Mumsnet's #Bounty Campaign: This is Feminist Activism

I support the Mumsnet Bounty Campaign.

I wouldn't have bothered writing this since I assumed most people were against capitalist intrusions on new vulnerable mothers. But, it turns out, the anti-Mumsnet whiners who have to complain about absolutely every freaking thing Mumsnet does have been whinging about the Bounty campaign. I've had some serious differences opinions with MNHQ. Who hasn't? You can't have a community of a couple of hundred thousand people without having the occasional difference of opinion. Or, barney. Really, both words work there. 

There comes a point, however, when the phrase "grow the fuck up" becomes necessary. Not liking Mumsnet talk boards or a group of Mumsnetters or Justine's hair or Helen's taste in beverages or whatever the hell it is that gets up your nose is not excuse to belittle an entire campaign to help other women. Yes, I get that once upon a time someone on Mumsnet was rude to you so you feel justified in slating absolutely everything they do. But, come on, nothing shouts "I'm a nincompoop" more than continually dredging up the same thing over and over again as evidence that Mumsnet is a harem of Satan-worshippers.

Sometimes, when a group of people suggest you are behaving like a buckethead, well, you might just be acting like a buckethead.

Equally, you could have wound up on a thread full of bucketheads. That's not outside the realm of possibility either. 

The thing is, it's not normal to hold a grudge for so long that you feel the need to whine and complain about every single campaign Mumsnet runs to try to make the world a better place for women [and don't think I didn't notice those of you who attacked the We Believe You campaign. That was just pathetic]. Yeah, Mumsnet doesn't get everything right but slating a campaign because some woman was mean to you once upon a time is mostly evidence that you need to deal with your anger issues.

The Mumsnet Bounty Mutiny is a small campaign that will only help a limited number of mothers but that is no reason to slate it. The commodification of childbirth is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Preventing Bounty, and it's rather unfortunate inability to hire people with some basic empathy skills, from accessing vulnerable new mothers, including ones with seriously ill babies or whose babies have died is an important feminist campaign. The systemic and cumulative effects of misogynistic practises means we need to support all feminist activism, regardless of whether or not one specific issue impacts on you personally. Bounty has continued to violate women's boundaries despite years of complaints. It needs to stop.

No one should have the right to flog anything to new mothers in hospitals. Ever. 

I don't care if that's Bounty, Mumsnet or Gove trying to sell his dignity. No one should be allowed to sell any product to a patient when they are in their hospital bed either ill or recovering.

Bounty does not belong in a hospital ward. 

Bounty has continually made it clear that they are uninterested in the welfare of patients by continuing to allow bad practise. They had a chance to fix this years ago. They chose not. Their choice: they need to suck up the consequences.

Read More

Rape Victims Deserve Anonymity. Not rapists.

(Image from here)

I don't know why we keep having to have this conversation. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and compassion should understand why rape victims deserve anonymity and why men charged with rape, like people charged with any other crime, do not deserve anonymity. But, it's come up. Again. This time the issue was raised by Maura McGowan, who is chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales. I would have thought that the chairman of the Bar Council might have a passing knowledge of why granting anonymity to defendants in rape cases is wrong but clearly I assumed too much.

So, this is my response. Again.

Rape victims deserve anonymity.

Rapists do not.

Giving rapists anonymity puts more women in danger of rape. 

It is that simple. 

sianushka tweeted these links earlier today: 

• Early Day Motion 105: Anonymity for Defendants in Rape Cases
• Anonymity in Rape Cases: Commons Library Standard Note
• Anonymity for Rape Defendants by Vera Baird
• Shadow of the Noose

All are worth reading. Her blog is here. 

Read More

The LFN protests against the Polanski Retrospective

This is a quote from Alison one of the organisers of the protest last Saturday against the BFI's retrospective on child rapist Roman Polanski. I felt it needed to be shared [and is shared with permission]:

Just a quick line about why I am helping to organise this protest. Polanski has fled from justice for the rape of a girl, and is living freely in Europe -  this sends a clear message (one of many) that men remain free to rape women and girls with little consequence, especially if they are rich and powerful, and there will probably be minimal attempt, if any, to stop them. Far from being rejected by the mainstream film industry, he is embraced, he continues to have a successful career, and the satisfaction of being lauded as a brilliant director. He continues to benefit financially, personally. So there is the issue of Polanski and his failure to face justice, as well as drawing attention to the misogyny of the industry and individuals within it who are happy to ignore abuse of women and girls particularly when it is carried out by powerful or 'brilliant' men.  There is also the timing. When the Savile scandal is so fresh, with investigations continuing into sexual abuse of women and girls at the BBC, or by well-known media personalities, another institution, the BFI, sticks its fingers up to that and goes ahead with a two month retrospective of Polanski's work, making no reference to the fact that he is a child rapist. (and actually in the year prior to the rape for which he was convicted, I have seen it reported that he had a 'romantic relationship' with the 15 year old Nasstasja Kinski (he was 43), so raises a question of whether he, like others, had a pattern of pursuing very young women and girls. He married his current wife when she was 23 and he was 56.   

Outside of that, there are many stories every day of rape and murder of women and girls, or of misogyny and sexism, and so at the same time it isn't that this story is remarkable. I wanted an idea to take along to the last London Feminist network meeting, something current, something we could develop into an action. And I became aware of the retrospective on a forum where women were expressing their anger about it, encouraging each other to complain to the BFI, and wondering what other actions they might take, and so I could see that there could be support for a protest. But it is quite random in that sense - it could have been so many issues.

I wanted to share this because it demonstrates just how effective one small piece of activism can be. It feels like we are constantly fighting a war that we will never win and I get so tired of the same thing coming up over and over again. These protests, organised by so many amazing women, inspire and motivate me. As someone who can't physically take part in many protests, being able to support these women is a privilege. 

Read More

Ched Evans is apparently just like Nelson Mandela

At least, according to the people behind @FreeChedwyn. They like to make this comparison a lot. I waver between being gobsmacked at the stupidity of the comparison to wondering if they actually know who Nelson Mandela is. This was them today:

Chad ‏@FreeChedwynThe Nelson Mandela of #sufc has an appeal in a few days. an innocent man, falsely accused of “rape”

Normally, I like to ignore the thick-as-pigshit rape apologists who have hopped on the all-women-who-were-raped-are-liars bandwagon but today nine Ched Evans rape apologists were fined £624 each for naming the victim on Twitter. 

Tomorrow, we need to start a real debate on why naming the victim is a civil offence rather than a criminal offence and whether or not £624 is a reasonable fine since it clearly isn't, but, today, I'm going to celebrate nine misogynists being held responsible for deliberately and maliciously smearing the reputation of an innocent woman.

And, spend some more time sniggering at the level of stupidity required to claim some dumbass footballer is the same as Nelson Mandela.

Read More

Positive Anti- Rape Campaigns: We Can Stop It.

I've ranted about some of the more offensive rape campaigns before, with the West Mercia Police coming for some serious criticism for the victim-blaming shite they tried to pass off as an anti-rape campaign. There are, however, some new really positive campaigns who hold the rapist responsible for rape. I attended the Rape Crisis Scotland annual conference in Glasgow last week where a few of the better campaigns were advertised. I'm going to post links to some of them over the next few days. I would, however, like to post links to any positive international campaigns. So, please send me links either as a comment to this blog or to my email: stewiegriffinsmom@gmail.com

There have been 3 very good campaigns in Scotland in the past 5 years.  Two were developed by Rape Crisis Scotland. The newest campaign called We Can Stop and was developed by the local police forces. The tagline: "Sex without Consent is Rape. We Can Stop it." is one that Assange might want to think about. The entire campaign focuses on men. It puts the onus on men to understand the legal definition of rape and consent:

Rape. Are you the type of guy who understands what this really means?
In Scotland the law relating to rape has recently changed. It now concentrates on what 'consent' means and the fact that consent can be withdrawn at any time. In addition, sexual attacks on men have been legally classed as 'rape' for the very first time.

It also directly challenges rape myths which is more than the Met managed with their fancy-pants new campaign which ended up being the same patriarchal, victim-blaming bullshit about women making themselves vulnerable to rape. You'd think that the specialist rape unit of the Met might be slightly more aware of rape myths but, you'd be wrong.

By far, the most powerful part of the campaign is the images: 

Read More

The Met Has A Truly Original New Anti-Rape Campaign

Yep, they have a tots new campaign that has never, ever, ever been done before. One in which the Sapphire Unit, noted for its support of victims of rape and having no history of incompetence or malicious disregard for rape victims,* has come up with a brand, spanking new anti-rape campaign that has never been done before. Apparently, they are going to use licensing laws to close pubs and clubs where "high levels of rape and sexual assaults take place as part of a radical attempt to create a hostile environment for rapists." Now, I'm sure this is a lovely new policy but 1) why haven't they been doing this already? Surely that's one of the reasons we have licensing laws? and 2) How will they define "high levels" considering the fact that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to the police because of their institutional disregard for the safety of women and their general policy on blaming women for being raped?**

But, this isn't the best and original bit of the new anti-rape campaign. Nope, the big exciting bit is that it "will challenge male behaviour while attempting to speak to women about reducing their vulnerability to rape." Because, obviously, there has never been a single rape campaign ever that has told women to stop getting raped. Possibly, the lovely Boys in Blue should have spent slightly more time looking at the new Scottish anti-rape campaign called We Can Stop It because it targets rapists. It doesn't blame women for being raped. It blames rapists.

Women don't need to reduce their vulnerability. The only thing that makes women vulnerable to rape is being in the presence of a rapist.

The "professionals" in the Sapphire Unit might want to visit these campaigns by Rape Crisis Scotland: This is not an invitation to rape me and Not Ever. And, stop perpetrating rape myths since this is precisely why reports of rape are down in London. It's because women don't trust them. 

Targeting pubs and clubs is a good idea. Targeting men and making other men responsible for policing the behaviour of their friends is a good idea. Telling women what to do to avoid rape is just the same old victim-blaming behaviour and it just shows how little the Sapphire unit has learned from the sheer number of deliberate and malicious "mistakes" their members have made over the years which resulted in an untold number of women being raped by men who should have been in jail.

*You know, if you don't count the monumental fuck-ups of the John Worboys case or the dude who got sacked for deliberately screwing up. The Met seems to be glossing over these minor hiccups so probably we should too. Or, something.

** Obviously, I am being facetious here but I thought I'd just double check because according to Rape Crisis Scotland a not-very-large number of people didn't get that this was ironic. 

Read More

Another Day: Another Man Insulting Rape Victims

Another Day; another piece of arrogant, misogynistic nincompoopery in the Huffington Post written by a man too stupid to understand the pretty basic trauma responses to sexualised violence. This week Brendan O'Neill outdoes himself and calls victims of sexualised violence who didn't tell their stories until after the death of Jimmy Savile cowards. 

Yep, you read that right.

Traumatised children who didn't tell their stories of sexualised violence for fear of being labelled a liar are now being labelled cowards by a man with about as much empathy as a turnip. Apparently, those of us who believe rape victims are even worse than the News of the World and their hunt for paedophiles because Savile is dead and can't defend himself. Unlike the children raped by adults. Those children who clearly should have taken the responsibility to not let themselves be raped AND reported it to the police in a timely manner. And, then those police would have totally taken their complaints seriously. Oh, wait.

This is what O'Neill says: 

What sort of media and society gets off on seeing a dead man, a voiceless, non-existent, long-buried bloke, having his name dragged through the mud?Some people have said it is brave of the women who claim to have been assaulted by Savile to come forward and tell their stories. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Making serious accusations against a dead person who is in no position to fight back or plead or prove his innocence, 30 or 40 years after the alleged incidents occurred, is the very opposite of brave - it's cowardly.

Do you know what I think of arseholes who silence rape victims: I think they are the scum of the earth. 

So, thanks a lot Brendan O'Neill for perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture.

Thank you for silencing rape victims.

Thank you for shaming child victims of sexualised violence.

Thank you for victim-blaming.

I nearly forgot we live in a society that doesn't give a shit about children's bodily integrity. I forgot that we should be worshipping the almighty Penis even when it rapes children.

Read More

Ocean Rooms in Gorleston tell a Feminist Activist to STFU

Ocean Rooms in Gorleston aren't content with having the convicted rapist Mike Tyson appear in their venue. They are now actively telling feminist activist Kim Graham to stop whining about it. This is Graham's original tweet to @Ocean_Room

Kim Graham ‏@dizzy84.@Ocean_Room I'd rather not have convicted rapist, Mike Tyson appearing as a "special guest", right on my doorstep, thanks.

And this is their reply:

Ocean Room Gorleston ‏@Ocean_Room@dizzy84 he pays people's wadges tickets are nearly sold out keep your opinions to yourselves maybe ?

Way to support rape culture there. Not only giving the convicted rapist a platform in which he gets to whine about not actually being a rapist because he was, like, set-up. Cus, he's a celebrity. And, celebrities don't need to rape women. Now, they're telling women to shut up. 

The Ocean Rooms are still pretending they aren't involved in the Mike Tyson event because it's being put on by someone. Now, I might be a bit confused here but I'm pretty sure that by renting out their space to a convicted rapist, they are, in fact, involved in supporting a rapist [and that's without getting into the issue of Tyson's history of domestic violence]. They also think its totally irrelevant that the organiser of this little piece of pro-rape bullshit thinks that Tyson is a "wrongly-convicted rapist". Kim Graham has already been in touch with the organiser, Carl Moore, who is the one claiming that Tyson was "wrongly-convicted". So, not only are Ocean Rooms hosting a convicted rapist, they are passing the buck onto the organiser who is a rape-denier. Way to stay classy there Dudes.

Tyson is due to speak at the Ocean Rooms in Gorleston on October 12th. There is a petition available here. This is the text of the petition: 

Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist who served three years of a six year sentence for raping an 18 year old woman. He has been completely unrepentant.

We see fewer than 6% of rapists convicted of their crimes, and even in the result of a conviction, survivors and victims struggle to be believed. By providing an event that celebrates a convicted rapist, we send the message out that rapists are role models; a harmful message for both survivors and for young people. 

The idea of giving a convicted rapist a "hero's welcome" is both deeply offensive and damaging.

You can also contact the venue directly: 

Ocean Rooms

Pier Gardens

Gorleston, Norfolk
NR31 6PP
Phone: 01493 667890
http://www.oceanroom.co.uk

Do feel free to contact @Ocean_Room directly on twitter!

Read More

More Right-On Dudes Turn Out to be Women-Hating Hypocrites

Another day, another Dude turns out to be a woman-hating hypocrite whose crimes have been covered up by an establishment unwilling to hold men accountable for their violence. This week we not only have a child victim of rape being punished for being too traumatised to cope with her rape, we also have Jimmy Savile* being "outed" as a child sexual abuser. I say "outed" but apparently everyone already knew but no one was willing to stand up to protect the children he was abusing. The collusion and total refusal by many, many people is utterly despicable. It's also a prime example of hypocrisy in our woman-hating culture. Savile was considered "too important" to be held accountable for his crimes because he raised money for charity. Yep, the £40 million he raised during his life was more important the lives of the children he destroyed. Everyone who knew about Savile's behaviour is complicit in his crimes and I hope the MET actually takes some responsibility and actively investigates those who covered up Savile's history of child rape. 

Men like Savile get away with raping children for decades because people care more about rich, white men than they do children. Just look at the coverage of the Megan Stammers abduction case and the massive cover-up of the Rochdale child grooming ring. The sheer number of people falling over themselves to excuse Jeremy Forrest for abusing his position as a teacher and abducting his student is vile. Apparently, a 15 year old child is responsible for ruining the life of an adult male rather than an adult man being held responsible for destroying the life of a child. This is when people start bandying about the term Lolita without acknowledging that Nabokov's Lolita is about the long-term rape of a child by her stepfather. It's not supposed to be a celebration of teenage sexuality but a story of child-rape [and don't  get me started on arseholes who think Gabriel Garcia Marguez' Love in the Time of Cholera is romantic].

The children in the Rochdale grooming case [which has the added benefit of racism and classism in both the covering up of the crime and the reporting of it] were also victimised by a number of adults who covered up, over and over again, for the sexualised violence and exploitation of the children. Social workers decided that vulnerable teenage girls were more than capable of making their own "choices" about having sex with adult men. These children were raped because society deemed that vulnerable girls weren't worth worrying about. It was their own fault for being vulnerable in the first place.

What links the crimes of Jimmy Savile, Abdul Aziz and Jeremy Forrest is the simple fact that many, many people colluded with them in committing their offences against children. If it weren't for the sheer number of people covering up, turning a blind eye and pretending they didn't know about it, none of these men could have committed the crimes they did. The male right to orgasm is clearly more important than the lives of the children as Roman Polanski and Mike Tyson both know. 

I wish I could say that these cases were isolated incidents but they are not; like domestic violence, sexualised violence of children is a daily occurrence. This morning, I woke to discover this article by Julie Birchill about John Peel [and thank you to Leah Hardy for bringing it to my attention]. A quick search of google found very little information on John Peel's history of child sexual offences [but rather a lot praising him for being a dude]. I think its worth reading much of Burchill's article: 

Peel told the Guardian in 1975. "Girls," he said to the Sunday Correspondent in 1989, "used to queue up outside oral sex they were particularly keen on, I remember one of my regular customers, as it were, turned out to be 13, though she looked older." 

This was the Sixties. Fleeing America after the authorities quite rightly objected to him having sex with young teenage girls, Peel was joined by his wife, Shirley, a Texan girl, who was 15 when he married her.
Talking to the Correspondent about this young woman, now dead by her own hand, Peel seems strangely censorious: "She fell in with some extremely dodgy people she married three more times after me, and I was the only husband by whom she didn't have a child. 

... 

Scratch a hippie and find a sexist - well into the Seventies, Peel was drooling on about "schoolgirls", in print and on air, where his Schoolgirl Of The Year competition was quietly laid to rest during punk's tenure. I always thought the alleged Sexual Revolution of the Sixties was not a bid to advance women's rights, but rather to block them, to turn back the clock and push the brave new young working woman back to being barefoot and pregnant. Even the appearance approved for hippie women - long skirts, long hair - spoke of an earlier era, before girls raised their skirts and bobbed their hair and went out to earn a living 

Knowing of Peel's rather sticky track record on matters sexual, it seems both wildly inappropriate and somehow totally fitting that his latest venture is the radio critic's favourite Radio 4 programme, Saturday morning's Home Truths, which, as its name implies, is a deeply reactionary idea masquerading as a droll, down-to-earth sideswipe. 

Home Truths concerns itself with family matters, both bitter and sweet. These may be as unimportant as the reluctance of teenagers to tidy their rooms or as serious as the alleged False Memory Syndrome, but they are linked by one overriding belief: that after all politics, after all ideas, there is the Family. And that the Family, alone of all institutions, is as natural as breathing. 

... 

Peel, being middle class, managed to survive the Sixties, and then thrive in the decades that followed. But for the young working class, the road of excess led to madness, alienation and incarceration; and for the girls who got hip to the Sixties slogans about sexual generosity, a joyless shag led to nothing but a council flat and the end of youth before they were entitled to vote. 

I don't blame Peel for changing his mind. But I do blame him for rubbing the nation's collective nose in the fact that the well-connected can walk on the wild side and return to the fold, whereas the working class need only stray once off the straight and narrow to be trapped in a cul-de-sac of sorrow. 

A public schoolboy who calls his children after footballers, a lover of World Music who happily took the Order of the British Empire, a landowner who does commercials for toilet paper and Playstations and yet calls himself a Bennite, a past 'abuser' of children who preaches Family Values in excelsis: it is not, as his fans like to say, a wonder that Radio 1 has not sacked him in 30 years. No, in all his patronising, phoney, hypocritical glory, he is Radio 1. Lord Reith would be proud.

Yep, that's John Peel, national hero, bragging about sexually abusing a vulnerable 13 year old girl. In the world of hypocrisy, there is nothing quite like a right-on, left-wing dude. After all, Bill Wyman was never punished for raping Mandy Smith when she was 14 and, yeah, I'm using the word rape. 14 year olds are not competent to consent to sex with an adult man. The parents of 16 year old Julia Holcomb signed over guardianship of her to Steven Tyler to allow Holcomb to live with him. Her parents FFS. 

Until we start holding men accountable for their violent, predatory behaviour, they will continue violating the bodies of children and women. Everyone who conspires to cover up or just refuses to report child sexual abuse should be held accountable for the abuse of those children. I want the MET to investigate every journalist, celebrity and hanger-on coming out of the woodworks to squeal "oh, oh, I knew, I knew that Savile was raping children." 

* I know Jimmy Savile isn't left-wing. He's a tory. He's still one of those hypocrites who think their sexual pleasure is more important than anything else. Ever. 

Read More

Coco Khan: Missing the Point of Slutwalk Entirely

I wasn't going to write anymore about Slutwalk this week; especially after Slutwalk London came out on the side of rape apologists. Then, in the it never rains, but pours construction of life, I came across this piece of nincompoopery in the Huffington Post. Yes, Coco Khan claims to be aware of the criticisms surrounding Slutwalk and chose to attend in spite of her misgivings. But, I'm struggling to see how one can claim to be aware of the criticisms and support of Slutwalk and then write this: 

I didn't stay long, I was too angry, hurt and disappointed - it's the same feeling as watching your underdog football team (Feminism FC) get all the way to cup finals and then crash and burn because they still hadn't ironed out that formation problem from Round 1. It was the liberal and constant use of the word 'victim' that infuriated me, it was the speeches that assumed Assange did it, like a speech the year before assumed DSK did too. 

It was the insipid use of facts such as '93% of rapists get away with it' as though every single man accused was guilty. Feminism isn't about assuming every accused man is a rapist. It's about equality, and freedom, or specifically fair trials and fair treatment. I was equally upset to see a youthful crowd, a new generation of feminists whose interest had been piqued, being completely misdirected. It's important to stand around and cheer, to raise our firsts in the air, to weep at the tales of the people we fight for and be inspired by them too. But it's also important to get organised.

I mean, where do you even start? Yes, 93% [give or take a few percentage points] of men accused of rape are never convicted of rape but, that's because we live in a rape culture where men are constructed as victims of lying whores. Thing is most men accused of rape are guilty of rape. They may not be found guilty in a court of law but that's because the law's an ass. Very few accusations of rape are false. Even the government and the FBI, neither of whom are hotbeds of radical feminism, agree with these statistics. So, why would any woman write anything so utterly ridiculous? Did Khan completely fail to see how offensive and arrogant that is to rape victims? Last time, I checked feminism was about the liberation of women from male violence and equality, fair trials and fair treatment for women [and children]  who were raped or otherwise sexually assaulted. It is they who get unfair treatment in the criminal justice system. Not rapists. I genuinely can not express how unbelievably angry I am at that.

As for the references to Julian Assange and Domique Strauss-Khan, well, they were kind of obvious weren't they? Imagine an anti-rape demonstration not mentioning the two most famous rape trials of the past two years? Two cases involving powerful, wealthy, white men where the men have been constructed as victims of some sort of evil feminist conspiracy because both self-define as liberals. It is the very rape myths surrounding these trials that Slutwalk is attempting to address. Yeah, I don't agree with the way Slutwalk is addressing the issue by using the word slut, but, FFS, criticising an anti-rape demo for talking about rape cases is beyond stupid. 

And, yes, I'm sure the speakers at the rally used the word victim constantly. Just as I'm sure some of them will have used the word survivor constantly. Women who were raped are more than within their rights to define themselves as victims or survivors as they see fit. There is debate within the feminist and other anti-rape movements about which word is more applicable but Khan doesn't seem to be addressing this debate. She seems to be dismissing the idea that many women are victims and/or survivors of sexualised violence. It's a very odd statement to make.

And, the "it's time to get organised" bit, is, well, weird. Isn't that exactly what Slutwalk was doing: organising a feminist demonstration. Giving women a place to share their stories . It seems rather hypocritical to be criticising someone for not organising feminist activism at a piece of feminist activism. The conclusion to the article does nothing to negate the damage caused within it:

What Slutwalk has achieved can never be disregarded. It energized a growing and inexplicable discontent amongst women and directed it in a way that academia never could. It stopped preaching to the choir and took it the streets. For all its flaws in its punchy, explosive name, the reality is no one will come to a rally that sounds like an essay and Slutwalk should keep doing what they are doing. But this event is not enough to carry the bright flame of feminism single-handedly; two chapters in, the story has barely begun.

Yep, I'm a big supporter of the whole moving away from Slutwalk into more critical discussions of rape culture but I'd prefer to start by moving away from the premise that most women lie about rape and most men accused of rape are victims of an evil conspiracy. Could just be me though. Doing that whole over-thinking thing feminists are always being accused of. 

Read More

Slutwalk London

SlutWalk London 2012 

Saturday 22nd September 2012

12.30pm 

Top of Piccadilly (near Hyde Park Corner).

FaceBook

Petition

These are the details for this year's London Slutwalk. As with the Edinburgh Slutwalk in July, I won't be attending because I find the concept of Slutwalks deeply problematic. However, Slutwalk has ignited debate about victim-blaming and sexualised violence. It has also created a safe space for women to share their stories. There is no greater gift. So, whilst I stand by what I wrote in July about the Slutwalk Edinburgh, I also have to give props to the women attending. The Patriarchy must be destroyed. We're just destroying it from different angles.

 This is what I wrote about Slutwalk Edinburgh: 

I would have marched in the original in Toronto because that had a specific purpose: to raise awareness of the misogynistic discourse normalised within the police as it manifested in that specific incident. The worldwide movement to reclaim the word "slut" bothers me. There seems to have been little real political analysis of the word and its specific connotations for different groups of women due to race, class, and ethnicity. Personally, I don't believe it is possible to re-appropriate the words of your oppressors. I also think its incredibly odd to try to reclaim the word "slut" in order to demonstrate that rape isn't about being a "slut".  

Violence against women is endemic and systemic. It is everywhere and it is excused a thousand times a day in a million different ways. Slutwalk doesn't address or even attempt to analyse VAW. It only attempts to address one facet of rape myths without questioning the rape culture in which those myths are perpetuated and perpetrated. Rape isn't just about controlling women's sexuality as Slutwalk seems to imply. The act of rape [and the fear of the act of rape] are about controlling every facet of women's lives. Rape isn't about how women dress [or don't dress]. Rape is the practise of misogyny. It is misogyny that we need to eradicate but we need to do this by attacking every facet of VAW. Slutwalk privileges the lived experiences of middle class, white women. It merely reinforces the racist constructions about the sexuality of Black and Ethnic Minority women. It ignores the structural oppressions of poverty. It ignores how the structural oppressions of poverty specifically target Black and Ethnic Minority women. 

I want the eradication of the patriarchal-capitalist structures which oppress women. I don't want to reclaim or re-appropriate the words of my oppressors. I want them gone. 

I wish my sisters luck [and sunshine] for Slutwalk Edinburgh. I won't be on the march but, if Slutwalk becomes the catalyst which destroys the Patriarchy, I will be the first one to apologise.

Some interesting blogs and articles on Slutwalk:

Amplify Your Voice: In Context: Criticisms of the Slutwalk

People of Colour Organize: Four Brief Critiques of Slutwalk's Whiteness, Privilege and Unexamined Power Dynamics

Black Women's Blueprint: An Open Letter From Black Women to the Slutwalk

The Crunk Feminist Collective: I Saw the Sign but Did We Really Need the Sign? Slutwalk and Racism

The F Word: Feminist Critiques of Slutwalk Have Forgotten That Language is Not a Commodity

Gail Dines & Wendy J Murphy: Slutwalk is not Sexual Liberation 

Alternatives to Slutwalk:

Reclaim the Night

Million Women Rise

Read More

So, Mike Tyson is a "Wrongly- Convicted" Rapist"

At least, one of the organisers of Mike Tyson's latest money-making event is claiming that he's a "wrongly convicted rapist" in a phone conversation with a local resident Kim Graham who is concerned about the hero-worshipping of a convicted rapist. Tyson, you know, the convicted rapist, is now a "motivational speaker" and has been invited to speak at a dinner event in Gorleston, Norfolk. Quite why anyone would pay to hear a convicted rapist claim not to be a rapist is beyond me. Mostly, Tyson makes me equally nauseous and angry. He continues to minimise his violent behaviour and his conviction for rape [not to mention those pesky domestic violence rumours he likes to pretend aren't true]. Yet, people still pay to hear him deny his violence. He's even got Spike Lee to direct him in a one-man play. And, people claim we don't live in a society that hates women. 

Carl Moore, who is sponsoring the event with EBF Boxing [I've never heard of either of them but have duly noted their names under the heading of arsehole misogynists] is the man responsible for this "wrongly-convicted" malarkey. Other venues have canceled Tyson's "motivational speeches" after a public outcry. We need to make it clear that convicted rapists aren't heroes. Men who violently rape 18 year olds aren't misunderstood or deserving of sympathy. They deserve our condemnation.

Tyson is due to speak at the Ocean Rooms in Gorleston on October 12th. There is a petition available here. This is the text of the petition: 

Mike Tyson is a convicted rapist who served three years of a six year sentence for raping an 18 year old woman. He has been completely unrepentant.

We see fewer than 6% of rapists convicted of their crimes, and even in the result of a conviction, survivors and victims struggle to be believed. By providing an event that celebrates a convicted rapist, we send the message out that rapists are role models; a harmful message for both survivors and for young people. 

The idea of giving a convicted rapist a "hero's welcome" is both deeply offensive and damaging.

You can also contact the venue directly: 

Ocean Rooms

Pier Gardens

Gorleston, Norfolk
NR31 6PP
Phone: 01493 667890
http://www.oceanroom.co.uk

UPDATE: 

Kim Graham has added this to the text of the petition: 

I had the "pleasure" of speaking to Carl Moore, the organiser of the event earlier this evening. When I asked Moore why he felt having a convicted rapist was a suitable speaker at an event, he tried to tell me that Tyson (who pleaded guilty at his trial) was wrongly convicted, that Tyson had been told he'd walk free were he to plead guilty. 

We already see a situation where most rapists walk free, through being found "not guilty" due to a failing legal system. Sadly, in the rare situations where rapists are convicted of their crimes, where they even plead guilty, we're still faced with a situation where the survivor of the crime isn't believed.  

Words, such as Moore's, are an insult to rape survivors, and a mockery of those who finally see a conviction. This event cannot continue.

Read More