Girl Power

I was reading something about how to explain to children that one of their classmates had had her leg amputated, and it reminded me of the one-legged girl at the school where I did my teaching practice.

She was a small, slightly built child of 13 or 14 and wore an over-knee prosthetic leg. She had a mild limp, but not enough that anyone would consider her disabled — just a bit ungainly. At home, she didn’t wear her leg: she hopped instead, so her sense of balance was amazing.

One day, after school, some boys from a neighbouring school were bullying her — or rather, attempting to bully her. (The boys — and girls — at her own school knew better.) After telling them to eff off a few times, but to no avail, she did the only thing a small girl can do when faced by three larger aggressors — she whipped off her leg and beat them with it. And when they tried to run away, she hopped after them at full pelt and beat them some more.

In the DVD commentary to Season 1 of Buffy, Joss Whedon says, ‘The first thing I ever thought of [was] the little blonde girl who goes into a dark alley and gets killed in every horror movie. The idea of Buffy was to subvert that idea, that image, and create someone who was a hero where she had always been a victim.’

I like to think that adolescent girl has grown into a mature woman who is still beating up evil men with her false leg: ‘I think he must have tripped, officer. He was trying to attack me, and my leg came off in the struggle. Next thing I knew, he was lying there on the pavement, unconscious. Maybe he fainted?’

19 Questions For Men That Highlight Everyday Misandry

I found this: “19 Questions For Men That Highlight Everyday Sexism” (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/is-it-that-time-of-the-month-man#.ekLEB0aln)

I found this rather sad and very sexist.

There are many injustices in this world. It would be nice if people could concentrate on the ones that do exist without trying to invent new ones.

I’d like to think that the title refers to the everyday sexism men have to face from women who are increasingly being conditioned to find misogyny in just about everything men do. But I don’t think it does. So here are my responses to what appear to be some very silly and biased questions.

I have never read Ms Ford’s writing, but given that she’s started this whole “poor me” thing, it’s possible there is just a modicum of truth in the charge levied against her. Either that or Russell Brand and Boris Johnson must be women too… “Despite the disparities in their backgrounds, both are inveterate attention-seekers” (Vanessa Thorpe,  “Russell Brand: messiah or very naughty boy?”, The Observer, 16 June 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2013/jun/16/observer-profile-russell-brand).

1. Umm… yes. I’ve often heard that sentiment voiced about irascible men.

2. I imagine that it’s a fairly common question to ask single fathers – if they choose to reveal that status to any future employer. I can only assume that Ms Caro makes a point of talking about her children in interviews, thus prompting this line of enquiry. No one in an interview situation has ever gratuitously asked me whether or not I have kids and/or a partner. Presumably they’ve had the sense to realize I’m intelligent enough not to apply for jobs I won’t be able to cope with.

3. I doubt that it is only women who weigh in on this subject. A few years ago, before she became the nation’s favourite person to hate, Katie Hopkins sparked a debate by voicing her unpopular opinions on maternity leave (Charlie Duff, “Katie Hopkins: Only three weeks maternity leave is necessary”, Businesszone, 3 June 2011, http://www.businesszone.co.uk/topic/staff/katie-hopkins-only-three-weeks-maternity-leave-necessary/34971). Whilst the majority of people tend to disagree with Ms Hopkins, I suspect there are quite a few, of both sexes, who – albeit secretly – agree with much of what she says.

4. No, because I’m not sure that’s a widely used term; but men do get called misogynists even when their opinions aren’t particularly strong.

5. Isn’t that what just about every piece written by feminist extremists tends to posit? “So-and-so thinks he’s funny but really he’s just a sexist pig”?

6. Again, yes. If a man has a job that requires him to be away from home a lot, or to face danger on a regular basis, I feel fairly sure people would ask how his wife (or husband) felt about it. If his job were “ordinary”, then no, it’s not the sort of thing a man would expect to hear – but then, neither would a woman unless she kept banging on about “my husband thinks this” and “my husband says that.”

7. Because no one ever raises an eyebrow about male midwives or primary school teachers?

8. I don’t know if men get asked this, but I’ve certainly heard men say that they decided to wait until they were professionally secure before embarking on fatherhood.

9. Okaaayyy… I have never understood why so-called feminists need to hide behind a non-existent partner to deter unwanted admirers. This is hypocrisy in the extreme: “Women are equal to men in all regards and we should be respected as such… except when we need to invent one to protect us.” Yeah, right. Why not just say “Sorry, I’m not interested” and have done? But to answer the question, yes, I’m sure there are some who have also played the imaginary partner card – bound to be.

10. Maybe not on the length, but certainly on the cut, colour, and style of their attire.

11. Unless it’s Amal Clooney (who, rather than uttering the cutting riposte the media seem to think, simply came out with an honest one), I bet 99% of female celebrities want what they’re wearing to be noticed and commented on when they go to these red carpet events. If they didn’t, they’d either wear M&S or not bother going to the event at all. Indeed, from the little I’ve seen about these things, it’s all about who can make the “best-dressed” lists in the gossip columns the next day. But this is a particularly female-dominated competition; and one that they themselves perpetuate.

(Staff reporter, “Amal Clooney reveals her court outfit: ‘I’m wearing Ede & Ravenscroft'”, The Telegraph, 29 January 2015, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/armenia/11376009/Amal-Clooney-reveals-her-court-outfit-Im-wearing-Ede-and-Ravenscroft.html)

12. Men think that women talk non-stop; women think that when they speak, men don’t listen. Maybe it’s a vicious circle. Women talk more in the hope of getting the men to pay attention; men stop listening because women keep saying the same thing over and over again. Dunno. I’ve never had this problem. I speak. People listen. But apparently I’m scary.

13. And again… okaaayyy…? Women’s bodies get compared to these things? When? How? Why? What does it even mean? Anyway, apparently Gordon Brown looks like “a sad face drawn on a scrotum” and that has to be worse than the things Ms Trudgen mentions! (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Gordon-brown-looks-like-a-sad-face-drawn-on-a-scrotum/118285291532022)

14. “Playable”? In RPG, I assume… no? Does she think all men identify with the violence-obsessed shoot-first-grunt-questions-later male characters, then? If she can’t relate, maybe she should find another hobby.

15. I don’t really watch many panel shows, so I’m not sure if this happens or not. Of the ones I have seen:

Mock the Week — more male participants than women, but not exclusively so; genuinely funny; no sex-based dismissal.

QI — ditto, just not as good.

Question Time — about a 50/50 split; ditto (just without the consistent humour).

Loose Women — predominantly female, but so excruciatingly bad as to be unwatchable. Given that it seems to be a bunch of middle-aged women talking about sex, you can hardly blame men for thinking it must be a “woman’s show” (although there are probably some males who enjoy it).

And while it might not exactly have a “panel”, Top Gear, with its tedious trio of presenters and their wholly deliberate “laddishness”, must surely qualify as a “men’s show”, and one that should be dismissed with all due haste (and yes, I do know that it nets vast amounts of revenue for the BBC and that there are some women who love it).

16. OK, that is probably something women do more than men… maybe. But it hardly fits in with what is essentially a post on how unfairly some women believe they are treated by men.

17. I think that if a woman is truly independent, no one is likely to comment on it; it will indeed be a given. If she’s either very young (and perhaps “young” is the key word in this post) or merely gives the impression that she’s trying or pretending to be independent, then yes, she’ll hear things like that. But so would a man.

18. Oh, is that why women use their initials? So no one realizes that J. K. Rowling or P. D. James or A. S. Byatt are really women and they sell more books? Cos that really works, doesn’t it? If that’s the case, were A. A. Milne and J. R. Tolkein and W. H. Auden hoping that no one would work out that they were actually men? Gosh!

19. I guess Ms Roe has never heard the term “boy racer”?

Muddled messages, mammaries, money, and morality; or why I wish people’d make their bloody minds up

I want to begin this grumble by making three points, all of which will gradually become relevant.

1. I don’t particularly consider myself a feminist.
2. People find me intimidating.
3. I used to have fabulous breasts.

I’m not sure whether these women are showing photos of some men with whom they’ve established a meaningful, cerebral relationship, or whether they’re protesting against viewing men as mere sex objects… must be one of the two, surely?
(Photo pinched from Pat Dye’s photostream here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ohiostate/3794241546/in/photostream/)

I don’t particularly consider myself a feminist — or an eco-warrior or a monarchist or any type of activist — although I may embrace some of the philosophies and ideals of all these groups. I am secure enough in my own skin not to need to ‘belong’ to a group or a club to justify my existence or beliefs (indeed, I’m fairly Groucho-esque when it comes to joining such things). Moreover, labels are restrictive. If one is in favour of this tenet, it is assumed that one will also be in favour of that tenet, and one ends up having to explain one’s own particular interpretation of the label and debating its merit with others who have assumed that same form of labelling but construed it in a different way. Easier then, to be me, and leave the bickering to those who enjoy such things.

Usually.

But, because I want to write about my mystification over certain aspects of feminism, I will now explain my stance on the matter.

Men and women are different. We don’t think alike and we each have physiologically-determined strengths and weaknesses. There is, inevitably, some cross-over, but in general terms, this is how it works.

If I had what I’ll call a ‘practical’ problem, I would have no qualms about consulting a male friend, safe in the knowledge that he’d be perfectly happy to solve it by the application of tools, money, or giving me a lift in his car; if it were a ‘non-practical’ problem, I’d be much more likely to tell a female chum as I’d feel that she’d be more likely to appreciate that soothing words and shared outrage were the order of the day, a concept that a lot of men find hard to grasp. That’s not to say that women can’t provide practical help, or that no man is capable of being a shoulder to cry on; nor do I wish to imply that one is better than the other; just that there is, often, a difference.

Furthermore, most (but not all) men are physically stronger than most (but not all) women; and, as I’d say I’m of average strength for my age and sex, somewhere in the region of 50% of women are also stronger than me. This means that if I’m struggling with a heavy suitcase at a station and a man (or, indeed, a younger, fitter woman) offers to carry it for me, I’m going to smile sweetly and say thank you. I am not going to say ‘You sexist pig (ageist bitch?); how dare you insult me in this manner? I will give myself a hernia rather than betray my bizarre principles and accept your generous assistance.’

And if a man holds a door open for me, helps me on with my coat, or tastes the wine when the waiter brings it, well, that’s all fine by me — just as it would be if a woman did these things.

Now, there are things that would not be acceptable — but again, they would not be acceptable from either sex —  like those listed in an article by Laura Bates published in The Guardian a few weeks ago.^[1] Ms Bates tells us that women frequently report certain sexist scenarios that they regularly have to endure in the workplace. So I posted posted the article on Facebook to get a reaction, and was amazed to see how many of my friends seemed to identify with Ms Bates’s nameless complainants.

Laura Bates’s sexist scenarios faced by women.

Many moons ago, when I got married, my husband commented to his best man that many people find me scary. The best man responded: ‘Scary? She’s not scary! She’s fucking terrifying!’ I have no idea why I should have this reputation — I think I’m sweet and affable. Anyway, bearing in mind that I might be in a minority of one in this opinion, it’s safe to say that (with the exception of number 10) I’ve never encountered any of this silliness — probably because that’s how I view it, as silliness, and the type of man who’s prone to this kind of behaviour is likely terrified of being made to feel a fool in public. People tend to behave in a way that they believe they’ll be able to get away with — as soon as they realize they can’t, or at least, not without loss of face, they usually desist.

Hah! you say; but she has already admitted to having to avoid unwanted sexual attention. Yeah, I have (remember the magnificent breasts I mentioned earlier?). But, as discussed elsewhere (https://midmus.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/band-wagon-mechanic-needed-urgently/), any attempts at harassment were never a big deal — even the stupidest of men are capable of understanding the word ‘No’ if it’s delivered firmly enough. (I refer here to those unfortunate men who think they’re God’s gift and that women find them and their sleazy advances irresistible, and not to those with more severe psychiatric issues. Trying to educate the latter is much like trying to persuade the mentally ill mother that her children really aren’t possessed by the devil and giving them ten minutes in time-out might be preferable to drowning them in the bath tub. Fortunately both workplace rapists and deranged mothers are relatively few and far between.)

Which brings me on to articles like ‘Why It’s So Hard for Men to See Misogyny’ and #YesAllWomen which worry me because of their propagation of paranoia.^[2] The article begins with a photograph – evidently a stock photograph, I might add — of a man with his arm round the shoulders of an annoyed-looking woman, bearing the caption ‘He does it when other men aren’t looking.’ It goes on to talk about the case of Elliot Rodger, clearly a disturbed young man, who killed six people and himself, having previously posted videos on YouTube about how he felt it unfair that women didn’t want to have sex with him, and leaving behind a legacy in the form of a misogynistic ‘manifesto’. Elliot, however, was not (I would hope) typical of his gender or his generation — indeed, the author of the article, Amanda Hess, remarks that ‘Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown deemed him a “madman”.’ Ms Hess links this tragedy to the experiences of women who ‘took to Twitter to share their own everyday experiences with men who had reduced them to sexual conquests and threatened them with violence for failing to comply—filing their anecdotes under the hashtag #YesAllWomen.’

Well, no. #NotAllWomen. Let’s stop generalizing and pretending that we’re all victims and men are all oppressors. Some are, of course; but most aren’t. Generalizations are fine when they aren’t insidious and do admit of exceptions (men are taller than women; women watch soaps and men watch Top Gear — yes, in general, but I still have a female friend who’s 6’2” and loves Clarkson et al. and a male friend who’s 5’6” and never misses an episode of Corrie).

Ms Hess, however, would probably disagree with me — even men who seem nice on the surface probably have a darker side. She goes on to observe that ‘men who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren’t around.’ Ah. OK. A your-word-against-mine scenario. Seriously, ladies, if some sleaze bag is grabbing your bits in the stationery cupboard, fight back — scream, leave marks that he can’t easily explain away, and go to the police. If he’s just making lewd remarks, ignore him, tell him to fuck off, laugh in his face and tell him you’ll send him a link to a website that’ll tell him how he can have a bigger penis in six weeks ‘cos you’ve heard he’s a bit lacking in that department — or just avoid being alone with him. Because it cuts both ways — hell hath no fury and all that; a spurned woman can cry assault just as easily as a would-be Lothario can force himself on an unwilling victim.

Amanda Hess also (constantly referencing Elliot Rodger’s totally irrelevant murder spree) cites the example of a friend refusing to give a drunk her phone number and using the excuse that she was married (as opposed to simply saying she wasn’t interested) ‘because aggressive men are more likely to defer to another man’s domain than to accept a woman’s autonomous rejection of him.’ I guess that’s one interpretation — as is this: she was too cowardly to say ‘in your dreams, sweetie’ and preferred to hide behind her man’s authority, an authority that this apparent feminist was bestowing on him because it suited her own purposes.

And this brings me on to one of the main problems I have with feminism (the way it’s twisted and manipulated to suit the individual’s own, often rather bizarre, agenda) and, indirectly, to my own once beautiful boobs.

Take a moment, if you will, to think about women’s breasts. You may do this in whatever way you want. Maybe you see them as objects of sexual desire; maybe as things for feeding babies; maybe you just see them as parts of the female anatomy; maybe you like them; maybe you find them gross; it doesn’t matter — I just want you to think about them.

Now, having thought about them, tell me what all the fuss is about. On the one hand we have the (frankly quite farcical) No More Page 3 brigade who feel that breasts should not be part of our breakfast newspaper experience; and on the other we have the Outdoor Co-ed Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society, a book group for women (and a few carefully vetted men) who enjoy discussing literature unencumbered by upper-body clothing in New York’s Central Park, and Scout Willis’s promotion of the #FreeTheNipple campaign as a protest against Instagram’s policy of not featuring female nudity.^[3] (Somewhat ironically, The Sun limits us to only two nipples a day to letch over, whilst Huff Post offers us around forty of the liberated little blighters on the same page.)

So which is it to be? Are boobies bad or should they be released and allowed to frolic unfettered in the wild?

Please don’t try the ‘Page 3 exploits women, but the other two are the women’s own choice’ line because it’s utter bollocks. The girls who pose for Page 3 choose to do it, in the same way as the semi-naked bibliophiles and Bruce’s kid’s cronies. Or perhaps not ‘in the same way’, as Page 3 models choose to do it for money. And maybe that’s the problem. Showing your nipples in exchange for cash is immoral, but flashing your tits for your principles is admirable?

Oh, and don’t get me started on these so-called Slut Walks: ‘I will dress like a slut and encourage men to treat me as a sexual object just to prove I’m not a slut and shouldn’t be treated as a sexual object.’ Sure, people should be able to wear what they want without being judged or attacked (sexually or otherwise), but I wouldn’t advise marching around certain Catholic parts of Northern Ireland dressed all in orange, or wearing a black balaclava to go to the bank. Clothes give off signals — and if a woman has spent four hours dressing up, doing her hair and nails and make-up, waxing her legs and plucking her eyebrows, in the hope of fascinating the man she’s had her eye on for ages, she’d be really disappointed if he failed to notice; but she has to accept that what she hopes will be attractive to him will also be attractive to others.

I’m not defending The Sun as such — it strikes me as being a fairly disreputable kind of rag as a whole — but is this really the worst of its misdemeanours? Anyone remember its coverage of the Hillsborough disaster? It seems, though, that some people have decided that it is, for whatever reason, the epitome of only the perceived sexist ills in our society. (Curiously, its editor, David Dinsmore, maintains that it was his female readership that persuaded him to keep flashing the titties, and is quoted as saying ‘I make the paper for the readers. I don’t make it for the No More Page Three campaign, I don’t make it for the Twitterati and I don’t make it for readers of The Guardian.’^[4]) Just as Amanda Hess was able to link Elliot Rodger’s killing spree to her friend being propositioned by a drunk at a party, so these No-More-Page-3-ites blame The Sun for any- and everything they can — and then create petitions, so very very many petitions.

Take this one by the indescribably sweet and ingenuous Lucy Holmes (oh, I just want to hug her, I really do).This is from her ‘David Dinsmore: Take The Bare Boobs Out Of The Sun #nomorepage3’ petition on change.org:^[5]

We are asking David Dinsmore to drop the bare boobs from The Sun newspaper.
We are asking very nicely.
Please, David.
No More Page 3.
George Alagiah doesn’t say, ‘And now let’s look at Courtney, 21, from Warrington’s bare breasts,’ in the middle of the 6 O’ Clock News, does he, David?
Philip and Holly don’t flash up pictures of Danni, 19, from Plymouth, in just her pants and a necklace, on This Morning, do they, David?
No, they don’t.
There would be an outcry.
And you shouldn’t show the naked breasts of young women in your widely read ‘family’ newspaper either.
Consider this a long overdue outcry.
David, stop showing topless pictures of young women in Britain’s most widely read newspaper, stop conditioning your readers to view women as sex objects.
Enough is enough.
Thank you.

You see? So naive, bless her. I do not profess to be a marketing professional, but I guess I’m a bit more media savvy than our Lucy. If The Sun is ‘Britain’s most widely read newspaper,’ it holds that position because it has a winning formula — changing it is probably not going to be good for circulation. George, Phillip, and Holly are targeting an entirely different demographic — but if semi-naked teenagers were proven to be what was needed to increase their market share, I’m sure they’d make the necessary adjustment. And if it’s a ‘”family” newspaper’ that surely means that the adults buying it don’t have an issue with their offspring seeing bare breasts before they go to school — or that they rip out any offensive material (and stash it under the mattress for later — ahem — perusal) before letting the sprogs get their hands on the rest of the paper. Either way, it’s for the newspaper-buyer to decide what is and is not suitable for the younger members of the family — not Mr Dinsmore and still less Ms Holmes.

I have also noticed that quite a few of my friends have over the last couple of days posted a link on their chosen social media site to another petition, this one demanding that that newspaper withdraw its ‘Win a date with a Page 3 Girl’ competition.^[6] But why is that any worse than similar promotions to, say, win a day out with a Texan teenage heartthrob called Austin Mahone or an intimate dinner with the singer-cum-reality TV star, Peter Andre?^[7] Surely we can assume that the Page 3 girl, the teenage boy, and Mr Andre have all agreed to be raffled off in this way, and could have said ‘On yer bike, mate; I refuse to be drooled over by some random competition winner!’

So, in these times of sexual equality, why is it OK to treat men in this way but not women? I am, for once, not trying to be deliberately provocative here — I genuinely don’t see how the two differ. If the objectification of women is sexist, so is the objectification of men; and yet the former seems to be regarded as an outrage and the latter as ‘a bit of fun’.

It has been put to me that, in the latter case, the men are identified as individuals in their own right, not just as generic figures. So, whilst those entering the competitions may well do so because they are sexually attracted to either Mahone or Andre (and it’s really not going to be because they want to discuss Obamacare or Tony Abbott’s views on Aboriginal affairs, is it?), it’s a case of genuine fandom rather than random lust. The ‘Page 3 Girl’ has no name or identity beyond being female and stripping off and flashing her bits; thus, where Austin and Pete are people, she is simply a stereotype. It’s not a bad argument… and I’m almost convinced. Almost, but not quite. Because I’ve seen The Chippendales and I’m fairly certain that none of the squealing women in the audience cared one iota about the names, interests, and personalities of those buff young men. I think what The Sun is doing wrong here is favouring its male readers — and women are getting jealous. Maybe they should even up the score by running a ‘Win a date with a Chippendale’ raffle as well…

I am in my fifties. The quondam glory of my breasts has suffered the relentless toll of both time and gravity. Thirty years ago, when their magnificence was beyond compare, they were seen only by me, my lovers, and possibly the occasional flatmate who inadvertently walked in on me in the shower or other state of undress. Back then, I probably knew Page 3 existed, but it wasn’t something I was aware of as such. Because if I had been, and if I’d known I could have made money from letting a photographer take pics of my boobs and an editor plaster them all over Page 3, I’d have done it… in a heartbeat.

References (all accessed 4 September 2014)

 ^[1] Laura Bates, “10 sexist scenarios that women face at work”, The Guardian, 30 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/jul/30/10-sexist-scenarios-women-deal-work-ignored-maternity-risk-everyday-sexism?CMP=fb_gu

^[2] Amanda Hess, “Why It’s So Hard for Men to See Misogyny”, Slate, 27 May 2014, http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/_yesallwomen_in_the_wake_of_elliot_rodger_why_it_s_so_hard_for_men_to_recognize.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

^[3] http://nomorepage3.org/; Alison Flood, “Topless Pulp Fiction Appreciation Society takes off”, The Guardian, 8 May 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/may/08/topless-pulp-fiction-appreciation-society-book-club; Barcroft Media, “#FreeTheNipple: Topless Protest Against Internet Censorship Follows Scout Willis Instagram Challenge (NSFW PICTURES)”, The Huffington Post, 4 June 2014, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/04/freethenipple-topless-protest-internet-censorship-scout-willis-instagram-challenge-pictures_n_5443907.html?1401881878&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

^[4] Ian Burrell, “My female readers persuaded me to keep Page Three topless photos, says Sun editor”, The Independent, 5 November 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/my-female-readers-persuaded-me-to-keep-page-three-topless-photos-says-sun-editor-8922320.html

^[5] Lucy Holmes, “David Dinsmore: Take The Bare Boobs Out Of The Sun #nomorepage3”, http://www.change.org/p/david-dinsmore-take-the-bare-boobs-out-of-the-sun-nomorepage3

^[6] http://action.sumofus.org/a/the-sun-page-three/?sub=fb

^[7] https://uk.celebrity.yahoo.com/gossip/omg/meet-austin-mahone-show-him-around-london-yes-really-115621339.html; http://www.prizeo.com/prizes/peter-andre/an-intimate-dinner-date?utm_content=peter&utm_campaign=peter

Sex sells — even when you’re buying votes by banning it (Technical information and clever bits courtesy of Shibblez)

Yesterday, the interwebz seemed to be ablaze in equal measure with news of the birth of the royal sproglet and PM David Cameron’s new anti porn plans. Sproglets, whether royal or commoner, are — as you’ll probably have worked out by now — of singularly no interest to me, so don’t all faint at once when I tell you that that’s not to be the subject of today’s Muttering.

No, today I’m going to talk about pornography, or at least, about its regulation and how our esteemed leader clearly has no idea how the internet — or the human mind — works. Now, I have some friends who are totally anti-porn (to the extent that they consider lads’ mags and Page Three to be detrimental to the fabric of society), and others who regard sites like www.kink.com and www.hogtied.com (don’t click if you’re under 18 or easily shocked, folks) to be but mildly titillating. For now, I’ll let you form your own opinions about where I fit in on this spectrum.

David Cameron, a politician with no morals. [Photo: University Hospitals Birmingham]

Anyway, this, in a nutshell, is what our esteemed leader (or his advisers) came up with:

• Every household in the UK has to opt in if they want to view online pornography: ‘family-friendly’ filters will be activated and the account holder will have to ask their ISP to turn it off if they wish to view anything ‘adult’.
• The possession of images depicting rape will be made illegal in England and Wales.
• Online videos that are streamed to the UK are to be subject to the same restrictions as those for sale in shops.
• Search engines will be encouraged to do more to block images of child sex-abuse.

Please tell me that you’re not reading this and thinking ‘Oh, that’s a good idea.’ Because it’s not. At best it’s all very silly and naïve on the part of the PM; at worst it’s deliberately disingenuous — ‘let’s appeal to the not-very-bright (and win lovely votes) and make them think we’re going out of our way to protect their children, end rape, and generally stop women being exploited.’

Oh dear, oh dear.

But let’s say we go along with his ideas for now, just for the hell of it. These wonderful filters are going to block out pornography, and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will compile a list of ‘abhorrent’ search terms that will be automatically proscribed. Computers and the technology that makes them work are not sentient. They are as good or as bad as they are programmed to be. When I adopted a new dog, my formerly placid golden retriever suddenly changed into a snarling, savage hell-hound. I consulted the internet and discovered that the search terms ‘dominant aggressive bitch’ turned up some very interesting — and mixed — results. So are these words in and of themselves abhorrent? Mr Cameron would view my experience as a perfect illustration of how well these filters work and why they are needed. But he’s wrong. Because were these search terms prohibited, I would never have learnt that my dog’s behaviour was a normal reaction and the rescue dog would probably have been sent back to the shelter before the two of them had chance to become the inseparable chums they were once the hierarchy had been established. Moreover, I have not been adversely affected by what I saw. Any dominatrix-like tendencies I possess are inherent and not the result of my happening to see a leather-clad woman wielding a riding crop when I was looking for something else. I am an adult. I can distinguish between the useful and the merely interesting (or the distasteful, if that’s what you’d prefer me to say). Would I have been traumatized if I’d been eight years old? I doubt it. Nowadays, eight-year-olds can’t spell ‘dominant’ or ‘aggressive’ or ‘bitch’; and even if they manage it by a fluke, they’ve all seen  whatever today’s equivalent of Xena Warrior Princess is — and she’s much more imposing than Mistress Sadica von Tawse ever could be.

Why filters anyway? The local loop (which I’m reliably informed is the bit of wire from telephone to exchange) is now unbundled, rather than filtering why doesn’t some enterprising individual — or, indeed, government-controlled body — set up NannyNet with either no access of any kind to the big bad internet, or a Great (Fire)Wall of Nanny that controls every last detail of the connexion? Oh, because people want to have their cake and eat it; they want the expansiveness of the internet but the fake security of Cameron’s filters.

Unfortunately, Mr Cameron seems less than sure what actually constitutes pornography. Jeremy Vine yesterday interviewed the Tory leader on Radio 2 (here’s a link http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/b0375cm2/ — the relevant bit starts at 1:05:30 and lasts for about 12 minutes), and asked whether he advocated banning images of breast-feeding, as Facebook does. Mr Cameron was shocked that this could be viewed as pornographic. Mr Vine then inquired whether Fifty Shades of Grey would be filtered out, at which point a rather flustered Mr Cameron revealed that it wouldn’t — he didn’t think — and that it was only pornographic images — probably — that would be subject to exclusion.

Pornographic images. Mmm. Them. Just about everything can be a paraphilia or fetish for someone. Just about, did I say? No, everything. Absolutely everything. ‘Standard’ pornographic imagery — one man, one woman, or one man, two women — is but the tip of the iceberg. If you’re sexually aroused by cats, then this shameless hussy will probably have you drooling.

Tilly, a cat with no morals and even less decorum.

Should we now ban pictures of cats from the internet? Facebook would close down overnight! By the same token, I’m sure any paedophile worth his salt doesn’t need photos of children performing sexual acts to get his juices flowing and his pulse rating — an innocent image of two little girls, in their nice new party frocks will probably do the job just as well. So where do we draw the line? Who’s to say that this is a morally-corrosive image but that isn’t? According to Mr C, this isn’t an attempt at government censorship, so…?

Whilst I’m on the subject of paedophiles and child pornography — Mr Cameron waffles a little to Jeremy Vine about peer-to-peer sharing, in the manner of one who’s heard the term but has no real idea what it means. (And why should he know more than that about it? He‘s not a computer boffin after all; I certainly don’t know the ins and outs of how it works either — oh, but there again, I’m not trying to legislate for a whole country based on a concept I don’t comprehend — yeah, he really should find out more before he opens his mouth.) He then compounds his stupidity by saying something along the lines of ‘it doesn’t matter how you do it; we’ll know about it and we’ll come and find you’ — thus challenging internet-savvy paedophiles nationwide to increase their activity just to prove him wrong. Big Brother is watching you, but this isn’t censorship, honest.

Besides, Mr Cameron has clearly never come across the concept of Onion Routing. Even a techno-numpty like me has heard of this before. TOR (The Onion Router) was originally designed by the US Navy as secure way of communicating over the internet and setting up invisible websites in countries where the political regime would tend to frown on such activity — oh, a bit like the Conservative party is doing in the UK, really. It was created to be untraceable and go through firewalls. It is encrypted. It bounces happily from server to server and never follows same route twice. Messages sneaked out from all these Arab countries where there have recently been revolts and uprisings have come via TOR. What’s more, OpenTOR is available for anyone to download!  Look — here’s a link if you want it for yourself: https://www.torproject.org/

And obviously, anyone who’s got anything in their possession that depicts a rape scene must surely be planning on re-enacting it. I am slightly worried about Mr Cameron’s own moral compass at this point. I own a DVD of The Accused. I do. And I don’t care who knows that I do. It’s a good film; a good court-room drama. I can honestly say that I could be in the same room as Jodie Foster (an actress for whom I have much admiration and respect) and not feel the urge to force myself upon her sexually. Nevertheless, being brutally and graphically raped on screen won Ms Foster a lot of controversy at the time, but also an Oscar, a David, a Golden Globe, a KCFCC, and an NBR, and marked her transition from child star to serious actress. But I’m shocked to learn all those award-awarding committee members are, like myself, to be considered as potential rapists. I’ve also got a copy of A Clockwork Orange, with its stylized, balletic rape scene. And I watched Scum on TV a couple of months ago. I am, therefore — if we believe David Cameron — a criminal and should clearly be banged up.

Jodie Foster, an actress with both morals and decorum. [Photo: Miss Shari]

According to The Register (Jasper Hamill,  “War On Porn: UK flicks switch on ‘I am a pervert’ web filters”, 22 July 2013, http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/22/war_on_erupts_in_britain/) feminist campaigners think Cameron’s stupidity is a good thing. Mr Hamill quotes Fiona Elvines of Rape Crisis South London as saying that ‘the government today has made a significant step forward in preventing rapists using rape pornography to legitimise and strategise their crimes and, more broadly, in challenging the eroticisation of violence against women and girls.’ Because no one was ever raped before people had access to the internet? The Story of O (1954) was always intended to be an online blog, but Anne Desclos, a.k.a Pauline Réage just got a bit before herself chronologically (yes… a woman eroticized violence against her own sex… as did Elizabeth McNeill (9 ½ Weeks), Mary Gaitskill (Bad Behavior, more famously filmed as Secretary), E. L. James (Fifty Shades of Grey)… well, I’ll stop there; you get the gist)? The Victorians never traded spanking porn photos or met in secret clubs for the purpose? No, all that is modern and the internet is to blame. Bad, bad internet.

Most porn sites — i.e. those featuring consenting adults — don’t want to be involved with children, from either side of the camera or computer screen. They don’t want stricter controls on their activities; nor do they want to be closed down because one underage girl claims she’s eighteen. The membership of the ASACP (Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection, http://www.asacp.org/) and the RTA (Restricted to Adults, http://www.rtalabel.org/) comprises more adult porn sites than anything else.

What other nonsense was there? Oh yes, restrictions on streaming. ‘Put simply,’ says Mr Cameron, ‘what you can’t get in a shop, you will no longer be able to get online.’ Yup. That’s putting it very simply. Too simply. We’re back to my suddenly-aggressive golden retriever. How is anyone to know if a video entitled good_dogs_and_bad_masters.mpg is about the mistakes people make when training their canine companions or some kind of BDSM fest with human puppies being led around on leads and drinking out of bowls on the floor? Well, it really is as simple as the PM believes. Someone would have to watch it. And every other one of the millions and millions of videos that are out there.

But it’s OK. Mr Cameron wants stricter policing by the various search engines. Let’s completely disregard the fact that most ISPs in the UK have already been censoring the internet for years, blocking child porn sites on the Internet Watch Foundation’s pretty extensive list. Mr Cameron now wants to shift the burden onto Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al That’ll take a lot of the onus off that poor soul who has to watch all the dross out there in the hope of spotting something a bit spicy. Only it won’t. Let’s imagine that the telephone number 01234 567890 belongs to a sex shop. BT decides, or is ordered, to stop listing sex shop numbers in its directory. You look in the phone book, and it’s not there; you phone directory enquiries and they too cannot help you. But the number still exists. Your friend might be able to tell you what it is; or next time you’re in that neck of the woods you could pop into the shop and ask them. Just because Mr Cameron browbeats Google or Yahoo or whoever into removing listings from websites he deems to be ‘abhorrent’ doesn’t mean that they no longer exist — it just means that you have to know where to look or whom to ask.

Mr Cameron believes that ‘online pornography is corroding childhood,’ because ‘in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.’ He wants Britain to be ‘a place where […] children are safe; where there’s a sense of right and wrong and boundaries between them; where children are allowed to be children.’ That’s nice, isn’t it? So let’s set up a few filters, let’s reassure parents that the stamping out has thus taken place; and let’s complacently sit back and be shocked when ‘abhorrent’ things do get through after all. Because they will.

Jeremy Vine asked what would become of those parents who chose to turn off the filters — would the ISPs or the government sic Social Services on them for endangering the morals (or something) of their children. Cameron waffled on about parents being responsible for controlling what their children have access to – as they do now. As they do now? So if all parents opt out, then what’s changed… other than some of the tax payers’ money being spent on another silly and futile initiative? Oh. Oh. I see.

So here’s what you should do if you think someone’s accessing your broadband illegally: ensure that anyone who connects to it without your permission is automatically redirected to a porn site. Then sit back and wait for them — or their parents — to come round and complain about how you’re a reprobate and corrupting their kids.  After that, it’s simple (to use Mr Cameron’s adjective of choice): just report them for offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/computer_misuse_act_1990/#an06)

Photos:

David Cameron:

Jodie Foster:

Woman =/= Victim

This is being touted around as some kind of profound and insightful truth. It’s not. It’s bollocks. I’ve lived on this planet for longer than I’m prepared to admit here and have never felt that way (despite having had to fend off a fair amount of unwanted attention in my time). Moreover, I cannot agree with the assumption that all heterosexual men make forceful and unwanted advances to women (any more than all homosexual males lurk in the backs of taxis and pounce on younger men). In both cases, this applies to a very small and somewhat irritating minority; most men are capable of reading the situation correctly, or of backing off quickly when they realize they’ve made a mistake. Things like this that propagate the idea of woman-as-victim really do get my goat. There are also a few other moral issues here. The teacher or reading group leader, whom we must assume to be a supposedly responsible adult, learns that one of her charges has at some point been on the receiving end of unwanted advances from what we infer to be an older and stronger person of the same sex. Admitting this may have been traumatic in itself for the boy, and yet — rather than offer support and understanding — the ‘responsible adult’ chooses to mock him and use his experience as an excuse for a misandrous rant about sexual harassment. The group is a mixed one. In all probability, its male and female members have co-existed harmoniously until now. There may have been some horseplay and flirting, but nothing unexpected or undesirable amongst this demographic. Suddenly, though, the girls will start to feel threatened when they probably had no such misgivings until their teacher suggested that all men in car parks are not really leaving or collecting their vehicles, but lurking with malicious intent… Isn’t feminism supposed to be all about empowering women, not making us feel defenceless?