Not designer luxury treats
Oh how nice – the Guardian seizes the opportunity of International Zero Tolerance for FGM day to tell women that their trivial little issues like equal pay don’t matter as much as FGM. How very dawkins of them.
The title misrepresents what the article says, so that’s a start.
FGM a more urgent women’s rights issue than equal pay, research finds
What Hajra Rahim actually says in the lede:
A majority of the British public believe female genital mutilation is a more pressing women’s rights concern than equal pay, research by ActionAid UK has found.
See, those two are not the same thing. The headline says FGM is more urgent as a fact. The lede says that the public thinks FGM is more urgent. The fact that a newspaper editor can’t see the difference, or chose to occlude it on purpose, is disturbing.
The article itself is good. The way the Guardian chose to misrepresent it in the headline stinks.
Kate Smurthwaite had a gentle word with the Guardian on Facebook:
Dear The Guardian, Why exactly the fuck should there be a discussion about which basic human rights women should get in what order. The whole point about rights is that they’re rights, not designer luxury treats so the correct amount to have is FUCKING ALL OF THEM and the correct order is RIGHT FUCKING NOW YOU WANKERS. With love and best wishes Kate Smurthwaite
So beautifully put.
Absolutely the exact correct tone too.
And the other point is that FGM and unequal pay come from the same place – the desire to control women. If we solve the underlying problem, misogyny, then we CAN have them all. And finally be able to enjoy them without being called vicious names and threatened with rape every time we open our mouths.
Dear Female,
You can have your choice of EITHER mutilated genitals OR a lower paycheck. You must choose one.
Thanks Kate!
Of course, equal pay can undo unequal pay. Mutilation can’t be undone. But still the Guardian sticks its foot in.