miss_s_b: (Politics: Post Feminism)
I know I'm a bit of a stuck record on this point, but here is some concrete evidence of how the blokosphere works against women, all the while pretending not to:

Mark Pack blogs that the majority of UK bloggers are female. Someone asks him how he knows that; he replies that he got it from the ONS.

Mark would never have known about that ONS data had I not told him about it, but it never enters his head to credit me with the information. It's just information, it's in the public domain, it doesn't really MATTER where he got it from... Right?

I mean, the fact that when blogosphere stories enter the mainstream, the MSM normally credit Guido or the Egregious Tory Tosser, even when the story was almost always broken by someone else and they just picked it up off their RSS feeds or Twitter... as long as the story gets out, it doesn't matter who the source was, right?

Even more obviously: all those black people whose songs Elvis ripped off... As long as the music gets out there, who cares who wrote it?

Even when female bloggers DO do something worth noticing, we never get the credit. And we're told we should be grateful, because at least the information is out when the men deign to notice. I'm sure that this was not a conscious snub by Count Packula. I'm sure he's very wounded that I am even typing this. But you know what? Women are conditioned from birth to know our place, to not speak out in case we upset someone, to keep our heads down and just be grateful... Well fuck that. Sometimes someone needs to have their cage rattled.

If you're seriously about solving the problem of women being excluded, Mark, you might want to stop perpetuating it. Just a thought.

Dreamwidth Livejournal Blogger Facebook Tweet this Delicious Flattr this LibDig Bit/ly StumbleUpon
miss_s_b: (Mood: Belligerent Wheel of Fortune)
The fact that one of the Milliblands has got headlines for jumping on the Save Our Pubs bandwagon that Greg Mullholland and other Lib Dems have been successfully piloting for years, or the fact that Mike Smithson, famed sage of politicalbetting.com thinks that my livelihood and the lifeblood of many communities (not just rural ones) is trivial and laughable.

OK, so Millibland's "bold" plans are nothing more than to appoint a minister for pubs, and not to do anything about the beer tie, or the stupid over-regularion of the market, or the ridiculously complicated duty regime (here's an idea: differential taxation on cask and bottle/can), or any of the other issues that plague my industry. But that does not mean that the issue is not a serious one, affecting not just the lives of barmaids, but the fabric of our communities.

To dismiss this as so much sausages is, I venture to suggest, slightly short-sighted of the seer.

This blog is proudly sponsored by Voter Speaks

Dreamwidth Livejournal Blogger Facebook Tweet this Delicious LibDig Bit/ly StumbleUpon
miss_s_b: (Mood: Oh dear)
Featured on Liberal Democrat Voice

As is my wont on a Saturday morning, I am listening to The Week in Westminster. One of the items they have had on it was about rumblings of discontent in the party that we are not having enough influence on the coalition. Stephen Gilbert, of the whip's office, tried to counter this by listing policies which we have had influence on which are currently being enacted... and the first one he came up with was also a Tory policy.


The thing about being a Lib Dem is that you have to fight tooth and nail for every vote, and the thing about fighting tooth and nail for every vote is that you know the manifestos of your oppponents as well as you know your own. HOW DARE YOU try to hoodwink us? How dare you try to spin doctor those of us who campaigned like hell to get YOU elected?

Sandra Gidley was right, you cannot ignore the rumblings of discontent from within the party, or dismiss it by telling us we are not being grown up. I was one of those who voted enthusiastically for the coalition, I am fully aware that coalition involves compromise, but compromise, to my mind, does NOT involve pretending to be ecstatically happy about a desperate fudge that nobody actually wants (AV), and nor does it involve being an uncritical fawning abused partner in a marriage with very unequal power footings. I've seen where that leads, thank you, and I'm not going to participate enthusiastically in the macro version.

If you keep trying to dismiss and ignore the feelings of the grassroots of the party, you are going to reap a whirlwind in Liverpool, you smug, arrogant, dismissive tosser. And that's a long time before we get wiped out at the next election, which it's looking more and more like we will...

This blog is proudly sponsored by

If you would like to view this entry with a pale colour scheme click here. If you would like to subscribe to my blog click here for RSS or here for atom.

IPSA and whining MPs

NSFW Sunday, July 4th, 2010 01:03 am
miss_s_b: (Politics: Democracy)
( You're about to view content that the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. )
miss_s_b: (Mood: Belligerent Wheel of Fortune)
I've noticed a couple of bloggers (not just you, Mark, lest you think I am picking on you, but you are the only one worthy of linkage ;)) tonight moaning about how some woman was refused service in a supermarket because there was a suspicion she might be supplying some alcohol to a person under 18. A lot of the commentary on this seemed to be aimed at the supermarkets, and there were threats of violence against the checkout operator from a number of quarters. What the blue buggery fuck do people think shoving the bottle of wine up the operator's arse would achieve?

Yes, the law is illiberal, ill-thought-out, and stupid. But taking it out on some poor bugger who is being paid minimum wage, is terrified that (s)he is going to get fined £5000 and lose his/her job, and probably thinks you are one of the many mystery shoppers (s)he knows are circulating to make sure (s)he is doing everything correctly and parroting all the stupid lines (s)he has been given by management? How the monkey buttocks do you think that is going to help? If anything, it will be utterly counterproductive, because it will confirm in the minds of legislators that anyone (apart from themselves, obviously) who ever drinks alcohol (or consumes any other age-restricted product - fags, knives, whatever) is dangerous and needs to be controlled.

If you get IDed for an age-restricted product, it's a minor inconvenience to you. If you DON'T get IDed, and you turn out to be one of the stooges Mystery Shoppers who are purposefully selected by the rozzers because they are underage and don't look it, or to test if you are going to serve someone who looks like they are buying for an underage person (which MIGHT be legal in the home, but is increasingly illegal in many other areas, and the police drum this into the stores) then the person serving you loses their job, a vast wad of cash, and the likelihood of future employment as well - because what shop/bar is going to employ someone who serves underage people? For fuck's sake show some perspective and stop flaunting your privilege, people. Because frankly, the sight of Entitlement Queen white boys going on about how disgusting it is that the peon behind the till doesn't know her place and isn't bowing and scraping to their every desire is more than a little nauseating.

If you want to change the law, aim your ire at the bloody government, who can do something about it, not the checkout girl who can't.

This blog is proudly sponsored by
miss_s_b: (Mood: Oh dear)
Lib Dem Voice is sponsoring this year's Total Bollocks Blog Awards. Stephen Tall has to write the article which Daddy Richard and me will giggle drunkenly over at the Lib Dem Blog Awards like we did over Nich Starling's article last year, while we loudly heckle from the Serial Runners-Up table as Costigan Quist and Mark Reckons collect all the awards.

Except, rather than write it himself, he's asked other Lib Dem bloggers to write it for him.

Stephen, you're sponsoring the Total Bollocks Blog Awards. You've GIVEN MONEY TO IAIN DALE. And you're asking where the Lib Dem Blogosphere is going wrong? I despair, I really do.

The Lib Dem blogosphere is very insular, and needs to start connecting with people outside the politics geek blogosphere. The way to do this is not to cosy up to the Egregious Tory Tosser. The way to do this is to talk to people from OUTSIDE THE POLITICAL BLOGOSPHERE COMPLETELY.

FWIW, I think we punch way above our electoral weight in the politics blogosphere. We're known to bloggers from other parties, and some of us (i.e. Costigan and Mark) are even respected by members of other parties. But those comments could equally apply to the Libertarian Party, and look how far that gets them in elections. But the politics geek blogosphere is a tiny, miniscule, insignificant part of the blogosphere in toto. And it will remain so the more insular and navel-gazing it becomes. Talking to Iain Dale is just gazing at a bigger navel.

This blog is proudly sponsored by
miss_s_b: (Self: boobies)
Last night, as part of the FFW, there was a screening of a film called The Scar Crow, and a Q&A session with cast and crew afterwards. The film had great effects and was beautifully and creatively shot, especially given the tiny budget and shooting timescale, but it just REEKED of misogyny. I can't give specifics without spoilers, but I had many, many problems with the film. Now, you can say this about a lot of films, including many that I really love. But the classic Hammer/Amicus/etc. films get something of a pass due to being made 30, 40, 50 years ago. This film was made last year. The ONLY named female characters were "evil", apart from the "sympathetic character" - i.e. the one who deserves a Well Done For Not Being A Rapist Cookie - 's girlfriend, who was merely peripheral AND stupid. There's an incestuous "lesbian" kiss, which the director stated in the Q&A he had put in because his 12 year old son had asked for some hot lesbo action.

And you know what?

Even as I type this I can feel the internet's reaction to me criticising the film for these reasons. It's just one film - it's not systemic. Not all films are like that! - just like not all men are like that. Well, YOU might have been offended, but I wasn't, and therefore it's not a problem. So you're saying we ought to ban films with hot lesbo action/films with female bad guys/etc. I thought you were a liberal?

etc. etc. et fucking cetera.

It's not just systemic in horror (and yes, I DID have an audible intake of breath when the director claimed to have been subverting expectations by shooting a gore flick with evil women and hot lesbo action in it). It's not just systemic in films. It's not just endemic in entertainment. It's endemic in life.

Are we all ready for the chorus of Oh, you're exaggerating! I don't know anyone who finds this a problem, girls? Boys, I hate to break this to you, but perhaps nobody has told you they find this sort of shit a problem because they know what your reaction will be. Do you ever find yourself thinking well harrassment/sexual assault/rape can't be that much of a problem because I don't know anyone who has been harrassed/assaulted/raped? I bet you a tenner that you do. For starters, if you know me, you do.

And do you know what? Even with all that said, I wouldn't want to ban films like this. I'd just like to live in a world where I can make this sort of criticism without having to pre-emptively defend myself against accusations of being a strident whinging harpie. I'd settle for that, but it'd be even nicer if I could go and see a gore flick where it's the men who are relentlessly objectified, and the women who are held forth as praiseworthy for not being rapists... Not because I think reverse discrimination is in any way the way forward, but just because it would be SUCH a fucking novelty.

Using the icon I have is a defensive action too. It's saying I know that women are objectified on the basis of their bodies, and I know it happens to me, and I can cope with it. It's saying I realise that I am part of the problem here. It's saying look, even though I have been raped, I have a sense of humour about stuff like this.

Yeah, I'm in a really good mood today.

Thanks to [personal profile] puddingcat for pointing me at most of the articles I link to.

This blog is proudly sponsored by
miss_s_b: (Mood: Belligerent Wheel of Fortune)
( You're about to view content that the journal owner has advised should be viewed with discretion. )
miss_s_b: (Politics: Post Feminism)
So Mark Reckons posted a couple of very interesting posts.

I linked to him on my own blog, and then I linked to him on the LC netcast, because they WERE very good posts.

[livejournal.com profile] andrewducker picked it up, and linked to it, and discussed it with his f-list... And thanked [personal profile] matgb for the link.

I didn't bother saying anything to Andy because, well, Mat and I ARE practically the same person, and it doesn't really matter, and he must have figured that Mat would be the one to link to it, being the psephology geek of the two of us.

Today, Mark Reckons posts again, thanking ALL the people who have linked to him... Mr Quist, Andrew Ducker, Malcolm Clark, That Tory Blogger, Claude IF Carpentieri, even Millennium... oh, and of course Professional Journalist Polly Toynbee - who isn't male, but IS a paid journo!

Where are all the female bloggers? Where they have always been. Here, blogging, and being ignored by the men, or even when they do notice us, being passed over for credit because people with our little fluffy female brains can't POSSIBLY be serious political bloggers.

You're damn right I'm bitter.

((Thanks for the ETA, Mark, it's very sweet, but I think the Matrix patriarchy has you))


Monday, May 18th, 2009 11:16 pm
miss_s_b: (Who: Six (Ego))
Remember this rant about truncated feeds? Since I posted it, the award-winning Alix Mortimer has STARTED truncating! FFS! Still, it's better than Paul Walter and Five Chinese Crackers. You just get a bare url from THEM in the feed. Well, this is your warning, you three. Either institute proper feeds, or next Monday, when I do my Monday inbox clearout and checking of feeds, I'll remove you from my reading lists.

Don't think I don't mean it.
miss_s_b: (Default)
There is a setting on some blog platforms which means that you can set the RSS feed of your blog to be just an extract, or even worse, just a url, rather than the whole post. I would like to KILL whoever invented this setting. There is nothing more frustrating when doing the netcast than clicking through from what looks like an initially promising first paragraph to find that it is, in fact, the ONLY paragraph, or that the post descends into lunacy shortly thereafter. If this happens once, I am much less likely to bother clicking through to see if your post is interesting again.

If you truncate your blog post for RSS, that is entirely your right, but do bear in mind that it will have the following effects:
  • It will make me pissed off with you, so if I DO click through I am much more likely to leave a nasty comment
  • It will make me less likely to read your posts, and thus less likely to link to you
  • In extreme cases, it will make me drop the feed from my list
Lest you think that this is just me moaning, studies show that this is how most other people react to truncated blog feeds too. Do yourselves a favour, truncators, and STOP IT.
miss_s_b: (Default)
Is anyone else completely incensed by the very concept of a "Minister for Women"? Like we need to be corralled and controlled and segregated, and excluded from all decisions that aren't specifically "women's issues"1? Like we're some kind of annoying pressure group that only needs to be considered by one person, and all the other ministers can not worry about what women think, but only about what men think? We're the BLOODY MAJORITY2, for fuck's sake! Why do we allow ourselves to be treated like a special interest group?

ALL ministers should be ministers for women, AND men, because they should ALL be ministers for "members of the human race who live on these islands".


* deep breath *


Mister Mat is downstairs cooking my lunch. This pleases me. We seem to have a very fair and equitable division of labour on the household front when we're together - I probably cook SLIGHTLY more often than him, but there's not much in it. He probably does a little bit more tidying than me (although neither of us does much).

Although since I have started typing this entry he has been making comments like I is dead clever me. This is because I am a bloke and ah yes, you will take ages to get ready, this is because you are a girl. For this he is going to suffer muchly. When I get home from work. Going out and being a breadwinner to support him and pay for his food and what thanks do I get? Tee Hee Hee.

1 The whole idea of women's issues is another thing that pisses me off. We don't need to think about manly things like cars and science, we need to think about babies and knitting... why is this sort of shit still around these days? Why can't men think about babies and knitting if they want to?

2 Even though more boys are born than girls, by about age 20 women start to outnumber men.
miss_s_b: (Default)
Valentine's Day.

I notice that a few of you have posted a valentine's meme where you try to get people to send you virtual valentines...

I won't be doing that. Nor will I be adding to any of your tallies.

Here, for your delectation is a rant I posted elsewhere, which may explain why:
I don't generally object to the idea of love, but I do object to it being sanitised and packaged and sold. Love isn't as predictable and safe as that. It's not red heart shapes and fluffy kittens and roses; it's the inability to spend a second of your day without thinking about someone. You can't package THAT and sell it for £4.99.

I also object to the idea that if you love someone you should only show them on one particular day of the year, and that the best way to show them is by buying a card with someone else's fake sentiments in, or a box of chocolates which have been made by the exploitation of hundreds of poverty-stricken cocoa-growers in the third world, or a rose which has been sprayed with pesticides and has been doubled in price especially for the day.

"Here, darling, to show how much I adore you I have contributed to the big fat profits of several Evil Multinational Corporations AND the suppression of the poor AND the destruction of the planet! Isn't that romantic? I also showed how monumentally stupid I am by buying something today for a good double the price it will be tomorrow..."

If a lover of mine decided they wanted to celebrate Valentine's Day, it'd have to be something they made themselves, I'm afraid. I don't do commercialism.
I'll get down off me soapbox now, eh?

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags