Period poverty / 'bleeders'

[Beagadorsrock]

"
❤️Jane Austen was a Super Plus fan, Lizzie preferred a Mooncup + Emma didn't leave Hartfield without her Thinx. But some bleeders in the UK can't afford sanitary products, imagine the scandal at the ball!💃🏽 Donate to @bloodygood__ this Festive Period & help someone's #flowhoho❣️"

twitter.com/ladycariad/status/1072068738147631104

Very disappointing. I can't believe we are back in the Middle Ages so comprehensively.
And no, using 'bleeder' is not "more inclusive" because it includes trans men. It is massively, massively reducing women to a (distasteful and historically considered 'impure') bodily function.

Can I start referring to men as "standuppissers"?

There was another young woman on the radio this week talking about her charity which she set up with some friends to take goods and tents etc to Calais. She was asked why she set it up and she said :

"We were concerned because we didn't see any representation of us in the discussion of the refugee issue".

Us, Our Representation. What about Us, Me, My identity? I need to be the sort of person who does this sort of good thing.

I'm sure somewhere in there she had a good aim but I was pretty horrified by the blatant need to have herself at the centre of the story. I'm sure she was genuinely concerned about the people in Calais - but the narcissism couldn't help but creep out.

Likewise here.

I'd also be interested to know from Gaby's impact assessments and beneficiary information how many non-binary refugee women who don't want to be known as women have ever availed themselves of their service. I'm guessing close to zero. I'm also guessing they don't put much effort into impact assessments.

Charities run by big egos with little knowledge of or interest in running accountable organisations. Kids Company, anyone?

They're not very consistent either. Remember that question from the FAQs:

"What about Men/Non-Menstruators?"

According to them, men (ie trans men) can be menstruators. That's the whole point of using the term "bleeders" instead of "women". But with this FAQ they seem to be saying they can't be.

They haven't thought any of it through, have they?

I can’t imfine any ‘person’ needing charity handouts of tampons could be arsed to debate to word soup of today’s rightons.

I can imagine them holding out the box above their head and saying ‘what are you? Bleeder - say it! Say it! Bleeder! No. Not woman - blee-see. Do you want this or not? Say it or you can just puddle your pants’

The whole thing is incredible narcissistic behaviour when the conversation is irrelevant to those the charity is supposed to be for. It smacks of privilege to have these people who claim to be thinking of others, run campaigns that focus on this inclusive language BS that only extremely privileged westerners could possibly have time for. It is gross and insulting to women, but equally insulting to the intended recipients.

I worked for a charity and it was all about ... the people who used the charity. We weren’t there to preach, monitor their thoughts and words or ‘teach them a lesson’.

These ‘folls’ smack of middle class ninnies who want to flounce about ‘oh I run a small charity for minorities dontcha know’ and live off their trust funds. I’ve met a few. Never get their bloody hands dirty and sit in nice officers and go to parties and awards for the glory.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD

You are so right. I’ve known a few like that too. It’s one thing to force their misogynistic terms on us, we have the choice to avoid and not donate, but to do it in the name of refugees is just bullshit

I think it’s yah charity bingo.

These ‘folls’ smack of middle class ninnies who want to flounce about ‘oh I run a small charity for minorities dontcha know’ and live off their trust funds.

Yes. I have no illusions about people who work in charities.

Well I did work for one for a while - but we actually got our hands dirty and did stuff for people. It definitely wasn’t for the honours or glory!

They do appear to do good work (if their twitter, insta, media appearances etc is reflective of the work they’ve done). It’s just a pity they are so bloody(!) woke they can’t see that they are throwing their own sex under the bus. And retweeting this type of misogynistic rhetoric is shameful. And what’s wrong with being named Sue.

I wonder who could possibly think that Jane Austen characters represented everything modern women should be or aspire to be?

Wait. I'm sure it will come to me...

Ah.... if that's what Munroe thinks 'terfs' are like then she's clearly not talking about MN in general and FWR in particular. Well, that's nice to know, anyway.

I wonder who could possibly think that Jane Austen characters represented everything modern women should be or aspire to be?

Actually, most Jane Austen heroines have healthier boundaries and more critical thinking skills than modern libfems.

(Just think of how aware Charlotte Lucas was of her material reality and how she set out to carve out a tolerable life for herself. She didn't delude herself into believing that she had choosey choice chosen to marry an annoying man.)

They would, however, certainly not have had access to mooncups or tampons if they had really existed.
And we should certainly strive for more freedom than Jane Austen dared give them.

Fair enough Hestia I was thinking more though of the Lydias.

I took the tweet to be referring to the silly women gossiping about balls (not the anatomical sort )

I'd prefer it to be universally acknowledged that not all adult women must be in need of a pretty frock.

if that's what Munroe thinks 'terfs' are like then she's clearly not talking about MN in general and FWR in particular.

Well, quite. Most of us resist gender stereotypes - dolls, make-up, dresses and the rest. It would be a very odd kind of "radical feminist" if we were really into dressing up and looking nice for our husbands. But I guess Munroe doesn't know much about radical feminism.

Well, quite. Most of us resist gender stereotypes - dolls, make-up, dresses and the rest. It would be a very odd kind of "radical feminist" if we were really into dressing up and looking nice for our husbands. But I guess Munroe doesn't know much about radical feminism.

Because MN is just about the only major outlet for anti-TRA shite at present, it's important to them to posit us as right-wing Stepford clones. The fact that many of us are quite the opposite (some of us don't even have children!) and have resisted social stereotypes all our lives isn't compatible with the TRA narrative.

But I guess Munroe doesn't know much about radical feminism.

Or any feminism, really. Or even the history of anti-feminist caricatures. Honestly, one minute you’re a dungaree-wearing hairy-legged militant lesbian and the next you’re Betty Draper, such a busy life being one of the Bad Women.

I don’t really see them on my horizon but did see a tweet yesterday of them in some ‘glamour’ shots. The top looked fake (and uncomfortable) in one particular shot, and they seem to be copying Jessica Rabbit, which is a very cartoon idealised pinup version of ‘woman’.

Would they still feel like a woman in their old mans sweatshirt and unisex jeans with no makeup/false nails and baby sick in their hair? Is it all just style over substance? It’s like the 1950s - be a tart or

A woman may dress like that but not have comments or attention. They receive attention because they do. That’s not being a woman then is it?

It’s like me learning to speak perfect mandarin and having an article on China Daily about my linguistic prowess of - being able to speak. Several million Chinese people all roll theirs eyes at once and say ‘so what - woman speaks Chinese - and?’.

Vicky and 53rd - yes, exactly. They can't decide whether we are mindless Stepford wives obsessed with our appearance and our babies or ugly, extremist man-hating feminazis. It's Shrodinger's Mumsnetter!

It's notable that in their range of caricatures of women, "intelligent, educated, thoughtful feminist" just doesn't exist.

If they can’t define what it (being a woman) is, they can’t bloody well be it.

Pink News Coverage:

'Comedian Cariad Lloyd hounded off Twitter by anti-trans trolls'
Patrick Kelleher 12th December 2018,

British comedian Cariad Lloyd has deactivated her Twitter account after anti-trans trolls attacked her for using inclusive language when talking about periods.

Cariad Lloyd posted a tweet yesterday where she asked her followers to consider donating to Bloody Good Period, a charity that aims to eliminate period poverty.

In the tweet, Lloyd said: “Jane Austen was a Super Plus fan, Lizzie preferred a Mooncup + Emma didn’t leave Hartfield without her Thinx.

“But some bleeders in the UK can’t afford sanitary products, imagine the scandal at the ball!” She then asked people to consider donating to the charity this festive season.

However, she received backlash from anti-trans trolls online, who took issue with her use of the term “bleeders” rather than women.

Describing people who menstruate as “bleeders” includes all people who menstruate, which includes trans men and non-binary people.

Graham Linehan, who has been vocal about his opposition to transgender rights, was among those who criticised Lloyd for the tweet.

Cariad Lloyd was ‘supporting inclusivity’
As the backlash intensified, Lloyd deactivated her Twitter account." (continues)

www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/12/12/cariad-lloyd-anti-trans-trolls

Pink News currently targetting of Graham Linehan over point he made in this recent interview about speaking out against oppressive ideologies:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3448797-Glinner-and-Derrick-Jensen-discuss-transactivism

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3390910-Can-we-talk-about-Pink-News-Collecting-examples-of-their-propaganda?pg=3

Tweet seems to have been removed. I miss all the good stuff...

This wasn’t an anti trans thing though - how the hell did they leap from people objecting to being called “bleeders” to it being anti trans???

Only they could make periods an bloody man thing. Hey, not everything is about you.

It’s only a matter of time before they’d readers start saying ‘oh for the love of god!’.