You keep using Humanism. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I have written this rant a thousand times. My children can recite it word for word. Heck, given the power of speech, I bet the first words out the cat's mouth would be: For the love of catnip, stop squawking about humanism.

Nothing annoys me more than people disavowing the political theory of feminism because they want to be "humanists". Honestly, does no one google anymore? Humanism has an actual political definition which is predicated on the notion of rational thought; and that "rational thought" excluded women because we're all emotional and hysterical and shit. In fact, dating of the humanist movement usually starts around the Renaissance which is a period not known for its feminist writers. How anyone who grew up in a "Western" country with access to free secondary school education can get confused about the definition of humanism is completely beyond me.

For the last freaking time, and the welfare of my children:

HUMANISM DOES NOT MEAN EQUALITY BETWEEN THE SEXES.

It just doesn't. It doesn't matter what celebrity is babbling on about how they aren't feminists because they are humanists and humanists believe in equality. They are wrong. And, frankly, their agents need to have a chat with them about their knowledge of history. 

These are the very basic definitions as outlined in Collins' School Dictionary which I've borrowed from my primary school child:  

• Humanism is the belief in mankind's ability to achieve happiness and fulfilment without the need for religion.

• Feminism is the belief that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men.

See: THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Not even close. 

This is the definition of humanism as taken from the Oxford Dictionaries Online:

A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

• (often Humanism) a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.

• (among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the conditioned nature of the individual.

If you feel the need to quibble with this definition of humanism, do feel free to google yourself. Wikipedia's got a pretty decent history of humanism. Or check out the British Humanist Association definition:

• trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)


• makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals

• believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same.

Not a word about feminism anywhere on their website.

Because humanism is NOT feminism.

Feminism, at least liberal feminism, is about equality between men and women. If you don't want to use the word feminist, use equalist. That term sets my teeth on edge but by using you won't be publicly embarrassed of your poor knowledge of history. [My feminism is about the liberation of women from male violence since we technically already have equality before the law in the UK but those laws are never enforced].

To be clear, you can be a feminist and a humanist but not a humanist because you're afraid someone might think you hate men if you call yourself a feminist. And, come on, if feminism is about equality between men and women, then men who think feminists are "man-haters" are clearly misogynistic losers.

Do you really want to be taking the advice on your political beliefs from a man who thinks women are inherently inferior to men and lie about rape? 

Really?

Read More

Proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activist

I had completely forgotten I wrote this response to a dreadful piece in the Huffington Post on the "Modern Face of Feminism". I wrote the rant in my joural whilst on the train to the best feminist weekend I've ever had [soon to be published as RadFem Couch Surfing]! It's a month late but I'm still so cranky at it so I'm publishing it anyways: 

This is the delightful conclusion to a rather dire attempt to start a debate on what it means to be a feminist in the newly emerging 4th wave [if you actually believe this is a thing]:

Modern-day feminism has multiple facets – from populism and pop culture to new-media and new activism – but it would seem the common denominator is inclusivity. No longer the preserve of extreme activists and intellectual theorists, feminism is shedding its stigma and going mainstream.

Feminism's apparently going Mainstream and dumping the extreme activists and intellectual theorists.

I just have a few, shall we say, quibbles here. What, precisely, is an "extremist activist"? Is it a feminist who campaigned to make rape in marriage illegal? Or, the feminists who campaigned for refuges for women fleeing violent male partners? Or, the feminists campaigning for rape crisis centres? Equal Pay? Affordable childcare? Maternity pay? 

Were suffragettes extremists for fighting for the right to vote? They were certainly labelled as such a 100 years ago. Feminists fighting for the Equal Pay act were considered as extremists by many, as were the feminists campaigning to raise the age of consent to protect children from adult male sexual predators. Hell, Caroline Criado-Perez has been described as an extremist for forcing the Bank of England to recognise already existing legislation. I can't quite work out what 'extreme' means when campaigning to force the government to recognise its own legislation.

What makes an activist an "extremist"? Is it their methods of activism or their goals? Who gets to decide what feminist activism counts as extremism? The men who denied women suffrage? The men who created a legal system which didn't recognise rape in marriage since women's number one duty as a possession was to fulfil their husband's every 'need'.  If feminists are extremists for fighting for the legal rights of women within the law, what does that say about our culture? Why are still perpetuating damaging myths labelling feminists as "extreme" when feminists have never campaigned for anything more than the legal recognition that women are human too and deserve to live a life without being subjected to male violence.

As for the brief snide attack on feminist academics and theorists, well, that was clearly written by someone who hadn't bothered to read much of their own university required reading. A lot of academic writing is drivel: see almost every book on history written by white men and pretty much the entire genre of post-modernism which seems to be predicated on an inability to use words with less than 7 syllables. Feminist academics are researching domestic violence, rape, women's history, genocide, maternal mortality. They aren't exactly The New Adventures of the Famous Five and I'm not sure the Dr Seuss' Tales of Women's Experience in Genocide is, shall we say, the kindest way to write about women's lived experiences. 

I honestly get so bored of these articles on feminism which are either shrieking about how we live in a post-feminist world [because 2 women a week in the UK who are murdered by their male partners don't count at all] or are yowling about a New Wave of Feminism. It would be nice if the media stopped publishing this drivel as "news" and started publishing factually-correct articles on feminism. It's not like the Huffington Post would have to look hard for great feminist writers. They've already got Soraya Chemaly.


So, I'm proud to be an Extremist Feminist Activists since I believe that universal suffrage and whiny men no longer being allowed to treat their wives and children as chattel are, you know, positive improvements in humanity. 

Read More

International Women's Day 2013: Thank a Feminist!

(Image from here)

These are adapted from tweets by Finn Mackay by Ailsa Clare Burkimsher Sadler:

Today is International Women's Day! Give thanks to Feminists for all we owe them!

If you're female & - you can view yourself as a full, adult human being instead of a minor who needs to be controlled by a man; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can choose to be a mother when/if you want, not at the dictate of a husband/partner/rapist; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you have the right to keep your medical records confidential from the men in your family; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can marry a man without your civil human rights being submerged into his rights; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can breastfeed your baby discreetly in public & not be arrested; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you get a degree after University, not a certificate of completion; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you live in a country where rape in marriage is illegal; thank a feminist.

If you’re female & you can report your partner for domestic abuse & expect police to take action not berate you for not being a better partner; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can get custody of your own children following divorce/separation; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - your salary is paid to your own bank account, not husband/father/brother; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - your own property legally belongs to you, not to your husband/father/brother; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you are allowed to testify in any court trial in your own defense, not be spoken for by husband/father; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can start a business & get a loan using only your name & credit history, not that of a husband/father; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can report rape to the police & expect a trial not to be about your hemline; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can take your boss to court for sexual harassment if it happens; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can wear trousers; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you play an organised sport; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can get or give birth control information without going to prison; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can apply for and have a chance to get the job you want, including in male dominated industries; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you get paid as much as a man doing the same job; thank a feminist.

If you're female & - you can vote; thank a feminist.

Read More

What's at Stake: Nothing Less than the Liberation of Women

This is written as part II of Feminisms Fest: Why it Matters.

Feminism Matters.

Feminism has always mattered.

There has never been a point when feminism doesn't matter.

And, what's at stake is nothing less than the full liberation of women.

I find it incredibly sad that we are still asking this question; that the endemic nature of male violence is still so unacknowledged that we have to preface every discussion on the experience of women survivors of rape with the statement: men are victims of rape too. Feminists know this. We're the ones talking about it since the vast majority of male victims of rape are raped by other men.

Feminism matters because we are the ones naming perpetrators of all violence and are the only ones demanding they be held accountable.

Feminism matters.

Because women matter.

Because women are human too.

Rather than stating the obvious, I would rather shout out some of the amazing feminist and women's organisations doing frontline work supporting women:

• Rape Crisis England and Wales
• Rape Crisis Scotland
• Women's Aid
• Women's Aid Scotland
• Nia: Delivering Cutting Edge Services to End Violence Against Women and Children
• Million Women Rise
• Fawcett Society
• Southall Black Sisters
• Imkaan
• Reclaim the Night
• Refuge
• Women's Support Project
• Abortion Rights
• Eaves

Feminism Matters but we already knew that. 

And, a new generation of women know it too.

Read More

A Bunch of Men Were Asked to Leave A Movie.

UPDATE: There appears to have been some quite serious inaccurate representations in the Comment is Free article written by Marta Owczarek. I wrote this post based on the information in the article, as such, there are some inaccurate statements within my post concerning what actually happened after the premier of Myriam Fougere's Lesbiana - A Parallel Revolution. I was going to take down the entire blog post but I've decided to leave it up because it provoked some interesting discussion about the inclusion of men in women-only spaces. As such, this should be treated as a theoretical piece and not a representation or summation of what occurred at the London Feminist Film Festival.

UPDATE TWO: What Julia Long Actually Said:“I just wonder if there are any men that would like to show their solidarity and leave at this point, out of respect for autonomous women’s space. It’s a polite invitation, but I just thought you might like to consider it, as political allies. Thank you.” 
[Cheers and applause.] 

Julia Long's response in the Guardian Cif.

I offer my sincere apologies to Julia Long for misrepresenting what happened in the blog post below. I am sorry.

The London Feminist Film Festival took place last weekend at the Hackney Picture House. By all accounts, it was incredibly successful event with the premier of Myriam Fougere's Lesbiana - A Parallel Revolution selling out. Considering the amount of press the death of feminism has garnered recently, the success of the London Feminist Film Festival is something to celebrate. Not that feminism is actually dying; 10 minutes on google would be evidence enough of the strength and sisterhood within the feminist movement, but it is an accusation frequently thrown at feminists.

After the premier of Myriam Fougere's Lesbiana - A Parallel Revolution, panel member and feminist activist Julia Long asked all the men in the audience to leave so that women could discuss the movie, a film about the lesbian separatist movement, without men. Now, I wasn't there but I can imagine the uproar this caused. Excluding men from feminist events always causes an uproar. But, no one ever seems to ask why feminists are excluding men from *some* feminist events. No one asks why feminists are moving back to women-only organising or why feminists are increasingly identifying as political lesbians or lesbian separatists. Why are women-only spaces, once again, becoming so important? No one asks why there is such a backlash to the thought of women-only organising. When people do ask, they don't appear to be hearing the answer.

Marta Owczarek, in her Comment is Free article, claims that Julia Long derailed feminist debate about the film by asking men to leave. I would argue the exact opposite. Julia Long used a public platform to make a specific political point. She raised the issue of women-only spaces for organising and debating feminism at the premier of a film which is specifically about lesbian women choosing to live amongst only women. I can't think of a more appropriate place to push the debate back into the public sphere and, make no mistake, this debate has always been a part of feminism. It has never gone away. It has only reemerged in the press due to the backlash to the RadFem 2012 conference in London in June. It has never stopped being a contentious issue amongst feminists. It has never stopped being something for feminists are routinely ridiculed and belittled. 

I support women-only spaces. I think they remain fundamental to the success of feminism as a political movement dedicated to the liberation of women. Whilst the inclusion of men within the movement is necessary, they do not need to be involved at every meeting and conference. There are thousands of ways that men can be, and are, involved with feminist activism that doesn't require them encroaching on women-only spaces. They can help financially support women's organisations like Rape Crisis, Shakti Women's Aid, Women's Aid, Nia, or Southall Black Sisters. Men can join activist groups like Object, UK Feminista, Fawcett Society, and Abortion Rights. Men can fundraise by holding car washes and bake sales. They can join the White Ribbon Campaign and help to raise awareness about male violence against women and children.

The most important thing men can do to help the feminist movement is to challenge sexism every time they witness it. They have to challenge every rape joke. They have to challenge every man who minimises domestic violence. They have to step up every time; not just once in a while but every time they witness sexism. Sometimes this means they have to challenge themselves and recognise that their own behaviour is sexist. Sometimes it means accepting that they won't be allowed into every feminist space. As a white, heterosexual feminist it would be hypocritical of me to demand to be allowed into feminist spaces for Black, Ethnic and Minority Women. It would be equally hypocritical for me to demand entry into a feminist space for lesbians-only; just as it would be hypocritical for me to demand entry into a room of male survivors of sexual violence or testicular cancer. Campaigning for women's liberation to bring about the destruction of the capitalist-patriarchy and the creation of true equality does not mean every person deserves equal access. It means hearing the specific needs of specific groups and taking those into account. Like kindergarten, it's about learning fairness.

We need men in the feminist movement. We need men like the teenage boy I met at a UK Feminista conference in London two years ago who entered into a group on women's poverty and listened; a young man who asked thoughtful questions and then heard the answers. He participated as an equal instead of dominating the discussion. Male domination of public speech has been well proven in research for thirty years now. Dale Spender wrote about it in The Writing of the Sex? in 1989. Margaret Atwood wrote about men dominating classrooms in early 1980s. There have been countless studies in education and within the workplace that demonstrate the silencing of women's voices within the presence of men. The largest global study on violence against women found that it  was the feminist movement which had the biggest impact on tackling the issue; much of this was accomplished with women-only spaces. 

Would have I done what Julia Long did? No, but not because I disagree with her, rather because I would have been too afraid to speak up; too afraid of the inevitable backlash. And, that's the main reason why I believe women-only spaces are integral to the feminist movement. The silencing of women's voices never stops. Sometimes the only way to stop the silencing is to uninvite men and that's the lesson men need to take from this. If they insist on attending, whose voices are they really  silencing?

Read More

Caitlin Moran: Excluding WofC isn't Feminism

I have long been uncomfortable with the construction of Caitlin Moran as Britain's Number One Feminist for a while now; especially after her dismissal of beauty practises and housework as feminist issues. Whilst I agree with this sentiment:

 ‘What? You don’t want to vote? Do you want to be owned by your husband? Do you want your money from your job to go into his bank account? If you were raped, do you still want that to be a crime? Congratulations: you are a feminist.’ 

It's not enough to just proclaim oneself a feminist. You actually have to live as a feminist and, yes, it is hard to live as a feminist in a society which punishes women for critiquing Patriarchal structures. None of us are perfect and we all fail from time to time. We live in a Patriarchal society which is inherently racist, homophobic, disablist and misogynist. We have all internalised these structures since birth. We can strive to live outwith the endemic violence against The Other but sometimes, a lot of the time, we need to be pulled up on a thought or an action which causes pain to others. Part of being an adult with critical thinking skills is to not get defensive when someone calls us on our privilege; no matter how difficult or humiliating it is. 

The problem with Moran's construction of Feminism is that it is of the "I'm alright so the rest of you must be moaning about shit because you're whiny" school. She has no self-reflection and seems incapable of seeing outwith her privilege. It involves victim-blaming as much as it involves a construction of Moran's feminism being the only feminism. 

Many of us watch American television. We all know that racism is endemic within it [and British TV for that matter]. We all know that shows like Friends are racist because of the total failure to include any PofC. The fact that mainstream culture is so steeped in racism that a program based in New York, like Sex and the City, manages to be completely "white" without any real criticism is the problem. It's one of the reasons that Law & Order was so different from other TV programs: it had African-American characters within the police and judiciary as permanent cast members. Yes, it got stuck in serious racial stereotyping in many other ways but it was a start. This is why Lena Dunham's Girls is such a disappointment. You simply can not have a cast which is all "white" and pretend they live in New York city. It's unbelievably stupid and racist. But, for Caitlin Moran to dismiss the concerns of others by stating that she "literally couldn't give a shit" about the representation of PofC in TV; well, that's just taking the piss. And, it isn't Feminism. It will never be Feminism.

Feminism is the political theory which is concerned with the liberation of ALL women from male violence; not just ones who happen to be white.

Read More

#mariamillerdoesnotspeakforme

I think it is sufficiently obvious that I am pro-choice; that I do not believe that anyone has the right to dictate to a woman what she can and can not do to her own body. I believe that the only person whose opinion counts in abortion is the woman making the decision whether or not to have one. I support the right to abortion to term because I dislike the hierarchy of good versus bad abortions. I also believe that most women will choose to have their abortion at the earliest possible date once they've made their decision.

It should come as no surprise that I think Maria Miller is, at best, disingenuous but mostly an anti-choice liar. This is the twaddle Miller came out with in an interview with Cathy Newman, who herself speaks eloquently of the second trimester abortion she chose to have: 

"Absolutely. You have got to look at these matters in a commonsense way. I looked at it from the really important stance of the impact on women and children."

...

"driven by that very practical impact that late term abortion has on women … What we are trying to do here is not to put obstacles in people's way but to reflect the way medical science has moved on."

Miller voted in support of Nadine Dorries' bill to have the upper limit of abortion decreased from 24 weeks to 20 weeks; a bill not supported by anyone with an ounce of empathy. Having a Tory minister for women who seems to hate women is not at all surprising in a government who seem to be out to destroy women what with the whole making an anti-choicer the minister for health.

So, yeah, Maria Miller does not speak for me. The legal right to a safe abortion is a right all women need. 

And, if Maria Miller is a very modern feminist, I am a hamster.

Read More

I Thought This Was Kind Of Obvious: Women Organising For Women

Now, I haven't actually read the full study yet, mostly because I can't remember my JSTOR password (or even know if the journal is covered by JSTOR), however this brief announcement leads me to believe this is one of those things that is totally self-evident to feminists and only needed to be undertaken as research owing to the preponderance of stupid MRAs running about. Turns out, the biggest factor in causing positive change in the War on Women is the feminist movement. The study, published in the American Political Science Review, the largest of its kind, was "conducted over four decades and in 70 countries reveals the mobilization of feminist movements is more important for change than the wealth of nations, left-wing political parties, or the number of women politicians." 

This is the release:  

The study in the latest issue of American Political Science Review (APSR), published by Cambridge University Press for the American Political Science Association (APSA), found that in feminist movements that were autonomous from political parties and the state, women were able to articulate and organize around their top priorities as women, without having to answer to broader organizational concerns or mens' needs. Mobilizing across countries, feminist movements urged governments to approve global and regional norms and agreements on violence. 

Strong, autonomous feminist movements were the first to articulate the issue of violence against women and the key catalysts for government action, with other organizations sidelining issues perceived as being only important to women. Strong movements commanded public support and attention, and convinced the media the issues were important for public discussion. In countries that were slower to adopt policies on violence, feminist movements leveraged global and regional agreements to push for local policy change.
S. Laurel Weldon, co-author of the study, said: “Violence against women is a global problem. Research from North America, Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia has found astonishingly high rates of sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, violence in intimate relationships, and other violations of women’s bodies and psyches. In Europe it is a bigger danger to women than cancer, with 45 per cent of European women experiencing some form of physical or sexual violence. Rates are similar in North America, Australia and New Zealand and studies in Asia, Latin America and Africa show that violence towards women there is ubiquitous.” 

The scope of data for the study is unprecedented. The study includes every region of the world, varying degrees of democracy, rich and poor countries, and a variety of world religions – it encompasses 85 per cent of the world’s population. Analyzing the data took five years, which is why the most recent year covered is 2005. 

Mala Htun, co-author of the study, adds: “Social movements shape public and government agendas and create the political will to address issues. Government action, in turn, sends a signal about national priorities and the meaning of citizenship. The roots of change of progressive social policies lie in civil society."  

So, basically, women organising for women's rights and the end to VAW is the single most important factor in change. I hope we all remember that the next time MRAs try to derail women-only conferences and activism. Of course, they may never hear about this study since it's unlikely to get massive media attention.

And, if anyone can access the study for me, I'd be profoundly grateful. 

Read More