Because it made me laugh my insides out.

Taslima mentioned this on Twitter, so I looked it up. International Business Times reports:

Indian Army personnel allegedly gang-raped a 14-year-old girl Monday in a moving train in the eastern state of Jharkhand, according to local reports. Police in Jharkhand reportedly detained one of the men and said the other two would be arrested soon.

The girl ran away from her home Sunday and was travelling alone on a train bound for the town of Amritsar, in the northwestern state of Punjab. Her family alerted police of her disappearance, who informed railway authorities.

The Times of India reported officials spotted her boarding a train car reserved for troops.

Railway police rescued the girl, who later said in a complaint that one of the soldiers offered her liquor and two others raped her after she was drunk. The man who offered the girl liquor was arrested and the other two were absconding, DNA newspaper reported.

Taslima had guys tweeting at her that the girl drank liquor!! the girl got in a traincar with soldiers!! In other words she asked for it. Taslima explained to them that she didn’t.

Rape is a crime. It’s not a judicial and fitting punishment for running away, or disobeying parents, or skipping school, or drinking, or getting on a train with men. It’s a crime and a violation of rights; it’s an act of violence. Nothing justifies it.

Originally a comment by Samantha Vimes on For no reason at all.

There are some uninformed people speaking up this time.

Listen, guys: there’s this thing you might have heard of called “socialization”. It’s where people form opinions, values, and behaviors based on what the people who came before them and live around them think, do or say. It’s the reason why so many people have a low opinion of women. It’s not that women are, in general, so bad at life that we deserve to be mocked and scorned. It’s that when you were boys, the men around you taught you to deride women. She’s angry? Must be that time of the month; it cannot be thought that he did something genuinely wrong and is being told about a legitimate grievance. She’s asking if you want to eat? She must be a fucking passive-aggressive manipulator– it can’t be that eating is a social thing and she thinks it would be more polite of her to wait a while if you aren’t ready to eat with her now. You had an argument and she expects an apology, even though *she* apologized? It must be that she is actually crazy, not that her socialization taught her that all arguments end with both people apologizing to each other to show the relationship is more important than the topic of disagreement, so she swallowed her pride and apologized even though she was right, and now you’re just sitting there, smug, thinking you “won”, when she was just trying to show you how much she cares.

Look, men and women are socialized differently, and the way to deal with that is to open up more lines of communication and talk about why things aren’t working smoothly if both people just act the way they were taught to act.

For instance, “spread for me” is a horribly sexist sounding phrase to a woman’s ears, because it reduces your lovers to passively granting access to sex, rather than reflecting enthusiastic consent and partnership. It also sounds objectifying.

Furthermore, demanding that a woman “ask you” for things is demeaning. These are not the days where a man must provide for a woman. We can buy our own food. She doesn’t need your permission to eat. She just wants your fucking company, so don’t pretend like it’s a huge favor you’re granting. Do you want to eat or not? If she asks and you aren’t hungry, how about saying how long you think it will be before you are ready to eat? (My husband is diabetic. Sometimes we actually can’t eat at the same time, and sometimes I get low blood sugar – more likely to make me cranky than PMS ever would – because I wait too long for him… but I’ve learned to grab a snack, I just want to know what size snack to get.)

Pull up your chairs for a lesson in Spoilers and Social Justice. Shut up, this is important.

First of all – is it hypocritical to want spoiler alerts while thinking trigger warnings are out of hand or silly or both? Yes, yes it is. Thank you for asking that question. The answer is yes.

Now that we have that out of the way, let’s get down to the real politics.

Spoiler warnings are an intersectional social justice and accessibility issue. For example, I am rarely able to experience media right away. I don’t get to see movies when they come out because I work a lot of hours, I’m a student, and I’m usually totally broke. Spoilers are a constant reminder that I’m too poor to have the benefit of seeing movies opening weekend (or even in the theater usually), too poor to watch shows on cable, or too poor to read books right away. Helping me to avoid spoilers by labeling them helps me to experience media the way people with more money and time than me get to experience that media. When I’m angsting about not wanting a movie spoiled for me, it’s not because I’m a hypocritical jackass. It’s because I’m a poor college student who has to wait a few weeks to see a movie I’m excited about but cannot afford the time or cash to see yet.

We just don’t think, do we. We forget all about poor people, shivering in their rags and unable to see the new Star Wars movie the day it opens. We just stride past them, holding out their sad little tin cups, on our way to buy a $200,000 T shirt and tickets to the new Star Wars movie.

From an accessibility perspective, there are many people with a wide variety of disabilities who may not be able to see a movie when it is in theaters, or who may not get through a book quickly.

That’s true, that’s true. I’d better stop talking about books, and articles too, because who knows how many people haven’t had time to “get through” them yet, who are nevertheless reading my blog posts?

People with PTSD, agoraphobia, or a myriad of other concerns may be unable to see a movie in a theater but will be thrilled to see the same film in their living rooms. I love to watch movies with my friend with Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome, and would hate to have those movies spoiled for her just because her condition makes the loud sound systems of movie theaters intolerable. Should I feel free to spoil a book that my dyslexic friend is in the middle of reading just because I read it faster?

Hell no! That would be awful! That would be the worst kind of cishet white ablebodied privilege. I feel sick just thinking about it.

Trigger warnings are essential for making our writing, classes, and world more accessible for people. Spoiler warnings are, too. Let those of us who, for whatever reason, get to a piece of media after you enjoy it the same way you do. I know you’re a mega-fan who got to see Long Awaited Movie on opening day, but I have to wait until payday. Then I’ll go to the theater, with a pair of earplugs for the loud bits, and with your help I’ll get to experience it the same way you did on opening day.

I see Utopia arriving.

Oh wait, is that a spoiler?

Feel a need for the Third Man theme music? Of course you do.

https://youtu.be/r8jN1treRKQ

Glosswitch has an amusing satirical post purporting to be a speech by the CEO of Sexism Inc at the end of their AGM.

The market has seen some tough times lately, what with the resurgence of interest in feminism since its early noughties slump. There was a time, two or three years ago, when some of you expressed concerns that we might not get through it. Certainly there was a need for some restructuring but, while we were all sad to see Mr Clarkson and Mr Buchanan go, I know that they, too, saw the need for sexism to move with the times.

It’s important for any organisation, even one that doesn’t prioritise the subjugation of half the human race, to stay nimble and flexible. That’s why in May this year I was absolutely delighted to announce the acquisition of Libfem Corp and its subsidiaries, Everyday Feminism, Amnesty and NUS Women. While these will now operate as part of Sexism Inc family, they will retain their unique brand identities, finding new ways to market objectification and sexual exploitation to women without recourse to the more “traditional” messaging favoured by our more established brands.

Haw!

It’s Patriarchy 2.0, you see.

Now, the material exploitation of female bodies is available on a pay-as-you-go basis. Want sex? You’ll be doing sex workers a favour. Want to father some kids? Take your pick from a wide range of overseas surrogates. Need your kids to be white? Buy the eggs elsewhere. The key word here is choice. Choice and self-validation. Remember, it’s all about you.

The operating system used by Patriarchy 2.0 is Queer Theory. It did require some tweaks from the original version presented by Ms Butler – Ms Serano did some sterling work on this – but I think we’ve found something every modern-day patriarch should like. The fundamentals of sex-based exploitation are still in place – we all know the anatomy of the people who’ll be doing most of the world’s unpaid work – but our special override function renders them indescribable. It’s ingenious (any problems with the online version can be dealt with by pressing caps lock and typing TERF).

That part isn’t really satirical, it’s just straightforward description.

From the office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights:

Two UN human rights experts have urged the Zambian Government to show it is serious in its efforts to tackle gender-based violence and sexual violence against women and girls by ending the impunity of Zambian singer Clifford Dimba, who was convicted in 2014 for the rape of a 14-year-old girl and sentenced to 18 years in prison. Mr. Dimba was pardoned by President Lungu after serving one year of his sentence and subsequently appointed as an ambassador in the fight against gender violence.

Got that? A convicted rapist was appointed as an ambassador against gender violence. What a calculated insult to women and girls.

“Such an outrageous release and appointment as an ambassador for the fight against gender-based violence not only traumatises the victim all over again but discourages other victims from reporting similar offences,” said Dubravka Šimonović, UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences.

“The pardon and appointment undermine the strong message against sexual abuse of women and girls that was sent with the original sentence and trivialise the serious nature of these offences,” Ms. Šimonović said. “Rather, Clifford Dimba has been placed in a prominent position and even portrayed as a role model to fight violence against women.”

Since his release, Clifford Dimba has allegedly been involved in two other incidents of violence against women. “This clearly shows that impunity for these offences generates more violence and harm,” said Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

“Furthermore it constitutes an utter disrespect for women and girls in Zambia who might rightly feel that their Government is not protecting them. The pardon has meant impunity for an abhorrent crime and his subsequent appointment as ambassador for the fight against such violence is more than cynical and adds insult to injury for the victim,” she added.

Deliberate, sarcastic, mocking insult, is what it looks like.

A meme rejected.

I get so tired of the sitcom view of women. Yeah sure we’re all crazy bitches who always think it’s the other person who is wrong and who demand apologies for no reason whatsoever. Haha, so funny, what’s for dinner?

Yes.
#ExMuslimBecause December 21:

#ExMuslimBecause if there is a God he would have to ask Yazidis, holocaust victims, Rwandan genocide victims for forgiveness

@luke_khan77

The UK Education Secretary thinks state schools should be pushing Christianity.

Schools must teach pupils that Britain is a mainly Christian country and have “no obligation” to teach atheism, the Education Secretary has said.

Seeking to clarify a High Court ruling last month, which found the Government had unlawfully excluded non-religious views from the curriculum, Nicky Morgan said schools are still free to prioritise religious teachings.

New guidance from the Department for Education insists that non-religious beliefs need not be given “equal parity” with religious belief and that non-faith schools should reflect the fact that British religious traditions “are, in the main, Christian”.

Seeking to clarify? That sounds more like seeking to ignore. The High Court ruled that the Government can’t exclude non-religious views from the curriculum, and Nicky Morgan is saying yes it can too so.

A recent case, brought by the British Humanist Association (BHA), sought to ensure that alternative world views were put before pupils in secondary schools.

Judges ruled last month that it had been wrong to suggest the content of the new Religious Studies (RS) GCSE could fulfil all of a school’s religious education obligations.

Teach anything about religion you like, as long as it’s Christianity.

Morgan is said to have been concerned that humanists were using the court ruling to pressure schools into giving non-religious views more prominence:

This Government is determined to protect schools’ freedom to set their own religious studies curriculum, in line with the wishes of parents and the local community.

The guidance I have issued today makes absolutely clear that the recent judicial review will have no impact on what is currently being taught in religious education.

I am clear that both faith and non-faith schools are completely entitled to prioritise the teaching of religion and faith over non-religious world views if they wish.

A pop culture site drew up a list of most controversial tv show episodes. Coming in at number 2 is the one in which Maude (of Maude) had an abortion. It aired in November 1972.

If you think abortion is a touchy subject in pop culture now, imagine a TV show dedicating a two-part episode to it before the Roe v. Wade decision even came down. That’s exactly what the series Maude did in 1972 when it tackled abortion head-on in an episode where Maude discovers that at the age of 47, she’s pregnant. Throwing typical sitcom gags and quips out the window, this episode deals with the problem in a real world way, explaining the pros and cons of the decision, and letting us as viewers see how something like this can affect a person’s life.

In the end, Maude gets the abortion, but the subject is never treated as an easy decision for laughs. This is a serious matter, and the show did its best to highlight a woman’s right for a national audience. Despite its good intentions, the episode sparked a firestorm of controversy, especially within religious circles. Seeing the importance of such an episode, CBS regularly showed “Maude’s Dilemma” in reruns during summer hiatuses.

The Chicago Tribune did a piece on the episode twenty years on.

Twenty years later, it is doubtful a similar show could be broadcast on network TV.

In 1972, the word “abortion” was used exactly twice on “Maude`s Dilemma” – once on each show. Nowadays the “a” word has practically been purged from the prime-time vocabulary and is heard almost exclusively on talk shows and some daytime soaps.

A handful of programs- “Hill Street Blues,” “St. Elsewhere,” “Cagney and Lacey” -have tackled the issue, but for the most part, a major character`s having an abortion is not even considered an option on network programming.

These days, prime-time pregnancies usually result in a false alarm (a 1990 episode of “Roseanne”); a decision to have a baby, followed by a tear- drenched recitation of a previous abortion (a 1985 episode of “Cagney and Lacey”); or an affirmation of the right to choose even while deciding to have the baby (“thirtysomething” and this year`s controversial episode of “Murphy Brown”).

And why’s that? Money. Controversy—>money.

The reasons for this are twofold: the presence of organized pressure groups threatening to boycott the products of advertisers who sponsor shows they disapprove of, and the economic concerns of the networks, threatened by competition from cable TV and home video. These factors lead many people to believe that “Maude`s Dilemma” would not make it onto today`s TV schedules. “You automatically think, ‘Of course it could be done today, look what we did 20 years ago,'” said Susan Harris, who wrote the “Maude” abortion shows. “But we have a very interesting (political) climate today, with the influence of the religious Right. The economy is different today, and the networks would feel less likely that they could take a stand.”

Susan Harris. You know who Susan Harris is? She’s the creator and head writer of a slew of classic sitcoms, and besides that?

She has a son named Sam.

Ironic, isn’t it.

Much of Yorks and Lancs and Greater Manchester is still under water. The BBC has photos.

Central streets in York hip-deep in water, feet above the door sills of shops.

A heartbreakingly huge pile of full bin-bags outside a bookshop in Hebden Bridge.

A wholly submerged bridge in Cawood.

Two guys in water above their waists.

The north is a hilly area, but the towns and villages are mostly in the valleys. The valleys are river valleys.

To make it all worse, Cameron is there. Heckuva job, Davey.

The BBC reports:

An anti-Islamic State activist and filmmaker has been shot dead by assassins in broad daylight in Turkey.

Naji Jerf, 38, was shot with a silenced pistol in downtown Gaziantep, near the Syrian border, Turkish media reported.

Mr Jerf was the film director for Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently (RBSS), a group of journalists who risk their lives daily to report on IS abuses.

So he was slaughtered (silently) for reporting on slaughter. Of course he was.

It is the second murder of a member of the group in as many weeks, after Ahmad Mohammed al-Mousawas killed in Syria.

Mr Jerf was a vocal critic of the so-called Islamic State. He directed two recent documentaries about the group – one about the killing of Syrian activists in Aleppo, the other about the work of RBSS.

No wonder they slaughtered him.

This is not the first time IS has murdered a member of RBSS on Turkish soil. In October, Ibrahim Abdul Qader was beheaded in the southern city of Urfa.

Another journalist, Fares Hamadi, was killed in the same attack. IS subsequently published a video warning: “You will not be safe from the knife of the Islamic State. Our hand will reach you wherever you are.”

They can do it, and we know they can do it, and they know we know they can do it.

The New Statesman – it’s sad. Emad Ahmed tells us about his year in Islamophobia. If his piece were all about people shouting on buses and attacking in the street and Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump, I’d agree with him, but this is the Staggers, so of course it’s not.

It’s so alarmingly difficult to identify as a Muslim today. I’m having to prove my sensible existence in a world dominated by dramatic headlines and tweets. The Charlie Hebdo attacks proved this. The whole purpose of that silly magazine (which has made international headlines in the past) is simply to offend, a degree above satire.

No.it.isn’t. It’s an anti-racist magazine, a magazine of the left. Its whole purpose is to resist the Trumps and Le Pens, as well as the Islamists. That doesn’t mean anyone has to like it, it says nothing about its quality, but it just is not true that its whole purpose is to offend.

Of course everyone has the right to be offensive and annoying (within the limits of the law), but why bother? The response to those attacks was Islamophobia, pure and simple, fuelling exactly what Islamofascists across the globe love.

Pure and simple? Hardly. Maybe that’s his problem: he thinks he sees simple (crude) facts when he doesn’t. Of course the response to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo and the streets outside and the Kosher supermarket was not Islamophobia pure and simple – what a disgusting, callous, self-involved thing to say. The response was grief and fear and anger, and even the anger was mostly at fanatical Islamist murderers, not Islam itself, let alone at all Muslims.

The New Statesman shouldn’t be publishing simple-minded shite like this. It should do better.

The BBC News helicopter has footage of flooding in the north of England.

Rescuers have been evacuating homes in York where water levels are still rising, and thousands of people in north-west England are without power.

Some of them are friends of mine, and probably of yours.

City of York Council said the River Ouse was 5.1m above normal summer levels and was expected to peak around lunchtime on Monday – close to its highest recorded level of 5.4m.

It said about 500 properties were directly affected by flooding and a second rest centre was being opened for residents.

Meanwhile, North Yorkshire Police is urging people not to travel to flooded parts of York, as well as the Selby area, where the Ouse has burst its banks and is threatening homes in the village of Cawood.

And as for West Yorks…

• Police say West Yorkshire is experiencing its worst flooding in 70 years with more than 2,000 homes in Calderdale and 1,000 in Leeds affected

Stay dry.

The Huffington Post asked 15 atheists some silly questions about Christmas, and there are a few amusing bits in the answers.

They put Dawkins at the top, of course, and what’s amusing about his answers is how in tune with his Twitter persona they are. It’s as if he thinks he’s been asked to perform “impatient” for a game of charades.

What does Christmas mean to you?

Unlike many a false caricature of an atheist, I have no problem with Christmas and no desire to rain on the Christian parade. I enjoy Christmas carols, especially when sung by a great choir like that of New College, Oxford, or King’s College, Cambridge. But only real carols about Jesus, NOT fake carols about Santa or reindeer or the loathsome “Jingle Bells”.

So he’s being grouchy about how carols should be about Jesus, god damn it, not bells or reindeer.

What do you do on the day?

People’s stories of how they spend Christmas are never interesting. Who cares when they open their stockings or when they carve the unfortunate turkey?

Oookay.

Would you go to church if family or friends wanted you to?

Yes. As a matter of courtesy if it means a lot to them, since it means nothing at all to me other than a little wasted time.

Of course, if he did go, he would be prone to angry outbursts every few minutes.

It’s amusing that Peter Tatchell is more militant on that point than Dawkins is.

What does Christmas mean to you?

Not being a Christian, it’s just a holiday period; a chance to have good meals with friends, watch films on TV and start preparing my next human rights campaign.

Do you celebrate it despite being atheist?

No. That would be hypocrisy and a form of mental schism.

Can an atheist celebrate Christmas and remain true to their own beliefs?

An atheist can make their Christmas a non-religious celebration but cannot, in good conscience, join in the religious elements.

Would you/do you attend church on Christmas if family or friends wanted you to?

No.

Short and to the point.

They saved the best for last, which is Kate Smurthwaite.

Do you celebrate it?
Yes. Of course. I celebrate whatever the hell I like. It’s religions that tell people what they can and can’t do – not atheism. If I want to go to church, then mosque, then temple, I can. I can do what I like.

That’s a key point you know. Religions have arbitrary taboos, atheism doesn’t. The second option is the better one.

Do you see the event as still primarily celebrating Jesus’ birth? Or is it more of a commercial event?
It’s a pagan festival. Yule. It long predates Jesus. Aside from the name there’s almost nothing about Christmas that has anything to do with Christianity. Did the wise men bring a partridge in a pear tree? Did the Angel Gabriel say anything about hanging up a big sock? But it’s ok Christians, us godless heathens warmly welcome you to celebrate our festival with us…

We’re good that way.

Yvonne Ridley on Facebook:

Will men of Faith and no faith stop telling women what to wear – whether in general, in protest or in preference. Just get the hell out of our wardrobes and stay out!

This is probably in reaction to Maajid Nawaz’s tweet on December 21:

My Muslim sisters who support International Hijab day. Why not take off hijab to support acid victims like [t]his too?

Ridley isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer, is she. Who told women to wear hijab in the first place? It was a man, wasn’t it? She wears it herself, and in doing so, she is obeying a rule laid down by a man.

I have this collection of letters by Sylvia Townsend Warner and I started rather randomly re-reading it yesterday. She’s a demon with words – I’d forgotten.

She went to Barcelona in 1936 to help with the resistance to Franco’s coup, working in a Red Cross office.

Heard of it by wire, sprang into the car, and drove across France at a rate which would have been intolerable if we had not been on our way to Spain.

I don’t think I have ever met so many congenial people in the whole of my life.

She describes how the workers are running everything, and how terrific it all is.

There are a great many shells and skulls of churches. It seemed quite natural that churches should have been used as machine gun nests, I have never seen churches so heavy and bulky and bullying, one can see at a glance that they have always been reactionary fortresses.

She met no one who resented the gutting of the churches, though she did meet two women who were a little uneasy that bastard god might punish them.

And you cannot imagine, after this mealy-mouthed country, the pleasure of seeing an office with a large painted sign, Organisation for the Persecution of Fascists. Anarchists, of course. That beautiful directness is typical of anarchism, a most engaging type of thought, though I do not want to be an anarchist myself. The world is not yet worthy of it, but it ought to be the political theory of heaven.

P.S. It is only the papers which call the Spanish Communists. They are nearly all anarchists…

That’s a nice Xmas present, don’t you think?

A horrible tale of violent domestic abuse in Watford:

A woman who beat her teenage daughter-in-law to death has been jailed, along with five members of the girl’s family, in what a senior detective described as one of the most harrowing cases of domestic abuse he had seen.

Shahena Uddin, 19, died after suffering severe injuries and choking to death on her own vomit.

Over the course of the trial the court heard that Ms Uddin had suffered mental and physical abuse at the hands of her family, including being forced to drink toilet water and eat her own faeces.

The other family members were all siblings. One of her brothers was her guardian, and his wife is the one convicted of beating her to death. Three other brothers and a sister make up the rest.

The Independent doesn’t say anything about religion, but I wonder. I wonder if they all grew up in a conservative brand of religion that teaches suspicion and hostility toward women and girls.