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.

Blogging under pen name

The last country I started a blog in was a military dictatorship in the developing world. I blogged using my real name and all was peachy keen for a while. Gradually my posts became more political than social and I knew that I was being monitored by the government - I worked in human rights so we knew we were targets anyway.

I was arguing with a US radical feminist on HIV prevention within the sex worker population and she decided that I was a misogynistic man who was raping kids because I pointed out that her imaginings of the situation was far from the truth. Being a rape survivor myself who worked with vulnerable populations it was not particularly easy to shake off these accusations. She used my real name for her j'accuse and that scared me because there are not any other people in that country with my name. Child abuse by foreigners is taken far more seriously there than in Ireland. I was on the alert for the secret service, after a tip off, but then someone shot a journalist and my accuser withdrew her accusation and apologised, so the matter was dropped after a stern lecture from a security consultant.

Now I blog under a pen name not because I fear the Irish government but I have a residual fear of officialdom and sections within the Irish government who have different agendas.

Now, a year and a half later my heart pounds and I feel the fear I felt then when I saw my statcounter this morning.



It's weird cos I expected to see it. I wrote letters to Batt O Keeffe and Brian Cowen and they were not particularly complimentary. Logic doesn't win against PTSD. I hope that the ministers will t least answer but I'm not overly optimistic.

"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.

Dear Anonymous

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

Objectification

Top Irish chef, Neven Maguire, of MacNean's eaterie, stepped up to the plate yesterday to launch the 2009 Food and Wine Magazine Edward Dillion Restaurant of the Year Awards but the tasty treat that really got mouth's watering at the event was dishy model Georgia Salpa

Quoted in Liveline regarding the discussion of the PR decision to photo Neven Maguire with Georgia Salpa in a bikini. Apologies but I can't find the actual photo online.

Joe mentioned the normality of half-naked women used to promote events and I fired off an email,

It's not normal to have half naked women on the front of the paper.

Women are commodified in the media as sex objects and this is linked to anorexia, self harm, sexism, rape and rape apologists.

It's not ironic. It's despicable.

and ended up on the radio. I took umbrage at the blatant objectification of the model and tried to link it to the society at large. She is there as an object, without agency, to look pretty in a bikini. Why a bikini? Is it the sunny summer that we are not having?

I spoke about the male gaze, objectification and the patriarchy without using either of those terms as explanation time was limited. Not sure how I came across but a couple of callers dismissed the whole discussion as petty or said that the people who objected were just jealous of the model. I hate the "you're just jealous" meme. It's a straw argument used to derail and silence. It's classic derailing for dummies!

There were suggestions that one of the unreleased pictures was of one of the chef's eating food off the model's body. If so, they literally treated her as an object - a table. How utterly demeaning and sexist. It put me in mind of this post from Sociological Images.

It was a big pile of sexist privileged fail and it was jarring to go from feminist blogdonia to Irish radio. The podcast does not contain the whole discussion but it gives a good enough idea.

Then I saw Maman Poulet has a post on a similar theme - h/t.

Positive Options is a brand created to promote State-funded crisis pregnancy counselling services and to provide information. But in Ireland, this apparently means positing women as objects rather than adult humans with full agency.

To me, it says "shame on you, you mindless puppet, for not knowing that there are partisan anti-abortion agencies trying to counsel you". How is a poster like that of any use with the woman-as-object, woman-without-agency, woman-as-child imagery? I'm going to write to them to ask why they are using such ads to promote their service?

Make noise for choice

From Thinking Girl

First, let’s get some terms straight. “Pro-choice” does not mean “pro-abortion”; it means supporting women’s rights to self-determination over their bodies. “Fetuses” are not “babies”; fetuses exist in the womb, babies exist outside of the womb. “Human” does not equal “person”; human is the biological name of our species, personhood involves moral agency.

I agree with her definitions completely. I'm pro choice. It's my body and my health. But pro choice is so much more than just pro abortion. Where is the sex education? When I was in fifth year in 1996, we were subjected to a brief talk by a supposed expert who told us that no man would have us if we didn't stay virginal. The advice came a little late for most of the class. I hope there is comprehensive sex education in schools now but somehow I doubt it. Where is the funding for the sex education programmes?

What about the cost of condoms? They are prohibitively expensive for teenagers and young adults. Even adults might have difficulty paying these prices. According to condoms.ie, a package of 12 durex varies from €10.49 to €16.45. €16.45 is a ridiculous price to pay for 12 pieces of latex. The equivalent in France is €6.80 but condoms are distributed in schools free of charge on AIDS awareness day.

I suppose the pro lifers would take a similar attitude to the sex ed I received. But it pays to be pragmatic. Teens are going to have sex with or without protection which may result in pregnancy or STDs. Education is key but hey let's bury our heads in the sand and pretend we live in 1950s Ireland where that sort of stuff didn't happen.

Ireland claims to be pro-life and always there is the "won't somebody think of the children" non-argument. But Ireland isn't pro life. Ireland is caught in a Catholic ethos despite the revelations of those pulpit preachers. It's the old story of keeping up appearances. Isn't that why so many girls and women ended up in Magdalene laundries where they worked without pay until they died. No boys or men were similarly imprisoned for the crime of having sex or getting raped or being considered too pretty.

Ireland doesn't care about children. That much is clear from the Ryan report. Hundreds of children were buried in unmarked graves after being beaten to death. Where is the outcry? Hundreds of thousands of children were sent to hell in the industrial schools. People knew and did nothing. Doctors, nurses, gardaí and families knew what happened and did nothing. Everyone is shocked now that denial is no longer an option. But the state continues to negotiate with the 18 orders. They negotiate with child abusers and rapists. Few criminal charges have been brought.

And people might argue that that's in the past but it isn't. Children are placed in adult psychiatric wards, children's allowance is being cut, children's hospitals are being shut and you still hear the scornful diatribes against single mothers.

No more hiding behind the "murdering babies" straw-argument. If you gave a shit, you'd campaign for the children that are alive rather than a bunch of cells that merely has the potential.

In Ireland we have no legal access to abortion, inflated condom prices and no comprehensive sex education. That is an abysmal state of affairs.

I know a woman who managed to get pregnant by her lover. She's in her 40s and herself and the husband don't have sex any more. She consulted the old fashioned methods of abortion - herbs - and managed to get rid of the fetus. However, these methods are dodgy and dangerous. Millions of women die from illegal abortions all over the world.

I've been raped twice. If I had fallen pregnant you can be damned sure that I would have made sure that I had the choice whether to continue the pregnancy. If I would have to, I would beg, borrow or steal the money to travel to France to get an abortion. Get the fuck out of my decisions.

One in every four children will experience sexual abuse. One in every three women under the age of 40 will be raped. To force these women and children to continue a pregnancy through rape is to retraumatise her and re-enforces the commonly held view that women and girl's lives are of lesser importance than a fetus. Forced pregnancy is a human rights violation.

Listening to the Last Word today disgusted me when the pro-lifer used the words "women deserve better" and it reminded me of this poem by the awesome Sonia Renee. It is very powerful. Listen to it.

What We Deserve


Now sign the petition, campaign for comprehensive sex education, free condoms and make noise for choice.

Harry Potter and the Half Arsed Prince

There are a number of rave reviews of the latest HP film on blogs about the new maturity of the actors, the poignancy of young love and the awful death of Dumbledore. I saw the film and it mostly left me yawning. For full disclosure, I am a HP fan, Malfoy and Snape fan, a reader of slash and fanfic, and a JK Rowling critic.

The high points of the movie for me was that it was fairly coherent, if a tad prosaic. Of course, elements of the story were left out but at 153 minutes, it was long enough already.

Alan Rickman was, again, criminally underused. Snape is the anti-hero and should get a little more than a few reaction shots. Tom Felton put in a surprisingly nuanced performance as Malfoy, looking more and more haunted as the film progressed. It seemed to me that Potter more interested in Malfoy than in Ginny Weasley with his near constant stalking of the latter.

The wonderful Jim Broadbent played the part of Professor Slughorn to perfection. He captured the insidious nature of Slughorn as a collector of youth. His collection is a twisted love of beauty and prowess that borders on paedophilic. The obvious naming conventions of Rowling ensure that although the characters may not see Slughorn as a direct threat, the audience is aware of something that is not quite right with this character. Slugs are rarely associated with the side of light.

In ordering him to get close to Slughorn, Dumbledore is putting Harry is a treacherous position although he appears not to acknowledge the same. Harry takes the opportunity to orchestrate moments alone with Slughorn and the creep factor shoots up. Using a child to manipulate a collector of children puts Dumbledore firmly in the morally grey column. While he is trying to defeat Tom Riddle, the ends do not justify the means and Dumbledore is hardly the paragon of virtue normally extolled.

Love is in the air at Hogswarts which given the characters’ ages is normal. What is not normal, however, is that the majority of the girls are portrayed deceitful and obtuse. Romilda Vane did use a love potion but crowds of girls are shown in the Weasley shop and in Slughorn’s dungeon lusting after love potions. Not a single boy displays an interest. The point of a love potion is to deceive and to trick somebody into falling in love with the purchaser. It can be likened to date rape drugs or mind control. The film places girls as deceivers and rapists-in-training which is not an accurate portrayal in the world outside Hogwarts.

Lavender Brown knows that she wants Ron Weasley and she gets him. Mission accomplished. Then she is broken into an obtuse irritant. Few adolescent girls would write “Ron loves Lavender” in front of Ron’s best friend. Few teenage girls would have a strop in front of teachers especially the most-hated vampire of the dungeon. The confident Lavender who succeeded in getting what she wanted is reduced to a simpering mess.

On the other side, Hermione Granger, who has been consistently been played as a strong if stereotypical brainy girl, turns into an cheating and vengeful mess. She, uncharacteristically, bewitches Cormac McClaggen to lose so Ron Weasley is chosen for captain of the team. Strange behaviour for the champion of hard work, honesty and elf rights. After Ron starts to go out with Lavender, Hermione attacks him with a spell even though she berates Harry later in the film for attacking Malfoy.

Naturally, some of this characterisation is based on Rowling’s novel but the film did not have to go down the road of slavishly turning the girls into false stereotypes.

The raising of wands at the death of Dumbledore was, frankly, ridiculous. Aside from the fact that students would not have known what spell to cast and firsties would have messed up, it likened the death of Dumbledore, a hero in many eyes, to an 80s power ballad. Perhaps the wizarding world is not aware of the similarities but the director should be.

As usual the special effects are impressive and a sense of foreboding is created in the dark imagery, contrasted with the light-hearted puppy love of the protagonists. But overall, the film felt like a placeholder.

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

New kind of Special K

Not only can women get stalked by a giant chocolate muffin but now we can spell contraceptive a whole new way.



Bloody brilliant isn't it! More spoofs please.

Special K gendered advertising can kiss my fat ass.

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.

Kevin Myers - now available in racist and sexist!

Kevin Myers is out again in fine form adding sexism to his standard racism. Why is this guy still getting published? It's amazing that once again this piece was approved by the Sindo editors. Aren't there laws against this kinda thing? This piece is almost a year old but the fate of Pamela Izevbekhai's daughters still hangs in the balance.

Myers begins by comparing male circumcision and female genital mutilation

I will give you the background to this column in the presumption that you do not know it, and the reason you don't is that the victim at its centre did not possess a vulva.

Instead, he owned a penis, and so neither our media, nor our political classes, took any interest in his fate. Had he been a girl, you know that the mob of the usual suspects -- Amnesty International, the Council for the Status of Women, the Equality Commission, Aunt Thomasina and all -- would have been trumpeting condemnations of the affair.

Is Myers making the point that "the mob of the usual suspects" are wrong in seeking justice for victims of torture? Sounds like a classic "what about the menz" argument. Taking a single example of a horrific crime and comparing it to a systematic abuse of millions of women is abhorrent. Myers is forgetting perhaps, that one in three women is a victim of gender based violence, that rapists in this country are given light sentences and that in the case of rape the female survivor's character is assassinated.

Two-and-half-years ago, a Nigerian idiot named Osagie Igbinidion was found not guilty of the reckless endangerment of life, after a little boy he circumcised, 29-day-old Callis Osajhae, bled to death. The trial judge, Kevin Haugh, told the jury not to bring their "white, western values" to bear upon their deliberations. Describing the case as a clash between two cultures, he added: "This is a relatively recent matter that Ireland will have to deal with now that we have a significant migrant population. You are not asked whether this form of procedure is acceptable in Ireland. If you start thinking on those lines, you are doing Mr Igbinidion a great injustice."

Just one commentator in the media remarked upon this extraordinary case, in which a man walked free from a court having sexually mutilated and mortally wounded a little boy. Me. I wrote: " . . . had the dead child been female, I believe that no jury would have been told not to bring their white, western values to bear on the case -- or if they had been, we may equally be sure that the judge would not be dangling from the nearest lamp-post . . ."

I do not know what that fine fellow Osagie Igbinidion is doing today.

He has not, to my knowledge, and considerable regret, been deported -- nor has he been issued with a court order compelling him to desist from his merry trade (he is a fourth generation circumciser; ah the joys of multiculturalism). So it is as legal to chop little boys' penises off today as it was then, and if they die as a consequence, the judicial advice rings down the years, not to bring our "white western values" into the case.

But when the infant in question is a girl, then those white, western values are suddenly all we care about; hence the uproar over Pamela Izevbekhai and her two daughters. She is challenging a deportation order to Nigeria, for fear that the girls might be circumcised upon their return, and alleges that another daughter, Elizabeth, aged 18 months, died in 1994 from blood loss after being circumcised.

What happened to Callis Osajhae is tragic. That baby is an innocent victim. Osagie Igbinidion should obviously be in prison since he killed a child. Why is Myers not blaming the judge? Why is Myers not campaigning for justice for Callis? Why is Myers making a horrific comparison between a tragic fuckup and the systematic mutilation of female babies? Why has Myers not pointing out that male circumcision is part of western culture too and that the "it's Nigerian culture" excuse doesn't fly? Why doesn't Myers get his head out of his arse?

It is vital to make the distinction. Male circumcision is the removal of the foreskin that is normally not life threatening and circumcised men enjoy a fully functional sex life post operation. Many Irish male babies are circumcised. It does not impede normal bodily functions or cause lifelong pain.

Female genital mutilation is an attempt to cut a girl so severely that she can never enjoy sex. It is designed to enforce chastity. It is traumatic, painful and defined as torture. There are four types of mutilation

• Type I is the excision of the clitoral hood with or without removal of all or part of the clitoris.
• Type II is the excision of the clitoris together with part or all of the labia minora
• Type III is the excision of part or all of the external genitalia and stitching or narrowing of the vaginal opening, leaving a very small opening, about the size of a matchstick, to allow for the flow of urine and menstrual blood. The girl or woman’s legs are generally bound together from the hip to the ankle so she remains immobile for approximately 40 days to allow for the formation of scar tissue.
• Type IV includes the introduction of corrosive substances into the vagina.

All this is done without anesthesia. It is a violation of human rights and is done without consent.

Well, allegedly; a court hearing earlier this year was told that the attending doctor had diagnosed the death "as being possibly the result of the traditional female circumcision" which had been performed on the girl. Possibly, eh? And that girl was 18 months old, 14 years ago. But her two surviving daughters had not been circumcised by the time they left Nigeria in 2005, when they were aged approximately two and four years of age, respectively.

Girls are systematically cut between the ages of 4 and 8 but it can happen at any time from infancy to puberty. Calling it circumcision is disingenuous. It is not circumcision as our "white, western values" define it. For more information watch this but it does contain disturbing images.

Female circumcision is very common in Nigeria, but it is not mandatory, and is usually done at the mother's instigation -- which is unlikely to be the case here. Either way, our "white, western values" are properly affronted and appalled by the very notion of removing a girl's vulva; so these may be invoked to protect a girl from genital mutilation. They cannot, however, be invoked to protect a boy either from genital mutilation, or from the death which results when the bugling Nigerian cretin with the knife accidentally kills him.

Done at the mother's instigation? Pamela Izevbekhai is trying to prevent it from happening to her daughters, Naomi and Jemima. She has already lost one daughter to this practice.

There are many ancillary questions to this little affair. How did Pamela Izevbekhai manage to get from Nigeria to Ireland? En route, how many countries did she pass through where they don't have female circumcision? Why did she choose here as a refuge from the barbaric circumcisers of Nigeria, and not somewhere closer to home?

Irrelevant.

As for my own opinions on the matter, well, on the one hand the family has settled in Sligo, so a large part of me thinks they should be allowed to stay. But what if we are being duped? What if a baseless threat of circumcision is being falsely used to enable the Izevbekhais to stay?

And even if it's not, are we to be the refuge for every single Nigerian or Somalia or Chadean or Kuwaiti woman who wants to avoid genital mutilation? So all they have to do is get here, allege that if they go home they'll be circumcised, and then we must give them asylum: is that it? And if we don't, are we then to get the self-appointed cranks from Residents Against Racism accusing us of being racist, and then RAR will be rewarded with their usual quota of headlines?

Is Myers trying to float the idea that torturing girls is a baseless threat? That we should not be doing everything we can for people who are under threat of mutilation? That is truly disgusting.

As someone who has repeatedly suffered from gender based violence I say fuck you Myers.

Meanwhile, the asylum-seekers' little sons can still lawfully be genitally mutilated, right here in Ireland-of-the-Sisters, and maybe even die, because apparently that's part of Nigerian culture. And naturally, not one of our feminist-dominated quangos will utter a word of condemnation.

Marvellous, bloody marvellous.

Myers compares a judge's decision to a feminist takeover perhaps because it's the only way for him to stand up for the son of one asylum seeker and condemn the daughters of another. Truly classless Myers.

Happy Gilmore

The government's economic plan consists of bailing out the rich and screwing the middle class. After weeks of indecision Brian Cowen announced his shortsighted half arsed plan of taxing public sector pensions. The opposition shot him down. From Eamon Gilmore's response to Brian Cowen on 3 February

If those reports are correct then let me try to translate what all of that means for a public servant such as a garda, a nurse or a teacher on an income of €45,000 per year. They are already paying approximately €5,000 of that income, between PRSI, pension contributions, health levies and income levies. What that proposal will mean - not that the Taoiseach has given us the figures, but if the figures that are reported in the media are correct - is that such a person will pay an additional €3,375. That is approximately €8,500 from the pay of a person in the workforce for approximately ten years before she pays tax, child care or her mortgage.

What she wants to know, and what the Taoiseach has not provided an answer for, is for what is she paying that. She did not create the problem. She did not borrow money from a bank to buy shares in the same bank. She is not somebody who drinks champagne in the hospitality suites of racecourses. She is just somebody who has gone out to work every morning, worked hard, tried to make a living, rear a family and provide for herself. All she wants is a modest standard of living. She understands that the country has economic problems at the moment and that there is a need for everybody to put their shoulder to the wheel. She is prepared to do that as well but she wants her Government to level with her and the Taoiseach has not done that today.

I am happy at Gilmore and Enda Kenny' argument but I am thrilled at Gilmore's words. He used the female pronoun in his example of a public servant. I don't remember that happening ever before. Way to mix it up Gilmore. That gave me a smile in spite of recession woes.

The politics of clothing oneself at the office

Why can the men in my office come into work with an opened neck shirt when the women are required to wear jewellery and make-up? Talk about a double standard. Of course there is no specific obligation to dress a certain way. The organisation I work for is very accepting but I feel the eyes of judgement on me when I reject the "woman as decorative" mindset and wear whatever I damn well please.

At staff meetings, I want to scream at the glances I get. Yes I am a woman. Yes I am not wearing make-up. Yes I am not wearing jewellery. No you cannot fucking judge me, especially not in your open toed hippie sandals and an open necked shirt with stains. My body is not public property.

The decorative role of women is demeaning. I reject the standards set by society but I still feel the humiliation of non-compliance. In a casual office setting, all should be set to the same standard. If men can come in dressed without ties, then women should be able to come in without earrings.

I understand that office professional is in vogue all over the world. I understand the politics of interviewing for the job. I wear earrings at most of my jobs but here I wear a motorbike helmet and often lose earrings putting it on and taking it off. It is a practical consideration in addition to a feminist equality rant.

Now I'm not dissing the "look good, feel good" point of view. At home I dress up cos it makes me feel good but I'm in development Hell now. Here one is always sweating; one's tailor can never get the clothes exactly right; security warns you not to wear jewellery because of thieves (one does anyway); one feels so far from home that fashion is the least consideration.

My work clothes are perfectly acceptable, but I lack accessories. I also lack the money to sparkle myself up, which I can live with. I prefer to spend my extra cash on books and entertainment, especially considering my job.

Nobody sees me in my office where I am hidden behind huge piles of paper. Why should I wear heels when nobody can see my sneakers? Why wear make up when it will, firstly, sweat off and, secondly, get mixed up with the twenty years of dust I blow of each piece of paper? A little practicality please!

The only dress code is in the judging eyes of my co workers. I will continue to ignore it but I do wonder... Will my dress sense work against me? Will my boss remember my sneakers when he's writing my reference? Will I be always remember as the woman who didn't wear the matching earrings, necklace and bracelet? Maybe I will and if I am, j'emmerde le monde!

Review of 'Sex with kings'

Just finished reading this 'Sex with kings : 500 Years of Adultery, Power, Rivalry, and Revenge' by Eleanor Herman and I feel very ambivalent about it. On the one hand, it is a very interesting read about a topic that is not covered often - women in history. On the other hand it is written by an author who insults her heroines and is clearly very sexist.

Women in history have been ignored or their lives explained away as anomalies. History is written by the strong and powerful and women's history has been ignored. Nevertheless women in the past ruled, became pirates, took lovers, led battles and triumphed. They do not deserve to be painted in only as an afterthought. So I like the idea and the history in 'Sex with kings'. The author uses primary sources and her research cannot be faulted. It is an interesting book and I would have loved it if it was not for the author's sexism.

It pervades the book and turned my stomach. She makes judgement calls on the heroines of the book. She refers to the king's mistresses as grasping whores, refers to the work as sin and their payment as their ill-gotten gains. Now I understand that these were the attitudes of the time and that this is a history book but her disgust for the métier of these women destroyed my enjoyment of the book. As the world knows, women did not have much choice or freedom under the political systems of the past. The work available included sex work. Why so does a soi-disant historian, who is familiar with conditions and restrictions of the time condemn these women so harshly for exercising the choices available?

Herman describes Madame de Pompadour's job as exhausting and high pressured. Madame de Pompadour always had to be 'on'. Sick days did not exist. She couldn't tell the king to leave her alone, if she wasn't in the mood. Her position was exhausting and it was constant. She had to be wary of usurpers and political plots. Her life was shortened considerably due to stress. And the lesson Herman describes herself as having learned, is to always to there for her husband and to never nag. When he arrives home, she gets up to make him a cup of tea and fetches his slippers and says that she'll never get divorced because she takes care of her man like Madame de Pompadour took care of Louis XV.

It is the wrong lesson. The lesson to be taken from these women who fought for and yielded power is that we are not here for anyone's entertainment. We have, mostly, the choice to say yes or no. We have the choice to be independent and earn our own way and it is a choice that few societies had. The women that Herman discusses were powerful in the only way they could be. Nowadays, many would be involved in politics. Diane de Poitiers might be president. She certainly made laws and signed official papers. These women were strong and deserve to not be insulted by a modern mistress wannabe, who has the freedom to choose.

Stop the violence. Take a stand

An Irish politician did good! Yay for Mickey Martin.

Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Micheál Martin, T.D., added his name to the UNIFEM-sponsored Say NO to Violence against Women campaign in a signing ceremony in Dublin on 17 November 2008. Ireland is one of 55 governments that have signed on to the campaign to date.

Eliminating violence against women is a priority in Ireland’s domestic and foreign policy. Ireland is beginning the process of developing its National Action Plan on UN Security Council resolution 1325, informed by a cross-learning process involving Northern Ireland, Timor Leste and Liberia. The Conflict Resolution Unit of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Irish Aid will lead work on this initiative, in consultation with other government departments and civil society.

Learn more by watching



Add your name to the list to show you support the campaign. Yeah you really should support this campaign. Violence directed towards a particular group because of a common element is abhorrent. Violence based on gender is a hate crime. Violence based on gender identity is a hate crime. Violence based on sexual orientation is a hate crime. Violence based on spiritual beliefs is a hate crime. Violence based on skin colour is a hate crime.

Wise up. Don't tell a joke based on hate. Why yes I am a humourless feminist. No it's not funny and you demonstrate you assholishness by telling the fucking joke.