I’ve spent the night perusing various radical feminist websites, ranging from the ulta-misandrist ravings of I Blame The Patriarchy to the friend-of-twisty look-a-like to the aptly named Rage Against the Manchine.

My conclusion runs that radical feminism is actually a far more binary obedient movement and ideology than it likes to imagine. This became clear fairly quickly, indeed grew immediately apparent simply from the wariness shown towards male contributions. This was both upon an structural level (comments policies making men feel clearly unwelcome) and upon an ideological one (the endless reference to “male privilege” make it fairly clear that the accounts of men are going to be treated with a scepticism women will not be subjected to).

To their credit the radfems are at least believers in the binary. Indeed Andrew Dworkin described biological essentialism as “the most pernicious ideology on the face of the earth” and it is pleasing to know that the absolute anti-assimilationist elements she recalls encountering in that accounts have mostly faded into historical characters. This does nothing save reinforce the absurdity of the present approach towards gender reconstruction by Dworkin’s ideological inheritors, who seem to have taken her urging to “Fuck up” the Patriarchy by gathering in small, thoroughly sealed groups of like minded ranters, who remind themselves constantly, incessantly, of the divisions within society that they can outline with immense eloquence but seem to wish to identify and emphasise more than they do to move beyond, transcend or obliterate.

In short, embittered cliques are established, then fiercely sustained.

The radical credentials for this are highly limited: the notion that the best fashion in which to attack the binary is assembling into websites which are written by women and commented upon by women is surely both utterly disingenuous and entirely self-defeating. To attempt to destroy a set of prejudices (indeed, a set of concepts, or even identities) that by their very nature apply to all of humanity using a single half of it is a bizarre approach, doomed to failure.

Perhaps this leads us to my core difficulty with feminism in the contemporary Anglosphere: it has become virtually impossible to further women’s rights, as is the aim of feminism, without attacking the gender binary. But feminists are largely hesitant to do exactly that, distracted by focusing upon what the successes of their movement have left unaltered instead of noting the vast amount that has changed.

This realisation of progress made since death of the 1950s is at the heart of post-feminism, and brings us onto my next point:

C.G. Brown, in his magnum opus ‘The Death of Christian Britain’, posits that the cause of the demise of the titular religion within this nation was the collapse of the concept of “Pious Women” during the 1960s. Prior to then women were seen as the sole source of active religiosity: men could be saved, but only once sufficiently strong-armed by the earnest females filling their lives (be it wives or mothers). Christianity could not recover as there was only a conception of female piety, as “Boys would be boys” and men would inevitably run awry unless carefully instructed and trained. Men were depraved creatures incapable of controlling themselves and it was only through the positive influence of femininity that salvation could be brought to the coarser sex.

Now this concept had a shadow side: men as corruptive, women as pure beings that men could degrade. A large amount of the concepts of seduction, deflowerment and general robbery of innocence seem to be tied tightly to this.

It is here that the rhetoric of radical feminism strikes the most noticable harmony: women are beings which the creation of pornography tears down from some imagined state of purity and defiles, argue the radical feminists. There are deeds that can not be done without besmirching the actor, and pornography insists upon their performance, by women. However, is it possible to miss the assonances with the other side of this ideal? Think of the attitude feminism takes towards the supply side of pornographic matter. Through feminism the otherwise helpless, base men may be rescued from their own masculinity. Rescued, that is, by pious women.

Men alone are incapable of recognising their foulness. They must be shown. Men involved in the production are demonised, in the acting conspicuously disregarded.

The women engaged in pornography are flecks of foam upon the ocean, pure and borne aloft, swept along by grand cultural forces, then thoroughly befouled.

Had they not kept their movement so purged of penises (men are at best “allies” that could well be fradulent and merely adopting the mantle of “feminist” falsely, to gain advantage and unearned trust, to avoid confrontation) or had they not engaged with the women who choose to participate in the sex industry in a fashion so starkly devoid of any acceptable of female autonomy (and I speak here as a determinist) in a way that makes it clear that they simply wish to avoid thinking of women opting to participate in the process at all except as a facet of the Patriarchy’s endlessly insiduous influence, had they not held an equally damaged and lacking view of the men involved that sees them as otherwise helpless masturbators that only feminism can save, or their utter indifference to the implications for the men involved within the process then perhaps the similarity not be so striking.

As it is, one has to wonder whether the fixation radical feminism holds for pornography (note that RATManchine has made no less than nine essays on the matter, each of considerable length, and shows no sign of ceasing to churn) is truly based upon their wrath at women performing sex acts while observed by cameras on an entirely upon their disdain for the Patriarchy or whether it is more closely tied to long standing expectations of appropriate womanly conduct.

Not that this argument is anything new, this one has been raging for a very long time. But, as far as I am concerned, the irony lacing the prospect of women imagining themselves to be the fiercest critics of Patriarchal structures while in fact behaving as inadvertant, unaware throw-backs to the time when the Patriarchy still existed remains quite delightful.

Hakim Bey assesses anarcho-primitivism here.

As an aftermath of my personal history (I previously subscribed to the blackest of misanthropic environmentalist lines possible) as well as a consequence of my fathomless interest with esoteric leftist strands I feel some form of ken with the dedicated environmentalist left, but have never felt truly comfortable amongst them.

Perhaps the largest single factor in this is their incessant & utterly inane usage of the word “natural”.

I am fairly sure that all readers will be familiar with the usage of this propogated by such groups (and now the rest of society, since “green” ideology has spread from lefty councils to the pages of various Daily Telegraph magazines, with everyone from George Monbiot to Prince Charles outspoken advocates), but upon the off-chance: anything which has had prolonged or excessive contact with a factory is not natural. Something which has been grown in a field by a farmer who goes out of his way not to seem to much like a member of contemporary existence is natural. Pears are natural, Sunny D is not.

Now let’s be fair: this is hardly a definition confined to the left, or to environmentalists. It’s pretty widely accepted, despite being deeply wrong. It might not even have been coined by greens, I really don’t know. But the importance of this word to the neo-hippies is fairly obviously fairly massive, so their inappropriate usage is especially pertinent as an issue as they are the ones that use it most and they are the ones who use this concept of natural to prop up a significant section of their ideology. They rely upon the unnatural nature of humans: without it a vast section of their rhetoric and many of their positions would make no sense at all upon any level. For that reason it is of utmost importance that humans as unnatural is flawless.

I would have thought that the flaw behind it would have been fairly obvious, but seemingly I have to actually point this out: humans are not supernatural beings. We are natural creatures who operate within the natural world, pursuing natural aims using materials extracted from it and methods which function within its surroundings. We are the most sophisticated species but we are just another species all the same, just as a runner with the greatest achievements in this field of any Olympian upon the planet remains a mere runner. Humanity is natural. Our influence is as one part of nature in interaction with the rest.

And yes, this does mean that everything from hair dye to sodium pentothal is perfectly natural. Why would a being wish to die their hair? A series of natural motivations, of course. Most likely the desire to become more attractive, thus be in a position where you can impress your peer group and better attract a mate. What differentiates this from a bird building a nest of sticks or an ape using twigs to pry out tree-trapped bugs? Nothing save intricacy: humans have more complex problems and corresponding solutions, yet they never resort to the paranormal. Ultimately only someone who imagines humans to be non-animal would argue for us being un-natural.

Which is where things get really interesting.

So far as I can determine the only plausible source for this notion of humans as external to the natural world is to be found in Christianity, as well as similar religions. In Christianity humans are made in the image of God, a supernatural being. Jesus Christ, a second (or fused) supernatural being descended to Earth in order to save them and as a consequence of his supernatural bond allowed for a connection between the material and divine that would allow humans to reach a supernatural resting place. Interaction between the two occurred previously via the third of the trio, a totally disembodied spirit which touches the mundane with the divine upon special occasions, which theologians argue over the specifics of endlessly.

Humans are distinct from animal and from nature: animals have no souls and thus no supernatural nature or future. Humans have free will, something which animals are devoid of. In short, there is an inherent dichotomy.

This remnant is  a pretty substantial one. It is unsurprising that the environmentalist left are making extensive use of it, given that its not all that often you have access to something with such cultural heft. Let alone without anyone noticing…

Where the problems start to begin though is when we attempt to reconcile this notion with another usually posited by those who view little else as of greater importance than the naturality of consumed goods: vegetarianism. Vegetarianism largely depends upon the distinction between humanity as a species and those it presently devours being eroded and weakened. How can you argue in favour of animals being brought closer to humans in terms of rights while emphasising constantly the division that exists between humanity and other animals?

Environmentalists seek to emphasise the dichotomy of humanity and animal while also making efforts to disintegrate it entirely. It is perfectly possible to hold one position or the other (personally I would argue that humanism was a fantastic side, but we need to look into expanding the franchise) but to attempt both at once is clearly an example of intellectual incoherence.

I note also that the Tories rejected a Third Runway at Heathrow, yesterday. Do they really expect the announcement to have any impact when their most prominent elected figure believes we need another airport entirely, and that one would fit rather nicely in the middle of the Thames Estuary? Replacing one runway with two doesn’t make for a sound environmental plan. Or sound mathematics, for that matter.

And piles it on with a shovel:

Hardly subtle, is it? Virtually every sentence acts as a dogwhistle for Republicans; Obama is a, “liberal,” who’ll bring forth, “massive government,” and, “skyrocketing taxes.” The same is true of any and all imagery. Or rather, the imagery; a giant, sleeping baby, just to remind you who’s the candidate for families.

The message is simply mendacious. McCain claims big government hurts in a financial crisis - when, of course, the ideology of small government and light financial regulation allowed banks to make this mess in the first place. Likewise, McCain’s claims that Obama would raise, “painful,” taxes. Obama’s tax plans would, at most, inconvenience the wealthy slightly, allowing him to cut taxes on those who can’t afford them. There’d be spending increases, yes. Coming from the man who wants to fight (expensively) in Iraq to the bitter end, though, any condemnation for such is the purest hypocrisy.

But it plays to every Republican prejudice about Democrats - and so plays right into McCain’s strategy. He isn’t looking for new voters, only to get every registered Republican out and voting against Obama. He picked Palin partially to reassure that conservative base, and now he’ll issue dubious ads to rally them. In short, just what Bush tried in 2000 and 2004; negative politics designed to win 50.1% of the population, and no more. If McCain wants anyone to believe his rhetoric on also being a, “candidate of change,” he ought to hope no-one thinks about his ads.

Do I detect more than a litte hypocrisy on the part of a certain registrar? You’d think that someone whose religion was demonstratedly hostile to them might pause before directing religious hostility at others.

Remember the Forensic Audit Panel? It’s that supposedly neutral body meant to check the previous administration’s finances - which contains two Tory council leaders. And, it emerges, another Tory:

Patience Wheatcroft

1(a)(ii)(cc) – I am a member of or hold a position of general control or management of the following body/bodies whose principle purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy:

Member of the Conservative Party

I wonder what they’ll conclude, hmm? That BoJo wants to pick a panel that agrees with him is unsurprising; he wants to spend public money his way. But he really ought to drop all pretence of political neutrality while doing so…

Hat-tip: Dave Hill.

Brown suggests we waste less food and money. Eminently sensible, if a rather obvious point. So, presumably, he’ll be the first to tighten the belt? It’d be totally hypocritical to go on a long, entirely unnecessary trip to Japan (via Russia) to conduct a meeting which rarely achieves much beyond irritating a few anarchists. And, of course, while under protection from those anarchists by 21,000 police, he wouldn’t dine luxuriously on a menu like this.

Oh. Wait. Perhaps he will.

News very recently in: the Tories have yet more reason to squirm over expenses scandals today. Today’s Newsnight - immediately preceded by Sunny Hundal on Liberal Conspiracy - revealed that Caroline Spelman paid her nanny from her parliamentary allowance.

Spelman charged for the nanny, Tina Haynes, as a secretary between May 1917 and 1998. She may run into problems on this, however, given that the nanny’s sole claim to secretarial work is that she once passed on a message from William Hague.

Newsnight made a big fuss about it: presumably they think it could bite. I’m less sure. Spelman will be asked to pay the money back, and will do so if she’s any political sense. The party will dismiss it as ancient history, a silly mistake by a new MP (hah…). At a push, Spelman will get kicked out of the shadow cabinet and sneaked back in when the fuss has died down.

And it’ll be forgotten about.

That mightn’t be true if Labour pushed the accusations a bit more. But can they? Labour’s not exactly clean when it comes to nanny related indescretions (Ahem. Mr. Blunkett, please stand up…) and expenses fiddles. They risk raising old ghosts if they keep this on the agenda too long. So they might let it conveniently die too…

What this might do is shatter Cameron’s attempts to portray the Tories as a cleaner alternative to Labour. Conway looked like a terrible isolated case a few months ago. The twat Staines’ recent revelations regarding (gah, horrible phrase there..) Conservative MEPs’ similar behaviour, and now this, bring that judgement into question. Several expenses scandals - several serious expenses scandals - have come to light in the space of a year. The Tories look less squeaky clean and more an increasingly accurate replica of New Labour.

I bet Cameron wasn’t thinking of this when he made that “heir to Blair” quip…

EDIT: And that’s the narrative shaping on the internet too. This is already up on her wikipedia entry:

On June 6, 2008, Spelman came under some controversy when it was revealed that in 1997 for one year she paid her child’s nanny, Tina Hain, from her parliamentary staffing allowance. Spelman claims that her nanny was also her constituency secretary and hence why she was paid from the public taxpayers’ purse. This latest claim comes as the Conservatives‘ Leader in Europe, Giles Chichester resigns among claims he paid money through a company of which he was a paid director for and furthermore, the Conservatives’ Chief Whip, Den Dover, was forced to resign amid claims he also paid for his family for 9 years at a cost of £750,000 for alleged secretarial and office work. Perhaps ironically, David Cameron has tasked Spelman with reviewing the use or rather misuse of parliamentary allowances by MPs and MEPs.

I wonder how long that’ll stay up.

Staines, predictably, has decried this as another example of “snouts at the trough.” The pingback on Liberal Conspiracy from Lib Dem Voice is entitled “Conservative Expenses Scandal spreads.” More may well be coming from the liberal/left blogs. And just wait for the usual “bloggertarian” rage. It’ll come…

Oh. And did I mention silence on all fronts from Iain Dale?

A vision came to me last night: Ed Balls is a Tory in disguise, desperately fanning the flames of factionalism in the Labour Party.  As is Charles Clarke, as is Jack Straw, as is Brown himself for remaining leader.

Clearly

What I mean to say is the latest act in the PLP’s grim waltz to electoral suicide continued this morning.  For those that haven’t heard, Ed Balls issued a stinging (hah…) attack on opponents today, calling for an end to personal attacks in the party.

Before claiming Frank Field’s behaviour cast doubts over whether his, “intentions were honourable,” in attacking Brown.  This after calling not too long ago for personal attacks to stop.

Yes, I can see it too.  The public just love hypocrisy.  And backbenchers - who the government needs to win over if it’s to survive - are really crazy about confrontational ministerial behaviour.

Chyeah…

Field’s comments yesterday weren’t helpful to Brown or the Labour Party.  They sank a raft of policy announcements in a tide of personal effluence which might otherwise have provided a vaguely fresh start for the goverment.  Balls is justifiably irritated - along, so the tale goes, with a fair number of backbenchers.

Couldn’t one of them be found to attack Field?  If that’d happened, the criticism would have looked genuine.  Field might have been toppled from his spot as backbench-blocker-in-chief - which was an odd place for him to be anyway.  Divisions between backbenchers and ministers would have been reduced, and those policies might somehow have made it to the news.

Instead - Balls makes this impromptu briefing.  As Gordon Brown’s close friend and ally, his reaction looks like a personal continuation of the previous rancour.  The backbenchers see their self-appointed awdward squaddrista attacked by a minister, and rally round to stop the bullying.  Divisions reappear.  Those policies disappear entirely, aren’t properly scrutinised and unexpectedly bite the party in the arse next year.  Balls looks bitter; the party looks divided; and it all looks very weak to the public.

Strategic mistake, mayhaps?  However you regard Balls as a minister, it’s impossible not to lament the damage he seems intent on wrecking within the party.  He should learn to stop willy-waving, as it just doesn’t work someone in his position…

Note to self: Stop making jokes about Balls’ name.  Immature and puerile, and looks silly.  If not as much as the Minister for Children does at present…

This is vile. Businesses have decided it’s about time that they introduced their own version of the criminal record. The National Staff Dismissals Register, an online database going live later this month, will contain the details of all employees of signed up companies dismissed for simple allegations of certain offences. There doesn’t need to have been any proof, or criminal conviction - merely allegations.

These details will remain on the database for five years. They will be available to any company signed up to the site. That already means Harrods, Selfridges and Reed Managed Services, amongst others.

Presence on the Register is likely to scupper chances of employment entirely. Who’d employ someone who might be guilty of theft, forgery or fraud, if they even suspected them of it? No-one who valued their money, certainly…

They say it’s not a blacklist.

How?

The system is so open to abuse it’s frightening. People have been falsely accused of offences before.  They’ve been sacked for them. They’d lose their job, but they wouldn’t get a criminal record. It’d be unpleasant, but at least they could move on.

This destroys any chance of that. Once an employee is on the database, rightfully or not, they’re on it - and have less of a chance of getting a job. In a case where an employee is wrongly dismissed, that’s simply unfair. You can imagine it. Some lecherous old fart of an employer, as is known to happen, makes advances at an employee. Wisely cautious of flabby middle aged flesh and rampantly under-sexed bosses, they reject them. The boss gets offended, concocts a vague tale of misplaced paper-clips and laptops, and the employee is fired.

And now that goes on their record as theft. For five years.

So, that’s gross injustice number 1. But what about gross injustice number 2? This database utterly dismisses the notion that people can change. Yes, an employee might commit a crime at an early stage, and rightly be dismissed for it. But why can’t they change? Dismissal might be the very spur to drive them back into obeying the law.

If a greasy speck like Jonathan Aitken could do it…

There are reasons employers aren’t allowed to share details of employees. If a crime’s committed, and there’s enough evidence to collar someone, then they’ll get a criminal record. Future employers can judge them on that. If not, then past employers have no right to tar their future with semi-substantiated accusations so weak that they couldn’t even take them to the police.

If a government collected a database like this, there’d be (rightful) outrage. “Statist tyranny!” would go up the cry. “Evil socialists coming to steal your freedom, evil, evil…”

So why is there no outcry when the private sector does it?