Wednesday 29 April 2009

facebook says, "all women at your place is nothing put fucking bitches and slutty asses"

Ok, ok, that's not a direct quote from Marky-boy, but it is apparently something he's quite happy to support. In an innovative interpretation of their Terms of Service, which explicitly warn you before creating any group that to "attack a specific person or group of people (e.g. racist, sexist or other hate groups) will not be tolerated" and would in fact "result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account", Facebook are steadfastly refusing to delete "women haters around the world".

In case you're thinking this is just one of those "my ex broke up with me and now I'm well upset so I need some bromance and to bitch about girls for a bit to get over it" groups, here are a few of the creator's pearls of wisdom:



On marriage:
"who gived her the right to say yes or no in the first place...! why men always have to fight to get women attention..!!"
- Someone get this guy on match.com!


On logic:
"one can't divide logic in half as men's logic and women's logic.... logic is only men's prerogative and there's just absence of women's logic, they haven't got it at all... it's a fact and was proved scientifically".
...And there I was thinking Dr. Nik existed only in The Simpsons.


On women's minds:
"you are mindless... i hate your way in thinking..! and this drive me to the way of hating you..!"
- Deep. Oh no, my mistake, just dense.


On female independence:
"women needs some body to take care of them and be responsible of them."
- We can but dream, eh?


On women all over the world:
"all women at your place is nothing put fucking bitches and slutty asses"
- This is probably verifiable by Dr. Nik as well.


And it all comes with zombied-up photos with captions like "big mouth sin of women" and "you brought to men hell..!" Well, quite.
Shout-out to the sane: please join this group in opposition to it. It would be good shizzle if we could get it deleted.

Monday 27 April 2009

product placement



...and they get bonus points for their delivery option settings; "Mr" or "Ms".
They walk the DailyFail-hating walk!

(NB: For those fortunate enough not yet to have encountered The Daily Mail, I believe the clinical definition is: bullshit).

on lesbianism

The Faculty is, for reasons I have myself yet to fathom, one of my favourite films. It boasts many great lines, in a teenage-blockbuster-about-alien-invasion kind of way, but they really save the best for last (and Laura Harris, right). Any character-assassination will do when the rest of your school has been body-snatched and you're not sure who's still human and who's not, so Marybeth goes for brokely with Stokely. "We don't know what she is", she snipes. "Gay? Straight? Alien?!" Well, quite.

That part always cracks me up, but not so much because it's so ridiculous, as so ridiculously true. If the Greys landed tomorrow, I genuinely belive Julie Bindel would be amongst the first to be lynched for conspiracy. Because people are weird about lesbians.

I am, for better or worse, straight. Unlike Ms. Bindel, I don't think I could change that if I wanted, and as such have no desire to. I have Katy Perry'd a girl, but only once and in the context of a drinking game - I don't regret it, but I wouldn't repeat it. Put simply, I just don't fancy girls. I don't have any close lesbian friends, and most of the time I have little reason to think about female homosexuality. So why are so many of my fellow non-lesbians so very obsessed with it?

One of the first things my friend Poppy said to me when we met four years ago was that she wasn't lesbian. She wanted to let me know because everyone always seemed to
assume she was. She thought it might be because of her nose. Over the years, I have heard similar clarifications over hair colour, hair length, tattoos, clothing, dietary requirements, names, music preferences... most things that most people have, really. And I have of course been asked if I am lesbian myself, though only by the terminally moronic after either rejecting their advances or declaring myself a feminist. The utter bizarrity of these nebulous ideas about what might indicate lesbianism could write themselves a whole other article, but let us return to the moment to real live actual lesbians. What's all the fuss about?

I know no homosexual has it particularly easy, but society really does seem to reserve special bile and hysteria for lesbians. Gay men enjoy the dubious stereotype of the bitchy-but-hilarious, styled-to-the-nines, Gay Best Friend. The GBF cuts a merry caper through popular culture, casting a helpful Queer Eye For A Straight Guy here, a seductive glance there, while his doe-eyed Straight Best Friend contemplates how to "turn" him.

Enter the lesbian. Oh, to have her effortless gamine way with men and women alike, her hoiden chic, her babies if you could only convince her... Oh but hang on, that way madness lies, no more of that! Because we all know that lesbians are the worst of both worlds. Gay men love women; lesbians hate men, in fact that's why they're gay. And that's only because blokes don't want the ugly bints - rejected, they can but turn to second-rate sex with other mingers unable to land a man. Queens are style queens; lezzers accessorise their unshaven legs and armpits with dungarees and bovver boots. And they only support abortion (no, not "choice", "abortion") because they're wannabe baby-killers. No self-respecting knight in shining armour would touch a lesbian with a longsword, though he might rape one just to teach the bitch a lesson.

... Um, what? I must have missed the day at school when they teach you that lesbianism is some kind of perverted Satanic cult. Humans have never struck me as particularly rational beings, nor is most prejudice the pinnacle of logic, but let's play devil's advocate for a minute here. Immigrants? Well, they are, to quote Brad Majors, "foreigners, with ways different from our own". When my great-grandfather brought a black colleague from an archaeological dig back to Scotland, neighbours were shocked to learn that he wasn't just dirty, but his pigment simply didn't wash off - it's easy to condemn what you don't understand, and if the odd Dispatches on BNP sympathisers are anything to go by, comparable ignorance exists today. No man is an island, but ours is certainly overcrowded, and I can see (if not agree) that further influx might worry. There lurks a kernel of comprehensibility in some of the most incomprehensible attitudes.

I can also tenuously see but not agree that, as a particularly ignorant and/or paranoid heterosexual man, you might not like them gays because you're worried one might come onto you, like. As a heterosexual female, the idea of personally having sex with a woman does gross me out - because I'm straight. I imagine a lesbian would feel the same about having sex with a man; anyone would feel weird and wrong going specifically against their sexual orientation. So I can see that a heterosexual man might find the idea of gay sex similarly off-putting; I can understand, though not condone, a male heterosexual distrust of male homosexuality. Logically, female heterosexuality might similarly distrust female homosexuality. And yet the most aggressive lesbian-bashers I have encountered are not women, subjectively disgusted by the idea of engaging in lesbianism themselves, but heterosexual men. How the hell does a lesbian threaten them?

Well, I suppose every lesbian does deny poor Tarzan a potential Jane - but so (hopefully) does Tarzan's sister - it just doesn't add up. Viewed through the wider lens of feminism, of course, it makes perfect sense, but it still astounds and terrifies me how extreme and undisguised this particular brand of misogynistic homophobia remains in the 21st centry. At least patriarchy bothers to preach that lap-dancing is empowering, that Page 3 is just a bit of fun, that the gender pay gap doesn't really exist. The fact that lesbianism doesn't even register on Newspeak Radar is an even greater indictment of our society than the existence of such propaganda in the first place. And the sooner we recognise this heterohysteria for what it is, the better.

Sunday 26 April 2009

of mice and men

I was awake till four last night. This is not in itself unusual (I've always been crap at sleeping) but last night, for once, there was a very definite scapegoat for my insomnia. Or rather, a scapemouse.

Growing up in a very old and increasingly dilapidated house, I feared as a child that vermin were but another symptom of material inadequacy - other children had clothes from GAP, other children went on expensive holidays, other children had their own TVs, other children didn't have to watch out for mouse-traps... Though now old enough to spot the fallacy in this ten-year-old's logic, the fact that
everyone has mice is one of my sillier favourite things about living in London. Like a campaigner for school uniforms, I find it reassuringly democratic; it's good to know we're all in the same ark.

Esure recently reported that sightings of vermin have increased by up to 62% in the capital, due most probably to less frequent refuse collections. While I would be intrigued to know how exactly one reaches such a conclusion (do they run a Critterstoppers line for upstanding members of the public to report these "sightings"?) they are undoubtedly onto something. People didn't used to talk much about this sort of domestic hassle, beyond perhaps wondering aloud whether Tesco's might stock rat poison; now it is a topic of increasingly zealous debate. Everyone has a mouse story, everyone has a new plan of attack - everyone is beginning to seem worryingly manic, in fact.

I have long harboured an ill-advised penchant for dire horror movies. The Leprechaun series is a current favourite, but you can't beat a good plague. The idea of malevolent giant rabbits or bumble-bees constituting an armageddic threat to the human race has always tickled me, particularly in its hilarious paranoia. I mean, at least in
Jurassic Park they were up against dinosaurs - couldn't you just stock up on Raid if the renegade drones were coming? One of the finest scenes of the genre takes place in a kitchen, two girls in strappy nightwear squealing and jumping as they spot more and more ants all around them - on the floor, on the counters, even marching inside the fridge. "What do they want from us?!" one howls, wide-eyed, as the full scale of this sinister invasion hits home.

Except that wasn't in a B-movie, that was in our flat a couple of weeks ago. The ants had appeared suddenly in our fridge a few days before; undercover of the night, we knew not whence, they had sought out
our kitchen, of all the kitchens in London, and set up camp alarmingly fast. We didn't know how they'd got into the building, let alone into a hermetically-sealed cooling unit. Already draconian about never leaving food out, there was nothing to draw them in anyway - and yet there they were, tramelling through our kitchen with all the malign precision of Nazis in Poland.

It started with the mice, of course. It was a formulaic invasion, beginning in the kitchen, progressing with droppings and pointless gnawing. I lamented their ruination of a kitchen drawer; "Mate", a friend shook their miserable head, "they pissed in my pasta". Our group fell silent in condolence. Before long, though experienced (I thought) with their verminous kind, the mice in
our hice began to baffle. I started to mind their stupidity more than their presence; the mice I was used to ran away when they saw you, darting into some secret crevice with a speed and finesse you could not begrudge, the murine Jerry to your human Tom. But these were different - the rodent MTV generation, they would see you, scuttle a metre or so, stop, and panic. You could almost see the speech bubble saying, "Shit! Where do I go?" One actually charged me in my bedroom; another watched me bathe one night because it couldn't remember how it had got in to get out again. "Go back to the pipes, you stupid thing! Behind the toilet!" I found myself squawking, jumpier than I'd dreamt possible in a bubble-bath and a face-mask. "Mate..." I began in the pub that night. Apparently that trumped even the pasta.

The ants were altogether more sinister, though. As Leila and I still cry to anyone who will listen, "
they come back for their dead. Actually come back for the bodies". ("Why, do they eat them?", mused my stepdad, pandora's box of pest paranoia). Their organisation is frightening; you know where you are with a mouse - an ant probably knows where you are right now. "What do they want from us?" seems a reasonable question; evil genius always has a plan.

I have been observing Leila's interaction with our unwanted sub-lets with particular interest. A charity-campaigning vegetarian, I didn't tell her about the mouse poison when she first moved in for fear it might upset her. Now there she stood before me squashing ants with kitchen roll, the Buddhist from the Kleenex advert gone mad. When she found some in the toaster, she wanted to "let the bastards fry". Even for a pacifist, this is war. A war, no less, of hearts and minds. After months of banging on doors to make mice run away before we have to see them, kicking the wall in bed at night to stop them gnawing through, and screaming and jumping in shock when they do anyway, I'd mug for Valium. After Ali's triumphant installation of a plug-in ultrasonic repellent that "makes them go crazy", the mice probably would too. We have started to debate further Guantanamo techniques, like making them watch
Waterloo Road. Even the idea of humane traps is corrupted, as Leila gleefully narrates the tale of a mouse accidentally shaken to death inside one. Oh, how the moral have fallen.

It strikes me now that we have crossed a line, quite possibly of ants, and that it can't be healthy. Vermin are no longer a mundane problem, to be dealt with like cleaning the toilet or unblocking the sink; they are an all-consuming enemy upon which to expend increasing amounts of emotion and strategy. Plague invasion films no longer seem so deranged, and we may yet turn to darker arts than dire TV drama. The exorcists of the trade know this well; the name, Pied Piper Pest Control, has certainly reassured our household in its fantasism. I just hope it works before I find myself outside Camden tube preaching the imminence of locusts - for we are living in Biblical times...

stop the war

All this talk of protest must be getting to me; I actually dreamt about this song last night, and woke up with it in my head this morning.
I think I may now need counselling.




Saturday 25 April 2009




I first came across this slogan in a gallery shop in Brussels. I wasn't there to see Boël's work, but it made me smile, albeit ruefully, so I bought the postcard anyway. Belgium had at the time only an interim government, its partition-predictive zeitgeist typified by statements like this and puntastic badges asking, "to .be or not to .be?" Belgian politics have calmed down somewhat since, but I have lately been ever more haunted by Boël's declaration.

We are no longer as a nation in any doubt that "this system is corrupt". From placard-wielding anarchists to the BNP, the one thing we can all agree on is that the state is, well, a bit of a state. It's not just the recession and the private sector, either; the two institutions to come under the greatest fire in recent weeks are the government and the police. When MPs pickpocket the taxpayer and riot police start the riots, it is hard to see very much to "be happy" about. There has clearly been a lot wrong for a long time, and there is in some quarters a palpable sense of relief that the wider media and public have finally sat up and noticed. And yet as right(eous) as such anger is, I find myself unexpectedly troubled by it.

Take The Expenses Scandal™; MPs' assault on the public purse is indeed outrageous - but so is the way in which it has been reported. It is of course sniggerworthy when anyone is caught with their trousers incongruously down, and I am sure that all over the country men have endured excruciating conversations about utility bills in shared houses for similarly smutty reasons to Richard Timney ("Right, so we all owe a quarter of that then?" - "Er no, because we didn't all watch a quarter of MILFs 3"). If I worked at Virgin Media, I'd probably have a good giggle at some of the things customers were ordering too, and if it's funny narrating such indiscretions in the pub, it's bloody hilarious doing it en masse through the news networks.

Except, it isn't. What should have been a cutting indictment of parliamentary expenses was little more than a Carry-On joke. Yes, it spawned wider criticism that is apparently now going to be acted upon (however rashly inept Gordo's own suggestions) but that's not the point; it shouldn't have taken a good smear opportunity for this to make the headlines.

The most iconically offensive thing about that whole affair should not have been the porn, but the plug (no, not that kind - and there you go again, that's how cheapened the topic is). The sheer exploitative rapacity required to claim for 88 pence spent on a bathplug is far more repugnant than any masturbating middle-aged man. I don't even own my house and I paid for our bathplug, because I couldn't bring myself to demand the landlord come round and "instal" something so totally trivial; the NUS might just as well demand blu-tack grants to fund students putting up Betty Blue, The Blues Brothers, Big Blue and Blue Velvet posters on their blue bloody walls. That is the kind of mentality that merits heaviest censure, but if Ms. Smith had unreasonably claimed for a hundred bathplugs or doorstops it would have been lucky to make the text box above a Page 3 girl. No wonder the press are so quick to deplore political sleaze - it is, after all, one of the only things they're quick to write about at all.

The current Police Brutality Scandal™ provides interesting complement. Of course it is deplorable that a man was assaulted (who knows yet how grievously) by a police officer, but before the tabloids take a break from wringing their hands to pat themselves on the back for their moral outrage, perhaps they should remember how long this has been going on without passing hedge fund managers filming it. One of the greatest sources of popular disgust over Ian Tomlinson's treatment has been the fact that he was not a protestor. Because, what? Newspaper sellers, like swans, can only be killed by the Queen? Some dirty hippie would have had it coming? Riot police have been illegally hiding their shoulder numbers and beating up demonstrators for years, and yet it takes Not Even A Protestor's death for anyone to notice.

But this kind of reporting is irresponsible not only in its selectivity, but also in its vitriol. As you may have guessed, I am not the Met's biggest fan - but at least I have thought about why. I grew up with a highly ambivalent view of the Police, shaped in no small part by being in Belgium at the time. On the one hand, I knew that police officers were generally meant to do useful things like fight crime; on the other, everyone knew they were lazy and corrupt. "Why do policemen go around in threes? One to read, one to write, and one for intelligent conversation," was less of a joke than an empirical observation when they boasted the lowest entry requirements of almost any job; the last time her neighbour got burgled, as my mother doled out hugs and Kleenex, the investigating officer asked her, "Right, so did you do it then?" And it wasn't all comedy bungling and bribes; aged 11, I was one of 300,000 people on the White March, protesting the police errors and corruption investigating the case of paedophile serial killer Marc Dutroux. By my teens, I trusted "pigs" no further, with added yoof kultcha distaste for the fact that the unreasonable bastards sometimes had the temerity to arrest my more narcotically entrepeneurial classmates. The only person I knew who wanted to join up (and, depressingly enough, was recently accepted to train by the Met) was a steroids freak who had to move schools four times to stay one step ahead of expulsions for beating people up. Fuck da po-lice pretty much summed it up for me.

And that's a hard mentality to shake. Back in Britain, my default view remained that even if UK coppers were better than Belgian coppers, a copper is a copper is a copper is probably a nasty piece of work. In some contexts, I still think that. But a year spent in that other most reviled public service, Social Services, also made me realise that they're not all like that. For all the bullies who like the idea of hitting people with the sanction of a uniform, there are others who actually do care about public order and victims of crime - the sort whose reports on domestic violence I used to log daily, the sort who build cases against paedophiles.

The sort who don't decide to go into riot policing. Because what happened to Ian Tomlinson was not just the "police brutality" the red-tops are gleefully denouncing, it was riot police brutality, and there is a difference. It is only right that the IPCC investigate the G20 fiasco, but I for one hope they will be looking not only at riot policing itself, but also at its selection criteria. The Met is a large and varied beast; to opt for any division of policing over another implies some personal motivation. The officer who assaulted Ian Tomlinson must be held accountable for his crime; but so must whoever reccommended him for, or accepted him into, a role for which he was clearly entirely unsuitable.

Police officers are frequently baited and provoked to an intolerable extent that most reasonable people could not nonviolently endure; the problem is, such endurance is part of their job description. How anyone manages the superhuman calm and reason required to be a decent police officer is beyond me - but some people do, and they are the ones who have a place in the uniform. They are, however, also the ones who will continue to bear the brunt of the public antipathy stirred up by their baton-wielding bretheren at G20.

I don't buy tabloids, but am sure there's a codicil somewhere in the Gutter Guild's membership rules that ensures at least one of the red-tops has vented its moral spleen at both police brutality and police abuse in a single issue. Reading the sensationalist front page is probably all some people need to commit the crime featured ten pages later, because sleaze and spleen can only ever make things worse. The current debate on parliamentary expenses is a dirty joke; the very real problems both incarnated and faced by the Police have become a Channel 4 "dossier" on a tucked-in jacket and left-handedness - had they managed to pathologise the combination into a rare disease, they'd probably have kept him for Extraordinary People. It should not have to take porn and death to provoke any meaningful drive to snuff out such systemic failings.

The system is corrupt, but it is also corrupted and corrupting, and it will take more than reactionary rage to change that. We are, of course, right to be angry - but that does not necessarily mean we can afford to be. Our government and police force has let us down, but in failing to holistically examine how, why, and what facilitating role the media and man on the street might have played, we are finishing the job for them. The system is corrupt, be happy - because it's the only attitude that is going to help drag us out of this mess.

Thursday 23 April 2009

was she asking for it? did she ask you twice?

Words of Love, Courtney's or otherwise, should have little place in any article about sexual assault. Contrary to widespread uninformed protestation, love – and even lust – have little to do with any kind of sex crime, and it's time more people accepted this. But hearing the song again today, I could not help but be struck by its pertinence. With the IPCC girding its loins to investigate just what percentage of over 150 rapes perpetrated in the capital by the now-notorious John Worboys and Kirk Reid could have been prevented by more competent Police work, a pressing issue is once more a current issue. And thank goodness for that, however brief a flash in the popular pan it may prove.

But for millions of people, it always was. We are all, of course, both sum and part of our experience; the pickpocketed pat down their coats that much more firmly on the bus, the bereaved start at twinges of familiarity in a stranger's face, the redundant turn from the latest bail-out bulletin on the news. We have all loved and lost and been reminded. But there is something sometimes crashingly, sometimes indefinably, worse now. The lie that any rape victim was "asking for it" is as old and sick as the crime itself; its death throes are vicious, yet still we hope (for what else is there?) it must one day die off. But what of its unspoken echo; who is asking twice?

Much is rightly made of the trauma of trial. However sensitively conducted – and that is by no means the norm – any revisitation of any sex attack is a reviolation at its hands, all the more brutal if endured under cross-examination and the spectre of a potential not-guilty verdict. It is easy to see why so many sex crimes go unreported. But how much does the legally anonymous victim really escape, on even the most mundane level?

At this point, just like the real journalists, I am damned if I do and damned if I don't; data is derided and anecdote attacked as bias in any article like this. Ms Hobson must choose, however hopelessly, which Platonic shadows will best illustrate the form; today I opt for anecdote. Society seems to deem it necessary, particularly for a woman, to disclaim any subjectivity as expediently as possible. And so I must confess another's sin; I was recently sexually assaulted, to use my GP's term. It did not change my views of the issue, and I did not report it. I count myself lucky not to have been raped and life is slowly returning to normal. I remember it most days, but no longer every day; I still have trouble sleeping, but he no longer haunts my dreams. Psychologically, the worst is over – but practically, it is yet to come.

Like most victims of sex crime, my attacker was known to me. Or, more accurately, to my flatmate – a longstanding friend from school, she had been moved in less than a fortnight when she suggested I join her on a night out with some university friends. With our third flatmate away and other friends otherwise engaged, I readily accepted. We were a large group, and I spent most of the evening chatting to the one guy I’d met before. Around half-eleven, last orders tolling, we walked to a local nightspot – whereupon all but three of us decided they were tired and had really better get the last tube home.

I hadn’t even been introduced, much less spoken, to Carlos until this point – Ali still wanted to go dancing, so we exchanged brief pleasantries and proceeded to a clubnight. My initial impression was mildly unimpressive, but decent music precluded conversation inside, and Ali seemed to be having a good time so I just danced and nodded as etiquette required. I wasn’t having an amazing time, but I wasn’t having an awful one either. We left and debated where to go next; Ali offered him our sofa to crash on and the three of us set off home. We were all decidedly past tipsy into drunkenness, but by no means paralytic. I remember thinking I’d been right, and that he was a bit of an idiot – more smarm than charm and painful listening – but I felt more bored than threatened. In any case, he was talking mainly to Ali.

Which made what happened when we actually got home, particularly after Ali went abruptly to bed, as unexpected as it was vile. Three things in particular still stand out; grabbing me around the neck, repeating “you have to”, and his utter incomprehension of the word, “no”. I have known that get men embarrassed, persuasive, upset or angry – I had never before seen it register absolutely no effect at all; to him, I may just as well have had my mouth taped shut. I slept with a chair and a suitcase against my door that night, and caught Ali the next morning before she left for work to say I wanted him out of the flat straight away. She seemed surprised, but did it – she even rang me to assure me he had gone.

It was then that the shock set in. I found it hard to adequately articulate what had happened (a friend later said that she had
at first been able to make out only fragments beyond the fact that I was “obviously really traumatised”). I fared better second time around telling Leila, our other flatmate; she listened very intently, then pronounced, “Well, he can’t ever come back here, can he? He cannot set foot in this flat again. That’s the first thing to make sure of.” Because that is what every “date”, or “acquaintance”, or whatever other minimising euphemism you want to use, sex attack victim has to do – not cry, not adjust, not heal, not wallow, but worry about the next time.

It’s not surprising that sex offenders prey on those they have easiest access to; it’s even less surprising that it is precisely this group who are least likely to report it, or indeed be believed by the Police if they do. More than love, “easy” is another word that should have little place in any article about sexual assault, but which rapist is easier to report – the one who dragged you down an alley at cliché-point, or the one your friends can’t praise highly enough? The one against whom all your friends will side, or the one of whom your friends can scarcely believe such an act? Because, just so you know, Carlos is “such a lovely guy” when he’s not grabbing some girl he’s just met round the neck, trying to kiss and bite her face. He’s so nice and funny, such good company, the life and soul of the party but such a supportive friend too. He was so good when Ali’s sister was ill, “always ringing to check I was OK, taking me out for coffee, that sort of thing”.

And just so you also know, that’s how Ali described him just after I told her what he did. Maybe that makes her sound like a bitch – I feel that too sometimes, but I also know it’s not that simple, because Ali is otherwise just as lovely as Carlos apparently is when he’s not busy trying to rape someone. We’ve been friends for ten years; I know she’s not a feckless cow. If a stranger had grabbed me like that in the club earlier that night, she probably would have hit them. But because she’d also been friends with Carlos for a couple of years, all normal bets were off. She avoided the topic altogether for three days, even when I tried to bring it up. When I finally sat her down and forced the conversation, she avoided eye-contact instead. “Well yeah, fine, of course, I won’t see him in the flat, but he’s still one of my best friends, I’m not getting involved”, was as lyrical as she would wax.

Maybe that makes her sound like a bitch too – except that she came to my room later that night and said it hadn’t really sunk in before and she was really, really, really sorry. She understood that he had behaved “like an animal” and “like a rapist” (her words, not mine) and said that if she’d realised at the time she would have kicked him straight out. Of course he could never come to the flat again, and of course she would damn well tell him why. But of course she would still stay friends with him, too. He was, after all, “hammered”, “probably wouldn’t even remember doing it”, would no doubt be “mortified” when she told him, which of course she definitely would. (This, supposedly, despite the absence of slurred speech, sleepiness, falling over, vomiting, or drinking any more than I did). And therein lies the rub. God knows we inhabit a patriarchal maze of double-standards anyway, perhaps most of all when it comes to sex, but there is something even further wrong when alcohol consumption can not only impugn a woman for her own violation, but also excuse her attacker.

No-one wants to question their judgement, much less admit they might have missed a sexual predator in their inner circle, and that is precisely why they get away with it – why, in this case, Carlos could only be “like an animal” or “like a rapist” to Ali. Why, in fact, nearly two months on, she has still not taken him to task about the small matter of assaulting her flatmate in our own flat. Why she has invited none of her friends to our party this weekend, rather than inviting everyone else and explaining why he can’t come. Why Leila must do her daily best not to notice that relations around her have silently broken down. Why I am so withdrawn these days. Why Ali is losing a friend.

In fact, about the only person not having to deal with the fall-out of my assault is the man who did it. I wasn’t asking for it the first time, and I’m certainly not asking twice now. And you know what? Neither are Leila or Ali.


* Names have been changed.

Tuesday 21 April 2009

what

If the pen is mightier than the sword, I well deserved my teenage moniker of Xena (Warrior Princess™) cooked up by my best friend for reasons best forgotten. I have Written with a capital "w" ever since I could write with a small one; no primary school book corner was safe from my hand-made offerings, the creativity of my writing second only to the creativity of my spelling. I have always known I have something to say, if not always what. Daisy Steiner 2.0, I don't quite live in Tuffnel Park or own a typewriter, but I know I'm a good writer - all I need is a place to prove it. (I'd quite like a Brian renting downstairs as well, but I digress).

Awkwardly enough, I have never seriously wanted to be a journalist in any more than an I-could-do-better-than-that sort of way. My pubescent love affair with
J-17 ended shortly after they featured an article (I use the term loosely) by a young Peaches Geldof about wearing yellow wellies to school on a no-uniform day, and Orla Guerin generally frightened me more than the tragedy she invariably reported. The older I got, the less I liked about the media, especially as a young woman; I laughed at The Devil Wears Prada, but only because it confirmed what I already knew - that I would never want to work anywhere like that anyway.

Anyone who knows about bands and can write (or
thinks they do and can, at any rate) probably considers music journalism. Anyone who reads the NME and frequents any "scene" long enough probably also decides it might not be all they had who's-got-the-cracked it up to be; I certainly did. I like listening to music and I like writing about some of it (especially when it means free gig tickets) but I don't like the idea of pretending my opinon is the be-all and end-all just because I've got the right kind of bona fide fringe. I like being able to get drunk and not having to worry about remembering how to write it up. I like being able to giggle about it all instead of trying to be it. I like being able to write, however unprofessionally or languishingly, about everything else that matters to me as well.

To whit; life. Friendship, feminism, family, fear, fate, fashion... other things that don't start with the letter "f". This will not be a particularly political blog, however much the personal always is, but it will be about things I can muster the passion to write well about. I think, therefore I write; I write, therefore I think; I write to
find out what I think, to quote Joan Didion. I won't pretend it wouldn't be nice to find out what other people think of my writing too - but nor will I pretend to care if no-one ever reads it.

Monday 20 April 2009

who

Blogging, like buying Coldplay albums and voting on Big Brother, is something best kept private, preferably secret; the internet precluding both, I'll settle for anonymity. But why, my as-yet-imaginary audience clamour, jaws slackening keyboardwards, eyes wide with wonder? I have my reasons.

Computers held for me a deep and disenfranchised fascination growing up. For what seemed like forever, we couldn't afford a VCR, let alone a PC; for what seemed like the next forever, we had both badly. The first came from a local electrician's, missing various buttons and proportionately temperamental; it rarely recorded anything and memorably played
Wayne's World 2 (and only Wayne's World 2) at double-speed. The last came courtesy of my mother's office, and lacked a CD-rom, the internet unconscienable. The one floppy-disk game I had (definitely about dogs, less definitely free in a cereal packet) wouldn't install, so friends and I amused ourselves by creating complex Paint and Word documents to look like the internet instead. Even at richer friends' houses, I remember little beyond the strange hissing of a dial-up connection and aimless perusal of (looking back, decidedly paedophilic) chatrooms. Like piano lessons, the internet was something I didn't think I'd like but bloody well wanted to have like everybody else did.

When I was 14, on the autumnal eve of a new school year in a new school, my wish was granted. I set up about a dozen different email addresses and read the complete archive of the Offspring website (perhaps you are beginning to see the need for anonymity - although it did get me into AFI, NoFX and most importantly The Lunachicks and L7, who got me through the rest of my teens). Then I got everybody else's email addresses and favourite sites, and thus began my interminable initiation into chain letters, chain questionnaires and "funpages", which generally consisted of row upon Orwellian row of dancing, rotating, singing, winking yellow smileys and a trite assurance of friendship 4 eva.

The chain questionnaires were the worst, though. I dread to think how many hours I wasted filling in my favourite colour, soft drink, season, chocolate bar, TV show and animal - although, given so many demanded a start and end time (always understated, always a jaunty 18:28 instead of half-past) I could probably check. But it was the insidious beginning of the public facebook profile that gets you fired for statusing a sickie; it was too much information. Over the years I have, like many of my generation, created variously revealing tripod websites, myspace profiles, and livejournal accounts. They're great to show off and reinvent yourself and rant and flatter, but even better to reveal unnecessary details that no-one really needs to know, and that
you certainly don't need them to. I never did emo on about relationships or post webcam self-portraits pouting out from under a fringe (well, I've never had a webcam) but I got bored.

There is only so much pith and anecdote one person can wittily produce, and only so much self-restraint this particular person can exercise when faced with the temptation to write. But I know I need to, not least because it feels sometimes like I have so few secrets left to lose and I already have a diary for my
real life, the one inside my head that keeps me up at night. I like writing, I need writing, but what's the point if I can't be honest? Well maybe "I" can't; but you don't know who "I" am. And that is why I am starting a secret blog in the middle of the night that nobody may read, much less feel bound to validate with reciprocal pith and anecdote. And suddenly, I feel much better.