I'd rather be called a "Fat-Hairy-Man-Hating-Lesbian" than a Non-Feminist!

Apparently lots of women are deterred from embracing feminism or calling themselves feminists - even if they speak and act like one, for fear of being put in the fat-hairy-man-hating-lesbian bag (check out all the defenses against this by typing "feminism" into YouTube). This shows just how undermined and vulnerable womens egos and self-esteem are within patriarchy... weren't we told "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me"? A few little insults shouldn't stop women from sticking up for their right to be respected as human, equal, not to be commoditised or abused- surely?

What is the opposite of this oh-so-terrible-insult?:

....the skinny-waxed-man-pleasing-straight-woman......

Let just say that one again, but this time as an insult:



"YOU-SKINNY-WAXED-MAN-PLEASING-STRAIGHT-WOMAN!"



This to me sounds no less of an insult - I'd hate someone to shout that at me. Sounds like a different way of saying "lame" or "vacuous" or "tool"........ Yet this is what patriarchy is constantly telling us to be:.... a lame, vacuous tool in the form of a skinny-waxed-man-pleasing-straight-woman... We see this woman all around us, all the time, getting to positions of prominance to smile back like some Stepford Wife role model. She found her way out of the porn mags, into the mainstream media and now lives and breathes all around us in all the women who feel pressure to turn themselves into walking sex-dolls wearing inappropriately little or suggestive clothing, and strategically hiding their own intelligance to avoid graft.

What self-respecting woman would rather belong this camp than call herself a feminist? There must be something really powerful in the FHMHL insult to make it put women off of the issue of their own liberation and behave in demeaning ways.Lets de-construct the insult word by word:

So' FAT' - what is so wrong with fat?


Aside from the health issues, which are not gender based, what is objectively wrong with it?

1. Some men find it sexually offputting.


Answer: Who gives a shit? If a man is so easily turned off of sex by a few extra curves, perhaps he is the one who needs help.

2.Clothes look better on skinny people.

Answer: No they don't, they just look more like the images we a spoonfed daily. Fat people can look just as good.

So 'HAIRY' - what is so wrong with hairiness?

1. Some men find it sexually offputting.

Answer: Who gives a shit? If a man is so easily turned off of sex by a bit of body hair, perhaps he is the one who needs help.

2. It looks ape-like and bestial.

Answer: We are actually apes. Apes that have successfully partnered and bred long before the razor was introduced.


So "MAN-HATING", what's so bad about that?

1. It makes us look like we are angry and 'emotional' i.e. not rational.

Answer: There are men like Hugh Hefner, Larry Flint, Peter Stringfellow, Rupert Murdoch, etc, etc, etc, who make themselves rich from making women look foolish and encouraging a culture where rape looks respectable. What's not to hate? It is perfectly rational to hate them and irrational to defend them. And I'd also like to stand up and say I AM FUCKING ANGRY!!!!

2. It makes it look like we blame men as individuals.

Answer: Until all men examine their learned unconscious behaviours which propagate the oppression of women, the work of feminism cannot be completed.

And 'LESBIAN', what's so bad about that?

1. It puts us in the same catagory as a group which is the subject of ridicule and mocking.

Answer: It also puts us in the same catagory as some of the most dynamic, uncompromising and achieving women in the world (Its amazing what women can acheive when they are not stuck solely tending home, hearth and husband).

2. It suggests that we don't want sex with men.

Answer: If that were true we'd have a much easier life.

So surely, we can move beyond these juvanile insults... We've got the job changing the status quo to get on with!!

Johnny Vegas and Sexual Assault

Recently there has been a debate about what constitutes sexual assault, because Johnny Vegas brought a female audience member up to join him on stage and acted out a 'fairytale' he'd constructed, that would end with the said woman kissing him. All accounts agreed that she was carried onto the stage, rather than walking on of her own free will, all accounts agreed that he sat on top of her, all accounts agreed that they kissed at the end. Most accounts of people who could see agreed that he tried to pull up her skirt, which she resisted and that he groped her breast.

The dispute was aroused by differing interpretations of the woman's responses to what was happening. Some said she looked passive and frightened, like a 'rabbit in the headlights', others said that her visable fright was the same as any audience member when they get hauled on stage, some said she obviously enjoyed the attention. Most agreed she giggled while it was all happening. There were very passionate arguments from those who saw it as sexual assault, and also those who thought it was just funny. This shows there is clearly a huge spectrum of opinion as to the boundary between appropriate conduct and abusive behaviour.

Johnny Vegas' humour seems to have origins in bullying. Often comics say their quick wit was their saving grace to fend off the school bullies, but Johnny Vegas' humour isn't witty. It has a much darker feel. He obviously had early experiences that severely damaged his self-esteem and value of his own life and body. His defense against the bullies, was to bully himself worse than they did, to take the joke further that they did, to punch himself harder than they could, to degrade himself more than they could. It must have always made him an edgy spectacle - a chaotic 'nutter' who probably did get some respect and was included by the gang for his efforts.

A license that tends to be given to people who 'self-bully', is to allow them to bully others without censure. It is a warped version of the 'do as you would be done by' morality. For example Jonathan Ross does this in a very calculated fashion on his Friday Night programme: He will openly admit to something embarrassing that has recently happened to him and get the whole audience to laugh at him, which then gives him license to say something humiliating and offensive to the 'Four Poofs and a Piano' - who have to grit their teeth and smile along because its not the kind of gig they are going to get asked to do twice.

The thing that makes Johnny Vegas' stand up 'edgy' and uncomfortable for the viewer, is that he takes his self-abuse and (therefore 'justified'(?)) abuse of the audience a step further than other comics are willing to do. When I went to see him, he invited someone onto stage, who was obviously attention-seeking, then started to cut the guys hair - big chunks out of it. The audience member would have had to shave it all off the next day. My protestations to the people around me led to the response "well he is an idiot and he deserves it, he should know what to expect at a Johnny Vegas gig". I was aware of something ugly in the attitude of the men saying this - an element of sadism and diminished responsibility -probably not dissimilar to the attitudes of the original 'friends' of the comic that initiated the need for his 'sado-masochist clown' persona to defend against their bullying in the first place.

Johnny Vegas is not calculating in his self-bullying like Jonathan Ross (who makes no bones about his huge salary for being the 'edgy' family man). Vegas does not appear to be a man in control, the fact that he needs to be drunk to perform his stand up is testimony to that. He still seems to be acting out pain, as though he has not moved on from it. He seems to still see the world as a hostile place where he can only be accepted by doing spiritual violence to himself. He appears to have a genuine blind-spot where most people see the need for human dignity.

I think his actions towards the woman on stage were abusive - publicly sitting on a woman and lifting up her skirt when she tugs it in the opposite direction is a clear sign that she wasn't consenting, but I don't think he really understood this or actually intended it, as he is so accustomed to abusing himself that he simply has no idea what appropriate respectful boundaries are.

The confusion amongst the audience members as to whether the woman enjoyed the experience or not, is because of her nervous giggle, that most people let out when they are being bullied in a 'friendly' way - this is a lack of education as to what normal responses to sexual bullying/assault/rape are when committed by 'friends'. For those people that are adamant that nothing abusive occurred on the day, and that it is all good fun, I would say they are naturally more sadistic and less empathetic people than those who recognised the abuse for what it was. For people who care about the suffering of others, rather than laugh at it, even watching Johnny Vegas abusing himself is upsetting. You want to say "Please Stop! You don't have to do this anymore. You can be liked without attacking your own dignity". Johnny Vegas 'fans' are grown-up bullies that get a sadistic pleasure from seeing others degraded.

I have a feeling that the woman herself may have not even realised she was being abused at the time, and it may only hit her at a later date when she starts to have irrational fears and bouts of unexplained anger. Unfortunately for Johnny Vegas, her current silence on the matter is no comfort, because she can go to the police at any time to report it as a crime, so this misjudgement may come back to haunt him yet.

Invasion of the Attention Seekers!!!

Is it just me, or does it not seem too much to ask to be able to sit for a moment, quite content - perhaps daydreaming or reading a book...without being brutally forced out of this state by someone seeking my attention?

Okay, in the case of fire or some other necessary form of communication, it is obvious I should expect to have my attention sought...but what if my attention is taken by someone who wants to get something out of me? Most noticably advertising and annoying, insecure members of the public? Advertisers want my money, and attention seeking people want to validate themselves because of their insecurity. Either way - it is their need for my attention, not anything I want or need from them. Surely I'm entitled to some sanctuary from this onslaught - or at least some recompense?

Capitalism thrives on attention seeking. In an open competitive market it is all down to the survival of the most intrusive advertisers or hot-air-hype-mongers- its all about seeking attention, not sustaining it. Somehow though, things have gone so far down this road that you now have advertising for its own sake. Do you remember how Victoria Beckham was talking about 'breaking America'? For what purpose? What was she actually promoting? Sod-all that's what. This obnoxious behaviour of advertising without representing a product worth having is actually praised as being 'savvy', knowing how to play the media etc. It might make Victoria Beckham seem 'savvy', but it makes me want to top myself.

It is bad when celebrities do it, but what of ordinary members of the public? It's quite understandable that teenagers want to self-advertise for example, by have tinny music playing out of their mobile phones, squawking and screetching on buses, wearing ridiculous clothing, and really trying ostentaciously to look like they are having a 'great time', because they are at an important developmental stage of trying to push boundaries to discover what the adult world actually allows (but really they should be discouraged from doing this outside their own circles). Yet increasingly annoying attention-seeking adults are being given license to go wild without meeting disapproval. Hysterically camp men cannot be criticised or we appear homophobic, women with their cleavages forcefully on show at 10am cannot be criticised or we appear misogynistic, people who use exaggerated body-language and gestures to advertise their self-appointed alpha-status cannot be criticised or we appear to be expressing sour grapes.

Unfortunately the power to advertise completely outweighs the power to remain undestracted. Since the attention-seekers do not adequately self-police, instead competing with one another to get the most attention, all we can do is to turn to the law to try to defend our rattled nerves. We have to use censorship, public-nuisance, noise polution and planning law...all the avenues that make us look like bitter killjoy busy-bodies.

As the future looks set for us to get swamped by attention seekers, there are three options for us:

1. Go with the flow and embrace this shallow culture.

2. Opt out by staying indoors or moving away from the city to a quieter place - i.e.- living a lifestyle that's more like and early retirement - which is deeply unsatisfying if you feel that you have something to offer the world.

3. Embrace a life of using the law, promoting censorship and looking like a bitter, killjoy busybody.

As the third option to me seems like the least of all evils I think it has to be the life for me. I would rather spend my time doing other things though, but such is the burden of someone who just wants to explore my own thoughts without being distracted.

The Killing Camera - Killing Our Truth

Life seen through a lens, printed on paper, projected on a screen, or pixilated. Its not real life, its two-dimensional, frozen. We all live in three recognisable spacial dimensions and a fourth in time. Its hard to remember it when billboards and magazines and media everywhere compete to capture our dreams, hopes and fears and pin them down - cutting deep through our conscious minds to the unconscious, shuffling our hierarchies of importance to fit in with theirs - exploiting us. What does this pop-up book existence do to us? How does it effect our image of our selves, our partners, our jobs, family gatherings, our holidays? What does it do to our expectations?

Imagery is powerful. Detailed information received in a split-second. Words, music, all take time to unfold, but the image doesn't give us a chance to 'switch off and listen no more' if we don't like it. We can be stuck with images no matter how much we try to scrub them from our minds, they are as stubborn as unpleasant memories. We have little defense against the camera - and the people that only want to make money know this very well - taking full advantage.

The current excess of two-dimensional images in metropolitan life is pretty unavoidable, and looks set to become more intrusive. The only obvious way to keep your thoughts your own is to opt out completely - get a farm or join a monastery. Yet there is no logical reason why we shouldn't be able to enjoy an abundant, prosperous and modern life, without it costing us the sovereignty of our unconscious minds - where we must appoint the avaricious minority as guardians of our deepest desires. Human technology, art and enterprise are things that would sell themselves - do we really have to be manipulated to enjoy their products? The products - whether a movie or a cutlery set, generally make our lives better, but the way they are sold to us could be doing us more damage than we realise.

For example - the first rule for people that only want to make money, but avoid prison, is 'sex sells', so a huge percentage of the imagery around us is eroticised, restricted only by the local censorship laws. Yet there is a big difference between what sex means to us personally- in terms of sexual attraction and intimacy, also globally - for the survival of the species, and the way it is sold back to us. As its not that easy to capture and freeze this most primal and vital part of our existence into into two-dimensions- enough to stimulate our acquisitive natures, it is dressed up with a bit of glamour and exaggeration to keep us interested - often exaggerated into fetish, power struggles and wild exhibitionism - unrealistic to the point of ridiculousness.

Whether the presentation of this sex-caricature is overt or suggestive, its all to make money, not to be beneficial to us. And whether we like it or not, if we have contact with todays media it will be hurled at us constantly to tap our personal core of sexuality so we Buy! Buy! Buy! - even for products that have not even a tenuous connection with sex. What could this be doing to our love-lives - let alone perception of ourselves as sexual beings?

Sadly, when this hyped-up caricature is used as instructive, most often by the intimately inexperienced, the hapless person in bed with them has to cope with a self-absorbed whirlwind of a performer, with very little responsiveness or sensitivity. The sexually pre-programmed individual also misses out on the intimacy, attraction and vitality of the act with another human being as they are caught up in an alienating fantasy. Though these are extreme, but probably all too familiar cases, there is still most likely to be a subtle effect on people who are more sexually genuine too.

Lots of people experience feelings of inadequacy or pressure to conform even if they have a healthy sex-life. A friend of mine complained that as she comes home on the tube train after a long day at work, images of glamorous, alluring and physically perfect women leaping out of newspapers and billboards have a nasty impact on her body image. This can then affect her sexual confidence. Why are those images there? To make money. Can they be avoided? No. So how can a person hang onto what is true and genuine to them when there is so much trying to tug them off? Images cut to the bone.