The Shouty Woman

May 23, 2007

Classic

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 12:17 pm

The Onion: New Abortion Bill To Require Fetal consent.

May 8, 2007

A brief word to Patrick Moore:

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 12:16 pm

Fuck off.

That is all. 

April 26, 2007

Enough is Enough

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 12:45 pm

Just a quick foray out of hibernation to say goodbye and explain my reasons for quitting. I’ve had it with the feminist ‘blogosphere’, and I won’t be blogging again, at least not in this guise. There’s been some seriously fucked-up shit going on recently, and it’s reached the point where I’m finding it quite frightening, which seems like a pretty good indication that I should get the hell out.

A word before I go: I’ve said it before, but I wish we could look beyond our differences. What’s more important – retreading the porn debate for the 1958346th time, or discussing how we can help and support women in the real world? Women are dying, every day, while we go round and round our silly little circular arguments, trading the same old insults. What is this achieving?

I’m sick of the hatred; I’m sick of the pettyness; I’m sick of the obsessiveness and insularity. I’m sick of the threats – from both sides of the debate – which are becoming more personal and real by the day. There are documented cases of bloggers being ‘outed’, tracked down and physically attacked. Does this stupid feud have to end in actual physical harm before we come to our senses?

And so I’m done. I’ll still read, and I may well comment once in a while, but I won’t be writing any more posts. Enough is enough.

Lucy

February 22, 2007

Woohoo!

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 5:11 pm

Now this is the best news I’ve heard in a long while. About bloody time too.

February 15, 2007

Talking Foetuses

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 10:59 pm

Below is the text of a letter I have just sent to Channel 4 to complain about this programme

“Dear Sir/ Madam,

I am writing to complain about the programme ‘Miracles In The Womb’, which was shown tonight (15th Feb) on Channel 4. While the footage used in the programme was fascinating, the voice-over was misleading in its descriptions of the foetuses as ‘fighting’, ‘kissing’ and ‘playing’ with each other. Foetuses at the stage of development shown do not have the mental capacity knowingly to interact in these ways, and the programme did not make this clear.

The sentimentalisation of the gestation process was made worse by the appalling poetry, which seemed to imply that foetuses have thoughts, feelings and personalities, and resembled the propaganda put out by the ‘pro-life’ movement. Although it was not intended to be entirely serious, the portrayal of unborn babies as fully conscious, thinking beings simply gives ammunition to those who want to restrict women’s right to abortion. How many women facing the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy will have been confused and distressed by this programme?

The gestation and birth of babies is fascinating enough without the addition of this disingenuous and misleading rubbish.

Yours faithfully…”

What could have been a fascinating piece of television ( it followed the conception and gestation of multiple pregnancies) was ruined by the portrayal of foetuses as miniature people, complete with behaviour such as fighting and kissing. At no point did the voiceover explain that you can’t kiss without feeling affection, and that a foetus of five months’ gestation is not capable of emotions. Even worse was the ‘poetry’ – as a poetry lover, I hesitate to use the term – depicting the foetuses as having actual personalities. It was disturbingly reminiscent of those pro-life propaganda pieces written from the point of view of an unborn ‘baby’.

Channel 4 likes to portray itself as progressive and liberal, so I don’t know what it was thinking when it commissioned this crap. I await their response with interest.

Anyone Know…

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 10:22 am

what’s happened to Gendergeek? They haven’t updated the site since June, and now it seems to have disappeared.

February 14, 2007

Depressed

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 12:04 pm

This is not a good time to be a feminist in the UK (mind you, when is it ever?). Two stories in particular are causing my current pessimism:

Rape is trivialised for entertainment purposes in this BBC ‘reality’ TV show

The owners of Harley Street in London has banned abortion clinics from its premises

It just never stops.

Witchy and Johann Hari both watched ‘The Verdict’ so I didn’t have to, and their accounts confirm what I suspected. The ‘celebrities’ involved (as a jury on a fictional rape case) display all the ignorance and prejudice of the general public on this topic.  They questioned the victim’s behaviour, claimed she was ‘asking for it’, and bought wholesale the stereotype of the rapist as evil stranger (‘but they seem such nice boys!’ whined Patsy Palmer. Yes, because all rapists are ugly, mouth-breathing men who lurk in alleyways).

I don’t know what the BBC were trying to achieve with this programme, but they’ve clearly failed spectacularly. Rape trials are a joke anyway – why not just broadcast a real one for the entertainment of the masses?

As for the abortion story, it just makes me weary, to be honest:

Clinics offering abortions and cosmetic surgery have been banned from opening in the UK’s most famous medical district. The move has been made by Howard de Walden Estate, which owns many of the properties in London’s Harley Street. Officials said they were trying to move away from “lifestyle procedures” to become a centre of medical excellence”

I’m sick of the pro-forced-birth movement clawing to gain the moral high ground. How dare they dismiss abortion as a ‘lifestyle procedure’ along with cosmetic surgery? Do they honestly think women have abortions on a whim, the way they might decide to try botox? Do they have any idea how offensive that is?

Why do we have to keep having the same arguments again and again? Once more with feeling: your religion does not give you the right to impose your morals on me or anyone else. Believe whatever wacky thing you want – sky daddy, virgin birth, infallible pope, whatthefuckever – but don’t think for a minute that your beliefs make you morally superior.

So, I’m not feeling too positive about UK women’s rights just now. There’s better news in Portugal though, where the government has just pledged to legalise abortion in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. At least Portugese feminists have something to celebrate.

EDIT: I was angry when I wrote this. I feel I should clarify that I don’t include all religious people in my rant above – I realise that plenty of them are not out to impose their morals on other people. Hope that’s clear.

February 1, 2007

Give Me Strength

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 2:02 pm

Kelis has been interviewed in the Guardian. One of the questions: Do you consider yourself a feminist?

 “KELIS: No… There’s a really negative connotation with the word feminist. I have no penis envy. I love being a woman, I love women. I think we are special and spectacular in so many different ways, but the connotation behind feminism is generally that we hate men; you know, we don’t shave our legs. But if the word feminist just means a female who is comfortable in her own skin and doesn’t apologise for it, then yes. I don’t apologise for being a woman or being who I am.”

Remind me to delete her album from my iPod. Oh, and get myself a penis, seeing as I’m apparently so envious of those who have them…

January 31, 2007

5.7%

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 3:32 pm

‘Bees’ and ‘Wasps’ unite! Here’s something we can all get furious about.

Conviction rates for rape in the UK are low, and getting lower. In the worst-performing county in 2004 (go Gloucestershire! What an accolade!), only one case out of 116 resulted in a conviction. One case – that’s a conviction rate of 0.86%. The ‘best-performing’ county, Northamptonshire, managed to reach the dizzy heights of 14%. The average is around 5.7%.

All this is made even worse, of course, when we take into account the number of rapes that are not even reported – generally thought to be between 80 and 90%. The best-case scenario, then, is that 14% of 20% of all rapes lead to a conviction. However you look at it, that’s a hell of a lot of rapists walking the streets.

The extraordinary thing about these statistics is the relentless downward trend. In 1980 women had a one in three chance of seeing their rapist put away. Why, in an age of ‘post-feminism’, when feminism is supposedly no longer needed, is rape seen as an irrelevance?

Look at the comments section of the BBC article. Man after man whines about miscarriages of justice, false allegations and ‘her word against his’. What are the women saying?

“I was raped when I was 15 and still a virgin.”

“I was raped in December 2005 and I never reported it to the police. Mostly because I knew it wouldn’t be taken seriously”

“I was involved in a high profile rape case where a photographer I visited ‘tried’ to rape me. I did not report this as I felt in some way to blame as I felt that I should have not have put myself in the situation in the first place.”

Rape victims are coming forward, speaking up, and still society blocks its ears to their testimony. Women lie; women are sluts; women get drunk; women walk home alone; women wear short skirts, women accept lifts from friends; women are dirty; women deserve it. Never mind the women; what about the men?

What will it take for people to pay attention? How many more suicides? How many more lives destroyed? How many more rapists freed to rape again? Look me in the eye now and tell me we don’t need feminism. We will need feminism as long as there is even one woman who sees her attacker walk free.

January 29, 2007

Who’s Immoral?

Filed under: Feminism — by Lucy @ 2:57 pm

Let me get this straight (no pun intended). Gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt because their ‘lifestyle’ is ‘immoral’, yet pieces of shit like this are just fine as potential carers, simply because they labelled themselves Christian?

Being ‘Christian’ – in fact, belonging to any religion at all – does not automatically make you fit to look after children. In many cases, it seems to make you less fit – after all, the parents in the above article believed they were doing God’s will when they savagely beat their adopted son and left him to die. The Catholic Church doesn’t have such a great track record, either – read this for a horrific account of abuse in Catholic-run orphanages.

None of this means, of course, that all religious people are a menace to children – no-one sane could argue that. So why then are the religious lobby trying to make the same argument in relation to gay people? Would they really rather see a child placed in an insitution than send her to live with a loving gay couple? What is it that terrifies them so much?

These bigots need to examine their own behaviour, and that of their fellow ‘Christians’, before claiming the moral high ground. If other people’s consensual sex lives are more important to them than the welfare of the children they claim to care about, it’s they who are immoral – not the gay people they so despise.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.