Home » Feminism
Category Archives: Feminism
That’s not misogyny….it’s just your imagination
Imagine a little boy1 called Jimmy, he could be called, Aaron, Daniel, Joshua, Matthew, Samuel or any other other traditionally male name, but for expediency, we’ll call him Jimmy, short for James. From the moment of birth he becomes somebody’s son, the light of their lives, new beginnings for all. Lots of people comment, how lucky to have a boy, not that there’s anything wrong with girls, but a son is something special, somebody to carry on the family name. Gifts are bestowed, and anyone who has looked for children’s clothes recently, will see that tradition still holds sway, blue for a boy, pink for a girl. And what about toys, no dolls for little boys, unless they’re in military attire, instead, some bricks, some cars, a gun, something sporty, a ball, a bat, to keep their mind and body active. What about some books, we’re told that boys don’t really like those, a message they absorb quite readily, reading is hard to learn and requires patience and perseverance. Nevertheless, we don’t want Jimmy to be illiterate, so let’s find some books about his place in the world, tales of empire, princes and superheroes who save the world. Books that really centre the male experience, where girls and women are secondary characters to assist or be rescued, that’s if they appear at all. Think of all those traditional fairy tales where girls are told again and again to stay on the right path, to do as they’re told, to defer to the male characters. All this while the men are fighting dragons, ogres, travelling the world. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, that’s why she reads those stories to him.
All too soon little Jimmy has to leave his mother’s bosom and enter the world of formal education. Mummy tells him “boys don’t cry” whilst all the while worrying what school will do to their little boy who loves animals and cries when watching Bambi. Nevertheless, he is mummy’s “brave little soldier” and he will do his best to toughen up in the classroom, in the playground and on the playing fields. As we are told boys don’t really like girls games, they’re boring and dull, and even if they do, what will the other boys say? A steady drip drip of intolerance, never compromised, in the instruction of young Jimmy. When things go wrong, as they often do in human relationships, Jimmy’s behaviour is excused, he’s young, he’s enthusiastic, he’s exuberant, he’s misunderstood. And after all “boys will be boys”, he’s probably just ended up with the wrong crowd. He’s only playing, he’s only teasing, it’s only banter, nothing serious, nothing to get wound up about. We must be patient, after all boys mature much slower than girls, or so we are told. Give him time, give him space, he’ll grow out of it. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, she knows that he’s her “little hero”.
And what happens to the girls whilst they wait for little Jimmy to grow up? They learn too, they learn to take up less space, to stay out of Jimmy’s way, they learn to keep quiet, because nobody’s hearing, although everyone says they’re listening. The girls are whipping things out of all proportion, they don’t understand, they’re gunning for poor Jimmy who is such a delightful little boy , apart from when there’s no adults around. Anyway, Jimmy said sorry, begrudgingly and because he was told to, but it is an apology nonetheless. So there is no need to hold a grudge, let’s go back to where we were before you started your silly complaints to busy adults. Don’t forget nobody likes a girl that whines and nags, everybody benefits when they have a smile on their face and an eagerness to support and nurture, it doesn’t become a young lady to be tiresome and needy. So the powers that be excuse, minimise and ameliorate Jimmy’s behaviours, attitudes and actions. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, even if she does go on a bit.
So off Jimmy goes to university, where women predominate undergraduate studies. Here, there is less tolerance, for Jimmy’s behaviours, but there are plenty of others like him. All are focused on the transition from childhood to independent adult. There is more opportunity to live freely, to decide who you want to be, but there are also lots of challenges to your beliefs, your attitudes, your behaviours. Still that freedom, means you can avoid those difficult conversations in classrooms, you can keep your head down, you can focus on a different kind of education, one freely available from like-minded peers, the internet, AI etc. There’s nobody to chase you, to pick up after you, to make sure you’re not staying up too late, or getting in with the wrong crowd, there doesn’t appear to be any consequences. You don’t need to engage with women, their study groups, their friendships, their desire for education as an escape from their own mother’s experiences, Jimmy’s had years of being told what to do, how to think, how to behave, now he gets to decide, he’s in charge of his own destiny and those around him, need to sit up and take notice. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, she can empathise with how hard he works, how tough life is for her little Jimmy.
After university, Jimmy’s off to be a professional. A fully formed adult, with a degree under his belt, and a lifetime of reassurance that he’s supported. He didn’t get the degree classification he deserved, too many rules and regulations, too many classes, too many assessments, but that’s not his fault. Everyone knows there is a gender disparity in attainment, so it must be the fault of those academics, who tried to challenge his thinking because they don’t understand the real world. None of that matters now, he has a job, a career, and he’s going to change the world. By now he’s used to being listened to, all the times in headteachers’ offices where his behaviour was deconstructed, analysed and reinterpreted. His mummy, who had no opportunity to go to University, listens to her clever son who tells her how things are in the world. He talks about ideas and people that she’s never heard of, some with some very nasty things to say and she presumes this is what the educated discuss. Little does she know, this does not come from the classroom, but from podcasts, pornography, late night chats whilst playing violent video games, and little Jimmy’s banter with his mates. The problem is the women in his workplace, don’t like his banter, his jokes, his little comments. They’ve been working for a long time, alongside raising their own little Jimmys, and they know what this is. They sense the misogyny all around them, they’ve had a lifetime of feeling, hearing and seeing men like little Jimmy. They talk over them, they talk about them, they take their ideas and their work and they demean and diminish at every opportunity. They exaggerate their knowledge and experience and use ad hominem attacks and whataboutery to great effect. They take it for granted that they have something to say, that people want to listen to them. They sit in meetings and say “what about the men?” yet never, “what about the women?”. Anything to shift attention back to them, centre of attention, supported, enabled and encouraged. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, she understands him, even if she does switch off when he goes off on one of his rants, after all he knows best, he’s her “clever little boy”.
But what about the women in little Jimmy’s workplace? They’ve seen it all before, they’ve read the fairy tales and they know that dragons can be vanquished, but only by men. They laugh and joke about their experiences with other women, but this dark humour, reverberates at night and in quiet moments, and they know they are avoiding confronting the issue. By doing this there is collectivity but they know such humour protects no girl or woman. But professionalism means they cannot tackle the problem head on, they cannot call it out for what it is, there are policies and processes, institutions must have evidence, what happened, when did it happen, who saw it happen, what did you do/say, have you tried an informal approach etc etc. Before the women even begin, they know that they’re at a grave disadvantage, after all little Jimmy is new, he’s ambitious, he’s enthusiastic, he’s exuberant, he’s misunderstood. Let’s see if we can get him some training, some unconscious bias, some cultural competency, some management expertise, the list goes on. But little Jimmy is well versed in avoiding challenge so he goes through the motions, another certificate to remind him of all that he has achieved. The women relearn what they already know from a lifetime’s experience, take up less space, stay out of Jimmy’s way, keep quiet, because nobody’s hearing, although everyone says they’re listening. The women are catastrophising, they don’t understand, they’ve got it in for little Jimmy who is so delightful when talking to management, but far less charming when nobody is around. Anyway, Jimmy declares remorse, begrudgingly, without ever mentioning the words sorry or apology, and only because he was told to, but it is an apology nonetheless. So there is no need to hold a grudge, let’s go back to where we were before you started your tedious complaints, it will make a happier workplace for all. Don’t forget nobody likes a woman that whines and nags, everybody benefits when they have a smile on their face and an eagerness to work hard and pick up the slack, it doesn’t become a lady to be tiresome and needy, so get back to work. Again the powerful excuse, minimise and ameliorate Jimmy’s behaviours, attitudes and actions. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, and he deserves to rise to the top in whatever he does, after all he’s a “born leader” and those women will only waste the opportunity because of their biology.
A lifetime of always getting his way, nobody ever saying NO and actually meaning it, always somebody to make space, make time, make allowances, makes it very difficult to stop Jimmy’s misogynistic proclivities. He certainly would not recognise that misogyny has anything to do with him or his mates, what a Silly Billy. Instead, he carries on oblivious to the misery he leaves in his wake. But don’t forget he loves his mummy dearly, and it’s not his fault women misinterpret his intentions. But what happens when somebody says NO, and means it? In the very best case scenario little Jimmy take this as a learning opportunity, listening and actually hearing the words spoken to him, doing the important on himself. If you want to know about the worse scenario, read the lived experiences encapsulated on the Everyday Sexism Project or Everyone’s Invited from which this blog entry has taken inspiration. You could also ask the women who pick up the pieces, mop up the tears, tend to the broken bodies and minds on a daily basis, by following the work of charities such Northamptonshire Rape Crisis and Eve Domestic Abuse. You could take the time to listen to the girls and women in your lives about their experiences, but proceed with caution, you may not be ready for what you might hear.
The words above are a figment of my imagination, but the content described happens everyday, all around us in plain sight. The story above is not just about Jimmy, but lots of Jimmys, whose misogynistic attitudes and behaviours are facilitated, encouraged and tolerated by all of us. Men, women, institutions, society are complicit in the continuation and perpetuation of misogyny. In the UK and further afield, adults, children and institutions continue to operate within the parameters of the British Empire, enabling attitudes such as misogyny, racism, homophobia, disablism and all of the other miseries to continue unabated. However, much we might want to pretend these attitudes are outdated and the behaviours, simply symptomatic of an overactive imagination, if you open your eyes you will see it all around you. It is not enough to wring our hands whilst watching Adolescence or Eastenders or Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere, kidding ourselves this doesn’t happen around us, only to other people. Bear in mind also, that the attention is always focused on the male characters, as always, girls and women are bit players, secondary to the main story, appearing only as victims and survivors and often causal factors in their own victimisation (see Jimmy’s mum above). Programmes such as these, offer the promise of awareness raising, but we swiftly move onto the next offering. We all have a responsibility to call out misogyny, to listen when girls and women try to explain their experiences, and the powerful have a duty to protect all, not just some of our society. If you don’t understand or recognise another’s experiences, don’t dismiss, ask questions, centre that person’s dialogue and then act on it.
- I have deliberately focused on girls and women, at the expense of other intersectionalities such as race, religion, sexuality, age and disability, simply because the problem is just too large for a single blog entry. But you could consider the misery of misogynoir or hijabophobia or many other contexts in which male supremacy continues to have a devastating and generational impact on individual lives. ↩︎
Sabrina Carpenter and Feminist Utopia
I have recently been introduced to Sabrina Carpenter via online media commentary about the image of her new album cover Man’s Best Friend. Whilst some claim the image is playing with satire, the image appears to have been interpreted by others as being hyper-sexual and pandering to the male gaze.

I am not sure why this specific album cover and artist has attracted so much attention given that the hyper-sexual depiction of women is well-represented within the music industry and society more generally. However, because Sabrina’s main audience base is apparently young women under 30 it did leave me thinking about the module CRI1009 and feminist utopia, as it left me with questions that I would want to ask the students like: In a feminist utopia should the hyper-sexualized imagery of women exist?
Some might be quick to point out that this imagery should not exist as it could be seen to contribute towards the misogynistic sexualisation of women and the danger of this, as illustrated with Glasgow Women’s Aid comments about Sabrina’s album cover via Instagram (2025)
‘Sabrina Carpenter’s new album cover isn’t edgy, it’s regressive.
Picturing herself on all fours, with a man pulling her hair and calling it “Man’s Best Friend” isn’t subversion. 😐
It’s a throwback to tired tropes that reduce women to pets, props, and possessions and promote an element of violence and control. 🚩
We’ve fought too hard for this. ✊🏻
We get Sabrina’s brand is packaged up retro glam but we really don’t need to go back to the tired stereotypes of women. ✨
Sabrina is pandering to the male gaze and promoting misogynistic stereotypes, which is ironic given the majority of her fans are young women!
Come on Sabrina! You can do better! 💖’
However, thinking about utopia is always complicated as Sabrina’s brand appears to some a ‘sex-positive feminism’ by apparently allowing women to be free to represent themselves and ‘feel sexy’ rather than being controlled by the rules and expectations of other people. For some this idea of sexual freedom aka ‘sex-positive feminism’ branded via an inequitable capitalistic male dominated industry and represented by an incredibly rich white woman would be a bit of a mythical representation. As while this idea of sexy feminism is promoted by the privileged few this occurs in a societal context where many feel that women’s rights are being/at risk of being eroded and women are being subjected to sexual violence on a daily basis.
I am not sure what a workshop discussion with CRI1009 students would conclude about this, but certainly there would need to be a circling back to more never- ending foundational questions about utopia: what else would exist in this feminist utopia? Whose feminist utopic vision should get priority? Would anyone be damaged in a utopic society that does promote this hyper-sexualization? If so, should this utopia prioritise individual expression or have collective responsibility? In a society without hyper-sexualisation of women would there be rule breakers, and if so, what do you do with them?
Witches, Broomsticks and Libraries
My son has been gifted and collected many delightful children’s books since his recent birth. A book which stands out to me on Women’s History Month is: Room on the Broom (2001) by writer Julia Donaldson and Illustrator Axel Scheffler.
Aside from the fabulous use of words and illustrations, the main character of the story is a lovely witch who makes room on her broom for her cat, a dog, bird and frog. The latter part of the story consists of the broom snapping, presumably due to the extra weight of these passengers, then the witch risks being eaten by a dragon. But eventually all is well as the witch creates a new super broomstick with;
seats for the witch
and the cat and the dog,
a nest for the bird and
a shower for the frog.

This book’s depiction of the witch as a morally good character is wonderful but this is not usual. In popular culture, such as fiction, television and film witches seem to have flawed character traits, are morally bad cackling devious women who fly about casting spells on poor and (un/)suspecting folk.
The negative connotations of witches today reflect a long dreadful real-life history of outsiders being accused of being witches – with some being tortured and murdered due to this. The outsiders aka witches tended to be women, women who were providing a service for other women, such as support during childbirth or healing practices, or those that practice spiritualisms that differ to dominant religions. If re-born today some of these women may have been celebrated as midwifes and nurses, although their wages and workloads would still illustrate that predominantly women centered roles tend to be under appreciated.
On International Women’s Day I finished reading Disobedient Bodies (2023) by Emma Dabiri. Disobedient Bodies reminds me about how in a white capitalist cis male world bodies categorised as female and women are constructed as deviant. Proof of being a witch was apparently not just found in practices but on the bodies of women. Emma Dabiri adds to the discussion on witches that I did not consider; that groups of women aka groups of deviant witches were considered to be the most threatening to witch hunters. For a long time women have been pitted against each other, the historical nature of women meeting in groups to support each other as a threat to patriarchal capitalist white systems has added to this.
My son is very privileged to have so many book at the age of 1. Unfortunately I am writing during a time where there are threats to close 25 libraries in Birmingham. Notably, the libraries that me and my son frequent consist of mostly women staff (both paid and volunteers). In addition to the potential for job losses, if this happens there will be babies, children and adults without access to books, artistic classes, warm and safe spaces. To quote my friend and colleague, “soon there will be nothing left”.
Feminism, Security and Conflict

Content warning: this blog post mentions feminist theory in relation to issues of rape, genocide and war.
Recently I had the opportunity to do a deep dive into feminist contributions to the field of international relations, a discipline which of course has many parallels and connections to criminology. Feminism as a broad concept often is viewed from a human rights perspective, which makes sense as this is probably the area that is most visible to most people through progressions in the field of political participation, reproductive and sexual rights and working rights. A lesser known contribution is feminist theory to international relations (IR), specifically, its practical and theoretical contribution to security and conflict. This blog post will give a whistle stop tour through the exploration I conducted concerning the themes of security, conflict and feminism. Hopefully I can write this in a way everyone finds interesting as it’s a fairly heavy topic at times!
Security
Within IR, security has usually been defined on a more state-centric level. If a state can defend itself and its sovereign borders and has adequate (or more than adequate) military power, it is seen to be in a condition of security according to realist theory (think Hobbes and Machiavelli). Realism has taken centre stage in IR, suggesting that the state is the most important unit of analysis therefore meaning security has generally taken a state-centric definition.
Feminism has offered a radical rejuvenation of not only security studies, but also the ontological principles of IR itself. While the state is preoccupied with providing military security, often pooling resources towards this sector during times of international fragility, welfare sectors are usually plunged into a state of underfunding- even more so than they usually are. This means that individuals who depend on such sectors are often left in a state of financial and/or social insecurity. Feminism focuses on this issue, suggesting women are often the recipients of various welfare based services. The impact of wartime fiscal policy would not have been uncovered without feminism paying attention to the women typically side-lined and ignored in international politics. So while the state is experiencing a sense of security, its citizens (quite often women) are in a feeling of insecurity.
This individualisation of security also challenges the merit of using such a narrow, state-centric definition of security, ultimately questioning the validity of the dominant, state-focused theory of realism which in IR, is pretty ground-breaking.
Conflict
I’d say that in nearly all social science disciplines, including politics, economics, sociology, IR and criminology, conflict and war is something that is conceptualised as inherently ‘masculine’. Feminist theory was one of the first schools to document this and problematise it through scholarship which interrogated hegemonic masculinity, ‘masculine’ institutions and the manifestations of these things in war zones.
Wartime/ genocidal rape is unfortunately not a rare behaviour to come across in the global arena. The aftermath of the Yugoslav wars and the Rwandan genocide is probably some of the most reported cases in academic literature, and this is thanks to feminist theory shining a light on the phenomena. Feminism articulates wartime/ genocidal rape as constitutive of the dangerous aspects of culturally imbedded conceptions of masculinity being underscored by power and domination and being legitimised by the institutions which champion dangerous elements of masculinity.
Practically, this new perspective provided by feminism has altered the way sexual violence is viewed by the mainstream; once a firmly domestic problem, sexual violence has been brought into foreign policy and recognised as a tactic of war. This articulation by feminist theory is absolutely ground breaking in the social science world as it shifts the onto-epistemological focus that other more conventional schools have been unable to look past.
Justice or Just Another One?

Luckily I’ve never been one for romantic movies. I always preferred a horror movie. I just didn’t know that my love life would become the worst horror movie I could ever encounter. I was only 18 when I met the monster who presented as a half decent human being. I didn’t know the world very well at that point and he made sure that he became my world. The control and coercion, at the time, seemed like romantic gestures. It’s only with hind sight that I can look back and realise every “kind” and “loving” gesture came from a menacing place of control and selfishness. I was fully under his spell. But anyway, I won’t get into every detail ever. I guess I just wanted to preface this with the fact that abuse doesn’t just start with abuse. It starts with manipulation that is often disguised as love and romance in a twisted way.
This man went on to break me down into a shell of myself before the physical abuse started. Even then, him getting that angry was somehow always my fault. I caused that reaction in his sick, twisted mind and I started to believe it was my fault too. The final incident took place and the last thing I can clearly recall is hearing how he was going to cave my head in before I felt this horrendous pressure on my neck with his other hand keeping me from making any noise that would expose him.
By chance, I managed to get free and RUN to my family. Immediately took photos of my injuries too because even in my state, I know how the Criminal Justice System would not be on my side without evidence they deemed suitable.
Anyway, my case ended up going to trial. Further trauma. Great. I had to relive the entire relationship by having every part of my character questioned on the stand like I was the criminal in this instance. I even got told by his defence that I had “Histrionic Personality Disorder”. Something I have never been diagnosed with, or even been assessed for. Just another way the CJS likes to pathologise women’s trauma. Worst of all, turns out ‘Doctor Defence’ ended up dropping my abuser as he was professionally embarrassed when he realised he knew my mother who was also a witness. Wonderful. This meant I got to go through the process of being criminalised, questioned, diagnosed with disorders I hadn’t heard of at the time, hear the messages, see the photos ALL over again.
Although “justice” prevailed in as much as he was found guilty. All for the sake of a suspended sentence. Perfect. The man who made me feel like he was my world then also tried to end my life was still going to be free enough to see me. The law wasn’t enough to stop him from harming me, why would it be enough to stop him now?
Fortunately for me, it stopped him harming me. However, it did not stop him harming his next victim. For the sake of her, I won’t share any details of her story as it is not mine to share. Yet, this man is now behind bars for a pretty short period of time as he has once again harmed a woman. Evidently, I was right. The law was not enough to stop him. Which leads me to the point of this post, at what stage does the CJS actually start to take women’s pleas to feel safe seriously? Does this man have to go as far to take away a woman’s life entirely before someone finally deems him as dangerous? Why was my harm not enough? Would the CJS have suddenly seen me as a victim, rather than making me feel like a criminal in court, if I was eternally silenced? Why do women have to keep dying at the hands of men because the CJS protects domestic abusers?”
Can Barbie ever be Feminist?

Barbie certainly has people talking, the commentary surrounding the film takes a variety of angles. A quick google search shows that Barbie’s ironic take on the patriarchy appears to have ruffled the fragility feathers with some viewers describing it as ‘man-hating’. I could not help but chuckle at a YouTube video titled; Barbie Bombs Innocent Families with Feminist Propaganda…because apparently, equality is such a bad idea.
There have been some superficial and tokenistic attempts to ‘diversify’ the brand. Yet, at its core the imagery of Barbie still appears to be an obvious symbol of oppressive white feminism. The Barbie doll could be seen to project the white feminine beauty ideal, and the main character within the film, Margot Robbie, appears to embody this ideal. I.e., the appearance of a white, cis-gender, heterosexual women with the wealth to be able to afford all sorts of powdery pink capitalist goods and a body type which is impossible to achieve.
In the contemporary era this ideal continues to be damaging. Even for the most privileged of women, it promotes the spending of much more of women’s income than men on items such as beauty, food and lifestyles, and encourages restrictive dieting practices, which can be damaging to physical and mental health (Naomi Wolf, 1990). For marginalised women there is damage caused due to living in a world which promotes the white privileged as normative. Some examples include, the advertising and selling of skin bleaching products to achieve this white or ‘light’ beauty ideal, to schools excluding Black and Brown school children for having afro textured hair (Emma Dabiri, 2019 and Ibram X. Kendi, 2019).
Whilst the Barbie film apparently has a dig at capitalism, the film and the merchandise sold will produce huge profits by selling this particular brand of feminism. So those interested can buy into feminism and make the capitalists happy rather than being political or radical.
Apparently, the film depicts a comedic take on the patriarchy, with Ken’s toxicity and Barbie having to deal with microaggressions when entering the ‘real world’. How far does the film go with illustrating patriarchal oppression? Is the intersectional oppression experienced by the most marginalised of women present? Does Barbie and Co have issues with femicide, police brutality, poverty, mental ill health, rape, incarceration, immigration detention, homelessness or drowning whilst in a boat whilst trying to seek refuge? Or is the patriarchy in film only palatable and profitable if it presents itself in the form of privileged women experiencing comedic microagressions?
Maybe Barbie will lead to some (probably white and privileged) people thinking more critically or feeling empowered but it doesn’t seem to be a type of feminism ‘for all people’, so perhaps it’s not feminism at all (bell hooks, 1982).
I wonder what will happen to the profits made from the film…
Note* I have not watched the Barbie film so apologies for the vague analysis and sketchy details*
References:
Dabiri, Emma. (2020) Don’t touch my hair. United Kingdom: Penguin Books.
hooks, bell. (1982) Ain’t I a Woman : Black women and feminism. London: Pluto.
Kendi, Ibram. X. (2019) How to be an antiracist. London: The Bodley Head.
Wolf, Naomi. (1991) The Beauty Myth : How images of beauty are used against women. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Calling All Dads: Girls Girls Girls wanted. #SpokenWord
Calling all dads.
Reward for the first hundred daughters!
Calling all dads, Magic City Club is recruiting!
Magic city is the most elite strip joint in the world,
Any dad should be proud to have his daughter work for us!
We value our customers and want to give YOU the chance to shape Magic City Club’s future.
So we’re recruiting.
PLEASE send your daughters in right away.

We need your girls, girls, girls.
The most beautiful daughters in the world, we ask all dads to send them now.
You’re our valued-customers so you know MCC is about quality!
Send them in to Magic City Club, by express, in a rush, by plane or by bus!
Hurry, hurry, hurry we need girls – quick – these polls aren’t going to oil them selves.
We don’t care how you get these girls here we need strippers now!
Now we know this is a difficult task,
So we are offering a reward for the first hundred daughters!
The first hundred days to send in their daughters will get a lifetime ticket!
A lifetime supply of girls swinging on poles, every dad’s dream.
So send in your daughters, and the first hundred new donors receive a lifetime supply of free entry to any of our prestigious establishments around the world for you and a party of 10 men.
Imagine how your career will explore when you bring your colleagues on an annual, all-expense-paid trip to Magic city, and enjoy some other men’s daughters swinging from the polls. Swish. Slide. Spin, Twirl. And flap, flat on the ground, she’s in a split!
Dads, you will not be missed on any neighbor’s Christmas list when you invite the dads from your hood right on down to Magic City.
Don’t miss Father’s Day. Each year, Luxury Life Liquors sponsors our special Father’s Day event and fills pool on stage with whiskey. Watch these girls swim like mermaids. After the show, you know MC doesn’t waste good liquor.
Magic City.

It’s magic.
And somebody’s daughter has got to do it, has got to swing from these polls!
Act now, send in yours! Send in your daughters right away.
As our valued customer, you know Magic City Club has a ‘don’t ask don’t tell’ policy for the backrooms, so: Employer shall be not liable for sexual harassment, STD’s, or in any way held responsible for unwanted pregnancies.
We provide the costumes; daughters must provide their own contraception.
Yours truly,
The management
*P.S. Magic City Club is not affiliated with that MC strip joint all the rappers rap about.
And still the message is the same…

Following on from last week’s blog entry from @5teveh, @jesjames50 explores further dimensions of Sarah Everard’s murder.
Recently we saw the sentencing of Sarah Everard’s kidnapper, rapist and murderer. He has received a whole life sentence. As a woman within society I welcome this sentence. As a criminologist I am at a loss. There is a lot to unpick here in terms of ‘justice’ and whether this has been served. It is pertinent to question the use of a whole life order on a violent, misogynistic, kidnapper, rapist and murderer; who cooperated after arrest, who pleaded guilty and expected the full force of the law. But I shall leave that to another day, as the media’s portrayal of the sentencing and aftermath is what is currently fuelling my anger. The message remains the same, women can and should do more to prevent their victimisation.
The sentence given is at odds with the coverage which has followed. Handing down the most severe sentence available in England and Wales represents the seriousness of the offence, and the damage it has caused to those directly involved and those further afield. The possibility that the offender was in a position of trust, has violated this trust and committed abhorrent acts appears to justify the whole life order. The comparison to terrorism, something which violence against women has been linked to before within academia, is also very telling. But what is the focus? The focus is on how women can go about feeling safe in society and make lines of inquiry if they have doubts about a police officer’s conduct! Here the onus is on women acting in a manner of keeping themselves safe. The message remains the same: women should prevent their victimisation. Excellent I’ll add this nugget of information to my bag of ‘top tips for walking alone at night’.
Why aren’t the media building on this platform to challenge misogynist attitudes? Why are they not raising awareness of violence against women? Sarah’s kidnapping, rape and murder is horrific: but what about the women who undergo daily violence at the hands of their partners, family, friends? These individuals are also in a position of trust and abuse this position to cause harm to women! Here the media could raise awareness about how deep-rooted the issue of violence against women is, but instead they reinforce the idea that women can prevent their victimisation, and that violence occurs at night, by a stranger, and will have the offender brought to justice. This is not the reality for the vast majority of women. It is an extreme and exceptional case (no doubt something True Crime will encapsulate in years to come) and this is further reinforced by the sentence given. Yet violence against women is not exceptional, or rare: it is an everyday reality! Something the media has failed to draw attention to. And by failing to cement Sarah’s kidnapping, rape and murder in the wider context of violence against women, it raises the potential to set a standard of violence against women. Those everyday cases which do not fit the same circumstances are not considered an issue.
My intentions are in no way to take away from the abhorrent crimes committed against Sarah. The crimes sit in the context of violence against women which is still a fundament issue overlooked within society, and has been overlooked once again. And the rhetoric which has followed, yet again, is around how women can protect themselves in the future. The message remains the same…

Looking in all the wrong places and finding no answers
Recently we saw the killer of Sarah Everard receive a whole life sentence for her murder and with the sentence came the usual rhetoric from the politicians and media alike. I could tell you how I feel as a former police officer, but I just don’t think that really matters, others have said it but what they say, undoubtedly with conviction, seems rather hollow. What matters is that another life has been taken as a result of male violence, not just violence, male violence. I don’t disagree with those that want to make the streets safe for women, reclaim the streets, I don’t disagree with the ‘me too movement’, but somehow, I feel that the fundamental issue is being missed. Somehow, I think that all the rhetoric and calls for action concentrate too much on women as victims and looking for someone or some organisation to blame. There seems to be a sense created that this is a problem for women and in doing so concentrates on the symptoms rather than the cause. This is a problem for men and our society. Let’s not dress it up, pretend it could be something else, use terms like ‘not all men’, it is a fact nearly all violence, whether that be against women or men is perpetrated by … you guessed it, men.
I was watching a tv programme the other day about migraines and as it transpires there are millions of migraine sufferers around the world, most are women. It seems as a man I’m in the minority. One of the interviewees, a professor was asked why so little had been done in terms of research and finding a cure. He was frank, if it had been a male problem then there would have been more done. I’m not sure I totally subscribe to that because there are lots of other factors, after all prostate cancer a major cause of male deaths seems to have received comparatively little coverage until recently. But he made me think, if men, particularly those of influence accepted there was a problem would they be inclined to act? We call for more females in policing, we call for more females in the boardroom, predominately because we want to make things look a little fairer, a bit more even. We still have a massive gender pay gap in so many businesses and the public sector, we still have accusations and proven cases of sexual harassment. We still have archaic attitudes to women in so many walks of life, including religion. Words are great, useless but great. If you own the problem, you find solutions, men don’t own the problem and that is a problem.
So, it seems to me, that we are looking in the wrong place. Removing Cressida Dick as the head of the Metropolitan Police service isn’t going to change things. Blaming the police as an organisation isn’t going to change things. Look around you, look at all the scandals, all the sexual offences against women, against children. Look at where the perpetrators are placed in society, in positions of trust, as members of a variety of organisations, organisations that traditionally we thought we could turn to in our need. And look at the gender of those that commit those crimes, almost always men.
The solution to all of this is beyond me. As a criminologist I know of so many theories about why people commit crime or are victims of crime. Some are a little ridiculous but are a product of their time, others fit quite nicely into different circumstances, but none fully explain why. There are no real certainties and predicting who and where is almost impossible. Somehow, we need our leaders, predominately men, to grasp the mettle, to accept this a problem for men. If we owned the problem, we might start to tackle the causes of male violence, whatever they might be. Maybe then we might start to address the symptoms, society will be a safer place, and nobody will need to reclaim the streets.

https://www.theloquitur.com/get-educated-and-be-aware-sexual-assault-will-affect-your-life/



