Drop the Political Agenda in Feminism Please

I adore feminism as a philosophy and as a campaign. My understanding of how my life has been marred and controlled as a woman was an epiphany.

Therefore I seek to educate people in this area to understand that women are not defined by the roles they have and that equality should be the central goal for the sexes.

However, I find others in the field often champion the cause and surreptitiously channel their own political agenda.

Constant posts in forums seek to criticise the current government but lack proposals of alternatives and do not criticise opposition parties.

What these comments fail to address is that feminism is a cross party campaign, and unless all parties sign up, nothing is to be gained by getting one's support.

It also detracts from the main issues and the root causes of gender inequality. Challenging public perception is the central aim, because without removing the stigma of ubiquitous hegemonic feminity, no party will ever meet up to lofty expectations of greatness.

Challenging the current government is one thing, but when using perjorative nouns such as 'ConDem' there is an implicit political agenda.

And criticising them for specific services is rather like saying "I want electric car chargers at every petrol station", when you don't own an electric car. Or a car.

Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Why I Loathe The X Factor - A Christmas Special

I'll be honest. I loathe the X Factor and everything it stands for.

The X Factor is simply a modern paradigm of Social Control.

It's bad for society, bad for morality, bad for politics and democracy and just plain insulting.

The X Factor embodies the ultimate acheivements of a Marcuse scheme of social control by informal means in capitalist consumer society.

Material Social Control

To explain, Marcuse argued that;

"an "advanced industrial society" created false needs, which integrated individuals into the existing system of production and consumption via mass media, advertising, industrial management, and contemporary modes of thought"

Therefore, to relax now translates into, eg, "a coffee", but what brand of coffee? Where? Your needs are defined by an industrial revolution of false hopes and requirements.

Think of the teenager who simply must have the Iphone 4, or the latest computer game?

And this translates in to kidulthood and adulthood how one should dress (Next, not New Look), how one's home must be (is your sofa leather?) and one's aspirations in life.

This is where the X Factor comes in.

The show developes false needs based on aspriations - I want to be a "star", talent is irrelevant as long as I have the requisite gender stereotype clothes, hair style and personality. I can acheive this by subscribing to this concept.

It also creates false benchmarks with which to measure ones self. Can I sing in tune? Am I over a size 10 or 32" waist? Do I know the "lingo"? Are my nails manicured?

And so on.

This, in turn, translates into wider social control.

All of a sudden, the populus, the conformists and the anticonformists can be predicted by the series on the television. Behaviour is conditioned by people's desire to be in or avoid such dumbed down presentations.

Teenagers are so fixated on their modern technology, their appropriate clothing and their image that they negate the ability to think laterally or logically.

This has led to huge debts (the kids who think they are destined to becoem stars and live a life style in accordance because debt does not matter).

Now social aspirations are completely out of tangent with social needs. Do we have enough plumbers? No. No one has an aspiration to be a plumber as they are too busy ensuring they look right when they sing so if they get to an audition, they can ensure they will get through.

When social aspirations are shaped intentionally or unintentionally, the general rules of society must be effected. If people are no longer aspiring to hold a job in order to purchase the house, raise a family, retire; and simply waiting for the next opportunity to become famous, and this becomes the status quo, society will slowly but surely rot.

Consequently, actions and behaviour are conducted without true responsibility, where repercussions mitigated by false needs.

Eroding Morality

This is further illustrated by the fact; where acceptable social behaviour is influenced and shaped by the behaviour of those on the show.

Emotional immaturity is condoned by the show. The ones who cannot sing, who throw tantrums when they cannot hit the right note, or where they are berated by jobsworth judges, may create an amusing experience for viewers, but they also condition a "diva" style behaviour that is normalised and translated in to day to day life.

The acrimonious and sarcastic put downs do little to further human endeavours either. This behaviour, which would translate into harassment and intimidation in the Employment Tribunal, is suddenly how one should aspire to behave in a role of power and management.

Therefore we get division in socially controlled behaviours; one is either a nasty, malicious and derogative superior, or a hopeful, grateful and well groomed subordinate.

Neither seem to provide a particularly congenial behaviour set.

Gratifying the Public

One thing that strikes me is the similarities between alleged cultural shows such as the Factor and the Gladiators of the Roman Empire.

The ubiquitous gladiators of the Colosseum were allegedly funded as a form of social responsibility by the rich to entertain the masses. This was known as munera.

Rather like the golden era in the 70s when families would religiously attend football matches are to watch "their team" on a weekly basis; the routine display of the successful and the Carnival of the unsuccessful within the ex-factor provides a striking resemblance to the routine entertainment of the people in Ancient Rome.

The freak show of those who cannot sing and are not athletically acceptable presents us with the ultimate entertainment through which we can identify both our need and our failures.

And of course, all of the time it is on, we are more interested in seeing who will and will not succeed in what the apparent benevolent rich are up to in controlling our future.

Which, while it may not have been the intention of those in authority, is a rather convenient truth in ensuring the masses are not dissatisfied enough to riot, demonstrate or vote them out.

And don't even get me on to the dangers it presents to equality, feminism and class divide!

Did You Read it? Did You react? But Did You Act?

Misogyny in political fringe groups is apparently well and strong, detailed by the Evening Standard here

These myths, that women instigate domestic violence, that feminism is a "nazi style" institution and that rape by someone you know is simply sex, are just some of the abominable issues that help perpetuate female submission in society.

There are a plethora of government investments in advertising and classes to help women recognise domestic violence.

Yet at no point are they investing in telling people violence is not acceptable.

Feminism as a "nazi style" phenomena is one women have been fighting since the second wave feminism of the 1960s. The term feminism has become synonymous with "shaven haired, hairy armpitted lesbian" and blogs of this thought help perpetuate the myth.

Even in University, people were reluctant to call themselves "feminists", prefering the less perjorative term "equalists" or similar.

As a result, we are now raising women who believe they should be "sexy", they should base a career around having babies, and their ideal ambition is to be an "it girl" or "wag" who shops and projects "sex" as a marketable product.

Then, of course, we wonder why people do not complain when they are raped, or consider it acceptable to be struck by a man, or think that their lives are second class.

We live in a society that should have evolved beyond patriarchy. We have had many thrusts towards acheiving equality, but the negative press and colloquial network has now expanded to the blogosphere to continue to perpetuate myths and representation of gender.

I complain if someone calls me "chick", or "sweetpea" or any other derrogative femine term. And it takes courage to stand up to the image of you they then project, of an aggressive woman with no sense of humour.

The constant drip drip drip of rightwing media streams has set gender equality back another generation, and this blog demonstrates another strand to the BNP who were pretty low in the pile anyway.

But is anyone listening? With their sexist jokes and indirect discrimination of women? Or do they read this and say "oh, that's terrible" and then sit on a jury who aquits a man of rape because his victim was drunk?

Do the public read it reviled, yet not complain when they are referred to in terms of gender typecasting ("oh, it's her time of the month" et al).

I could link to a hundred blogs that rant in similar terms, so here is my tuppence worth.

Rape Victims Suffer Another Blow

I'm completely aghast, almost rendered speechless, by a Court's decision to find men not guilty of rape due to a woman's fantasies.

The entire system of justice for rape victims is wholly undermined by this one judgement.

The finer details of the case are currently unavailable, but from the BBC and Bolton News the synopsis is that the woman in question mentioned on MSN chat logs that she would consider multiple sexual relations with strangers.

She met the principle offender on the Internet and agreed to meet him. When she arrived he had friends with him.

"She alleged she wanted to just have sex with him, but was then raped by the others. " (BBC)

So, apparently having fantasies, or speculating about casual sex SUPERCEDES saying NO?

Or perhaps it is reasonable to infer if a woman is prepared to have sex with one man, then she must be willing to have sex with ALL men?

The legislation on Rape is seemingly clear cut. Penetration without consent.

The victim asserted she did not consent.

As far as I am concerned, the evidence she had discussed fantasies is irrelevant. The fantasies were abotu group sex, not about "rape" fantasies.

Therefore section 1 (3) of the Sexual Offences Act 1976 cannot be interpreted as the victim had mentioned she would be willing to have group sex, so her consent was undermined.

For years women have campaigned against social perceptions of "asking for it", against conceptions that men are entitled to Conjugal rights (see R v R 1991, authority for a husband to commit rape on his wife), and there has been legislation in place to rpevent defence lawyers exploiting a woman's sexual history as an exccuse for a man raping her (Criminal Justice Act 2003(s14) Bad Character).

But in the past decade these rights of women have been slowly erroded by case law in the UK.

Societal myths have not been challenged when women are considered liable for rape if they are drunk.

Statistics on rape are terrifying enough when a woman does not have to worry that speculation of fantasies may feature.

The victim is likely to be shamed into not appealing and this law will stand.

Anyone speculating about casual sex now ought to be aware that although their sexual partners can only be mentioned if similar fact evidence (see above), their conversations can be submitted to infer things that simply are not true.

Insert Anti Feminism Attention Grabbing Headline Here

The assertion today that mothers damage their children by working is another blow to feminism and equality in this country.

Alongside ludicrous assertions of what does and does not cause cancer, attention grabbing headlines like this continuously undermine the hard work done in the last century.

There is a significant outcry about people misinterpreting reporting on health scares. But there is far less publicity about how the media translates to gender equality accross the nation. The obvious exception is the "plus size model" and anorexia debate, but very rarely are there comments on how studies into child rearing cause and effect detrimentalise women everywhere.

I could spend a day linking statistics that highlight how few people read an actual article, yet still respond to headlines. This will influence so many more women to return to some archaic misrepresntation of cave wife status; uneducated, lonely, socially enept and preoccupied with consumerism to project image and fallibility.

More and more young women are asserting that they have no significant role models outside of popular culture and modernity. Therefore the concept that women ideally want to shop, stay at home and gossip prevails.

Girls in secondary school planning careers have an nurture idea of acheivement followed by childbirth followed by some fairy tale concept of being a stay at home mother.

One thing that changed gender equality was the union battles in 1980s. By stepping down, unions prevented a person from demanding the right to be able to support a famiy on one wage. This means, whether you agree women should or should not work, they have to work in order to manage a family. But it is the WOMEN who get the short straw, as they are the ones made to feel guilty for "abandoning" their children.

Studies into this kind of childrearing debate never discuss whether a child with a saty at home DAD is healthier. Or whether children in nurseries and young education programmes are healthier. The onus is on the woman to fulfil her projected role as a care giver and home maker.

We need to get rid of this repressive and ludicrous ideology before we erase all of the social equality evolution steps.

Feminism and Pornography

Firstly, I consider myself to be a liberal feminist, essentially meaning I feel men and women are essentially the same, that any differences are socially developed, including hormonal responses (to digress, the term hormonal seems to have replaced the term hysterical in patriarchal domination).

My views on sexuality are essentially in the same sphere, that there is no hegemonic heterosexuality but that everyone is on a scale of bisexuality, generally based on social responses.

Re pornography I tend to consider porn is fine with consent, but given that so much of society is shaped by media relations, the constant degredation of society into a state of ubiquitous sexual awareness is a bad thing. One of my favourite quotes is "if you lost sight of god, you lost sight of the devil". I am not religious, but I appreciate morality and humanity and feel moral guidance is central to maintain stable social relations. This is my main objection to the exploitation of females, like Charly, I consider women to be presented in two dimensional archetypes.

With regards to the evolution of pornography, various sectors of feminism and religious groups, I feel it is all a mass response to the fact the gender equality has not been acheived, and that society is imploding in that there are too many factions and noone to stand up and say; right, we need morality, but this can separate from religion, a secularised morality. This would in turn be latterally applied to equality, human rights etc. Until morality is separated from religion and movements, political or otherwise, there will always be people like Allecto.

However, I do agree pornography is no more empowering that beating someone up or firing gun. It might give an adrenyline rush but it is nto acceptable social behaviour to aspire to. Feel free to attack, I am anti guns, drugs etc XD

To come full circle, it is the promotion of pornogrpahy, obscenity and the "anything goes" culture that filters down through the generations. My nine year old sister was singing Christina Agulera the other day, wears high heels and wants a boyfriend. The girls I see in the news agents grab the magazines to idolise Jordan. While some parts of the older generations can see the cynicism and humour in the popular culture expose of women as sex objects, we are promoting to countless further generations that objectifying women as sexual obejects is acceptable and something to aspire to.

(there is of course a separate discursive into children , access to merchandise, access to pornography, and if you feel like it, discussions on whether paedophic pornography is acceptable if we remove the social stigma)