Tag Archive | feminism

NZ schoolgirls told to cover knees – from teachers

$$-AAA-001In 1955 Vladimir Nabakov wrote his controversial novel Lolita. The novel tells the story of the antihero, Humbert Humbert, having had a sexual encounter at an early age, becomes obsessed with young teenage girls, takes up a career as a school teacher, and marries a woman in order to gain access to her 14-year-old daughter Dolores, aka Lolita, with him he has become madly infatuated. After the mother’s untimely death, Humbert takes Lolita on the road with him, until she goes missing from a hospital, leading to Humbert hunting her down for two years. Very dark in it’s subject matter, the novel tells of Lolita fleeing an abusive partner, ending up pregnant, Humbert killing her abuser and Lolita dying in childbirth.

In the novel it is Humbert who insists that it is Lolita who manipulated and seduced him, when properly interpreted, it is she who is the victim of men unable to control their lusts. Since it’s publication in 1959, “Lolita” has been used as a common term for sexually promiscuous and manipulative teenage girls. And there is a common thread which goes right back to the novel; blaming the victim, which is an all-too-common trait sexual abusers of children.

So as both a feminist and survivor of childhood sexual abuse, when I heard the story of Henderson High School in Auckland, New Zealand, I immediately recognised a culture of blaming a victim, and worse still, became somewhat alarmed at the mention of adult males in the context of the story. This school has dictated to it’s female pupils that skirts must be worn below the knee, to prevent the male pupils becoming distracted. Now, it is not uncommon to hear this; it has happened in schools all over the world, and roundly needs to be criticised as it is the boys who need to stop looking upon the girls as sex objects; there’s the blaming the victim right away. What singles Henderson High out however, is the rather disturbing way they have gone a step further, and stated that this rule is also to prevent male teachers becoming distracted – by girls who could be as young as 13.

Sade Tuttle, a student at the school, states that a group of 40 girls were told by Deputy Head Teacher Cherith Telford after an assembly that the rule to keep skirts below the knee were necessary to “keep our girls safe, stop boys from getting ideas and create a good work environment for male staff”. And should anyone think that is but one teenage girl trying to stir up shit against her school, then it appears that her story has been corroborated, by no less than the Principal of Henderson High, Mike Purcell, who has stated that rules around school uniforms are “regularly enforced to ensure that all students and teachers can focus on their learning and feel comfortable in the school environment. All families are made aware of them when they enrol students. The rules include a stipulation that the hemline of female students’ skirts must be on the knee, no higher. This rule is in line with most New Zealand schools where uniforms are worn.”

Nobody is for one moment disputing the rules surrounding the length of school uniform skirts in New Zealand. It is the handling of this matter by Henderson High School which seriously needs to be called into question. Ms Tuttle said it best; “The rules themselves aren’t the problem; the problem is when these codes target girls specifically because their bodies are sexual and distracting”, as did another student, who stated that she went to school to be educated – not to be sexualised. A former pupil went further; “How about you stop telling 15 year old girls – that aren’t even legal to have sex – how sexual their knees are and how they need to cover themselves up because its a risk and distracting to male staff,” she posted on Facebook, “How about you don’t hire staff that are going to get aroused by a teenage girls knees?”

One has to ask what prompted Ms Telford and Mr Purcell to word the ruling in this manner? Were there male pupils who had made complaints? And worse still, were there male teachers who voiced their concern? In both cases, it is the boys and men who need to be educated not to look upon the female pupils as sexual objects. But if any adult male has brought the matter up, I would suggest that the professionalism of that teacher immediately needs to be called into question, because frankly, that is setting off a whole load of alarm bells in my head.

I am not for one moment denying that some teenage girls can be little minxes – it happens. Some girls can, do and will push the envelope wherever possible and see how far they can hitch their skirts up. Equally, young teenage girls can and do become infatuated with boys and even male teachers at schools. Just as some young teenage boys can and do become infatuated with girls and female teachers. And yes, they will go out of their way to dress in a way to show off their bodies – and their bulges (oh, hide it, for goodness sake – nobody’s impressed). Human beings are sexual creatures and in the nightmare of puberty, when our hormones completely screw up our minds and we start discovering our sexuality, it is quite common for this to happen. But when this does happen, the onus is always – always – upon the adult to behave like an adult and gently put the child down. And that is never more important than when that adult is a professional entrusted with a duty of care to those children. Anyone who denies that is behaving like Humbert, attempting to shift the blame onto Lolita. And if anyone cares to search the internet for court cases involving paedophilia and hebephilia (sexual attraction to pubescent or post-pubescent teens – Humbert was a hebephile, not a paedophile) then they will find that most defendants attempt this line of blaming the victim.

Some may think I am making quite a jump from school uniforms to actual convictions of child sex abusers. I say prevention is better than cure, and one has to watch out for the warning signs. If any teacher, or any professional entrusted with a duty of care to children, looks upon their charges with any degree of sexuality, that person is not fit for the post they are holding and needs to be removed and investigated. Should anyone think I am overplaying this, then consider that in the 1970s the rather sick Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) – who sought civil ‘rights’ for paedophiles and hebephiles – had a list of suggested careers for paedophiles; top of the list was join the clergy, second was to become a school teacher.

The whole issue goes deeper however, and surrounds the way that girls are sexualised from an early age. I recall once reading an article in one of my mother’s magazines which utterly horrified me. It was written by a mother trying to justify buying her daughter “frothy” undies, because “she just wants to be just like mummy”. There again was an adult acting without any sense of proportion, but then when there are firms and stores which produce and sell ‘sexy’ lingerie for little girls, it is yet one more symptom of the overall sickness. And no, I am not blaming the victim here, merely saying that adults need to act with some sense of propriety. Every little girl likes to make herself look pretty, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But when that crosses the line from making herself look pretty for her own self esteem, to making herself ‘attractive’ for the attention of males who can’t control themselves, it immediately becomes a problem. No young girl becomes “Lolita” on her own; it is adults who make her so.

Yet society too owes a responsibility to that. The fact is that girls and women, are sexualised, sexually harassed, abused, and raped from tiny babies to the extremely elderly, at all times of day, in all kinds of environments, whether they are attractive or plain – and in whatever they are wearing. Even nuns in habits and Islamic women in full burqah and niqab are not immune from from the unwelcome sexual advances of men. And then of course, one has to ask what does and does not constitute seductive clothing. Well this can cover a great many things, including lingerie, mini skirts, boob tubes, basques, stockings, nurses uniforms, ermm – nun’s habits, and of course – school uniforms. Doubt the latter? Stores and online outlets selling sexual cosplay gear make a fortune out of ‘naughty schoolgirl’ costumes, Britney Spears got a number one on the back of a video of girls in school uniforms, Japanese anime is full of them, and the St Trinian’s movies (old and modern) did indeed sexualise schoolgirls in uniforms, as did The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.

So, if school uniforms are already sexualised, if girls are already sexualised, then the Deputy and Principal of Henderson High School have openly discriminated against their female students and are now trying to hide behind the dress code for most New Zealand schools. They are in fact further blaming those who are already victims, when in reality they seriously need to address their own behaviours, as well as those of their male students, and more importantly still, their adult male staff, whom they may well wish to examine more closely, in order to root out any potential ‘Humberts’ – before it’s too late.

Christian Domestic Discipline for those who like their pantaloons crotchless

ImageI just know Lovies, you are going to think this a joke at first, as I did too.  But I have been directed to a website by a Christian wife who talks about having a good spanking from her husband to keep her in her place, and to spice up their sex lives.

Now, far be it from me to ever cast aspersions upon the sex life of another.  And I have nothing wrong with anyone playing sub to a dominant partner, nor with a good spanking as bit of play as a sexual activity.  This woman, however, is something else.  Not only does she want to live her life like that, she suggests that EVERY Christian wife should behave in the same way.

Leah, to name the woman in question, states “Christian Domestic Discipline is not BDSM. It is not a game”  Rather she states “A Christian Domestic Discipline marriage is set up according to the guidelines set forth in the Holy Bible, meaning the husband has authority over his wife within the bounds of God’s Word and enforces that authority, if need be, through discipline including but not limited to spanking.”  Leah then, through several pages, goes off on a diatribe of what constitutes a good Christian wife (in her estimation obviously) and how every Christian woman (also in her estimation) should follow her example, whilst throwing in not a little bigotry to boot.

Parts of it are laughable but many parts of it are frankly odious, and so puritanical that even a Stepford Wife would laugh at them.

Of course, the entire premise of Leah’s argument is based upon the Fall of Man in the Book of Genesis, and the fact that it was Eve who was first tempted by the serpent, for which God punished her; Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  (Genesis 3:16, KJV).  One will notice however that there is no mention here of a husband’s ‘right’ to beat his wife, as there is never any such stipulation anywhere in the Bible.

Leah tries to argue this is shown in Ephesians 5:22-24.  Yet in fact, those verses neither give a husband the right to lay hands upon his wife.  It merely states Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the LordFor the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”  In the same article it is argued “although American divorce rates have historically been higher than those in Europe, perhaps owing to the type of woman likely to emigrate from Europe to America – is it coincidental that divorce rates spiralled as spanking declined. Well, possibly dear, but I’m not sure if you are making a statement or asking a question, due to the absence of a questionmark.  One immediately sees however the bigotry raising it’s head in the words the type of woman. Brazen hussies that they are.  But then, it could be more likely that divorce rates spiralled as more and more women realised they do not have to stay in abusive marriages.

In the article “It Ain’t in the Bible”, Leah attempts to twist various Bible verses to justify spanking a wife.  This she does while at the same time stating “Thus, while the Bible may not specifically command it, comes very close to saying that a woman who is wrecking her house by whatever mean deserves to be punished until she is bruised.”

Yes, you did read that right “punished until she is bruised”.  Leah claims this is justified by quoting (and misinterpreting) Proverbs 20:30; The blueness of a wound cleanseth away evil: so do stripes the inward parts of the belly.” We can only assume from this that Leah would even consider a husband striking his wife across her stomach to be justified.  One can only wonder if that includes when she is pregnant?

Probably the most disturbing part of this section is where Leah perversely twists the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman; “Parenthetically, it might be worth noting that the biblical punishment for adultery was death (Leviticus 20:10). Since an adulterous woman getting beat with a stick until she thought she would die might be considered preferable to being hit with stones until she died (John 8:3) since the former is less harmful remedy.”  This of course is the famous incident where Jesus is said to have rebuked a baying mob; So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7, KJV).  You will notice that Leah, rather conveniently, does not mention that part.

I had to laugh at the section on CDD Husbands, which is self contradictory.  At one point Leah tells men “Encourage her to do things that are good for her… like get plenty of rest, good nutrition (but you should NEVER tell her she is fat or point out any other flaw), study for a test, etc.” then follows that up with the statement, “Don’t be afraid to give your opinion when she asks.”  Now, both as Xandra and my alter ego – “him” – knows all too well that when a woman sometimes asks a question, that is often a test.  If a woman asks the question “Does this dress make my bum look big?” most men are already well aware that is a signal to pay her a compliment.  It is an extremely unwise man who will truthfully offer his opinion by saying “No dear, that dress doesn’t make your bum look too big at all.  It’s too many cream cakes and not enough exercise doing that.” Leah can say what she wants but there are honestly times when a man gives his honest opinion he is just ASKING for trouble.  Ain’t that right girls?

Leah adds in the same section “Above all, never, never, never behave as if you cannot live without her, which will only cause her to lose respect for you.”  No Leah dear, that is your viewpoint and experience.  Every woman is different.  I daily tell my S I love her and make it clear that I could not live without her, as I am aware she could not live without me.  That does not kill respect.  If anything, it deepens it.

In “The Appearance of a Lady” Leah talks of how a woman should dress, depressingly stating the expected Deuteronomy 22:5; The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” 

Leah states “The Lord feels so strongly about this, in fact, that He refers to a woman wearing a man’s clothing an “abomination” – something that is loathed by God. If our outer appearance was of no consequence to God, why would He use such strong language in the preceding scripture?” but then goes on to say, “I do not believe it is wrong for a woman to wear a pair of pants fashioned for a woman, but to be truly feminine… to look the part of a lady… it is infinitely preferrable to wear a dress.”  This is called having your cake and eating it, and there is word for this Leah dear, it is called hypocrisy.

Leah bases her argument upon this statement, “Since during those times men and women both wore something akin to robes, I believe this verse is highly dependent on the culture of the day. Our culture today accepts pants on both men and women, and pants are made for both men and women. Therefore it stands to reason that a woman wearing women’s pants is dressed as a woman, not a man.”

This argument fails on two levels.  Firstly, Leah is obviously thinking only of Biblical Judea where both men and women wore robes.  However, silken “harem trousers” for women are so ancient that their origin cannot be dated.  Plus at the same time both sexes in Judea were wearing robes, women (and men) in ancient Greece were wearing trousers for horse riding.  Secondly, there must have been a time when it became acceptable for women to wear trousers, which whether Leah likes it or not, were considered to be purely male apparel, thereby breaking the ordnance in Deuteronomy 22:5.

Probably the greatest facepalm moment in this section has to be when Leah makes the moronic bimbo statement, “However, the item of clothing that truly separates a man from a woman in today’s culture is the female dress or skirt. When one draws a stick person, he puts pants on him to make him seem male and a skirt on her to make her seem female.  Hence we know which door to enter for the ladies’ restroom.”

It is also interesting to note that in that same section Leah quotes 1 Timothy 2:9; “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” then goes on to say in “Cultivating Femininity,”; “So go ahead and celebrate your girlhood! Put on a pair of pretty dangling earrings, buy that dainty peasant blouse, paint your toenails a delicate shell pink.” Hypocrisy again.

And of course it is important for young people to remain chaste and virgins under they marry.  In “Purity Counts” Leah states “Purity does still matter, not only to you and God, but to guys as well.”  She then goes on to tell a tale about some of her sons friends apparently looking up to her daughter because she is pure and chaste (anyone else smelling the bullshit here?) and states,  “My younger son’s friends pride themselves on being a unique bunch of guys.  Among them you can find long hair, short hair, lip rings, earrings, tie-died hippie types, vegetarian types, musicians, jocks, even a couple of Christians, but the one thing they all have in common (and I have asked all of them) is that they eventually want to marry a woman like my daughter… someone who is virginal, someone who knows how to cook, care for kids, and keep a home. They might play around with other types of woman, but when it comes to settling down, purity counts!”

Now, personally, I think that celibacy is it’s own punishment, however if that’s anyone else’s bag, that is fine by me.  However, when any Christian starts talking about the Bible and virginity, they would do well to remember that pertains to men as well as to women.  For Leah therefore to apparently have no problem with her son’s friends (and supposedly her son) messing around with loose women, then look down her nose at “other types of women” is again absolutely hypocrisy.

“Making the Switch” is more of the same about wearing dresses, about how Leah prefers to wear dresses because they make her feel feminine, and about how they are cooler in summer.  Good for her.  I couldn’t agree more.  There was part of the same article made me sit up and take notice however;

“At first I wore Capri leggings underneath my skirts, but I quickly learned those made me feel as masculine as they looked. So I went to tights. Ugh. I LOATHE tights and pantyhose. So I thought about what women in history have done and decided to make myself some feminine undergarments to wear underneath my skirts. I remember pulling up my skirt and showing my friends. It’s so hard to keep those frilly pantaloons a secret.

THEN my husband threw a wrench in my spokes when he asked me to stop wearing underwear under my skirts. This was NOT an order, so don’t go getting all upset with him. This was him half-jokingly telling me he’d really love it if I were perpetually “available” to him, and since he is such a wonderful husband, I wanted to submit to that request. 

So now on cold days I wear crotch-less pantaloons with knee-high socks or hose. They are made from soft cotton muslin. They usually have a ruffle or lace at the edge. They are comfortable and definitely make me feel feminine, and I am still “available” for my husband. Problem solved.”

Curiosity, as we all know dears, killed the cat.  So it was thus intrigued I did a Google Images search for crotchless pantaloons.  Ye Gods and little children!  That has to be the most horrific, unsexiest garment I have EVER encountered in my life.  Underwear like that needs to be buried in an ancient oak grove during an arcane nude ceremony at midnight on the night of a full moon.  Were he not such a sexist jerk, I may almost have felt sorry for Leah’s husband.

The section on Feminism under CDD Wives has to be the saddest part of the entire site, where Leah continually berates and misrepresents feminists.  In “Can a bad tree bring forth good fruit?” she states “The feminist movement officially began with only a handful of discontented women who decided to launch a rebellion against their government, their husbands, and society.”  Not a word about the suffragette struggle to get women the vote nor the continuing struggle for women to get equal pay, equal rights and a level playing field with men you will notice.

Worse than this, Leah goes on to demonise feminists as witches;

“Even though these women are hailed as heroines by our culture today, we as Christian women should form our own opinion of their rebellious actions, formed through scriptural knowledge. One such scripture to be aware of is found in 1 Samuel 15:23: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry…”

“Faces of Feminism” meanwhile completely misrepresents the feminist cause by throwing a load of radical “feminazi” man-hating quotes, which Leah purports to be the true face of mainstream feminism.

In “Why my Daughter is not a Girl Scout” Leah takes a swipe at Girl Scouts of America, with all the usual slurs against lesbians and pointing out that as a member, her daughter may have been taken along to field trips organised by Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood is an American organisation which among other things offers help and advice on family planning, women’s health and even carries out mammograms to detect breast cancer.  They can arrange for terminations, but this is only ever as a last resort and PP will always make any women aware of alternatives beforehand.  If you listen to the US religious right however, they would have you believe that PP is purely an abortion clinic who advocate it as a means of birth control. This is a complete untruth and one which Leah has bought all too readily into; “Girl Scouts of America was involved, perhaps even heavily involved, with Planned Parenthood. As a mother who’d helped her daughter sell Girl Scout cookies for several years, I was crushed. Had my efforts been going toward killing babies?”  Leah goes on to say, “Surprisingly, as soon as my daughter heard of the connection between Girl Scouts and abortion, she no longer wanted to be a Girl Scout anyway.”  No Leah dear, not surprising at all, as you are obviously brainwashing your daughter with the same lying bullshit you buy into.  Well done.  By spoon feeding her lies you may well have condemned her to death by breast cancer.

Of course, Leah has other problems with Girl Scouts of America, including “The Girl Scouts had systematically removed lessons on homemaking from their manuals while adding lessons on famous feminist “heroes” and encouraging field trips to Planned Parenthood.” Because Heaven forbid any daughter of hers should ever grow to become another Florence Nightingale, Marie Curie, Ilse Meitner (discoverer of nuclear fission) or Valentina Tereshkova (first woman in space), right?  No, no.  That’s way too scary for a woman.  Better still to remain in the home, barefoot and pregnant, ready for a spanking and for her husband to take his “conjugal rights” through her crotchless pantaloons.

And of course, there are continual sideswipes throughout at lesbians.  In fact, the Girl Scouts article ends, “Would you be a member of the KKK knowing what they stood for even if you didn’t participate in their nasty deeds? Would you belong to the Society for Cutting Up Men (SCUM), even though you didn’t really cut up anybody? Of course not. You would not want to be identified as a member of such an organization. Then why would you want your daughter to be identified as a member of an organization that promotes abortion, feminism and lesbianism?”

All in all Leah can say what she wants but the bottom (no pun intended) line of this entire site is it is a charter for battered wives to remain battered wives.  I began by feeling sorry for Leah because I thought she had some modicum of intelligence.  Yet the more and more of her site I read, the more and more I am becoming convinced she is just yet one more ignorant religious bigot parroting others and attempting to convince other women that her way of life is how every woman should behave.

At the beginning of the site Leah states “Christian Domestic Discipline is not domestic violence. Neither is it abuse. It is an arrangement between two adults who share the belief that the husband is the head of the household and with that position comes the right to enforce his authority.”

She is right in one thing; it most certainly is not BDSM.  It is violence and it is abuse.  No matter what Leah may claim, no matter how she tries to twist scripture, there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify a man hitting his wife.  In the UK there used to be the rule that a man could beat his wife with a rod no thicker than his thumb; this is where the term Rule of Thumb comes from.  Similarly it is only as recently as 1976 when a test case proved that it was possible for a husband to rape his wife; before then he was considered to be taking what were his “conjugal rights”.  These things were allowed because women were not even looked upon as people but rather as property, firstly of their fathers, then later of their husbands.  We look upon all the above today as remnants of a barbaric past.  Leah Kelley and people like her, with their indoctrinated beliefs in CDD which turn them into willing victims of domestic violence, would seek to undo all the legislation which has brought the rights of women forward and quite rightfully protects women from male violence.

And should anyone doubt that, then consider that Leah advises that partners in a CDD marriage sign a consent agreement first, should there be legal problems later.  She does not stipulate what these problems may be, but that she has such an agreement is enough to tell me there is no trust in her relationship with her husband.  And where there is no trust, there cannot possibly be any love.

One can only imagine what Leah would make of us in the CD / Trans community.  She would probably have a coronary.  That being said, I’d like to hear some feedback from some of my sisters on this article, particularly those of you identify as Christian.  Yes Clare Flourish dear, I’m looking in YOUR direction.


Xandra xxxx

Link to the CDD website: