I struggle to express exactly how enraged I am with this post. I’d had my doubts about feminism previously but Penny Red’s blog previously gave me a pleasing impression of this “Fourth Wave” stuff. But now, well, fuck it.

I don’t even know where to start. The suggestion that children are property, perhaps? Or else the total abandonment of any pursuit of equality in favour for the typical “maternal” idiocy that dictates pain, inconvenience and mild risk as being of such great significance that the 50% of genetic code she references counts for nothing. All informed, of course, by the absurd cultural view the Patriarchy places upon motherhood. How else could this lop-sided approach be given emotional heft?

What we’re left with is a problem being identified (lack of respect given to housekeepers and child-raisers) but then not followed through, instead with her taking a grand detour to outline why offspring should be deemed female possessions. Meanwhile not a word is said in empathy towards males except for a less than earnest “Sorry” followed by a reference to testicles and the immortal phrase “Too bad”. So, in other words, an appeal for greater power to women rather than for equality. No doubt she will spring some biological determinist clap-trap in defence of this when challenged, like any good reactionary.

(Which would be far less infuriating if I didn’t find her work largely superb.)

So apparently things have to be “Negotiated” (with this usage of the word reminiscent of Mugabe’s talks with Tsvangirai) rather than it simply being assumed that someone who has contributed half of the child’s material gets half a say in how they shall be raised. For, since the state can support mothers, the man shall be obliged to prove himself worthy of contact with a being he brought into existence (for which he will need to be a “fantastic person”, rather than the slightly more modest requirements for a woman, which apparently consist of a will and a womb) and if he is deemed unworthy to the woman he’ll not have to support the child. Well great, I’m certain that that would suit at least the cash fetishists. Until they worked out, of course, that “the state” only has money due to being fed taxes. In other words, men still pay.

Or, to put it in terms more destructive to this utopian slab of irksome anti-equality irritant, women still get supported by men. Since if you are going to base any idea around state cash (which, I should add, any sane person not intoxicated by anarchism would; at least a couple of times) you can not disregard the taxpayer. In this instance half of these would now be expected to fund the children of any woman who required help, while having no rights to access and raise even those that would never have existed but for their contribution.

All because of some worn out paradigms of child ownership and maternal supremacy, which a socialist feminist truly has no excuse for not seeing through. Through suffering, we earn. Through earning we own. Through owning we hold power.

And disregard any unbalance that this causes, of course, for this is feminism and here the ascendancy of female power must come above the obtainment of equality. Where women’s “rights” can be claimed they must be, with a disregard to the repercussions upon the other half of humanity. Forlorn fathers must be disregarded, for we are “Sorry about your balls” and that will suffice as recompense.

You bloody traitor to egalitarianism, Penny Red.

The police ban Babyshambles from Moonfest:

The decision came after police asked an intelligence officer to research Doherty’s band, Babyshambles, who were booked to headline Moonfest festival in Westbury, Wiltshire, next week. They concluded that the band’s tendency to “speed up and then slow down the music” could create a “whirlpool effect” and spark disorder.

A horrific phenomenon also known as “Putting on a good show”. Apparently Superintendent Paul Williams would prefer “Cliff Richard or Bucks Fizz” to play.

Doherty is reportedly “absolutely devastated and furious”, which suggests that this was one of the shows which he actually intended to turn up to. A day was shortened, a festival pretty much ruined (the amount of Babyshambles fans who came there just for Pete was doubtless substantial) and the puritans win in their efforts to stamp out some fun once more.

It seems that the Vatican is more responsive and timely than I had anticipated. In response to my question in this article asking when the Church would involve itself the answer can only now be “Pretty damn quickly.”

Now I doubt the editor of their affiliate accelerated the Pope, or perhaps worked at his instruction, but it is pleasing that the Italian government has found an enemy in the Church. The Vatican wields considerably more clout when dealing with the Italian right than our own Anglican bishops could ever hope to hold over the Labour party.

The news that Famiglia Cristiana’s editor is to be sued by a leader of the far-right coalition who hold power over Italy suggests that they feel especially vulnerable. We must hope that this measure is doomed to the failure which is richly deserves, but regardless it demonstrates that the instinctive authoritarian instinct to close down debate is in evidence here.

The article contains a worrying aside, however:

So far, church leaders have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the government’s policies than Italy’s main, centre-left opposition party.

Which simply pleads for the question: if the Italian left can’t even muster the guts to call finger-printing innocent children for being gypsies “Indecent” then what the hell are they for?

Don’t push it.

Sharp words from the Anonymous Liberal:

The McCain campaign insists that he did not cheat and it outraged at the very suggestion of any impropriety. In a classic non-sequitur (and one that represents a microcosm of the entire campaign to this point), the McCain campaign issued a statement saying: “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” Apparently POWs are, by definition, incapable of cheating on anything (something that would likely come as news to McCain’s first wife).

(more…)

Signs that the Italian government has not embraced the ideology it is not most easily associated with. Or at least that it does not take kindly to criticism levelled at it from one of the few outlets not controlled by Berlusconi’s ownership (criticism of Berlusconi by those newspapers he does own is of course as common as the Murdoch press scrutinising BSkyB’s tax conduct). In this case a feature upon the unnerving right-swing was published in a newspaper with strong Papal ties. Although this is clearly not representative of the Vatican (instead representing the author and editor’s views) the attacks seem damning and authoritarians always struggle to evade being held to account for their excesses when the press is free. Which is why their immediate impulse is to stamp down or, in Berlusconi’s case, buy out.

This does raise an interesting issue, however: if the Vatican has not spoken out then was has it not and when does it intend to? As foul an organisation as it in many ways is the strength of the Church in Italy renders all true totalitarianism an impossibility, unless there rises to power a leader both bold and mad enough to march on the Vatican. The Church holds a substantial powerbase and if willing to speak out against the government’s draconianism and outright racism could have a substantial impact. Any making pretence that this would somehow be out of line for a religious organisation has clearly failed to grasp the innately political nature of the Church’s structure, intent and behaviour. This is the Church that attempted to prevent distribution of condoms at a Valentine’s Day festival in Brazil, not one which has any qualms about immersing itself in matters of public policy.

On a broader note, we can but hope that the criticism against the government results in a suitable backlash. Perhaps it could even trigger the form of examination and condemnation of Italy’s fascist past which it largely failed to embrace after the downfall of Mussolini. Douglas’ references to pro-fascist Italians are telling: “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day” is by no means a rare sentiment in Italy. Those who were not from the “weak” groups targeted enjoyed the fruits of the social democratic policies Mussolini failed to abandon while forging corporatism after the abandonment of his former comrades on the left. Consequentially the impression is positive, the only partially correct cliche that “Mussolini made the trains run on time” having substantial weight in a nation with as precarious infrastructure and unreliable services. Italians appear to struggle with the notion of the objective historian, seeing the origins and ideology of the writer as something which must be borne foremost in mind while reading, so perhaps the vileness of the past being alluded to in the present will cause many to recall the horrors and others who have never experienced the original power seizure of the fascists to relish the sensation first hand. This is merely my optimism talking, however. For the time being Italy is set for a grim few years. Whether Berlusconi shall have entrenched himself by the end of this time, empowered the left or both remains to be seen.

For those of you that missed the ambiguously meaningful news Labour has evaded fiscal oblivion with the help of their backers, who have allowed them until 2015 to repay the cash.

This means that the prospect of “Labour Ltd.” is rightly banished, but by no means assures the continued existence of the party. Simply because they are wealthy enough to continue to operate by no means means that they will continue to enjoy the base which they have become dependent upon. The rumblings amongst the unions are also highly ominous, although perhaps not indicative of any actual motion in lieu of any viable alternative.

As far as I can determine the next seven years will be crucial for Labour’s continued existence in a way that perhaps even the past seven have not been. If Labour can refresh and reinvigorate themselves, then set about seizing the agenda then the shallow state the Tories remain in (despite desperate diggings towards depth) and the low profile of the Liberal Democrats will assure their continued existence. I remain of the view that with David Miliband at their head this could be achieved.

Alternatively their current dire state could be followed by all out internecine warfare and division, something which would at least give us a chance to see some Blairites getting thrashed; but would also lead to the Tories establishing themselves thoroughly in the absence of any unified opposition to their agenda. It is hard to imagine an outcome, either with Labour as challengers or the LibDems, that would come from this context yet not include the Conservative Party becoming, once again, the “Natural party of government”.

Certainly a descent from the seeming impossibility of Tory return to power that was in force a mere matter of years ago. At least Labour can focus upon popularity rather than cash, however. Whether this renewed devotion of attention allows them to regain the droves that have abandoned them remains to be seen.