The F Word

“The F Word” is a feminist website. It describes itself as a webzine for UK contemporary feminism, the purpose of which is to “help encourage a new sense of community among UK feminists”. Ok, so firstly, what was wrong with the old sense of community, and where did it go? And why exactly does “The F Word” think we need a new one?

Back in the early days of the sixties when, (unlike today), feminism enjoyed a heavyweight intellectual basis, their movement successfully deconstructed a particular way in which injustices became embedded within society. In doing so, they shed light on possibilities for social modernization at a time when virtually every other aspect of people’s lives was characterized by change. In that way, although the primum movens of feminism was justice for women, (which, by the way, is not the same as equality), its intellectual compass was much broader and far more significant.

Today however I’m not such a big fan. There are so many different, and sometimes opposing, strands of opinion trading under the banner of feminism, that now it looks more like a political in-fight between irrelevant pressure groups who seek to seize the f word, and to control its agenda.

There is however one unfortunate quality a lot of these voices seem to share, and that’s an intolerance of people and ideas designated as hostile. Whether it’s “Woman’s Hour” or “The F Word”, criticism is always carefully managed, and routinely censored. Those deemed most critical of the cause are casually dismissed or smeared as misogynist.

For example, let’s look at rule 1 of “The F Word’s” comments policy:

"Have your say

(…or not)

...In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space…

(friends being people who don’t point things out even when we’re wrong)

…comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate:

(…but we’ll mercilessly censor you when you say things that upset us)

...the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.

(good, then you can’t censor this)

1. This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies.

(This blog isn't)

Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved.

(ergo, anti-feminist comments can never be constructive or deepen analysis or understanding…yep, I’m beginning to understand the kind of debate you welcome, it’s called: meaningless debate)

…We get to decide what's anti-feminist."

(…how Orwellian)

In other words, this is a website that cares more about disseminating “The F Word’s” propaganda, than it does about telling the truth.

But why does this brand of feminism, with its new sense of community, have such an appalling lack of self-confidence? I'd love to ask them, but you know what would happen.

Stephen Pound, gets around

In my part of Ealing the current MP is a fellow called Stephen Pound, and boy, does he get around!

Rent-a-quote Steve claimed £4,251 in mileage costs. Holy crap. Apparently that converts to....11,004 miles --Kerching! (em...Ealing Broadway is about 8 miles from Westminster).

What's up -- is he moonlighting as a taxi driver? He certainly looks like one.

"Said he drove between his constituency and Westminster two or three times a day to get 'out and about'".

That's right Steve, we all do that. And of course, if someone would check the congestion charge records, that would completely prove the probity of your claim...wouldn't it?

I'm heading into town tomorrow -- any chance of lift?

Pink Vote

This morning “Tory Bear” addresses the question of the gay vote.

He writes:

“Every so often TB gets contacted by various gay Tories who are sick to the back teeth of being told by Labour members that gay people have a moral duty to vote Labour. This sort of homophobic fear mongering by the left has to stop.”

Now I must declare an interest in this story, since about two years ago I bravely came out as a Tory voter…and on a stormy night, after a few glasses of Margaux, goodness knows what else I could get up to!

That aside, does TB’s indignation stack up?

I seem to recall it was the Conservatives who opposed the repeal of the hated “section 28”. And it was William Hague who sacked Shaun Woodward from the Tory front bench for taking a principled stand on the issue.

With just one exception that I can think of, (the “Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994”), all the gay rights legislation has been enacted by Labour governments: from the Sexual Offences Act 1967 that decriminalized certain aspects of homosexual behaviour, to the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations of 2007.

Furthermore, a quick look at the voting records show that when Labour brought forward various pieces of legislation dealing with for example, age of consent, civil partnerships, anti-discrimination and so forth, the Conservatives were lukewarm. Mostly they abstained, or in the case of the usual suspects, (Ann Widdecombe, Peter Bottomley, Nicholas Winterton et al.), voted against the motion.

I have to say, I despise the State when it seeks to interfere in people’s lives, and I can’t stand all the social engineering we’ve been subjected to in recent years, yet I do believe there are some basic requirements of a decent society, about which the Conservatives have made mistakes.

Slowly the old guard are disappearing from the ranks -- hopefully the Tories are changing in this important respect. Time will tell. Pip pip.

RANT 01: Nick Robinson

What’s up with Nick Robinson? Who cares if he’s the venerable political editor for the BBC – these days the only good thing I can think to say about him is that he isn’t Andrew Marr.















Here is a man carrying the ultimate gold card of British journalism, and a contacts list most aspiring hacks would kill for, and yet recently, he’s been calling it all wrong – then playing catch-up.

April wasn’t such a good month for Robinson’s lot. “Smeargate” confirmed what many had suspected about the Lobby – that they were little more than cogs in a Downing Street spin machine. So, as if to prove he wasn’t in someone else’s pocket, Robinson pulled off a half-decent Budget interview with the Chancellor, and even showed some teeth. But then, when the Telegraph switched on their “Chinese drip” of scandalous revelations about MPs' expenses, predictably he reverted to type. His initial reaction was to play the story down:

“Yet now the reputation of the mother of all parliaments has been brought low by rules…”

Yep, that’s right Nick, it was the rules wot done it guv – not the thieving MPs.

“…Nothing revealed today has been enough to trigger an investigation let alone a resignation…”

Right, and how hollow does that sound just two weeks later?

And so he went on, with touches of top spin here and there, trying to sound balanced, objective and fair, but really desperately wanting to convey the (mistaken) idea that things weren’t nearly as shameful as some of us “corrosively cynical” types were making out.

In the conspiracy of the so-called “progressive consensus”, of which political correctness has been the most exoteric expression, Auntie Beeb’s job has always been to say reassuring things to a docile public. But the public’s visceral reaction to news about their troughing MPs was anything but docile, and Robinson completely misread it. Even then, as the line of the thundering tsunami of anger swelled visibly on the horizon, he peered bird-like to camera, through super-strength spectacles – and persisted! Nick my friend, it’s very simple: people really understand money, and times are hard.

None of this has done him any favours, and as one columnist put it:

“Poor Nick Robinson looks like he has had the stuffing knocked out of him. Those columnists who have made a career out of saying we should have more respect for politicians look pretty stupid now.”

I think so too. Rant over.