Solidarity with.

Patreon

They want to be clear about something.

We want to be clear about something. The Second Shelf is intersectional, inclusive, and expansive in our use of the term women as we embrace the multidefinitionality of gender identity and expression. We will not debate this.

— The Second Shelf (@secondshelfbks) January 15, 2019

Only, to me it’s not clear. It’s anything but clear; it’s downright muddy.

For instance, why is there any need to be “expansive” in anyone’s “use of the term women”? Why can’t the word “women” just mean “women” and let it go at that? Apart from anything else, it’s convenient. It saves trouble when words mean what they mean and not some “expansive” extra set of things imposed from the outside. If the word “women” is “expanded” to include dogs and hammers and lettuce and who knows what else, won’t we just need a new word that means “women”?

For another instance, why “women” in particular? Why “women” only? Why not also, for instance…oh let’s see…hmmm…”men”? Why not “men” too? Why is The Second Shelf not announcing, with a stern “We will not debate this” for emphasis, that it is intersectional, inclusive, and expansive in its use of the term men?

And that raises another question, which is: why don’t people notice this? Why don’t they feel discomfort about it? Why don’t they notice that it’s only women they’re telling to move over and share and shut up and don’t even try to debate this? Why don’t they notice that it’s only women they’re bullying, and the historic pattern that fits, and the social justice movement that has been trying to rectify that for quite a long time? Why are they so comfortable and at ease with this new arrangement where people take to Twitter to issue orders to women about what we can call ourselves and how we have to abase ourselves to men who want to use the term women for themselves?

One reason, I’m afraid, is just that they can. It’s easy to bully women because it fits the old pattern, so let’s just do that to get our daily quota of bullying in. Women have been told to be compliant in a million ways ever since infancy; even those of us who had feminist parents still lived in a culture in which telling women to be compliant is second nature. The Second Shelf is just tucking itself comfortably into that ancient pattern. (They can go fuck themselves.)

So that’s a big NO to Theresa May and her particular Brexit plan. Unfortunately a second referendum is not the only other option.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been rejected by 230 votes – the largest defeat for a sitting government in history.

MPs voted by 432 votes to 202 to reject the deal, which sets out the terms of Britain’s exit from the EU on 29 March.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has now tabled a vote of no confidence in the government, which could trigger a general election.

The confidence vote is expected to be held at about 1900 GMT on Wednesday.

Putin is no doubt hugging himself with glee.

News from the Barr hearing.

In William Barr’s first day of confirmation hearings to be attorney general, one of the key topics was special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. He’s been pressed on whether he’ll make the final report public, whether he’d consider recusing himself, and whether he’d fire Mueller, and he’s fielded questions on his independence. Here are some of the takeaways from the first day so far:

• Barr suggested he is inclined to think a sitting president cannot be indicted. “For 40 years the position of the executive branch is that you can’t indict a sitting president,” Barr said, adding that he hasn’t read those opinions in a long time, but “I see no reason to change them.”

waves madly

I can think of one! If the president is a flagrant, prolific criminal who is still steadily criminaling while being a sitting /golfing/ lying president.

• It’s unclear if Mueller’s final report on the investigation will be made public. Barr said he wants to make as much public as is consistent with the special counsel regulation, but it’s Barr who has the final say on what is made public, and he suggested that in the event prosecution is declined, those findings may not be made public.

This is no good. He should recuse himself, because he shouldn’t have the final say or any say, because Trump.

• Barr, who has been critical of the Mueller probe, isn’t inclined to recuse himself. He said he will ask Justice Department officials to review any cases in which he should recuse himself but won’t follow any recommendation if he disagrees with it.

In short, the fix is in.

Gaby Hinsliff suggests that Piers Morgan is actually part of the advertising campaign.

What would the advertising industry do without Piers Morgan?

Whenever they need a grumpy middle-aged man to be triggered, there he is, reliable as clockwork. He did it with Greggs’ vegan sausage roll, helping catapult their January marketing wheeze onto the front pages by complaining that it was a monstrosity. And he’s done it again with the new Gillette ad targeting toxic masculinity, which twists its familiar “the best a man can get” tagline to suggest that men can do a lot better than Harvey Weinstein and fighting in the street.

It’s true! We’re all pitching in to help sell this shaving cream.

Gillette is solemnly insisting that it’s not just a stunt; that in addition to the ad it will be putting money into projects to “inspire and educate” men of all ages, and routinely challenge male stereotypes in the images and words it chooses. Like all marketing gambits, that should perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt.

Now we’re marketing salt. It just never ends, does it.

But seriously.

Feminism has endlessly opened up horizons for girls, giving them permission to be anything they want to be. They are bombarded with messages about how it’s fine to be both smart and pretty, encouraged to visualise themselves in male-dominated careers and to push the boundaries of behaviour considered “acceptable” for women. That paves the way for girls who never fitted the pink princess stereotype to be far more comfortable in their skins.

But expectations of boys have remained more rigid, to the detriment both of those who don’t fit the macho stereotype and of those who will grow up to be the victims of insecure male rage. “Let boys be boys” is an excellent principle. But only if we recognise the full range of things boys are capable of being, when we let them.

It’s a bind. Women are the subordinated half of the equation, so the move for them is as it were upwards; for men it is as it were downwards. It isn’t literally, but it seems that way. Since women have always been figured as weak and subordinate, men are by implication strong and dominant; trying to change that runs into this “You want to make us into cowardly weaklings” problem.

The Guardian reports the deep outrage at the wild claim that men shouldn’t bully or sexually harass.

Gillette is under fire from men’s rights activists and rightwing publications for a new advertisement that engages with the #MeToo movement and plays on its 30-year tagline “The Best A Man Can Get”, asking instead: “Is this the best a man can get?”

The advertisement features news clips of reporting on the #MeToo movement, as well as images showing sexism in films, in boardrooms, and of violence between boys, with a voice over saying: “Bullying, the MeToo movement against sexual harassment, toxic masculinity, is this the best a man can get?”

The film has generated heated debate and plenty of criticism.

Far-right magazine The New American attacked the advertisement’s message, saying it “reflects many false suppositions”, adding that: “Men are the wilder sex, which accounts for their dangerousness – but also their dynamism.”

Yers! You can’t have one without the other! Men can’t possibly invent shaving cream if they’re not allowed to bully and rape; the two are inextricably linked.

They really want to go with that?

This is startling.

I've used @Gillette razors my entire adult life but this absurd virtue-signalling PC guff may drive me away to a company less eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on masculinity.
Let boys be damn boys.
Let men be damn men. https://t.co/Hm66OD5lA4

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 14, 2019

The ad is just saying don’t be a bully and don’t be a sexual harasser…and Piers Morgan is saying YES, DO be a bully and a sexual harasser. And he’s calling it “virtue-signalling PC guff” to say don’t be a bully and don’t be a sexual harasser?

He’s also saying, whether he realizes it or not, that being male requires being a bully and a sexual harasser – that that’s what “masculinity” is.

Surely that’s far more insulting to men than saying that men don’t have to be like this.

Aw isn’t that sweet – Trump had a winning sports team over for a fancy dinner to celebrate.

President Trump is serving McDonald’s and Wendy’s at the White House on Monday night — but it’s far from the first time the president’s enjoyment of fast food has been apparent.

On Monday, Trump announced plans to serve the Clemson football team fast food during their visit to the White House, following the team’s national-championship win. The decision was in part because most of the White House staff is furloughed during the government shutdown, which is now in its 24th day, White House deputy press secretary Hogan Gidley told CNN.

Still in the fancy styrofoam boxes and everything!

https://twitter.com/taylomason/status/1084947929293643776

Isn’t that just so fancy and special and generous?

https://twitter.com/hunterw/status/1084954858254405633

None of your fancy French muck for our Don!

Yes I’m sure women who’ve just given birth will REALLY appreciate that question.

https://twitter.com/binarythis/status/1082503987331457024

Oh here we go – is Rahaf al-Qunun just another tool of the Global Conspiracy of Islamophobia?

Now, as al-Qunun begins a new life in a new country, questions are being raised about the reasons for Canada’s speedy decision to grant her asylum, the message it sends and its implications for the future of the country’s already-frosty relationship with Saudi Arabia, where an estimated 17,000 Canadians currently live.

“Canada and Saudi Arabia are in a political battle currently, so because this woman is Saudi, my sense is that there was some political motive in promoting the ‘rescuing’ of a Saudi girl,” said Ryerson University professor Mehrunnisa Ali.

“Of course, the rescuing of oppressed people is a Western narrative in many different ways but the securing of a Saudi woman being oppressed by her family and her country sharpens this narrative in ways that may not have been possible otherwise.”

So…we all should have just turned our backs and let al-Qunun be deported back to Saudi Arabia and the tender mercies of her father? Rather than risk being part of The Western Narrative? And is the issue colonialist narratives or lucrative dealings with Saudi Arabia? They’re not quite the same thing, after all.

For some, including senior research fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue Amarnath Amarasingam, it’s concerning how al-Qunun’s case is being celebrated by figures that often push an anti-Islam or anti-immigration message.

“Many on the far-right love ex-Muslims, and many ex-Muslims on the far-right often present themselves as so-called native informants presenting to the mainstream the real ‘truth’ about Muslims,” he said.

Excuse me? “So-called” by whom? Ex-Muslims sure as hell don’t call themselves “native informants,” so why introduce the term? It’s a calculated insult, and it’s a cheat to use it while trying to disown it with “so-called.”

“It’s perhaps not surprising that many of these individuals on the far-right encouraged Canada to accept Rahaf after it was rumoured that she had abandoned Islam. To be clear, I’m very happy that Canada let her in but … I’m going to go out on a limb and say there are some ulterior motives there.”

“Ulterior” how, exactly? Is it “ulterior” to dislike Islam as it is mostly practiced because of its illiberal view of women?

A nasty piece. Not cool, CBC.

Julie Bindel on “honor” crimes against women such as Rahaf al-Qunun:

It is just the latest example of the fear and abuse many women experience in communities in which ‘honour-based violence’ is the norm. This is nothing short of a disgrace – and the fact that so many police and prosecutors take a ‘softly, softly approach’ shows us the level or cowardice and incompetence in dealing with this issue.

…

Honour-based violence is the most extreme end of an ideology that says female sexuality should be totally controlled by men. In England and Wales, there were 137,000 women and girls affected by female genital mutilation (FGM) in 2015, and last year the UK’s Forced Marriage Unit provided support in well over 1,000 cases.

Women and girls are seen as something like a gaping hole in the wall of a house, that can let in all sorts of bad stuff – mud, rats, thieves, syphilis.

UK police forces recorded 11,744 honour-based crimes between 2010 and 2014, including forced marriage, FGM, sexual and physical assault, and murder. Between 2014 and 2017, the number of incidents reported to the police increased by 53%. And given that honour crimes are often unreported, these figures are likely to underestimate the true scale of abuse. Shockingly, in 2016/17 just 5% of incidents were referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, the lowest in five years.

So I guess the other 95% were just…family turmoil? Nobody else’s business?

The first murder in the EU that was recognised as honour-based violence was that of Fadime Sahindal in 2002. She was 26 when her father shot her in the head during a visit to her mother. Fadime, whose family moved to Sweden from a small village in Turkey, had fallen in love with a Swedish man named Patrik. Her father had discovered the relationship and was appalled that she had chosen for herself a man outside of her culture and religion. The case highlight how women from these cultures are treated like chattel; nothing more than goods to be owned and traded.

Fadime’s case helped Sweden recognise the dangers women face from communities that impose strict sanctions on them. Fadime was threatened endlessly by her father for four years. Then one day he saw her with Patrik in the street and attacked her, spitting in her face and shouting: “Bloody whore. I will beat you to pieces.” He murdered his daughter in cold blood. It is mainly because of Fadime that Sweden is the centre of an EU-supported cross-European project on honour crime.

That’s probably why a humanist publisher in Sweden did a translation of Does God Hate Women? They take an interest.

In 2006, the Swedish Liberal politician Nyamko Sabuni popularised the campaign against honour crime when she published her book The Girls We Betray. As integration and equalities minister until 2010, Sabuni was responsible for producing the government’s first action plan for honour crime.

As well as denouncing what she deemed the “honour culture” of some immigrant groups, Sabuni proposed banning the veil for girls under the age of 15, compulsory medical examinations to check for FGM, outlawing arranged marriages and ending state funding of religious schools.

And so, of course, she was called “Islamophobic.”

When I write about religious and cultural oppression of Muslim women, including honour crime, I am routinely accused of inciting ‘Islamophobia’. I press ahead regardless, taking my lead from the numerous Muslim-born feminist campaigners that also rail against the niqab, FGM, and forced marriage. Meanwhile, many white liberals, including some politicians and criminal justice agents, shy away.

But change is slowly taking place, thanks to feminists and other human rights campaigners such as Iranian-exile Maryam Namazie, who tirelessly fights against the normalisation of sharia imposed on Muslim-born women in the UK.

Somebody has to.

Carl Bernstein says Mueller’s report is going to say Trump helped Putin break the US.

The Post reported that Trump has gone to “extraordinary lengths” to conceal direct conversations he has had with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Times article revealed that the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into Trump after he fired former bureau director James Comey in 2017, suspecting the president could be working on behalf of Russia. Trump has angrily denied allegations that he worked with Russia and has regularly attacked the media for reporting on the investigation. But Bernstein slammed Trump’s dismissal of the probe.

“This is about the most serious counterintelligence people we have in the U.S. government saying, ‘Oh, my God, the president’s words and actions lead us to conclude that somehow he has become a witting, unwitting, or half-witting pawn, certainly in some regards, to Vladimir Putin,’” Bernstein explained during his appearance on Reliable Sources .

“From a point of view of strength… rather, he has done what appears to be Putin’s goals. He has helped Putin destabilize the United States and interfere in the election, no matter whether it was purposeful or not,” the journalist added. He then explained that he knew from his own high-level sources that Mueller’s report would discuss this assessment.

The US itself laid the groundwork though.

Le tout Twitter is talking about David De Gea’s 11 saves in one half. He’s pretty amazing.

https://twitter.com/DeGeaFacts/status/1084535808491692032

The Post has a transcript of a meeting of some House Republicans in 2016.

They’re talking about Ukraine. Rodgers asks how things are going there.

Ryan: He basically…He has this really interesting riff about… people have said that they have Ukraine fatigue, and it’s really Russian fatigue because what Russia is doing is doing to us, financing our populists, financing people in our governments to undo our governments, you know, messing with our oil and gas energy, all the things Russia does to basically blow up our country, they’re just going to roll right through us and go to the Baltics and everyone else.

Rodgers: Yes!

Ryan: So we should not have Ukraine fatigue, we should have Russian fatigue.

So they knew all that in June 2016. Interesting.

Ryan: Russia is trying to turn Ukraine against itself.

Rodgers: Yes. And that’s…it’s sophisticated and it’s, uh…

Ryan: Maniacal.

Rodgers: Yes.

Ryan: And guess…guess who’s the only one taking a strong stand up against it? We are.

Rodgers: We’re not…we’re not…but, we’re not…

McCarthy: [unintelligible]…I’ll GUARANTEE you that’s what it is.

[Unintelligible]

McCarthy: The Russians hacked the DNC and got the opp research that they had on Trump.

McCarthy: laughs

[Crosstalk]

Ryan: The Russian’s hacked the DNC…

McHenry: …to get oppo…

Ryan: …on Trump and like delivered it to…to who?

[Unintelligible]

McCarthy: There’s…there’s two people, I think, Putin pays: Rohrabacher and Trump…[laughter]…swear to God.

Ryan: This is an off the record…[laughter]…NO LEAKS…[laughter]…alright?!

[Laughter]

Ryan: This is how we know we’re a real family here.

Scalise: That’s how you know that we’re tight.

[Laughter]

Ryan: What’s said in the family stays in the family.

[Laughter]

[Laughter]

[Laughter]

They think it’s funny.