MRAs, rape deniers, and shitty book deals: British feminists have as much fun as we do!
Thanks to the latest and thoroughly excellent Carnival Against Sexual Violence, I’ve discovered
PC Bloggs, a policewoman in the U.K. who blogs about police crap. (Police crap: It’s a technical term, folks. Work with me.) PC has two posts in the carnival, and the first one is a doozy.
In Look how EQUAL we are, PC neatly illustrates the difference between how female and male rape victims are treated. She cites “two examples of the kind of regular updates entered into Blandshire’s Incident Control System by the on-duty control room supervisor following different reports”:
Incident #1:
Caller reporting her 17-year-old daughter was raped last night by two named offenders after going out drinking at her local pub. Daughter is very distressed and sore.
Update from supervisor: Officers to attend and establish the following:1. Is the daughter making an allegation?
2. Names and descriptions of alleged offenders.
3. How much alcohol was consumed?
4. If allegation is being made, locate scene.
5. Will the victim attend court?
6. If allegation could be true, will she consent to a medical?Incident #2:
Caller reporting her 18-year-old son was raped last night by a male known to him, following a party at his house. Son is in pain and upset.
Update from supervisor: Officers to attend and establish the following:1. Locate the crime scene.
2. Arrange medical examination and take victim to rape suite.
3. Name/description of offender.
4. Preserve forensic evidence, seize clothing.
It would be mind-boggling if our minds hadn’t already been boggled from birth by the same kind of crap here in ‘Murka every goddamn day of our lives.
PC’s second post in the Carnival, An Idiot’s Guide for Rape Victims, is a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the absurd obstacles to getting a rape conviction, at least when the victim is a woman. But check the comments: it’s like an MRA propaganda bratwurst exploded in the pan and spewed greasy lies everywhere.
“95% of all rape allegations are proven, in court, after the evidence being tested by qualified barristers and subjected to examination by jurors, to be false.
“In other words the women lied.
“I makes you wonder just how many innocent men have had their lives destroyed by lying women.”
…writes one serial rapist from his jail cell as he takes a break from penning his latest demand for parole. And a divorced father who sexually abused his daughter and is still fuming over losing custody chimes in:
“But when we get the Feminazis and their pussy-whipped supporters who want the inconvenient facts ignored and accused men to be convicted merely on the say so of a hysterical, neurotic or drunken woman then, quite frankly, it is difficult to consider that they are not delusionally insane?”
I’m thinking I need to make an exception to my self-imposed ban on travel. Like the Accidental Tourist, my goal when travelling is to find an environment as similar to home as possible so as to avoid even a twinge of culture shock. I believe Britain can provide me with that kind of experience. I can go there and encounter exactly the same kind of rape-denying MRA fucktwits I enjoy so much here at home.
And there’s more: British feminists get pornified by book publishers, too!
PC Bloggs, you see, has written a book:
Notice anything? Like, maybe, how the title makes it sound like a prostitute’s tell-all? And how the cover features a good-looking woman with bright red lipstick (and no eyes, ’cause that could confuse men into thinking she’s a human being)?
You know, if Andrea Dworkin wrote Intercourse today it would be published with a lurid pink cover and a picture of a naked porn actress on all fours with a pair of bunny ears on. Intercourse! The too-hot-to-handle exposé from deep inside the Battle of the Sexes!
I’m betting PC Bloggs has written a smart and incisive book. But dig the publisher’s product blurb:
WPC BLOGGS is a 21st Century policewoman… a cross between Bridget Jones and PC David Copperfield. She frets about her make-up, flirts with male officers and, occasionally, arrests some very naughty people.
She frets about her fucking makeup? FRETS ABOUT HER FUCKING MAKEUP?
Oh man, I’m totally booking my flight. I can travel again! It’ll be just like home!
One question, though: do y’all still have those wax paper squares in the bathroom? Cause that could be a problem.
31 Responses to “MRAs, rape deniers, and shitty book deals: British feminists have as much fun as we do!”
-
Laurelin says:
Do come to England- I’ll make you a nice cup of tea, and we can discuss which of our countries is the most misogynist. Plus I can wow you with my ‘reserved’ British accent!
August 16th, 2007 at 7:03 pm EST -
Violet says:
Ooh, will you make me tea with milk in it? The first time I had that I was amazed. Tea is a different drink entirely when you add milk.
-
cicely says:
Violet - you discovered tea without milk *first*? I never heard of such a thing until I was fourteen or so and Mum got Hep B and couldn’t drink milk. (She switched to black coffee pretty quickly.) Tea drinker since tot-hood here and around half a dozen cups every day still. I recall fondly the pre-tea bag years when most households I spent time in had a tea pot (covered with a woollen warmer - a ‘jacket’ commonly known as a tea cosy) being topped up or completely refreshed almost all day long.
As to the conversation we might have on topic - there or in OZ - same. Finally, in this weeks ex-pat newspaper The New Zealander, I read that Louise Nicholas feels vindicated after 20 years. Three actual policemen were acquitted last year of pack raping her in the 1980’s. But yesterday a former detective was convicted of four charges of attempting to obstruct or defeat the course of justice because he covered up the allegations by Louise at the time and also deliberately gave inadmissable evidence leading to two mistrials and finally the acquittal at the third trial last year. I don’t need to tell you the kinds of things that have been said about Louise during all these trials. Incidentally, two of the charged cops were already or had already served prison time for another pack rape in the meantime. Who knows whether or not there’ll be another trial.
Anyway - I’m recalling the comments made by Joan Smith in her book ‘Misogynies’ about when she was a journalist assigned to the Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe) case. She came to the conclusion that even though the Yorkshire police interviewed Sutcliffe at the station a number of times, they didn’t prevent the continuance of his murderous spree because they couldn’t differentiate his attitudes towards women from their own. The cop in charge of the investigation had actually stated at some point that the team would know ‘the ripper’ when they saw or spoke to him. Well, those different procedures for female and male rape reports make it pretty clear nothing much has changed.
I maintain that the rape accused’s attitudes to women, complete with character references, should be explored in court instead of the victims sexual history but given the above, what the hell difference would it make?
-
anna says:
Saying the woman on the book cover is good-looking is like saying she has two arms. Ugly women are never featured except as disgusting reminders of what might happen to you if you stop worrying about your looks for one goddamn second.
-
Violet says:
Violet - you discovered tea without milk first?
Oh yes. ‘Murkans don’t drink tea with milk. It’s just not done. Some more cosmopolitan ‘Murkans know that milky tea is out there somewhere, but it’s like pure-grade opium or maybe quarks: not something you really expect to encounter in real life.
Of course, I suppose it’s weird to non-Americans that we mostly drink our tea iced.
Personally, I’m still freaked out by the concept of iced coffee. I could never get that down.
-
Fiona says:
De-lurking to confirm: Americans drink their black, often cold tea with craploads of sugar, n’est-ce pas? Outrageous!
I still harbour fantasies of former NZ Assistant Police Commissioner and rapist Clint Rickards being booted off the force and billed for the QC he got to hire on the taxpayer’s dime. It’s such a mild dream yet I know it’ll never happen. I won’t even go into the other thoughts I have about him and his mates.
-
Fiona says:
Oh, I misspoke. Rickards isn’t “former”, he’s just suspended. On full pay. Wonder how long that will drag on for.
-
ginmar says:
So sexist guys aren’t able to see how other guys’ sexism makes them dangerous to women? Shocking.
-
R.E. says:
Hey, I drink tea with milk in it and I’m a ‘Merkan! Actually, not milk. Cream. Heavy whipping cream, mind you. In GREEN tea. (I’m not crazy about black.)
But then, I’m weird. Very weird. But tea just isn’t civilized drunk black.
-
Violet says:
We have dual threads here, the milk tea thread and the sexist asshat thread.
Re sexist asshats:
Ginmar, don’t you love this sentence from cicely’s comment?
“She came to the conclusion that even though the Yorkshire police interviewed Sutcliffe at the station a number of times, they didn’t prevent the continuance of his murderous spree because they couldn’t differentiate his attitudes towards women from their own.”
I think that should be on a poster and nailed up in every police station in the world.
On the tea thread:
Fiona, the sweetened versus unsweetened tea thing is one of the great divides in American life and history, like the Civil War or the right way to make barbecue sauce. My family is from the South, where tea is always sweetened. And iced tea, for us, is something that’s made by the gallon and kept in the refrigerator. You brew up about a gallon of tea, add the sugar as soon as you remove the tea bags, let it cool down slightly, then pour it up into a gallon jug and put it in the refrigerator to get and stay cold. You drink it over ice cubes in a tall glass.
When Southerners venture beyond their borders they are invariably horrified to discover that other ‘Murkans don’t sweeten their iced tea. Everything else is the same but there’s no sugar! It’s confusing and scary.
Un-iced tea in ‘Murka, or at least in the South, is always called “hot tea,” because otherwise if you just say “tea” people assume iced. Hot tea is only drunk by ladies and only when a) they’re sick or b) they feel like pretending they’re in a Celestial Seasonings commerical.
But now we must also add R.E. to the list of hot tea drinkers (hi, R.E.!) who even adds cream to his/her tea and yet claims to be ‘Murkan.
Actually ‘Murkans are learning about milky tea now through the growing popularity of “chai,” which in ‘Murka describes the Asian version of milky tea, with lots of spices. I love chai.
-
Ann Bartow says:
Well if you do go to London, definitely try to hang out with Laurelin. If you come to South Carolina, I’d love you to hang with me, but you might want to avoid the tea here, because it is so sweet just stirring it will give you cavities.
-
Gayle says:
‘Murica’s a big place.
Up here in New England we drink our tea with milk and sugar. Our “hero” sandwiches are Sub sandwiches and our Hush puppies are shoes.
They’re shoes, dammit!
Regardless of where we live, we all experience the same sexism, don’t we?
-
Violet says:
Up here in New England we drink our tea with milk and sugar.
Are you serious? I never knew that!
-
Holly says:
I was absolutely appalled by what I read here. There is way too much hypocrisy in the way countries govern when it comes to sexual assault crimes and convictions. Thanks for posting this.
Oh, and I am one of those Americans who drinks her tea black, cold, and with about a pound of sugar.
-
Gayle says:
Deadly serious, Violet.
I would never lie about tea!
-
Violet says:
Ann, if a fictional character ever shows up at your door demanding tea, you’ll know it’s me.
I used to have absinthe parties here on the blog. Maybe I should start having tea parties instead.
You know what I’d really like to try? Russian tea. Made with a samovar, zavarka, the whole bit. If ginmar comes back maybe she’ll tell us if she had proper Russian tea when she was over there.
-
ginmar says:
I drink my tea from a Russian glass, thank you very much. I took the train from Kiev to Sebastopol and they served us tea in the morning from those glasses.
-
PC Bloggs says:
Thank you for reading, I just discovered you had posted on me this week.
A lot of people have taken umbrage at the title and cover of my book, and like you have taken it to mean I have been “pornified”. Personally, I don’t think being a feminist or a professional means I cannot also be a woman, and a bit girly from time to time if I want.
However there was also a considerable amount of irony and satire intended in the cover and title, as there is plastered liberally over my blog. My publisher, Dan Collins, is not some kind of mass-producer of trash and mainly publishes hard-hitting true-life stories. There’s actually very little about makeup in my book. If anything at all.
-
Violet says:
PC Bloggs, welcome! Nice to see you here!
Re your book being pornified, I certainly don’t think that’s down to you. I just think that’s how books by women are marketed these days.
Personally, I don’t think being a feminist or a professional means I cannot also be a woman, and a bit girly from time to time if I want.
Absolutely, and I can be frightfully girly myself. My long-time readers know that I sew, bake cakes in the shape of bunnies, and set my Easter table with lace doilies. I got girliness comin’ out the ears. (Of course I also swear like a sailor, wear black boots, and hang out with guys, so it evens out.)
But being feminine isn’t the same thing as being a prostitute or spending most of one’s time thinking about makeup, and so it seems to me that your publisher isn’t just selling your book as something by a policeWOMAN, but as a book by a sexbot/airhead. That’s a very particular kind of femaleness. It’s the pornification of the culture.
There’s actually very little about makeup in my book. If anything at all.
I didn’t think so, which is why your publisher’s blurb seemed so ridiculous to me. I read through your blog and thought it was fabulous — smart, incisive, all kinds of good. I’ve no doubt your book is the same. So why does your publisher do a product blurb saying you “fret” about your makeup? I mean, obviously he’s trying to sell the book, but the strategy he’s chosen points to how women are sold in our culture.
-
simply wondered says:
if you come to london and have tea with laurelin and not me, i’ll never smile again. i even put milk in my earl grey, which turns some people’s stomachs.
i was in ‘the bill’ (it happens eventually to every actor in the uk) - but played a lawyer not a policeman. i didn’t wear make-up either.
-
Dan Collins says:
Hi
PC Bloggs drew my attention to your piece.
Firstly, thanks for the publicity.
Secondly, the reason we cut the top half of the woman’s head off was not to avoid “confus(ing) men into thinking she’s a human being” but to convey the writer’s anonymity. If her identity is revealed, she may be fired. This is not because she is a woman but because she is a police officer. Even without the eyes, though, it’s pretty clear she’s a human being. (By the way, I find it odd that you think it’s OK to imply of men that they are all confused, stupid and hooker-crazy? I know a few who are none of these things. Though I know some who are.)
The lipstick… well, it brightens up the cover, and actually, even some feminists wear it. Even some feminist police officers!
For what it’s worth, the content of the book is quite hard-hitting (though not merely in a feminist sense - if you’re expecting all guns blazing against all men, you won’t get that) and the idea was to design it to appeal to casual browsers in bookstores… ‘chick lit’ readers, male police officers, general buyers. If we’d made it look like a text book, we probably wouldn’t have got it stocked, never mind sell copies. (I appreciate there’s a whole other discussion here).
Thirdly, the title was PC Bloggs’ title and not ours, so any suggestions that it’s to trick gullible idiots (see above) into thinking it’s about a prostitute… well, you’ll have to address those to her.
Fourthly, the line about fretting about her make-up is supposed to be ironic. It’s a shame (and obviously not your fault) you haven’t yet seen the back cover, because this contains a large stamp which says, ‘Warning: Contains, satire, irony and traces of sarcasm’, which would have helped.
In general terms, I have a wife (who is my partner in business) and two young daughters (and no sons) and I can assure you they occupy my every waking thought. Making the world a better place for women is very important to me for obvious reasons.
Thanks again for the plugs.
cheers
Dan -
PC Bloggs says:
Dash it, it’s very hard to have an argument with someone who’s so sensible. Can’t we just exchange lipstick pointers and be done with it?
-
ginmar says:
Dude, could you be more patronizing? I mean, there’s a few shit cliches you missed and a few more defensive statements that you could have made. Anybody else feel a bingo coming on?
1.Even feminists like lipstick!
2. You hate all men!
3. You think all men are….blah blah blah.
4. Some of my best friends are women! I even married one!I could go on, but I don’t want to spoil the fun for everybody else. Suffice to say, you’re not doing yourself any favors.
-
Violet says:
Good lord! I can’t believe my post is getting this kind of attention! I’m not worthy.
Dan Collins, thank you for stopping by. Let me address some of your points:
Even without the eyes, though, it’s pretty clear she’s a human being.
Right, and what I would suggest is that you take the the advice you’ve given me about reading sarcasm. I write with snark.
By the way, I find it odd that you think it’s OK to imply of men that they are all confused, stupid and hooker-crazy?
No, but it’s a commonplace in feminist discourse to say “men” as shorthand when we’re referring to the behavior of a lot of men, because it gets really really tiresome to say over and over again “some men but of course not all.” This is standard in all kinds of discourse about oppression.
though not merely in a feminist sense - if you’re expecting all guns blazing against all men, you won’t get that
See, this is the part of your comment that really gets my hackles up and kind of vitiates everything else you wrote. You think feminism is “all guns blazing against all men”? We call that a straw feminist.
If we’d made it look like a text book, we probably wouldn’t have got it stocked, never mind sell copies.
No, of course not, but the choices are not restricted to “boring text book” or “sexy porny cover.” For example, if you were publishing a book by a male police officer, I’m quite sure your art department could come up with all kinds of snazzy, non-textbooky designs that would not involve lipstick.
Thirdly, the title was PC Bloggs’ title and not ours, so any suggestions that it’s to trick gullible idiots (see above) into thinking it’s about a prostitute… well, you’ll have to address those to her.
As for the trick thing, see my comment above about reading sarcasm. But I do take your point that the title was PC Bloggs’ idea, so that lets you off the hook for dreaming it up. And if she wanted to go with that title, then your cover art makes sense. In fact, that’s all you really needed to tell me — that the title was PC’s idea. If so, then not only is your cover art understandable, it’s actually a lot less offensive than it might have been.
Fourthly, the line about fretting about her make-up is supposed to be ironic. It’s a shame (and obviously not your fault) you haven’t yet seen the back cover, because this contains a large stamp which says, ‘Warning: Contains, satire, irony and traces of sarcasm’, which would have helped.
Surely the Warning applies to the content of the book, which I could have guessed was snarky based on PC’s blog (which is terrific). But a publisher’s product blurb is a different thing, designed to tell purchasers what to expect. So I still think your reduction of PC’s book to “fretting about makeup” is demeaning.*
*Edited to add — is there possibly an inside British joke I’m missing? Is this the barrier of a common language?
-
Violet says:
PC Bloggs –
Your publisher (who I’m still amazed came over here) says that the title was your idea, which I didn’t realize. So obviously I retract the assumption I made in the post that this marketing strategy was pushed on you by the publisher.
But my larger point is the same, which is that in today’s culture, even feminists have to be sexed up in order to be marketed. It doesn’t matter if it’s the feminist herself who comes up with the idea, or the publisher (or TV producer) — we’re all operating in this paradigm. We’re all responding to the market.
I’m sorry if you feel that I’m arguing with you, because that’s really not my intention at all. I bet your book is great and I wish you well. I think your rape posts are amazing, and my attitude towards your blog is 100% positive. I’m just bemoaning the way our culture insists on making Woman coterminous with Sexbot, no matter what the woman’s doing.
Actually I should clarify that I know this is the case in American culture, but I’m only assuming it’s the case in the U.K. Perhaps if I go to London to have tea with Laurelin (but not Richard) I’ll see for myself.
-
simply wondered says:
i just think it’s hilarious we have someone with the handle pc bloggs … and when you address comments towards her it brings to mind a surreal two ronnies-esque sketch with them both dressed up hilariously as wpcs. jokes will be made about particulars being taken down, truncheons being raised and frequent licking of pencils without even the hint of a phallus.
and is it ee bloggs because she is related to me in my refusal to bow to the tyranny of capital letters? or perhaps a geordie?
i think i’ll send dan my tales of life as an independent producer - can go next to the titles about teaching and policing. tho of course the world could easily do without producers. maybe infidel should submit a book of lists - a book of lists of books?
shame you’re fictional vi and can’t write real-life stuff. maybe one day a publisher who does books on ballet and history of religion will stumble across this place. yeah right! -
Violet says:
Actually, Richard, I do have a book deal in the works, and the cover is going to feature a naked woman wearing nothing but a pair of purple footlets, the kind with little fuzzy balls on the heels. I feel good about it.
Excuse me for being fixated here, but I’m still thinking about the tea. Ginmar, did the Russian tea taste different than the kind of hot tea we have here in ‘Murka? Do you know if it was made in the traditional Russian way, with zavarka (tea concentrate) diluted with hot water?
-
PC Bloggs says:
Oh yes, it was my idea - I apologise for not stating that sooner. I guess I foolishly thought that all publishers would let their authors choose the title, but maybe it’s just me! Does that make me a bad person… if so, oh well!
I think there must be a difference in British humour, as I don’t get the discussion about tea at all.
As for the Sexbot thing, I don’t think it’s a case of one or the other. I think there’s quite possibly a graded scale from sexbot to androgynous “Femininazi” (not my term). Possibly.
-
simply wondered says:
‘oh i gotta book deal; looka me’ sez vi! note the huge clang as she dropped THAT one ever so subtly. i could have one if i was prepared to sell out and write about mass-market obsessions like you. what’s it going to be called? ‘the sacred whore in proto-hittite societies’, ‘girls getting their kit off in temples: a scholarly investigation’ or perhaps ‘whoops, vicar, the eternal flame appears to have combusted my already scanty underwear (confessions of a vestal virgin)’. very intellectual i’m sure, giving a previously unheard voice to a lost aspect of woman. and the statue of a female with its head removed on the front - terribly othering, of course, but a move surely forced upon you by your sleazebag publisher.
‘Perhaps if I go to London to have tea with Laurelin (but not Richard) I’ll see for myself.’ PAH!!! ya think i’d ask YOU to tea, you peddler of centuries-old pornography???
and pc bloggs (lordy now i’ve started!), i don’t think think the tea thing is an issue with humour (cf humor) - we’re just talking about more than one thing at a time. we have very short concentration spans. intellectual mountain goat/butterflies of bloggery.
sexbot and feminazi (i much prefer your ‘femininazi’) differ (for all i can see) in that one is a derogatory term reserved by radfems (await angry protest from radfems…) for a certain type of woman, while the other is a derogatory term reserved by lots of people who aren’t radfems for a errr… certain type of woman. latest in the venerable (!?) tradition of slagging off women.
-
Violet says:
No, “sexbot” isn’t a derogatory term for a certain type of woman; it’s a category/description created by the patriarchy. Women are women, but patriarchy likes to reduce us all to extremely limited stereotypes.
-
simply wondered says:
… there ya go! a gentle correction.
