DO WE ALL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO MURDER? THAT IS THE QUESTION RAISED IN 'BEAST'
By Sara Darling
We all have a beast within; Whether we acknowledge it or not is a different kettle of fish, and Michael Pearce’s directorial debut, Beast plays upon this ambiguity with dangerous consequences.
A contemporary love story, the film is set on the sleepy island of Jersey, where everyone knows everyone’s business- or so it seems on the surface. However, dig a little deeper under this chocolate box town, and the locals are hiding a dark secret- a spate of young girls who have been raped and murdered, by the same suspect.
Cut to Moll, played by Jessie Buckley. Angelic in appearances- a shock of red hair, sensible clothes, younger looking than her 27 years. She looks like butter wouldn’t melt- but she has a violent past. Still living at home with a monster of a mother played by Geraldine James (and Alzheimer's riddled dad), she is trapped in her in her cultish family ways, of curfews and choir practice and saccharine sweet sister and golden boy brother.
When Moll is serving drinks at her own birthday party, you know something is about to explode. Her sister’s carefully timed announcement of expecting twins is the catalyst to push Moll over the edge, as she escapes to free herself with un abandoned passion and alcohol at the local club.
However our lead girl is no slut, and rejects the advances of her drinking partner, which could have turned sinister, had she not been saved by her knight in shining armour- the mysterious and brooding local Pascal, who is so neanderthal, he almost grunts!
This meeting provides Moll with a focus that is completely distanced from her regimented family. The shady Pascal fills her with intrigue and escape and the relationship she develops goes against all her familial values, and can be seen as a reaction to her snobbish, judgemental family, where our romantic hero saves her. But is everything always that simple?
As the relationship flourishes, the police discover the corpse of the fourth young woman and paranoia around the island is intensified. Fingers are pointed not so subtly at outsider Pascal, as the story unfolds as to what he was doing on the night of the last murder.
As any thriller, there is no such thing as black and white, and it is this clever tango which makes you uncertain who to believe. Pascal continues to proclaim his innocence, and Moll’s defense of him increasingly makes her a social outcast. How much she believes her own denial, and whether she is reacting because of her brush with crime as a youth sets a heavy ambiguous tone.
Choosing to pursue a relationship with Pascal, over her family, she is putting herself at risk. Fistly as a vulnerable woman- after all if he is the murderer, who is to say he won’t finish off his lover? But also by falling in love.
With fraught scenes, which will resonate with anyone that has been in a relationship, the two have real life chemistry, and their bickering is almost voyeuristic. The viewer is taken on a journey, where they don’t know who to believe, or want to believe and it is just as important what happens next, as what has happened in the past.
There is a moment Pascal shows his monster instinct, when Moll pushes him to move from Jersey, to begin a new life. His reaction is fierce and violent, and once again the mind switches to thinking he could be the murderer after all!
It’s very much a movie to keep you on the edge of your seat; Not easy to watch, but extremely watchable. Written in a way that you can’t not like Pascal, even though, you like Moll are suspicious; His charisma and confidence make you want them to work it out. When they reunite at a beachside restaurant, this is an heavily loaded scene where the air cackles with tension. Pascal’s enigmatic, evasive energy and Moll’s determination to find the truth.
It is questionable whether we need to know the truth, but the cat and mouse tension which has been an undercurrent throughout is finally exposed. We all have a beast within. Watch this for reassurance!
Out in cinemas nationwide on 27th April.
BY SARA DARLING
Mention the name Gianfranco Ferré, and his pristine white shirts might spring to mind. In fact, his career as a fashion designer is far more celebrated than his work as a jeweller. With a degree in architecture, his conceptual jewels and highly structured fashion complement each other in their diversity. Using precious stones, his jewellry interprets his clothing collections, cleverly intertwining an element of reference. Particularly utilising eye catching ornaments for the neck wrists and the waist.
His fashion credentials established when he designed his first collection in 1974. In 1978, he founded his own company and in1989 became artistic director of Christian Dior. Ferré designed haute couture and women's prêt-à-porter collections for Dior until 1996, when he returned to working exclusively for his own company.
Ferre’s trademark reinvention of the white shirt in the nineties, allowed him to enter the realm of every woman's wardrobe, and his incentive cuts reflected his passion for travel, with later collections inspired by cultures from all over the world consisting of highly structured garments with trademark, strong, prominent seams.
Dubbed the Frank Lloyd Wright of fashion, which is a reference to his architectural roots, he blended his love of practicality seamlessly into fashion design; Declaring ‘fashion is logic’ his jewellery is made with a much more experimental eye.
Choosing to work with unique and unusual jewels, his catwalk jewellery collections are intensely detailed, and using pearls, polished shells, crystals, corals and painted wood, the avant-garde creations are like no other. Not bound by any constrictions, the jewellery is timeless as it does not fit into one particular style.
In the mesmerising coffee table book, Gianfranco Ferré: Under Another Light. Jewels and Ornaments, over 100 colour photographs have been catalogued into a digestible slice of the glamorous world of couture jewellery. Art directed by Vogue Italia’s Luca Stoppini, it is perfect for jewellery and fashion lovers alike
Order a copy here
Beatrix Campbell book release that joins the dots between neoliberalism and sexism, between equal pay, war zones, the veil, The Wire, the web and welfare states… a new way of thinking about where we’re at.
Among liberal thinkers, there is an optimistic belief that men and women are on a cultural journey toward equality - in the workplace, on the street, and in the home. But observation and evidence both tell us that in many ways this progress has stopped - and in some cases even reversed. In "The End of Equality", renowned feminist Beatrix Campbell argues that even as the patriarchy has lost some of its legitimacy, new inequalities are emerging in our culture. We are living, Campbell writes, in an era of neopatriarchy in which violence has proliferated; body anxiety and self-hatred have flourished; rape is committed with impunity; sex trafficking thrives; and the struggle for equal pay is at an end. After four decades observing society, Campbell still speaks of the long-sought goal of gender equality. But now she calls for a new revolution.
Available at Foyles
Article: Craig Murray
Evidence submitted by the British government in court today proves, beyond any doubt, that Boris Johnson has been point blank lying about the degree of certainty Porton Down scientists have about the Skripals being poisoned with a Russian “novichok” agent.
Yesterday in an interview with Deutsche Welle Boris Johnson claimed directly Porton Down had told him they positively identified the nerve agent as Russian:
You argue that the source of this nerve agent, Novichok, is Russia. How did you manage to find it out so quickly? Does Britain possess samples of it?
Let me be clear with you … When I look at the evidence, I mean the people from Porton Down, the laboratory …
So they have the samples …
They do. And they were absolutely categorical and I asked the guy myself, I said, “Are you sure?” And he said there’s no doubt.
I knew and had published from my own whistleblowers that this is a lie. Until now I could not prove it. But today I can absolutely prove it, due to the judgement at the High Court case which gave permission for new blood samples to be taken from the Skripals for use by the OPCW. Justice Williams included in his judgement a summary of the evidence which tells us, directly for the first time, what Porton Down have actually said:
16. The evidence in support of the application is contained within the applications
themselves (in particular the Forms COP 3) and the witness statements.
17. I consider the following to be the relevant parts of the evidence. I shall identify the
witnesses only by their role and shall summarise the essential elements of their
i) CC: Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst
Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the
findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples
tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent OR CLOSELY RELATED AGENT.
The emphasis is mine. This sworn Court evidence direct from Porton Down is utterly incompatible with what Boris Johnson has been saying. The truth is that Porton Down have not even positively identified this as a “Novichok”, as opposed to “a closely related agent”. Even if it were a “Novichok” that would not prove manufacture in Russia, and a “closely related agent” could be manufactured by literally scores of state and non-state actors.
This constitutes irrefutable evidence that the government have been straight out lying – to Parliament, to the EU, to NATO, to the United Nations, and above all to the people – about their degree of certainty of the origin of the attack. It might well be an attack originating in Russia, but there are indeed other possibilities and investigation is needed. As the government has sought to whip up jingoistic hysteria in advance of forthcoming local elections, the scale of the lie has daily increased.
On a sombre note, I am very much afraid the High Court evidence seems to indicate there is very little chance the Skripals will ever recover; one of the reasons the judge gave for his decision is that samples taken now will be better for analysis than samples taken post mortem.
This website remains under a massive DOS attack which has persisted for more than 24 hours now, but so far the defences are holding. Some strange form of “ghost banning” is also affecting both my twitter and Facebook feeds. So please
a) Feel free to repost, republish, translate or spread this article anywhere and anyway you can. All copyright is waived.
b) If you came here by Twitter, please retweet but also in addition create a new tweet yourself containing a link to this post (or to any other site on which you have placed the information)
c) If you came here by Facebook, again please share but also in addition create a new post yourself which contains the information and the link.
The state and corporate media now have evidence of the vast discrepancy between what May and Johnson are saying, and the truth about the Porton Down scientists’ position. I am afraid to say I expect this to make no difference whatsoever to the propaganda output of the BBC.
See more of Craig Murray works.
Article: Christopher George
Modelling and talent agency, Linden Staub is officially going fur-free, co-founders Esther Kinnear-Derungs and Tara Le Roux announced this morning.
The decision marks a major move, with Linden Staub being the first agency to join the conversation by stating they will not provide models for photo shoots and fashion shows where their signed models wear fur.
“We support a more sustainable approach within the fashion industry by becoming fur-free. With so many prestigious brands supporting this movement, we feel that it is a natural move as a supplier of talent to stand alongside them in this vision”, said Esther Kinnear-Derungs and Tara Le Roux.
Under the new policy, Linden Staub will no longer book their talent on jobs in which they individually model real fur. As of April 2018, a Linden Staub model will never again be photographed wearing real fur, or walking in a show wearing real fur for a professional engagement.
“Hats off to Linden Staub for keeping the fur industry off its books. Given that animal suffering has been exposed time and time again on fur farms around the world – and that innovative, luxurious, cruelty-free fabrics are widely available – there's no excuse for designing with, buying, or modelling fur. We commend the agency on taking a stand against this gruesome trade and on sending a clear message that fur has no place in today's fashion industry”, said Director of PETA, Elisa Allen.
Review: Christopher George
By page three I already had seven friends that I wanted to pass this book onto once I had finished it. However, I wanted the book back, so at this moment I am only planning to ‘BORROW’ it to one friend.
The rest of them can wait until a certain special birthday, or buy it for them selves.
A delightful book with its mix of font’s throughout, irregular type size and hardback cover it’s a graphic nerds dream.
Every Day A Word Surprises Me & Other Quotes By Writers could be interpreted as potentially a prolonged witty publication, containing quotes of the ego and arrogance. But to my surprise I found a collection of over 700 insightful quotes by writers through the ages and from across the globe. With exclusive research discovered in little-known letters, notebooks, memoirs, and other original sources, this carefully curated collection is a go-to resource for inspiring reading on a wide variety of subjects, feelings, and experiences.
I was personally drawn too many of the quotes for their spiritual and psyche awareness along with the openness to the human condition of internal mind games one plays, along with the experience of other's relaying positive and poignant messages in short readable quotes.
The book is brimming with unforgettable lines from novelists, poets, playwrights, and other celebrated writers, both historical and contemporary - from Jane Austin to Julian Barnes, Leo Tolstoy to Patti Smith, Virginia Woolf to Lena Dunham, Henry David Thoreau to Dave Eggers.
In Every Day a Word Surprises Me these luminaries reveal their most insightful thoughts, life lessons, private revelations, and irreverent opinions, which can help, guide us all.
Every Day a Word Surprises Me is one of those rare books containing no images that you will want to come back to time and time again.
203 x 137 mm
Article: Christopher George.
Whether you were Leave, or Remain or Undecided - we've all been swindled.
We've been sold false promises and unrealistic dreams.
You wouldn't accept being swindled at any other time, so why now?
Uncertainties now facing industries after BREXIT are worrying, including creative busyness, freelancers, and the young hoping to begin a creative career. London’s Superimpose Studio challenge this topic with a new campaign #Swindled opens up the conversation into the affects of BREXIT.
The creative sector is one of the most important industries in the UK, especially as most of our hard industry and production is now produced abroad. The UK creative sector is one of the world most competitive and successful, but can it remain at the top of the pile once BREXIT has potentially stunted it's upward growth?
Our younger generation look at a creative career being a popular choice, and we owe it to them to have the option in obtaining an education, as well as a potential working career that is not just the chosen few!!! If we head towards a BREXIT in it's current design, London will potentially no longer be as competitive in comparison with the likes of Paris, Berlin and Amsterdam. And with cities like Lisbon and Madrid becoming more popular as a destination to make home, the competition will become even more aggressive.
British projects have been hugely successful in applying for EU funding. We have gained 11% of the entire €520million Creative Europe budget, supporting 283 cultural and creative organisations between 2014-2016. A vote for Brexit is consequently a vote to withdraw funding from ourselves
So the burger and its meaning:
Well bluntly we are being cheated in this 'blunder' of a political process. Regardless if your a burger eater - or like us don't eat meat believing it's murder; we too the vegetarians are gettgin shaftered...
It's not too late to fix BREXIT.
Here are 3 simple ways to to start: Swindled
Article: Craig Murray
I have now received confirmation from a well placed FCO source that Porton Down scientists are not able to identify the nerve agent as being of Russian manufacture, and have been resentful of the pressure being placed on them to do so. Porton Down would only sign up to the formulation “of a type developed by Russia” after a rather difficult meeting where this was agreed as a compromise formulation. The Russians were allegedly researching, in the “Novichok” programme a generation of nerve agents which could be produced from commercially available precursors such as insecticides and fertilisers. This substance is a “novichok” in that sense. It is of that type. Just as I am typing on a laptop of a type developed by the United States, though this one was made in China.
To anybody with a Whitehall background this has been obvious for several days. The government has never said the nerve agent was made in Russia, or that it can only be made in Russia. The exact formulation “of a type developed by Russia” was used by Theresa May in parliament, used by the UK at the UN Security Council, used by Boris Johnson on the BBC yesterday and, most tellingly of all, “of a type developed by Russia” is the precise phraseused in the joint communique issued by the UK, USA, France and Germany yesterday:
This use of a military-grade nerve agent, of a type developed by Russia, constitutes the first offensive use of a nerve agent in Europe since the Second World War.
When the same extremely careful phrasing is never deviated from, you know it is the result of a very delicate Whitehall compromise. My FCO source, like me, remembers the extreme pressure put on FCO staff and other civil servants to sign off the dirty dossier on Iraqi WMD, some of which pressure I recount in my memoir Murder in Samarkand. She volunteered the comparison to what is happening now, particularly at Porton Down, with no prompting from me.
Separately I have written to the media office at OPCW to ask them to confirm that there has never been any physical evidence of the existence of Russian Novichoks, and the programme of inspection and destruction of Russian chemical weapons was completed last year.
Did you know these interesting facts?
OPCW inspectors have had full access to all known Russian chemical weapons facilities for over a decade – including those identified by the “Novichok” alleged whistleblower Mirzayanov – and last year OPCW inspectors completed the destruction of the last of 40,000 tonnes of Russian chemical weapons
By contrast the programme of destruction of US chemical weapons stocks still has five years to run
Israel has extensive stocks of chemical weapons but has always refused to declare any of them to the OPCW. Israel is not a state party to the Chemical Weapons Convention nor a member of the OPCW. Israel signed in 1993 but refused to ratify as this would mean inspection and destruction of its chemical weapons. Israel undoubtedly has as much technical capacity as any state to synthesise “Novichoks”.
Until this week, the near universal belief among chemical weapons experts, and the official position of the OPCW, was that “Novichoks” were at most a theoretical research programme which the Russians had never succeeded in actually synthesising and manufacturing. That is why they are not on the OPCW list of banned chemical weapons.
Porton Down is still not certain it is the Russians who have apparently synthesised a “Novichok”. Hence “Of a type developed by Russia”. Note developed, not made, produced or manufactured.
It is very carefully worded propaganda. Of a type developed by liars.
This post prompted another old colleague to get in touch. On the bright side, the FCO have persuaded Boris he has to let the OPCW investigate a sample. But not just yet. The expectation is the inquiry committee will be chaired by a Chinese delegate. The Boris plan is to get the OPCW also to sign up to the “as developed by Russia” formula, and diplomacy to this end is being undertaken in Beijing right now.
I don’t suppose there is any sign of the BBC doing any actual journalism on this?
Erratum – I originally typed “nerve gas” and not “nerve agent” in the first line – purely my error.
Article: Craig Murray
Article: John Lunch
David Cameron said in 2012 that his new year’s resolution was to “kill off the health and safety culture for good”.
Health and safety legislation has become an “albatross around the neck of British businesses”, he wailed costing them “billions of pounds a year”.
“I don’t think there’s any one single way you can cut back the health and safety monster,” said Mr Cameron. “You’ve got to look at the quantity of rules – and we’re cutting them back; you’ve got to look at the way they’re enforced.”
Doesn’t look good in the wake of a fire which has killed over a hundred people – a wholly preventable fire that leaves charred bodies and a burnt out tower block as symbols of Cameron’s heroic slaying of the “health and safety monster”.
The residents group that repeatedly warned the owners of Grenfell Tower of the potential for a catastrophic fire were dismissed with disdain and contempt – troublemakers in the fight against ‘red tape’. Boris Johnson told those who questioned the wisdom of closing three fire stations in the area to “get stuffed”.
Gavin Barwell, now Theresa May’s chief of staff and previously Minster for Housing, told MPs in October 2016 that relevant health and safety regulations would be ‘reviewed’ following the investigation into the fatal 2009 Lakanal House fire in south-east London – the review has yet to appear. The whole purpose of the enquiry into Lakanal House and the subsequent ‘review’ was simply to slow down any enthusiasm for the dreadful monster of health and safety; so it will be with any inquiry into Grenfell.
The response of the tory government and the local tory council to the fire at Grenfell Tower has been predictably disinterested: no help offered on the ground and a drive past from Theresa May who naturally didn’t feel inclined to speak to or even wave at any of the little people who had lost homes and loved ones. When the papers kicked up a fuss, she went to a hospital – but all encounters between May and ordinary people have to take place within controlled conditions. She lacks the software to fake concern for people she doesn’t care about.
This is to be expected. Tories are not concerned with people, they are the party of assets and capital. Thus when Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party proposed legislation to make homes fit for human habitation the Tories voted it down. No mystery as to why. Their party is replete with millionaire landlords who don’t want the expense of caring about tenants.
Another tory hero of the fight against health and safety, former housing minister Brandon Lewis said this of the sprinkler systems which would have saved lives at Grenfell Tower:
“We believe that it is the responsibility of the fire industry, rather than the Government, to market fire sprinkler systems effectively and to encourage their wider installation.”
In other words, if protecting people from burning to death inconveniences capital: fuck off.
Leaving health and safety regulations in the hands of tories is like asking UKIP to build centres to welcome refugees. They are not merely uninterested, they are deeply hostile. Health and Safety is fine in the airbags of the luxury cars they drive and the construction materials of the exclusive hotels they stay at. It is never to protect poor people at the expense of landlords. After all, they are the landlords.
There are plenty of empty residences deployed by vulture capital as tokens in London’s property casino, that could very easily be seized by the government and used to house those who lost everything at Grenfell Tower – but we know they won’t be. Such a move would set a dangerous precedent of caring for people over property. No conservative government will ever do that.
The whole putrid pantomime of how the establishment obscures and excuses the contempt of the wealthy for the well-being of anyone else is now in full effect.
The Daily Mail rushed to publish a photograph of the guy whose malfunctioning fridge perhaps sparked the fire. He was black, you see, and drinking a pint of beer which explains everything in the eyes of its hate filled readership.
The Telegraph and The Sun rushed to smear the local community as a mob and their legitimate anger as the work of hard left activists and (incredibly!) the death toll as ‘fake news’ spread by Corbyn supporters. The Telegraph declines to explain quite where the 70 or so people who remain ‘missing’ have gone – doubtless they are all part of some Marxist conspiracy.
The Queen has been wheeled out to mollify the masses and there will inevitably be much huff and puff in the media for a couple of weeks.
There will be an enquiry which will take 6 years to report and the tories will courageously hide behind that report and change nothing in the interim.
No lessons will be learnt since none are necessary. We all know that over 100 people died at Grenfell Tower because its owners wanted to save five grand on cladding and the cost of the sprinklers. The culture that normalises such decisions will not be changed.
The usual suspects will bellow “enough is enough”, recommendations about fire safety might be sneaked out behind other news in 2023 and a voluntary code suggested.
We know already that the Grenfell fire represents corporate manslaughter but oddly it took a Labour MP to say so. There will of course be no prosecutions in the end. An establishment which has managed to stall and obfuscate for Tony Blair since the Iraq War is more than capable of sweeping the charred remains of some poor people in a tower block under the carpet.
Britain routinely elects a clique of millionaire landlords and the ultra wealthy to run things, so we can only presume that our state religion is now the worship of money and the already powerful. Prioritising the demands of capital over people is what tories do. It’s what they always do. If you listen to them it’s actually all they talk about.
The next time you hear tories gleefully muttering about cutting ‘red tape’ you can be sure that it will favour them and not you. This is an interesting political parlour game which can be viewed like a football match between blue and red teams until it starts killing you or members of your family.
Since the tory brexiteers are chomping at the bit to make a bonfire of all the tiresome EU legislation concerning health and safety, one might hope that the Grenfell Tower fire might be a wake up call for a nation sleepwalking towards being a third world tax haven – I doubt it will be.
Follow Sodium Haze on Facebook
Article: Beatrix Campbell
These are some of the thoughts I shared with a splendid gathering in Melbourne, We Revolt At Dawn, organised by the Search Foundation and the Victoria Women’s Trust, on 9 November
Let’s begin with bodies…we wake, we are ashamed and afraid; it feels awkward, creepie in a way, to be in our skin, we don’t belong to ourselves. Humans never do, of course, we belong to air and the soil, and if we are lucky we are held by love. But for some of us, sometimes day in day out, we are entombed in the memory of that man.
There are 1.3 million people in the UK who emerged from childhood having been sexually abused by the time they reach 18, according to the Children’s Commissioner’s Report, Protecting Children from Harm.
Abuse and harassment is always on the horizon.
Then there are the people who go to work expecting to work, only to find themselves snared, by a man, that man.
A man, perhaps a man like Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey, wakes and he knows what he wants: you! He plans his position, his props, the environment. He anticipates the predicable pleasures: he loses some, he wins some, it doesn’t matter which because he enjoys the choreography, the risk, the anticipation and finally the look on a your face when he opens the door, when you see him and shock is written all over your face.
I’m guessing this, because I don’t know what’s in his head.
He never needs to tell us, and no doubt he never will.
One morning, however, this corporate prince discovers that he is accused, and he uses his vast resources to do what powerful men have done forever, find a way of making a woman (or a child) suffer in silence, to make her feel shame and to shut up. Shame, we know, is the greatest gag. Most of the time he wins.
When a corporate prince finds himself accused – this, it is reported, is what Weinstein did – he employs the best sleuths he can afford to find out everything about the women who are talking about him, to make them shut up
He doesn’t just threaten them, slap an injunction on them, terrify them, he makes them spend money they haven’t got to defend themselves. He might even pay out to pay off. But it’s never enough.
He does more, he finds out about them, he delves into their lives, he wants to know all about them in order to control them.
The first strategy is to make their bodies serve his and become subordinate to his, in a context, a space, that is controlled by him, or a space that is what Prof Liz Kelly calls conducive context.
That manoeuvre is compounded by another: to stealth bomb their lives, leaving people unable to trust anyone, to spy, know stuff that’s none of his business; all a way to have them, control them, to silence them.
The hacking scandal exposed the way the Murdoch press seized control of private lives by knowing stuff and leaking stuff that wasn’t secret, it was just private.
On both of these fronts we were witnessing corporate patriarchy at work
But one dawn a woman called Rose McGowan woke ready for revolutionary action. She did that most radical thing: not shut up, tell her story and call a corporate king to account.
The effect has been electrifying: women, and now some men, have taken control of the body discourse. The old story told by so many men for so long is exposed and all over the world sexual harassment is broadcast as no joke but as a strategy of bodily dominion.
I was sitting in an airport the other day, on my way to Australia, talking about all this with a bloke who sat next to me. In his seemingly genial way he started a conversation. What was I doing in Oz, he said, I was doing a talking tour, I explained, about feminism, and socialism.
‘I’m a feminist, I love women,’ he said.
‘But you know some of those women knew what they were doing,’ he said, ‘didn’t they, I mean they went into those rooms, they agreed, surely they knew….’
‘Did they?’ I asked. ‘What could they have known? And doing what they had to do was not the same as doing what they wanted to do. Did any of them want to do what he demanded?’
As feminism would have it, you can’t consent to something unless you can withhold your consent.
Why, I wondered, was this the first thing he had to say about the revelations about Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey?
The last thing I want to say – for the moment – is this: I don’t know any women who have not been sexually harassed. We know that the culture industries harbour harassment, they have been conducive contexts. Now they’re saying they’re not. Just like that.
But patriarchies solicit women’s subordination and participation, and of course interpret women’s submission as consent.
So, the question is: how do the cultural industry institutions know that they are no longer conducive contexts? What have they done? Have they created a conducive context for women to share their secrets, to describe how all this stuff happens, to name the guilty men to someone, and for the guilty men to disclose their Modus Operandi? And how do these agencies know, all of a sudden, that the men who are sexually harassing women right now – or allowing men to do it – will stop?
I think the Parliamentary Select Committee for Culture, Media and Sport should find out.
Reporting on cultural and creative events along with a broad view of social issues.
Why not subscribe to our mailing list for some occasional updates from 55factory.