Hey all you aspiring playwrights out there, and you working playwrights, and you who hadn’t thought of writing a play before but just might think of it now – here’s a thing for you:

CALL FOR PLAYS

The First Annual Freethought Onstage Festival will be held the week of August 7-13, 2016, at the Haymarket Theatre in Lincoln, Nebraska. Play submissions will be accepted beginning December 1, 2015. The deadline for submission is April 1, 2016. Winners will be announced in early June.

Submission Guidelines:

•  Plays are to be submitted in standard playwriting format.
•  Length: 10 minutes to 2 hours will be considered; if your running time in reading is longer than 2 hours, and your play is accepted, you will be asked to edit the play to a 2 hour running time
• Plays must be on a freethought theme. This can range from doubt about religion to outright atheism. Any and all themes related to freethought are eligible for consideration.
• Plays should be submitted without any identifying information. The play document should include the title of the play, cast list, and the body of the play. Pages need to be numbered.
• In a separate document and e-mail, submit the following:
• A cover sheet with the title of the play and playwright contact information
• A short biography of the playwright
• A brief synopsis of the play, suitable for including in advance publicity
• Fee of $10 will be charged for all submissions to help cover the costs of the festival. For payment information, go to freethoughtonstage.com
• You agree to attend the festival if your play is accepted. You will be provided with a reading and response to your play as part of the festival.

Submissions: e-mail submission to freethoughtonstage@gmail.com; use Freethought Onstage as your subject line. Send coversheet in separate e-mail to the same address; use Freethought Onstage and the title of your play as the subject line.

Go for it!

Tom Owolade has some thoughts on the Goldsmiths feminists and LGBTQ+ activists.

Before examining the underpinnings of the Atheist and Humanist society ideology, one should first examine Goldsmiths’ Islamic society.

In 2011, they invited to speak at their annual dinner Abdurraheem Green and Hamza Tzortzis. Green believes that a husband is permitted to beat his wife if she misbehaves, and that homosexuality should not be permitted in society; Tzortzis has supported child-marriage.

In 2014, Goldsmiths Islamic society invited Cage Prisoners – a group whose dalliance with terrorism and extremism is well-documented. CAGE has supported a wide range of Islamist terrorists – from Abu Hamza to Anwar al-Awlaki. The deputy director of CAGE, Asim Qureshi, has twice refused when interviewed on TV to answer whether he thinks adulterers should be stoned to death.

So the feminist and LGBTQ society think it appropriate to ban a vocal opponent of wife-beating, lethal homophobia, apostasy laws and terrorism, whilst supporting a society that promotes and invites misogynistic and homophobic Islamists. No-platforming for left-wing critics of Islamist oppression; safe-spaces for thugs that endorse theocratic fascists: this is the dysfunctional moral compass now crippling the mainstream student left.

Why is that? Why are they so blind to the reality of the Islamist groups they rush to support? What kind of mushroom do you have to nibble to get that way?

[W]hat we have here is a culture of progressives, disaffected by liberal principles, pointedly incurious or delusional about the people they’re defending, marginalising the voice of someone who speaks up for vulnerable people. For people who don’t have the benefit of languidly complaining about safe spaces; for people who don’t have the benefit of coming out as gay to their parents or telling them they’re atheist or having a boyfriend; people who dare to behave in a way that doesn’t suit the stereotype of brown people, and instead think for themselves. People who don’t cry or wallow in shallow victimhood because they’re offended by the misuse of a pronoun or the wearing of problematic clothes. These people are alone because the student left has abandoned them in pursuit of the solipsistic politics of grievance.

I’ve noticed that. The solipsism. I’ve noticed the huge overlap between the people who declared me a Banned Person and the people whose conversation (i.e. blog posting and social media) is mostly about…themselves. There’s a thing there. I don’t quite know what to call it or how to organize it, but it’s there. Bloggers who write 5000 words about Dear Self on Monday, then 5000 words about That Evil Terf on Wednesday, then 5000 words about Dear Self on Friday. What’s the connection between the two? I don’t know, but I think there is one.

Whatever it is, it doesn’t make for good politics.

James Bloodworth pointed out an extraordinary claim by Stop the War yesterday:

Say what?

Benn does not even seem to realize that the jihadist movement that ultimately spawned Daesh is far closer to the spirit of internationalism and solidarity that drove the International Brigades than Cameron’s bombing campaign – except that the international jihad takes the form of solidarity with oppressed Muslims, rather than the working class or the socialist revolution.

No. It isn’t.

The kind or type or category of internationalism and solidarity that drives Daesh is profoundly different from the kind or type or category that drove the International Brigades. (Here I’m talking about the individuals who joined the IB, not the Stalinists who ran them and ended up purging them.) The “spirit” that drives Daesh is far closer to the “spirit” that drove Franco and the falangists than it is to the one that drove the IB. Franco crushed the Spanish Republican government for Catholicism and the clergy as well as for the monarchy. Daesh has very little in common with the people who joined the IB and a great deal in common with Franco and company. The mere fact that Daesh attracts people from all over the planet is far from enough to make it comparable to the IB.

The ummah is not like the global community that Marxists or human rights campaigners have in mind. The ummah is defined by a single religion, called Submission. It assumes the non-existence of other religions, and to the extent that the other religions persist, their members are not part of the ummah. People who have no religion are also not part of the ummah. People who were once (voluntarily or by birth) members of Submission who have left are really not part of the ummah.

The ummah is ruled by a book, one single book. It has a “prophet” who is to be treated as quasi-divine. This “prophet” issued a lot of rules 14 centuries ago, and submission to those rules is the whole duty of the ummah. Punishments in the ummah are harsh.

The ummah is not any kind of utopia or Better Place. The Stoppers are terribly confused.

Harry’s Place has more. Stop the War took the post down but here’s a cache.

More comments from the Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ post declaring solidarity with Goldsmiths Isoc and condemnation of Goldsmiths ASH.

One.

I understand your wish to show solidarity, but I don’t understand your choice to necessarily take sides in this matter, nor do I understand the side you’ve chosen.

Try investigating what Maryam mentions several times as one of the central issues – conflating Islam, Islamism and Muslims – making it impossible to criticize an ideology without being called a bigot by people who can’t tell apples from oranges.

There are real people suffering very real pain right now. They are partially suffering because we in the west fail to identify and point out the actual problems, and hide behind political correctness out of fear of being labelled an “Islamophobe”.

I’m quite disappointed in your position, and I hope you’ll reconsider your allegations towards not just Maryam, but the enormous group of humanist supporting her views and supporting the millions of Muslims who are subject to discrimination and violence caused by a twisted interpretation of Islam and a lack of criticism of the same.

Two. (Kate won’t mind her name being included.)

Kate Smurthwaite I find this beyond unbelievable. Goldsmiths ISOC is the same organisation that recently hosted Hamza Tsorzis. A an who has openly compared homosexuality to bestiality and has never retracted or apologised for such a statement. How can you feel it acceptable that he be heard while Maryam Namazie is shouted down, has her equipment compromised and every effort is made to intimidate her. Surely you can see the hypocrisy in this? Would it not be possible to do your actual job of standing up for LGBT rights rather than getting involved in supporting a group who are not representing the majority of Muslims and who are demanding the right to have their extreme views shielded from challenge or debate?

Three.

Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ Society just a couple points, these people walked into her speech then proceeded to interrupt her and then became aggressive and tampered with her property. One tells her to shut the f up?! Would your stance be a different story if it were say Peter lababra or WBC behaving this way. I support women’s rights and I’m shamed by your comments, as a gay man I do not agree with you, I condemn those disrespectful and disruptive actions of those men, you are wrong.

Four.

I am on the LGBT committee of another London university and an ex-Muslim. I am utterly disgusted by your continued support of the Isoc society after watching the video. You owe Maryam Namazie an apology, who has bravely supported international gay rights for many years. You are traitors – not for being Islamist apologists – but for so stubbornly sticking with your misinformed and misguided statements. Maryam is a champion for voicing the LGBT rights of people living in countries governed by sharia. Gobsmacked by your statements.

Five. (Ali also won’t mind having his name on it.)

The video is out in public now, and despite the Goldsmiths Students’ Union trying their best to shut it down, it is going viral. Everyone is learning that the Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ Society may quite possibly be the most self-hating and misogynistic LGBTQ community in the world. But then again, there are Latinos supporting Donald Trump.

Six.

While your experience with ISOC may have been just so fluffy and positive, you do realize you have chosen to side with theocratic authoritarianism over free speech, don’t you? Blasphemy is not a crime, especially not if you claim the secular ideals that protect free speech, free thought, and free expression. While people of course have the right to whatever religion they choose, or no religion at all, they don’t have the right to never have their ideas and beliefs questioned, criticized, or even ridiculed. No one has the special right to not have their feelings hurt, especially if it’s over ideas and ideologies, which have no rights at all.

University is for being exposed to different ideas, including those you may disagree with, indeed including those you may find offensive. It’s not for inoculating yourself from anything that might make your taint clench up.

You have the right to your position, but your position is wrong. In every state where the theocratic ideals of Islam are in full effect, and there is no separation of church and state, the plight of LGBT people trapped under these regimes is absolutely deplorable. And for you to side with theocratic integrity over the right to call that shit out is a betrayal, not just of the liberal secular ideal, but of your entire movement.

For shame if you can feel it.

Seven.

Hmm. Let’s see. The “brothers” sat in front of a camera and then behaved so as to ensure that they were the center of attention. But that’s not consent? If I walk behind a reporter during a newscast, do I get to complain afterward that my face appeared on television? Would you say that’s not consent either?

I think it’s obvious that your society is a confused bunch with neither liberal principles nor a backbone upon which to stand when their defense is required. Hence, your masochistic willingness to act in alliance with Islamofascists who would gladly shout you down in any situation in which you were seeking to acquire the rights that ex-Muslims and Muslim reformers are fighting for due to all too many societies and cultures that lack them – it must be nice being so privileged that you don’t have to take the actual oppression of gays, freethinkers, women, etc. in Islamic societies, or threats to them at home seriously, and instead feel that you have the moral high ground in befriending the bullies of the minority within the minority.

I saw only one that semi-supported them.

Laurie Penny says a thing at the New Statesman.

Title and subhead:

If men got pregnant, abortion would be legal everywhere

The concept of women deciding when, whether and how to have children, is still a threat to the status quo.

In other words, all together now: if men got pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.

Laurie Penny cites the murders at Planned Parenthood and a Belfast judge’s ruling that “abortion might just be permissible in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality” and suggests that there’s a pattern.

The concept of women having actual goddamned agency over their lives and bodies, the idea that we might get to decide when, whether and how to have children, is still a threat to the status quo. We grudgingly allow women to make decisions related to sex and reproduction as long as they feel an appropriate degree of guilt, and hoard that guilt away in private. Have an abortion? You’d better be sorry about it for the rest of your life. Get pregnant without a partner? Be prepared to spend 18 years explaining yourself. Leave paid work to have a child? You’re lazy, spoiled and frivolous. Carry on working after your kids are born? You’re cold, selfish. Get sterilised? You’re an unfeeling, unnatural monster. Whoever you are, if you have a uterus and dare to make a decision about what comes out of it, shame on you. Shame is the overarching theme here, shame and scorn for anyone with the temerity to behave as if their own humanity is important.

Right. And why is that? Because women, as a class, are subordinated, treated as inferior, denied rights, considered not fully human. Why is that? Partly because they’re the ones who have the babies. It’s a loop.

I am sick of explaining to misogynists that women are people whose choices and autonomy matter. Instead, let’s go back to considering the seahorse. Consider how different the world would be if the people with the capacity to bear children were the people society already considered fully human. Consider what would happen if men got pregnant.

If men got pregnant, abortion would be available free of charge and without restriction in every town and city on earth. No man would be expected to justify his decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It would be enough for him to say, “I don’t want to have this baby.”

And so on, with conditional example after conditional example. If men got pregnant, so many things would be so different.

In point of fact, some men do get pregnant. Transsexual men have borne children, but their experience is not part of the popular understanding of reproductive rights – because people don’t get pregnant, women get pregnant, and when you get down to it, women aren’t really people. The structure of modern misogyny is still grounded on the fear that women might one day regain control of the means of reproduction and actually get to make their own decisions about the future of the human race- but you cannot force a person to give birth against their will and consider them fully human.

If men got pregnant, we would not be having this conversation. The fact that we still are shows how far we’ve got to go before equality becomes reality.

Will she be accused? Will she get away with it? News at 11.

Originally a comment by iknklast on They never accused.

You’re right, I have the right not to invite you to my party, and do it on the flimsiest of reasons. But you also have the right to complain about that, loudly, to all your friends, and anyone who will listen (and even to those who won’t, because they have a right to walk off while you’re talking). This isn’t about birthday parties, or even events. This is about an attitude that is becoming increasingly pervasive, where women are not only not being invited to events, they are being smeared as transphobic or TERF, and at times being disinvited to speak, or being invited to speak by one group who is then targeted or who is not permitted to bring in the person they would like at their party. This is more like if I do invite you to my party, and the next door neighbor comes around and says because they heard some vague hearsay, they’re not going to let you come to my party (or maybe landlord would be a better analogy, since there is a power relationship there).

In short, this is about shutting up women who want to talk about women’s issues. This is a longstanding, pervasive problem that goes back through recorded history (and probably further). This is about finding a lever where progressive, feminist women are willing to shut down conversation about women, keeping us still down in a place where we are unable to talk about the things that concern women. A woman who questions the essentialness of gender is a pariah in many of these circles.

Of course, many of these women have other fora in which they can speak, and they are published widely. It isn’t that their voices are totally silenced. It’s that there is a progressing trend to shut down the entire concept of women and women’s issues, and persuade people to view those women who promote “the wrong kind” of feminism (or who someone vaguely perceives as promoting “the wrong kind” of feminism) as being evil, racist, transphobic monsters. And yes, I use the word monster advisedly. That seems to me to be the ultimate goal, given the language and the heated rhetoric surrounding these women.

This is more about people trying to claim these women are like Rush Limbaugh than it is about any situation that has shut down Rush Limbaugh.

For the sake of completeness of information –

Goldsmiths Students Union has a brief statement…a brief, nasty, insinuating, hateful statement.

Maryam Namazie Talk – Holding Statement

Emil Allard

This matter is currently under investigation and we are not in a position to comment further. Goldsmiths SU are aware of a video that has been posted online without consent of the attending students, we have contacted the speaker and requested that this video [be] removed.

Any further statement will be posted in the news section of this website.

See what they did there? They made it appear as if Maryam or ASH or both did something wrong, and as if no one else did.

They also, probably without fully realizing it, admitted to trying to hide the record of how the (all male) bullies in the front row of Maryam’s talk carried on.

And now the Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ Society has joined the reactionary Goldsmiths Feminist Society in solidarity not with the secular feminist human rights campaigner Maryam Namazie but with the people – the men – who tried to bully her into silence at her talk on Monday. Yes that’s right. Solidarity with the bullies who did their best to shout down a woman advocating religious freedom and human rights.

Following recent events on- and offline, we would like to state and show our solidarity with the sisters and brothers of our Goldsmiths ISOC

We condemn AHS and online supporters for their islamophobic remarks and attitudes. If they feel intimidated, we urge them to look at the underpinnings of their ideology. We find that personal and social harm enacted in the name of ‘free speech’ is foul, and detrimental to the wellbeing of students and staff on campus.

In our experiences, members of ISOC have been nothing but charming, patient, kind, and peaceful as individuals and as an organization.

We hope this series of events prompts reflection in all parties involved, but also onlookers. Allyship consists of apologies, bearing with and deconstructing discomfort, respecting the necessary privacy of safer spaces, and opening our hearts to humans unlike ourselves.

We can all stand to improve in this area- which ideally is a daily, humbling practice and not a label.

Friends tell me they (the LGBTQ+ Society) have been deleting comments ever since, no matter how polite. They left this comment on their own post ten hours after posting (and after deleting all comments to that point):

Goldsmiths LGBTQ+ SocietyWe stand by Isoc and our statement is not negotiable. We reserve the right to moderate the comments and all islamaphobic, racist or inflammatory comments will be removed. Attempts have been made to flood this page in order to silence us, and we will not allow it to continue nor back down from our position.

How heroic! They won’t back down from their courageous stance with the bullies and against the human rights activists.

H/t David and Rosie

In case we haven’t had enough no-platforming today, in case we haven’t had enough damnfoolery from UK university feminist societies today, in case we haven’t had enough of mouthy feminist women being stabbed in the back by other feminists today – we can contemplate the fact that the Bristol Feminist Society decided to no-platform Sarah Ditum because somebody somewhere said she said something transphobic maybe perhaps but don’t quote them.

Sarah Ditum ‏@sarahditum 6 hours ago
Too perfect. No-platformed by @TWSSMagazine (Bristol uni femsoc mag) because they won’t have anyone “accused of transphobia” on a panel.

Obvs they claimed “unforeseen circs”. Too cowardly to keep their invitation, too cowardly to say why. But I have the emails @TWSSMagazine

Well don’t worry, Bristol FemSoc and their magazine That’s What She Said issued a statement clearing everything up.

That’s What She Said ‏@TWSSMagazine 5 hours ago
TWSS’s Statement regarding rescinding Sarah Ditum from one of our events:

Dazzling, isn’t it? “The decision was based on previous allegations that claimed Sarah Ditum made transphobic comments.” No actual agents here, just floating allegations making floating claims of something entirely vague – and on the basis of that they

1. no-platform Sarah and
2. libel her.

Meghan Murphy is scathing.

Ta daaa! We’ve reached peak no-platforming. Bristol Feminist Society has disinvited feminist writer Sarah Ditum from a panel on Women in Journalism, not on account of anything concrete, but on account of someone somewhere (but we’re not sure who or where or why, so please don’t ask!) accusing her of transphobia. The organization claimed “unforeseen circumstances,” but emails were leaked to Ditum providing evidence that the decision had been made due to this (unfounded) accusation. Behold, the new witch trials.

It reminds me of last summer – remember the immortal “when somebody tells you, you know”? Yes, friends, if somebody says something, it is invariably true and you should always believe it without question, and act accordingly. That’s democracy.

I think we should have a conference of no-platformed feminist women. It would be large and by god it would be lively. Mark Zuckerberg could fund it.

The BBC is reporting on another Twitter fuss.

Amidst the news of a mass shooting in California, a lively debate erupted on Twitter over the power and utility of offering “prayers” in the wake of such an event.

It’s political boilerplate to offer “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of violence, and the majority of Republican presidential candidates took this approach after a shooting in California left 14 people dead and more injured.

“Our prayers are with the victims, their families, and the first responders in San Bernardino who willingly go into harm’s way to save others,” wrote Ted Cruz.

Well, you know, I wish they wouldn’t do that. I usually keep it to myself, at least when it’s a natural disaster, because it seems callous and mean and not what anyone needs, but all the same I wish they wouldn’t do that. I especially wish government officials wouldn’t, because I’d prefer the government to be secular, but I wish everybody wouldn’t. The whole idea is stupid. If the god they’re praying to is benevolent, why does it take prayers to get the god to help or comfort or whatever it is? And why didn’t the god just prevent the disaster in the first place? And so on. It’s like crying in the arms of someone who just beat you up.

Before long, the difference in approach was picked up on social media – and rapidly politicised. What followed was a raging debate, in which Democrat[ic]-leaning voices criticised the appropriateness of offering prayers in the face of what many saw as a consequence of “political choice” – the decision not to pass gun reform laws in the US. At the most extreme end, it was dubbed “prayer-shaming”.

“Your “thoughts” should be about steps to take to stop this carnage. Your “prayers” should be for forgiveness if you do nothing – again,” tweeted Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat. He represents the state of Connecticut, where 28 people, mostly children, were killed in the Sandy Hook shootings.

A plan for gun reform was put forth by President Barack Obama after that tragedy, but failed to pass Congress.

ThinkProgress reporter Igor Volsky retweeted politicians who offered “thoughts and prayers,” adding to each tweet the campaign contributions they received from the National Rifle Association.

But there was a backlash, from those who said the attack on prayers were partisan and mean-spirited. “The American Left on display today: The hashtag #BringBackOurGirls works. Tweeting ‘Prayers offered’ should be shamed and ridiculed,” wrote conservative pundit Erick Erickson.

Well there’s a clear difference between the two. #BringBackOurGirls addresses real people who really exist. Prayer don’t. Also, of course, the hashtag didn’t work, and I doubt that anyone thought it would in any straightforward sense – the idea was to keep the issue alive as opposed to just letting it fade out. Then again talk of prayers doesn’t always imply belief in their literal efficacy; it’s a way of saying we care. That’s another reason I usually keep my objections to myself.

As the debate wore on, some tried to find room for both messages.

“To be clear: Offering prayers is not the problem. They can be a balm and a sign of good will. But politicians’ actions are relevant too,” wrote the science fiction writerJohn Scalzi.

“Guys. Don’t mock the sincere offering of prayers. Mock legislative inaction or hypocrisy. But offering a prayer is not offering NOTHING,” wrote Ana Marie Cox, a left-leaning pundit who is public about her faith.”

Well it is and it isn’t. It isn’t, in the sense that it expresses fellowship, sympathy, solidarity, caring. But it is, in the sense that it doesn’t reach the desk of a god who will do something in response.

Here is the video of Maryam’s talk at Goldsmiths on Monday. Now we can see for ourselves what actually happened.

I’ve watched 25 minutes so far.

At 9 minutes a guy in the front row all in black including a wool cap gets up to take photos of the audience.

At 11:30 there are snickers and mutterings when Maryam mentions the murders of atheist bloggers in Bangladesh.

At 12 two guys in the front row start objecting to being filmed; Maryam tells them to stop talking or get out, the ASH guy who introduced her tells them questions will be at the end, they keep talking and shouting. The noisiest guy, in a grey flat cap, has the gall to say to Maryam: “Stop intimidating me, you’re intimidating me.”

At 14 six women get up and walk out.

At 15 there is complete chaos.

From 20 to 25+ things quiet down and Maryam gets to talk, although someone is emitting scornful whistles at a few points.

Another one. Is it going to be every other day now? Every day? Several per day?

The New York Times is live updating.

A little over an hour ago –

Police Report Multiple Fatalities, Possibly as Many as 12
Coral Castro, the multimedia coordinator for the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, said that details about the shooting were still in flux, including the number of suspects and casualties.

But she reported that there were “possibly 12 fatalities.”

Ms. Castro said the department was assisting in the investigation and she emphasized that information was still coming in. The police are searching for three possible suspects, she said, but no one is in custody.

She said a news conference would be held at 1:45 p.m. local time at the corner of Waterman and Vanderbilt in San Bernardino.

Seven minutes later –

At a news conference, local and federal law enforcement officials reported that at least 14 people were killed in the San Bernardino shooting, and that another 14 were injured.

“We do not know if this is a terrorist incident, said David Bowdich, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Los Angeles office.

Officials said that the shooters dressed in equipment “suggesting they were prepared.” But Chief Jarrod Burguan of the San Bernardino Police Department said the motive was still unknown, and he said “we have no information at this point to indicate this is terrorist related in the sense that people may have been thinking.”

The US is a shameful country in many ways. This is one of them.

The Goldsmiths Feminist Society removed their statement of solidarity with Goldsmiths Isoc from Facebook but they later tweeted the tumblr version, which remains.

Goldsmiths Feminist Society stands in solidarity with Goldsmiths Islamic Society. We support them in condemning the actions of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society and agree that hosting known islamophobes at our university creates a climate of hatred.

We showed our support on our Facebook page by sharing ISOC’s post with a message of solidarity. Our Facebook page is designed as a space for us to communicate with our members, and their safety is our first priority, under the policies set out by our Student Union. We reserve the right to remove comments and posts that violate these terms or contribute to the marginalisation of students.

The Goldsmiths Feminist Society condemns the “actions” of the ASH Society, meaning, inviting Maryam Namazie to give a talk, and putting up posters advertising her talk (many of which were removed). What business does the Goldsmiths Feminist Society have condemning any of that? Why shouldn’t an atheist secularist humanist society invite an atheist secularist humanist activist to speak? Why is the GFS treating Maryam as some sort of horrifying contaminant?

And what on earth is this “known Islamophobe” shit? Besides a big lie put about by the Goldsmiths Isoc? Maryam does dislike Islam, but she has every right to dislike Islam, as we all do. But “Islamophobe” really (though not literally) means hater of Muslims, and that’s just a lie. Maryam’s family are Muslims; she takes great pains to distinguish between Islam and Muslims, and between Islam and Islamism.

The GFS simply bought the Goldsmiths Isoc’s account of Maryam and her talk whole cloth, and that account is a shameless lie.

This is feminism?

So the members of the GFS would be happy to be forced to wear a hijab, would they? And to be forced to sit in a section separate (and smaller and worse) than the section for the real people, the men? And to be subject to stoning should they ever marry and then fuck someone else? And to force their daughters into marriages against their will? And to discipline their daughters ferociously if they ever rebelled against wearing the hijab or marrying someone they don’t want to marry? That all sounds good to them, and feminist too?

What an insult.

Daaaaaaaaaamn – the Goldsmiths Feminist Society expressed solidarity with…ISOC.

The post has apparently been deleted now, but hell and damn, what is wrong with everyone?

Hooray, a December panto at the Norwich Playhouse.

Spooky Kid Productions presents
JACK THE RIPPER THE PANTO

Thu 10th Dec to Sat 12th Dec – 7:30pm
2 hours plus interval
£15 all tickets (+ £1.20 per transaction when tickets posted)

Ahahahahaha look at her, isn’t that funny? No teeth, because she’s poor, you see, and big tits because she’s a whore, and terrified because of the knife. How funny! What larks!

OVERVIEW

Based on the 19th century’s most notorious killer, Jack The Ripper The Panto is a love story with prostitutes, murders, drugs and a good old sing song.

After a spate of unfortunate “incidents” Jack Ripper is forced to flee to London with only Manson, the psychotic cat, and a Fairy Godmother for company. With no shelter and no food Jack is forced to take drastic steps to survive. Falling foul of Inspector Abberline and the London Peelers and falling in love with brothel cleaner and wannabe prostitute Cindy, only one thing’s certain – this isn’t going to end well. Throw in a load of audience participation, the singalong favourite Thrash Me Thrash Me, and a laugh-a-minute script, and you have an unmissable evening’s entertainment.

Jack The Ripper The Panto has sold out theatres in the region since 2009 with its blend of politically incorrect comedy mixed with the pantomime structure we all know from our childhood. Please be aware, however, this is not a show for children, or, for that matter, the easily offended, or basically anyone who doesn’t think the idea of a pantomime about Jack the Ripper is big, clever or funny!

Excuse me, I have to go autoclave myself.