Tag: Sexism

  • She also happens to be

    Oh ffs, Barack. Really? Really? You don’t know better than this?

    Instead of leaving the Bay Area Thursday after what would have normally been a quiet two-day fundraising trip, President Obama faced some criticism for  calling California’s Kamala Harris “the best-looking attorney general in the country.”

    Obama’s comments came at the second of two fundraisers in Atherton Thursday  and began with praise for Harris’ performance as attorney general.

    “You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is  administering the law and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake,”  Obama said. “She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country.”

    Actually no. You have to be careful to, first of all, talk about her as you would talk about anyone you consider a professional colleague as opposed to someone you’re flirting with, and leave it at that. You don’t clear your throat by saying “yes, yes, she’s good at her job” so that you can rush on to say she’s hawt.

  • Detailed sexual commentary was part of the “feedback”

    Soraya Chemaly explains, again, that internet harassment and threatening are not trivial or no biggy or “harmless expressions of free speech.”

    Often, these incidents come down to a group of men targeting a woman because they perceive a potential threat to men’s “free speech” and that this threat trumps a woman’s rights — to free speech and to actual, physical safety.

    Take Rebecca Meredith. Two weeks ago, as she wrote about in an article in the Mail Online, she participated in a formal university debate. Some students, most, if not all, of whom happened to be men, heckled her.  Fine, everyone gets heckled.  But then, when she and her female debating partner confronted the hecklers for the sexist tone of their “critiques,” the responses included, “Get that woman out of my union,” “What does a woman know anyway,” and “Frigid bitch.” Whatever. The educated, elite young men, their academic peers, went on to make crass comments regarding their breasts and other aspects of their physical appearances. Detailed sexual commentary was part of the “feedback” they received.  They, like Richards, felt “uncomfortable” with the tone and content, especially in a professional context. “Naturally,” as this event migrated online, some other men publicly decided to parse Meredith’s “rape potential,” while others piled on to describe their “rape-her” preferences.

    That’s unpleasant at best and intimidating at worst. That’s not “free speech” – it actively discourages free speech.

    The massive amount of social sanction and support provided online for violent, ugly, trolling mobs making physical threats like these about women they don’t even know isn’t outside of mainstream culture.

    But it should be. We’re trying to make that the case. No prospect of success so far though.

    Sexist commentary — the jokes, the asides, the slights, the tweets — is hostile, but it’s just the very surface of what we’re dealing with. This isn’t about being “offended,” it’s about feeling marginalized as a result of hate and disdain.   Women like Richards and so many others reach a saturation point where staying quiet about it is no longer possible.

    What online thugs and their defenders are actually saying is, “How dare you mess with my privileges? Stop challenging norms that I benefit from or invading public spaces where I’ve historically dominated without this kind of restraint.”  What elite has ever given up its privileges willingly and without a fight? It’s such an inconvenience.

    If “we” want women to “lighten up,” or we want stop telling women to be afraid, then “we” have to stop threatening them with rape and raping them.

    I would like it if we could do that.

     

  • Imagine it was Mitt Romney

    Via Dana who found it via Kylie, a Facebook note by Harriet Page. I know, not everyone is on Facebook. But that’s where it is!

    She introduced it with

    This week I wrote a response to the several occasions on which I had been challenged on my feminism by men and women who felt that I was misguided, wrong, aggressive or unhelpful in my responses to what I viewed as sexist behaviour.

    Been there. Many times. I can remember heavy sighs back in the early 70s when I pointed out some (to me obvious, indeed blatant) bit of everyday sexism. And of course have been there again just lately, with people who consider themselves feminists nevertheless going into Full Outrage mode because I had the gall to criticize something sexist that Michael Shermer said.

    (Really. Imagine it wasn’t Michael Shermer who said it. Imagine it was Mitt Romney. Imagine Mitt Romney was on a talk show and the conversation turned to the scarcity of women in politics. Imagine Mitt Romney said: “It’s who wants to stand up and talk about it, go on shows about it, go to conferences and speak about it, who’s intellectually active about it; you know, it’s more of a guy thing.” Imagine I did a blog post saying that was a sexist stereotype, and a particularly damaging one at that. Would there have been the same kind of outrage from the same people?

    I don’t know the answer, of course, but I think it’s extremely unlikely.

    Notice by the way how plausible it sounds as a thing Mitt Romney would say. Notice how well the clueless smug “that’s just how things are”ism fits Mitt Romney. Notice how many other clueless smug prosperous dudes one could slot in there and notice how unsurprising that remark would still be.

    So why is it so hard to see it that way when it’s Michael Shermer who said it?)

    Back to Harriet Page.

    …what I want to talk about is not the obvious misogyny that we can all agree to despise, but rather the unconscious behaviours and attitudes that go unchallenged because in this country there is a taboo about breaking the silence on the wearying, everyday grind of normal, legitimized sexism. And so I want to talk about the men who claim to stand on the side of equality but, through their words, actions and inaction, perpetuate the culture of sexism. I want to talk about feminism’s false allies; the men I call the sleepwalking sexists.

    Sleepwalking because sleepwalkers can get aggressive if you wake them up suddenly.

    And, in a way, this is exactly what happens when nice, reasonable men who call themselves feminists are called out on their unconsciously sexist behaviour and attitudes. These men have sleepwalked contentedly through the minefield of gender relations without ever having cause to question what they’re doing and then BAM. Some crazy feminist with no regard for how scary and disorienting it’s going to be comes along and wakes them up with the rude news that, actually, they have unintentionally been engaging in some pretty sexist behaviour.

    BAM. Some crazy feminist who isn’t a big Name in Skepticismolandia comes along and says “that was a sexist stereotype.” And the world comes to an end.

    In the case of sleepwalking sexists, the responses are more varied. It might be immediate, unhinged abuse – ‘Crazy bitch, you must be on your period or something’. It might be icy politeness and contempt – ‘I’d thank you not to be so aggressive, it’s completely unnecessary’. It might be fake concern – ‘You maybe don’t realise it, but when you attack men like me who are only trying to help, it hurts the whole cause of feminism’. Whatever the method used, the result is the same; instead of reflecting on their own behaviour and attitudes, these men will retreat into an impenetrable defensive fortress.

    Here’s the hard and unwelcome truth. You are a sleepwalking sexist if:

    -You think jokes about rape and domestic abuse can be funny.

    – You know that victim-blaming is wrong, but you also feel that in purely logical terms, it’s obvious that women who wear provocative clothing are taking stupid risks.

    – You have ever told a woman to ‘get over it’ because she was upset by a sexist joke, a catcall or a whistle.

    – You have ever felt that a woman’s frustration or anger invalidated the content of her argument.

    – You believe that you have as much right as a woman to determine what does and doesn’t count as offensive material, even though you are not the subject of the material in question.

    – You believe that the world is full of men who are potential-feminists, and that they’d be mobilised to help if only women would be a bit nicer to them.

    – You believe that a woman making a generalisation about men is just as harmful and oppressive as a man making a generalisation about women.

    – You did consider yourself a feminist. Then one upset you when she pointed out some problematic behaviour, and now as far as you’re concerned the feminists are on their own!

    – You believe that it’s counterproductive for feminists to call you out on your accidental sexism when there are men whose behaviour is so much worse than yours.

    Recognized.

    This is the hard truth that must be learned; if you are one of those men who looks for these slip-ups, then you are NOT a feminist. If you are one of those men who believes in equality in some vague and idealistic way, but then turns on a woman the second she says something that remotely implicates you or the people you share a common chromosome with in something you don’t like, you are NOT a feminist. If you believe that a woman has to reward your attempts at feminism with niceness, like a dog getting a treat for a trick, you are NOT a feminist.

    Being a feminist means believing ALL the time, regardless of whether women are nice to you, that the struggle for gender equality is on-going and real and essential. It means condemning all those ‘harmless’ little jokes about nagging women, female drivers and periods because you recognise that from the fertile soil of casual, unconscious sexism sprout the seeds of justification for serious assault. It means making the connection between a joke about a woman who bares her breasts on screen in the portrayal of a rape, and the man who thinks it’s funny to grope a woman in a club because she has cleavage showing and Hollywood tells us that boobs exist purely for sexual entertainment. Being a feminist is not about wanting equality for women because they’re nice to you. It’s about fighting for women every single day because you believe that they are human and that humanity is worth defending regardless of how nice, kind, clever, rude, attractive, funny, accommodating or mean the woman in question is.

    That.

  • Meet Kirk Sneade

    Something I didn’t know about – a guy who pretended to self-identify as female to run for Women’s Officer at UCL. Oh ha ha, I can smell the jokes from here.

    The UCL student uploaded a video of a woman being punched by a man and a photo with the slogan “memes are gay” as part of his campaign. Sneade, who is now claiming discrimination, reportedly likened his plight to the communist persecution in Nazi Germany.

    Sneade’s original manifesto stated:

      • Kirk Sneade has self defined as a woman ever since he realised it gave him legal access to the women’s changing rooms at the Bloomsbury gym.
    • Kirk wants to make clear his desire to attend all Women’s forums to talk about Important Woman Issues such as hair dressing, shopping and walking sassily away from confrontations with your exes.
    • Kirk understands the need for equality. He wants to campaign to encourage women of UCL to wear leggings, jeggings and summer-time denim hot-pants.
    • Kirk would also like to formally change the name of the Print-Room Cafe to the Pretty-Girl Cafe, and launch an official enquiry into why there are so many pretty girls in the cafe compared to the rest of UCL and what can be done about it.
    • More speculatively, Kirk also suggests perhaps herding up the pretty girls you see around campus and keeping them ready for emergency transport to the Roxy later on when things start to get a little dry.
    • Kirk is worried that people may see this manifesto as sexist. Kirk wants to make clear that while it is sexier than most, you should probably have a look at the others because some of them are pretty sexy as well.
    • Kirk also wants to campaign for reinstatement of the Varsity rugby match, campaign against student politics being full of students who are out of touch with the student body and start the dissolution of the Women’s officer position as it an inherently sexist and outmoded position of power within the union.

    Hahaha. Funnier than anti-Semitic humor, funnier than racist humor, funny than homphobic humor – there’s just nothing quite as funny as contempt-for-women humor.

     

  • Do not directly or indirectly engage with dissenters

    Stephanie discusses the “advice” Justin Vacula gives on how to deal with being harassed. I put “advice” in scare quotes because it’s not really advice in the ordinary understanding of the word; it’s more of a bullies’ formula than advice. “I’ll stop harassing you if you stop doing all the things that motivate me to harass you” is about the size of it.

    Then Justin Vacula showed up, still trying to peddle the idea that the harassment is just the little price that some of us have to pay in order to have an opinion. Novella pointed out that he was both minimizing and mischaracterizing the situation. So Vacula (in a comment that included a couple of quotes for which he both seems to be the source and is demanding citations) tried again.

    Here are some tips, anyway, for Rebecca and anyone who faces criticism/hate to reduce the criticism/hate:

    Do not directly or indirectly engage with dissenters.

    Avoid commenting on websites of your ideological opponents.

    Refrain from attacking individuals; stick to criticism of ideas rather than persons.

    Consider how people might respond to what you write. Can something be reframed so as to not lead to undesirable criticism?

    Avoid sharing content when experiencing heightened emotions (great anger, disgust, stress, etc)

    Consider sharing something with friends before it becomes public. A second (or third) set of eyes might suggest helpful edits which would avoid negative feedback.

    You see what sweeping advice that is. Don’t indirectly engage with dissenters – so, don’t say anything that might get “dissenters” (by which he means harassers) riled up…

    But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Everything gets the “dissenters” i.e. harassers riled up. Literally everything. There are a few core harassers – I hope it’s a few but in truth I don’t know how many it is, and it’s probably more than a few – who monitor every single thing I say in public online, in order to post it at the mildew pit and tweet about it and discuss it on blogs and Facebook. It doesn’t matter what it is. It’s just that I say it. It’s typed by Pruney (as they call me) so it has to be reposted for jeering and smearing and lying.

    So the only way to follow that first item of advice is to stop writing. Period.

    And all the rest is just more of the same. Stop writing, stop talking.

    And then what? The “dissenters” and “ideological opponents” will stop slandering us? No. No, nothing is said about that, naturally. No, it’s all a matter of “you shut up and then see what happens.”

    Stephanie does a brilliant job of asking “how was I/Ophelia/Melody/EEB/Amy/Jen supposed to expect that” saying or doing this one small thing would lead to such ridiculously excessive reactions.

    • How was Melody to know that choosing when and where to deal with “critics” on Twitter would lead to Vacula making a YouTube video calling her a “professional victim”? Is there a way to reframe limiting your exposure to constant negativity that can’t have the nonsense label du jour slapped on it?
    • How were the Skepchicks to know that offering a workshop at CSICon would lead to Vacula saying they produce “everyday nonsense” on the conference hashtag? Is there a way to reframe teaching skepticism that keeps people from using hashtags for their own purposes, whatever they may be?
    • How was EEB to know that leaving a comment on Ophelia’s blog would lead to Vacula doing a “dramatic reading” of that comment on YouTube then posting it at the slime pit? Is there a way to reframe being tired and upset that would keep him from giggling through her distress?

    How indeed. We don’t know, we can’t know. We know there will be bullshit of some kind, usually several variants of it by several different people in several media, but we can’t know exactly what kind of bullshit it will be, and we are often surprised. I was surprised by Vacula’s malicious sniggering delight at EEB’s comment. I’m often surprised at the ways people are willing to expose themselves.

  • He is over the

    Ben Radford has been exposed to some straw feminists, and he wants us to know he’s over them.

    I am over the male bashing often inherent in feminist writings and slogans; “All men are rapists” is neither true nor fair nor helpful.

    “Often inherent in feminist writings and slogans”? What does that even mean? He must mean “inherent in many feminist writings and slogans.” But then what does he mean “inherent”? That’s a very odd word to choose. It’s not “inherent” in anything; it’s either put in by the writer or it’s not. Maybe he means “inherently illiberal” or something like that. It’s a pity he’s not more inherently careful when writing.

    And then, he’s right about the silly slogan he quotes, but is that a claim you see a lot? It’s a claim I see never, except from people who just hate feminism, period. He presents it as if it’s a commonplace, but…it isn’t. Not even close.

    I am over the wanton slinging of labels like “misogynist” and “sexist” and “sister hater” and “gender traitor” and “rape apologist” to people who dare criticize feminists.

    What “wanton slinging”? And notice the list, cited as if they’re all on a level. Notice that the last three are nouns for people but the first two can be adjectives as well as nouns. Notice that calling a claim or a remark “sexist” is not the same thing as calling the person who makes the remark a sexist. Notice the generality; notice that we can’t be sure what people he has in mind; notice the sloppy lazy angry…well, wanton slinging.

    I am over social activists, including those whose causes I support, who value emotion and anecdote over truth, facts, and critical thinking.

    Uh huh. Like for instance?

    I’m beginning to get the picture though. He’s really mad at some people – some people he thinks of as feminists, or feminisssssssts, to be specific – and he’s having a good old rage about them, but he can’t be bothered to be specific, so he just froths generally. That’s truth, facts and critical thinking as opposed to emotion and anecdote, I guess. Good that he values truth over emotion.

    I am over thin-skinned “feminists” who blithely and intentionally confuse legitimate questions and criticism of their facts or claims with misogyny and sexism; it is insulting to real victims of misogyny and sexism.

    Who are these people? Are they the horribly large and menacing women he dreams about every night?

    I can do this. I am over lazy feminist-haters who blithely and intentionally pile up straw feminist after straw feminist without even a stab at trying to back up what they’re claiming. Only I’ll go Radford one better: I have an example in mind: it’s Ben Radford.

    I am over blaming TV, movies, magazines, and video games for real-life violence-including violence against women. Just as sexy clothes do not cause rape, violent and sexual images do not cause rape; rapists cause rape.

    Wo, I did not know that. I totally thought violent images could actually rape people. I’ve been so confused.

    Ok, I’m finished. What’s his problem? Has the whole pink toys blowup festered in his mind that long and that deeply? Did a feminist eat all the ice cream that one time? Does he have a toothache?

    Whatevs. But what an unargued and sloppy outburst.

     

     

     

  • Global pushback

    Laurie Penny went to Dublin to report on women fighting to legalize abortion in Ireland, then she went to Cairo to report on women fighting sexual harassment in Tahrir Square. In both places, women told her they were sick of feeling ashamed.

    From India to Ireland to Egypt, women are on the streets, on the airwaves, on the internet, getting organised and getting angry. They’re co-ordinating in their communities to combat sexual violence and taking a stand against archaic sexist legislation; they’re challenging harassment and rape culture. Across the world, women who are sick and tired of shame and fear are fighting back in unprecedented ways.

    And because of the internet, we know about each other, we’re in contact with each other.

    Sexism often functions as a pressure-release valve in times of social unrest – and when it does, it takes different forms, depending on local values. Right now, in Egypt, it’s groping, heckling and mob attacks; in Ireland, it’s rape apologism and a backlash against abortion and sexual equality; on the internet, it’s vicious slut-shaming and “revenge porn“. But this time, women are refusing to take it any more.

    Like the Arab spring and Occupy in 2011, local movements with no apparent connection to one another are exchanging information and taking courage from one another’s struggles. The fight against misogyny is spreading online and via networks of solidarity and trust that develop rapidly, outside the traditional channels. I met Swedish and Iranian feminist activists in Dublin, and British feminist activists in Cairo, and have seen live information about the women’s marches in Egypt spread quickly through chains of activists from South Africa to the American Deep South.

    What I’m saying. We’re linked up.

    It’s too early to say whether the mood of mutiny will last. When people fight misogyny, they aren’t just fighting governments and police forces, religious organisations and strangers in the streets – they also have to deal with intolerance from their loved ones, from their colleagues, from friends and family members who can’t or won’t understand. Over the last few weeks I have been humbled by the bravery of the activists I’ve met, particularly the women. It takes a special sort of courage to cast off shame, to risk not just violence but also intimate rejection for the sake of a better future. And the thing about courage is that it’s contagious.

    Dealing with friends who can’t or won’t understand is a tough one. Courage isn’t really even relevant to that. I’m not sure what is, other than resilience. At any rate, it’s a long game, to say the least.

     

  • Arithmetic via shopping

    Chris Chambers and Kate Clancy point out at the Guardian that pseudoscience and stereotyping won’t solve gender inequality in science, via what they call a “stereotype-enforcing guide to addressing the gender imbalance in science” also published by the Guardian.

    Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a developmental neuroscientist at University College London, points out that finding reliable gender differences in the brain is complicated by individual differences: “There are a lot of girls who are better than boys at maths, for example, and a lot of boys who are better than girls at cooking. Therefore, these generalisations based on gender are unhelpful.”

    Two recent books – Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender and Rebecca Jordan-Young’s Brain Storm – rigorously test many assumed sex differences, and find all of them lacking.

    Even in cases where gender differences in behaviour or brain function can be shown, where is the evidence that such distinctions can be applied usefully to tailor learning? How do we know, for example, that advice such as making “domestic scenario[s] more mathematic and scientific” wouldn’t apply equally to boys? As Blakemore puts it, “Making mathematics relevant to everyday life problems (e.g. cooking, supermarket shopping) is a good idea when teaching all children, not just girls.”

    Wait wait boys don’t relate to cooking and supermarket shopping because it’s only girls who grow up to be women and it’s only women who do cooking and supermarket shopping. Blakemore is so so so wrong to say that. Isn’t she?

    Yet where the article touches on such evidence, it remains not only gender-specific, but gender-conformist: “Research shows that as girls get older they retain their mathematical and scientific abilities when applied to domestic scenarios.”

    Right! That’s what I said! Oh, wait…is that gender-conformist? Sounds like radical feminism, that kind of talk. Radical gender feminism. Radical scary gender creepy castrating dyke feminism that’s only for ugly women.

    Finding ways for girls to integrate interests in science and shopping doesn’t work if girls think this is the only way to engage with it. Girls are not a monolithic, pink princess-loving entity that responds uniformly to the same siren calls of colour, shopping and cooking. None of these was present when we were evolving; none of this is universal, hard-wired, or intuitive.

    And if so many of these gender-conforming expectations are so harmful to boys’ and girls’ identities, why would we rely on them as a means through which to teach science?

    Becaaaaaaaaaaause, we like things the way they are and we don’t want people to shake free of gender-conformity. That’s why.

    We suggest an alternative to pseudoscientific list-making, and that is to identify and address structural inequality in our societies. There are two broad factors that drive our behaviours: our own individual agency, and the institutions around us. While it is useful to think about ways we can draw more girls into science by integrating it with their existing interests, it is also limiting. For instance, most adult women who hit the glass ceiling are just told to work harder, to be more pro-active, to seek more mentorship, and this can feel exhausting, especially if she already feels like she is doing those things without results. This is because it’s hard to win on agency if you’re not also winning on institution.

    The broader societal constraints that lead so few girls to consider themselves “science people” by middle school derive not from whether we push them into science, but what we value in girls as a culture. What gendered representations of science continue to exist in underperforming countries like the US and UK? What messages do we send about how we value intelligence and knowledge, about how girls contribute to society? And, what would it take to overcome these obstacles to produce a more egalitarian learning environment?

    Dropping the sarcasm now. Really. Adult women are also told to stop “complaining” or “whining” or being “professional victims.” We’re told the best way is just to put your head down and get on with it and be a role model for the three women who will ever be in a position to see what you’re doing. We’re told to shut up about institution because reasons. We’re told nice women don’t discuss broader societal constraints, because that’s radfem. We’re told only ugly women talk about broader societal constraints while pretty women are fully content with how things are because the vote.

     

     

  • Booty Slap Day

    Jessica Valenti has a great article in The Nation, written as a letter to male relatives on Facebook who “like” things like haha-funny videos of men running up to women to grab their bums. Haha funny, right? Great joke?

    Here’s the thing: those guys running up to women just to grab their ass? Stuff like that happens to women all the time. It’s happened to me. When I was your age, guys—from boys in school to men on the subway—used to grope and touch me against my will too. I don’t know if any of them videotaped it or if they did it as a “joke”—all I know was that it was really scary.

    Well yes but that’s your problem. If women don’t like it, that’s their problem. It’s fun for the guys who do it – that’s the important thing. Obviously.

    I know that a quick click on the “like” button may not seem like a big deal to you—but it scares me to think about the larger implications. I think about the high school kid in Steubenville, Ohio, joking and laughing about the unconscious teen girl in the next room who had just been raped by two of his classmates. That may seem a million miles away from “liking” a video—but it’s all part of the same world, the same culture that devalues women. Even laughing at a joke about rape supports the idea that women are less than and makes rapists think that you are like them. And the more you laugh at this stuff, the easier it becomes to take the ideas you’re laughing at more and more seriously.

    But it’s funny and you’re not the boss of me and nobody get to tell me what I can laugh at or what I can call a bitch cunt woman who is talking when I want her to shut the fuck up!

    Listen, I don’t think you’re an asshole who thinks it’s funny to do something that women find scary. You’ve been raised to think that this sort of stuff is all in good fun. Not by your parents necessarily, but by culture. You’ve grown up in a country where a Super Bowl commercial for Audi suggests that girls your age actually like it when a guy they don’t really know grabs and forces a kiss on them. (Seriously—they won’t like this.) You’ve been raised in a culture that positions women as existing just for sex, for humiliation, for objectification.

    Well, yes, but also, one hopes, by people who know better and teach their sons better. Some have. I know lots of men who have! Or who at least learned better at some point, because they for sure know better now. But alas, there are lots of the other kind out there too.

    So please understand that I don’t blame you for partaking in the only kind of culture you’ve ever known. At least, I don’t blame you yet. Because here’s the thing—if you didn’t realize before that this kind of stuff is harmful and hurtful to women, now you do. So think of this as a chance to make a decision about what kind of man you’re going to be.

    As you continue to grow up, you’re going to have plenty of opportunities (too many) to laugh at women’s pain, embarrassment or the sexual harassment and assault we face. These moments will define you. Will you laugh along? Share a video, like a status, laugh at a joke? Or will you say “no,” tell a friend that’s a fucked-up thing to say, and walk away?

    Choose door number two!!

    Seriously: I can’t stress this enough: choose the second option. Don’t grow up to laugh at women’s pain, embarrassment, humiliation,  or sexual harassment and assault. It’s not a good way to be.

  • Cultural crap

    What is “radical feminism”? I see peculiar definitions here and there – or not so much definitions, as ad hoc explanations apparently pulled out of people’s…imaginary reference materials. The definitions or ad hoc explanations are crafted in such a way that they appear to fit feminists the crafters dislike, unless you actually know anything about the feminists in question.

    There’s Vacula’s definition for example.

    Secular Woman is an organization, launched in June of 2012, which aims to “amplify the voice, presence, and influence of non-religious woman.” I was initially supportive of the organization and helped promote it because I had hoped that this organization would provide a fresh breath of air to the discussion about women’s issues – something much different than what many have already heard from the likes of radical or gender feminists in the secular community who seem to believe that men, ‘the patriarchy,’ and misogyny are responsible for all or most of the problems women face.

    Mmm. Yeh. Except we don’t.

    Not even close.

    A straw definition if ever I saw one. I don’t talk about “the patriarchy” for example; I don’t even talk about it much without the definite article. I also don’t think anything as stupid or crude or off the mark as that. I don’t think even actual radical feminists think anything as stupid as that. Most of the problems all people face are just part of being a mortal animal! There are core human problems and challenges that feminism can’t possibly touch. Feminists aren’t so stupid that we don’t know that.

    And even if we improve the definition by specifying social problems or political problems or the problems of being seen as subordinate, they still don’t boil down to making “men, ‘the patriarchy,’ and misogyny” responsible for all of them.

    The sources of sexism and misogyny (and no, I do not treat them as identical; that’s a later post) that interest me most are cultural; memes, if you like. Women are responsible for them too! I don’t think there is a cabal of patriarchs running a meme factory that keeps women down. I think it’s a lot more complicated than that.

    I do also think it matters. That, I think, is what people mean when they call us “radical feminists” – that we think cultural crap matters. But that’s not radical feminism. Second wave feminism always thought cultural crap matters. All second wave feminism. That was the point of it.

  • The right to complain does not turn women into pathetic victims

    More from Nussbaum on Christina Hoff Sommers and on “equity” v “gender” feminism more generally. It’s a very packed, dense essay.

    From the end, this time. The penultimate paragraph.

    In short, the feminist views attacked by recent critics are not the monopoly of a sect of radical extremists. They are commonplace in mainstream liberal, and even some libertarian, thought. These theoretical ideas have a very close relationship to the critique of existing preferences that led to the critique of rape law and to the demand for laws and policies dealing with sexual harassment in the workplace. These changes certainly seem to have enhanced demcracy rather than to have undermined it – for surely it is not better for democracy that women should suffer from violence and inimidation without the opportunity to complain. Complaint is not a solution to the problems, and women continue to face many grave problems of sexual harassment and sexual violence. But complaint is surely far better than silent intimidation, and the right to complain does not turn women into pathetic victims – any more than the right to complain when someone steals a wallet turns men into pathetic victims. [Sex and Social Justice p 153]

    I’ll just repeat that for emphasis – the right to complain does not turn women into pathetic victims.

    The final paragraph.

    American women have much to complain of. They are far too often victims of rape, of sexual coercion of many kinds, of sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. Moreover, the underlying attitudes that made these problems so difficult persist, producing pain of many kinds. On the other hand, the feminist movement that began in the 1970s has made considerable progress in articulating the underlying problems and in proposing legal solutions. This has happened in large part through a criticism of the myths that underlay many men’s (and women’s) beliefs about sexual violence and its causes. Such criticism, far from treating people like victims or children, treats them like adults who are capable of reflection, and capable of deciding that they were wrong on an important matter even when their own emotions and desires are at stake. [Ibid]

    Once more for emphasis. This has happened in large part through a criticism of the myths that underlay many men’s (and women’s) beliefs about sexual violence and its causes. Such criticism, far from treating people like victims or children, treats them like adults who are capable of reflection…

     

     

  • A good little girl doesn’t

    Laura Bates objects to casual sexism among politicians in the UK.

    Murdo Fraser, Member of the Scottish Parliament for Mid-Scotland and Fife, discovered last week that the wife of former Liberal leader Lord Steel had declared herself pro-independence. He tweeted: “Why is Lady Steel (apparently) pro-independence? Is he not master in his own house?” Presumably Fraser was joking, but Twitter users were less than impressed, with one remarking: “That line is like something straight out of the 1950s.”

    Fraser’s words closely echo those of Austin Mitchell, Labour MP for Great Grimsby, who a few months ago launched a misogynistic online tirade against former Conservative MP Louise Mensch, tweeting: “Shut up Menschkin. A good wife doesn’t disagree with her master in public and a good little girl doesn’t lie about why she quit politics.” When accused of sexism, the politician acted as if the whole affair were a huge joke, later tweeting: “Has the all clear siren gone? Has the Menschivick bombardment stopped?”

    Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahaha. So so funny. Remember Tom Harris MP, Labour-Glasgow South? He’s so so funny too.

    What a hero! Fearless protester chucks an egg at EdM and runs away. Like a girl. Throws like a girl too. #loser

    Remember that tweet? Remember how we all laughed? Mmmyeah.

    Bates goes on:

    …what does it say about the status quo of British politics, if our elected representatives, who make daily decisions impacting our lives and welfare, are openly prepared to make sexist jokes and direct misogynistic vitriol towards colleagues? There is a public acceptability of sexism; a suggestion that we – “just the women” – should stop getting our knickers in a twist and take a joke. MP Stella Creasy says: “Parliament is no different from the rest of Britain, where unconscious stereotyping about women happens, too – the point is we should challenge cultural prejudices and expectations wherever they are expressed.”

    We should, as long as we’re prepared for bellows of outrage and accusations of being a McCarthyite Nazi witch-hunting inquisition that purges and pillories tragic hapless men who were only giving their honest opinion of why there were no women around the table where they were mouthing off. We are all prepared for those, right? Of course we are.

    Jacqui Hunt, London director of the international human rights organisation Equality Now, says: “As elected public representatives, it is essential that MPs communicate with respect and dignity at all times. It is their responsibility to help eliminate rather than reflect harmful gender stereotypes. They need to set the example to ensure that women and girls do not experience prejudice or abuse, but rather reach their full potential as human beings.” It is perhaps no surprise that the UK manages to come only joint 60th in the world for political gender equality, according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

    Is it too much to ask that our elected representatives support women rather than tear them down? Particularly when their female colleagues are still dealing with sexist abuse, tweets about their breasts during Prime Minister’s Questions, and tabloid articles on “Cameron’s Cuties” and the “Best of Breastminster“. It would be nice if women coping with rape and sexual assault didn’t have to see their elected political representative going to such lengths to publicly declare, “Not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion,” as Galloway did. It would be nice to think that in a society where more than two women per week, on average, are killed by current or former partners, two politicians in the space of six months didn’t find it funny to make public jokes about husbands being the “master” of their wives. Of course, neither would have intended such a correlation, but the point is that general attitudes and ideas about women are important. Shouldn’t politicians be leading the fight against prejudice, rather than indulging in it?

    Oh but I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think general attitudes and ideas about women are important. They can’t be. Saying they are is “radical” “gender” feminism, not nice normal non-radical equity feminism. I know this because people keep saying it.

     

  • This shit is sexist, and feminism is the fight against sexism

    Soraya says hell yes she’s a feminist.

    Remember the woman who asked Romney about the wage gap?

    You know what she got for her efforts?  A good and proper Slutshaming 101 from conservatives who dug up her Facebook page and her Twitter account to reveal that she has in the past used alcohol and maybe suggested her interest in sex. Like Sandra Fluke, she’s a whiny, entitled trollop who should shut up and go home.  Now, Fenton might not have memorized the Slut Manifesto, but she sure as hell knows that a man asking this exact same question would not be treated this way. Just like Jim Lehrer’s weight hasn’t become an Internet discussion point, while Candy Crowley’s has.  As Chloe Angyal so succinctly put it earlier today in Feministing, “This shit is sexist, and feminism is the fight against sexism.”

    Furthermore, sexist shit is everywhere, so the fight against it is needed.

    When people say “I’m not a feminist” or “I’m a feminist, but…” they invariably imply that it’s undesirable error made by an unhinged fringe.  This is a testament to the success of at least 40 years of conservative backlash branding feminism the devilish work of man-hating, barren, aggressive, ugly (no greater sin), humorless, lesbian, she-devils.

    Fucking fools who call people like me and my colleagues and friends “radfems” for example. This? This isn’t radfem, you clueless goons. It’s just fem. You sound like people who scream that Obama is a communist. Obama! For crying out loud.

    …we don’t have one easily recognized national celebration or public marker of any kind testifying to the sacrifices made in the movement to secure women’s civil rights or to celebrate its achievements.  Instead this history is buried under a thick tome of historical denial. We’ve left an entire generation bereft of the knowledge of a powerful legacy and sedated by the idea that, as XOJane put it, “anti-feminist behaviors are feminist because feminism is about choice.”

    They think it’s all done and dusted. That’s so sad. They’ll learn better, but it will be sad.

  • A dictionary fight

    Here’s an interesting new development. Australia’s Macquarie Dictionary has expanded its definition of “misogyny” in response to Gillard’s speech on the subject last week.

    The dictionary currently defines misogyny as “hatred of women”, but will now add a second definition to include “entrenched prejudice against women”, suggesting Abbott discriminated against women with his sexist views.

    “The language community is using the word in a slightly different way,” dictionary editor Sue Butler told Reuters.

    In her parliamentary speech, Gillard attacked Abbott, a conservative Catholic, for once suggesting men were better adapted to exercise authority, and for once saying that abortion was “the easy way out”. He also stood in front of anti-Gillard protesters with posters saying “ditch the witch”.

    Out comes the sarcasm.

    Long recognised as a “hatred of women”, misogyny will now encompass “entrenched prejudices of [sic] women”, even though there already existed a word that included this concept, “sexism”.

    He (Patrick Carlyon) means prejudices about women, not of women; der. But what about the substance?

    I’ve often found myself having to decide which word to use, in these recent [cough] discussions. I often do opt for “sexism,” but not always, and there’s a reason for that. Sexism doesn’t necessarily include hatred. Then again misogyny doesn’t necessarily include sexism, so neither word says everything. But – really, there are times when you need to make clear that what we’re talking about is not just habits or prejudices, it’s hatred and contempt.

    But Patrick Carylon seems to think that sexism is not merely not identical to misogyny, but a different thing altogether, even the opposite.

    Given the ever-changing flow of words and their meaning, Macquarie has announced a raft of further definition shadings to reflect recent political events and current affairs:

    Dog: To be known also as “cat”, after a two-year-old boy at an East Brighton childcare centre pointed at a chihuahua and meowed.

    Yes: To be known also as “no”, after a recent Tony Abbott bumble, when he said in a TV interview that he had not read a BHP statement and the next day declared he had read it before the interview.

    No: To be known also as “yes”, given Julia Gillard’s election promise that there would be no carbon tax under her Government, soon before her Government announced plans for a carbon tax.

    Uh huh. When’s the last time Patrick Carylon was called a witch?

    There are letters to The Australian.

    MACQUARIE dictionary editor Sue Butler is applying the logic of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass. Are we to accept that the word misogyny is what some feminists choose it to mean, neither more nor less?

    The idea that the Macquarie would change a word’s meaning to lend credence to the Prime Minister’s incorrect and hypocritical use in parliament last week and the feminist views of an isolated few is extraordinary.

    The evolution of language should enable users to communicate with greater semantic precision, not less. How do we now differentiate between those who demonstrate prejudice against women and those who have a genuine hatred for them? Or has the intellectual Left mandated that there shall no longer be a difference?

    I am alarmed that the editors of the dictionary are more concerned with taking a political stance than with safeguarding the English language.

    Carina Dellinger, Broadbeach, Qld

    I think the reaction is political too. (Point out the obvious much? Yes, I do.) I think it comes from people who don’t want their casual breezy indifferent sexism called misogyny. “It’s not misogyny unless I explicitly say that I hate all women!” Yeh, see that misconception is why it’s a good idea to tweak the definition. Because yes it is – it is misogyny if you call the women you dislike “bitches” and the rest of the vocabulary. It is. If you can’t quarrel with a woman without letting the epithets fly, then you are a misogynist.

  • Everyday misogyny

    It’s good to see Julia Gillard setting the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, straight about sexism and misogyny. It’s good to see her listing the sexist and misogynist things he’s said and done – such as standing in front of the houses of Parliament next to a sign saying “ditch the witch” and one describing her as “a man’s bitch.”

    “The leader of the opposition says that people who hold sexist views and are misogynists are not appropriate for high office,” she continued. “Well, I hope the leader of the opposition is writing out his resignation because if he wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he needs a mirror.”

    …

    “I was offended too by the sexism, by the misogyny, of the leader of the opposition catcalling across this table … [such as] ‘If the prime minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest woman of herself’ – something that would never have been said to any man sitting in this chair.

    “I was offended by those things. Misogyny. Sexism. Every day from the leader of the opposition,” she said.

    The anger in parliament follows a fortnight of debate about the tone of politics in Australia after the country’s best known radio talkshow host said Gillard’s recently deceased father had “died of shame” because his daughter stood in parliament and told lies.

    Alan Jones’s comments during a Sydney University Liberal Club dinner triggered outrage. A number of companies which sponsored or advertised on his show withdrew their support. On Monday, the station suspended all advertising on his show.

    In calling for Slipper to be sacked, Abbott echoed Jones’s remarks, saying Gillard should be ashamed of herself. “Every day the prime minister stands in this parliament to defend this speaker will be another day of shame for … a government that should already have died of shame,” said the opposition leader.

    A furious Gillard hit back again, saying: “The government is not dying of shame. My father did not  die of shame. What the leader of the opposition should be ashamed of is his performance in this parliament and the sexism he brings with it.”

    It’s good to see her hitting back, but it’s pathetic that she has to. It’s pathetic.

  • Mona Eltahawy talks about women in the revolution

    Via Taslima, Mona Eltahawy talks to Robin Morgan. Mona is determinedly hopeful, but not blind to the reality.

    Mona: I think we’ve reached the stage in Egypt where people understand that with a president from the Muslim Brotherhood movement and a still very powerful military, we’re caught between a very bad rock and a very horrible hard place because you’re talking about two sides of one coin: authoritarian, totalitarian, doesn’t believe in civil liberties and for whom and for which women’s rights are, absolutely at the bottom of any totem pole hierarchy and one of the highlights in my last visit to Cairo was attending a meeting that veteran feminists Nawal El Saadawi called in which it brought together various feminist groups, women and men who are interested in focusing on women’s rights at this very, very sensitive stage in Egyptian history. We still don’t have a constitution, and we don’t have a parliament, and the constitution is currently being written by a group of mostly men who I would not hesitate to call misogynists, many of whom actually believe it’s ok for a girl who is only 9 to marry and many of whom are not concerned with women’s rights at all. So we recognize that this is a very sensitive time and if we don’t jump on this it will jump on us. And So Nawal El Saadawi is trying to coordinate all the various groups on the ground into an initiative but I know her initiative is one of at least three. So I think women’s rights activists are looking around now saying, “Ok look, there are so many of us and we’re doing very similar work, let’s get together because we need that power of us together to fight against this misogyny, to fight against this hatred of women, to fight against the military and the fundamentalist movement for whom women’s rights are not a priority.”

    That plus a miracle.

    Mona’s planning a book.

    Mona: I’m writing a book that is based on an essay I wrote a few months ago called “Why do they hate us?” and this essay caused a huge ruckus because the point that I was making is that uh a lot of the misogyny against that uh we experience as women in the Middle East and North Africa is driven by sheer hatred for women.

    Robin: Yes.

    Mona: Clearly and obviously this is not just limited to that region or that…

    Robin: Oh you think? [laughs]

    Mona: It’s global I’m sure but that’s where I come from and so that’s the region I can most talk about. So I want to write a book that I’m determined to call “Headscarves and Hymens.”

    Robin: “Headscarves and Hymens”

    Mona: “Headscarves and Hymens” because it’s such a…

    Robin: You’re such a wimp, you just just don’t take risks, [Mona laughs] you know. what a pity. If you only had a spine, Mona. [Both laugh]

    Mona: I’m trying to provoke them and see how far I can go with this, it’s my contention that for women in the Middle East and North Africa, we’ve come to a point where it’s all about what’s on our heads—the headscarves—and what’s in between our legs—the hymens. So whether you’re talking about female genital mutilation or the so called virginity tests i.e. sexual assault and rape enacted upon female revolutionaries in Egypt by the military it’s really about Headscarves and Hymens and you know one of those women who survived these horrendous virginity tests and sued the Egyptian Military. A young woman called Samir Abrahim she told a great story during this meeting that Nawal El Saadawi called. She said, “Listen people, we need to get working women in these meetings because I know this woman, who was selling vegetables, she was selling rocket arugula somewhere and this extremist, this Islamist, came up to her and said, ‘Woman you’re not covered properly’ and you know what she did? She took off her blouse and said, ‘How do you like me now?’” [Robin laughs] So those are the kinds of stories that I want to document but also the kind of violations that we have to recognize but you know also one of the things that my books wants to do is to say that we have to identify as feminists. The time where all of these amazing young women who are saying, “No, no, no, it’s not about women’s rights, it’s about everyone’s rights,” I understand that. But we’re at a critical moment in our history and the region and the way we fight it is by identifying it as such. We are feminists, and we draw upon this wonderful history of Nawal El Saadawi, of Doria Shafik who invaded the Egyptian parliament with fifteen hundred women in the 50s, of Hoda Sha’arawi in 1923 who…

    Robin: Took off her veil, yes.

    Mona: We’re feminists are here and we are fighting.

    Yes. You have to spell it out. If you say “everyone’s rights” then it never is. You have to spell it out.

     

  • Journalism at its finest

    Good old glib smug “mainstream” journalism, sneering at anything non-majoritarian or insurrectionist. Dana Milbank at the Washington Post apparently thinks secularism is just a big joke.

    The nation’s atheists went to Capitol Hill on Monday to launch an effort that they hope will someday give them the lobbying clout of the Christian conservative movement.

    They don’t have a prayer.

    He sneers smugly. Is he pleased that theocrats have more lobbying clout than secularists? Does he think theocracy would be a good thing?

    But that obvious fact won’t stop them from exercising their God-given right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. And their grievances are many, including:

    ● the “In God We Trust” national motto.

    ● the National Day of Prayer.

    ● the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

    ● the practice of opening sessions of Congress with a prayer and ending oaths of office with “so help me God.”

    “What does that do to our non-theist community?” asked Edwina Rogers, executive director of the Secular Coalition for America, which bills itself as the only full-time lobbying group for atheists, agnostics, humanists and the like. “What does that do to our minority religions like voodooism, etcetera?”

    No doubt it makes them mad enough to cast a hex.

    Again with the smug jokes. Is shallowness a requirement for doing mainstream journalism? Yes, probably. Shallowness and casual conformity.

    Rogers, in a glittery gold blouse and knee-high boots with four-inch heels, acknowledges that she has a bit of a challenge to match the $390 million she says religious groups spend on lobbying each year.

    Milbank, in a vomit-stained T shirt and a purple thong, should switch to writing copy for clothing catalogues.

  • Why?

    EllenBeth Wachs and Rebecca Watson were at the Humanists of Florida Association conference this weekend, and so was Kelly Damerow of the Secular Coalition for America. They both separately chatted with her face to face about the appointment of Justin Vacula as co-director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the SCA. They also asked questions during the q&a after her talk.

    Rebecca told Damerow that Vacula had written for the site that called Rebecca a stupid whore and that he had harassed Amy Davis Roth. Damerow was obviously upset by this, but she gave no ground.

    During the q&a Rebecca described Vacula’s activities for the audience, and she reports that there was an audible gasp and then things got very quiet. EllenBeth asked about the percentage of women in leadership positions on their state boards, and Damerow floundered as she admitted only one leader was a woman.

    Do a thought experiment here. Imagine that this is not about women. Imagine that it’s about race. Imagine that Vacula had posted on a notoriously racist site. Then imagine the SCA appointing him co-director of a state chapter.

    It seems incredibly unlikely, don’t you think?

    Well what we keep wondering is – why is sexism so fucking much more acceptable than racism?

     

  • Not lord of the manor

    Tessa Kendall has a post on Bullies and predators, expanding on Michael Story’s post yesterday.

    Because of the stupid libel laws in this country, the Offender cannot be named publicly, which makes him harder to deal with.

    I’m one of the hosts of London SitP, along with Carmen and Sid. When I started going to SitP, very few women came. Sometimes I was the only woman there at the King’s Head in Borough. Over the years, we’ve worked hard to encourage women to come and now a lot do. We want them to feel safe and comfortable. This isn’t a major problem, we don’t want to blow it out of proportion, but we do want to act responsibly and nip it in the bud.

    This shouldn’t need saying but apparently it does – this is not acceptable behaviour. There are no excuses. You are not ‘just being friendly’. If you were, you’d be doing it to men too. You are not lord of the manor and women are not your personal fiefdom. Your position in the Skeptic community does not give you immunity. Even though the law may protect you, there are other ways we can deal with you – and we will.

    What does “in Borough” mean? Southwark? Lambeth? Elephant and Castle?

    But never mind that; notice the difference between that response and the response of an important segment of US skepticism. Notice the difference between telling off the perpetrators, as above, and telling off the women objecting to the behavior, as last May. Notice standing shoulder to shoulder with the women versus rebuking the women for speaking up.

    Well done London SitP. If only if only if only that important segment of US skepticism had done as well. If only. Think of all the rifts that would not exist, the quarrels that would not have happened, the friendships that would not have broken. If only.

    It should have been so easy – such a no-brainer. Tessa certainly makes it look that way. By “easy” I don’t mean easy to carry out or problem-free, I mean morally unambiguous. Easy to choose. Which side should we back up, here? The gropers, or the women who don’t want to be groped without invitation? It should have been so easy to choose.

    This kind of sexual predator behaviour is a kind of bullying and, like all bullies, the Offender is relying on silence. I’ve been bullied in the past; I know how it makes you feel and I know how hard it can be to do anything about it so I know it’s a lot to ask you to speak up. But we will sort this out.

    Bullies and predators pick their victims carefully. It is not your fault he does this to you. You have not ‘led him on’, you do not ‘deserve’ this. He is the one in the wrong. You’re not ‘making trouble’ or ‘causing a fuss’ by telling us. And anything you do say will be treated in confidence, so you don’t need to fear any personal consequences – which is another way bullies maintain their power. [emphasis mine]

    See? It’s so clear, isn’t it. Why couldn’t we have had that? Why couldn’t we have had that instead of blame for speaking up? Blame for speaking up, let me remind you, a mere few days after the speaking up happened. Why did we get told off for making trouble and causing a fuss instead of told we weren’t doing that?

    Well, maybe the London skeptics learned from what happened last May, and resolved to do the opposite. Maybe doing it the wrong way helped to make clear what the right way is. But I can’t help feeling rather sad that we had to be the raw material of the lesson.

    Carmen, Sid and I really strongly encourage you to tell us if you see or suffer from the Offender. We will back you up and anything you tell us will be treated in absolute confidence. You can leave comments here (which in no way implies that you’ve been directly affected unless you make that explicit), you can email us, DM us on Twitter or tell us face to face. That’s @tessakendall, @carmenego or @sidrodrigues.

    But DO NOT name him publicly.

    For legal reasons. That means here, too.

  • Getting disturbingly touchy-feely with women

    Oh, so it happens in the UK too, eh. Michael W Story says it does, at least.

    I like going to public lectures; I’ve met some great friends and friends who became colleagues there, many of whom I saw last weekend at the post Pod Delusion Live drinks. I’ve spoken at Ignite, done the odd Skeptics in the Pub as part of a double act with Martin Robbins and will be giving a solo presentation about my own hobby horse at Leicester in January, but I don’t feel that my attendance at things like Skeptics is an identity that represents me the way that some of the hardcore members do. So maybe it’s not my place to join in with the current schism, and plenty of very knowledgeable people have already written on this topic, but it seems like recently everyone has been having their say over the latest atheists/skeptics contretemps  so I’m going to demonstrate the levelling power of the internet and stick my oar in.

    It’s the atheism/skepticism v atheism/skepticism plus social justice contretemps he’s talking about. He had some anecdotal eyewitness testimony to offer.

    Skeptics, you can dismiss this as an N=1 anecdote, but please at least read it. I have personally witnessed a prominent person getting disturbingly touchy-feely with women and getting away with it, despite the knowledge of nearly everyone who knows him. What’s more I’m willing to bet that you know who I am talking about from just reading the previous sentence.

    Emphasis his.

    I certainly don’t know who he’s talking about, but apparently lots of UK atheists/skeptics will.

    I first became aware of this at the beginning of last year, though since I voiced my concerns to others I have been hearing that the behaviour in question has been going a lot longer than that. I was at a Skeptics in the Pub, chatting to some friends and getting a drink at the bar (I am a teetotaller, so you can be assured that none of my account has been blurred by intoxication). I heard a bit of a commotion, turned round and saw this fellow (who had had a few drinks) giving an unwilling woman a hug- not a friendly hug, but one which led crotch first, grabbing her around the hips/bum and leaning in as the she bent right back to escape his advances. It was the sort of thing that could have been a joke but as it went on it became clear that she wasn’t playing.

    Emphasis his, again.

    Note that this is widely known. Heave a huge sigh. It’s widely known, but that doesn’t stop it.

     Over time, as his power and influence grew I noticed that he could go further and further and get away with it. Once someone’s prominence gets to a certain point it becomes very hard to criticise them. You think that if they were a predator someone else would have noticed or complained – surely some of those prominent feminist women (and men) in the media with whom he associates would have said something? I don’t know whether they are intimidated or what, but not one has commented in public.

    In private, a number of stories have been circulating for years, many of which are more serious than the incidents I have described. I can’t verify any of these accounts, but the fact that they are readily accepted is telling.

    So what to do? If you think this post might be about you, then take responsibility for your behaviour and apologise where necessary. If you see this behaviour, don’t stay silent.

    For all the fact that this has pissed me off a huge amount, I am wary of naming the offending person. He’s someone with a lot of clout, someone who could make life very difficult for anyone who identified him. I feel it’s up to someone whom he has victimised to make that call, but if that’s you and you are reading this then I will absolutely back you up.

    My guess? No one will speak up.