Amazon’s complete refusal to take responsibility for the products is well-known. They are forever being caught selling products which glamourise violence against women and children so I shouldn’t have been surprised when a link to the e-book “Using her while she sleeps: Stretching my friends little sister” got tweeted into my timeline via Ending Victimisation and Blaming [Everyday Victim Blaming] and Graham. This is the blurb to the e-book:
Hunky college senior Trey has had a terrible night out. His roomie Matt has gone home with the girl that Trey had his eye on the whole night.
Despondent, well-hung Trey goes home to jerk off alone, but when he gets there, he remembers that Matt’s 19 year old little sister Chelsea is crashing on their couch.
Unable to stop himself, Trey starts to play with the passed out young teen, but he has a problem. She’s so petite, and his cock is so huge, he just can’t fit inside her.
Will he be able to have his way with her without waking her up?
Find out in this 4400 word erotic story, which features a horny guy with a huge manhood, a petite sleeping teen, oral sex, rough sex, and creampies.
Strictly for adults only!
I’ll just be brutally honest here: I hate Gok Wan. He represents everything that is wrong with our culture and he’s made a fortune making women feel ashamed of their bodies whilst gaslighting them into believing he genuinely cares about their physical and emotional health.
If he genuinely gave a shit about women, he wouldn’t be publicly humiliating them by telling them their bodies are hideous and then shoving them into spanx and high heels whilst grabbing at their breasts without permission.
Why he thought a webchat on Mumsnet was a good idea is beyond me. It was never going to go well. There is some sycophantic drivel posted on the thread. Wan obviously only chose to answer the drivel and ignore the difficult questions about how he reinforces patriarchal culture by forcing women to conform to the patriarchal fuckability test.
Gok Wan doesn’t give a shit about women. He’s in it for the money.
Below are a selection of the questions that Wan refused to answer on the web chat. Notice the mini-tantrum Gok has when challenged on a question:
This is a short list of some of the brave girls making our world a better place:
Eesha Khare (18): For inventing a device which can charge cellphones in less than 30 seconds
Ann Makosinski (15): For inventing a body-heat powered flashlight
Deepika Kurup (14): For inventing a solar-powered water purifier.
Duro-Aina Adebola (14), Akindele Abiola (14,) Faleke Oluwatoyin (14), and Bello Eniola (15) : For inventing a generator which is powered by urine.
Angela Zhang (17) : For inventing a cure for cancer which eliminated all tumours in mice.
These are only a snapshot of some of the amazing girls; many of whom will never get public recognition for their roll as carers, inventors, scientists, artists, dancers and survivors.
We need to celebrate all the brave girls who stand for themselves and other girls in a culture who teaches us to hate our bodies and our minds.
Today, I’m celebrating all our brave girls.
I was lucky to have only come across Schwyzer in 2010 on Mumsnet. A group of (white) radical feminists were discussing his latest “incident” [and I don’t remember which one as Schwyzer has a lot of incidents]. I asked who he was and they gave me the litany of the violence he has perpetrated against women, including nearly killing a former partner, his continuing sexual predation on young women who were his students as well as overt racism.
Having read all the links posted, I just assumed all feminists thought that Schwyzer was a manipulative sociopath who was using feminism as a ruse to get access to more young women.
I forgot what the “manipulative sociopath” bit meant. Schwyzer has succeeded for so long because women want to believe in the redemption narrative. We are trained from birth to believe that men have the ability to change through the “love of a good woman”. Lib Fems believed Schwyzer because he represents Third Wave “sex-positive” feminism. They believed him because they had too.
Critiquing Schwyzer means actually analysing the problematic nature of identity politics and “sex positivism” which privileges the male orgasm above all else, including the physical and emotional harm done to women. It means actually analysing the systemic and structural consequences of the Patriarchy. Hell, it means acknowledging the Patriarchy exists.
It’s very clear (for anyone who bothers to google) that radical feminists and WOC feminists/ womanists have been calling out Schwyzer for years. Jezebel and a disappointing number of mainstream feminist presses have allowed Schwyzer a platform for years. They have ignored his attacks on WoC and women who Schwyzer deemed as a “lower class” than him.
Schwyzer is a manipulative sociopath who has abused women for years. But, he has had help in continuing to abuse women. Every single feminist magazine which gave him a platform helped. By accepting Schwyzer’s redemption narrative uncritically, many Third Wave feminists have simply reinforced patriarchal norms.
Frankly, a man who lists himself as the head of a movement about women should always be treated with suspicion. And, any dude who brags about nearly killing a former partner should be placed in the dickhead pile. Not given a column in Jezebel.
Schwyzer may be a manipulative sociopath but a lot of women say through his behaviour and for this, they were ridiculed, dismissed and ignored. Feminism isn’t about men. It’s about women. The destruction of the patriarchy will result in men being liberated from oppressive gender roles but our first concern must be women.
Schwyzer has never stopped abusing women. Instead, too many chose to ignore the evidence of his abuse. Third Wave feminists did not believe women who stood up to Schwyzer. Believing women who speak out about their experience of male violence is a fundamental tenet of feminism. Anything else is patriarchal bullshit.
Schwyzer belongs on the #dickheaddetox. But, those who supported him uncritically also need to do some reflection and, in a number of cases, apologise.
Terry Richardson’s status as a sexual predator is well-known. Jezebel ran an article in 2010 detailing Richardson’s quite clear sexual harassment and assault of model Jamie Peck when she was only 19 years old:
The Globe & Mail, Jezebel and NYMag have all covered his predatory behaviour. His well-known quote “it’s not who you know, it’s who you blow” has been doing the rounds of the media for years. All of his images are of pornified bodies of young women who pass the patriarchal fuckability test.
The comments in this article on Jezebel are very interesting: apparently, Richardson only takes photos of young, white models. I am not familiar enough with Richardson’s work to take a formal stance but a quick five minute google does suggest that most of the models in Richardson’s work are white. Is this Richardson’s personal preferences or a reflection of the systemic racism with the fashion industry which privileges an image of beauty that most women can never attain but that no WoC will ever manage? Either way, it is still racism.
Yet, Anna Wintour “loves” his work. He’s shot for pretty much every major fashion magazine and designer. He’s clearly a sexual predator and the fashion industry [and Hollywood] have colluded in his sexual harassment and assault of vulnerable young women for the entirety of his career.
I hope that the fashion industry will take some responsibility for the very young women they have allowed to be abused and harassed by Richardson and stop using his work. At the very least, Barack Obama probably has enough clout to have someone who isn’t a sexual predator take his picture.
Oh, and whatever you do, don’t google images of Richardson without a filter. He takes a lot of photos of his penis.
Sean Penn is one of the most famous of the leftwing, right-on Dudebros of Hollywood. Read any media story and it will be a litany of his Oscars and his running about being a ‘nice guy’. He was on the ground after Hurricane Katrina and the Haitian earthquake. He’s one of the celebrities involved with the “Real men don’t buy girls campaign“, a campaign which features a number of problematic Dudebros like Justin Timberlake.
He also has a long history of alcohol misuse and violence including assaulting his then-wife Madonna. Oddly, the history of violence rarely gets mentioned.
I say ‘oddly”, I meant obviously. After all, rich white men being held accountable for their violence isn’t exactly a common feature of our world. And, let’s be brutally honest here: Chris Brown’s vicious assault on then-girlfriend Rihanna did not hurt his career in any way shape or form. However, his history of violence hasn’t been erased because he is Black.
Make a couple of good movies and we forgive anything. Isn’t that the lessons we learned from Polanski?
Sean Penn is a violent man. He has multiple convictions for violence against other men. There are two incidents of extreme violence perpetrated against Madonna during their marriage: one of which resulted in her hospitalisation after Penn assaulted her with a baseball bat. The second involved Penn assaulting and then tying up Madonna and leaving her in the house bound and gagged.
Erasing his history of violence because he’s an actor is woman-hating.
Sean Penn belongs on the #DickheadDetox; along with all his apologists.
Stan Collymore is currently whining on twitter about being held accountable for domestic violence. Apparently, it’s totally unfair for him to held accountable for viciously assaulting then partner Ulrika Johnson when people give Roman Polanski, Charlie Sheen and John Lennon a free pass.
Collymore’s solution? well, it’s clearly not to take personal responsibility for the crime he committed. Instead, he’s gone with calling people hypocrites:
He’s also come up with this genius solution :
Because no one has ever written about the hypocrisy of our woman-hating culture and it’s complete refusal to take violence against women and children seriously. Or, the fact that our culture thinks male celebrities should be forgiven for any violence they commit if they are “artists”.
We need to hold every single man who commits violence against women and children; not add more men to to the list of those we forgive because they make lots of money. We need to hold white male celebrities accountable for the crimes they commit.
And, honestly, is there nothing more pathetic than a man whining for being held responsible for the consequences of his actions?
Collymore belongs on the #DickheadDetox for both committing VAW and for whinging about it.
Dear Feminist Times,
I’ve been looking forward to today for months. I had such high hopes about your publication: a feminist magazine with no advertising is just brilliant. Feminist presses like Jezebel only serve to reinforce a heteronormative, victimblaming, celebrity obsessed culture. I was hoping you would be more like Trouble & Strife or Feminist Current than the Daily Mail.
Words cannot express just how disappointed I feel about the article in Taboo Corner entitled Sterilise Her. Forced or coerced sterilisation, even coercing someone into using long-active reversible contraceptives are not feminist acts.
It is women-hating at it’s most extreme.
It’s the violent, abusive destruction of women’s bodily integrity and their right to personal autonomy.
It privileges men’s right to fuck whoever they want, whenever they want without consequence. It reinforces a heteronormative, PIV focused construction of sexuality which privileges male orgasm over women’s health and reproductive freedom.
This is without getting into the long history of forced sterilisation of women deemed “bad” from the forced sterilisation of “asocial” and disabled women in Nazi Germany to the mass sterilisations of “bad” women in California, Switzerland, Canada and every other country in the world. The forcible sterilisation of “bad” women has a long history and anyone who doesn’t know this is either stupid or an MRE.
Publishing an article on forced sterilisation is a disgrace to feminism.
The anonymous author claims they have come to this position due to a family member who “decided to neglect (their) child” which resulted in the child being taken into care. The author claims to understand that “sometimes people have problems of their own that need to be addressed” but this is clearly bullshit. Anyone who truly understands the reasons that mothers struggle with caring for their children would not write this:
Does the mother seek help? Want to get her child back and earn the right to be called her mother and look after her? No she doesn’t.
Instead she continues to sleep about with men, picks an ex convict, gets pregnant again and surprise surprise the cycle continues.
Where is the child’s father in this story? What about his responsibility to care for the child? Was the child conceived in rape? Is that why the father doesn’t appear in this narrative or is it simply just more evidence of woman-hating. Ignoring the father and blaming the mother is victim-blaming. It’s just patriarchal behaviour.
How does this author know the mother hasn’t sought help? That she doesn’t want her child back? That her self-harming behaviour doesn’t stem from serious trauma? For a child to be taken into permanent care, the mother must have exhibited serious self-harming behaviour such as substance misuse which made her unable to care appropriately for the child.
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of child protection knows that there are simply no real programs to help women who are self-harming due to trauma. There were very few under the Labour government and those which existed have been destroyed by the ConDems. Waiting lists for substance misuse programs are immense and that’s even if you can find one that allows you to bring your child with you. Poverty is systemic now. Men are allowed to financially abuse their children without punishment but women are shamed and publicly humiliated for their failure.
Forced sterilisation and coercive/ forced birth control are not a taboo. It happens every single day to women deemed unfit or bad or stupid. It happens every single day to teenage girls deemed promiscuous without any attempt at analysing why these young girls are having sex [or even if they are being groomed and prostituted].
There a million reasons why a woman could not personally care for her child and they all come down a culture which hates women.
Forcible sterilisation and coercive use of birth control are part of the spectrum of violence against women. A real feminist would understand this.
They would not have published something more in keeping with the Daily Mail.
UPDATE: There seem to be some problem with the Feminist Times website. This is a screen cap I took:
UPDATE 2: Feminist Times have removed the piece and apologised. Before apologising and removing they added this statement:
Taboo Corner is a small space on Feminist Times for women to be open about uncomfortable thoughts they have and the personal reasons behind them, helping uncover disconcerting female truths that are normally repressed and opening them up for honest debate. Feminist Times is different to other magazines in that it won’t airbrush your frown lines or your emotions
I’ve just read your latest update on feminism in the Guardian. I think you might be a little bit confused about the term feminism. I understand that some poor schmuck responsible for your public relations had a bit of a panic attack on the weekend when you declined the label feminist but claimed you support equal rights. I would have fell off my chair laughing and been sent home for the day to calm down if you had said that to my face but I can see how someone in public relations might want to run about shrieking “call yourself a feminist”.
After all, the past few months have seen a prosecutor and a judge label a 13 year old victim of sexual violence a sexual predator in her own assault. We’ve seen horrendous and malicious attacks in the media on the child who brought forward the complaint of rape against Michael Le Vell. We’ve had several trials of large gangs of men who groomed vulnerable young girls and repeatedly raped and sold them for prostitution, whilst those responsible for protecting the girls blamed them.
In the past two months, how many women have been raped in the UK? How many have experienced domestic violence? How many have been murdered by violent men?
I can see that you want to call yourself a feminist so that women might forget that your government is responsible for the destruction of the NHS and the welfare state bringing about cuts that disproportionately effect women. Your government is responsible for putting millions of children in poverty by destroying the child maintenance program all the while rewarding men who refuse to financially support their children by giving them a tax break if they get remarried.
I can see that someone in your public relations office might have responded to your comment this weekend with something like “oh, if you call yourself a feminist maybe women will be so stupid they will forget everything you’ve done to destroy women in the past two years”.
May I suggest you fire your public relations team. They are clearly dingbats.
Women won’t forget that you have deliberately and maliciously forced hundreds of thousands of women into poverty.
You are not a feminist. Feminists campaign for the full liberation of women from the capitalist-patriarchy; a system which only benefits rich, white men. You don’t give a shit about women or children. You only care about rich white dudes.
You are not a feminist. You are a woman-hating arsenugget.