Monthly Archives: April 2013

No Perfect Families: Margaret Thatcher’s family contradicts her morals and family values

Broken families, they’re called. Like they’re somehow deficient – a shattered part of a socially-approved whole. Single mums, because we think women shouldn’t have the right to have families without a man. It wasn’t too long ago that unmarried mother was in vogue and in America unwed teenage mother is still an acceptable term. We don’t use words like partnered mums or married fathers.

In the Nineties the Tories were all for slut shaming single mothers (especially unmarried mothers) until a couple of top Conservative politicians were found to have created single parent families and one of them had been a single mother while she was a teenage student. Single mothers and their families were a social threat. Michael Howard suggested unmarried (but not married) mothers should have their children adopted. The Back to Basics campaign might have flopped, but the media (fuelled by the Institute of Economic Affair’s series of biased publications) had picked up the scent of easy meat. They stuck their teeth in and they haven’t let go since. This attitude survives today with an emphasis on teen mothers.

The scandal of Tories themselves being single parents or having children with single parents caused a stir at the time but really it was inevitable because breakups and divorce are common. But what’s really interesting is the fate that awaited the family of Margaret Thatcher, who advocated returning to Victorian values. At this time she’d recently been ousted. Her son Mark gave her her favourite granddaughter, Amanda Thatcher, around this time. Margaret Thatcher must have looked on with approval at the Major Government’s continuation of her agenda.

But fast forward to 17th April 2013 and her daughter Carol Thatcher turns up to her funeral – on national television – with a partner. She’s in a relationship with a man she isn’t married to. Yes, so are the rest of us, but it’s an interesting twist in the story of the Conservative Party’s idol. Margaret Thatcher and the Major government had stigmatised lone mothers and “illegitimate” children, yet here was her own daughter flaunting her unmarried status on the BBC. If Carol Thatcher gets pregnant, she’ll be an unmarried mother.

Margaret Thatcher’s grandkids Michael and Amanda Thatcher were (according to news reports) brought up in America after their mother emigrated following the breakup of her marriage to Mark Thatcher. So Margaret Thatcher’s grandchildren were raised by a single mother who was also an immigrant, while their father was far away in another country and would have had minimal contact with his children (especially considering that Facebook, Skype and MSN were not around when the kids were growing up).

Margaret Thatcher’s story doesn’t just prove that people who use “family values” to stigmatise or even eradicate family forms they don’t like (instead of valuing all families) are hypocrites – we knew that. It proves that discriminating others just hurts ourselves in the end. You never know if the groups you hate will be the groups that your children or grandchildren fall into. The Thatcher family story could also be a lesson for those who are against equal marriage and are sure their descendants won’t be gay.

It speaks to the way injustice and prejudice work that Margaret Thatcher’s family isn’t considered broken, dysfunctional or a social threat. Amanda and Michael aren’t considered to be the “underclass” (see Murray 1989; 1993) and Carol isn’t seen as promiscuous or irresponsible.

It’s a good thing- if perhaps slightly ironic- that the Thatcher funeral brought all this into the public eye for the first time. It forces right-wingers to come to terms with the reality that there are no perfect families and single parents exist in all families. Nobody’s immune, not even the Iron Lady and not even the most respectable or most bigoted. The sight of Amanda Thatcher, child of an immigrant single mum, making that speech about Margaret is a beautiful image. Even if it might be a troubling image for some. And Carol Thatcher flaunting her partner in front of the world’s cameras – would she have been able to do that in the early Nineties? To do it without shame. Without inviting comments from the media.

Maybe, despite Thatcher’s best efforts, we have progressed after all – and her family has benefited from that progression. As they paid their respects to her, their lifestyles silently mock the sexual morality and family values of a leader who was Conservative in more ways than one.

Advertisements

Lavishness of Thatcher funeral was personal gift from David Cameron

We had a successful revolution against Thatcher’s rule – as we did against Tony Blair’s- and she was forced to step down. That’s what revolutions in democracies look like. But today 10 million [update: the BBC just reported that the amount spent is “a state secret”] was spent on glorifying her name. This must surely seem ludicrous to people in other countries who have ousted their dictator. Once you’re out, you’re out. You aren’t supposed to let a disgraced, fallen leader back into the hearts of the people.

Playing Favourites: how David Cameron secured a luxury funeral for his hero and the Queen honoured her friend

Thatcher’s Royal status funeral was most lavish ever, beat Churchill’s

Last time Big Ben was silenced was for Churchill’s funeral. The mourning sword presented to the Queen by the Lord Mayor of London was last used for Churchill’s funeral. If these honours weren’t given for any other Prime Minister’s funeral, why is Thatcher The Chosen One? Churchill was exceptional; whether you think of him as a lucky fear-mongering maverick or a great British hero, he led Britain through the Second World War and many challenges and changes. By contrast Thatcher was an unremarkable leader, noted only for her gender and the controversy surrounding her leadership. She is not the heir of Churchill and neither is anyone else.

Flowers were strewn, like at Princess Diana’s funeral.

And here’s why and how:

David Cameron obviously likes her politics. He’s carried on her legacy and flew back to Britain as soon as he heard she was dead. He has also claimed to be inspired by her and said she “saved this country”. So did he play favourites and give her this lavish funeral at the taxpayers’ expense?

When asked this in the studio during the BBC’s coverage of the funeral, David Cameron gave evasive answers. He said there had been plans for Thatcher’s funeral for years but he didn’t name who had created those plans. Why not? Don’t we have a right to know who threw away 10 million pounds on a corpse? This is one of the biggest mysteries of the decade. The Mystery of Who Decided Thatcher Should Be Honoured Above All Other Prime Ministers. Or perhaps David Cameron couldn’t name names because he was the one who had given such honours out of personal admiration?

David Cameron did admit that the Thatcher family had been involved in planning the funeral. So, a wealthy family got to control the way the state honoured their mother. Thatcher would have been alive at this time, of course. So did she dictate the way her own funeral would go? We know that she chose all of the music for her funeral.

Under further questioning, David Cameron tried to justify the lavishness of the funeral by saying Thatcher was the first woman Prime Minister and that she’d achieved a lot and so deserved this favourable treatment. But honouring female prime ministers over male ones is just reverse sexism – as well as a pretty flimsy defence. And as for achievements, how is that to be calculated? If all prime ministers receive glorious or ordinary funerals based on their achievements, there’s going to be a lot of jobs for philosophers, accountants and historians. Good news for the economy, perhaps. But we’re going to need a whole committee to work out exactly how lavish or not David Cameron’s funeral should be.

Thatcher fans’ attempts to get anti-Thatcher piss-take I’m in Love With Margaret Thatcher to number 1 in the charts may be misguided, but it appears to be a true reflection of our Prime Minister’s feelings.

The Queen went to Margaret Thatcher’s 80th birthday party and now she’s chosen to attend Thatcher’s funeral. It’s wrong of the Queen to favour one former politician over another just because they’re personal friends. Her presence at anyone’s funeral is a form of honouring the dead person, because she’s the Queen.

There’s nothing wrong with having heroes, role models or inspirations. I’ve had several since I was a child and I still do. But throwing millions of public money away on your mates or role models is betraying your country and the public. If every Prime Minister did this for their role models or random famous people they like, it would be mayhem. Actors, singers and authors getting luxury send-offs because they’re friends with royals or top politicians.

It wasn’t Thatcher’s achievements which got her this glorious funeral. It was personal favouritism from the powerful figures in Britain.

I feel bad for the families of past and future Prime Ministers who didn’t and won’t get a funeral fit for a queen. This is very, very unfair to them. Even Lloyd George who gave us the beginnings of the welfare state wasn’t buried like a king.

The funeral

Even in death, Thatcher wishes us to remember her most violent qualities. There was a lot of emphasis on the Falklands war – something even the Thatcher-loving BBC did not shrink from commenting upon. A cruel irony was that soldiers who’d had their lives put in danger by Thatcher in the Falklands walked beside her coffin.

Guards were forced to stand unmoving for twenty minutes with their heads down, which the BBC commentator claimed leads to dizziness. I’m not familiar enough with human rights case law to comment upon the legality of this, but it does raise interesting questions.

Journaling my tweets

Like Roberta in The Cleveland Show, I started “journaling my tweets” as I watched the funeral. I was making notes for this post. I include a few of the more interesting ones below:

VIPs inside, Thatcher fans outside in the rain. Symbolic really.

Coffin covered in Union Jack, like she’s a Royal

Flag at half-mast – is she royalty now?

Things being thrown at the horses in Ludgate. Not filmed but horses were frightened and are tossing their heads.

Commentator said someone said how wrong it is to think of Thatcher as “being against apartheid” – she was just against sanctions against apartheid”. A slip of the tongue – did he mean to say the person said she WAS against apartheid? Or is it true, that this person was criticizing her and the BBC is reporting this criticism during the funeral?!

On that note, very little diversity in the ceremony so far.

No protests. Is BBC not showing us, given their coverage on her deathday was so biased in her favour? [update: there were massive protests]

Roads are closed at exact moment people need to commute to work. Vast disruptions. This is wrong.

So Carol Thatcher has a partner not a husband. Conservatives have to stop criticizing single mothers if their hero’s daughter is into premarital sex like the rest of the country.

It’s a little surreal to watch a black man bearing on his shoulders the weight of the woman who called Mandela a “terrorist” and opposed economic sanctions on South Africa to encourage the end of apartheid.

19 year old Amanda Thatcher [speaking at the service]- looks a bit like Margaret. Confident. I almost see her as the future, making her debut as the past passes away from us.

I thought they would burn her in the coffin on-screen. I hoarded all this chocolate for nothing? So anticlimax, BBC.

Slutocrat’s view on the funeral:

Margaret Thatcher received a (massive) salary for what she did. It was just a job. Many people who have succeeded in business, made discoveries or done lots of campaigning or charity work deserve this Royal-status funeral much more than Thatcher. And it’s an insult to all the other deceased politicians

Conclusion

I think one of my last notes is a fitting conclusion for this piece:

The service is a Christian one. Perhaps people of colour had the last laugh today – Margaret Hilda Thatcher departs this world amid worship of a brown man whom she called her Lord.

Media turns gang rape into a joke – because victim was a man

A few days ago a news story popped up in my Twitter feed. It was the shocking report of how a 19 year old was lured into a car by four much older women on the pretense of giving him a ride home. Instead, the gang drove him to a secluded spot where all four of them sexually assaulted him before stranding him and fleeing the scene in their car. By anyone’s standards, this premeditated abduction and sexual assault makes disturbing reading. But columnist Rosie DiManno doesn’t think so.

DiManno turned the story into a joke, calling the sexual assault a “bizarre anomaly” and describing the rapists as “not cougars on the prowl”, mocking their weight as if taking the piss out of another woman’s appearance in accordance with dominant ideas of beauty is what matters here. The tagline (probably created by a subeditor) reads “Enquiring minds are eager to know what the heck befell a young man who was allegedly sexually assaulted by a group of women in downtown Toronto.” Because of course a man can’t be raped – everyone knows men are so sexual that they’re up for it 24/7. DiManno writes “one man’s sexual assault is another man’s sexual fantasy come true” and “Sexual assault, you say? Lucky guy others say, nudge-nudge, a fivesome and didn’t even have to pay for it” These are comments that a paper would never dare make about a female assault victim. DiManno is also discrediting the victim’s story, suggesting he’d consented and so it wasn’t assault at all.

But DiManno isn’t done yet. “[T]he inference to be drawn [is] that perhaps the victim pondered his options for a while, perchance needed some coaxing to report,” she claims – obviously ignorant of the fact that the majority of sexual assaults go unreported. DiMannio also speculates about how serious the assault was and notes that the victim wasn’t stabbed, as if that’s somehow relevant to the fact that these rapists sexually assaulted someone and all men in their community are in danger from these women.

DiManno’s hilariously witty movie-referencing conclusion:

These clubbing vamps are a bizarre anomaly, pack hunters in their getaway SUV — Thelma and Louise and Tiffany and Debi, four white chicks who may have gang-groped or otherwise molested a teenager because they didn’t have the balls to pick on, or pick up, a man their own age.

Wanted: Bad girls in black minidresses and stilettos, approach with caution.

No, Rosie DiManno. They’re not fictional heroines. They’re rapists who committed a planned sexual assault of a teenager not because they “didn’t have the guts to pick up a man their own age”, but because they’re RAPISTS.

So it seems that although female rape victims are sometimes not believed or are bullied for reporting sexual assault (like Rehtaeh, Audrie Potts and Amanda Todd) it can be tough getting people to take you seriously if you’re a male victim too. Gender stereotypes work against both sexes. A story about men gang raping a woman wouldn’t be “reported” in this tongue-in-cheek way. And it definitely wouldn’t end in a lighthearted description of the rapists’ clothing and say “approach with caution” – it would probably stress that all women were in danger. Maybe even inappropriately suggest that women modify their behaviour or give up their freedoms to go where they please until the rapists are caught. And it definitely wouldn’t call gang rapists “bad boys”.

There’s nothing funny about this. These women premeditated their attack. It was well-planned: they ganged up so they would be able to control their victim. They picked on a young boy instead of an experienced, less naive man. They used lies to abduct him instead of physical strength. They didn’t assault him until they were in a secluded spot. They took a car to make a quick getaway.

And since men don’t usually think they’ll be victims of sexual assault and counselling services are usually aimed at female victims, it might actually be worse for male victims than female ones.

I just hope the victim never reads this story. And I hope women who are thinking about rape don’t read it because this story only encourages sexual assault. Rape: just another wild night, a cool anecdote you can dig out at parties or use to impress your friends.

This article is a cruel gender-reversed parralel to the media’s sympathy for rapists which characterized the Steubenville case.

And it’s not like giving women the freedom to assault men without censure will benefit women. Treating it as a joke while treating sexual assault of women seriously harks back to the age when female purity was valued and tied to honour while men were free to do as they wished. This article isn’t female supremacy. It’s just a re-branded version of the patriarchal idea that while the integrity of women’s bodies matters, men’s don’t.

 

Ancient Aliens: the prequel (as scientifically flawed as the second series)

The previous series of the History Channel’s Ancient Aliens was, as the title of this post suggests, as scientifically flawed as the second. But let’s skate over the fact that it prophesied the return of the ancient aliens and the end of the world on 21 December 2012. That’s just an embarassing detail in the catalogue of the series’ historical ignorance.

Tsoukalis and von Daniken (who respecctively have first degrees in Sports Communication and, er, nothing) claim repeatedly that humans were living in caves but built the pyramids “virtually overnight”. They use this ‘fact’ to prove that humans were genetically engineered by aliens from our ancestors, which is why Homo Sapiens is the only member of the human family tree to possess “culture”.

A wild and earth-shattering claim. And it’s based on claims which aren’t true.

We didn’t build the pyramids overnight. Before King Aha who founded the 1st dynasty (the first step pyramid was constructed hundreds of years later and the Giza triad was built only generations later in the 4th dynasty) there was “Dynasty 0”. Dynasty 0 is a term coined for the hitherto undiscovered history of Egypt which includes King Scorpion who unified Egypt. And before Dynasty 0, there were many different kingdoms. It appears that nomadic tribes settled in the Nile valley and formed settlements which eventually grew into states, perhaps from city states like ancient Greece. This took hundreds if not thousands of years.

Secondly, Homo Sapiens is not the only hominid to have culture. Neanderthals made tools which were better than our tools and art while other species took care of their ill and old members. Homo Sapiens differed from Neanderthals by being more sociable.

The fact that ancient alien theorists don’t know this stuff is staggering. This information is available via documentaries on the Discovery channel (which is why I know it and why my understanding is pretty much limited to what I’ve written here.)

Non nuclear families: support, don’t shame

The universe is infinitely mysterious – even an equation like E=MC squared is beyond the understanding of most of us. 99% of the ocean depths remain unexplored. And the issues and injustice faced by people and animals around the world are too numerous to begin to count. Yet for some people the issue of who, when and how other people they don’t know have relationships or children with is a fundamental concern. I sometimes feel an overwhelming sense of pity for people who discriminate teen parents, stigmatise lone mothers or are homophobic/transphobic. People who slut shame others or disapprove of poly families or sex workers.

At other times I want to tell them to grow up and get a real cause and make a difference instead of bullying others and hiding behind the societal attitudes which allow it or hiding behind a noble sounding screen like religion, morality or concern. I’ve seen people hide behind feminism. But they’re not going to do that, are they? Who cares about child soldiers or starving babies or cruel regimes when there’s young mums to shame and gay people to harass? And doing so takes much less effort than ending poverty. It’s probably much more fun, too.

So on that note this is my guide for the haters:

If you really believe that teenage pregnancy is a bad thing and limits your choices, why not help teen mothers instead of shaming them? You could start a petition for nationalised childcare so it’s easier for young parents to continue their education. You could babysit for teen parents in your area. You could educate others about how shaming and blaming hurts young parents and their children or encourage the teaching of parenting skills in sex education or personal development classes so teens are prepared for parenthood. Plenty of people believe teen pregnancy can limit teens’ choices but they do all of these things and more, to help young families.

If you believe that all children should have two parents – and I know you’re thinking of two different sex parents here – and that lone mothers are poor and have sad lives, why not help them? Erasing the social stigma of being a single mum would go a long way to making sure that lone mothers and fathers aren’t sad. Distributing information which challenges media stereotypes would help too. Asking employers to provide things like childcare facilities or flexitime would also help lone parent famiies.

If you believe that sex workers need to be rescued from their immoral or exploited lives then support their organisations so they can campaign for better labour rights and working conditions. If you really want them to exit the industry, you should complain to TV shows and media outlets which expose sex workers and jeopardise their chances of ever getting employment outwith the industry. Being outed can also result in them being fired from their existing non-industry jobs. Reducing stigma against them and their clients could enable sex workers to campaign more effectively under their legal names and ensures that they could never lose their jobs in the future because of the work they’re doing in the present.

If you believe that any teen who isn’t abstinent until they’re out of their teens lacks self-esteem, is being corrupted or will end up having a child, why not help them instead of blaming them. Ensuring teens have good self-esteem and know how to protect themselves from predators (both adult and same-age predators) means that they’ll be in control of their lives and make smart decisions – whether or not you personally agree or feel comfortable with those decisions. Instead of trying to ban all pornography, why not ensure that teens are taught that pornography is not real and that they’re taught from a young age about respect and consent? Teaching about respect for others as a general value from a young age means it’s not hard to trach about respect in the context of relationships at an older age. You could do this with your own kids, your relatives’ kids and your friends’ kids.

If you disapprove of polyamory then you first have to actively discourage cheating. Polyamory and other non-monogamous relationships aren’t cheating, but cheating in monogamous relationships is. And it’s unethical whereas non-monogamy isn’t. We would all benefit from reminders about honesty and respect but nobody benefits from discrimination against non-monogamy.

Bottom line: If you shame and blame people without providing any kind of support for them, you aren’t acting out of concern. You’re just a hater.

 

 

Getting pregnant won’t ruin your life: teenage girls, pregnancy and myths

As Doortje Braeken noted in her telegraph column, “we’re not teaching young women about teenage motherhood because we don’t believe it’s a good idea because we do see that it reduces a woman’s future choices.” She went on to say that personal choice is absolutely sovereign. I fully agree with Doortje Braeken but I want to highlight the issue of believing that pregnancy limits choices.

Because the idea that starting a family at a younger age somehow magically limits a woman’s choices is absurd. If you’re under 16 it is the law that you have to go to school so even if a young parent wants to stay home with their child, they can’t. No university will ban you from attending because you are a mother or father and it’s the norm for older or mature students to be parents. If older students are often parents why are younger students assumed to be unable to cope? And that’s without considering the fact that while kids take up lots of time and attention, many students work while studying so it’s not like being childfree means you have unlimited reserves of time.

As for finances, SAAS (and its English/Welsh equivalent) take whether students have dependents into account when calculating student loans and grants. Universities have Childcare funds for student parents and university creches.

Enough of the theory – what about real life? There’s a woman with a PhD in my town who had her first child aged 17. I know someone who had a baby while in high school and last I heard of her she was in her third year of university. Another young woman had a child while at university and she got her degree. A top politician in the early 1990s had been a lone mother when she was aged 19.

This lie that having a baby will ruin your life is just a subconcious knee-jerk reaction born of fear of teen sexuality. It is designeed to encourage girls to have abortions or decide to postpone pregnancy so they can appear pure young virgins. Because if they were married or older we would expect- and welcome– pregnancy. It’s their age and unmarried status that we discriminate against. As a society we feel uncomfortable seeing evidence of female sexuality especially when those women are young. We’d rather they were abstinent or at least didn’t plan on having babies or aborted the foetuses they were carrying.

Teen boys aren’t targeted with this lie as often as teen girls, possibly because we believe all teen fathers are deadbeat dads – which is far from true. But it’s precisely our shaming of teen parents which discourages young fathers from being involved with their children. The stigma is hypocritical because it stems from conservative religious-based attitudes about women’s sexual behaviour. It’s also quite stupid when you remember that in Britain and most other countries our ancestors married much younger than we do today and so we’re all descended from teen mums.

Something that doesn’t get talked about much is what if a girl or boy actually plans to try for a baby? Respecting sovereign choice doesn’t just stop at not forcing an abortion on a teen. It also means respecting and valuing the decisions of teens and preteens to plan to start families. A 12 year old having a baby he or she has wanted and planned for is a good thing, and certainly a much better parent than a thirtysomething who doesn’t really want children.

When I was 14 or 15 years old, we were made to watch a VHS (so retro!) about a girl who gets pregnant and has to choose between going to uni and raising her baby. In reality there is no such choice and after the video was over I stuck my hand up and said as much. I said the video was a lie and there was no reason why you couldn’t go to university with a baby. Nobody disagreed and neither did the teacher. I was sickened by the film and I decided right then that I would never let such lies go unchallenged. Shortly after it was hometime and I thought of the film in the bus back home. Despite using MSN and MySpace and planning my own website, I didn’t know blogs existed back in 2004/5. If I had, Slutocracy would be a lot older.

What can we learn from Margaret Thatcher? Gender, Class and a positive message

It’s become quite fashionable to blog on Thatcher since yesterday afternoon but although I have many criticisms of her, I don’t think there’s any point in me airing them when others are doing so far better than I ever could. Instead of writing history I’m going to blog about the lessons we can learn for the present and the future.

Margaret Hilda Roberts was born working-class, the daughter of a grocer. But she ended up ruling the country, making war with Argentina, bombing Libya and making life hard for the poor. While her actions were shameful, she is the living well you know what I mean proof that women can reach the top even in a world more sexist than today’s. She’s also proof of the fact that working class people can rise to the top.

By going to war Thatcher flew in the face of the stereotypes of the day that female politicians were soft. She was always aggressive and noncompromising. After the IRA attempted to kill her by bombing the hotel she was staying in, Thatcher went ahead with the party conference the next morning. Today we still have gender stereotypes of women being emotional or passive but Thatcher proves that there doesn’t have to be any gender difference. In my opinion she was more assertive than most male politicians. Therefore her life is a perfect example of why we should stop stereotyping women as passive in the media and popular culture. We also need to stop socialising girls to be less aggressive than boys. Such socialisation is perverting nature and damaging the natural assertiveness and determination of the female mind.

In my opinion Thatcher betrayed the working class which she had been born to. But paradoxically she was the shining example of what working-class people can do. Since David Cameron has such a high opinion of her – yesterday he flew back to Britain, neglecting his duties just because of her death and made the astonishing claim that she “saved this country” – then he and his coalition government need to stop stigmatising the poor and unemployed. Their benefit cuts and the bedroom tax disproportionately affect the poor and the working class.

Thatcher also cared about global warming, an unusual stance for right-wing politicians. Anne Widdecombe for example denied that climate change exists and Americans will be very familiar with right-wing denial of climate change. Margaret Thatcher proves that whatever your political beliefs, you can care about the environment.

Margaret Thatcher is arguably Britain’s most hated former politician and the fact that David Cameron seems so openly inspired by her is hardly going to lessen the hate. While some of the hate is rooted in misogyny the vast majority of it is completely and absolutely justified. And it appears that Cambodians, Libyans and Argentinians have even more reason to loathe her. From a feminist point of view, I’m actually glad that Margaret Thatcher was not only a biological woman but that her gender identity was also female. Because it isn’t often that we have cause to hate a woman so much – as women usually aren’t in such powerful positions or don’t make their mark on the world in such destructive ways. Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and Breivik were all men. Thatcher proves that women can be just as headstrong and merciless as men. This is a good thing because it obliterates the stereotypical portrayals of women in film and TV as the partners, daughters and victims of men. (Not that there aren’t strong female leads in films or TV too – just think Lara Croft, Buffy or Elizabeth Swann. But they are few.)

So this is what we can learn from Margaret Thatcher’s political career: don’t stigmatise the poor, the unemployed or the working class. And there are no real gender differences between men and women; women are just as capable of leadership and aggressiveness as men. Thatcher may have hated feminism (she described it as “a poison”) and employment rights, but her life is an advert for what she most hated.

%d bloggers like this: