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.

A. Because women in Scotland are still paid less than men.

A new study marking the 40th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act has found that women earn an average 12% less than their male colleagues.

Full-time female workers earned, on average, £113 a week less than men.

The gap for part-time workers was even greater, with women receiving on average 32% less than men.

The study by the Equality and Human Rights Commission found some women earning up to 55% less than male workers in equivalent jobs.

And let’s just repeat that first part again: this is 40 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed.

Thanks to the ever reliable Daily Mail, we have learnt of a terrifying new trend sweeping Britain’s young people by storm. Imported from the USA, it’s the latest craze… ditch your pokemon cards, kids, there’s a new cool status symbol in town – pouring booze in your eye.

Even as drunken student antics go, it was, by any stretch of the imagination, a disturbing scene. Surrounded by cheering rugby players, applauded by fellow members of the university netball team, 19-year-old Melissa Fontaine tipped back her head and giggled as fellow drinkers in the Students’ Union bar pulled apart her eyelids and allowed them to pour a shot of vodka into her left eye.

‘Vodka eyeballing’, as it is known in student circles, is the latest drinking craze to sweep through Britain’s universities.

Now, let’s get one thing straight before we begin – people getting really fucked and trying to do so through orifices other than their mouths is not a new thing. A quick straw poll among the SSY members at hand shows that all but one of us had heard of or seen people putting shots of vodka in their eye – fucking years ago. As the Daily Mail themselves mention, it was even featured in the film Kevin and Perry Go Large which was released ten years ago. And if the Daily Mail think drinking through your eye is bad, they must not have met anyone who’s doused a tampon in vodka and stuck it up their arse – or at least anyone that’s admitted to it.

Their story is based on a exclusive interview with Melissa, one victim of the eyeballing trend – but there’s a shocking twist in Melissa’s tale…

It would be easy, of course, to dismiss Melissa as nothing more than a silly ‘ladette’. But it is hard to reconcile that stereotype with the young woman she is today, fresh out of university in London with a first-class English degree, the privately-educated daughter of financiers, and an aspiring writer.

In short she is not the kind of young woman who might naturally be associated with Britain’s spiralling binge-drinking youth culture.

The rugby players were the worst, but because of feminism, you’re expected, as a woman, to keep up with them. The guys set a precedent and you have to follow. That’s what drives the whole ladette culture. Women believing they have to be equal in every single way.

While I was writing this article, I tried to think of the things that are generally offensive in 2010. I invite you to ask yourself the same question I did – what would you be offended by? Racism? Sexism? Maybe homophobia? Now imagine you were to see a young lady on the bus discreetly breastfeeding her baby. It’s a sad fact that in 2010 there are still people out there who are disgusted when a woman chooses to feed her baby in the healthiest way possible. This may well have come as a shock to Amy Wootten, a young mother from Bristol. She was kicked off a bus into the rain because she refused to stop feeding her daughter when a passenger complained. Apparently the passenger was offended by the tiny bit of breast shown by Ms Wootten and would have preferred her daughter to go hungry.

Humiliating incidents like this only serve to prevent mothers from breastfeeding their babies despite the health benefits to both mother and child. Breastfeeding reduces the risk of cot death, strengthens the baby’s immune system, reduces the baby’s risk of diabetes and reduces the mother’s risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Breastfeeding also promotes bonding between mother and child and, unlike formula milk, is totally free! For the sake of both mum and baby, I think we could all tolerate a little bit of breast being on show.

Thankfully, the law in Scotland is on the right side. Women are free to breastfeed anywhere they like in Scotland and anyone preventing them can be fined. Unfortunately for Amy Wootten, this law does not apply in England and in Scotland we still have the problem of mothers feeling uncomfortable. Attitudes are changing for the better but unfortunately there are still cases like that of Amy Wootten to deter women from breastfeeding.

Icelandic feminists protest outside soon to be closed strip club

In case anyone missed it Julie Bindel wrote an excellent article in The Guardian on Friday’s about the impressive feminist revolution which gone on in Iceland since the political defeat of the right after last year’s financial collapse. A few days ago the country took the radical step of outlawing all strip clubs, or rather banning all businesses from profiting from the nudity of their employees. Last year Iceland also became the world’s third country after Sweden and Norway to outlaw the purchase of sex and they’re also, as far as I know, the only country in Western Europe never to have legalised porn. The left government has in addition introduced tough new laws to tackle trafficking and domestic violence and have also imposed gender quotas within company boards.

This latest bill to close down strip clubs was introduced initially by Left Green MP Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir. As she says “It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold.” And Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an organisation which has worked tirelessly against all forms of male violence for the last two decades, points out that “The Nordic countries are leading the way on women’s equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale.” Within the space of just a year Iceland has, I think we can say, systematically worked to dismantle the patriarchal ideology which has gone on for thousands of years and which sees women and their bodies as being placed on this world in order to serve men.

That Icelandic women have for the first time won real political power is, of course, hardly unrelated to these radical moves. The left advance last year also saw a significant increase in the percentage of women in parliament, due to the much more equal gender balance on the electoral lists of the Social Democrats and Left Greens. Women now make up 43% of MPs in the Icelandic parliament, more than in any other European country except Sweden. And let’s not forget that they also have the world’s first lesbian Prime Minister, Johanna Sigurðardottir from the Social Democrats. Johanna is herself a strong feminist and, while her government has been criticised over some of its policies on Icesave, she cannot be said to be a politician who lacks conviction or who isn’t motivated by a desire to make things better for those she represents.

Feminism is hardly new to Iceland of course. Between 1983 and 1998 they had a feminist party, called the Women’s List, represented in parliament and which was set up due to anger over the lack of the other party’s efforts to promote gender equality and equal representation. And on the 24^th of October 1975 90% of Icelandic women went on strike for the day, refusing to cook, clean or go into work. Today organisations like Stígamót and the Feminist Association regularly engage in various forms of activism and campaign work and have gained increasing political clout.

As can maybe be expected the strip club ban has received significant attention internationally on blogs and various news sites. A few people are supportive but most of the comments I’ve seen are something along the lines of “oh my god, how awful, that’s Iceland permanently off my list of travel destinations”, or “what a bunch of puritanical, sexually-repressed,  militant lesbian, man-hating prudes”. Others, while claiming to be no fans of strip clubs or prostitution, cannot possibly imagine a world where they cease to exist. Well let’s hope Iceland can show that such a world is indeed possible and that sitting back and adopting a defeatist attitude to everything is never going to help us change things for the better. To be radical is to dare to take on and challenge patriarchy at its roots, not to simply manage and regulate it so as to hopefully make it just this little bit better.

Read Julie’s Bindel’s article in full at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country

Here’s also an excellent article in English titled “Women and crisis” by Left Green member Drífa Snædal: http://www.vg.is/frettir/eldri-frettir/nr/4543

So asks the BBC, and then gives us a handy hint as to their opinion with the photo they choose to illustrate this feature. Why, it’s because their emotional lady parts decide who they’re voting for, not like strong rational men, and they will vote according to which candidate a babby takes a shine to. Personally, my ladyparts say that Baby Number 1 looks like it’s appealing to a handy grownup to stop Gordon Brown eating their head in one big bite, and Baby Number 2 looks like it’s disgusted yet fascinated with the almost amphibious slime covering Cameron’s face.

Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa, has been in the UK meeting the Queen and causing a stir.

The Daily Mail has whipped itself into a frenzy, calling Zuma a “vile buffoon” and a “sex-obsessed bigot”, as well as repeatedly calling him “Zulu Boy”.

The Telegraph is appalled that he has been invited after  describing the British as “condescending imperialists” and think Her Maj ought to teach him some manners.

The BBC is obsessed with his multiple marriages.

The Guardian’s front page pictured the Queen next to Zuma’s wife Thobeka Stacey Madiba, as if to contrast liberated white womanhood against Mrs Zuma as chattel.

Let’s get some things straight. Jacob Zuma isn’t a very nice man. He’s a corrupt, homophobic, misogynist, rapist.

But most Heads of State and people of power are pretty distasteful, if you look in to it.  The Queen has hosted Mugabe and Ceauşescu, for goodness sake, as well as being big buddies with George W Bush.

So how come the media aren’t reporting on Zuma’s corruption, or his politics, or what he’s done in his role as President? How come they’re not using his actions to talk about issues of rape, women’s rights, gay rights, and equality in South Africa and the rest of the world today?

All we’ve learnt from the media coverage of Zuma’s visit is that we can all point and laugh at the crazy brown man, mock him and his culture and call him ‘Zulu Boy’ and get away with it. It all stinks of racism and white supremacy.

If the British media wants to criticize Zuma, maybe they could have reported on the South African feminists fighting for equality under Zuma’s regime, such as Pumla Gqola, whose wonderful myth-busting article on polygamy cuts right to the chase:

The point of the matter is not whether in a feminist republic we’d force Zuma to choose one wife or banish him… We’d probably banish Zuma for many more reasons, least of which his preference for multiple partners.

How come the white ruling class only give a shit about women’s rights when they’re trying to justify their own racism?

On 8 March, International Women’s Day comes around once more.

As the Scottish Socialist Voice explained in a previous IWD special (scroll down to centre pages):

For over 150 years, women and men across the world have demonstrated on International Women’s Day. On that day in 1857 in New York, hundreds of women workers in the textile industry went on strike, protesting casual labour, low wages and poor working conditions. The women were attacked and beaten by the police – their stand was one of the reasons 8 March was officially recognised as International Women’s Day in 1910. So why do we still mark the day now in the 21st century?

The multinational bank HSBC is a major sponsor of the ‘official’, or at least biggest, International Women’s Day celebrations in Britain now. Their website explains:
“Many companies have actively supported International Women’s Day… This is essential if they are to recruit and retain the best female talent, sell their products/services to them, and see more women investing in them.”
But for others, including the Scottish Socialist Women’s Network, the reasons we march on International Women’s Day are the same as why the New York textile workers marched – because we are still fighting low pay, exploitation and oppression.

Photo by Eva Merz

Socialists in Scotland will be marking the occasion with our annual International Women’s Day protest outside HMP Cornton Vale.

Cornton Vale is the only women’s prison in Scotland, and it is notoriously overcrowded – despite the fact that most of the inmates shouldn’t be there in the first place. Just one per cent of women in Cornton Vale are there because they have committed a violent offence. Previous reports have found that 90 per cent of women imprisoned in Scotland have committed crimes related to poverty  – through drug and alcohol abuse, non-payment of fines, or just struggling to cope with living below the breadline.

In 2006, it was found that 98% of the inmates were struggling with addiction; 80% had mental health problems and 75% were survivors of abuse.

Former Scottish Socialist Party MSP Rosie Kane was held in Cornton Vale in 2006 for non-payment of a fine. One of her fellow inmates was there for nothing more than throwing some candles and a James Blunt CD out of a window during an argument. You can read about Rosie’s experience in Cornton Vale here.

It costs £37,000 a year to keep one woman in Cornton Vale – that’s money that could be investing in helping women with drink and drug problems, helping poverty stricken women from having to turn to prostitution or theft to feed themselves, their families or their habits. That is money that could help women rebuilt their lives after abuse and trauma. Instead women are being locked up and mistreated over and over again.

Socialists and feminists protesting outside womens’ prisons is often misunderstood or deliberately misconstrued. We DON’T think women are inherently good and gentle and should therefore don’t belong in jail. The fact is that women receive disproportionately high sentences when compared to men who have committed similar crimes. As previously reported in Leftfield, shoplifters (mainly women) are more likely to be imprisoned than sex offenders (mainly men). Women taking a tiny bit of profit-making opportunity from private companies are considered more dangerous criminals than men who pose a serious risk to the safety of women and children. That’s FUCKED UP.

Stop the war on women!

Join us this Sunday, 7 March at 12 noon at Stirling Train Station, to march on Cornton Vale and PROTEST.

Please bring ribbons and flowers to decorate the fence.

If you are a driver, your help ferrying protesters from the train station to the prison would be much appreciated.