Italy isn’t a pleasant place at present; Berlusconi recently put 3000 troops on the streets of Rome. This, he claims, is part of an attempt to crush an alleged wave of crime by Roma gypsies.

But who really believes that from a government that placed gypsies on an ethnic register? The move smacks of a barely closeted racism; it assumes a moral panic sparked by the single murder in November is fully justified, and that gypsies are solely to blame for all Italian crime. Pandering, in short, to prejudice.

And that prejudice certainly exists:

On the streets of northern Rome such reservations are hard to find. “All our problems come from foreigners getting drunk, smashing windows and stealing,” said Anna Maria Mercure, who at 80 is old enough to remember an earlier era of Italian discipline. “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day.”

Fascism is fine so long as they don’t arrest me, she means. I direct readers to a rather famous poem, the sentiment of which is entirely sound.

Others want their xenophobic authoritarianism laid out in simple steps, though:

“I would kill them all,” said Virginia Cristell, a mother in her 40s. “Send them to the country – or send them somewhere. They are dirty and there are lots of problems with burglary and thieving. They make toxic smoke.”

Deport them, and then exterminate them - sound familiar to anyone?

The gypsies certainly feel victimised:

That, however, is not the view of Goffredo Bezzecchi, 69, an Italian gipsy who came close to death after Italian Fascists tried to send his family to the death camps. They escaped before they could be deported. Mr Bezzecchi, who was fingerprinted at his home near Milan last month, feels history is at risk of repeating itself. “These things were done in the Fascist days when gipsies were killed or sent to concentration camps,” he said. “The politicians should remember that we are human, not garbage.”

To summarise; ethnic profiling, ethnically targetted policing enacted by the army, and plans to move people around the country on the grounds they belong to an ethnic group. Berlusconi’s government has, in effect, denied that the Roma can be defined by anything but their ethnicity, and so their individual humanity. Very 1930s.

(In which Grieves decides that he likes this post-feminism stuff.)

I noted at the time of writing it that this article that there was something of a weak flank exposed. A good deal of my reasoning behind the relative weakness of feminism here to across the Atlantic is that women are simply in a better state. To demonstrate this I used the epitome of female success: Thatcher. There is an obvious response to this argument: that she is not a fair case to reference as she is remarkable. This is certainly something which few would argue against: even her harshest critics were aware of her power as a political operator. This is not true of the average woman and simply because she was able to overwhelm prejudice does not mean that all women would be capable of such a feat.

Now let us give this argument its fair dues: there have been three Prime Ministers since Thatcher {as easy as it is to forget Major, and perhaps even Brown} and of them none have been women. This demonstrates a clear bias towards men. But it must be remembered that this position is filled only through members of cabinet who have managed to elbow their way forwards into pole position. Thatcher filled her cabinet with men {besides notable exceptions such as Edwina Currie, who single-handedly crippled the British egg industry and resulted in the deaths of four million chickens} and Blair was easily the superior of Margaret Beckett. Brown’s pursuit of him in power was assured by their dealings. Accordingly there were no real opportunities for women to reach the pinnacle, as a consequence of the one who did and the nous of the two that followed her.

Therefore perhaps a better area to consider would be that of cabinet. It is here where the evidence for post-feminism outstrips that of feminism. Because what the best piece of advice to be offered to any woman seeking political power (besides, of course, as painful as I find this to type, that they join the Conservatives) would surely be not to worry. For such strides have been taking over equality that not only will competent, aptly skilled women be allowed roles in government, but that even those who are only as able as the most incompetent male cabinet ministers can gain them.

Take the notorious case of Ruth Kelly: a Catholic cultist was permitted to be Minister for Women and Equality. The theological hard-liners of Opus Dei were heeded fully, and she ultimately appealed against the reforms of gay adoption laws being applied even and equally. Only the threat of a full-on cabinet rebellion in the tail-end of Blair’s reign led to the policy which was her brief as Minister being arranged against her will.

Could this have been anticipated? Well, her refusal to attend any vote where she would have been whipped into supporting gay rights probably could have provided a hint. As could her membership of a Catholic sect aforementioned, who certainly refrain from taking the soft line upon matters of carnal morality.

Furthermore she is largely responsible for the present policy on bio-fuels, responsible for the exacerbation of widespread starvation in developing nations.

Or perhaps we could touch upon Tessa Jowell, who’s valuable contributions to government (the introduction of OFCOM is notable) are dwarfed by the carnage resulting by her relationship with money. Her husband’s dealings with the avowedly neo-Falangist Silvio Berlusconi generated considerable controversy which she barely escaped unscathed from and it is upon her watch that the Olympics has (predictably) ran over budget to the tune of several billion pounds.

The likelihood is that it shall continue to overrun by several billion more.

But the most notable example could never be any other save Estelle Morris. Despite only serving as Secretary for Education and Skills from June 2001 to October 2002 she managed to make a mess of the education so thorough that her successors have yet to undo much of the damage. The amount of lasting harm she did in a position she spent so little time in is actually quite impressive. She resigned declaring that she felt inadequate for the task, but this was hardly news to many.

Although she had a modest history in education it seems likely that her connections and heritage (her father and an uncle were Labour MPs) influenced her ascent into a role she was entirely inept in. Certainly her present position of Baroness was not warranted by her career. Her unpopularity amongst the NUT was immense and led to her being heavily heckled during a conference due to her desire to implement neo-liberal policy tying pupil results to teacher wages.

However it is her treatment of students that was most dire: displaying a total absence of common sense and empathy she pronounced that children would be too stressed by the AS level in its present form, and instead of spreading out the examinations over the course of a few weeks they ought to be packaged together on a single day. This, as any imbecile could have informed her, resulted in increased stress for students as their exams were staged in quick succession and without opportunities for rest. It also resulted in carnage for revision schedules, that were forced to cover all material relevant to an entire subject at once. The consequences for history were students having to hop mentally from era to era, in a fashion almost begging for errors to ensue through understandable slips of a century or two. Candidates with extra time witnessed their time extended into vast and wearying stretches. This policy has yet to be over-turned, a grim legacy of an inept minister.

Morris later became Minister of Arts, despite openly admitting that she knew very little about contemporary art.

Enough, it is hoped, has been compiled here to demonstrate that women have nothing to fear from any confinement beneath glass ceilings within White Hall. They need not be indefatigable to reach their desired locations, they need not be formidable or remarkable or exceptional to be picked in the stead of men. They need not be titans. They can be as inappropriate for the role required of them or as incompetent in executing it as are many men who reach cabinet positions, yet still be given jobs. A true testament to the success of feminism if ever there were one.

As well as further evidence for the obsolete nature of its central analysis. When it comes to granting positions of power, it would seem, there is only the same meagre amount of talent expected of men anticipated of women in order for them to serve Her Majesty’s Government. If this is a Patriarchy it is a remarkably lax one.

Due to failure on the part of Douglas to show up (he was collaborating with the bourgeois in the most foul fashion possible by seeking a job) I didn’t bother to turn up for Friday’s sessions of Marxism until late in the day, instead opting to watch Alladin. Quite a good call, I thought.

The main event was based around a series of stalls, but sadly not as diverse a one as those I witnessed when I covered Love Music Hate Racism. No, this had SWP tents and Stop The War tents and Left List tent and a SWP table and…Well, basically all but three of the set-ups were SWP connected. The first seemed to be some climate change group which the SWP had possibly only let in due to being then impressed at the amount of protesters the Climate Camp and so on were able to mobilise. The other were selling subscriptions to an underground socialist video collection group named News Reel which I didn’t have any money to go along with. I told the man that my money was all going on groceries (the truth) and he told me he knew the feeling well.

The third group were the most interesting by far: Turkish socialists. These types are rather penned in on all sides; struggling alongside the moderate Islamists while repulsed by their neo-liberal policies and incapable of doing anything about the more conservative Islamist movement uprising, while having nothing but disdain for the secularist far-right nationalist movement which seems to have the backing of the anti-democratic Turk generals.

On top of this they suffer, as with almost everywhere, due to a fractured left. They, like the SWP, aspire towards a grouping similar to Die Linke in Germany, which has united the left successfully and enjoyed increasing electoral success. But it seems like they have a good deal of work ahead of them if they wish to manage that. Not, perhaps, as much as the British left…

Speaking of which I got to speak to more people from within Respect. This opportunity was presented to me when I stopped by at the Love Music Hate Racism tent and talked a bit about Bexley’s old school racist nationalism amongst other topics and it turned that (as Londoners) these SWPers were Respect activists. Interestingly one fellow (the second I’ve met who fulfills these credentials) actually was not a member of the SWP and never had been, due to filling the rather unpopular position (at Marxism, at least) of being a reformist socialist instead of a revolutionary. Apparently this is the source of constant arguments between him and his Socialist Worker friends, which I can well imagine but am glad has not prevented them getting along.

He still stated that Respect was now called Left List, but apparently the name “Left Alternative” is also being floated. I hope very strongly that this is not the one they run with as it is truly dire. If they haven’t gotten themselves into a position where they can call themselves “The Left Party” and be done with it then that should be their top priority. A party describing itself as the “Alternative” has never won anything.

In order to try and get my bearings of the place I headed to the entrance of the School of Oriental and Asian Studies (SOAS) where there was a large SWP tent. There I met a lovely middle aged woman who talked to me about the basic socialist stuff. She told me about the local level stuff the SWP get up to, I gave her a rough and weak outline of pragmatic socialism and she told me I should join. I find this an unnervingly frequent (not to mention predictable) occurrence with the SWP, but at least they make you feel wanted.

My response was perhaps not what she had anticipated: I told her that the now century old model of Democratic Centralism left me immensely wary, not only because organising a contemporary party along Leninist structures seemed to be more redolent of an exercise in historical recreationism rather than a serious political project; but also because I was less than keen on being bound in numerous ways by the majority will. She explained how as far as she could the democratic centralist structure was simply a means of getting things done but frankly I consider the continual failure of the SWP to achieve anything much is a testament to the ineffectualness of this argument. I didn’t tell her that, though.

On the upside: they did have free food. This was set up as a picnic in the green, where there was a concentrated crowd of Marxists sitting in circles and a pair of apparently illicit tents. Not a lot of it as I got there pretty late but enough to tide me over until I got home. My gratitude to the Bristol and Manchester SWP branches for the munchables. Much appreciated.

So I headed back through the area to pick up more perspectives. Another Socialist Worker seemed worth a chat so I asked him the time and then struck up conversation. As ever the gregariousness socialism demands of humanity was evident and regardless of their misdeeds as a body upon the left the SWP is characterised by a largely lovely membership. At least offline. This fellow was not from inside London but was the first from the SWP I found who admitted that there was opportunism “On both sides” concerning the Respect debacle. Indeed he went so far as to say that matters were far more complex than a “Left-Right split” and that trying to explain matters in such terms was far too simplistic.

It was now nearing 7 o’clock and I had a decision to make: Tariq Ali or Lenin. The latter was, of course, the blogger Richard Seymour, who was here under that name rather than his provocative nom de plume. The primary factor in my opting for the latter was my total lack of cash. No money to obtain tickets meant that opting for the room with spare seats was unquestionably preferable.

In the event Seymour’s room was pretty packed as well, but there was enough space for me not to be acting as a seat robber. I had a whole spiel planned involving mentioning that I was a victim of sub prime and still seeking employment in this crisis stricken economy (both true) but as it happens I turned up slightly late and the man on the door just waved me through.

Seymour was perhaps not how I’d imagined him but that was largely in the voice, which was a soft Irish one I probably should have anticipated more given he’s mentioned his origins on the blog. I was still expecting something a tad more harsh, firm, clipped and firebrand.

As for content, well it was concerning the pro-war left, who are his targets in “The Liberal Defence of Murder” (although interestingly three of his main subjects, Johann Hari, Nick Cohen and the especially despised Christopher Hitchens are all socialists or social democrats of some sort, although Hitchens seems to have shifted into not calling himself anything yet referencing Marx almost as much as before, if not more).

Both in person and in comments Lenin has described himself as “all over the place” structurally; but if this was truth instead of modesty it certainly didn’t show. There was clearly plenty he’d had planned but couldn’t get in, but this was seemingly because he’d done a vast amount of reading and research and it was to the degree that he couldn’t possibly cram it all in. He’d probably intended to say something about Yugoslavia, I suppose, but I never found that topic immensely interesting anyway so I’m rather glad he failed to. Likewise with Ol*ver K*mm.

As it was he managed to fill forty five minutes and then additional response time with a pleasingly fact dense speech that outlined the nature, power, motivations, methods and follies of the pro-war left. The talk traced how liberal interventionists of the contemporary era had directly borrowed from the colonial tradition (both of the far-right and of thinkers such as Mill and Tocqueville, not to mentioned the much-loathed Reformist Marxist Bernstein) and were now using rhetoric barely adapted from the times when you could get away with phrases such as “Adult race”.

Inbetween these two book-ends there was a discussion point where a surprisingly large number of audience members (including myself) were coaxed on stage to give views or ask questions. This felt pleasingly participative and it’s certainly a tradition I’m glad shows no signs of being abandoned.

Also in attendance was Naadir, former member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and founder of Boris Watch, to which our own Gerry Fenby contributes. I had met him before at the Liberal Conspiracy “Summit” and he kindly bought me a pair of pints while we talked about everything ranging from historical materialism and its importance for Marxists to the Revolutionary Communist Party to Objectivism to the neo-liberal case for a global welfare state.

In all a very pleasing day and one I shall hopefully extend tomorrow by showing up before six o’clock. Given that I’m writing this at nearing half past twelve and haven’t had breakfast yet (let alone got dressed) I suppose that it will not be by all that much…

For those interested Marxism lasts until this Sunday and is held in a variety of venues close to the Goodge Street Nothern line Russell Square Piccadilly line stations. The official website is here.

Both Blogged or Otherwise, both in Theory and Application

I was planning a write-up of some kind (hideously late though it inarguably would have been) but it turns out that Penny Red beat me to the punch:

Fashionably late to the party, this week I went to a massively interesting liberal bloggers’ event at the Guardian. It was fantastic to finally meet people I’ve spent so long sparring with online; that awkward shuffling when a roomful of geeky people who know each other well but haven’t actually met and are trying, shyly, to match faces to cyberspace handles felt pleasingly zeitgeist as always. It was the second part of the evening, the panel on women’s blogs, feminist blogs and their interaction with the rest of the blogsphere, that really got my hackles raised.

Basically, that was it for me as well. Entirely. That was my evening. The only point at which our views diverge is upon the exact nature of the annoyance posed, which is a pretty ineluctable given that she’s a feminist and insofar as I can be classified along such lines I’m far more the post-. The consequences of the feminist movement and both its successes and failures have left a world far more complex and variable than that which preceded it and all that.

In short I found the second half of the discussion by far the weaker. I think the greatest error was people asking the Freudian “What to feminist bloggers want?” when such a question is as great an absurdity as asking “What do liberal blogger want?”, if not more so. There is a vast amount of diversity within that ideology and a vast amount of different people who have been pinned with the tag, so expecting to nail down what all of them, to a writer, desire is an obvious impossibility.

As far as I could tell the assembled views of the panel were simple and easily appreciable. They consisted of more credit, more attention, less abuse and more interaction.

Apparently the feminist blogosphere (I detest that term as much as Penny does yet can find no superior) despises men assuming that they will become their leaders. This appears to be a wide-spread concern but, as far as I can tell, has not actually been attempted. If evidence of as much is forthcoming then I shall revise my position but I’ve never met anyone expressing an interest in leading the feminists in any direction and struggle to see why anyone would.

The matter of abuse is something which we (that is to say, SES) have had some experience. Indeed the only commenteers we seemed able to attract in our early days were people delivering death threats, posting images of recently evacuated foecal carcass and so on. As one of the bloggers present at the Liberal Conspiracy who had “Lived online as a man” for a year had found this is in no way limited to female bloggers, it is simply a matter of the terms of abuse shifting as gender appropriate (although “Bitch”, to a degree, can cover either). As far as I am concerned the best form of moderation there is is minimal moderation. If the consequences hurt anyone’s feelings then I suggest that they read up on the Stoics. I assure Penny and anyone else concerned that if this leads them to deem me a “Typical man” then this displays more of their prejudices than of my character. As with most earnest insults.

So with that criticism of the myn dealt with I suppose I should respond in kind by making two points concerning feminist blogs in Britain, both of which are informed by some consideration of the state of affairs across the Atlantic, before a third which concludes matters:

Insularity

(Or, when referring to America, “Incestuousness”.)

This was something which concerned me immensely concerning British feminist blogs but we’ve had three feminist bloggers comment here this week and they seem to make up the considerable majority of commenteers here (at least for now). So really, I can’t complain. Not least because otherwise they might all leave, which would upset us all immensely.

But certainly I had heard little from the feminists prior to the aforementioned gathering. And the state across the pond is simply dire. There vast blogs can be found with thriving communities that consist seemingly entirely of feminist women. This is not terrible in itself but it seems that for the most part it seems that this results in views supporting the feminist ideology being provided and then getting a plethora of reactions (generally shocked or outraged or bitterly amused about something) from hundreds of feminists. All saying nearly the same thing and generally coming from much the same position.

Occasionally there is a moment of schism such as whenever someone mentions pornography and the distinction between Dworkin acolytes and contemporary thinkers becomes stark, or when the Male Rights types show up or somebody mentions male mutilation standard in America while the treatment of Egyptian girls is under discussion (the latter two often coincide, and fair play to the otherwise platform devoid chaps) but really, it’s mostly unproductive noise focused around ideological consensus and resulting rhetorical hegemony.

Which has its purpose, I suppose, but if their interest is smashing the patriarchy achieves roughly fuck all. The result is a group of people with a view points of considerable divergence but largely the same set of views agreeing on almost everything and occasionally breaking out into a furious flame-war. I suppose that most involved enjoy themselves, but upon their own terms it doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. For instance, it fails completely in getting any men involved besides the (very occasional) male feminist and the Men’s Rights who come there to get some attention from the only people who really respond (albeit by telling them to GTFO and stop bringing the males into a discussion not about them), or just to troll their enemies hard (male rights advocacy is something which warrants its own article, suffice it to say that they’re a diverse bunch).

This suits the sort of segregationist feminists who wish to divide from masculinity and males altogether and form their own gender seperatist lesbian colonies but these are perhaps the least desirable and (thankfully) amongst the smallest faction of feminists around (even Dworkin suggested remaining within the patriarchy, albeit only in order to “begin to tear male dominance to pieces, to pull it apart, to vandalize it, to destabilize it, to mess it up, to get in its way, to fuck it up.”) The rest of the ideology presumably desires some sort of interaction and if it happens elsewhere I’ve seen scanty evidence.

The phrase “Preaching to the choir” comes to mind and much though it is over-used it does seem apt.

So what can British bloggers do to evade this fate? What they’re doing already, for the most part (and I say that, of course, objectively and entirely apart from the desire to see our “Recent Comments” bar remain in motion) but also trying to get more men engaged at all costs. Sunny, our host at the Liberal Conspiracy do, has apparently described himself as a feminist; but is amongst very sparse company. The F Word has no male contributers and as far as I am aware neither does the Carnival of Feminists. Needless to say the same is true of Feministe, Feministing and all the other large collaborative American feminist blogs. This I find curious: men make up half the population yet are represented as 0% of the feminist writers on all of the mainstream feminist blogs. Bizarre. So much for “You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist” (always, I note, with that emphasis). It seems that this possibility is not a reality, or at least not to a great enough extent to merit inclusion of any instances. Perhaps the quality of these rarities is sub-standard? I find this curious too. Let us not forget that the work of any female feminist can be at least matched by Mill’s On Women.

If such establishments wish to encourage male feminism then simply offering them a platform would not be a bad place to start, as would simply not writing articles such as this which are both intimidating in length (as you can probably tell brevity is entirely my specialty) and also seemingly place the emphasis entirely upon what must be done by men (”Sarcasm and satire aren’t always easy to get across, so it’s probably safer not to start flinging around gendered insults” it is insisted, as if women are entirely incapable of telling when my calling them “moronic wenches” is in jest (always) or earnest (never) and should take no effort to improve their observational and interpersonal skills if they are not. No, the fault here lies purely with the men).

Instead they should simply let people turn up, refrain from treating anyone as if they don’t belong and for the sake of the stars turn off comment moderation. This blog has barely any comments as it is, prior to our current comments policy (don’t mention Oliv*r K*mm or H*rry’s Pl*ce and you can stay up unedited) and the removal of com-mod it was effectively dead. I am aware that many feminist websites already have thriving communities, but these doubtless could become expanded upon by reducing restrictions. A considerable number of people (myself unquestionably included) are so opinionated the prospect of having to await “Approval” for their views being plastered across a webpage is considerably irksome.

Finally there is the matter of linking to feminists and so on. This is not the sort of matter which I or any other blogger I know of (or can envision) does by quota. If something worthwhile is seen that seems to warrant distribution then that is exactly what is done. So far the only time that this has happened to my recollection with a feminist site was Penny Red’s, which both Douglas and I have linked to and I’ve commented on a fair few times. Now that we’re getting incomings and comments from blogs of that nature doubtless reciprocation will follow so that all seems to be in hand from this front. As far as I can tell this is the only way to proceed and really, it’s how all bloggers interact. Nothing ideological about it, purely social.

Ineffectuality

(There’s nothing like a word you’ve just invented to form the central foundation of a critique.)

Again, let us compare the state of our nation (how wary I am of that phrase) to that of those across the Atlantic Puddle in terms of this ideology and its accompanying movement. In America when women seemed threatened with abortion being restricted, limited or outlawed a few years ago feminists marched a million women on Washington.

Never mind the national news in America, that filled copious column inches here in Britain. It was a remarkable event and a sterling achievement, one that made apparent the often disregarded political clout of the pro-choice movement. This demonstration staged something of a reset upon the terms of debate, which had previously seemed to dangle the prospect of a move upon Roe versus Wade by some political authority or other, a goal overwhelmingly coveted by the substantial political force of the theologically inspired far-right, which at that time had thrown its support whole-heartedly behind the wholly dominant Republican Party. Afterwards the reactionary forces were forced into if not a retreat then at least a lull. Their hope for statist dominance over the female body faded, if not their desire.

Now let us be fair to British feminists. The population of America is far vaster than our own. Even including such conditions as inter-state travel we must accept that they had a far larger pool to fish activists from. But with that in mind surely it would be reasonable to set the point of comparison at a modest ten thousand women marching upon Westminster?

Well this year Nadine “Mad Nad” Dorries spearheaded efforts to reduce the number of weeks after which an abortion could legally occur. I was aware of her efforts since I read newspapers. I was aware of opposition because it was included within them. I knew that Nadine Dorries was a nut because of Ben Goldacre and his glorious blog and its numerous critiques of her output. I had seen her case demolished in Penny Red here where she matches each of the 24 “reasons” provided by Dorries with a far better one. I knew Goldacre from the Guardian and knew of Red through a mutual friend.

But there was no immense protest that I could not have helped but notice. There was nothing that demostrated widespread opposition in a fashion that was impossible to dispute. There was not five digits of feminists joining Brian Haw on the Westminster lawn of Parliament Square.

This is entirely inadequate. It is far from sufficient to offer information to those interested, attention must be seized. This can not be achieved through a few blog posts, but only through a campaign. This is not the sort of affair that British feminism appears to have achieved in this decade, and it shall almost certainly have to before the decade is out.

There was a great fuss made at the Liberal Conspiracy meet (and perhaps elsewhere, I haven’t been bothered to check) over who was and deserved to take “Credit” for the Commons rejection of the proposed increase of the limit. But as far as I’m concerned the British Public is owed the most as, above all else, the most important reason for the abortion laws remaining the same is that there are more Labour MPs than Conservative MPs. After the next election there will be more Conservative MPs than Labour MPs and the measure will be passed.

Is that as inevitable as I presented it? Not entirely, but given the current approach of the feminists (not to mention the Labour Party) of Britain I would suggest that, barring some unlikely shift of strategy, that is what shall occur. This is partially the consequence of the aforementioned insularity but partially the result of the weakness of British feminism. The reasons for this are numerous but I would argue that it is largely the consequence of it being less necessity for its existence here than elsewhere.

It is at this point that I can feel fists clenching but this view has been under consideration for some time.

Redundancy & Malaprop

It is often argued that Thatcher killed off British socialism. This incorrect, that was Callaghan. Thatcher killed British feminism. Once the reactionary party of Britain had been led by a woman, a woman unashamdly of the petty bourgeois, no less, and it was a woman who had kept them in power for well over a decade there was no longer any hope for the ideology which asserted that society was based around the oppression of one gender by another. Had it perhaps been the progressives of Labour or even the Liberals who had placed a PM into power then feminism in Britain would have stood a chance. It wasn’t. It was Thatcher. It was the Conservative Party. She thought that men were weak, she fought them, she won. As matters stand feminists are trying to forge a movement in a nation where loathsome organisations offer better insurance premiums to those in possession of a vagina; since apparently that renders them “Better drivers” (yes, all of them) and Polly Toynbee often digresses from her polite statist leftism to tell us how useless her husband is.

Amongst many, many others.

Yes, the malaise within British feminism is far from confined to their treatment of the internet. As far as solutions for this are concerned I have nothing to offer. This is because it is here that I consider the conventional feminist viewpoint to disintegrate: the patriarchy was a model in existence but has since seen partial collapse while the cultural lie of men and women being somehow innately distinct in ways that are utterly inherent has, largely remained strong. Requiring men to be perceived as inferior in certain ways as severely as women were and (in many ways) still are; although often less challenged. This is a state of affairs that has left both men and women treated injustly; but is a system so complex and convoluted that any understanding which begins from the premise of master and servant can not stand a fraction of a chance of hoping to depict the situation accurately. Any that hopes to stamp out misogyny and focuses on as much is forgetting misandry, and thus in reverse.

This differs in numerous, obvious ways with feminism; but perhaps not as greatly as may be assumed intuitively. There are a number of shared aims and intentions. I agree with much of the feminist agenda. I agree, above all else, with this:

After generations of struggle, we are still trying to build a better world, one where gender does not dictate behaviour and assumptions and opportunities.

but struggle to see how any collective following an ideology named “Feminism” can succeed in “laying the foundations” for as much. I’m willing to stage an attempt at such a venture with anyone willing to engage but I question the logic of approaching it using the exact same vehicle that tore through the Patriarchy. Especially when the consequences, indeed the tools, of that messy demolition included a surge of caustic misandry that presently coats our culture like some nauseating fume.

I further agree entirely with the rational feminist criticism of the prejudice based around what amounts to a different set of genitals. I oppose the idea of genders for much the same reason I do nations: they are cultural notions with merit but which cause problems in total disproportion to their value. They belong in the ever increasing pile of obsolete ideas generated by cultural progress throughout history. As ideas they are entirely within the power of humans to alter as appropriate or else completely dispose of. This may be a struggle but it is unquestionably a possibility. But this is not the sort of endeavour that can be undertaken by a movement which, from its name to its membership, is entirely suited more to one gender than the other. It requires engagement of both and mass support capable of overwhelming entirely existing social norms, neither of which has been achieved by feminism previously or seems to be a plausible aim for the future. What is required is that feminists live up to this talk of women being “Collaborative rather than competitive” in destroying the crux of all such preconceptions alongside their entirely required comrades. It seems that some have realised this; but with a mentality that sees man as the oppressor and woman his victim hamstringing their understanding of contemporary existence there is little hope of immense progress.

So the best offer I can make here is that the feminists stop being as much and start tearing down the gender roles alongside the partners that without they can never accomplish such an epic feat. Those currently designated as “men”.

Or at least get a few more feet on the streets and kick up a proper fuss.

I was at the Liberal Conspiracy/Guardian Blog Nation event on Wednesday evening.  One of the many thoughts to come from it (more of which might be written up at a later date) was that female blogging was alive and kicking.  I admit to not regularly reading blogs written by women, and for presuming that only a handful of women actually blogged.  I am well aware of the statistics showing the tiny minority of women bloggers, but have opened my eyes to the joys of some of the female blogs out there*.  Upon hearing Harriet Harman’s latest proposals for “equal opportunities” legislation, therefore, I made a concerted effort to see what the female and feminist blogs had to say.

The message is fairly clear - the proposals are extremely confusing.  It is unclear as to whether allowing women to be chosen above men of equal ability is anything new: surely this is already legal?  In fact, it is unclear as to whether or not any sort of positive discrimination is being proposed at all.  The draft proposals seem to be a wrapping up of existing legislation, being spun as a great move for feminism.  It seems as if the feminists aren’t buying it.

The Westminster media narrative has moved on, but it is worth considering the effect of this legislation.  It has been spun to appeal: one Tory commented that it was the most politically correct announcement from the most politically correct minister.  He couldn’t be more wrong.  I was ready to get on a high horse about the evils of positive discrimination, but found that I couldn’t.  Instead, I was left wondering why Harman needed to bother at all.  This is no new announcement, no change in policy, just a way of lubricating the existing regulations.  It is dull, but exactly the sort of legislation Parliament should be churning out - like the fertilisation bill, which gathered the loose ends of a whole sphere of regulation into one manageable bunch.  It actually allows employers to arbitrarily discriminate in any direction: not very PC at all.

The Daily Express ran with some tripe about how white middle class men are to be slain by the feminist monster, but the proposals give equal rights for potential employers to pick white men over black women arbitrarily.  This was a confusing announcement because of the spin.  The substance of the proposal is limited, but commendable.  If Harman had dared to present it for what it was, she may have missed headlines but would have done the important work of government.  One cannot help but think that Labour, in its current state, should not so easily sacrifice a rare display of good governance for the sake of a failed attempt at positive headlines.

- - -
*Penny Red is a favourite already.  Our Recommended Links list has more.

The Scribo Ergo Sum team are a dedicated bunch, committed to delivering the very best a blog can offer.  Well, perhaps not, but we are keen to maintain standards.  We try to keep the website updated with quality content, and attempt to display it in appealing ways.  Our tabbed “essential reading” box, for example, allows us to shove content we like to the top of the homepage.  Exciting, eh?  There is something to be said for bloggers taking a keen interest in web design: the layout and aesthetics of a website are very important to the feel of it, and impact upon the reader’s experience.  So, please allow a temporary diversion from politics and meta-blogging as I attempt to weigh up the two mighty web browsers once and for all.

IE8 (beta)
I recently downloaded Internet Explorer 8.  It is still in beta version, but I like to consider myself one of the “web developers and designers” it suggests the release is suitable for.  Internet Explorer knows its audience: IE has something of a reputation within the “web developers and designers” community for being a bit rubbish.  Releasing a beta version for developers is their way of testing just how good the browser is - can it function according to web standards?

Web standards have been a big headache for Internet Explorer.  I am currently working on a design for a fairly complex site and have been attempting to introduce a lovely hovering menu for the navigation (made entirely using CSS, if you are interested).  Internet Explorer tries its hardest, then wheezes a little, and gives up with only a portion of it functioning properly.  Despite various get-arounds to deal with IE faults, new ones always emerge.  Every other browser can manage without trouble, but IE is incapable.  The sad truth is that the vast majority of web users rely upon Internet Explorer and the “web developers and designers” are forced to go out of their way to deal with the faults thrown up just because most people use a poor browser.  To be fair, IE8 displays my navigation menu perfectly.  The fact remains, however, that if each browser were judged on merit, IE would have ceased to be several years ago.

Internet Explorer 8 is meant to be a massive improvement on its predecessor.  It is.  The most authoritative test of browser standards compliancy, the Acid 2 Test, was the basis of the IE8 rebuild.  Unlike any Explorer browser before it, IE8 correctly displays the nifty little smiley face accurately.  Unlike most other browsers, though, IE8 struggles to display simple applications like Google’s Gmail.  Google have received requests about the problem with IE8, and the response is fitting:

Well, IE8 is not supported by Gmail yet, so you might want to use another browser - FF2.x or IE7. FF3 is not supported yet either, but we don’t get bug reports about that browser.

In other words, Firefox 3, released yesterday, works.

IE8 has its benefits.  The multi-tab view is a lovely way of selecting pages through image grabs, but is functionally redundant in all but looking fancy.  In terms of useful developments, IE8 introduces “webslices”, which are a nice little set of tools to grab useful parts of websites without visiting them.  I have subscribed to my friends’ Facebook status updates, for example.  And there’s more: if you highlight text, a menu appears offering all sorts of suggestions for what you might want to do with the chunk of text, from searching with Google to posting in a blog.  The opportunities here are immense, but I have to conclude that IE8 simply isn’t worth the bother.  It is streets ahead of IE7 but fails to display certain applications properly.  If it is still causing headaches for web developers, it is of little merit.

Firefox 3
I was a late convert to Firefox, and admit that about half of my internet usage still takes place in other browsers.  One thing puts me off embracing Firefox: it distorts some typefaces.  It’s not a big issue, and is purely aesthetic, but it is a recurring issue nonetheless.  Firefox 3 does not solve the problem.

But in every other regard, Firefox3 is perfect.  The download is speedy, pages load quickly, things display like they were designed to, and web developers can cut down on their workload.  Everyone wins, simple as.  There is nothing much more to say, except for what Mozilla boast about.  Mike Rouse has some pertinent comments:

If you are still using Internet Explorer you should ask yourself why you bother accessing the internet. If you’re still one of those mindless folk that still uses IE6 then you should be asking yourself why you even own a computer.

And you, dear reader?
Using the wonderful Google Analytics, I can see what proportion of visitors use each web browser.  It makes for interesting reading, because our statistics are very different to the average.  64% of visits to this site use Firefox: a percentage several times greater than average.  It is perhaps telling that bloggers and web nerds tend to use the better browser browser, proving that our readership is of a discerning nature.  Perhaps not…

For the 28% of you left with Internet Explorer, THERE IS NO EXCUSE!  Do everyone a favour, just get on and download Firefox!

The BBC carried some alarming statistics today:

More bloggers than ever face arrest for exposing human rights abuses or criticising governments, says a report.

Since 2003, 64 people have been arrested for publishing their views on a blog, says the University of Washington annual report.

In 2007 three times as many people were arrested for blogging about political issues than in 2006, it revealed.

The worst offenders include China, Egypt and Iran - so little surprise there. What’s less expected is that police in Britain, France, Canada and the US. And arrests look to increase this year in the wake of elections around the world and the Beijing Olympics.

So, a thoroughly depressing read by the sounds of it. The WIA reckon that the increased arrests reflect a growth in the blogosphere. Usually growth would be encouraging, especially in areas challenged by repressive governments where the subversive power of blog should be at its best. But when that subversiveness is crushed at the point of entry, its effect must inevitably be limited…

Can anything be done? Certain nations’ laws are effectively beyond assault from bloggers - if China manages to ignore its people so easily, it’ll hardly have a problem ignoring us. About the most that can be done is making sure any content that does escape makes its way to foreign websites and news-agencies which can’t be shut down with a few arrests. At least someone might take note then.

In the UK, though? Some bloggers surely run into trouble simply through misunderstanding our tortuous libel laws, or making another stupid mistake. And unlike journalists, most of them don’t have a union to step in when they do get into trouble. The obvious solution is to set up a body able to provide some basic protection to bloggers. A website with a clear outline of libel laws in simple (hah…) language would help; so to would a contributory defence fund in case anyone did get into trouble. Bloggers would be welcome to pay in as much or little as they could afford - and would receive the groups’ support in the future should they need it. So - not quite a bloggers’ union, but approaching that.

But, enough talking. I should check whether one exists already, or whether there’s a reason why I haven’t spotted any before. Otherwise…

David Davis has resigned his position as Shadow Home Secretary and is forcing a by-election in his constituency. A bad idea on so many levels.

I admire Davis in many ways (although I admire his successor more), because of his civil libertarian stand. But acting as Shadow Home Secretary, with a clear promise of holding one of the big three Cabinet posts in 23 months’ time, should give ample room to campaign for civil liberties. It is obvious that Davis is far more libertarian than the rest of the Tory hierarchy - he has spoken at length about the number of CCTV cameras and threatened to resign in a meeting with Cameron on whether to support 42 days or not. But his actions today are shallow and counter-productive.

If Davis wishes to promote civil liberties, what better position to hold than Shadow Home Secretary, on the back of a good performance in a recent party leadership race? He stands to gain high office on a matter of months, and has not been ruled out of any future leadership campaign. He is respected by many in the party, and compares extremely well to Jacqui Smith. If he wishes to promote libertarianism in the Tory party, he has exactly the right job in which to do it. The leadership clearly considered backing the government on 42 days, but Davis put his foot down. He was right to do so - and his role as Shadow Home Secretary was perfect for that.

By resigning, Davis has given up his chance to champion such arguments in the future. Grieve has made it very clear that there will be no change in Home Affairs policy, but it is obvious that he is less of a central figure than Davis was. He has left an imbalance at the top of the party, with Cameron and Osborne more powerful today than they were yesterday.

His resignation has also proven a lack of respect for parliamentary democracy. He disagrees with Parliament’s decision on 42 days: he had the chance to vote against it and did. He lost. It is his responsibility to try to force another vote and campaign for a different outcome; a job much easier to conduct as Shadow Home Secretary than as an independent parliamentary candidate. The whole point of votes in parliament is that you can either win or lose, and you try to meet the demands of those who hold the balance of power. I do not believe Gordon Brown should have bribed the DUP members, and I do not believe they should have accepted the bribe, but it is up to them to decide how to vote. I have a lot of respect for the 37 Labour rebels who stood up for what they believed in - and I also have a lot of respect for Ann Widdecombe who defied the rest of her party for her convictions. She was wrong, but I respect her decision to vote by conscience. Parliamentary votes like this are about exactly that: conscience. It’s about winning the argument. Davis’ resignation rides roughshod over the whole principle of liberal democracy.

Davis appears to be positioning himself as a one-issue candidate, and will likely return to the Commons as a one-issue MP. He needs to understand that rehabilitation into the party will be very difficult if he intends to attempt it; otherwise he will live out the rest of his career as a single-issue campaigner the forum for which is better suited to lobbying than representing constituents.

The fallout could be huge. I do not exaggerate when I suggest that this, if handled correctly, could give Labour the chance to race ahead again. It is of monumental proportions. It is difficult to see how it could help to solidify the Tory lead, but time will tell. If, as is rumoured, Clegg’s LibDems do not contest the seat, we will have a straight fight between the Labour machine and a Tory oddjob; a fight that Davis is likely to win, taking attention away from the Conservative party completely. If one of the party’s big-hitters runs out for a personal glory-hunt, it reflects almost as badly on the party as on the individual. It is as if Gordon Brown were to have forced a by-election because Tony Blair refused to grant him permission to tax everyone at 80%.

This is a disgraceful personal glory-hunting campaign from Davis, and I really hope the Tory party does not support his by-election campaign. Moreover, the LibDems should put up a candidate who fights for the electorate on all issues, not for Davis’ ego on Home Affairs. The LibDems could easily steal votes from those who agree with much of what Davis has done but don’t like his attitude. For the sake of respecting liberal democracy, which David Davis has trampled over today, every party should put forward candidates to campaign hard for representing the electorate in parliament, and should they lose a vote or an argument with their party leader they should try to solve the issue instead of subjecting everyone to this kind of trauma.

I do not know what Davis is thinking, but his judgement is wrong. The LibDems are again failing totally in strategy: Nick Clegg seems to have made another poor call, when he had the most to gain. Labour could still make the most of this; it is a monumental mistake for the Tories to let this happen. Labour have a stark choice: be the only party to oppose Davis and risk losing, or fail to oppose him and expose his cheap trick. Either way, there is much to gain.

The bill to extend the period of detention without charge to 42 Days passed the Commons.

315 MPs voted for.
306 MPs voted against.

Note that there are 9 DUP MPs. Who, I’m told, voted for.

So now we know. What were they offered to stick with the government? Perhaps Gordon agreed that any homosexuals detained under the bill would be entered for “re-education” while imprisoned…

Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised. The DUP has never been known for its attachment to liberalism - or anything approaching it. The government doubtless offered concessions to them, as it was a perfect opportunity to levy something, but had their votes not been so important, they might have gone this way as it is.

Which, of course, says nothing for the DUP.

The Lords will now be crucial. They’ll reject it, I suspect; but will the government use the Parliament Act? It’d be drastic, but it could happen. There’s a lot riding on the Bill, after all. If the government gets defeated on it, they’ll sink from barely treading water to drowning, such is the emphasis they’ve laid on it.

And they might just get away with forcing it through the Lords this time. Their Commons majority was tiny - but it was there. More importantly, they can claim to have the support of the public; that poll showing 80% public support (I worry…) for the measure may see some air again soon.

But would it be in their interests? A devious voice in the back of the mind says the government might not want the bill to pass the Lords. Ministers may well know the bill will have disastrous effects for which they’ll be clobbered in key marginals at the next election. They couldn’t back down from a Commons fight without losing face. But if the Lords reject it, they can blame that for the bill’s defeat and scurry away without as much of a dent to the reputation. I do wonder, at least…

Until then, I’m off to seethe…

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?