a woman have to remove a man's hand from her body before she is taken seriously? Does it not occur to you that she has no cause to look ashamed at the end. The man is the one who savagely overreacted to invisible hair on the legs of the woman he just harassed.

I wrote to them. You can too.

h/t Shapely Prose

Memo to Pat Kenny

Crying is not a feminine characteristic. Crying is not a masculine characteristic.

A man crying is not showing his feminine side. He is having a physical reaction to an emotion.

A woman crying is not showing her feminine side. Se is having a physical reaction to an emotion.

Can you please stop living in the 50s?

Kthanksbai douchebag

The hypocrisy of a dying church

The Catholic Church continues to show its contempt and misogyny last week when two people in Brazil were excommunicated. The Vatican has endorsed the recent decision.

A senior Vatican cleric has defended the excommunication in Brazil of the mother and doctors of a young girl who had an abortion with their help.

The nine-year-old had conceived twins after alleged abuse by her stepfather.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re told Italian paper La Stampa that the twins "had the right to live" and attacks on Brazil's Catholic Church were unfair.

Because that's what's unfair in this scenario! Poor RCC is being attacked!

The callousness of the Church's treatment of a 9 year old rape survivor is almost beyond belief. It would be beyond belief if it wasn't for the revelations of the past twenty years showing that there was a clear policy of non disclosure of abusive and pedophile priests. Instead rape and sexual abuse survivors are ostracized.

This is that same organisation that would shame pregnant and unmarried women and girls from the pulpit, announcing their sins to the congregation. This was nicely followed by locking them up, physically abusing them and separating mother and child after delivery.

This is the same organisation that reputedly colluded with Nazi Germany and blessed Mussolini on his way to commit genocide.

This is the organisation that reassigned pedophile and abusive priests.

This is the organisation that forgives murderers, rapists, torturers and mass murderers

This is the organisation that excommunicated a doctor and a mother for providing and allowing an abortion to a 9 year old child pregnant with twins through incestuous rape.

The rapist has not been excommunicated.

Natalia is absolutely right in her assertion that abortion is not the issue

Here’s a fact: abortion has always existed. It wasn’t particularly safe and it certainly wasn’t something you spoke about in mixed company, but the truth is - women have been choosing to end their pregnancies for thousands of years. For as long as it was done secretly, for as long as the sluts stood a good chance of bleeding to death - few people actually worried about the so-called moral implications of abortion.

Of course, the minute a rape victim or anyone else can have access to a safe abortion, it becomes an issue of BUT WHAT ABOUT THE INNOCENT BABY???

Deborah at the Hand Mirror is absolutely right

This is just appalling on so many grounds: a child was raped and impregnated, in such a way that her own life is seriously at risk, and even then, some celibate man in a dress thinks that she shouldn't have an abortion.

I was born and bred and educated in the Catholic church, and I had always understood that from the church's point of view, while abortion was a great evil, that if the mother's life was in danger, then abortion was permissible, even if regrettable. I guess even that's too much for women-hating bishops. And they've moved on from hating women. Now they hate girl children too.

There is commenter, ZenTiger, at Deborah's place who is asserting among other misogynist crap, that he knows of two girls ages 8 and 9 who survived pregnancy. My answer is so what? The fact that this person had to go digging to find justification is horrible but that doesn't change the fact that a 9 year old girl's body cannot bring twins to term without significant danger. In all probability all three children would die. This is all beside the point anyway.

Why should a person be forcibly pregnant? Why should a mother be excommunicated for upholding her daughter's wishes and acting in her best interest? What should a doctor be excommunicated for saving the life of his patient? What business does the RCC have interfering in a private medical matter. Shame

This is an attempt by a rapidly declining church to regain control. This is an attempt to stand in moral judgement over a legal matter.

As Matthew 7:5 states

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It's not funny

Newton Emerson is a heteronormative, sexist, homophobic, condescending asshole, disguised as an unfunny and embarrassing "humourist". Of all the material available to riff on about the recession, Emerson chooses to show the world his emotional maturity. Epic Fail.

The article is aimed at the straightest, married couple ever. It places the white male as the default and women as the other. It assumes that all men are hetero. It plays into a backwards notion of patriarchy and control.

Satirising gender roles is hilarious when well done but all Emerson does is play tired stereotypes and lurid prose. I'm surprised the Irish Times published this shite.

Does the woman in your life really need a job?

Emerson seriously WTF? An article devoted straight partnered men who retain the 1950s attitude towards coupling? Yeah like we don't have enough of them.

Admittedly, this is not a fashionable question. From Iceland to Australia, men are blamed for causing the credit crunch, while a more feminine approach to finance is proposed as the solution.

What the fuck is a feminine approach to finance? Does he mean a female approach or a gender based approach? I think he's just pissed off at all those uppity women who dare to leave the house - shades of a former Flynn perhaps... In all his dick swaggering he fails to realise that he is outing himself as a whiny little boy who has yet to realise that having a penis does not make you a super special snowflake, entitled to be comforted over every little booboo.

Then there is the patronising:

Of course there will always be a place in the world of business for exceptional women. Women also have an important role to play in jobs that are too demeaning for men, like teaching.

Since when is teaching demeaning for men? I think the thousands of male teachers in Ireland didn't get that memo.

But the general employment of women is another matter. Indeed, working women almost certainly caused the credit crunch by bringing a second income into the average household, pushing property prices up to unsustainable levels.

Nope. Wrong again. The property developers and speculators pushed the property price up. The people that were putting Evian in their car radiators pushed the prices up. The greed in the banking, building and industrial sectors drove the prices up. Why think logically when you can blame half the population based on whether they possess a penis or a vagina?

Whether working women actually caused the credit crunch is now a moot point. The point is that removing women from the workforce would mitigate its effects.

Too much competition for you Emerson? Are You Robbed Of Your God-Given Right To Be A Dick?

Consider the issue of unemployment. There were 221,301 men on the live register last month and just under one million women in work.

What about the menz? Does gender equality hurt you poor baby?

Surely at least half these women have a partner who is earning? Surely at least half would be happier at home? One half of one half is a quarter and one quarter of a million is roughly 221,301. I think we can all see where this argument is going.

Yeah in the toilet. Your argument is a thinly disguised rant against those mean bitches who insist on being equal. Also your logic is not our earth logic. Assuming that all women are partnered and straight makes you an ignorant jackass as well.

...In short, women were the driving force behind the greed, consumerism and materialism of the Celtic Tiger years and it was female employment that funded their oestrogen-crazed acquisitiveness.

Just when I near the end of this piece of "journalism" Emerson decides to blame the recession on oestrogen. It's the MRA special. Blame the scary female hormones.

It's incredibly offensive, not to mention ignorant, to have our behaviour attributed to hormones. I am not blaming your testosterone for you being a sexist, homophobic jackass. That's just you.

The time has come to build a more sustainable, equitable and progressive society. Why not make a start by telling your other half to quit her job? She can ask you for the housekeeping on Friday.

Oooh! Did it take you long to come up with that zinger? You forgot to mention chaining her to the kitchen sink, barefoot and pregnant.

Satire is supposed to be funny and supposed to make a person think. Emerson, this falls flat.

You sir, are no Dermot Morgan.