31 Jan 2009
P.S. Have I ever told about Martin? I met I'm years ago at Cambridge when i was just a young English Literature student of the early 90s, reading Lise Jardine, drinking hot chocolate with marshmallows and wearing trainers. I hadn't seen him in years but suddenly the other day I bumped into him when I was watering the ivy growing alongside my window box in North London.
Martin (like my ivy) has come on very well, he's developed an incredibly good-looking face since I last saw him. But, alas, it was rather embarrassing for Emmeline Pankhurst was sitting on my shoulder while I was watering and when Martin, who was down on the street below, shouted:
"Why if it isn't the author of the world famous "The Suffragette's- Why?" Posie Rider! That book... it changed my life!"
it alarmed Emmeline somewhat and she jumped down to attack him. I was talking to her later that evening and she told me that her kitty powers had got the better of her and she just couldn't help herself- she did not trust him.
But while i was moping up the blood on Martin's face he sort of asked me out on a date! Will keep you posted....
Long live Lesbos!
The description reads:
'Are you or someone you love dating a banker? If so, we are here to support you through these difficult times. Dating A Banker Anonymous (DABA) is a safe place where women can come together – free from the scrutiny of feminists*–and share their tearful tales of how the mortgage meltdown has affected their relationships. DABA Girls was started by two best friends whose relationships tanked with the economy. Not knowing what else to do, we did what frustrated but articulate girls have done since the beginning of time - we started a blog. So if your monthly Bergdorf's allowance has been halved and bottle service has all but disappeared from your life, lighten your heart with laughter and email your stories to email@example.com. Warning all stories sent will be infused with our own special brand of DABA Girl humor.'
From "Courtney" the 'other' woman who steals husbands from equally innocuous women, to the daft overuse of the acronym 'FBF' (financial guy boyfriend) this blog is possibly the most depressing thing since Gerald (my ex) wrote a quote from Thomas Kyd's A Spanish Tragedy on his wall and cried.
Take the story of Sidney who was ditched by her boyfriend because she is incredibly irritating. She starts to realise that she is losing hold on the relationship when she visits him when he is ill (probably dying of a hernia because he's been working so hard, or just sleeping in the office to avoid her. Poor man! Give him a sandwich!).
Surprisingly Sidney has the faculty of thought and using that faculty of thought she decides to use it:
"I blamed myself. Was I not pretty enough (unlikely)? I tried my hardest to play it cool. Yet, when he called to tell me he had the flu – in a move that even Florence Nightengale would have shunned – I rerouted my cab from the Marc Jacobs show to his apartment. I didn't recognize myself. Who was this shadow of a socialite I had once been?"
Oh shut up you silly old cow and if you are going to refer to the great Miss Nightingale at least learn to spell properly you silly b***h.
I'm so fed up with female New Yorkers occupying the ditzy whore / hardcore virgin binary. Women in that city DO have souls you know. In fact, some of them even have jobs, I met one once...
*Taking the above into consideration i have taken it upon myself yes me, Posie bloody Rider, to let these women know that this is not the case! A simple email that read:
29 Jan 2009
In the meantime, check out this great article at the Guardian Comment is Free. Normally content with spouting nonsense genderist tripe, they've finally managed to employ a proper writer in the form of Cath Elliot. In Beware the Anti-Feminists she delves into the frankly terrifying world of the US anti-feminist WOMEN-LEAD movement, 'True Woman', who in their MANifesto resolve to cultivate (her quote) "such virtues as purity, modesty, submission, meekness, and love" and "to encourage men as they seek to express godly masculinity, and to honour and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church".
Apart from the fact that there's an ark full of God-wanking nonsense splattered all over their rhetoric, the position this aims to return women to is so utterly at odds with modern life and the advances of women's liberty that, along with Cath, I'm adamant that it'll only attract an absolute minority of weirdos. Here's their skank manifesto if you're interested, but really it's barely worth criticising. http://www.truewoman.com/assets/files/TW_Manifesto.pdf
What's really troubling are two other movements she discusses, Surrendered Wives and Taken in Hand. In the former, women are supposed to float back into Prelapsarian Bliss by attending to domestic chores and bejewelling their interior surfaces with cupcakes and pastel, the usual fare. In the latter, women are admonished to consent their husband's will, "which basically boils down to physical and sexual chastisement, up to and including rape, as punishment for the woman's transgressions." There's some masochistic stuff going on here which should appall anyone and everyone, and more of the tell-tell biblical hocus pocus that really makes these 'movements' stand out as complete shite.
Cath's criticisms of these movements should be considered as fine, done and dusted, easy to agree with, quick to condone, right? Or WRONG, according to a frightening amount of commenters who felt the need to parp their little thoughts after her sweeping report. SwiftBoy (Swift in which capacity, Boy? Fast to talk without thinking? The old premature ejaculation without consideration of one's partner? I expect both) makes the inane reply:
the men in our lives... if they can't handle a bit of dust on top of the telly and are seemingly incapable of doing anything about it themselves
Heh, how's the pilot light Cath, did Mr Elliott finally get it fixed after weeks of promising to?
As usual, my main gripe with your cheerful ramble through the outer fringes of rational thought would be along the lines of "if a woman chooses to be in one of these organisations, who are you to say she can't?"
Surely, if feminism has taught us one thing, it's that women can be who they want and choose for themselves, without having their choices questioned, isn't it?
Or is that two things?
I've made his writing smaller to match his brain. I've actually just checked his profile and he lists his interests as "Guitars, words, how things used to be." What a twat. I digress.
For a start, cheerful Miss Elliot was not. She was sombre and disgusted, as should you be SwiftBoy. Secondly, 'rational thought' is one of those 'universal' markers of judgement which anyone vaguely capable of critical thought should be more than able to query. Once it was thought 'rational' to kill children who were born with disabilities (see Plato's Republic, SwiftBoy) or to enslave prisoners of war and foreigners (see Aristotle, why don't you?). Finally, as Feminists and our like minded compatriots on the Left continually ask, what kind of choice are women really given in a social situation which embeds them with norms of submission and apathy before they have even reached puberty? The capacity to act as a 'free agent', which SwiftBoy so delightfully waves around like so much attack-jelly, is only made possible in a social and cultural system that allows women to act as free agents in the first place. That IS, to criticise their social order, to hold its values to scrutiny and to firmly refuse to occupy the place in it carved out by patriarchs, 'god', or any other idiot man.
Last week, a 15 year old girl was rescued from a paedophile she'd met on the internet and returned to her parents. Why did she run away, and why was it the right thing to do to separate them? Because sometimes people make choices as a free agent (which she clearly felt she was doing) which are reallyreallyreally bad for them. How do we know the choices are bad without the presence of a law to help us make a moral judgement? (the girl's age, in this case). We can begin by looking at whether the so-called choice puts the chooser into the position of a victim, sufferer or slave to the interests of another person who is making no similar sacrifice. Surely then, something is at work other than free will. Why have peoples around the world at various stages welcomed fascism? Not just for the great outfits and the sense of camaraderie, I'll tell you.
To SwiftBoy I say - check out Adorno, Deleuze-Guattarri, Horkheimer and, like, stop being so damn representative of public opinion! We'd be much better off without you.
To everyone else I say - find the SwiftBoy in your lives, he's bound to be there somewhere, maybe at work or lurking in a group of friends from college you really should have dropped, and destroy him. You can use my words if you like: as usual they are absolutely final.
23 Jan 2009
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL COSGROVE:We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL COSGROVE:I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL COSGROVE:I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL COSGROVE:Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?
21 Jan 2009
I just wanted you all to know that Melody is pregnant! I know it's kind of personal but I'm sure she won't mind my telling you. She doesn't know what to do: to keep it, or not to keep it, what is the question?
You can VOTE at the tool bar on the RIGHT!
Now Melody was a highly successful journalist before she took a 'sabbatical' to fulfill her childhood dream - being a landscape gardener. She's only been doing it for 3 months, which has mostly entailed filming pretty flowers. (Melody is an incredible camera WOman- she filmed my art short debut film: 'bloodsoaked tampon' and my up-and-cumming 'fucking a mango').
S0 anyway- having a baby would change everything! I have made an executive decision- I know what to do! I've have booked us tickets to go on a Suffragette tour of East London on February 8th. It's run by the Women's Library and I know it will provide us with answers! It follows the life of Sylvia Pankhurst and where the Suffragettes are near, truth is not far!
I am waiting for a sign! Something to help Melody! It IS a Woman's right to choose and she is such a successful landscape gardener! But then Susan Sontag was a single mum and so was Joanna Lumley... Maybe it's quite cool... Oh what is she going to do!
Here's the link to the tour! Come join! Toodles xxx
20 Jan 2009
Okay so this is the second feature of my incredible Kick Arse Bitches Season. 'Working Girl' is an original feminist film: Melanie is awesome and a little on the chubby side, which is nice. It goes to show that titles can be misleading. In fact I prefer to call this film: 'Working Whirl' because it's less sexist.
Rise secretarys: don't give up!
19 Jan 2009
This time, they are suggesting that women are more likely to orgasm if they're having sex with a rich man. I know, right? This alleged research was gathered by 'asking women about their sex lives', surely an inexact science if ever I heard one.
Pollet, a man, said: “Increasing partner income had a highly positive effect on women’s self-reported frequency of orgasm. More desirable mates cause women to experience more orgasms.”
Oh, so that's that then is it? Well, I'm going to conduct my own research, using my memories of sexual exploits, and if they agree with your research we'll call it science, shall we?
A (somewhat edited!) list of Posie's lovers:
My finger, c.1985- Took a while to master, but generally a came up with the goods. Income: Mine, so medium.
Darren, c.1988: Not a chance. Income: Medium.
Indigo, c.1990: Oh goodness, maybe once? Income: High.
LeAnne, 1991: Short lived but sweet! Income: Low.
William, 1991-1992: Very good. Income: Medium.
Terence, 1992: A rebound, AWFUL. Income: Medium.
Raif, 1999: Oh holidays! Oh sun! Oh wonder! Income: Unknown.
Cristoff, 2001: Far too quick to notice. Income: High.
Name unknown, 2001: I can only imagine not. Income: Unknown/Suspicious.
Max and Oliver, 2002: Oh dear, thankfully too drunk to remember. Income: Hiiiigh x 2.
Leon, 2004: Yes. Income: Low, with pretensions to fallen aristocracy.
[Quiet spell, cf. Me, Ted and my Head.]
Gerald, 2008: A swine, but parfait in the boudoir. Income: High but with pretensions to working class ennoblement.
So that’s a:
Yes!: High - 2; Medium – 2; Low -1 ; Unknown – 2.
No!: High - 3; Medium – 2; Low – 0; Unknown – 1.
So, that's not even the full list and it proves you wrong, Pollet. Stick that in your Bunsen burner and smoke it.
Another douche bag is Dave Buss, Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, Austin, who raised this question in his book The Evolution of Desire and believes female orgasms have several possible purposes.
“They could promote emotional bonding with a high-quality (my italics) male or they could serve as a signal that women are highly sexually satisfied, and hence unlikely to seek sex with other men,” he said. “What those orgasms are saying is ‘I'm extremely loyal, so you should invest in me and my children’."
Oh naff off, Dave. You wouldn't know a 'signal of satisfaction' if you were trapped up there in the dark for whole a week. Maybe, just maybe, females orgasm for reproductive purposes, to encourage sex? Or maybe women actually have a sex drive?
Otherwise, yes I do agree: to an extent. It's like the novelist Rosamund Lehmann (who had LOTS of sex) said about boffing Cecil Day Lewis: the great thing about being in bed with a poet is that you know he's always thinking about poetry. You feel second best: a sure recipe for desire!
It's a bit like that with money, I guess. Especially for stupid people i.e. the overwhelming majority. Men wouldn't be aroused by money because it threatens their masculinity (a gender construct). As Valerie Solanas wrote: women give milk, men give money.
Finally, it is interesting to consider that Simone de Beauvoir was a firm believer in women marrying a greater intellect - which for the sake of argument could be compared to wealth - whereas this just 'isn't possible' for the male. She didn't manage it, of course, as Satre was an idiot and de Beauvoir was a Goddess. In fact, perhaps it precisely this ambition that gives credence to Lady Astor's observation that paradoxically 'every woman marries beneath her'?
16 Jan 2009
"Melody- you have to use birth control for the next week"
"Yes I know that Posie- I'm Fertile. I'm bleeding like a virgin for god's sake. But what else could this do to me? Will I bleed to death internally from the sudden break in the birth-supressing oestrogen levels? Will I suffer violent mood swings, how long will they last, will they damage me in the long-term? Will it effect my reproductive system or does it make me more susceptible to cancer?"
What could I say? Melody doens't know what the Internet is, so I thought I'd check online on the pill company's website. "Use extra protection for sex!" they screamed. OK, but I'm not only planning on having sex next week (or maybe not at all, we'll see!). There are other things I need to do. Like move around and read. And then I remembered I was doing this for Melody so thought I really should find a solution, because after all, when you're not fucking like a mindless automaton there are other things that missing this pill might threaten, like living a healthy life.
Obviously I could find no information either from the pill company, medical websites or on discussion forums. Now this is absurd. Plenty of women take the pill to improve their skin (girlfriends at school took it to reduce their acne) or to control abnormal period cycles (my friend who hadn't had a period in 3 years now menstruates normally thanks to the pill!) Surely patting us on the head and telling us not to go and get knocked up because, silly us, we forgot our pills (just like women!) is patronising and irresponsible.
Plenty of guys I know forget to wipe the toothpaste foam from their beards until lunchtime, or until I point it out. If it was up to them to control the birth rate by taking a tiny, infinitely forgettable pill every single day, there'd be more people than ANTS.
And that is a FACT.
I told all this to Melody who didn't really take it all in. She has gone to visit her vagina doctor.
13 Jan 2009
Hi Gals! To celebrate 2009 I'm kicking off with A Kick Arese Bitches season: a whole season full of me, my, yes me, Posie bloody Rider's favourite kick arse bitches. Here's Number one: Eowyn from Lord of the Rings, who cunningly kills the evil witch doctor and his mutated dragon. You go gal!
12 Jan 2009
Between the Covers: Women's magazines and their readers
Women's Library until 1st April. (free)
Glitch - A 30min comedy in which a lone woman traveller finds herself trapped in a holding cell during an automated security check.
British Library 20th Jan - 14th Feb (free)
Mrs Affleck - a new play by Samuel Adamson from Henrik Ibsen’s Little Eyolf
Jealousy, love and despair at the National Theatre until April.
Patti Plinko and Her Boy at Leicester Square Theatre
A dark seductive world of art, sex and death, 12th February.
Million Women Rise Fundraising Benefit
14th February 6pm - 1am, 52 Gower Street.
And some I won't...
Britney Spears plays the O2
A puppet of her father, record company and publicists, the poor girl is being paraded around for cash again. I wish her peace and sanity.
Sex Drive The Movie
Bride Wars The Movie
See above. No wait, I'll say it again. Arrrgh!
5 Jan 2009
So it's a new year and so much is still to be done for Feminism before we leave the noughties altogether and I hit (whisper!) 38.
100 years since Joan of Arc was beatified in Rome, 100 years since Alice Huyer Ramsey became the first woman to drive across America, 2009 is hardly a big centenary year for Women. But we can make this year our own by making it the year that Fourth Wave Feminism was launched in the UK and spread across the globe like a tsunami. Have you seen Akira? Imagine the blob Tetsuo expanding to engulf Tokyo. Now imagine me doing the same with patriarchy. Pretty impressive, n'est pas?
But a brave new ideology needs some intellectual wrangling. What's more, it needs RULES. At a drinks party last weekend, glowing from the convivial atmosphere and one too many Gin Fizzes, I found myself trying to describe the four waves of Feminism to an Homme Non Partisan (that's one-off from a chauvinist, the kind who says "I think women should be equal with men but there's no need for Feminism anymore". Well, I say there's no need for you anymore. Now leave existence, petit homme!) .
Explaining Waves One to Three was a doddle, but when I came to Wave Four, I found myself a little lost for words. For the solitary architect of Wave Four to be so at a loss in describing her own revolutionary movement was a far from acceptable predicament. I've now sought to right this on the blog, having provided him with a link to follow at his own leisure.
So, Barry, this is for you.
Fourth Wave Feminism is not merely a rebranding of the Third Wave. This is no Pasta Hut gimick. Fourth Wave Feminism aims to resolve the empty soul-searching of Third Wave Feminism and return us to a juicy state akin to the passionate militancy, de jure inequality-bashing and sharp-tailoring of the First Wave. This is What a Suffragette Looks Like is our motto. The Second Wave was all well and good and the Third Wave had it's moments, but I say we are now in a stage akin to a Late-Third Wave, where even Feminists have lost the plot.
For educated and 'experimental' sex-positive practitioners, developing ideas such as gender queer, womanism, transgender and that-sort-of-thing, life couldn't be better. But outside of educated and bohemian circles, women who are encouraged to be sex-positive are being pushed into cycles of self-denigrating oppression no more fulfilling than the submissive existence of a Playboy Bunny.
Sex-Positivity only works when you're doing something terribly unusual and if you've read an awful lot of Judith Butler. For everyone else, it's a massive mixed message that leads to twelve year olds in G-strings and teenage girls who want nothing more than to be dishonoured on a dance floor by a stranger.
The Third Wave was about personality politics and individual choice, under the auspices of consumer capitalism. It began innocently enough. "Yes, I can be a Feminist and buy lipstick", women cried. Indeed, I personally swear by Dior #999. Then came the likes of "I can be a Feminist and get breast implants." Serious? I'd say that's less easy to call. Why do you need those breast implants? Do you feel as strongly about the breast implants as you do about Feminism? Didn't think so.
By the time we reached, "I can be a Feminist and be masturbated by robots on the bonnet of a pink Chevy for cash and on film," we knew things had gone too far. Why? Because Feminism isn't the same thing as doing exactly what you like. Feminism is about asking why it is you like the things you do and then deciding whether those likes are truly original to yourself, as far as is possible in any society. Feminism is as much a critique of individual desires as it is of the societies in which they flourish. Treating each degrading and vain desire as if they are equal to noble or uplifting wishes is cynical, damaging and idiotic. What's worse, it's making someone a lot of money somewhere, probably in the head office of Ann Summers where you buy your candy handcuffs and cherry scented lubes, foolish woman!
Finally, fundamentally, Feminism is about improving the quality of life of WOMEN. Anything that conflicts with that is not Feminism. That is being a hedonist, an egotist, a sadist and a pornocrat. Feminism can't be all those things, silly!
So, this is not a manifesto. It's a reconnaissance mission. The Femifesto will follow, once I've really worked out what I'm up against. Watch this space!