Honestly, I'm going to at least try to be nice about this. I'm nice to the people on my own timeline - I call them racist dickheads but I don't ban them, or go round their houses to administer a slap or anything. And it's not at all unreasonable to have been upset by the murder of Lee Rigby. It was pretty fucking horrible that a young man was hacked to death in the street, in broad daylight. He had a family and friends who loved him and who are going to be in terrible distress.
But if you're handling your understandable upset by showing yourself to be a racist dickhead, then your arse is going to get metaphorically kicked on Facebook. It probably won't get kicked in the pub or at work or while you're walking down the street, because the vast majority of people still don't actually feel that it's OK to launch a physical attack someone they disagree with. The majority of people, whether or not they have religious beliefs (and whether that's Jesus, Allah or the Tooth Fairy), prefer to get on with their neighbours, love and be loved and just enjoy their lives without starting pointless fights about nothing. However, people are a little happier to be a little more assertive when it comes to online discussion. So, naturally, after the incident in Woolwich, everyone with internet access has been squalling at everyone else. And an awful lot of people who previously posted about nothing more alarming than their cats/dogs/hamsters and their delicious lunch suddenly found themselves getting unfriended.
So here's why unfriending might have happened to you.
1) You are whining about immigration.
This automatically marks you out as a lazy, complacent moron. Go and look up the actual facts and figures.
2) You are whining about Islam.
Religion is, as I previously stated, bullshit and frankly ludicrous. So is football. Look at it this way - if people wearing shirts that announced their allegiance to your favourite football team went out and committed a hideous crime, would you think it was fair and reasonable for anyone who knew that you supported the team in question to blame you for the actions of the nutters? That's what you're doing when you start insisting that 'Muslims' apologise for Lee Terry's death. If Fred West, Harold Shipman, Ian Huntley or Stuart Hazell professed allegiance to a football team, should the players be expected to make big public statements dissociating themselves from murderous individuals, or is it just understood, because the players are predominantly white heterosexual men, that they are not responsible for a crime committed by individuals who happen to be in the same labelled box.
Tuesday, 28 May 2013
Thursday, 23 May 2013
'Culture,' violence and prejudice
Predictably, the bucketheads are out in force all over the internet, following the murder of a squaddie in Woolwich yesterday. Along with the usual sentimentalism of candles and poppies cluttering up Facebook, aside of the blatant racism of EDL wankstains, the two main themes are 'Stop being nasty about religion' and 'I'm not a racist, but...'.
Religion is quite simply the biggest mistake humanity ever made: a way of allowing bullies to seize and retain power over whole groups of other people in an unending game of 'My imaginary friend says you have to do what I say because my imaginary friend has chosen me as a Special Person'; they just change the rules every time it looks like they might be about to lose. This doesn't stop plenty of people who subscribe to one or other religion from being perfectly lovely, decent, kind, non-violent, ordinary human beings. They've imagined a friend for themselves who might be a bit funny about diet and dress sense but generally expects them to be nice to their neighbours, fair in their dealings and happy in their lives. The existence of subdivisions in all the myth systems demonstrates that plenty of people are happy to remake their imaginary friend in a kinder, gentler style and interpret the myths in a broadly pro-social fashion, though unfortunately plenty of others are just as fond of reinterpreting the tropes to justify a revolting, bigoted, dangerous worldview. Think Westboro Baptist Church for an easy, obvious example.
As to the racism, the more details of this ghastly incident emerge, the more it looks like a couple of psychotic crackheads rather than an organised, politically motivated attack. It seems like it's only 'terrorism' (and an excuse for attacks on whole groups and classes of other people) when the murderers are, well, Not White. White loners weren't investigated or abused-as-a-group after the revolting David Copeland planted his nail bombs in the late 90s. Even though Copeland was in fact a neo-Nazi, there was no muttering and sideways looks at any young man with a shaved head, or suggestions that all white people needed to denounce him or be labelled BNP supporters.
But if we're going to start going after pressure groups and people with unpleasant opinions that could be said to incide others to murder, then what about Fathers 4 Justice? Where are they when, as has already happened two or three times this year, a man murders his own children to punish his wife for leaving him? Strictly speaking F4J could be and perhaps should be described as a terrorist organisation. Several of their members have convictions for violence, and the stuff that their members like to spout on discussion forums can be seriously frightening due to their blind, frenzied hatred of women. Yet misogyny is still seen as not terribly important. Well, unless you want to air a bit more Islamophobia and remember to tack it on at the end of your rant about foreigners...
Religion is quite simply the biggest mistake humanity ever made: a way of allowing bullies to seize and retain power over whole groups of other people in an unending game of 'My imaginary friend says you have to do what I say because my imaginary friend has chosen me as a Special Person'; they just change the rules every time it looks like they might be about to lose. This doesn't stop plenty of people who subscribe to one or other religion from being perfectly lovely, decent, kind, non-violent, ordinary human beings. They've imagined a friend for themselves who might be a bit funny about diet and dress sense but generally expects them to be nice to their neighbours, fair in their dealings and happy in their lives. The existence of subdivisions in all the myth systems demonstrates that plenty of people are happy to remake their imaginary friend in a kinder, gentler style and interpret the myths in a broadly pro-social fashion, though unfortunately plenty of others are just as fond of reinterpreting the tropes to justify a revolting, bigoted, dangerous worldview. Think Westboro Baptist Church for an easy, obvious example.
As to the racism, the more details of this ghastly incident emerge, the more it looks like a couple of psychotic crackheads rather than an organised, politically motivated attack. It seems like it's only 'terrorism' (and an excuse for attacks on whole groups and classes of other people) when the murderers are, well, Not White. White loners weren't investigated or abused-as-a-group after the revolting David Copeland planted his nail bombs in the late 90s. Even though Copeland was in fact a neo-Nazi, there was no muttering and sideways looks at any young man with a shaved head, or suggestions that all white people needed to denounce him or be labelled BNP supporters.
But if we're going to start going after pressure groups and people with unpleasant opinions that could be said to incide others to murder, then what about Fathers 4 Justice? Where are they when, as has already happened two or three times this year, a man murders his own children to punish his wife for leaving him? Strictly speaking F4J could be and perhaps should be described as a terrorist organisation. Several of their members have convictions for violence, and the stuff that their members like to spout on discussion forums can be seriously frightening due to their blind, frenzied hatred of women. Yet misogyny is still seen as not terribly important. Well, unless you want to air a bit more Islamophobia and remember to tack it on at the end of your rant about foreigners...
Monday, 8 April 2013
Thatcher Bingo.
So it's going to be a right old shitstorm for the next few days. My deep and sincere condolences to anyone launching a new product, promoting an event or even beginning a single-issue campaign to make some aspect of the world a little better: you've all been thoroughly Joplinned.
Given that there's going to be little opportunity to read about or talk about anything else, may I offer you a chance to play a quick game of Dead Politician Bingo? And just to make it more interesting, the first person to get a full house and send it to me (links required) will get a prize of some description.
Here you go...
1) Sharing of links to footage of The Wizard Of Oz
2) Quoting any lyrics from Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead
3) Furious condemnation of a FB friend's 'lack of respect for the dead'.
4) Tony Blair doing his pompous gloopy-eyed professionally sad number
5) 'Feminist icon.'
6) Spectacularly misognyistic comment from leftwing male
7) 'She made this country great again'
8) Bizarre point-missing comment from minor celebrity not famous for intellectual abililty
9) Shouting about own working class credentials prior to unleashing stream of vitriol.
10) Shouting about own working class credentials prior to championing Thatcher's greatness
11) Obvious confusing of Meryl Streep biopic with actual events
12) Rant about Hillsborough from someone who was still in nappies when Tony Blair was elected and who has never been within 100 miles of Liverpool
13) 'Arthur Scargill was a bastard too'
14) 'David Cameron is worse'
15) Reference to drinking champagne
16) Picture of mountain of plastic-wrapped flowers laid somewhere and speculation as to whether that's a stock shot from some other disaster...
I might add a new bingo card later...
Given that there's going to be little opportunity to read about or talk about anything else, may I offer you a chance to play a quick game of Dead Politician Bingo? And just to make it more interesting, the first person to get a full house and send it to me (links required) will get a prize of some description.
Here you go...
1) Sharing of links to footage of The Wizard Of Oz
2) Quoting any lyrics from Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead
3) Furious condemnation of a FB friend's 'lack of respect for the dead'.
4) Tony Blair doing his pompous gloopy-eyed professionally sad number
5) 'Feminist icon.'
6) Spectacularly misognyistic comment from leftwing male
7) 'She made this country great again'
8) Bizarre point-missing comment from minor celebrity not famous for intellectual abililty
9) Shouting about own working class credentials prior to unleashing stream of vitriol.
10) Shouting about own working class credentials prior to championing Thatcher's greatness
11) Obvious confusing of Meryl Streep biopic with actual events
12) Rant about Hillsborough from someone who was still in nappies when Tony Blair was elected and who has never been within 100 miles of Liverpool
13) 'Arthur Scargill was a bastard too'
14) 'David Cameron is worse'
15) Reference to drinking champagne
16) Picture of mountain of plastic-wrapped flowers laid somewhere and speculation as to whether that's a stock shot from some other disaster...
I might add a new bingo card later...
Sunday, 7 April 2013
Stupid, wicked, or completely and utterly alien?
I'm not a great one for conspiracy theories, on the whole. Even though I have been known to rant about The Patriarchy after a pint or two, I don't consider it to be a cunning plan cooked up among half a dozen old white men sitting in a secret room. Nor have I ever been convinced by all that Illuminati/giant lizard overlords crap.
But looking at the antics of the current government keeps on making me wonder.
What the FUCK are these people thinking?
It simply doesn't make economic sense to carry on making poor people poorer. If they have no money, they don't buy things. If shops don't sell things, they close down. Then there are more poor people, and then they get even poorer.
So are the Lizardpeople operating with the idea that the creation of a desperate serf class will be profitable to big businesses by means of workfare? Again, it doesn't really make economic sense for the proprietors of shops selling cheap stuff to cut their labour costs by using bonded slaves: the bonded slaves can't afford to buy the stuff and the wealthy minority don't want to buy it. So who is going to buy it?
Is it malevolence that's driving them? Is it really just a matter of getting off on seeing how utterly you can crush people and make them suffer? Is part of the fun persuading them to tear each other to pieces while you watch? I've heard that ten percent of the population is made up of genuine psychopaths; people incapable of feeling empathy, guilt or remorse, but I doubt that people filled with a hatred and spite as deep and all-consuming as that would be capable of doing the work involved in getting elected without, you know, cracking up and biting some local newspaper hack's face off for asking awkward questions.
Or is it a pure and deluded selfishness, where they insist that because they are all right and can manage on £50 a week if they had to (forgetting that they have comfortable houses, well-stocked freezers and larders and expense accounts to sort out the washing machine when it dies) the only reason others fail to do so is because they are thick and lazy? I think that selfishness mixed with ignorance is the likeliest answer. They neither know nor care how profoundly isolating it is to be poor, how hopeless and excluded the impoverished can feel. The poor are mocked for wanting or having any kind of electrical gadgets, for instance, yet if you don't have internet access, you are pretty much crippled in many ways. It costs more to pay your bills if you can't do it online. Jobs are often advertised online only. You can't 'just' use the internet at your local library because it's been closed down.
You can't shop and cook in a healthy, sensible fashion if you are very poor, because you are restricted to the shops within walking distance, which probably only sell overpriced horsemeat readymeals and Pot Noodles anyway - you don't have freezer space to batch cook in your tiny kitchen and you may not be physically strong enough to lug sacks of potatoes and rice up six flights of stairs with a toddler in a buggy.
Immense inequality is harmful for everyone. Yet the government seem to be operating, at present, as though if they keep blaming the poor for their poverty long enough, the poor will conveniently die off.
But looking at the antics of the current government keeps on making me wonder.
What the FUCK are these people thinking?
It simply doesn't make economic sense to carry on making poor people poorer. If they have no money, they don't buy things. If shops don't sell things, they close down. Then there are more poor people, and then they get even poorer.
So are the Lizardpeople operating with the idea that the creation of a desperate serf class will be profitable to big businesses by means of workfare? Again, it doesn't really make economic sense for the proprietors of shops selling cheap stuff to cut their labour costs by using bonded slaves: the bonded slaves can't afford to buy the stuff and the wealthy minority don't want to buy it. So who is going to buy it?
Is it malevolence that's driving them? Is it really just a matter of getting off on seeing how utterly you can crush people and make them suffer? Is part of the fun persuading them to tear each other to pieces while you watch? I've heard that ten percent of the population is made up of genuine psychopaths; people incapable of feeling empathy, guilt or remorse, but I doubt that people filled with a hatred and spite as deep and all-consuming as that would be capable of doing the work involved in getting elected without, you know, cracking up and biting some local newspaper hack's face off for asking awkward questions.
Or is it a pure and deluded selfishness, where they insist that because they are all right and can manage on £50 a week if they had to (forgetting that they have comfortable houses, well-stocked freezers and larders and expense accounts to sort out the washing machine when it dies) the only reason others fail to do so is because they are thick and lazy? I think that selfishness mixed with ignorance is the likeliest answer. They neither know nor care how profoundly isolating it is to be poor, how hopeless and excluded the impoverished can feel. The poor are mocked for wanting or having any kind of electrical gadgets, for instance, yet if you don't have internet access, you are pretty much crippled in many ways. It costs more to pay your bills if you can't do it online. Jobs are often advertised online only. You can't 'just' use the internet at your local library because it's been closed down.
You can't shop and cook in a healthy, sensible fashion if you are very poor, because you are restricted to the shops within walking distance, which probably only sell overpriced horsemeat readymeals and Pot Noodles anyway - you don't have freezer space to batch cook in your tiny kitchen and you may not be physically strong enough to lug sacks of potatoes and rice up six flights of stairs with a toddler in a buggy.
Immense inequality is harmful for everyone. Yet the government seem to be operating, at present, as though if they keep blaming the poor for their poverty long enough, the poor will conveniently die off.
Friday, 22 March 2013
Pranks and Prejudice: Littlejohn versus Christian and Greig
Michael Christian and Mel Greig, in case you've forgotten, are were recently most evil disc jockeys in the world, because they took the piss out of the Royal Family via a prank call to a nurse, Jacintha Saldhana, who subsequently killed herself. That they lost that not-so-coveted position is probably more due to the role of most evil DJ being suddenly and comprehensively taken over by a more deserving candidate, of course. Julie Burchill got herself similarly shoved off the winners' podium in the Great Transphobic Stakes this week by the thoroughly loathsome Richard Littlejohn, again a far more deserving candidate for the post.
It can seem, sometimes, as though gobbing off is a worse crime than actually picking up a lump of wood and having at someone.People who say things, write things, draw things, sing about things in ways which are 'offensive' can get vilified or punished far more than some of the people who actually assault or kill others. The sentences given to Justin Lee Collins and Matthew Woods in the same week would bear that theory out, as I said at the time
On the whole, I've always been on the side of the writers and the speakers and the artists when the views they have expressed have upset someone or other - even if the views expressed have upset me. However obnoxious someone's views, I believe in their right to hold and express those views, and have always maintained that the best way to deal with the public airing of ignorance, bigotry, misinformation or propaganda is to allow room for the equally public countering of such stuff. When something bad happens, someone somewhere always starts insisting that censorship of some kind is the way to stop it happening again, but this is never, ever true. Censorship doesn't stop spite, it doesn't stop ignorance, and it doesn't stop violence.
Holding Greig and Christian responsible for Jacintha Saldhana's death was always ridiculous and wrong. They had no intention of hurting her, certainly no intention at all of driving her to kill herself: they were thoughtlessly pratting about with little or no malice attached. Julie Burchill's notorious rant against transpeople was a piece of fuckwitted bigotry but still only the expression of an unpleasant opinion. Richard Littlejohn's piece about Lucy Meadows, on the other hand, almost certainly led directly to her death. He may claim that he didn't want her to die, but he certainly wanted her to suffer. He wanted her to lose her job, leave her home and be shunned by her community. He said so, in his piece.
There was no justification whatsoever for publishing that piece in a national newspaper. Lucy Meadows wasn't a celebrity, she wasn't a criminal, she wasn't a campaigner seeking recognition for a cause, just someone trying to get on with her life. Her story wasn't 'news'. It had no relevance to the vast majority of Daily Mail readers, apart from feeding their prejudices. But the publication of that story, according to emails she sent to friends, pretty much killed her by making her life unbearable. Not only were the press hounding her and her family and friends, but enough identifying information was given in the police to allow every knuckle-dragging keyboard warrior in the country to track her down and bombard her with abuse.
Before writing this post, I did a bit of googling based on a vague memory of there being a crime of Malicious Publication ie making someone's private life public for no good reason. Unfortunately, I'd remembered it wrong: at the moment, you only have legal redress if what is published about you is untrue. There should be a law against publicising the details of anyone's personal life for no reason other than to insult or mock them when the person has not in any way sought attention or publicity. The implementation of something like that might be a fitting memorial to Ms Meadows. Well, that and and end to the idea that transpeople are the minority it's OK to hate and laugh at, just because you think they're not like you.
It can seem, sometimes, as though gobbing off is a worse crime than actually picking up a lump of wood and having at someone.People who say things, write things, draw things, sing about things in ways which are 'offensive' can get vilified or punished far more than some of the people who actually assault or kill others. The sentences given to Justin Lee Collins and Matthew Woods in the same week would bear that theory out, as I said at the time
On the whole, I've always been on the side of the writers and the speakers and the artists when the views they have expressed have upset someone or other - even if the views expressed have upset me. However obnoxious someone's views, I believe in their right to hold and express those views, and have always maintained that the best way to deal with the public airing of ignorance, bigotry, misinformation or propaganda is to allow room for the equally public countering of such stuff. When something bad happens, someone somewhere always starts insisting that censorship of some kind is the way to stop it happening again, but this is never, ever true. Censorship doesn't stop spite, it doesn't stop ignorance, and it doesn't stop violence.
Holding Greig and Christian responsible for Jacintha Saldhana's death was always ridiculous and wrong. They had no intention of hurting her, certainly no intention at all of driving her to kill herself: they were thoughtlessly pratting about with little or no malice attached. Julie Burchill's notorious rant against transpeople was a piece of fuckwitted bigotry but still only the expression of an unpleasant opinion. Richard Littlejohn's piece about Lucy Meadows, on the other hand, almost certainly led directly to her death. He may claim that he didn't want her to die, but he certainly wanted her to suffer. He wanted her to lose her job, leave her home and be shunned by her community. He said so, in his piece.
There was no justification whatsoever for publishing that piece in a national newspaper. Lucy Meadows wasn't a celebrity, she wasn't a criminal, she wasn't a campaigner seeking recognition for a cause, just someone trying to get on with her life. Her story wasn't 'news'. It had no relevance to the vast majority of Daily Mail readers, apart from feeding their prejudices. But the publication of that story, according to emails she sent to friends, pretty much killed her by making her life unbearable. Not only were the press hounding her and her family and friends, but enough identifying information was given in the police to allow every knuckle-dragging keyboard warrior in the country to track her down and bombard her with abuse.
Before writing this post, I did a bit of googling based on a vague memory of there being a crime of Malicious Publication ie making someone's private life public for no good reason. Unfortunately, I'd remembered it wrong: at the moment, you only have legal redress if what is published about you is untrue. There should be a law against publicising the details of anyone's personal life for no reason other than to insult or mock them when the person has not in any way sought attention or publicity. The implementation of something like that might be a fitting memorial to Ms Meadows. Well, that and and end to the idea that transpeople are the minority it's OK to hate and laugh at, just because you think they're not like you.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Rape Myths: what are they good for?
In the light of the BBC's recent helpful reminder to the rest of us that men's reputations matter more than women's safety - the DPP announced that false accusations of rape are actually quite rare, the Beeb reported this by yowling and yammering about how awful it is to be accused of rape when you haven't done it. Well, yes it is, though I would venture to say that it's probably a bit less awful than, you know, actually being raped.
Rape myths, however, they can't be that awful, because so many people seem to love them so much. In some cases I can see why: the myths around what kind of women get raped function as a kind of magical talisman to many women. If rapists pick on provocatively dressed, drunk, flirty women who walk home alone, the fairytale goes, then by staying sober, covering up and never going out unaccompanied by your male owner, you will be protected from rape. It's understandable to want to believe that if you are Good and Careful and Obedient, bad shit won't happen to you, but unfortunately it's stupid and wrong. Bad shit happens to Nice Girls all the time. Bad shit happens to nice people through no fault of their own, all the time.
The myths surrounding false accusations are a bit more problematic, though. Yes, sure, there are cases of mistaken identity, when the attacker was a stranger and the police pick up someone of a similar physical appearance, or when the victim is too frightened of the real assailant to name him and therefore accuses someone else. Being falsely accused of a crime is a dreadful thing to experience, especially if the crime is an unusually nasty one, to the extent that being accused of it puts you at risk of vengeance from the victim, the victim's family or indeed the local self-righteous hate mob. People wrongly accused of crimes have every right to battle for a public acknowledgement of their innocence, no problem with that. But this insistence that women are always, or at least nearly always, or at least loads and loads of times, really lying about rape, that's a bit more worrying.
Sometimes, no one wants to believe a man's a rapist because he's Such A Wonderful Man. Charming, friendly, good-looking, wealthy... Does a lot for charity. Give me a J, give me an I, give me a double M - you can see where that one's going, can't you? I think that sometimes people who want to believe that a woman accusing a popular, successful man of rape must be lying are simply not wanting to doubt their own judgement. They like or even love the man, they would have known if he was a rapist, how could they be wrong about him? Underlying this is also, perhaps, the unspoken assumption that a Wonderful Man is actually entitled to have sex on whoever or whatever he wants, because he is important, and the victims are less so, with the real bottom line being that they are only women, after all. They must be jealous, or mad, or money-hungry, or something else wicked.
The nastier myth is that women accuse men of rape after sex because they are stupid, vengeful or don't know their own minds. A woman will claim to have been raped if the man didn't want to see her again, or went back to his wife, or didn't give her an orgasm, or because she doesn't want people to think she's a slut, or because she was drunk and now she's thinking it wasn't such a good idea to have sex with him - so goes this myth. And it's entirely misogynistic, because it portrays women as desperate, spiteful idiots who are incapable of having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it but use it as a form of currency and then want the equivalent of their money's worth. The thing is, women generally know the difference between crap sex and rape. We've often had crap sex with men - sometimes he promised undying love right up until the moment he took the condom off and then all of a sudden he wanted to go home, sometimes we did get a bit pissed and shag the bloke from the kebab shop when we shouldn't have, sometimes he was just a really rubbish shag and farted all the way through the performance while calling us Mummy or something. But that's just crap sex, we shrug it off, learn from it if necessary and move on. It just seems very likely indeed that the sort of men who insist that women are lying about rape because they can't tell the difference between assault and unsatisfactory sex are the men who are actually raping women and don't see why they should be held accountable for doing so.
Rape myths, however, they can't be that awful, because so many people seem to love them so much. In some cases I can see why: the myths around what kind of women get raped function as a kind of magical talisman to many women. If rapists pick on provocatively dressed, drunk, flirty women who walk home alone, the fairytale goes, then by staying sober, covering up and never going out unaccompanied by your male owner, you will be protected from rape. It's understandable to want to believe that if you are Good and Careful and Obedient, bad shit won't happen to you, but unfortunately it's stupid and wrong. Bad shit happens to Nice Girls all the time. Bad shit happens to nice people through no fault of their own, all the time.
The myths surrounding false accusations are a bit more problematic, though. Yes, sure, there are cases of mistaken identity, when the attacker was a stranger and the police pick up someone of a similar physical appearance, or when the victim is too frightened of the real assailant to name him and therefore accuses someone else. Being falsely accused of a crime is a dreadful thing to experience, especially if the crime is an unusually nasty one, to the extent that being accused of it puts you at risk of vengeance from the victim, the victim's family or indeed the local self-righteous hate mob. People wrongly accused of crimes have every right to battle for a public acknowledgement of their innocence, no problem with that. But this insistence that women are always, or at least nearly always, or at least loads and loads of times, really lying about rape, that's a bit more worrying.
Sometimes, no one wants to believe a man's a rapist because he's Such A Wonderful Man. Charming, friendly, good-looking, wealthy... Does a lot for charity. Give me a J, give me an I, give me a double M - you can see where that one's going, can't you? I think that sometimes people who want to believe that a woman accusing a popular, successful man of rape must be lying are simply not wanting to doubt their own judgement. They like or even love the man, they would have known if he was a rapist, how could they be wrong about him? Underlying this is also, perhaps, the unspoken assumption that a Wonderful Man is actually entitled to have sex on whoever or whatever he wants, because he is important, and the victims are less so, with the real bottom line being that they are only women, after all. They must be jealous, or mad, or money-hungry, or something else wicked.
The nastier myth is that women accuse men of rape after sex because they are stupid, vengeful or don't know their own minds. A woman will claim to have been raped if the man didn't want to see her again, or went back to his wife, or didn't give her an orgasm, or because she doesn't want people to think she's a slut, or because she was drunk and now she's thinking it wasn't such a good idea to have sex with him - so goes this myth. And it's entirely misogynistic, because it portrays women as desperate, spiteful idiots who are incapable of having sex for the sheer enjoyment of it but use it as a form of currency and then want the equivalent of their money's worth. The thing is, women generally know the difference between crap sex and rape. We've often had crap sex with men - sometimes he promised undying love right up until the moment he took the condom off and then all of a sudden he wanted to go home, sometimes we did get a bit pissed and shag the bloke from the kebab shop when we shouldn't have, sometimes he was just a really rubbish shag and farted all the way through the performance while calling us Mummy or something. But that's just crap sex, we shrug it off, learn from it if necessary and move on. It just seems very likely indeed that the sort of men who insist that women are lying about rape because they can't tell the difference between assault and unsatisfactory sex are the men who are actually raping women and don't see why they should be held accountable for doing so.
(I haven't put any pictures on this one. Maybe you'd like to find yourself some Lolcats or something to lighten the mood a little, the Interweb is not short of them...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)