Gay Marriage.

March 1st, 2012 § 0 comments § permalink

One of the hot topics recently is gay marriage. Seriously, what’s the problem?

What’s the worst that could happen?

Rape in University

June 16th, 2011 § 0 comments § permalink

Julie Bindel has a peice on CiF about rape in university. Loging in and stuff on the Guardian site is a ballache for me for some reason so my response is here.

Leaving home to go to university is an exciting time. Often, the taste of freedom can be intoxicating. It can also be one of the most dangerous times in a woman’s life. Young women are particularly vulnerable to sexual assault. Studies have found that females aged 16-24 are at high risk of sexual violence and harassment. However, policy on violence against women during this and the previous administration has made no specific reference to students.

Why should there have been a specific reference to students? How/why are they more at risk than other women?

In 2010, a nationwide survey on female students’ experience of violence conducted by the National Union of Students (NUS), found that one in four respondents had experienced unwanted sexual behaviour. Hidden Marks, the first study of its kind, also found that one in seven women students had experienced a serious physical or sexual assault while at university or college, and over two thirds had experienced some kind of verbal or non-verbal harassment. This included groping, flashing and unwanted sexual comments. As one respondent said: “Almost every time me and my friends go out to a club you can guarantee that one of us will have some kind of violence or unwanted attention forced on us by drunk men.”

How does this compare with women in general or women in that age group that aren’t students? Are the figures higher or lower? Without a comparison that figure is meaningless, although even just one rape is one too many.

Unsurprisingly, alcohol features in the majority of the assaults and many instances of harassment. But we should be clear that whether the perpetrator, victim or (as in most cases) both are drunk, it is not the bottle of booze that commits the crime.

Exactly right. No excuses.

In the study, women who had been drinking were far more reluctant to report than others, for fear of not being believed. I can understand why; I recall the case in 2005 of a student who said she had been raped by a university security guard who was escorting her back to her halls of residence because she was too drunk to make the journey alone. The judge ordered his acquittal, saying that “drunken consent is still consent”.

Just as being drunk is no excuse for raping someone, you can’t withdraw consent once you’ve sobered up and blame it on the booze either.

Am I blaming the victim when I say that someone shouldn’t drink so much that they may do something that they regret?

We should learn from the way in which student sexual assault has been dealt with across the pond. UK academics Alison Phipps and Geraldine Smith, in a forthcoming paper, highlight several reasons why campus sexual assault gets far more attention in the US than it does here. First, women’s studies courses that can lead women into engagement with feminist activism are widespread, whereas in Europe such courses are on the decline. Second, there exists good, solid data on the prevalence of sexual assaults on US campuses, and journalists give the topic decent coverage. Finally, there is far more emphasis placed on the responsibility of the universities themselves to prevent such crimes.

Fair enough.

The turning point in the US was a notorious and tragic case in 1986, in which a female student was raped and murdered by a male fellow student. The late Jeanne Clery’s parents founded Security on Campus Inc, which embarked on a sustained programme of lobbying the federal government that led to the 1990 Clery Act. This act, among other things, requires that institutions collect statistics on campus crime and take steps to address and prevent it. Let us hope the UK does not have to face such a tragedy before universities take serious action.

Why leave it at universities? Why not make hospitals, leisure centres, workplaces do the same?

There are a number of simple things they could do immediately to make their female students safer. Most obviously, they need to have cross-institutional policies to tackle violence against women students – readers may be surprised to know that they don’t already. Campuses could also be made much safer by proper lighting and security in student residences, with bus routes can take female students as close as they can to their door.

I am surprised that ‘cross-institutional policies to tackle violence against women students’ don’t exist already. I do have one that fits the bill already though, and can be applied to anywhere not just universities – Report the rape to the police and give the victim whatever support they may need.

Proper lighting would be a help, just like proper street lighting in towns is, too.

By proper security, I assume Julie means that only students can get into halls of residence via a locked keycoded door and a security guard, which is fine uless it’s another student or security guard doing the attacking. In that case does ‘proper security’ mean female guards and CCTV?

How about a bus to take male students to their door, to help stop them getting beaten shitless by drunken thugs?

My friend Alice Vachss, a former sex crimes prosecutor who has done exemplary work in the US on campus sexual assault response, says that if she could change only one thing, it would be to increase the consequences for friends and allies of the sexual aggressor who harass, taunt and threaten women trying to come forward with a complaint:

“Despite all the beautiful work that’s been done here in the States, our campuses are still so rape tolerant that the most likely outcome for a campus sex crime victim is that she leaves school. Campuses may be the last true remaining communities. Sure we need improved policies but most fundamentally we need policy enforcement that changes that community culture.”

Cultural change is difficult to achieve. But if institutions are prepared to work with students’ unions, police and local women’s services, it may be possible to chip away at the culture in which sexual harassment is sadly part of a “normal” Friday night out.

Cultural change is the key here, whether it’s students or not, but that change needs to start before the kids get to uni.

Gay asylum seekers

July 6th, 2010 § 1 comment § permalink

The Home Office has been accused of being frivolous about asylum seekers wanting refuge because of they’re sexuality.

Many are from countries where homosexuality is unacceptable – such as Iran, Cameroon and other African nations.

Alexandra McDowall, the UNHCR’s legal officer in London, says the discretion test “introduces an element that shouldn’t be there”.

She says it forces failed gay and lesbian applicants to live “under a veil of secrecy” back home.

People facing threats because of their sexuality count as a “protected group,” alongside those facing religious or political persecution, she adds.

The Home Office have denied telling gay asylum seekers to ‘man up’.

One refugee this blog spoke to, known only as HP, said…

They told me to be a man and stop whinging. They said that my life would be a lot more exciting back in my own country, better than the daily drudge here in Britian. I would be like a spy, living a double life. “Who doesn’t want to be like James Bond, they said.”

Another asylum seeker, currently waiting to hear the result of his appeal on his failed application was told to “learn to keep a fucking secret”.

When approached for comment, an unofficial Home Office spokesman said…

Get teh fuck out my face, faggot

Julian Lewis on teh gays

April 22nd, 2010 § 2 comments § permalink

Tory MP Julian Lewis on the lower of the age of consent for homosexuals…

When it comes to legalising practices that involve serious risk, I believe the higher limit should apply,” he said. “This is the reason we no longer allow 16 and 17-year-olds into frontline situations in the armed forces, for example.”

Lewis highlighted that “one of the criticisms commonly made of gay relationships is that very often they do not last”.

OK. Fine. Do marriages/relationships between 16 & 17 year olds last any longer? No, they don’t. If it’s such a concern about young people why not raise the age of consent for hetersexuals instead?

Good ol’ Julian. His bigotry is only out of concern for the youth.

Nadine Dorries and gay babies

September 1st, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Nadine Dorries gets it wrong concerning the new law regarding names on birth certificates

A function to attend mid morning and then the rest of the day peppered with interviews regarding the new law about to come into effect with allows lesbian couples to name who they wish on the birth certificate of a child they may have conceived and given birth to via fertility treatment.

A child with two mothers, neither of whom may have any DNA connection with the child.

So, lesbian couples are now allowed to name who they want on the birth certificate. That’s fucking great. If I was a lesbian couple, I would put on it put Batman and Marge Simpson. That’ll be something for the nipper to talk about later in life, wouldn’t it?

Seriously though, if two women are having fertility treatment, then there are two lots of egg, two uterii (*shrugs* I don’t know) and it’s gonna be highly unlikely that the treatment will involve nothing from the couple themselves, is it?

What is the difference between the women and a male and female couple having no DNA connection to their eventual offspring? Sorry, did you say something? No? Wouldn’t that make adoption for any kind of couple undesirable, regardless of sexual orientation?

…until this week was the strong and legal requirement issued by government that a birth certificate required the names of a child’s mother and father, a man and a woman.

To rephrase, until this week was the strong (wtf?) and legal requirement issued by government (it’s the law, yes?) that a birth certificate has the names of a childs’ mother and a male name. That male name could be Fred Fucking Flintstone for all the law cares, if it does actually care.

The evidence to prove that the traditional family structure, of mum, dad and children is the one which works best for a strong society is overwhelming.

The evidence may *prove* that the traditional family that Nadine suggests works best, but then it would’ve been not long ago that the traditional family structure of mum, dad, children and grandparents works best. Before that, the evidence would probably suggest that ot would be better to have lots of uncles and aunties living in the family too.
The evidence may suggest that mum, dad and the kids works best because of the lack of evidence of other family structures. What does the evidence say about kids with two mums or two dads? Does it say they grow up ok, mentally balanced and productive members of society or would the kids be turned into Teh Gays? Or is it growing up with homosexual parents going to make the young ‘un a axe wielding maniac or compulsive shoplifter?

I support civil partnership. I voted for it and I think it is fantastic that gay couples can be afforded the legal protection they were once denied and lived without. I also believe that those relationships deserved the protection, status and emotional support and comfort all marriages benefit from and enjoy.

Isn’t it nice how those gays can play at happy families now. They can even have a ceremony where they get a certificate at the end of it and everything.

However, when it comes to the nurturing and rearing of a child, that is a decision that has to be selfless.

But kids… whoa! That’s taking things toooooo far! Cos straight people never do things selfishly. Never have kids to try and save a doomed marriage and condemn a kid to an environment of backbiting and sniping, at best, in the family home. Those gays, all they think about is bumming each other and marching about the place dressed up, or down, to the nines in one of those Gay Proud marches.

The legislation about to come into effect delivers the message that the family unit which has underpinned a functioning society for thousands of years is de-valued in the eyes of the government.

Thousands of years? Hahaha! Twat.
How about looking at it the other way…it’s not de-valuing regular, straight-up marraige but saying other types of unions between two people that love each other are ok. How about we introduce a Love Test for teh Gays, just to make sure they don’t just selfishly want a fashion accessory that’s a little different from the usual toy dog hanging off their arm?
Nadine’s not usually a ‘glass is empty’ person, is she?

There is no evidence that lesbian couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples.

Do homosexual couples need to stay together *longer* than heterosexual couples? How long is long enough? I was under the impression hetero couples stayed together for 30, 40, 50 even 60 years, but I also understand that hetero couples also break up after 6 months, 12months, 2, 3, 4 years and all the years in between, too.

No evidence to show they make better parents…

There was no evidence Nadine would make a good MP either. Oh, hang on. That’s not helping my point is it?

We have many kinds of family today. I’m a single mum. We have families which consist of step-parents and children and lots of people working hard to make their new families work.

I bet Nadine really hates it when people suggest that she is a crap mother or she’s not bringing up her kids properly because she is a single mother. Is there a difference?

Some of those people wanting to work hard to make their family work just happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves. Is that wrong?

Good old-fashioned values

August 21st, 2009 § 6 comments § permalink

Lancaster Unity has shown why the BNP, unlike every other well known political party, has a closed party conference.

If I was presented with the following as a policy propsal, I wouldn’t want anyone else to know either…

Teenage mothers – the problem and the solution

Any amount of sexual health education is not going to reduce Britain’s high teen pregnancy rates, whilst the ‘rewards’ for becoming an unmarried teen mother remain so [relatively] attractive. The cycle of girls getting pregnant by man A, then being allocated a council flat & welfare benefits, then getting pregnant by man B, and being allocated a bigger council flat & more benefits, then getting pregnant by man C, and being allocated a council house & yet more benefits has got to STOP. It leads to all sorts of social problems, resulting from mothers who are not mature enough to parent effectively, and end up raising dysfunctional families in poverty. It also costs tax payers a lot of money, to fund these ‘alternative’ lifestyles.

Furthermore, people who have been on housing waiting lists for several years, and who conduct themselves in a responsible manner, find themselves being ‘queue-jumped’ by these feckless members of society.

So, I suggest that there be no council flats and no welfare benefits available to unmarried mothers under the age of 21. Instead they will be placed in ‘mother & baby homes’. Here they will receive academic education as well as parenting classes, plus courses covering all aspects of their social development. The homes will be run by ‘matron’ type figures. The homes should not be ‘institution’ like, but at the same time there will be rules which must be adhered to; such as a curfew of approx 9pm, a dress code which states skirts must come to at least the knees & no cleavage to be on show. Failure to comply with the homes’ rules will result in the mother being sent to prison, and the baby being taken in to care.

This is not a short-term remedy, but a long-term solution. Eventually I believe the implementation of this policy will result in a vast decrease in teenage girls becoming pregnant – as the consequences will be positively unattractive. Of course, teenage pregnancies will never be completely eradicated, and the homes will allow for the girls who do still become teen mothers to learn how to be good parents, whilst not being fast-tracked to the top of the housing queue.

If an 18-20 year old pregnant woman is married [marriage should not be an option available to 16/17 year olds, even with parental consent] and her husband has a job, then she will be exempt from going in to one of the homes.

*If* you need to have what’s wrong with it explaining, go have a squint at the Lancaster Unity post.

Help a church make the right decision

May 6th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Stop the bigots – support Aberdeens gay minister.

Sign the petition.

In defence of Wallace and Grommit

April 20th, 2009 § 0 comments § permalink

Penny Red is a little upset at Wallace and Grommit, A Matter of Loaf and Death, in which to cut a long story short, Wallace gets a new girlfriend, who in her younger days was ‘the face’ of a bakery produce. Due to life being life, the pin-up gets too old and too chubby (or fat, if you like) and loses the gig and can’t get another. This turn from having the world at her feet to being on the scrapheap makes her mind crack, turning her a little mental with a chip on her shoulder against bakers, of which Wallace is the latest in a long line to be bumped off in inimitable Wallace and Grommit way.

But Penny, being “a dour, humourless feminist who will eventually be eaten alive by her own cats” (her words, not mine) saw something not altogether pleasant

A Matter of Loaf and Death is targeted at children. So what will half of the film’s intended audience, the hundreds of thousands of little girls all over the world who have seen the thing by now, be thinking? What message does this send to young girls?

Well, firstly, don’t ever ever ever get fat, because you’ll lose your job and then your mind. Your future success depends entirely on your ability to look great and hook a man. Avoid bipedal dogs who drive delivery vans. And don’t worry, it’s all a joke, really.

Being a white, hetero, English man I haven’t really had much discrimination go my way and so am a bit oblivious to it until the offence has been pointed out. Just ask Mrs -O. But even now, after this bit of mysogyny has been highlighted to me, I still fail to see it.

Paella isn’t treated badly by the other characters, infact it’s the opposite as Wallace falls for the charms of a lady. We’re not laughing at Paella, the joke is on Wallace as he misses the signs that Paella is upto no good and dismisses Grommits warnings.
Paella isn’t laughed at or made to look stupid by the filmmakers, and her size obviously isn’t a hinderence to hooking a fella either, judging by her history of husbands.

A Matter of Loaf and Death doesn’t reinforce the message…

…don’t ever ever ever get fat, because you’ll lose your job and then your mind. Your future success depends entirely on your ability to look great and hook a man.

It does the opposite. As I said in the comments on Pennys’ post…

The story isn’t saying don’t put on those pounds or you’ll be rubbish and worthless. It is saying look, this is happening. Not quite in the same comedic manner, but it is happening.

It is highlighting to the other half of the audience, the boys, that there is something wrong with how women are perceived and treated that do not conform to visual norms.

On women bishops

July 7th, 2008 § 2 comments § permalink

An evangelical chap on the Today programme on Radio 4 explains why it would be “intolerant and unjust” to bring him under the authority of a woman bishop.

Hmm. “Intolerant and unjust” to allow a woman to become a bishop. There’s a flaw in his argument somewhere.

He did also say that it isn’t a sexist issue but a theological one. Which to my mind, makes his religion sexist.

Nice , eh?

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the sex, the sexes & sexuality category at Sim-O.