Giving to charity

I do not like being TOLD to give money to charity or being manipulated into feeling embarrassed if I choose not to give. Standing at the supermarket check-out I noticed a bucket with not very much change in it. On the outside there was some blurb about raising money for Childline and Help the Aged (I think). When I opened my purse to get some change out to pay, the cashier helpfully pointed out that I could put my unwanted change in the bucket for charity. My change is not unwanted by any stretch of the imagination. I also think it is very intrusive and rude to comment on the fact that I have a lot of change in my purse and I should be putting it in the charity bucket. Nor could anyone fail to miss the large bucket when they are packing their bags. So why point it out unless to try and shame me into giving? All it did of course, was make me even more determined not to give anything. My charities of choice happen to be: 1 Animal related, usually sanctuaries with a no-kill policy. I've paid annual subscriptions to donkey sanctuaries and others in the UK, and given one-off contributions if I've seen a street collection that I want to support. I used to give regularly to Hunt Sabs when they had a weekly stand on Saturdays. My four dogs have all been rescued, three from shelters, and the current one adopted us when he was living on the streets. I cannot abide cruelty and abuse of animals. They are sentient beings, do not wilfully cause anyone any harm and there is no reason to starve, kick, whip, slash, overwork, and/or torture beautiful animals. 2 I also support charities aimed at helping homeless people - and give to (some) people who are living on the streets in Spain. You get to know the ones who are genuinely homeless, rather than the ones who just blow in for the summer holidays. I can't imagine not having the security and privacy of your own space, however small. At the end of the day, you can close the door and leave the world outside. The guy who ended up dead in the rubbish bin died without dignity. (Story here if you haven't read it before.) 3 I have given - sporadically - to charities aimed at helping older people. There is something about the vulnerability of older people, discarded by society as being of no or little use as they age and who become increasingly unattractive and physically/mentally unwell. Older people are not cute like children, they are not glamorous, they are not even interesting with their boring tales of the past and their superior attitude because they have seen more of life than young ones. Many are lonely - their partner has died, any siblings may have died, or live too far away and have their own lives. Children also have lives elsewhere and rarely visit. That's for those who even have/had children or siblings or partners. There are those on their own who have little contact with the world - a trip to the shops, and then back into their own microcosm as they live from day to day. I think older people can have a very raw deal. In the past I have also given to the RNLI, the British Legion (poppy day), and a number of environmental charities, and historic ones too. Despite not being religious I will give to churches for the maintenance of the buildings. For me, life would be less bearable without the art and beauty that we take for granted as part of daily life. On the rare occasions I buy Christmas cards, I will buy charity ones. If I can't find charity ones I won't buy any. In Spain there was little choice, but I managed to find some cards that supported Medicos del Mundo. What do I consciously avoid? Charities for children. Plenty of people give to those and it is just not a priority for me. Medical research charities. The endless search for mythical supercures strikes me as being a poor use of money. I would rather see money spent on improving quality of life for people living in substandard conditions or with chronic medical problems, rather than providing a so-called cure that may add a couple more years of life. Political parties, religious organisations, gypsies and beggars (ie the ones who actively stick their hands in your face demanding money), any grand-scale organised event whether it is Red Nose Day or PopAThon Event for Africa. None of those have ever had a penny/centimo from me. So there we have it. My choice of charities - those I give to, and those I don't. It is still my choice to make though. And not the choice of the cashier in the supermarket.

Oh no!! Not another 'phone post!!

Except, my life seems to be dominated by telephones and telephone service providers at the moment. So after wondering what had happened to my last Nokia request, I suddenly received yet another mail from them. Good day to you. Kindly follow the steps below: Menu > Settings > Date and Time > Auto -update of date and time > Off I hope the above helps. Do let me know the outcome. Please don't hesitate to contact us again if you have any further questions. Yours sincerely, Evelyn Nokia Service Professional UK & Ireland Team Nokia Care This arrived a mere three weeks after I sent my last, slightly acidic reply. I have decided there are no people in the Nokia Service Centre. There is merely a computer that searchs the emails received, somewhat like a search engine, and then generates the (in) appropriate response. How else can such incompetence be explained?? .................... Oh, and on a totally different theme - the playlist is back at the bottom of the page - but you need to click on it if you want to hear it. This is in deference to those who, like me, don't necessarily like someone else's choice of music.

Yet another telephone rant........

Our latest mobile phones are Nokia. They are not the latest most fashionable state-of-the-art mobile phones by Nokia. They just happen to be the latest, ie most recent ones we have bought.

Just thought I would clear that up before anyone thought I had spent hundreds on a phone that purports to be a camera, a television, a radio, a computer etc etc. And I chose them because Nokia was the least unethical phone I could find available to us here.

So, there I was faffing around with the controls and decided to go for automatic updating of date and time. But when I'd done it, it turned out to be a couple of minutes behind the automatic time on my computer - which has to be correct of course, because it is my beloved Hal Apple laptop. Then I tried to undo it. No, I couldn't change the date and time because it was now automatic. I went through exactly the same steps, and just got a snotty message on screen telling me to stop interfering.

Looked at the nokie online stuff. Nothing of use there, the manual was the same as the one I have. I sighed for the Good Old Days when manuals truly were manuals and actually had some useful information in them. I emailed Nokia support. Naturally I got an automatically-generated unhelpful acknowledgement.

Then I received this: Thank you for contacting Nokia Care. Greetings to you. I hope all is well with you. In response to your email, kindly refer to the steps given below to deactivate the auto update of your Nokia 2680 Slide date and time: Menu > Settings > Date and time > Date (Deactivate the Auto Update) Menu > Settings > Date and time > Time (Deactivate the Auto update) I hope the above helps....

So I emailed back pointing out that I had already tried to do that, but I had not found any option to disable the auto-update and that it didn't come up like that. Then I received a reply (not from the same person): Thank you for contacting Nokia Care. If are unable to activate the auto update of time and date, please ensure 2 things. Firstly, please check if you have followed the steps below: Select Menu > Settings > Date and time. To set the date and time, select Date and time settings. To set the formats for date and time, select Date and time format settings. To set the phone to update the time and date automatically according to the current time zone, select Auto-update of date & time (network service). Secondly, if you are unable to auto-update the time and date automatically, then this feature is not activated by your network operator. Please contact your operator to activate this feature. Have a pleasant day ahead, .... To ensure proper handling, please continue to use the current subject line. Please don't hesitate to contact us again if you have any further questions.

Naturally I emailed back yet again - as invited: I don't think you have understood the problem. I HAVE selected the auto-update option. I now wish to DISABLE it, and can not find how to do it. I can no longer set it manually. It will not let me disable the autoupdate. I want to know how to do that. Thank you. Still waiting for a reply to that one, which was sent more than two weeks ago.

A few points to make: It is not actually my phone, it is my Partner's. But as I am the techy one in the house, I tend to sort computers, televisions, video recorders (in the old days), mobile phones, any programming for thermostats etc etc etc.

Sadly the world does not believe that women are capable of absorbing this amazingly complicated clever stuff into their fluffy little cotton wool head that passes for a brain. So I wrote to Nokia in Nigel's name. I figured if I wrote in my name I would get something on the following lines: 'Do you have the phone switched on?' 'Do you even know how to switch the phone on?' I found it irritating at the time that I chose to use my partner's name but I knew I would lose it if I got a patronising response and I thought it was based on the fact that I was a woman.

As events turned out, I got two useless responses anyway. Sadly I am suspicious about these responses. The English is not what I would use. It sounds on a par with my mediocre Spanish, in that it is not incorrect but it is not normal usage. It just doesn't sound right. Of course I had gone to the same setting to try and reverse it. Dear me. I had looked through every single option on the menu. And as for the second reply....words fail me. Why tell me how to do something when my question is about how to undo it??? Uh??? Why answer a question I hadn't asked?

It seems James and Daniel are Service Professionals from the UK and Ireland team. That doesn't mean they are based there at all though does it? Despite the apparent 'British' or even 'Celtic' names. I really don't give a toss where the online support team is based or what they are called. It would be helpful if a) they could actually provide a solution to the problem and b) read the question and not send a totally ridiculous answer. Maybe the two authors really are called James and Daniel. Whatever they are called, or wherever they are from, they are clearly the on-line equivalent of a telephone call centre and equally as useless.

And why aren't they called Jemima and Daniela for example? Ah, yes, that's right. No credibility because women aren't regarded as sufficiently techy. Now, I find it very hard to believe that in this on-line support centre, there isn't a single woman Service Professional employed, despite the fact that this sort of work is exactly the low-income slave labour job that is carried out by women. But I bet they aren't allowed to send emails in their own name as a woman, and heaven forbid, if it isn't a nice 'British' name. I find it very hard to believe that your online service centre is truly staffed by Jameses and Daniels and other such trendy names.

I should say that in the end I restored it to factory settings, saving all the personal info, and used the usual tweaks to set it back to how I like it. So it's all hunky dory now. Anyway, Nokia, I think you should give ME a job working from home to answer banal questions from technologically incompetent customers, because quite clearly your staff and the crib sheet they follow are just a waste of time.

Fucking Telefonica

Saga runs as follows.

Go back to Spain and discover router doesn't work. Probably died in one of the storms/heavy rains. Don't see why but anyway it was dead. A few weeks after the warranty ran out but no doubt that is coincidental.

Order new one from Telefonica. It will take a week says unhelpful man. Can they speed it up, I ask? Unhelpful man said he would try but it was unlikely. Despite the fact that when I originally contracted for ADSL the router arrived in three days.

One week later what happens? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. No fucking router and no message from the courier company meant to be delivering it. I hoped it might arrive early the next morning when we were due to go back to Gib. No.

I rang Telefonica and asked if they could leave it with the neighbours. Did they have a mobile? No, for fucks sake, they are 80+ years old and actually do not need a mobile - but they are always in. No, that wasn't good enough. So no Telefonica router, I cancelled it.

A few weeks later I took a spare router that I had back to Spain. Connected it up. It worked fine in as much as the ADSL line was functioning and the router and the computer acknowledged each other. But there was a problem with getting onto the internet.

So I rang Telefonica's technical department (Spanish-speaking only) so I could key in the right numbers. Nope. Can't help, there is a problem with your router, you haven't bought it from us. At which point I decided to cancel the ADSL contract.

I rang the English-speaking department ie sales (Telefonica doesn't provide any technical back-up in English, once you have bought a service you need to speak in Spanish if you have any technical problems - but contracts and stuff are dealt with in English).

Apparently I can't cancel because I need to pay the latest bill first. (Bills are sent monthly and around a month in advance).

Fast forward and I pay the bill. I ring up to cancel. I ring up from Gib, so not able to use the freephone service, but paying for an international call. So to cancel I need to provide my passport number. Gets passport and reads off number. No. Not right. Yes, it is. No it isn't.

It seems Telefonica wants the passport number I gave when I originally got the telephone line. Some years ago and since when I have changed passports. How many people carry round an old passport on the off chance they will need it to cancel a service? Well not me for one. 'What if I can't find it?' 'Well that will be very difficult because you need it to cancel this,' she said.

Just why, why, do I have to provide an out-of-date passport number to cancel a service, when I don't have to provide any ID to take it on in the first place? Hauls all paperwork out of cupboard to see if anything had a pre 2005 passport number. Find something.

Ring back. Get helpful Ricardo. He tells me he needs to put a request into the technical department and then I will get a letter asking me to confirm that I want to cancel. That is all I have to do. Really? I thought all I had to do was ring saying I wanted to cancel. I wait patiently for Ricardo to come back to tell me that the request has gone through. I listen to some shit music (note to Telefonica - change that vile music). I swear I will scream if it starts up again. It does. I back out of screaming.

Ricardo doesn't come back. The automated voice message - in Spanish - asks me to rate Telefonica's service following the conclusion of my query (????). So on a scale of 0-9 how satisfied was I? And on a scale of 0-9 would I recommend Telefonica to my friends? No.

ETA This is not a rant about whether Telefonica provides an English-speaking service (which is more than BT would do for Spaniards) it is purely about the difficulty in cancelling a service. I can provide a different rant about their linguistic policy.

Language - chairman, chairwoman, chair

For me, this is one of the classic cases that exemplifies patriarchal etymology. Or to put it in less pretentious language, how the words we use subtly reinforce that men are in charge.

As a child, I was brought up with a very 'traditional' use of words. Women were ladies, something to aspire to, implying a rather nice class of woman, respected by men (who held doors open for ladies), and ladies probably only ever slept with one man in their whole life.

They were correctly addressed on envelopes as Mrs Husband's Initials followed by Husband's Surname. Not only did they lose their surname on marriage, they lost their first name too.

On the rare occasion any of these lovely ladies got involved in meetings and - heaven forbid - got to chair them, they were invariably Madam Chairman. A chair was an inanimate object. People who referred to Chairmen who chaired meetings as Chairs were clearly revolutionary dissidents.

I learnt and absorbed all this etiquette and correct use of language rigorously. Aspiring to be (almost) as good as a man and being called Madam Chairman sounded wonderful. How much more could a young girl want than to be considered remotely equal to a man?

Fast forward some years and I'm sitting in a newspaper office with some women, who could broadly be described as feminist. One of the local councils that I regularly covered was chaired by a woman. It suddenly occurred to me that I should not be referring to her as a man. But what to call her? Chairwoman? Chairperson? I didn't want to get it wrong.

I wanted to tread a fine line between pointing out that she was not a man and not sounding like a radical left-winger. I can't even remember what solution I chose. I just remember I stopped calling women chairmen. There were no hate letters or rants from the editor so it was obviously acceptable.

Moving on a few more years, and I'm in charge of the chief executive's office (sadly not as chief executive) and I had responsibility for managing the board. So Question Number One. How to not offend your chair, when she is a blue-rinsed Tory pensioner who adores being called Madam Chairman? I don't know how I managed it, but I seemed to get stuff passed that referred to her as chair. I usually tried to avoid it by saying she chaired the meetings, but sometimes I had to refer to her as Chair. She probably moaned to the Chief Exec and he would have dodged around it and smoothed it over in my favour.

The point about all this is that women can and do chair meetings. In some cases well. They are not there to be regarded as some aspiring man. They are there in their own right. And they deserved to be acknowledged as such and not as a token man.

Here is a definition from my computer dictionary:
2 the person in charge of a meeting or organization (used as a neutral alternative to chairman or chairwoman) : the deputy chair of the Supreme Soviet. • an official position of authority, for example on a board of directors : the editorial chair.

Language changes and evolves. Chair is a perfectly acceptable term to describe the person in charge of a meeting. It no longer refers solely to an object you sit on. So it really gripes me when recidivist whingey men drone on about how anyone who chairs a meeting is a chairman, that chairs are what you sit on and only what you sit on, and who are all these PC idiots anyway?

Do the same men (and sometimes women too qv my former chair above) call Anita Roddick a successful businessman? If you don't call a businesswoman a businessman, why would you call a chairwoman a chairman?

Chairwoman and chairperson sound clumsy to me and I prefer gender neutral language wherever possible.

But anything is better than calling a woman a chairman. People who call for gender neutral language aren't doing it for the sake of it because it is 'PC'.

We are doing it because
a) the default value that assumes everything is male is offensive, oppressive, and reinforces patriarchal stereotypes
and
b) changing language and its use is, at least, a start to changing ideas, culture, and society.

Growing old

A whinge. This is hard. There are no two ways to say it. I know it's 'better' to grow old than die young, but getting old just is not easy. You know you are growing old when your body starts changing, and your physical health isn't what it was. I haven't even got to fifty yet. It's not so much wearing glasses/contact lenses (I always have done), or even going grey - I've still only got a handful of grey/white hairs so can easily pluck them out. It's things like your fillings falling out - the ones you should probably never had had in the first place had it not been for the unethical drill and fill policy at the time. Your teeth are still hanging on in there, just complete with a load of gaps and pointy edges. After twenty or more years of the same body shape, something starts to change. It doesn't even look out of proportion. It is just, well, bigger. And actually, I don't want to be bigger. I have spent forty years being slim, and after being insultingly called skinny and flat-chested I have finally got used to it, only for it to change. All my darling designer clothes no longer fit. Colds seem to take longer than ever to go away, not just flu, just boring old colds. Serious injuries - like those incurred by the Cat Chasing Monster - literally take a year or more. You start to worry about health care. (Especially when you have worked in the NHS). You certainly worry about money. Especially when the fucking British government retrospectively changes the age of pensions for women. May you all rot in hell for screwing me and everyone else on my pension planning you total and utter gits. People start dying on you. One university friend died in his late 30s, a former neighbour and good friend died suddenly last year in his 60s. Your parents decide to leave you alone in the world and suddenly wipe out half of your past. And what is really bad about getting older? You are aren't even any wiser. You make the same mistakes. Sadder and older and wiser is just not true. Sadder and older maybe, but no wiser. In fact I think I was more sensible when I was young and just told people to fuck off when they got up my nose. You wonder if you will ever do those things you planned to do. And you wonder if you even want to do them any more. When your motivation goes, you know you are getting old. There are times when I feel like the oldest 25-year-old on the planet. Because I still think I am 25. And that's the problem.

Princess Anne visits Gib - Spain sulks

Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory. A former Crown Colony. Ceded to Britain in 1713 under the Treaty of Utrecht. The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever. That seems clear enough. But apparently not. Spain made a few attempts to reconquer Gibraltar and failed. Franco kicked up a fuss in the 60s - leading to the closure of the land border with Spain - and Spanish governments have since continued the Spanish claim to sovereignty over Gibraltar. Spain claims lots of infringements of the treaty, which seems to mean that Gibraltar should therefore just become some pimple on the end of Andalucia. And what do the people of Gibraltar think? Well, surprisingly they are happy to continue with their links with the UK. The referendums provide the proof of this. Even though the MOD has reduced its presence to virtually absolutamente nada compared with the past, there are still a few decent perks with being linked with the UK. Cancer problems? Off to The Royal Marsden. Eye problems? Off to Moorfields. No charter plane around? No problem - off on a Hercules jet. Education? UK universities of course. I may be a historian but I do not support colonialism and will be the first to say the UK has been abusive, vicious and totally oppressive in its colonialism around the world. But these days, these discussions are not about colonialism. They are about self-determination. And the people of Gibraltar are Gibraltarian and have chosen to retain political and historical links to the UK. So why is Spain whingeing and whining about the Princess Royal (ie Princess Anne) visiting Gibraltar next month? It seems Spain considers this is an inopportune and provocative visit. Really? So the Princess Royal is visiting Gib to inaugurate a medical centre named after her. Shit. That is amazingly controversial. Given how near Gib is to the UK how many royal visits have there been over the years? Not that many. The Queen visited in 1954. And hasn't been back unless I've failed miserably on the internet search (always possible). I'm not a royalist either. But I do object to Spain bleating on about Gibraltar running its own business and who turns up and who doesn't. Quite frankly, Spain, it is none of your business. Maybe you should consider a few domestic issues. Maybe you should consider your shit town planning that involves endless urbanisations. Maybe you should consider unemployment that has left my neighbour in Spain out of work for three years, and half the village without work right now. Rather than sticking your nose into Gib. And maybe, when you consider ceding Ceuta and Melilla - your claim to Gib would sound slightly less hypocritical. You were fast enough to defend Perejil when the Moroccans took it. Forget Gib. It isn't yours to claim. And here is an excellent perspective seen on A Gibo's Tale blog. Whereas I am a Brit living in Gib, he is the reverse, a Gibraltarian living in the UK.

Joan Baez

My father introduced me to Joan Baez. My father, the radical trade union representative in his youth, who didn't like the politics of Joan Baez when he was older. He hated her singing 'We shall overcome' but couldn't resist the beauty of her voice.



So, when he was standing on his market stall, next to someone who sold records, he bought two Joan Baez LPs. I still have them. I can't resist listening. 'Once I had a sweetheart' is one of the saddest songs I have ever heard.



I can't listen to the LPs without crying. Not for sweethearts as such, but for the loss of people you have loved, and have gone from your life - my father obviously, and others too. And the purity of her voice is just so perfect. But even now when I listen to it, all I can think is, 'I wish things had gone differently.'

And on a more upbeat note. 'Te ador'.



Miss you dad.

All from Joan Baez in Concert, Part 2

Valentine's Day = Violence Day

Here are three amazingly unfunny jokes which I noticed when reading a misogynist forum that I visit (for practical info) occasionally. It never fails to let me down. There is always, but absolutely always, some crass 'joke' about women that has all the men laughing in the aisles. Reading things like this - under the heading of Valentine's Gifts - just leave me wondering why radical feminism is not the norm. 1 I got my wife a new bag and new belt... Can't understand why she's moaning, at least the hoover works now! 2 Got mine leather goods.........A boot in the ar5e and a belt in the mooth!! 3 Bought mine a lovely high backed chair..... miserable cow wont plug it in though. Woman as 1) Unpaid domestic slave 2) Someone to assault and physically abuse 3) Someone to kill None of them are funny. Women are not here to clean up after lazy idle men. They are not free cleaners. But that's the least of the offensive jokes. The other two are truly repugnant. Making jokes about violence against women, to the extent of killing them is not remotely witty, amusing, or clever. Just sick, sad, and indicative of some very screwed-up thinking that goes on inside what purports to be brains inside some mens' heads.

Radical feminism?

Once upon a time, there was a radical feminist forum. It was interesting and lively, with lots of thoughtful and stimulating discussion. So I joined.

As with all forums, there were also arguments. And cliques. And moderation. Some of which seemed fair, some of which didn't. Nothing unusual there.

But there was obviously something deeper running. A private disagreement - almost a war - between some of the members and the moderators. And then the board owner closed it down.

So on-line radical feminists needed a new home. Or rather new homes, because a number of new forums started up. One of them was an interim forum, where those of us who were keen to start up a new one discussed what we wanted to see. It was good to take part in the discussions and develop a shared vision.

After a while, it became fairly clear that people wanted to see a democratic community that was in keeping with the principles of radical feminism. No autocratic dictators, or oligarchy. A genuine voice for all the members - elected moderators, an ombudsperson to mediate between members and mods. A hands-off approach. Self-moderation wherever possible in an adult fashion. Voting on new members, and voting on any potential bans. A committee of volunteers to develop policy.

Here are the words at the beginning of one of the new forums, from a keen feminist who was willing to start up some new space (on a domain paid for by her male partner). Rationale: The goal of this website is to offer blamers and other radical feminists a space to discuss, vent, rage, and otherwise consciousness-raise that is relatively safe and absolutely free from the misogyny we face every minute in the "real world." ... I am attempting to manifest my vision of radical feminist leadership.... * decentralized, shared responsibility for leadership and direction * as little hierarchy as possible, leading to flexibility, diversity, multiplicity, and compassion, not just tolerance or acceptance * hands-off moderation on boards hand-in-hand with strong defense of boards against users with ill intent * respect for the independence and intelligence of women * belief in women's good faith and ability to choose for themselves * respect and compassion for the anger, rage, and passion a lifetime in the patriarchy instills in women, feminist or not * radical listening and deep empathy for others, especially women and others oppressed by the patriarchy * a space in which women and radical feminists feel invested, empowered, safe, and free to examine their lives through the lens of feminism without insult

Policy was developed. Rules - a minimum - were established. Volunteers for mods signed up, as did volunteers for ombudspeople. The volunteers for mods became part of a steering committee with a couple of policy volunteers. They had meetings behind Closed Doors in a Sekrit Room. Where they discussed things like the appearance of another radical feminist forum that appeared to be invitation only. Most of these people had not received an invitation to the other one so were rather unhappy. They talked about members behind their backs. And they discussed the direction of the forum without the participation of the community. After voting took place for moderators - these unelected members retained their place on the Sekrit Committee in the Sekrit Room. And despite a pretty clear instruction on the Volunteers for Ombudsperson thread: ....Volunteers for this position should not already be in the moderator pool... one of the volunteers in the mod pool was also allowed to stand for election as ombudsperson. I'm sure it is coincidence that she happened to be one of the admin's biggest sycophants.

Was something rotten in the state of Denmark at this point? I didn't say anything but waited for the outcome of the ombudsperson elections and jointly won the poll. I agreed to go first. I waited to be allowed into the Sekrit Room complete with the non-elected members. It didn't happen. It seemed to me that if I was to be expected to later mediate in the case of any problems, it would be helpful to at least know the history rather than making an arse of myself going in ill-informed.

One of the mods made a decision that was initially supported by the site administrator, but the admin later retracted her support when the unelected members criticised the mod's actions. Not only that, the mod got a public rebuke and a few members weighed in with their comments too. Unsurprisingly the mod initially quit, although later agreed to serve out her term.

The admin decided that she didn't want to keep sending out the boring weekly newsletter on her own and it should become part of mod duties too. So she dumped that on them. One of them objected. Not allowed to object. It is not up for discussion. It is now one of the moderators' duties.

I made the mistake (by PM to the omnipotent admin) of suggesting the OBP could have been involved when someone asked for their account to be deleted. I also asked why unelected members were having a say behind closed doors in the Sekrit Room - whereas, as an elected representative, I was excluded.

These comments did not go down well. It was pointed out that when I was elected I should have foreseen the way things could go and made suggestions about the role of the OBP. Actually no, I didn't think it was my role to get elected and then determine what I thought I should do. The whole principle of having a democratic community was for the members to say what they wanted - not to elect someone for her to suddenly decide to create an all-powerful role.

I did get admittance to the Sekrit Room. But not for long. Less than two weeks after sending my pm to the admin questioning the remit of my role - I was sacked, along with the two moderators. We didn't even get the courtesy of a pm - it was just announced in public.

So let's go back to those first few principles (the bolding is mine) - * decentralized, shared responsibility for leadership and direction * as little hierarchy as possible, leading to flexibility, diversity, multiplicity, and compassion, not just tolerance or acceptance * respect for the independence and intelligence of women * belief in women's good faith and ability to choose for themselves

Wait. I have missed something. Where does it say outright sacking of elected representatives because they question the way things are going? It doesn't. But that doesn't matter. Because this board belongs to one person. And it is run by her, and only her. Way to go sweetheart. Way to go reinforcing the patriarchy lock, stock, and barrel. Given that this woman is not much older than half my age, and so are many of the members who support her autocratic style, it doesn't give me a lot of hope for the younger generation of radical feminists who want to spout idealistic tosh while remaining safely enclosed in a patriarchal hierarchical microcosm of society.

Radical feminism isn't about getting a few equal opportunity measures passed. Or playing at something that is fun and exciting while you are at university. Radical feminism is about dismantling current societal structures and changing them. Radically. Otherwise it wouldn't be called radical.

Fortunately, I do know other younger women, who do not just lie down and take this garbage and do what they are told. While I might have stopped posting on the supposedly radical feminist forum, others haven't. Doesn't do them any good though. One woman was moderated for daring to disagree with the majority viewpoint. She wasn't happy with this and asked if she could appeal against the moderation. NB don't forget there aren't actually any moderators since the sackings four months ago, so the admin is jury, judge and executioner.

Here was the response she got.... It's not up for debate. The complaints of the other member are well justified and more than evident in the ..... thread. If it comes to it, the third strike is when you'll be able to lay out your case and challenge the claims against you. Until we reach that point, if we do, just consider this yet another warning to watch your tone and your attitude while posting. Thanks.

So this is what it has come to. In just over six months, a vision of a shared online radical feminist community is run by an autocratic dictator where any dissent is quashed. Actually it didn't take six months, it only took three - when we were all sacked unceremoniously.

And what is the worst thing? Nobody notices, or if they do, they don't care. Let's overthrow the patriarchy and re-install the same system. Why does this make me think of Animal Farm?

ETA: For a much shorter and pithier perspective on the same issue - check out WhyI'mBitter's Weblog