QotD: “a form of social engineering to force children to conform to rigid gender categories is taking place”
In the 21st-century, decades after sexual surgeries on the ‘unfit’ for eugenic, punishment and therapeutic reasons were mostly abandoned, a similar practice is increasingly being carried out on children who are considered to be innately ‘transgender’ because they are disobeying culturally accepted gender roles, a form of social engineering to force children to conform to rigid gender categories is taking place. The history of sexual surgeries needs to be connected with this contemporary practice in order to cast a more critical light on what is happening today.
Sheila Jeffreys, Gender Hurts, p140
From the Bewilderness
Some suspected paedophiles with images of child abuse are likely to escape prosecution, according to Britain’s leading law-enforcement officer, who said that authorities had to rethink how to pursue suspects and how they could be prevented from perpetrating crimes.
Keith Bristow, director general of the National Crime Agency (NCA), said it was uncomfortable to accept that some of the 50,000 people in the UK who regularly access indecent images of children will not end up facing justice. He said that law-enforcement agencies must instead focus on the highest-risk offenders, who at the top end were criminals who sexually abused children. This meant that the lower-risk suspects could fall through the net.
“It’s 1pm and already we’re talking about masturbation,” declares pint-sized bodybuilder Antonietta Moch, with a broad smile across her face.
“Masturbation is very private,” she hollers across the classroom. “Masturbation is about having sex with yourself. It’s about pleasuring yourself.”
“Don’t put it on Facebook,” she says, to uncomfortable giggles from her audience. “And when it comes to having sex, that’s private too.”
Moch is giving a sex and relationships tutorial to teenagers at a college near Milton Keynes. She is honest and informative and everyone in the room leaves having learned something new.
Under current arrangements, not all children get sex education at school. Free schools and academies, which are not obliged to follow the national curriculum, can opt out and the pressure on the curriculum at other schools means provision is patchy and in some places non-existent. But momentum is growing for change.
On Friday MP Caroline Lucas’s private member’s bill to ensure that sex education is a statutory requirement in schools will get its second reading in the House of Commons. The personal, social, health and economic education (statutory requirement) bill will make PSHE, including sex and relationships education(SRE), a compulsory part of all state education. It also requires PSHE to include teaching on ending violence against women and girls.
This week MPs on the education select committee, who are considering the effectiveness of current PHSE and SRE, were told that the quality of sex education in schools was a postcode lottery. Some youngsters were growing up not being taught even the most basic information about their bodies, while others had no understanding about rape and sexual consent. In the absence of a comprehensive sex education, young people were relying on myths from the playground and increasingly on pornography and the internet to fill the gaps.
Before the tutorial she holds a drop-in session in the student common room where she sits surrounded by condoms and leaflets on oral sex while girls question her. “Why can you get married at 16 but you can’t watch porn until you’re 18,” asks one. Another asks about the anatomy of the clitoris; there are discussions about smear tests (“That’s disgusting, I would never do that,” says one girl) and chlamydia tests, and more talk of the impact of porn, which seems to be a big deal. Boys watch it on their phones in the common room, says Moch.
“Boys try and become like the porn stars,” says one young woman. “They say they are going to ‘beat’ or ‘bang’ a girl. When you begin to do it, they get quite aggressive and put their hands round your throat.”
So do these young women feel well equipped to deal with this? Some say they didn’t get a great deal of sex education at school and welcome the opportunity to talk informally with someone who is not their teacher. “That’s just embarrassing,” says one 16-year-old. “You have to see them every day afterwards!”
One of the workshops today will challenge so-called ‘sex positive’ thinking, the idea that all sex that isn’t obviously coerced is good, that ‘sexual liberation’ can only mean saying yes to any and all sexual activity. I ask you to take that critical thinking and apply it to the sex industry.
To be truly positive about sex is to say that sex actually matters, that being forced, directly or indirectly, into sexual activity you don’t want is wrong and is abuse, that the right to be able to say no to sex is just as important as the right to be able to say yes.
liberal feminism for many women, is a desperate way to try to achieve liberation with the only tools they think they have.
For men, it is the feminism they always wanted. Women catering to men and thinking it is empowering.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has voted by 81 to 10 in favour of making it a crime to pay for sex.
MLAs spent several hours on Monday debating the measures, which formed part of a private member’s bill on human trafficking and exploitation.
Clause six of the bill makes it illegal for someone to obtain sexual services in exchange for payment.
Northern Ireland is the first part of the UK to vote in favour of the measure.
There is still some way to go before the bill becomes law, but the prospect of a ban on paying for sex in Northern Ireland has taken a significant step forward.
Research published last week suggested that about 17,500 men pay for sex each year in Northern Ireland.
The study by Queen’s University, Belfast, was commissioned by the Department of Justice in response to Lord Morrow’s proposed bill.
Meanwhile, another poll has indicated that almost 80% of people in Northern Ireland support the criminalisation of paying for sex.
The Ipsos Mori survey found support for the Human Trafficking Bill was strongest among people aged between 16 to 34.
I’m not going to reblog the post because I don’t want to contribute to hijacking what was meant to be a moment of solidarity for a victim but jesus christ if your politics cause you to believe it’s important to put “friendly reminders that radfems are evil!” on posts about a radical feminist who was raped then you are a garbage person, your politics are absolutely worthless, and you need to fuck off to a mountain where no one but the rocks and lizards will be bothered by your horribleness.
The Conservative government’s prostitution bill — Bill C-36 — passed in the House of Commons Monday night by a 156-124 vote.
In 2007, a case challenging Canada’s prostitution laws as unconstitutional resulted in the Supreme Court of Canada throwing out the laws criminalizing pimping, communicating for the purposes of prostitution, and running a brothel. The federal government was therefore tasked with coming up with new laws.
The new legislation, brought forth in June by Justice Minister Peter McKay, explicitly names pimps and johns as exploiters, criminalizing the purchase of sex while decriminalizing prostituted women.
The bill states that the Parliament of Canada “has grave concerns about the exploitation that is inherent in prostitution and the risks of violence posed to those who engage in it” and “recognizes the social harm caused by the objectification of the human body and the commodification of sexual activity.”
The intention behind this kind of legislation is to work towards an eventual end to prostitution and follows in the footsteps of countries like Sweden, Norway, and Iceland. The EU passed a resolution last year encouraging member states to “reevaluate their policies on sex work,” with the Nordic model as a framework.
That this legislation was considered and then adopted by the Canadian government in its current form is thanks, in large part, to feminists across the country who worked tirelessly on the issue, ensuring a feminist analysis was central to the legislation and bringing forth research, studies, analysis, evidence from the front line, and testimonies of their own experiences working in the sex industry.
The bill must now pass the Senate before being proclaimed into law. The stay in the Bedford decision expires December 20.
Anonymous: Why don’t you like the FB and Apple policy to freeze an employees eggs? The proposed solution of providing more flexible arrangements doesn’t appear to solve the problem. Leaving a career when one is fighting to establish themselves is detrimental, whether it be for motherhood, illness, etc. It seems that the solution is to “be there” during that critical window, which is what the policy provides. What am I missing?
Two reasons: first, it seems like yet another fake benefit that’s being touted by a company wanting to seem progressive and pro-worker when in reality it’s really designed as yet another method of forcing employees to center their lives around the company instead of actually maintaining a work/life balance.
Secondly, as it said in the commentary, this doesn’t actually do anything to combat the overarching culture wherein women are punished for our reproductive capacity and expected not only to be primary caregivers to our children but also to maintain successful careers (see how men are never asked whether they can “have it all” when it’s culturally acceptable for them to leave the majority of the burden of maintaining the family and home to their female partners.) Rather than creating generous maternity leave, encouraging paternity leave, giving better options for child care, flexible hours, work from home, etc., the answer is “freeze your eggs so we can work you to death!” It’s only critical to “be there” during that window because the culture of the workforce makes it so. Basically what they’re doing is admitting they have no interest in changing harmful attitudes, just provide a little compensation for giving up your life for them.
QotD: “Anita Sarkeesian cancels talk at Utah State University over threats of ‘the deadliest school shooting’ in US history”
The feminist pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian has been forced to cancel a talk at Utah State University, after a threat of a “Montreal Massacre-style attack”.
Sarkeesian, who is best known for her YouTube series “Tropes v Women in Video Games”, assessing various anti-feminist trends in gaming, was scheduled to talk at the university on Wednesday, when the unsigned email was sent.
The author of the email threatened that if the talk was not cancelled, they would carry out an attack in the style of the 1989 Montreal massacre, when Marc Lépine murdered 14 women, claiming he was “fighting feminism”.
“I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs,” the letter said. “This will be the deadliest school shooting in American history and I’m giving you a chance to stop it.”
“You have 24 hours to cancel Sarkeesian’s talk … Anita Sarkeesian is everything wrong with the feminist woman, and she is going to die screaming like the craven little whore that she is if you let her come to USU. I will write my manifesto in her spilled blood, and you will all bear witness to what feminist lies and poison have done to the men of America.”
Initially, Sarkeesian stated her intention to hold the talk despite the threat, but was forced to back down after discovering that it was impossible to prevent guns being taken to the event.
“Forced to cancel my talk at USU after receiving death threats because police wouldn’t take steps to prevent concealed firearms at the event,” she tweeted. “Requested pat downs or metal detectors after mass shooting threat but because of Utah’s open carry laws police wouldn’t do firearm searches.”
It is amazing sometimes how much men hate women, and how terrified men are of even the small gains women have made. Men see anything other than women’s complete subjugation as men loosing out, as men being oppressed; they don’t even want meager ‘equality’, they want total domination.