The Stripey Socks Brigade

I am Dr Tiller

2009-06-08T17:57:00.000-07:00

I am Dr Tiller

No long post, just go read it, and take comfort in knowing that the fight for women's bodily autonomy is still going depsite the violence and hatred directed at it.

I may have cried a little.

Fucking hell.

2009-06-03T21:17:00.000-07:00

As Hexy said, What kind of woman-hate do you need to be harbouring to post an ad like that (rape trigger warning)

What kind of woman-hate do you need to have to answer an ad like that?

I wish I could write up a long post about it, but frankly, Im just too sickened.

on pondering and points

2009-06-02T21:58:00.000-07:00

I've been giving some serious thought as to why there has been such an uproar over the 'Shelia is not my sister' bag.

Leaving aside idealogical issues, I'm starting to form a vague hypothesis:

People are reacting so negatively to this because this particular branch of feminism is constantly under attack, so therefore the subscribers are sensitive to criticism leveled against them. This doesnt only hold true for supporters of Sheila Jeffries, but for most marginalised (or misunderstood, or non-mainstream, or hardline, or whatever) groups.

When something you love and deeply believe in is called into question by people who are at odds with your beliefs, it's easy and understandable to view only the perceived threat rather than trying to take a critical, analytical view of what is being said.

We're all guilty of it; we all have our triggers. Maybe what we all need to do is learn to respect the rights of other people to hold opinions that are completely at odds to our own, and to recognise that 'I dont agree' is simply an opinion, and not an attack. To mangle a quote, I dont beleive in your ideals, but I will defend to the death your right to hold them.

Heh. I wish people actually read this blog, because I'd be interested to see other people's take on it.

Live the feminist life.

2009-06-02T06:08:00.000-07:00

I work in IT. I am female. I've worked in IT for nearly seven years. During that time I have copped misogyny from every angle. There has been sledgehammer sexism:

"Welcome to Technical Support, GIRL speaking."

"Oh hai, can I speak to a technician?"

"You are, I am fully qualified to troubleshoot and resolve any connection issue you are experiencing."

"Thanks darl, but you wouldn't understand it coz it's technical, put me through to one of the guys."

There's been subtle sexism:

"Oh, you work in IT. What made you decide that as a career option?"

And plain, straight, undeniable misogyny:

"Love, get one of the boys to fix it. Your mouth would be better on the end of my dick, and your hands cooking my dinner."

Overtime I have developed coping mechanisms and strategies to deal with all of the above issues, and everything in between. In the first instance, I am quite adept at telling people that being a vagina owner doesn't preclude me from having technical skills. I try to use the word vagina as much as possible in these moments because it really makes people uncomfortable. Not like penis. You could drop 'penis' into a conversation and no one would feel like looking at their watch and wondering how long until they could run a mile (unless that sentence was "Have I told you about the gunk dripping from my penis lately?" in which case it's the topic not the word that is causing discomfort. In more ways than one.) No, VAGINA is a wonderfully powerful word. It is absolutely female but devoid of all those feelings usually associated with women like lust, desire, sex. A vagina is a thing that cannot be understood or dominated. It is not cute and pink like a 'pussy', nor does it hint at being something to be taken like 'snatch'. A vagina is dark, mysterious, maybe it's a bit hairy. Your mother had one but your teenage sister doesn't. Vaginas are not found in porn, but in anatomy books.

By using this word when educating a person on my technical ability I have immediately put them on the back foot by taking away all notions that as a female I am weak, ruled by emotion, and a thing to be conquered. (It's difficult to ask for help from someone you are trying to be superior to) Instead I have replaced their ideas with an unknown and made them feel just a little bit uncertain about how to proceed. This opens up the communication as the power play has been eliminated and I can move forward resolving their issue or obtaining the information I require.

The subtle sexism and the blatant misogyny have been harder to deal with. My mentor once said to me, "The most important thing you can learn is to pick your battles." Her words resonated through my mind for days before I came to the clear realisation that I, on my own, cannot fight and win every battle, but I can certainly fight and lose all of them. I eventually stopped throwing myself against the immovable objects not because I wasn't an unstoppable force, but because I would be more effective working on those things I could change.

Humour has been my greatest tool. In response to the blatant misogyny type, I like to respond by saying in a cool, calm voice "I'm sorry, I am currently unable to resolve your technical issue as the dishwasher needing unpacking, I was too busy shopping, and the local men's football team all required lattes after their three course meal. Please feel free to sit and twiddle your thumbs in front of your broken PC until you are ready to apologise for being completely crap."

And why did I decide on a career in IT? Well the market for receptionists, secretaries and home makers was just too difficult to get into so I went with fixing computers instead.

Dealing with sexism and misogyny is different for everyone. It took me nearly a decade to be comfortable with my responses and what works for me will not work for everyone. The good thing about being in a Brigade is that while you're resting, your compatriots are fighting their battles. And every battle won benefits us all. With enough of us, we can win this war.

Viva La Revolution! Viva La Feminism!

2009-06-01T18:26:00.000-07:00

Edit: I'd like to make something clear before I begin - This is not a personal attack on Sheila Jeffreys. I'm sure she is a source of inspiration for many people, and a comfort to as many more. But telling people they are unable to disagree with or question the position taken by her or her supporters is oppressive and against everything we should be working for as intelligent, free-thinking human beings.

So there has been a collective uproar recently, over an image Hexy posted at Hexpletive, showing a slogan printed on a bag that was available for purchase at a sex worker convention here in Australia.

There seems to be some rather interesting interpretations of this image floating around at the moment so I'd like to get my language nerd on for a moment, and break it down a little *insert record scratching sound*:

Shelia is not my sister
The image uses the possessive 'my', indicating that the person with the bag or shirt believes that Sheila and her views are not representative of them as an individual. Not a personal attack. Not an all-encompassing statement.

Anti-sex feminists do not speak on behalf of sex workers

They don't. Someone outside of a certain sphere cannot speak on behalf those inside of the sphere. It's patronising and presumptive and paternalistic. I don't speak on behalf of sex workers, as I am not one. I do not speak on behalf of women of colour, because I am not one.

Let's try another example that makes this a lot clearer: Men do not speak on behalf of women, they advocate and support women's voices.

In this specific circumstance, someone opposed to a particular industry cannot speak 'on behalf' of those in the industry without a huge degree of the bias the radfems keep accusing Hexy of, completely negating any agency of those within it. Bias is OK as long as we can acknowlege it; We all have our own beliefs and tenets and they will invariably colour our views. It becomes problematic whenever someone presumes to speak for an entire group of people, of which they are not a part.

The anti-sex bit? Maybe I havent read enough Jeffreys, maybe I've only read the bits that are rather damning. But anyone who will actively both suggest and support the idea that all hetro sex (as well as the sex industry as a whole, completely robbing autonomous, intelligent, empowered women the ability to do what they like with their cunts, hands or electric cattle prods) is an oppressive tool of the patriarchy is, to my mind, against sex, therefore: anti-sex. There seems to be a lot of hand-wringing and pearl-clutching surrounding the term, which, if you take 5 seconds and actually think about it, is used fairly accurately in this case.

If you'll forgive me a rather flippant analogy - Im anti-foot rubs. I find them repulsive and gross and degrading and wrong. However I know people who cant get enough of them, both giving and receiving, and will occasionally pay money to get them. I'm not about to demand all people forsake foot rubs and stick to hand massages, just because I loathe them.

Sex comes in many and varied flavours; to condemn one aspect of it is utterly dismissive of those who willingly and consensually participate in that particular aspect of it. My desire to fuck my boyfriend is not a social construct. Quite frankly, if people are that concerned over who or what I put inside my vagina, then I think they need to get a less voyeuristic hobby.

There was also mention in the comments page about privilege, and how awful sex workers in Australia were being for 'poking fun' at those with less privilege. Leaving aside the groundless accusation, I thought I'd throw in a little something about privilege:

Privilege doesnt erase your voice. It means you have to acknowlege said privilege, do everything you can to dismantle it, and use your powers for good, so to speak. To some degree, privilege affords us the ability to take a step back, critically analyze a situation, and create informed opinions. And the privilege flag is a bit of a nasty one to fly - the vast majority of us have privilege in one instance or another; a perfect example is our ability to use the hyper-mega-goat-track. Does access to a global network make us privileged? You betcha. Does it make our voices less important? Not at all. Does it make our voice MORE important than the next person? Not on your life.

If the image (and Hexy's subsequent posts) had said 'Sheila is not my sister and we get together at our sex worker meetings and burn effigies of her and pass the hat around to send to 3rd world drug cartels so they can sell more women into sex slavery' then yeah, I could see why people would be getting furious, and I would too. But it didnt. It was personal opinion, something which certain parts of the femosphere seem determined to keep for themselves whilst disallowing that of others who do not agree with their position.

We can word good, we can.

2009-04-07T05:48:00.000-07:00

I present to you some accurate examples of the phrase 'very bad decisions':

Drinking tequila shooters til 3am the night before a presentation to the CEO of a major accounting firm
Wearing socks and sandals
Eating the week-old thai food at the back of your fridge

Notice how none of these are hitting your girlfriend in the face?

And in other very surprising news, men of supposed good character beat on women, too. Abusers don't have a giant 'DOUCHEBAG SCUM' branded on their foreheads, though maybe we can get that happening in the future with a bit of genetic engineering.

People in Papua with HIV to be chipped and monitored

2008-11-26T15:58:00.001-08:00

Wait, WHAT?

Indonesia's Papua province is set to pass a bylaw that requires some HIV/AIDS patients to be implanted with microchips in a bid to prevent them infecting others, a lawmaker said on Saturday.

How is it going to prevent them from infecting others? It's not like the chip is going to provide an invisible forcefield that prevents any fluid contact between the chipped person and another.

If a patient with HIV/AIDS was found to have infected a healthy person, there would be a penalty, he said without elaborating.

Also: Patronising plus. If a person is deliberately and wilfully infecting someone who is unaware of their HIV status, or someone is pressured into unsafe sex, that's one thing. Two adults making a decision to accept the consequences of their actions is something else. WOuld this mean a partnership where one member is HIV + would no longer be able to have any kind of contact in case they infect their partner? What about instances where the transmission was not deliberate or intentioned, such as an accident victim bleeding on someone administering aid?

Health experts say the disease has been spreading rapidly from prostitutes to housewives in the past years.

Dirty whores. Dirty, naughty whores, sneaking into people's homes and giving housewives TEH AIDS.
Unless the lesbian sex trade in Papua is live and well, or there is a disproportionately large number of male sex workers in the province, I think someone is missing from this picture. Anyone care to guess who? Im aware the intent is probably to indicate the virus is affecting a wide swathe of the community, but this can be done without removing the agent of this infection from the picture.

High rates of promiscuity, rituals in some Papuan tribes where partner swapping takes place, poor education about AIDS and lack of condoms are among factors that cause the spread of the disease there.

Promiscuity doesnt lead to infection. Partner swapping doesnt lead to infection. The last two? Spot on. THAT's why infection spreads.

So, you know, instead of addressing the issues that are obviously recognised as being the major factors in HIV spread (oh, really, poor education and lack of condoms lead to infection? Who'da thunk it), they're going to chip those already infected, like they're a pack of animals to track and cull.

If their aim is really to stop seropositive people from infecting others, why not address the education and condom availability issue? Teach people that they need to wrap it, teach them why and how to do it, and then make the bloody things available for them to use.

It's your problem, too.

2008-11-24T16:40:00.000-08:00

Occasionally, the SMH gives space to some amazing opinion pieces, such as this piece on violence against women by White Ribbon Foundation chairman, Andrew O'Keefe .

What makes Mr O'Keefe's piece stand out? He's focusing entirely on his behaviour, the behaviour of the men around him, and their influences on each other when it comes to stopping violence against women. And this is what we need. Whilst I begrudgingly see the logic in harm minimisation campaigns and education, we need more focus on holding accountable everyone who is complicit in violence of any kind against women, whether it is the perpetrator themselves, or the person who laughs off their friend's violent or inappropriate behaviour with a 'boys will be boys' or 'I shouldnt get involved' or 'it's not really doing any harm, is it?'

He not only identifies the issue, but he owns it. He understands that violence against women is HIS problem, too. He also recognises the massive role that men play in the attitudes of their friends, their brothers, their colleagues, and that it's up to each individual to stand up and say or do something when women are denigrated, or threatened, or subjugated.

Yes, he's plugging his foundation. But he's doing it in a way that is empowering and constructive and isnt at the expense of women's autonomy or self-esteem.

The system failed Evelina.

2008-11-23T17:10:00.000-08:00

Shock murder case shows assholes dont pay attention to AVOs

Wow. I'm totally and utterly surprised at this. Not only that a violent man didnt pay attention to an AVO, but that her frantic plight wasnt taken seriously enough by police!

Sorry, my bitterness is showing. I was stalked quite extensively for a while, but fortunately my story didnt end with a couple of bullets in the skull. Over and over, we're given the impression that stalking is a lesser crime, that "unless you have bruises, we've got other cases to worry about" (and that's a direct quote from a police officer. Fuck you, buddy), that you should just ignore it and the problem will go away. The problem doesnt go away, though. It follows you every time you set foot outside your house. It stands outside your window at night, hiding when the cops turn up. It calls you so much at work you have to get your extension changed. It makes you change every tiny thing in your daily routine to try and avoid it (Sound easy? Think of what you do every day. The bus you catch, the time you take lunch, the shop you buy cigarettes from, the thai restaurant you love. Now change it. All of it. Every day). It tells you that you're property, that you're their property, and you have no right to existence outside of them.

And that's what the essence of this issue is: the belief that this woman is yours, that you have sovreignity over them, that they have no right to an existence without you. That they are your property, something you own, something you control. They are no longer a person; they're a posession.

this quote from Snr Constable Andrew Barnes really got to me
"I - nor anyone else - will never know if this incident could have been averted through more intervention by the police and the courts."

Aint that the kicker? The depressing thing is, unless they'd locked him up, it probably wouldnt change anything. Because an AVO really doesnt count for much if theyre determined to do you harm. Because cops are so reluctant to enforce the terms of an AVO unless you're getting the everloving shit kicked out of you on a daily basis. And because there's still this persistent belief amongst some men that women are commodities to be owned and destroyed at will.

Stalking needs to be viewed as a huge warning sign that something in the perp's attitude towards their victim is fundamentally wrong and dangerous, rather than the nuisance crime it tends to be seen as.

2008-11-06T16:57:00.000-08:00

I think I might kick this thing off with a little opinion piece from the local scandal-rag-masquerading-as-real-news, the Sydney Morning Herald.
What's wrong, Brits? Got no sense of humour?
Ms Dillon seems to have a bit of a problem with slut shaming and mockery, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of of those stuffy English people with their lack of humour and strange chocolate bars.

A woman who works as a dominatrix cant possibly have her 'virtue' tarnished, because, gosh darn it, she's a fallen lady already! Let's completely ignore the fact the prank was played on her grandfather, and a purported sexual encounter with this young lady was used to mock him, as though it is something to be used to shame both her and her family. Because of course, being part of an entertainment troupe called Satan's Sluts invalidates any feelings of shame or anger or disgust she might feel, and negates any right to respect and common decency she might have. She's a sex worker, it's not like theyre real people. It's a recipe for hilariousness!

Jeremy Clarkson's utterly distasteful joke about truck drivers murdering prostitutes? Fine and dandy; the groups protesting his inappropriate remarks just needs a giant group unbunching of their panties. See comment above about the non-person status of sex workers.
What, I hear you ask, does Ms Dillon offer as proof that the English used to have a sense of humour? A scene from Monty Python's 'The Life of Brian', specifically the scene where Brian finds out about his father:

Mother: Your father was a Roman.
Brian: You mean... you were RAPED?!
Mother: Well... at first, yes.

A ha ha ha, Jane. Hilarious! Because, you see, it was rape, until she liked it! So really, she must have wanted it from the beginning, or at the very least, his overwhelming manliness made her change her mind! Let this be a lesson to you, lads: perseverance gets you the girl.

Rape isnt funny. Dehumanising sex workers isnt funny. Refusal to find these things hilarious doesnt make the English people humourless and boring, it means that part of society might be growing the fuck up finally.

2008-11-03T16:54:00.001-08:00

This is a test of the emergency broadcast system.

Hold on to your butts, ladies and gentlemen.