So, today when I was mansplained…

… I alternated between frustrated, angry, and amused every couple of seconds. Eventually I settled on ignoring him until he gave up.

“Mansplaining“ is an Internet slang term used to describe condescending and inaccurate explanations that are given under the assumption that the audience is entirely ignorant on the subject matter or topic. The name stems from an online behavior commonly exhibited by male newbies on female-oriented discussion forums.

The thing about mansplaining is that you can see it coming from 20 paces. In person, he generally interrupts a member of his female audience, lowers his voice so that it is gentle enough for lady ears, makes eye contact with all members of the group so that he is sure that everyone is listening to him, and then starts.Today was no different.

I was at a feminist meet and enjoying some idea-sharing and good-humoured chat. Then he started. He’s been reading a few feminist news feeds apparently, he’s been assessing the state of feminism in the US, he’s been concluding that there is very little feminism happening in the UK, and he’s been closely following the impact of the female vote in the recent US election. He explained that, what happened was (“you see”) that Romney (“you see”) was making moves to illegalise abortion and that’s what mobilised the female vote for Obama (“you see”).

It was at that point that I interrupted him. To see his genuine shock and discontent that he was lecturing someone who was clearly more informed than him, yet had no apparent need to demonstrate her knowledge as he had only moments earlier, made me chuckle and roll my eyes (inwardly, natch, I’m not a savage). That didn’t stop him, though. He went on to discuss the various waves of feminism (wrongly), state that he would not enter in a conversation about said waves when he was challenged about his inaccuracies, and tell us that one thing he thinks he should do is talk to our wider group about the feminist labour movement. By this stage, we were all ignoring him and getting on with our thing. When he was questioned on his political “involvement”, he became tight-lipped and refused to reveal anything. His confusion about the turn of events was palpable. This was not what he expected, and in his own head, not what he deserved. He stared at the women he was trying to educate and he could not believe their ingratitude. He didn’t know how to start again.

At this stage the rest of us were discussing how we would put together some flyers and other materials for our group. He was overruled on his colour choice. That was clearly the last straw. He was largely silent for the rest of the meeting. He wasn’t missed.

So help me god, I read Fifty Shades of Grey

I did. I know. I’m sorry. I couldn’t help myself. But I thought of you the whole time. I swear, I did.

I’m nearly at the end of Fifty Shades Darker and I’m not sure I can stand another page. To say that it’s poorly written is a disservice to books that are poorly written. I’m putting Fifty Shades on the same level as Twilight here. It’s Twilight with tedious sex. But you’ve read all of this before, I’m sure. So, if you find yourself here and reading this blog post, let me save you to the trouble and torture of ever having to read any of Fifty Shades yourself. Welcome to my crib notes.

Oh, Ana, you are so beautiful. His mood darkens and he stares at me. I love him, unconditionally. Oh no, he’s mad at me. He touches me. Every nerve in my body reacts. Ana, don’t ever leave me. He smiles, his mood recovered. Phew! Oh no, he’s mad at me. His mood darkens and he stares at me. I would never leave you, Christian. But how will Christian react? I put off telling him. I love him, unconditionally. I know that I cannot give him what he needs. Oh, Ana, you are so beautiful. Oh no, he’s mad at me. But how will Christian react? I put off telling him. He touches me. Every nerve in my body reacts. Ana, don’t ever leave me. Oh no, he’s mad at me. I know that I cannot give him what he needs. He phones me. He’s mad. His mood darkens and he stares at me. He touches me. Every nerve in my body reacts. I love him, unconditionally. But how will Christian react? I put off telling him. I would never leave you, Christian. Oh no, he’s mad at me. I know that I cannot give him what he needs. He smiles, his mood recovered. Phew! I love him, unconditionally. But how will Christian react? I put off telling him. He touches me. Every nerve in my body reacts. I love him, unconditionally. Oh no, he’s mad at me. He smiles, his mood recovered. Phew! But how will Christian react? I put off telling him. Oh no, he’s mad at me. He smiles, his mood recovered. Phew! Oh no, he’s mad at me. He smiles, his mood recovered. Phew!

The. Frickin. End.

That’s it. That’s all that happens.

I’m not going to discuss the pedestrian sex or the clumsy attempts at portraying BDSM, and I’m not going to deny the one (and only one) positive about this book which is that it has finally brought it into the mainstream social consciousness that women enjoy having sex, reading about sex, and thinking about sex. But what I am going to do – as others have done before me – is discuss the abusive relationship that is at the centre of this trilogy. Christian Grey is abusive and Anastasia Steele is abused. Just as in Twilight, Edward Cullen denied Bella Swan sex in order to control her, Christian Grey smothers Ana Steele with sex in order to control her. His mood alternates every few minutes, she is terrified to tell him truths about her life, he monitors her whereabouts, he tells her when and how to contact him, he buys her everything she owns, he snaps at her, smirks at her, ridicules her, chastises her, intimidates her, manipulates her, loses his temper at her, demands her loyalty, removes her from her friends, follows her everywhere she goes, and, the second he feels like she may be realising it all, he fucks her.

That is abuse.

Of course, it’s all framed in such a way that we are supposed to believe that it is passionate and that his love for her is so overwhelming and consuming that he cannot help himself. We hear snippets from his earlier life that make us sympathetic and convince us that there are reasons why he may act unfavourably. When he shows weakness, we forgive him because he is vulnerable and damaged. When he is angry, he is alluring and irresistible. He is complex and he is beautiful.

No, he’s abusive.

This goes on for three, 500 pages books (I have no reason to think that the third will be any different). We are encouraged to hope for a happy ending so that Christian can be saved and Ana can, somehow, live the fairytale life we were all sold when we were younger. We ignore the abuse because Ana doesn’t even seem to realise it. We are presented with a woman who is successful in academia and work but who fails to deploy her critical faculties in her relationship because it suits the dark prince/ innocent princess narrative of the book. Christian is king and Ana is pawn. Christian’s outcome is crucial and Ana is dispensable. And readers are falling for it wholesale.

And it is still abuse.

Quick hit: NHS privatisation: compilation of financial and vested interests

Read this. List of politicians who will directly benefit from the NHS bill (http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk).

This list represents the dire state of our democracy. The financial and vested interests of our MPs and Lords in private healthcare. Why are these people allowed to be in charge of our NHS, to vote on a bill that they clearly have something to gain from. Who cares that they have put it in the register of interests. This doesn’t excuse their interests, it merely highlights clearly why they should have no part in voting for the privatisation of the NHS. It is privatisation, despite the media’s continued use of the word ‘reforms’. The question must be asked. Are they public servants or corporate servants?

The list is long, and could surely be longer, I make no apology for that, tragically that is the reality of our politics today; and although the majority of vested interest lies with the Conservatives, as you might expect, it is however a cross party issue. It is compiled from accessible and trusted sources throughout the Internet. If one of these listed is your MP, then contact them and let them know you will not be voting for them again if this bill goes through. If the Lord is under your area, email them and let them know what you think. If there are others to be added, then please let me know with link to source – as this is by no means a complete list. Equally if you think someone should not be on here, then please say with reason and then they may come off if justified as the list should be as strong as possible.In short – they won’t be stopped unless they are stopped. They do not listen and nor do they care. The time has surely come to protest in large numbers and for the union members to ask their leaders to call for a strike. You can help apply pressure by spreading this out on twitter. It is already gone quite viral, but can go wider still.

Read on.

Quick hit: that’s enough politeness – women need to rise up in anger

As usual. Laurie Penny is pretty on the money:

Women, like everyone else, have been duped. We have been persuaded over the past 50 years to settle for a bland, neoliberal vision of what liberation should mean. Life may have become a little easier in that time for white women who can afford to hire a nanny, but the rest of us have settled for a cheap, knock-off version of gender revolution. Instead of equality at work and in the home, we settled for “choice”, “flexibility” and an exciting array of badly paid part-time work to fit around childcare and chores. Instead of sexual liberation and reproductive freedom, we settled for mitigated rights to abortion and contraception that are constantly under attack, and a deeply misogynist culture that shames us if we’re not sexually attractive, dismisses us if we are, and blames us if we are raped or assaulted, as one in five of us will be in our lifetime.

[...]

Like the suffragettes and socialists who called the first International Women’s Day over a century ago, women who believe in a better world are going to have to start thinking in deeds, not words. With women under attack financially, socially and sexually across the developed and developing world, with assaults on jobs, welfare, childcare, contraception and the right to choose, the time for polite conversation is over. It’s time for anger. It’s time for daring, direct action, big demands, big dreams. The men who still run the world from boardrooms and government offices have become too used to not being afraid of what women will do if we are attacked, used and exploited. We must make them afraid.

[independent]

Quick hit: one jesus for liberals, another for conservatives

No surprises here.The GOP has been manipulating Christianity and its teaching for its own ends for years. (See also Cameron et al.)

Love thy neighbour, so long as he is not an illegal immigrant. Blessed are the poor, so long as they are deserving. And, though it may be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than to pass through the eye of a needle, multimillionaires should have no problem passing through the door of the Oval Office.

Religion and politics have always made uneasy bedfellows; yet how can Christians from all shades of the political spectrum reconcile their diverse views with the teachings of a single man?

A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives. The researchers asked respondents to imagine what Jesus would have thought about contemporary issues such as taxation, immigration, same-sex marriage and abortion. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christian Republicans imagined a Jesus who tended to be against wealth redistribution, illegal immigrants, abortion and same-sex marriage; whereas the Jesus of Democrat-voting Christians would have had far more liberal opinions. The Bible may claim that God created man in his own image, but the study suggests man creates God in his own image.

[guardian]

In brief: Ex-Blur bassist Alex James on food

There’s a lot of talk these days about how Alex James (formerly of Blur) has become something of a bellend. If you needed some evidence, check out the bit below (from here). No one should be buying chickens for £2, don’t you know? He prefers his organic sort at £20 a pop, and he thinks that everyone else should do. More tips on the link for the poor folks. If you can stomach it (pun intended).

Alex James there, with no idea or care how privileged he is.

As a rule, though, he thinks that good food is worth the hefty expenditure, and cites an organic free-range chicken from Daylesford that cost him £19. ‘Britain is only just overcoming that wartime mentality of making food cheap,’ he says. ‘I actually think anyone can afford to eat well. On the whole, the less money you have, the more time you have, so you can grow your own food. And the people who need to buy a chicken for two quid are overweight anyway. In this part of the world, you can tell how affluent people are by how thin they are.’

Quick hit: even in academia, dads don’t do diapers

To help women in academia advance, elite universities should consider scrapping their generous paternity policies. That is the counterintuitive conclusion of a research paper published in the January issue of the Journal of Social, Evolutionary & Cultural Psychology.

The writers, Steven Rhoads of the University of Virginia and his son, Christopher Rhoads, of the University of Connecticut, studied a sample of 181 married, heterosexual, tenure-track professors all of whom had children under two and taught at schools with parental-leave policies. While 69 percent of the women in the sample took post-birth parental leave, only 12 percent of the men took advantage of the available leave—even though it was paid. They also learned that the male professors who did so performed significantly less child care relative to their spouses. Worse yet, they report that male tenure-track professors may be abusing paternity leave by using the time to complete research or publish papers, an activity that enhances their careers while putting their female colleagues at a disadvantage. One female participant quoted in the study put it this way: “If women and men are both granted parental leaves and women recover/nurse/do primary care and men do some care and finish articles, there’s a problem.

[...]

Not quite. As the authors of the paper state: “Most of the academics in our study said they believe that husbands and wives should share equally, but almost none did so.” To be precise, only three men out of 109 reported that they performed half the child-care work.

[businessweek]