Divide and rule . Again. On Feminism In London , Jane Fae, and my “hot take on the upshot”.

Ok. Hot take on the upshot.

When I saw CCP , JB , and GM had withdrawn from FIL I was initially mightily pissed off.

How dare they capitulate so?
Thunk I.
I posited that they’d better stand for the free speech of anyone, no matter how egregious, if free speech is to mean anything, as a zero sum game.

But then it dawned on me that actually , since they’d never once qualified their views, this is exactly what they’re doing.
You can’t campaign for total free speech and then equivocate later.

It doesn’t matter that JF wasn’t no platformed.
What matters is that it WILL be seen that way, and those withdrawing CAN and WILL face accusations of hypocrisy, and because they are prominent feminists(whatever we think of that) , such accusations will stick.
Rock and hard place, if you will.

That JF should have been invited in the first instance, is moot, highly so, but this was not their call, nor JF’s withdrawal.

I can only state that as far as this feminist is concerned, it seems blindingly obvious that JF , having written for several publications, having an acknowledged public voice and platform , knew fine well what accepting the invitation to speak in FIL would mean – never mind any subsequent withdrawal – and that their knowing this, in the face of their activating the cat/pigeon interface , the aforementioned withdrawal statement was highly disingenuous, at best.

Might I enjoin all the lovely feminists I know not to let the actions of one person, especially viewed through the prism of patriarchy , do what such always do, namely divide and rule?

In a final twist, Fae has written more disingenuous piffle, namely this…..

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/06/feminists-doctrine-conference-free-speech?CMP=share_btn_tw

To which I reply…..

Jane Fae , being shall we say, artistic with the facts…again

Dear Jane, you know fine well It was your views in porn, which are not “supposed” and which you refused to defend, in open debate.
Nor was it because your are trans, as Feminism In London is trans inclusive , and states this explicitly

Because it is JF who is ultimately responsible , for accepting the invitation in the first place.

Pimps or socialists, perhaps it’s the same thing, in Corbyn’s post modernist misogyny.

Is THIS what you wanted, people like myself silenced by spittle flecked accusations of Blairism whist the brothers reify the right of men to buy sex, to commodify flesh?

Did some of us not warn you that your quasi Marxist “all work is wage slavery ergo all work is equal therefore all work is the same” idiocy would play RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF LIBERTARIANS AND CAPITALISTS.

Your word games attempt to render the degradation of flesh for remuneration epistemologically the same as driving a bus when anyone can see it plainly isn’t.

And you Christian socialists? You effing hypocrites, you whited sepulchres, that not only do you not recognise what this commodification of flesh will do, but that you kid yourselves the brotherhood’s right to the female body, once industrialised , will somehow be a “good thing” for women?

I’m furious and ashamed that the last bastion of the Nordic Model may lie with David Cameron, and you DARE tell me to “rally behind”Corbyn?

Leave your incense alone, leave your charade socialism alone, hang up those badges , you’re done with them. Im sorry , I don’t care WHO that offends.

You think I’m happy to be right, AGAIN?

Don’t dismiss me any longer as disloyal, and Blairite.

If your socialism doesn’t include fifty one percent of the human race, if it expects that half to “take one for the team”, then you’re no socialist.

But good work boys, one wonders how you’ll react when it’s a female you esteem, given a dole sanction for refusing sex work.

Or when the Tories steal the march for women , and with women , with their current favouring of the Nordic Model, whilst you regard the sisters as nothing more than existing for the service of men.

You’d sell your own grannies, whilst patting yourselves in the back that this is the socialist thing to do.

On England’s pastures seen.

“And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England’s mountain green?
And was the holy Lamb of God
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among those dark satanic mills?

Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.”

Anyone knows what the words to this hymn refer to?

Yes…the legend that Christ visited England, as a young child.

I lay no claim to “chariots of fire “…or quintessential Englishness .

But might I posit that those who think this hymn represents the best of English aspirations about a greener, safer , fairer land , would do well also to remember that it’s actually about a brown, Arabic, “MIGRANT”?

So instead of seeing a potential leech, or terrorist, how about remembering those stirring words – remembering Christ – see a potential saviour?

Dear America. An open letter from Europe.

Dear America.
I’m sure you’re watching the current refugee crisis in Europe with a level of detachment – possibly, some of you – thankful of the Atlantic that divides us.
Some even wondering what it has to do with you.
Many of you posit that this, like climate change , is nothing more than a cyclical phenomenon, that you can ride out, observant whilst unaffected , effecting few, if at all.

Well, this is what it has to do with you.
You pride yourselves in being The world’s most powerful country. And you are, for now at least.
You are undeniably colonising the rest of the world with your culture, your politics, your values , your economics even.
And you pride yourselves on this, this proselytising of “The American Way”*.

Europe has, in the last hundred years, suffered terribly through two global catastrophes, which , the Great Depression and the dust bowl aside, have largely left America, and ordinary Americans , largely unaffected.

The Middle East is fracturing in what’s looking like the lead up to another global catastrophe.

Only this time, THIS time, it may well affect the U.S, and not even the deep and wide Atlantic will be able to insulate you.
This is not WW2.
No longer will you be isolated from the effects of world events, your isolationism will become moot, at best.

Unless you face these facts.
You cannot blame the colonisers of the past, you cannot place yourself as no worse. The British , the French, the Portuguese , the Romans , the Third Reich even, cannot have known that which we know now, theirs are not the coat-tails upon which your excuses can ride.

If you want your American Dream, your American values to succeed, hell, survive even, you have to take your responsibilities as the world’s most powerful nation seriously, as well as the spoils therein**.
Police the world, if you call it that you must.
But for the sake of us all, take it seriously. Admit climate change. Admit it’s consequence.
In short, police the world for the GOOD of the world, not just its oil…or we’re all done for, even the good ‘ol U.S of A.
And the American way? Remembered as a particularly spiteful con.

Oh and finally, TAKE MORE REFUGEES. you’ve exported enough war, can you at least import some of the consequence?

*The old colonialist powers at least admit immigrants from their past empires, some having organisations such as the Commonwealth , providing trading and political connections in this post imperial world.

**what happened to “bring me your tired , your poor , your huddled masses”? When did the American way become so insular?

I’m not Druze, you’re not female, and trying to benefit from “one drop” is bullshit.

All humans have melanin in varying qualities, and generally 206 distinct bones , etcetera.
Our colour, our bone structure, our phenotype… is a spectrum which cannot be denied. This is anthropology…science.

My melanin is exactly the same as Halle Berry’s, varying only in quantity , and mixed phenotype folks exist within that spectrum, in varying levels of homo/heterogeneity.
Upon this varying level of homo/heterogeneity rides a construct, namely “race”.
This is social anthropology , also science.

Relying on an assumed parallel , it’s been increasingly fashionable to assert that sex , too, is a “spectrum” , that intersex is proof of this, and that since all humans have an X chromosome , then not only is sex a spectrum but also any binary -namely male and female – purely a construct..
This also relies on scientific and socio-scientific theory.

Leading to some concluding that identity is as, maybe more so, materially valid than construct…

Why then the conniption over people adopting certain racial identities , when none such is triggered regarding gender identity….?

Now, I can understand how adopting a “transracial” identity is [in the very least] problematic, since the race construct is clearly hierarchical ….. measured by and relying upon phenotype…
I can understand and applaud people on the bottom of that hierarchy calling out the likes of Rachel Dolezal..for instance….

So, back to chromosomes , biological sex. Even if it were purely and “universally”* a spectrum, the construct that is gender would still have to have something upon which it excuses it’s clear hierarchies.

I would , rightly, face ridicule and approbation, were I to don borrowed feathers and skip around in circles etcetera , seriously and with straight face, claiming any such caperings to be a “rain dance”.

Where this starts to wander off in all directions is the phenomenon of people not affording women the same courtesy when we object to our feathers being “borrowed”, and our mannerisms aped.
The SAME people.

If phenotype is a spectrum and race a hierarchical construct then surely , if you are going to assert that gender is a construct based on a chromosomal spectrum , you have also to recognise that the gender construct is equally hierarchical?

Who benefits from denying phenotypical spectrums , while simultaneously exploiting the attendant hierarchical racial constructs…?
White men, that’s who.
Who benefits from exploiting chromosomal spectrums whilst simultaneously denying the attendant gender hierarchies?

You see where I’m going?

You can’t have it both ways, unless you think women aren’t human.
And I put it to you that your spittle flecked invective, aimed at those of us pointing this out, is projection..because deep down, you suspect we’re right.

I’m calling racism, I’m calling privilege , I’m calling misogyny, I’m calling doublethink…
I’m calling hypocrisy.

*except it isn’t, approximately only 1% of humans are intersex…
Using such parallels would make me , for example, Druze, which I know I am not…
It takes more than “one drop”.

You don’t get to dictate what constitutes respect…..

Many thousands of socialists and republicans fought for us in WW2.

How a fellow of such, politically, chooses to honestly express remembrance , when “towing the line ” would have him slated as a hypocrite , is not up for debate.

He took a packed lunch that was provided, depriving nobody, rather than charging ££££ in lunch expenses at some swanky joint, (and not holding the simultaneous view that anyone who can’t live on £50 a week is greedy…IDS J’accuse) , and refused to sing the national anthem…which last time I looked is neither illegal OR immoral.

And sin of sins, he wasn’t in Saville Row cashmere.

He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t, and I , as a Veteran , with purely political differences with Corbyn, have, do, and will, continue to defend his right to honesty, which, in a democracy , is not “the same” as disrespect.

Because like it or not, patriotism isn’t wrapping yourself in the flag, but defending equally the rights of those who don’t wish to.

Human Rights. It’s Magna Carta, innit?

After the carnage of WW2, Churchill had an idea.

It was one thing to go to war over clear egregiousness, such as genocide and/or invading neighbouring countries, but whilst obvious provocations of war, none of these actions, or the uncountable multitude of actions therein, were classified or reified as definable , accountable crimes – against the person – on a cross border, internationally agreed convention.

And , if war [or any other legal sanction ] were to be avoided, or legally justified, such a convention was not only desirable, but essential, especially to protect the weakest against any state – namely the individual – and any such convention needed to universal, or it would be pointless.

So, in 1951 , the European Convention On Human Rights was born, not the brainchild of out of touch liberals and intellectuals, but a deeply conservative ideologue, the aforemtioned Winston Churchill.

Since then, the principles have been regarded, in the west at least, as the very basis for universal human rights, including the right to healthcare*, referred to by President Obama in his introduction of PPACA.

Now, back to Churchill.
I would ask those of you who voted conservative, partly because they wish to recuse the UK from the convention, [and rescind its absorption into UK law] what Churchill would think , what he’d ask you, why you’re so keen to abandon his most lasting legacy, the internationally recognised set of defined rights and protections of the individual against the nefarious, which includes not only those you find despicable, but also you?

He’d ask you, no doubt haunted by visions of the holocaust, what the hell you’re thinking?
And I expect he’d remind you, that whatever you vote for as regards to “others”, also applies to you.

It’s not “Europe’s act”. It’s ours, and one of our proudest legacies.

*Remember, with no universal right to healthcare,[feel free to expand] it’s not just what you regard as vaguely indefinable rights being put in peril, but lives.

**The whole concept of individual rights and responsibilities as reified by act of law was a British invention, in the Magna Carta , so why are we so keen to abandon our own legacy, eh?
It’s madness.

A short note on the refugee, the sojourner, and greatness.

Ok , this is one for those of you who identify as Christian…..*

Moses was launched on his journey in a tiny woven basket, as unseaworthy as you can imagine.

By a mother fleeing a massacre.

He lead the Israelites out of Egypt and received the great covenants.

The potential for such greatness resided in every tiny body washed up on that beach, and no mother, no father, hell, nobody ever , puts themselves and their young ones to sea in such peril, in such an unseaworthy craft, if it’s safer on land.

The potential for greatness , even in tiny measure , resides in all of us, and it’s expression is compassion.

*well, the message stands regardless, but you and I know who I mean, namely the likes of Cameron, who claims his policies are informed by his Christianity.
We see you.

Spartacus I ain’t, but neither are my friends , Mr Goggins.

https://haslamd.wordpress.com/

The above is a link to the blog of one Ciaran Goggins.
It’s not hyperbole to say my blood ran cold.

The name might not be familiar to you but he was one of the cabal of ghouls who outed the identity of Ched Evans’s victim and narrowly, though how I don’t know, escaped prosecution for said.

Since then, and as a supporter of the aforementioned rapist ex footballer, he’s carried an increasingly fevered vendetta against the creator of the successful petition against Evans returning to his previous club.
Namely one “Jean Hatchet”.

I’m not going to name women, but I know for a fact who Jean Hatchet is, and who it isn’t.

I don’t believe it behoves anyone to “out” her in order to take the heat from his current favourite candidate, nor do I believe it behoves Hatchet to “out” herself.

Calls for this , while understandable and having my sympathy*, are now moot as it’s now obvious that he’s escalating and that neither women**may be safe anymore, from him or his supporters***
This is incitement , pure and simple.

And no, I will NOT demand that any woman “out” herself, on behalf of the safety of another, however egregious her refusal to do so may seem.

It’s Goggins and his ilk who need dealt with, and I’m NOT going to ask women to ameliorate this, in the face of such (to paraphrase Tolkien ) “reckless hate”.

It’s too late for that, and if you’ve indulged me and clicked on the above link, you’ll see why.

And still the police do nothing.

NOTHING.

*they really DO have my sympathy, empathy in fact, for he’s had his pops at me, as well as some dear friends.
I’m only speaking for myself here, not suggesting how others , including them, should act or feel.
That’s not my place.

**when I say neither, I mean ANY. Whoever he names. He’s escalating that far.

*** Or anyone just needing and excuse.

More regarding Goggins here, giving a brief run down of just what a “character” he is;

Ched Evans’s ‘true friend and supporter’ abused victim of rape …
http://www.theguardian.com › Soccer › Ched Evans
15 Jan 2015 – Ciaran Goggins made derogatory comments about woman … The Evans website displayed a picture of Goggins, tagged “a True Friend and …

Message to you, Rude Boy.

I love this remark…..as often seen from men and again today in a comments thread…”at LAST a feminist has admitted that feminism isn’t about equality for everybody at all, just women”
(Insert boo hoo-ing sound effects if wanted)

Newsflash Rude Boy, it’s doesn’t have to be, and here’s why…..

Feminism is about equality*, with men, for FEMALES.
The fact that some males, especially those who don’t fit patriarchy’s paradigm, may benefit from this is a happy accident.

Feminists, at least radical feminists, admit this. The rest often just tell you “it’s for everybody” because men, having had the upper hand for millennia – would pee their pants at the thought this “natural state of affairs” wouldn’t continue for them.

And then of course, there’s the handmaidens**, still in thrall enough to patriarchy to not want to scare the menz, or self protecting of selves from said where said where power balances still punish the female, such as in quiverfull families, etc.

Women do NOT need to “be the same” as men to have equal and fair opportunities/treatment.
Chinese people , black people, Dravidian people , et al, are not “the same” as each other.
Nor is one man from the next.

The exception here is that universally, men can demand without argument fair treatment from other men, or any opposition to this will be met by the correct assertion that they’re all men equally, by definition.

But, in need of hierarchies – and relying on biology – men (of all hues) placed themselves in hegemony over ALL women.

Now we cannot be forced into endless childbearing work, the worm has turned, much to the conniption of patriarchy , which continuously tries to reverse the aforementioned female bodily autonomy, or refuse it, as in many countries (Ireland, Middle East, South America, North America) (feel free to expand list) – or make said , virtually impossible.

Forgive feminist then, if we point out the various avenues through which patriarchy tries to control women, especially and nearly always via our bodies, and if we also point out,
IT ISNT ABOUT YOU.
Now take a seat, and listen to women.

*On equality, note that throughout , I refute the patriarchal notion that equality=sameness, either in person or behaviour or treatment.
This is easily done because they do not demand “sameness” from fellow males,while they conversely assert that if females want equality with men, we “must” accept “equally” crappy behaviour/treatment, and indulge in said.

In short, they contradict themselves, in their very philosophy.

One could posit that this is because while males are seen as equally human, male being the default for said, females are not.

Not treating their fellow males humanely is a fault seen through millennia , and not, as we now see, for females to echo OR ameliorate, despite their demands.

In short, feminism demands nothing more of men than that they GROW UP.

**handmaidens..this is a difficult word, even for me, as it implies complete agency and choice, and who can say any woman has that, in the prism of worldwide patriarchy.
Nonetheless, I refer only to such women who have a measure of agency, those who could, such as liberal feminist, choose a different path.
I’m open to discussion as regards more fitting terminology. X