Slutwalk is the result of women fighting back against the idea that what you wear will determine whether or not you are raped.

It all started with Toronto Police’s lecture to women, saying that “…women should avoid dressing like sluts” to prevent being raped. Women of Toronto fought back by organising a protest which they named “Slutwalk” as a hit-back to say that it doesn’t matter what you wear – if a man is going to rape you, he will do it regardless of your attire.

The concept is multifaceted and has cause a disturbance with feminists and non-feminists alike with the idea that we are to reclaim the word “slut” in order to take it’s power away as a slur on women. I’m going to discuss fully why I think this is a good and feminist idea, and healthy debate is welcome in the comments. (Misogyny will just be deleted though. So no stupit folk, plx)

Toronto's Slutwalk

Okay. What’s the deal with the event? The even itself is a march. It’s purpose is to all say the same thing, which is to reject the idea that a woman can bring rape upon herself. Particularly through means of the way she dresses, which is one of the most common scapegoats for why rape happens.
Slutwalk aims to bring attention to the fact that men rape because they want power. Sexuality and attraction does not even come into it. A man will rape whomever he feels he needs to teach a lesson to or beat down. It is a tool of war and abuse and should be seen as nothing less.

To call a woman a slut is to imply that she should be ashamed of her sexual behaviour. Why is this an issue to anyone other than her? The simple fact of the matter is that it is not. A woman should be free to have sex with whomever she chooses and not be judged for it. It is a product of nation-wide misogyny that a woman should be “Slut-Shamed” for enjoying sex and having it when she likes. Sex is not a bad thing, and it’s just a way of keeping us miserable that it should ever be deemed a bad thing. But the freedom in it should be choice. Not doing it only a certain way, or with certain numbers or certain people. Slut, and all it’s variations (Whore, ho, cow, slapper, tart…) are words that have been put into play to beat women down. To put a woman lower than all the other woman. Everyone knows that the best way to oppress a group is to make lots of in-fighting happen. Women call other women these names because they have been told to, as a mechanism for creating levels of shamefulness and hatred.

We as women need to see that if you are called a slut, it is because you are a woman who is not living up to the male expectation of how you should live your life. Slutwalk aims to bring women together to say that if someone calls a woman a slut, they are calling all women sluts.

This brings me seamlessly onto the concept that’s got everyone talking – reclaiming the word ’slut’. History has shown success in oppressed groups taking words back off the privileged and robbing them of their power. Black people in America were branded with the word “Nigger” as a way to dehumanise people, and thus making it much easier in people’s minds to treat them less than human. The same goes for the word “slut”. If a woman is thought to be less than a human, someone who makes bad decisions and deliberately puts herself in harm’s way, it makes it easier for people to accept that someone has raped her and that she somehow brought it on herself and to treat her badly.
However, Black Americans took back the word “nigger” and began to use in in their own way, as a word to refer to a peer and thus disabling in in it’s use against them.
The same goes for examples such as the word “queer”, while it’s still early days and there’s a huge amount of work still to be put itno LGBT issues and gay rights, the word “queer” has it’s own meaning within the LGBT community. People use it to in a sense, non-describe their sexuality, to say that they do not conform to straight ideas of a “normal” gender binary.

A lot of people have raised issues about the word “slut” being reclaimed, and this is not to be taken lightly or disregarded. Women have been harmed by this word, their lives destroyed and their reputations been stomped into the gutter by vindictiveness about their sexuality. That is an issue to be respected. However, the reclamation of the word does not mean that we’ll simply use it in the same way, to describe promiscuity or even immediately start using it. The de-powering process is long and will take a lot of work from people who care about women’s rights and want to stand up for those who are oppressed. The starting point for this reclamation can in fact be, the simple act of protesting in Slutwalk. Showing that women cannot be singled out as being shameful, if one of us is a slut, then we sick together and all take the insult.

Another point made by Slutwalk is that what the Toronto Police Force say and what the opinion of the sexist majority think about rape – it happens late at night in dark alleys. This is a huge misconception. These things do happen, but rape is overwhelmingly happening in people’s families and homes. The statistics show that around 80% of cases are by someone the victim knew well, such as a friend, family member or partner. It is important to highlight this fact and stop dwelling on the idea that rape is something that happens to someone, comitted by a bogey man and start looking up to the reality that men rape. These men are husbands, sons, brothers, uncles, friends, grandfathers etc. Rape is committed by men who want to over power women. The reason that the media portrays rape as a bogey-man is that people raped by men close to them will be less likely to report it for many complicated reasons, and this must be respected.

If you agree with what Slutwalk aims to do, then find out if there is one near you and step up to protest the continuing abuse and oppression of women everywhere. Slutwalk Glasgow will be happening on the 4th of June, from 1pm to 4pm hopefully starting at George Square. Bigger numbers mean louder voices, and we need all the noise we can get to uproot this deep seated hatred of women.

When does it stop being a case of “getting the message out about child abuse” and start becoming “a cash cow for publishers”?

Typical child abuse books.

Go into any supermarket book section and you’ll see this: A wall of black vampire teenage romance smut novels, a wall of shite autobiographies by down and out celebrities and then the entirely white wall with tomes detailing the factual or fictional abuse of society’s most vulnerable.

When you don’t look deep enough – when you don’t think too hard about the whole concept then you could reasonably think that this was an important part of reading, that people need to know about the abuse that children have suffered at the hands of sick adults (At least for the factual accounts).

However, you only really need to think about it for that bit longer to realise that it’s not. Spending all your time reading these kinds of books indicates that there’s something wrong with you too. This is going to be a difficult argument for me to piece together, but I feel that it’s necessary so I’ll break it down into sections.

You, as the reader:
If these stories are so terribly harrowing, why do people want to read them? Because the entertainment value is good. From the very start of the novel, you know you’re going to be reading about an intense struggle. There’s going to be lots of cliffhangers and you’ll get to sit back and view the horror of a thrilling child abuse story without actually experiencing any real emotion attached to it. The reason these books sell so well too, is because they’re marked at the casual reader. The language is very basic so basically anyone can read them without much effort. They’re all easy to find as well. Same style of cover with white background, image of suitably broken child and some cursive handwriting with an emotive title, such as “Please don’t, mummy.”

The attraction to a certain novel seems to rely on exactly how terrible the story will be. A child abused by his parent will score highly. A child sexually abused by a parent will be very high, and the best seems to be children who are sexually abused by a female member of the family, preferably with no one else in their whole life to turn to. Unless you’re all wrong, you’ll be seeing how this is a very well wired marketing technique – and how realistically we shouldn’t be enjoying this. But people do enjoy it. Because largely, people’s lives are pretty boring and this is an easy way to get some excitement despite the fact that it’s wrong that these kind of experiences are being exploited.

Them, as the publisher:
I’ve already mentioned how these things draw in readers and publishers know what will draw attention to a book. This is why they read your manuscript before they grant you publishing with them. They want to know “Will people buy this book?” and as is clearly shown by the amount of child abuse books in supermarkets and book charts – yes they will. Puffin books doesn’t care how harrowing people’s childhoods were and how psychologically damaged they are. They want money. People sell their stories to the publishers in false hope that it will raise awareness of child abuse.

In this article by the Daily Mail, the focus is less on that a young girl was sickeningly abused by an evil man for many years of her life but that LIFE WITH A PAEDOPHILE CAN BE GOOD!! I can’t begin to explain how wrong and awful this is. The point is with this article is that it’s showing off this book “Tiger, Tiger” and the article expresses little about the wrongful actions of the criminal in question, but the selling points of the book. It is designed to draw in potential readers. “How can being abused be good? Ohhh I’ll buy the book and see!”

People are just pawns being played by the giant of capitalism, including victims of child abuse. Capitalism knows no morals. The way in which Primark uses sweatshops to make their clothes, the publishing industry uses child abuse victims to sell their books.

The thing about “Tiger, Tiger” that is so damaging is the lack of actual psychological analysis that has gone into the the concept of “the light side of child abuse” at least, in that article anyway. The victim claims that her abuser made her life “ecstatic”. Paedophiles get away with the abuse they commit for so long because they are clever and calculated people. They make children feel in a certain way that makes them dutifully loyal (very Stockholm Syndrom like). As a male may get an erection when suffering sexual assault, this does not make it any less of an assault. Our bodies respond in ways which we have no control over to certain aspects of life. As do our emotions. Children are especially susceptible to reward and special treatment and do not know the extent to which this kind of manipulation is wrong. They will also bend to the will of adults whom they see as authority figures. The hows and whys of abuse should not be treated as selling points for books.

Any sensible person can see that no matter what the response is of a child, any kind of sexual contact between an adult and a minor is completely wrong. This is apparently a difficult thing to comprehend for some of us, however.

Councillor thinks 9 year olds can ‘want to be raped’:
The Daily Record reports today that William O’Rourke, a councillor for Glasgow City Council claimed that a nine year old girl, raped by a care worker, WANTED to be raped. He then went on to say that nine year old girls have the ability to be provocative and their clothing suggestive. I’d like to make a statement that if you think young girls can dress provocatively then you already have the seeds of an inappropriate attitude towards children. He also claims the girl’s mother is a prostitute and therefore it is okay to rape the children of prostitutes. No one deserves rape, no matter how they act or how they dress, and much less a child.

The only way to stop child abuse is to say something when you see something.

O’Rourke is a disturbing man. If you can defend a rapist, you’re no better yourself. One must ask themselves why O’Rourke jumped so strongly to the defense of a man accused of raping a child. Especially the way in which he does it, blaming young children for wearing short skirts and essentially admitting that he can see how someone would be aroused by a child. Guilty conscience and a theme of empathy with the rapist jumps out at me.

Everything I’ve spoken about so far suggests a very flippant approach to the theme of child abuse, and it is. The world is becoming desensitised to the idea of children being manipulated and mistreated, so much so that it can actually be a form of sick entertainment, no unlike a freak show at a carnival. Because the psychological and physical terror is so far removed from immediate reality, it can be condoned to make money. This is unacceptable. It is essential that abuse does not become normalised and that people stop putting money into an industry which exploits the victims of rapists. If people need to tell their story, they do not need to sell it. Nowadays there are plenty of free platforms which are not in the interest of money to raise awareness of child abuse and raising awareness should be done by the NSPCC and Childline.

NO! Hugo Chavez is going down the line of filtering Venezuela’s internet! The parliament has passed the law on filtering any messages which have incement or hateful material (politically or religious).
This seems like a fabulous idea at first, but it is the opposite. Developing countries like Venezuela need freedom of access to all information on the internet. Chavez states that:

“We aren’t eliminating the internet here, or censoring it.What we’re doing is protecting ourselves against crimes, against cybercrimes,”

Now Chavez, I’m a fan, but WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Fighting Cybercrime. Chavez Style.

I understand his fear that the general opinion of him on the internet is pretty low, but this is not what the country needs. Look at North Korea and China! Clearly someone needs to get their internet know-how on. I mean, of course he’s going to get slated in Youtube comments or god forbid, Daily Mail comments. And of course, his people will see all the mental stuff that he supposedly done but didn’t. (You know, cause the papers keep lying about him). But really, it will NOT be detrimental to his country’s socialist development if they can access the whole internet, because everyone knows that the key to socialism is free education, freedom of information, and a platform to express yourself. The Internet can easily facilitate that.

Wide access to the Internet will vastly aid primary, secondary and tertiary education for the whole country. Children can play and learn, while adults use it as a tool to their careers. The Internet makes it easier to organise movements and action, while it also acts as a place for people to put out ideas and get a sort of ‘rough copy’ of the reaction they’ll get in real life.

Yes, when it comes to Internet security, you are always at risk, but that is a thing that can only be solved by education folk. Not shutting them away from the rest of the world. Yes, you are almost always being watched by the various governments, but there isn’t any clean cut way around that. Personal vigilance will help though, but no one can learn this if they don’t have any access to this type of material.

So what I’m saying is, that’s a huge FAIL from Chavez. I’m disappointed.

According to THIS article on DigitalSpy.co.uk, Daniel Radcliffe, A.K.A Harry Potter reveals that he has ‘lost faith’ in the Liberal Democrats in the wake of the tuition fees disaster caused by the coalition government.
It’s the fault of people like Radcliffe and other cunts in the public eye is that they can vote in whatever government they fucking want and they’ll be fine. It’s all the impressionable young folk who suffer when they realise that this seemingly ‘alt-y’ and ‘radical’ decisions to vote in a party who can talk the talk… but essentially can’t walk the walk.

The Liberal Democrats have not “let people down” but have spat in the faces of those who put their faith in them. The Lib Dems were deceptive in that they aimed their propaganda at young people, presenting themselves as THE party to be voting for in teenage/young rebellion. They in face, were planning all along to simply get in no matter what. They knew from the start that they’re gladly get on their knees for the Tories.
And a few things I’d like to say about Radcliffe himself. He was quoted in THIS article saying the following:

“If all the people who liked them voted for them you could change politics overnight and we could have a proper three-party system,” he explained.

Okay, spot the kid who hasn’t got a clue.
Yeah, that’s him. With the lightning bolt scar and the ugly glasses.
HEL-LOOOO? There’s MORE THAN three parties, Daniel – and what’s more, none of them are anywhere near proper. Don’t get me started on how much I cringed at “change politics”. Seriously, you don’t “change politics” by voting for a different shade of shite, ya muppet.
And see to be honest, see if you’ve spent your life quickly amassing enough money to build a castle out of bricks made of paper mache £100 notes, then you don’t have a place to speak for real, hard-working people.
My message to all students is that you really should stop listening to vapid starlets as they vomit their scripted opinions out at you. (Cause they’ve probably been paid to say it…)

And Daniel? You might be The Chosen One in the wizarding world, but here in the muggle world?
You’re an arsehole.

The National Post recently ran a story on the reduction of multiple births. I hadn’t really thought of the concept before, if I’m honest. Of course, I always have been Pro-Choice as far as I can remember, without thinking. When I was little, I didn’t even know that people would object to the notion. (And me going to catholic schools, oh ho ho ho…)

Hangin' out with the fun crowd. Oh yeah...

But when confronted with this new info, not a single thought of “Is this a bad idea..?” ran through my head, because of course it’s a fine idea! If you want one kid, find out you’re having two, then terminate the other. It IS just a useless blob of jelly and cells you know… Tch. (All these mental people wailing about it being a life… if you found it on your kitchen floor, you’d puke.)

The article starts like so:

Like so many other couples these days, the Toronto-area business executive and her husband put off having children for years as they built successful careers. Both parents were in their 40s — and their first son just over a year old — when this spring the woman became pregnant a second time. Seven weeks in, an ultrasound revealed the Burlington, Ont., resident was carrying twins.

Stop. You need not explain yourself – You are a working mother and your partner also works. You already have a child who is basically still a baby himself and you’re pregnant. Not one baby, but two more. Three babies under two for a working mother. That’s horrifying. Who will look after them when you both need to work? What will happen to your career while you’re on maternity leave? Will your children resent you in later life for not being as involved? But you’ve got to work. You have a career ladder to climb. (Yes, I do in fact believe that a woman is entitled to pursue a career Shock, Horror). So the woman decides on a reduction. Good for her. I would have too.

Although, experts claim speculate on the “morality” or “ethics” of a woman deciding to reduce on account of how she feels the child will impact on her lifestyle, rather than medical implications for the birth or the other fetus. (re: NOT A BABY/CHILD.)

How fucked up is that?
“I don’t want twins. It will cripple my life and ruin my career,”
“Tough chips, missus.”

Although, “experts” claim that reduction has been detrimental for marriages and has cause long term angst.

I’ll tell you what would cause me long term angst – having some kid I don’t even want for eighteen fucking years! Counselling can help you with any sense of loss or grieving process you may have after a reduction or termination, but it won’t make your unwanted burden go away.
And if this decision breaks down your marriage, then maybe it just wasn’t right. Maybe your partner doesn’t want the best for you. Breaking up is probably best, you know.

National Post gets the totally neutral opinion from a totally on the fence type:

Lynda Haddon, who counsels couples over fetal losses for the support group Multiple Births Canada, said she has heard from a number of people in the past several months who were seeking twin reductions to lessen their burden as parents, something she had never encountered before. Though she strives to help them in a nonjudgmental way, she admits the trend “saddens and scares” her. “Is this a healthy thing? We have to ask these questions: Where does it stop? When do children become a commodity?”

Ayep. That looks like fun. I want five of them. All doing that at once

What a brilliant counsellor, eh? She’s totally non-opinionated about this – no wait, it SADDENS and SCARES her. These are negative reactions, yes? And she wants to know WHEN DO CHILDREN BECOME A COMMODITY?!!?!?!?!

Well Lynda, I don’t know if you’ve ever had a kid before, but as much as they are chubby, pink, gurgling angels, they also take up quite a lot of your time and can be a pain in the arse. I mean, you know, you’ve got to take out time to raise the thing, you’ve got to spend A WHOLE FUCKING LOT ON THEM. You’ve got to struggle through damning sleepless nights, any kind of awful illness they could have at any given point, bear their fall-outs with you when they get a bit older, clean their rooms, their clothes, their dishes and their stinking arses.

And I invite anyone who thinks this is all a part of the ‘beauty’ (or whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit) of raising a wean – take off your rose tinted glasses and stop lying to yourself.

However, the woman from Burlington puts it no truer than anyone could:

“I’m absolutely sure I did the right thing,” she said. “I had read some online forums, people were speaking of grieving, feeling a sense of loss. I didn’t feel any of that. Not that I’m a cruel, bitter person … I just didn’t feel I would be able to care for (twins) in a way that I wanted to.”

The reason this woman knows she did the right thing is because she did exactly what she wanted to do. She did not allow herself to be swayed by opinions which in no way related to her life, her situation or her feelings. She looked at her life and saw no room for twins, so she opted for only having one baby. I don’t want to harp on about the time-old feminist rant about it being our bodies, our lives and our choices, but bear it in mind.

The thing is, there is little to no ethical debate over terminating fetuses if there is more than three. This is because there is an obvious risk to the health of the mother and other fetuses. So if they can do it for these reasons, why make it so demonic for the woman to make the choice of having less children to alleviate emotional pain as well as physical? Are you telling me that it’s totally cool to force women to go through years and years of horrible mental pain just some people think it’s not okay to reduce?

There is the case of IVF to think of also:

Often, those multiples are conceived because clinics transfer a number of embryos into a woman undergoing in-vitro fertilization treatment, boosting the chances of pregnancy.
“It troubles me a lot because it’s avoidable,” Dr. Jon Barrett, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Toronto’s Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. “We are forcing people to make a terrible choice because we haven’t been sensible.”

IVF works this way because implanting many embryos gives the woman much better chances of conceiving one (or more healthy babies). Let’s not beat around the bush here, IVF is fucking expensive. In Scotland, if you meet certain criteria, your first treatment is free, but more often than not, it takes multiple treatment before a result. Then after that, you’re paying yourself. Fuck you, people in poverty. No family for you. So isn’t it simply logical to try your very best to get as many embryos as possible and then prune to a number wanted?

Well, the more misogynistic of us would argue that “She should just be grateful she’s getting any kids at all, never mind the amount!!”

As if already been through, more kids mean more money. And you’re already in debt from your IVF…

Good auld Lynda Haddon also has this to say about reductions with IVF:

“These poor parents are caught between a rock and a hard place,” she said. “They tried so hard to get pregnant and probably spent a lot of time, energy, emotion, money and now they have to kill some of them, now they have to reduce. Even though the child was lost through reduction, it lives on, in mind and fantasy.”

Women who are so deeply affected by reduction through IVF should be offered counselling on the state. This is not the fault of reductions themselves, but the fact that they HAD to exert so much energy and money in achieving pregnancy when these things should be free. Furthermore, for all the women who regret, there are women who benefit, but people seem to forget this.

What is worse? Having the option for all women to choose the life they lead, how many children they will have OR to force all women to go through with multiple births and the ones who would rather not should just live miserably?
Something everyone seems to forget when it comes to aborting and reducing – no one is forced to abort/reduce. It is the woman’s own choice. It’s beyond me why these “experts” act as though this is some kind of Nazi obliteration of all babies.

And finally, for some stupid, stupid reason, I read the comments. To be honest, I’d can’t be arsed quoting them. Instead I will illustrate:

Typical internet commenters. Godwin's Law? Check. Fake Sympathiser? Check. I'm a Feminist But-? Check. Bible Basher? Check. I'M A (insert relevant position here) BUT I FIND THIS DISGUSTING person? Check.

Allo Presidente!!

It’s no secret that me, Lydia, loves Hugo Chavez. Although, it seems that there is massively split opinions of Chavez on the left in Scotland.

However, Chavez just keeps doing cool shit that no one can deny is totally fucking awesome.  In Venezuela right now, horrible flooding has claimed the lives of over a dozen citizens and has forced over 30,000 Venezuelans to flee.

Chavez has been markedly criticised for failing to produce housing for the people of Venezuela, but Chavez’s rebuttal blames his predecessors’ profit-oriented manner of producing housing has made that difficult for him. So disenchanted, the people living on the hillside of Antimano (Werstern Caracas) refused to relocate. They demanded that Chavez come to them. So he did.

Chavez went to the flood-ravaged hill and said something. (Try to imagine one of the things David Cameron is LEAST LIKELY to say to homeless folk in Scotland’s City Centres?)

Chavez opened his palace up to those who had lost their homes to the flood. Not just for today, not just for a week, for the whole year.

“I have a proposal for you families: stay here for a year,”

The Palace

Now forgive me, but I think that is fucking sweet. Chavez decides to have an office in his palace converted into small apartments for the families and situated them near his presidential kitchen, where there is enough food and cooking supplies for over 20 families. As if that wasn’t cool enough, Chavez also offered space within Venezuela’s military hub, Tiuna Fort, meaning that he would have to temporarily vacate several buildings of their military officers to make space for the homeless.

Now, you’d think that charity could not be criticised. A columnist in newspaper Tal Cual had this to say about public acts of charity:

“ it can also be demagogic, exhibitionist and when taken to its extreme, truly grotesque and tacky.”

I think that people who attack Chevez forget something. Chavez does not have a hell of a lot to work with. People in this country pooh-pooh his extensions of great personal kindness to the people of his country as simple media-service. I don’t believe that it is true. Chavez is trying to build socialism in a country where there is fuck-all. The whole country was simply a massive capitalist regime, hence the astronomical inflation in the last decades. Chavez is prevented from giving the people free housing  because of the powerful industry of real-estate which is sitting on so much money. Chavez cannot wave a magic wand and declare “Socialism”. His government must work democratically, casting votes to make decisions, and unfortunately quite a lot of Venezuela will not want free housing as they are brainwashed (As most of our own country is!) by the illusion of success that Capitalism  propagates so well. This in turn means that Chavez cannot make the changes he wants to make and then his people become disillusioned. This is a vicious cycle. Chavez must turn to personal deeds which do not require any kind of vote or consensus. Chavez must offer his people the hand of a civilian to a civilian to show his great kindness. This is why he publically allows people to come live in his palace and famously last year had a Christmas event where he bought lots of toys and sold them for knock-down prices. Chavez wants Venezuela to get better, but he cannot do it without support. His opposition brutally tears apart everything he does, calling him false and accusing him of selfishness.

Sure, he has his own TV show. But he sings fucking songs on it and plays guitar and answers questions. I’m sorry, but that’s fucking cool. If it’s a first foot in for the reconstruction of Venezuela, then so be it.  Chavez is not a dictator. Chavez is a man who is trying his best for a country with little hope and he is working to build a better world with only two bricks. There are folk who make out like Chavez took over by force, which he did do ONCE, but failed and stood in elections – and won! Venezuela trust Chavez with their country. They trust his ideology and they love him as a figure. Acts like giving up your own palace space will make people love you, and Chavez does need that, what with the recent decline of his vote percentage in the previous elections. Chavez needs more people to trust him before he can start to rebuild a country where so many are so devoid of hope or trust for their leaders. When Chavez has the trust of the people he can truly start to make changes.

Also, he has a little bird with the same hat as him. OH MY GOD.

According to Moat Fans, Sam wanted to be raped.

Sam Stobbart, ex girlfriend of murderer Raoul Moat has shared her story about the abuse she suffered at his hands. In The News of The World’s interview with her, she talks about when he slapped her every other day, when he raped her, stamped on her stomach, punched her in the spine and gave her daughter a black eye by hurling a stool at her.

Sam’s report on the rape was: “He didn’t ASK me for sex, he just pushed me on to the sofa and pulled my clothes off, all my clothes.”

“Moat thought sex was his right.”

Sadly, this is the case with a million more relationships. Sam was a prisoner to Moat, she describes his power from body-building and steroid taking: “He could lift me up with one hand. I’m barely eight stone.”

Personally, I don’t think there is enough thoughts and attention paid to this horror that a woman had to live through. Sam got together with Moat when she was merely sixteen. Sam was essentially vulnerable and impressionable, of which Moat took full advantage. After the usual honey-moon period of bliss, Sam talks about how the slightest thing would set him off. She talks about how Moat beat over 30 men up in pubs because they looked at Sam. He would call her his “trophy girlfriend” and say that “no one should look at her”.

If you think this is a healthy relationship, you should seek help now, because you obviously have ’sick bastard syndrome’. The remedy for this is a rope around the neck or 50 painkillers and a bottle of vodka.

No amount of Photoshop>Blur>Overlay will make this man look like anything more than an ugly bastard.

On the other hand, you’re probably shocked and disgusted at this kind of treatment of a woman. Then it will shock you even more to visit R.I.P Raoul Moat on Facebook. Some of the newer comments, in light of Sam’s story are here for you to see.

Darren Dazaster Trapps: “…and as for Stobbard, saying she was raped.. how else was she gonna get a shag?? bloody smack rat.”

To this, someone replies:

Harry Harry Harri: “Stobbard makes wild claims that she was raped – wishful thinking on her part! She made no claim of this ever before, no allegations to police, no allegations to medical professionals or other law enforcement or statutory public body. These allegations of rape are not only fake but slander on a dead man’s name. Moat is not around to defend himself after being unlawfully killed by police. He was never questioned, cautioned, charged, arrested or convicted over any rape allegations. Stobbard changes her story to suit any chavvy murdoch newspaper. She is a liar and cheat – blood is on her hands not only for her boyfriend who was shot but also the policeman who was blinded. RIP MOAT”

Like… Where to start, you know? First of all, LEARN HER FUCKING NAME. It’s Stobbart, not Stobbard. Then, “wishful thinking” – Yes, because every woman wishes for rape. That’s exactly how it works you complete arsehole. Also, she never made the claim to the police because her roid-monkey tormentor would have battered her to death. And yes, she released her story now after he’s dead because he shot her for dumping him. What might have happened if she told the police he’d raped her. Put two and two together – if that’s possible for you. Then he’s off slagging Murdoch papers… jesus fuck. I’m soooo sure you read totally upper-class newspapers, with all your correct grammar and well-read vibes I get from you – NOT.

The comments on the article on line are even worse.

Marian writes: “Dear Miss Stobbart

Enough, there are real victims to this story.

PC Rathband – blinded
Your Ex, no the one after Raoul Moat, the one he shot remember? The one you replaced Raoul with.
His Family. His Children, Moat’s other children that you know of, and then you. You are the only one making money out of this, isn’t that a bit sad.”

Yes, being raped and battered isn’t worthy of being a victim. In fact, I’d say Sam Stobbart was probably grateful for the beatings and rape. She’s cheerily talking about it on video right there. Tears of happiness, eh? NOT.

Then ‘lisa babe’ writes: “Tall story.

I feel sorry for the next person who has the displeasure of dating her. I had to stop reading-I could not read any more of her nonsense. Not that I am in any way a Moat fan. Please don’t encourage more stories and pay her, I simply won’t be reading.
Condolences to Chris and family and thinking of the Police officer and his. God bless you’s.”

‘lisa babe’ I don’t think she’ll be ready to date anyone for a while, considerng that her boyfriend was just shot and killed by a psycho. No need to worry – OH WAIT it was nothing to do with you anyway!

I could go on, but to be frank, I can’t try to process any more of these horrible, evil two-cents worth pieces any more. There’s at least one comment I agree with:

John “I hope she gets aload of money even if it’s just to annoy some of you jelous lot on here. She was frightened of him and given the fact he shot her, dont you think she had ever reason to be scared? Now she just wants to give her side of the story so that people can see why she did what she did.

Also, you lot have no idea what is going on behind the scences so stop speculating about things you dont have a clue about. I cannot believe some of you are even suggesting that she doesn’t give a damn about her new boyfriends death or whats happened.”

Yes, John. I agree. I hope she does get compensation for living her live as a slave to a vicious murderer and beast. People saying she’s just cashing in are quite clearly jealous at the prospect of a woman getting money. So fuck? Money is money and people want it. Get over it. Sam is only a face in the sea of the faceless 1 in 4 women who suffer rape and the millions more who are slaves and punch bags in their own homes.

My closing message to these people is that the Internet is a forum for people to say whatever the fuck they like, but it’s not big or impressive. All you’re showing is that you’re condoning violence and sex crimes towards women. Learn to be a human being, and learn to fucking spell while you’re at it.

How women end up stuck in abusive relationships. Click to View.

And my closing message to those reading this is that we need to take violence and hate crimes against women in hand. This is not about equal pay and women getting the vote, this is about a war against women. The statistics show that a majority of women are in unhappy relationships due to oppression. Violent men compensate for their own shortcomings (Low self esteem, bad days, poverty, anger problems, inferiority complexes etc) by picking on those they see as being on a lower social rung – Women. They beat, rape and abuse the people who trust and love them, leaving mental and physical scarring. This is a torture device to vent the anger of men who can’t change or deal with not getting their own way.

This method of taking power has been around since forever. Men are instilled with the idea that if you can’t get what you want, you simply take it, or make someone else pay for your trouble. Those men are happy to have a punchbag and a sex doll to rape all their anger into, but what the public need to understand is that she’s screaming and crying out for help – those cries fall on the deaf ears of a patriarchal society, as shown by the reactions to Sam Stobbart’s horrific account.

Would you step in?

Think for a moment. Would you help a woman who was being beaten by her boyfriend? Of course you would. Be it passively (Phoning the police) or actively intervening. Would you help is she were wearing a short skirt and heels? What is she were a black woman?

You might think “Of course,” Although, unfortunately, this is rarely the case.

American show, “What Would You Do” ran an episode on scenarios where actresses dressed in what would be considered “respectable” clothing created a scene in a restaurant where there are being abused by their boyfriends. (Videos can be found here. It’s not a great website, but this is where I found them)

Daubed with make-up to resemble horrific bruises, the first woman, white, sits down at a table in the restaurant, obviously distressed. As quick as gunfire, a man with his wife come over to check is she is okay. They ask tactfully is she’s in need of any help, which she panics and declines and insists that her boyfriend will be mad when he comes if he sees her talking to them. The reluctantly back off and sit down. The boyfriend arrives in all his seething glory. He starts belittling her and grabbing at her, however, he gets nowhere with it. The man and woman at the adjacent table jump up and intervene. The boyfriend reaches and snatches even more violently at the woman’s arm, and a man whom we have no seen in the clip before walks over and physically pushes the abuser away. And this is one hefty shove. He then points in the guys face and tell him to back off.

This is pretty powerful. I was relieved to see that the couple acted so fast, and how the other guy, who is only passing at the time, reacted fast. The scenario is repeated with a black actress, and this time, it is a concerned woman who jumps to her rescue. The woman beelines over immediately when the boyfriend stands to order food. They immediately try to remove her form the situation, to make her safe. This is an emotionally charged scene as the rescuer starts to cry. She holds intently onto the abused woman’s arm as the boyfriend comes back. She confronts him about the abuse and he tries to take his girlfriend (Read:Slave) back home, the woman screams in his face. It is at this point the scene is cut short by the host.

After both these situations, the host interviews the spectators and intervening parties. They tell the host that they couldn’t just sit and let it happen, because if they were in the same position, they would want someone to help them. Good, human responses. It almost restores your faith in humanity, right?

Well, not in the next situation.

The way the women were to be dressed for the next scenario. Not even very much flesh revealed. Just goes to show how ready the public are to scorn.

The next scenarios are basically the same, apart from the fact that the women are wearing short-ish (I wouldn’t even really call them short, to be honest) low cut dresses. The subject matter of the argument is the woman’s clothes. The boyfriend berates her and spits insults across the table, makes grabs for the woman’s already bruised arms, and at one point, forces her to take her cardigan off to show everyone how much of a ’slut’ she looked. He stops a foot short of actually starting to rip her dress off too, but since these people are actors and actresses, they would not. However, that’s not to say this kind of humiliation doesn’t happen. Abusers like to show everyone how awful their girlfriend (Read:Slave) actually is in a crass attempt to justify their actions, in their own twisted little brains. Anyway. As you might have guess, not a single person intervenes this time. People rubber neck and whisper, but no one will help.

The second clip, however, is much, much more painful to watch. The black actress dons a black strappy dress and is abused in the same why by her abuser. This time, an affronted couple complain to the abuser and his victim about all the racket they’re making! And suggest that they are just embarrassing themselves! (He nods at the battered, bruised woman at this point). He tells them that it isn’t the time or the place. People would rather you were abused in private. They don’t want to know about it, let alone help you – if you’re showing flesh. Two woman also move away from the table. They then sit and speculate if the woman might be a prostitute! Like it matters?

Society likes to confused and abuse women. Women aren’t just expected to dress one way. It’s not happening. If you dress too ‘conservatively’ you’re a prude. If you dress too ‘revealingly’ you’re a slut. Women’s clothes come down to one thing, will put out/won’t put out. (Or deserves it/doesn’t deserve it) An example of this: What kind of clothes for men are ’slutty’? No one can answer this question in a definite manner, and this may be because men can’t be ’sluts’ or because everyone has a different opinion on this. However, if I say to you, short skirt or hot-pants, stiletto heeled boots and a boob tube, everyone will immediately cry out “SLUT!” (what if I told you the woman was celibate and had been all her life? Is she still asking to be raped?)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not using these short films as super solid evidence. I would love to imagine that both these clips were just coincidentally filmed in a restaurant full of bastards, but that would be wishful thinking. Women in relationships are just as vulnerable to attack from anyone as their partner – maybe even more so. Sexual assault within a marriage is common. It’s common, but no one accepts it because when you tie the knot, our society takes away your right to say no. It’s no longer your body. A UK survey of 6,944 women who’d suffered rape, almost half (45%) had been raped by a partner. Women are expected, by society, to SERVE THEIR PARTNER. To no end of their own, a woman must have sex with a man when he wants it and damn well shut up about it. It’s not rape, you daft bint, it was just be having sex with you. WRONG. Men receive far too much sympathy for their fucking sexual needs. All too many times you hear men being excused for rape because a woman flirted with them. It’s all sympathy sympathy, he didn’t get to blow a load. Oh well, his cock won’t fucking explode you stupid fucking bastards. She, however, has just lost her dignity and will suffer trauma, flashbacks and a dysfunctional sex life for a very long time. What’s a lost erection to that?

This ties into the What Would You Do episode in every way. People see abuse as ‘a domestic’. It’s not something to get involved in, and much less if the woman looks like she may be provoking it. The same goes for when the woman is trying to defend herself. If she raises her voice or hits back, it’s no longer abuse, but a fight. And fights are okay. No matter who hit first, they’re just as bad as each other. WRONG. You cannot sneer in the face of a brave woman defending herself. Not every abused woman is a frightened, hunched, vulnerable girl. Some women DO try to fight back, and more often than not, end up worse off for it. This should never mean that she is discredited as a victim. Nor should she who dresses in whichever way she wants. When a woman dons a dress, she does not throw away her rights.

Oh my god a bum! People have bums?!

Yes, people do have bums, but this isn’t the nub and gist of the argument here. Sexist advertising? That’s okay. The word bum? Not. I think someone has their priorities mixed up around here.

According to the BBC News website, Glasgow City Council refused to let Reebok advertise their new trainers that tone your arse on the side of their taxis. The Reebok ad people claim that there wouldn’t even have been an actual bum present on the taxi, but only a pair of bare legs, but Glasgow City Council still opposed the ads.

HEL-LO?!

Diamond Dolls. Fucking lap-dancing/strip clubs (Or whatever the hell they do in there) are allowed on the side of taxis, yet the word ‘bum’ would be a scandal? What’s easier to explain to a child? What a bum is (And ALL fucking children know what a fucking bum is) or what Diamond Dolls is? “Yes darling, it’s just a place where ladies take their clothes off so that men can look at their private parts,”

The response from Glasgow City Council should have been to tell Reebok to fuck off and take their sexist advertising else where.

Everyone knows that it’s basically the plot of every commercial company everywhere to exploit the vulnerabilities of people, but Reebok don’t hide it very well. They’re basically telling women “You’ve got a shite arse. It’s like a bag of spanners. I know you fucking love Mars Bars and don’t have the money for a treadmill, but here! Here’s some shoes that will basically do the job for you!”

It’s just one of the tiny cogs in the mass media advertising attack on women. It’s all about fixing women. They’re not fucking right, you know? They need fixing! Mitchell and Webb have done a sketch to this effect, which is funny, and painfully true.

The point I’d like to make is that I’m not defending anyone in this horrible, horrible mash-up of awfulness. Basically both Reebok and the council are bastards. Reebok don’t even advertise their misogynistic trainers in a nice way either. One of their adverts features a female speaking about the trainers and inevitably, there are many hillarious (not) moments where the camera man fixes the camera on her bum and she takes it all in light hearted humour. A note to all women. Men who stare at your bum though a lens without your permission are perverts and should be put in jail (Or shot, in my opinion).

And would you look at that, she’s being deliberately provocative, but she doesn’t ACTUALLY want the cameraman to look at her bum. HOH HOH HOH what a slut! (Says the sexist wanker fraternity).

This kind of portrayal of women is actively harmful. It gives out the subtle, but present message that women are all just asking to be ogled, and if they move in a certain way that also means they want you to look at them or have sex with them. Women will simply not follow a rule book of modest actions and curbed expression for fear of being raped. Men will have to live with the fact that just because they THINK they have a right to make moves on a woman, does not make it remotely so.

Reebok probably think that they’re mighty funny. Woman have bums! HUURRR! That is excruciatingly obvious in this tacky sham of an advertisement that interrupted my meal time a couple of weeks ago.

First of all, we women can’t even see our arses most of the time. What fucking benefit would we reap from having it ‘toned’? None. Men, however, who are all too willing to stare, will. And obviously they’d prefer a worked arse to a perfectly normal sized and shaped bum. In other words, they want to make us look a certain way. Shock horror, eh?

“Shake it up make me feel good”? Don’t even get me started on the song.

My closing point is one which I feel true to, and that i think all women in the world should take on as not only a mindset, but a way of life. I’ve thought about it deeply for a long time, and I feel like no other approach could encompass the range of emotions that women feel in an oppressed, male dominated society: ”Fuck off.”