Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

This following message is from SCASE:

Proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill: ACTION REQUIRED - WRITING TO MSPS

Rhoda Grant MSP has lodged her proposed Criminalisation of the Purchase of Sex (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament, which would make the purchase of sex an offence.  Many feminist and women’s organisations were heavily engaged in the consultation process leading up to the publication of this Bill and responded in a supportive way to the consultation.  The responses to that consultation are now available to view at ….

In order for the proposal to proceed to the first formal stage of the Parliamentary process, there needs to be support secured amongst at least 18 MSPs from across a range of political parties in the Parliament.  

At 6 June 2013, the MSPs who have supported the proposal are:

Drew Smith, Margaret McDougall, Hanzala Malik, Ken Macintosh, Michael McMahon, Patricia Ferguson, Murdo Fraser, Anne McTaggart, Elaine Murray, Iain Gray, John Pentland, Jayne Baxter, Claudia Beamish, Siobhan McMahon, Malcolm Chisholm, Hugh Henry, Claire Baker, Paul Martin, Elaine Smith, Graeme Pearson.

The deadline for MSPs to support this proposal is Friday 28 June 2013.

This list only has MSPs from the Labour party and Conservative party.  It is necessary, therefore, to particularly seek the support of SNP, Lib Dem or Green/Independent MSPs; without the support of an MSP from at least one of these parties / party grouping, this proposal will fall and any further discussions on the proposal to criminalise the demand will end.  The WSP support the policy intent behind the bill to put the legislative focus onto those who choose to purchase sex but believe this is only one aspect of a criminalising demand approach.  This also needs to look to decriminalise those who sell sexual activity and ensure that quality long-term support and exiting services are available

We are now asking for people to contact their MSP and ask them to support the progress of the Bill to the next stage.  This does not mean the Bill will be passed but will ensure that a full discussion can take place as to the best approach to address the harm and inequality in the sex industry.

WRITING TO YOUR MSPS

Step one: to find your MSPs (you have 8: 1 constituency and 7 regional MSPs), use the Scottish Parliament’s MSP locator: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msps.aspx This will enable you to find contact details and information on the party affiliation of each MSP.  Bear in mind that SNP, Lib Dem and Green/Independent support is particularly vital at this point in time.  If your MSP is included in the list above as having already supported the Bill, you may wish to instead write to them to thank them for their support. 

Step two: prepare your letters or emails to MSPs., MSPs really value the personal approach, and so if you have a particular piece of information or local evidence that you can include, please do so.

IMPORTANT: when corresponding with your MSPs, always include your name, address and post code at the end of your letter/email.  MSPs only deal with correspondence from people within their area.  

Step three:  please let us know if you have done this, and do keep us up to date if you receive any follow-up correspondence from your MSPs, whether they are agreeing to support the proposal, or if they are explaining why they are not inclined to support it. 

Read More

Sex Worker vs Prostitute: Who Gets to Define the Terms of the Discussion

I have been thinking about this issue for a while but have been unwilling to write it. Partly, I've been worried about causing unnecessary distress but equally because I have already been attacked online for my stance on the entirety of the sex industry including lap-dancing clubs and pornography. I didn't want to pop my head above the parapet again. 

I wouldn't have written this had I not seen yet another discussion on twitter today stating that only sex workers were allowed to have opinions on sex work or the sex industry.

Apparently, the sex industry is the only industry in which you can only have an opinion if you are/ were involved in it. This does beg the question as to why people who were never involved in it have the right to dictate who can or cannot speak about the industry. Surely the logical conclusion of not being allowed to speak about the sex industry means you also aren't allowed to decide who gets to speak about the sex industry? Perhaps, I am just confused and you are allowed to have an opinion but only if you are pro-sex industry. 

I have never worked within the sex industry. Like all my political positions, I came to my decision through research. I have read blogs, books and other forms of personal testimony by women who have exited the industry. I have read blogs, books and other forms of personal testimony by women who are still working in the industry. I have read radical feminist research and research from those who are pro-sex industry. I stand by my position.

I do not like the term sex industry. I have used it until this point to cover everything from lap-dancing clubs to Playboy to pornography and to prostitution. However, I just want to focus on the difference between the terms sex worker and prostitute. Whilst I would never tell a woman how they can and cannot label themselves, I do find the current insistence on using the term sex worker is a silencing tactic. The term sex worker implies a positive experience. Many women, both currently working and those who are exited, prefer to use the term prostitute to define their experience. They use it because the word prostitute has a negative connotation.

My question, as a radical feminist, is which term do I use to accurately define my political position without causing unnecessary distress to women. I prefer to use the word prostitute because I think it more accurately reflects the experience of the majority of the women and children whose bodies are sold. Yet, there are women who self-label as sex workers. Do I have the right to tell them how to self-label? Do they have the right to tell other women that they cannot self-define as prostitutes. 

What I find most worrying is that there is a concerted effort to silence women, especially exited women, from using the word prostitute. Even if I believed that it was not possible to have an opinion on a subject without it directly effecting you (which is clearly ludicrous), why aren't women allowed to use the term prostitute to define their own experience? Why are we privileging the voices of some women over the voices of others? 

I would never tell a woman how they can self-define. I do have a problem with women being told whether or not they are allowed to call themselves prostitutes. I do have a problem with what is clearly a well-funded industry dictating who is allowed to speak. I've seen the vitriol and personal attacks on blogs written by exited women. I've seen them belittled, denigrated and publicly attacked for daring to speak in negative terms about their own experiences.

I am willing to believe that some women have positive experiences as sex workers. Why is it so dangerous to believe that other women do/ did not? 

If we are going to follow this new rule about only being allowed to have opinions on things which effect us directly, then why are women not allowed to define their experience by using the word prostitute?

I would really like those online feminists who are pro-sex work but who are not actually sex workers explain why the voices of exited women don't count.

I want to know why we must use the term sex work with no attention paid to those who use the word prostituted to define themselves?

I respect the right of those who choose the term sex work but I also respect the right of those who use the term prostitute. I may find the term sex work deeply problematic, and that is an understatement, but I will not tell another woman how to define themselves. Why isn't the same respect extended to women who prefer the term prostitute? Why are exited women attacked over and over again online without any support?

UPDATE: I got these tweets today from the organisation NorMas:

NorMAs ‏@NorMAs_201239m@LeStewpot We're often told it's not 'sex worker' vs 'prostitute' but 'prostituted'. Many exited women uncomfortable with 'prostitute' too. 

NorMAs ‏@NorMAs_201239m @LeStewpot We tend to use 'women in prostitution' and 'exited women' as compromise, avoiding 'prostitute' or 'sex worker'.

I prefer these terms "women in prostitution" or "exited" women. The term sex worker feels too vague due to the size of the "sex industry". 

Read More

#ReadingonlyBooksWrittenByWomen : On Pornography and Prostitution

I've been enjoying theme reading these past few months: February was Black History Month in North America and March was, obviously, a celebration of women's history. This month I'm going to read feminist critiques of prostitution and pornography. As ever, I probably won't make it through the whole list but these are the texts I have lined up:

Melinda Tankard Reist's Big Porn Inc.: Exposing the Harms of the Global Pornography Industry
Karen Boyle's Everyday Pornography
Laura Lederer's Take by The Night: Women on Pornography
Jennifer Hayashi Danns with Sandrine Leveque's Stripped: The Bare Faced Reality of Lap Dancing
Trine Rogg Korsvik & Ane Sto's The Nordic Approach: Feminists Write Candidly about the Nordic Battle to Ban the Purchase of Sex
Andrea Dworkin's Pornography: Men Possessing Women
Linda Lovelace's Ordeal 
Linda Lovelace's Out of Bondage
Kathleen Barry's The Prostitution of Sexuality: The Global Exploitation of Women 
Sheila Jeffrey's Anticlimax: A Feminist Perspective on the Sexual Revolution
Christine Stark & Rebecca Whisnant's Not For Sale:  Feminists Resisting Prostitution and Pornography

These are some texts I highly recommend:

Gail Dines' Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality
Robert Jensen's Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity
Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture
Julia Long's Anti-Porn The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism
Melinda Tankard Reist's Getting Real: Challenging the Sexualisation of Girls
Natasha Walter's Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism

Read More

How to tell if you're racist:

If you agree with this arsehole, then you're probably a racist. I say probably only insofar as it's equally possible you're just really, really stupid. Tom Brodbeck, of the Winnipeg Sun, has written quite possibly one of the most ridiculous examples of white privilege I've come across in a while. Basically, he's arguing that it's racist for the Manitoba government to focus on the violence experienced by Aboriginal women and develop specific strategies to help these women, despite the fact that they are more likely to experience VAW or be murdered by their partners than non-Aboriginal women. Apparently, developing any strategies which are specifically targeted at one group of incredibly vulnerable women is "racist". 

This is what he actually says about the fact that Aboriginal women are three times more likely to experience violence, in any form, that non-First Nations, Metis and Inuit

But what should any of that matter when it comes to finding more effective policing and public policy strategies to combat the problem of missing and murdered women?
Should police agencies treat missing and murdered aboriginal women differently than women from other ethnicities?

It's pretty fucking obvious that the police already treat missing and murdered Aboriginal women differently than they do missing or murdered white women. After all, does anyone really believe that Robert Pickton would have managed to kill as many women as he did if his victims weren't vulnerable Aboriginal women trapped in prostitution? I don't. 

Thing is, Brodbeck clearly doesn't give a shit about Aboriginal women. No one who cares about the racism and misogyny experienced by Aboriginal women would be so arrogant as to say this:

Singling out missing and murdered aboriginal women is racist, plain and simple. We shouldn’t judge, treat, or deal with people based on their ethnicity.

Nor would they be so arrogant as to quote the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as if it was applied equally to all citizens and residents of Canada. This is just another example of white male privilege trying to minimise and isolate women to prevent us rising up as a class to Smash the Patriarchy. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is just a piece of paper. It is only as good as its enforcement and, frankly, Canada's history of enforcing this legislation is shameful.

We will never be able to Smash the Patriarchy without acknowledging the way it uses racism, homophobia, disabilism and misogyny to isolate women. Acknowledging that Aboriginal women are more likely to be victims of Violence Against Women isn't racist. It's stating the fucking obvious.

Read More

Dear Pussy Riot Supporters,

Dear Pussy Riot Supporters,

Increasingly, I have become concerned about your inability to see the woods for the trees. Your desperate attempts at out-cooling each other as the Great Defenders of Free Speech seem to have come at the cost of your critical thinking skills. Frankly, I'm still disturbed by the articles which seemed to suggest that the only people who shouldn't be deported to the Gulag are the women of Pussy Riot because they might be raped or killed. I know you can't really mean that. No one deserves to be raped or killed because they committed a crime and, let's be honest, Pussy Riot aren't the only Russian citizens being deported for questioning the state. I have no idea what the statistics are for convictions and deportation but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Pussy Riot aren't the only political prisoners. So why are they important and others not? Why is it important they not be raped or killed in prison?

This case is manifestly not about "free speech" or the right to protest. What this case has demonstrated, time and time again, is that we, as a society, are essentially a bunch of hypocrites. The 'Western' support of Pussy Riot is not because we are the great defenders of Free Speech. Anyone who believes that is, frankly, completely deluded. Pussy Riot has not garnered support because they are feminists who are critical of the power of the state and church. In fact, their feminism, which is actually a fairly patriarchy-approved brand of feminism, has been written out of much of the media coverage. They have gotten support because they are young women dancing in public. They have been supported because they don't really challenge the status quo; although they do wear all their clothes which puts them ahead of Femen's soft porn protests. If Pussy Riot were challenging the Patriarchy in any way, they would have been slaughtered in the Western Press. They certainly wouldn't have Madonna, the Red Hot Chili Peppers and half of Hollywood lining up to support them. Personally, I think a lot of their support is because of their name. It appeals to the juvenile; those who haven't progressed emotionally from being 5 and yelling penis in the playground. And, yeah, I sniggered the first time I heard a right-wing journalist say 'pussy' on air but that's not a good enough reason to support Pussy Riot at the expense of others.

The UK has recently banned protest outside of Parliament. If there is any physical space in the UK where the right to protest should be paramount, it's outside of Parliament. Yet, we let the government deny us this right with very little complaint. Trenton Oldfield was sentenced to 6 months in prison for jumping in water to disrupt a boat race. His crime: prejudice against prejudice. You literally couldn't make it up. As Nina Power writes: "The message is blunt: if it's on TV and aristocrats are involved, then the state can deprive you of your liberty for as long as it likes." The correlations between Oldfield's conviction and that of Pussy Riot are pretty clear, yet I doubt there will be any protests to have Oldfield's sentence over-turned. Certainly, there was very little campaigning about the ridiculously harsh sentences given out in light of last years riots with people being sentenced for 6 months for, basically, shoplifting. If we incarcerated every shoplifter in the UK, prisons would be overflowing. We'd have to move all prisons to the Outer Hebrides and let them fend for themselves since no country can afford to imprison that many people. 

I think the Pussy Riot case matters. I think it matters a lot. These women do not deserve to be arrested or imprisoned for what was a political protest. Political protest against the government should be a fundamental human right but let's not be hypocritical here. The right to political protest really exists nowhere. There are limits everywhere on the right to protest and Russia isn't the only country guilty for imprisoning people for political reasons. Pussy Riot aren't the only activists whose voices are being silenced by repressive regimes. Oldfield isn't the only protestor being silenced in "democracies". You only need to look at the 3 activists currently imprisoned in the US for refusing to testify in a grand jury case. Maya Evans was incarcerated in the UK for having the gall to read aloud the names of British soldiers who died in Iraq across from the Cenotaph in Whitehall. That garnered very little support. There has been very little media coverage of the attempted silencing of Mexican journalist Lydia Cacho by drug cartels. In Cacho's case, I suspect the almost total lack of media coverage has something to do with the fact that she deliberately targets the Patriarchy in her research into sex trafficking.  Yolanda Ordaz De la Cruz was murdered because of her activism as a journalist. The murder of journlaist Anna  Politkovskaya was covered by the media but she had no celebrity endorsements about her right to free speech [or the right to life for that matter].

I'm not saying we shouldn't be protesting or standing up for Pussy Riot. I'm saying we don't get to choose whose "free speech" we defend based on their relative attractiveness or the fact that their name inspires giggles. If we are defending the right to protest all political structures, then we damn well had better be defending everyones and not just a group of young girls in Russia.  We also need to ensure that our defence of "free speech" does not happen at the expense of harming vulnerable members of our society. The use of free speech to defend pornography and prostitution is basically the acceptance of state-sponsored rape. It's the Patriarchy defending itself.

And, all those celebrities lining up to support Pussy Riot, how about you put your money where your mouth is and pay their legal representation. How about  you pay for the childcare of their children required whilst their mothers are in prison? How about you financially support the grassroots activists in Russia fighting to end the Gulag system? Why aren't you financially supporting Sara Kruzan who was imprisoned for life as a teenager for killing the man who raped and trafficked her?

SGM

Some articles which need to be read:*

Why the Pussy Riot case still matters.

CeCe McDonald vs. Pussy Riot: Political Imprisonment and Perspective

Q&A: Pussy Riot's Yekaterina Samutsevich on Their Fight for Freedom

Pussy Riot's Act of Faith

From Pussy Riot to Todd Akin: The Claiming—and Silencing—of Language and Speech

What is Vladimir Putin up too?

Pussy Riot on their feminism, pseudonymity, Femens, Voina and more

Putin has blood on his hands

What Pussy Riot taught the world

Riot Grrl, Pussy Riot, and the Heartbreak of Seeing Feminism Attacked in Russia

Pussy Riot: Gender, Free Speech, Benevolent Sexism and Western Hypocrisy

* I do not agree with the analysis in all of these articles. I have included them specifically because I disagree with them.

Read More

FeMEnism: Netmums Re-Invents "Choice" Feminism

Netmums, the other British parenting website, has undertaken a survey on feminism. In it, I have learned that I am aggressive, undermine motherhood, oppress men and I need to use Botox. Needless to say, this is not my feminism. My feminism is about the liberation of women as a class. It is about women’s rights legally recognized: our right to reproductive freedom, employment, and the freedom from violence. Feminism isn’t about individualism and personal choices. I am white, middle class and have 2 post-graduate degrees with several academic articles published. I have "choices" that many other women will never have. To pretend that racism, classism, homophobia, disablism and misogyny don’t limit the “choices” of other women is hypocritical. It is a lie perpetrated by the Patriarchy designed to isolate women. 

According to the Telegraph , that noted hotbed of Radical Feminism,

(s)ocial commentators have dubbed this new movement 'FeMEnism' as it gives women the right to live very varied lives without judgment from their peers - rather than be dictated to by the 70's-style 'sisterhood' with a solitary viewpoint.

Now, I've had a quick google and I can't see anything, which suggests that anyone is using the term feMEnism. And, really, who would? It sounds rather pretentious; although I'm not sure I'm a good judge on this since I use ‘FeMNist’ to denote my membership of the Mumsnet Feminist board. We are a collective. FeMEnist implies that the only person who counts is the individual woman, which is utterly silly. It is also disingenuous at best. Choice feminism has been around for more than 15 years. It is called Third Wave feminism. It is odd for both Netmums and the Telegraph to be buying into a discourse, which is false. However, since Netmums founder Siobhan Freegard also buys into the idea that “traditional” feminism is “aggressive, divisive and doesn’t take into account (women’s) personal circumstances”, it’s not surprising that they are trying to advertise themselves as a new form of feminism.

Freegard doesn’t understand Second Wave feminism; at least, I think she is referring to Second Wave Feminism with the word “traditional”. It’s entirely possible she means the Suffragettes. Either way, I don’t know any feminists who hate all men or who view them as the “enemy”. I know many who hate the men who have physically, sexually and emotionally abused them. I hate them too. I think that’s a rational response to being violated. There has never been “a battle of the sexes” on the part of feminists. That is a story spun by the media who are too invested in the Patriarchy to actively challenge the myths surrounding violence against women and feminist political theory. Heck, in the case of the Daily Mail, they actively perpetuate the myths in order to sell their own brand of woman-hating to those unwilling to give up their privilege. In fact, and I know some will find this truly shocking, feminists actually have fathers, brothers, and sons. If you find this a surprise, do feel free to take some deep breaths, because it gets worse: some feminists are even married. To men. Actual men. With penises and everything.

There are so many things wrong with this survey that I don't know quite where to begin. Obviously, the refusal to acknowledge the political structures in which women live is, well, stupid. It is the failure to understand that other women's lives, even in the UK, are fundamentally different from one another whilst at the same time recognising women's oppression as a class. Feminists do both. We seek the liberation of *ALL* women whilst simultaneously supporting and campaigning for the specific needs of communities of women who are Othered within a white capitalist-Patriarchy.

Feminists also don't judge women for their appearance. We are critical of the patriarchal constructions of beauty which force women to pass the Patriarchal Fuckability Test in order to be considered worthy of notice. Communities of women who reinforce patriarchal standards of beauty like assuming that being feminine and glamorous was once a barrier to being taken seriously aren’t challenging anything. The problem is that women aren't taken seriously unless they are "feminine". It is the performance of gender which is a barrier to women's liberation. If an individual woman having breast implants is a "choice", how can we assess women's choices? We live in a society which privileges very young women who are thin, with fake breasts and long blonde hair. This is without even considering the issue of race which works on the presumption of white = beautiful. The number of creams designed to lighten the skin of Women of Colour is incredible. The pressure on Black women to have straight hair is immense. Hell, even Chris Rock noticed and made a documentary about it. If a man can see it, why can't other women? This isn’t to say that women who have breast enlargements should be judged or bullied. You won’t find a feminist who actually argues that. You will find feminists who believe that “choice” is a word used to limit women’s ability to make decisions for themselves. It removes everything from the political context. Feminism is about the political context. It is about women as a class. 

I'm quite surprised that 82% of the women who filled in the survey "condemned prostitution". What do they mean by that? Do they mean the men who believe they are entitled to access women's bodies whenever they want and think nothing of buying another person's body for their own sexual gratification. If that's what they mean, then I'm with them. I think prostitution is nothing less than the state-sanctioned rape of vulnerable women; many of whom will have started prostituting themselves as children. Most women involved in prostitution have histories of child physical, psychological and sexual abuse. Many were victims of rape. Many are currently trapped in the self-harm of substance misuse. Many prostitute themselves because they have no other options to support their children. But, I suspect this isn't what was meant by "condemning prostitution". I suspect it is more to do with blaming the vulnerable women who are trapped than it is acknowledging the problem lies in a capitalist system which views women as commodities to be bought and sold. It's notable that 77% also felt that marrying for money was wrong. I wonder who they were blaming there: the women trying to survive the best way they can? Or, the rich men who think they are entitled to buy women. 

The chart labelled "Which of these activities are acceptable for feminists" is just utterly pathetic. FFS, they have "baking cupcakes" down. I must have missed the part of the feminist movement which bans women from baking. I think they got confused there with the Patriarchy who don't like women to eat because fat women are unfuckable. A lot of feminists have a problem with pole dancing. That's because we view as part of the continuum of violence perpetrated by the "sex entertainment industy"; an oxymoron if I've heard one. Again, this isn't about critiquing the women involved. It's about questioning the entire industry and why men feel entitled to treat women like objects. That is what is missing from this survey: the men. The men who abuse and rape women. They are who feminists are fighting; not women who vajazzle.

And, if 51% of teenage girls have never heard of the feminist movement then their parents may want to check what else their daughters aren’t learning at school since feminism appears in both the Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland and in numerous places in the English/Welsh curriculum. It’s also in the media ALL the time. I genuinely don’t know how anyone can’t have heard of it; even if it’s just to buy into the Daily Mail’s “feminists are all evil, man-hating lesbians” crap. I wouldn’t expect a 7 year old to have heard the word feminist, just as I wouldn’t expect a 14 year old to be up to date in feminist theory, but a 16 year old who has never heard the word, well, I find that really problematic. 

This is the problem with both the survey undertaken by Netmums and the discussion in the media. The survey itself has inverted feminist discourse to push for a very specific end point: namely that feminism is not relevant. Now, I don’t want to cast aspersions but I do think it’s quite telling that this survey came from Netmums and not Mumsnet, which has both a very active feminist community online, as well as grassroots activists. The Mumsnet “We Believe You campaign” and the Miscarriage Code of Practice campaign came directly from Mumsnet members. Not all would self-define as feminist, but they all understand the importance of sisterhood. If I were cynical, I might think that this is part of a policy to discredit Mumsnet, which has been much maligned in the press recently for daring to be political. The Netmums version of FeMEnism challenges nothing, but celebrates choice at the expensive of collective political action.


Also, Dudes, I can count. 1300 women took your survey. That's not really represenative of anything but a self-selecting group of women who post on Netmums. Let's not get over-excited about "representing the voice of young women". 

Read More

Justin Lee Collins: Just Another Right-On Dude But One Who Inspired the #dickheaddetox

Another day; another abusive man is basically forgiven for being a violent thug. I'm getting bored of writing about all these arseholes. I'm beyond fucking angry at them continuing to be feted and forgiven for the abuse. 

Justin Lee Collins is a vicious, violent thug and it is an absolute fucking disgrace that he only got 140 hours community service for harassing, stalking, and scaring the ever-loving shit out of his ex-partner. He deserves to be in jail but he is not because the judge bought into every myth about domestic violence possible.

There is nothing I can say about Collins that the Fleet Street Fox has not already said more eloquently here: 

Judges know the power of words. They know that hearing "140 hours community service" is not as frightening as "six months' jail", and they also know that stealing a case of mineral water in a riot is not as serious as assaulting your partner over a period of seven months.
They also know, because the High Court ruled on this in July, that only words which contain a genuine and intended threat can be considered criminal. The judge in that case said people "are free to speak not what they ought to say, but what they feel".

So idiots who write unfunny jokes about murdered five-year-old April Jones, set up silly Facebook pages mocking the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, complain about British soldiers in Afghanistan or upset the grieving by writing about having sex with the dead are - and this is important - not criminals. They're idiots, they're offensive, but they cannot in law reasonably be thrown in jail.
But they were. 

A man, famous or otherwise, who reduces his partner to a constant state of fear, who assaults her, bullies her and admits only the part of her story she was canny enough to catch on tape IS a criminal. Justin Lee Collins is a thug, a bully, and a liar. He CAN be reasonably jailed.
But he wasn't. 

I don't think that was because he was famous, or because he could afford a good lawyer. I think it was because a change in the law recognising that words said by a partner are part of domestic abuse, and equally as if not more damaging than a punch or a smack, will not be in force until next March so it was impossible to prosecute this little toad as he should have been. 

And it's also because we get incredibly angry about the words we see written down, forgetting that means we can tear them up, delete them or burn them, and not about the words we hear which wriggle into our heads and stay there until we are able to shake them out.
The most important words in your whole life are not the ones you see but what you hear - hello, goodbye, I do, I'm pregnant, it's bad news I'm afraid. You might forget precisely what was said, but they change your life one way or the other and you never forget where you were, and what you were doing when you heard them. 

If only judges heard what everyone else does.

If you haven't already clicked the link to Fleet Street Fox's article, do so. Now.

Then, read Eva Wiseman's Naming and Shaming article in the Guardian. We need to start naming and shaming these violent misogynists. It's a disgrace that Charlie Sheen who has got form for domestic violence against more than one partner, "accidentally" shooting then girlfriend Kelly Preston in the arm, as well as the abuse of prostitutes now has another hit television series.

I'm sick of Chris Brown who violently assaulted his partner Rihanna.

I'm sick of Mike Tyson who has a conviction for rape and a history of domestic violence. I'm sick of the rape apologists who've financially supported Tyson's new career as a "motivational speaker". I'm pissed off at Spike Lee for directing Tyson in a one-man play which whitewashed Tyson's violent history. I'm pissed off at the rape apologists wearing Tyson's branded clothes.

I'm sick of the child rape apologists claiming that Roman Polanski's status as an "artiste" is more important than the child he drugged and sodomised. I'm pissed off at every child rape apologist who stood up and gave the man a standing ovation at the Oscars.

So, I'm with Eva Wiseman. Let's start calling these "men" out for what they really are: violent misogynistic thugs who deserve our contempt and our hatred. Let's do her dickhead detox.

James Brown: domestic violence*
Hugh Grant: abusing a prostitute
Ched Evans: rapist
Sean Connery: domestic violence
Ike Turner: domestic violence
Mel Gibson: probation for domestic violence [not to mention the issue of racism]
Harry Morgan: domestic violence
Tupac Shakur: sexual abuse
Richard Hatch: domestic assault
Tracy Lawrence: domestic abuse
Dennis Rodman: domestic abuse
Mickey Rourke: domestic abuse
Sean Penn: domestic abuse
Paul Gascoigne: domestic violence
Stan Collymore: domestic violence
Bill Wyman: child rape**
R. Kelly: domestic abuse [amongst some other horrifying accusations]
Micheal Lohan: domestic violence
Larry Fitzgerald: restraining order for domestic violence
Santonia Holmes: multiple arrests for domestic violence
Tommy Lee: domestic violence
Alec Baldwin: emotional abuse
Steven Tyler: child rape**
Iggy Pop: child rape**
Jerry Lee Lewis: child rape**
John Peel: child rape**
Jonathon King: child rape
Gary Glitter: possessing child pornography and child rape**
Johnny Thunders: child rape**
David Bowie: child rape**
Jimmy Page: child rape**

*I'm using both domestic abuse and domestic violence because the terms reflect the legal status of the crime in the jurisdictions in which the men were charged. 

** None of these men were convicted of child rape. But, that's because we live in a society that celebrates male violence and doesn't give a shit about children.

Read More

Pimp my Whatever is Vile Misogynistic Twaddle

I can not express just how much I hate this expression. I genuinely can not believe that people blither on about "Pimp my ride" and don't get just how offensive it is. The origins of the term "pimp" are obvious. It originates in patriarchal-capitalist discourse. The term refers to the prostituting and sexual abuse of women's bodies. Pimps make money from the rape and abuse of vulnerable women.

I don't buy into this theory that we can reclaim the words of our oppressors. The meaning of pimp is the practise of rape. The increasing use of the verb "pimping" to mean promote or decorate an item is beyond disrespectful to the women's whose bodies have been abused, tortured and raped because of pimps. Language has power. The word pimp is misogynistic. It should not and can not be used in a "positive" manner. The excuse of "evolving" language should not apply to words whose origins are in racist, disablist, homophobic or misogynistic language. The women and children whose bodies and souls have been harmed by prostitution deserve better than to hear their experiences obscured by minimising language.

Read More

Femen: Not Quite Buying This as a Feminist Protest

I first heard of the Ukrainian Feminist group Femen on a news report. Whilst the male journalists discussing Femen were all congratulatory on this group of Ukrainian women for getting press attention, there was no mention as to what exactly Femen were protesting. I had to look that up on Wikipedia. Femen protests against sex tourism, the legalisation of prostitution, and the selling of "brides" internationally. I support everyone of their protest policies but not how they choose to protest. 

There is lots of media coverage of the women of Femen. This has more to do with how the women of Femen choose to protest than the male journalists being interested in Feminist protests. Femen protesters bare their breasts. That is the essence of their political engagement: baring their breasts to bring attention to the issue they are concerned about. Unfortunately, the media images uses of Femen are all of very young, tall, and extremely thin blond women with bare breasts.

Now, not all the protesters of Femen conform to the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. The problem is images like this aren't the ones which garner media notice:

And, this is the very image that the media should be using because it is representative of *all* women's bodies rather than that subsection of very young women who happen to be tall and slender. In using women's bodies as a canvas of protest, Femen are conforming to the norms of Patriarchal objectification of women's bodies. Their message is obscured by the medium of their protest because the medium conforms to the normalised construction of the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. What they are protesting is important and it deserves real media coverage and not what is effectively male journalists getting off on women's bodies. 

Somehow, a picture of a Femen protestor managed to win an award in the 2012 the World Press Photo competition. The photo forms part of the World Press Photograph Exhibition which is currently on display at the Scottish Parliament. It is of a young woman with bare breasts with flowers in her hair. The only difference between this photograph and ones of Woodstock is the large cement buildings behind her. 

It's a lovely photograph but it doesn't match the political or social power of the other photos included in the exhibit. Walking through, it felt like this image was only included because it was of a half-naked beautiful woman rather than an image of political protest, particularly since the woman in this photo is neither carrying a placard nor covered in slogans. 

There have been a number of high profile feminist groups across Europe using their bodies as canvases for political protest, notably UK Feminista Muff March protest last December and the French group La Barbe's protests. The UK Feminista protest was raising awareness about the increase in labiaplasty in Europe and its relationship to the banned practise of Female Genital Mutilation. This involved a protest in Harley street with the women wearing merkins over their clothes. The women of La Barbe protest the exclusion of women in politics and culture by wearing beards. Both are protest art using the female body but they are inverting the construction of women as objects. Femen's political protest is obscured by the patriarchal objectification of their bodies. 

Read More

Petition Round-Up: 2.0

These are links to petitions I have written about on my blog in the past few months: 


Scottish Government Concerning Cuts to Charities working on VAW 


Action Aid Petition to the UK Government Concerning the Family Planning Summit


Women's Media Project: Sexualisation is Silencing


Save the Women's Library


Stop the Sexualisation of Women in the Press 


Protecting the Funding for NCT Practitioners


Stop Cutting Funding to Domestic Violence Resources


Abortion Reform: Scrap the Requirement for a Second Doctor's Signature


Ban Airbrushing of all Images in the Media Aimed at Children

Read More

#RadFem2012

I've been writing this blogpost for a few days now and, as ever, I'm behind the times since Sheila Jeffreys has now been banned from the conference venue for "promoting hatred". I find this incredibly disappointing and it makes me so very angry that women's voices are once again being silenced because of a concerted attack by a group of activists who use shameful bullying tacts to silence any opposition. The Guardian article is here.

This is my post, not quite finished [or edited] since I meant it for tomorrow but I would rather it be read now:

I've been trying to write this blogpost since the vitriol against #RadFem2012 started trending on twitter. I've been horrified by the level of violence and hate speech that has accompanied the announcement of the Radical Feminist conference in London. This might reflect entirely who I follow on Twitter and Facebook, but the vast majority of insults, especially those which threaten violence, have been by a few transactivists against radical feminists. After all, I didn't see anyone who self-identified as Radical Feminist suggesting that people who disagreed with them were "scum" like those Transactivists using the hashtag: #radscum2012. I've not seen any Radical Feminsts using words like "cunt" to dismiss and belittle Transactivists. There is even a Resist RadFem2012 blog set-up. I won't be attending #RadFem2012 this summer but that's for financial reasons and not because I don't want to be there. I missed the Go Feminism conference in February for the same reason. If I had the financial resources, I would spend my life traipsing up and down the UK on a train attending Feminist conferences and festivals. Being surrounded by Feminists of all persuasions is a beautiful thing; even if we don't agree on all points just being with people who are critical of our capitalist-patriarchy is inspiring.

I am, however, really struggling to understand the vitriol targeting the Radical Feminist conference. I genuinely do not see why people are so angry about one conference for women-born only. It is not like there is a dearth of Feminist conferences and activities in the UK right now. If anything, we are at the beginning of a major Feminist activist revival. There should be opportunities for everyone to participate in Feminist activism without denigrating or deriding attempts by others to engage in activism and consciousness-raising.

Intersectionality:

There are many forms of oppression and discrimination that women born women have to deal with which is different from the discrimination faced by Transgender people. I think it would be equally disrespectful for me to assert my "right" to attend a conference which is for transgender women only. Indeed, the Philadelphia Trans-Health conference includes closed sessions for Transgendered people only. I think it is inhumane and utterly arrogant for me to assume that I should be allowed into this space because there are issues of discrimination faced by transgendered people that I, as a FAAB, have never experienced and do not have the ability to offer anything constructive other than sympathy. Transgender people don't need a straight, FAAB sitting in the corner offering sympathy. They need a space where they can discuss their lived experiences without worrying about whether or not an audience is present [or worrying if the audience is sympathetic] just like FAAB deserve.

It is as equally disrespectful for me to assert my "right" to attend a conference for Black Feminist women-only based on an assumption of "shared experience" because of our biological sex. Or, and this term sets my teeth on edge, my "right" to attend a Black-women only event in order to "educate" myself about the specific structural oppression faced by Black women due to misogyny and racism. If I were truly interested in "educating" myself about the multiple oppressions experienced by "Othered" women, I would read books, articles and, increasingly, blogs written by these women. Hell, Twitter and Facebook offer opportunities to learn without being rude. Demanding access to their space would be asserting a White Privilege that I do not deserve. Black women have the personal need and the political right to close their space to white women. I have neither the personal need nor the political right to demand access to that space.

Transgender people do experience serious oppression and discrimination in our capitalist-Patriarchy. Anyone suggesting differently is either deliberately minimising the level of sexual violence and harassment transgendered people receive or has not yet considered it. I have never heard a Feminist argue that Transgender people do not experience violence [sexual and otherwise]. I have heard Feminists argue that the violence experienced by Transgendered people originates in the same Patriarchal constructs as misogyny BUT that the violence and oppression of women is both experientially and structurally different. That is not to say that one individual has it "worse" than another or that the specific experience of one individual can be used as representative of all, whether they be women or transgender but, rather that, the specific oppressions experienced by FAAB is qualitatively different to that experienced by transgendered people. It is also infinitely more likely for women to experience gender-based violence.

FAAB should also have the right to get together to support, mourn and celebrate their experiences of oppression because of misogyny. FAAB should be allowed to discuss issues like amenorrhea, pregnancy, childbirth, infertility, abortion, sexual harassment, domestic violence, rape and other sex-based socially constructed forms of discrimination without an audience. Women, as a sex, are entitled to a safe space to talk. Denying women the right to do so is basic misogynistic oppression. This doesn't mean that there aren't areas of Feminism where women and transgender people can't come together to engage in activism. It just means it doesn't have to be every time. To quote Beachcomber on MN: "This is a political issue, an issue of social groups and hierarchy - it is not an issue of individual circumstance or reality". Everyone is entitled to a space in which to contemplate and critique their experiences within their own social group.

Personal Reflections:

I suppose its important here to note where I started my journey as a feminist. I grew up in an area of Canada with a very high population of First Nations people. Whilst I can write a catalogue of the institutionalised sexism and misogyny I experienced, it is nothing like the experience of First Nations women who suffered under the dual oppressions of racism and misogyny. My statistical risk of being rape was exponentially smaller than that of First Nations women; as was my statistical chance of being a victim of gendered murder. I experienced similar "smaller" sexual assaults to First Nations women but, again, not in the numbers experienced by First Nations women. The treatment of First Nations women in Canada is a national disgrace that is frequently elided from the public sphere. My first feminist "activism" was a protest against the public support a white rapist received because his victim had to be "lying" because she was First Nations and therefore supposedly sexually available to all white men.

I am also disabled but I wasn't born disabled. Nor do I have a disability which is "visible". I have never been stared at or insulted in the street for looking "different". I can "pass" as non-disabled. I've never struggled on the London Underground [except when carrying heavy luggage]. I've never had to stand at a bus stop and watch a bus driver refuse to allow me on because I am in a wheelchair. These oppressions and discriminatory practises are different and everyone should have the right to gather to discuss issues personal to them without having to worry about whether or not they will be attacked for them.

Constructing Gender:

I also have both white privilege and class privilege. Neither of these negate my oppression as a woman. They do make more privileged than Black women and poor women. As a feminist, I want to see the eradication of the gender binary hierarchy and the destruction of the systemic and institutionalised oppression of women in the capitalist-patriarchy. I believe that sex is biology but gender is a social construct designed to oppress women. Gender can be "performed" but it is inherently a destructive and reductive social construct. Performing it only serves to reinforce that destructive and reductive social construct and further oppress women. I think it is telling that for MtF transgender people in the UK to be allowed surgery on the NHS, they have to "live" for two years performing femininity: not gender but femininity by wearing dresses, make up and high heels. If this were how women were identified, I would know very few FAAB who would pass. I do not believe women will ever be "free" until we have destroyed the Patriarchy which also requires destroying capitalism. The Patriarchy predates capitalism but it now functions in symbiosis with capitalism so that we can not destroy one without the other. The capitalist-Patriarchy is harmful for everyone. Yes, there is an intersectionality of oppressions that privilege certain groups of women over other women [and over other men in terms of poverty]. I do not understand how we can destroy the Patriarchy if we are reinforcing the gender binary hierarchy.

The Right to Protest?

I am quite concerned about the threats of intimidation and violence being levied at the women who will be attending the Radical Feminist conference; particularly the not-quite-ironic threats by certain transactivists using the same language of oppression as MRAs. They are agitating for protests outside the conference which are reminiscent of those held by anti-choice arseholes outside abortion clinics. I can not believe people who self-identify as Feminists don't see how hypocritical that stance is. I remember attending a Holocaust Memorial Day viewing of the film The Pianist which ended in with a question and answer session with Holocaust survivors derailed by Palestinian activists. Whilst I support the aims of Palestinian activists in fighting the human rights violations committed by the Israeli government, targeting vulnerable, elderly Holocaust survivors was rude, mean-spirited and unlikely to convert me to their cause. I feel the same about those specific Transactivists threatening and intimidating women wanting to attend this Radical Feminist conference. It only serves to alienate me from their cause.

I also think its quite problematic to be protesting outside an event that will be attended by vulnerable women; particularly women who have experienced male violence within their personal relationships or experienced violence as prostituted women. Agitating outside a venue is very different to peaceful protest. Whilst I'm not entirely fond of the suggestion that people will be outside picketing with signs, the thought that people will be deliberately attending to shout abuse and denigrate the women attending makes me really quite sad. Have we genuinely got to the point where a group of women can't get together to discuss issues relevant to them without being abused or insulted?

In many ways, this feels like the same debate around Reclaim the Night when men, who weren't going to attend anyways, get all uppity about not being allowed to attend. Or, what annoys me even more, men are then invited to attend RTN's which immediately excludes vulnerable women and then the men don't bother to show up. I have to wonder how much of the hate speech on Twitter under the #radscum2012 and #radfem2012 hashtags are genuinely by people interested in radical feminism and transgender rights and how many are only using it as a way of unleashing their bigotry. This is the kind of abuse radical feminists receive via their blogs and twitter. The number of times "cunt" is used as an insult is telling.

I think it's worth noting that this conference is predicated on a number of issues which MRAs find problematic. It takes as its starting point the theory that the "sex industry" is inherently misogynistic and that the idea of "sex-positive" feminism is an anachronism which privileges male sexuality and reduces women only to objects. It assumes that porn is violent women-hating and that prostitution amounts to nothing more than the rape of vulnerable women.

In trying to write this, I've been reading a lot of blogs. These are a selection of some I've been reading over the past week:

Radical Pro-Feminist

Gender Trender

Feminist Perspectives on Trans Issues

Femonade

Feministing

F-Word

How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

CherryBlossomLife

Mumsnet Thread

Update with More Resources:

Fact Check Me on Cotton Ceilings

Pleasure and Possibilities Workshop

Gender Trender

Dinosaurs and Janice Raymond

Born Genderless

Resist RadFem

Building Bridges

Read More