So, then, about two weeks ago Julie Bindel wrote in the New Statesman that “fun feminism” should be confined to the rubbish bin. By “fun feminism” she meant, for instance, movements such a SlutWalk (because challenging rape culture is a-laugh-a-freaking-minute, don’t you know). For Bindel, any form of feminism that isn’t defined as strictly radical (a definition of feminism that’s as moveable as any other, it’s worth noting) is just not feminism. Most of all, she dislikes the kind of feminism that attempts to include men and argues that “if men like a particular brand of feminism, it means it is not working.”

Now, I find myself disagreeing with Bindel a lot but never more so than on this occasion. I wrote on a comment on a friend’s blog at the time:

I have many problems with Bindel’s piece: she’s resolutely opposed to (and seemingly very threatened by) anything post-second-wave and remotely intersectional; she is dictating what type of feminism is acceptable (and what type apparently isn’t) and what sort of feminist everyone should be (as if there’s a bullet point list of criteria); and she’s horribly silencing of young or "just arrived" feminists who are still finding their place in the movement and figuring out where they stand. I thought it was a disgraceful article.

That pretty much sums up my stance, still. Let me develop on a few points. There is no bullet point list of criteria for feminism, and the argument that there is and that you must be a certain “type of feminist” is hurting the movement. I don’t personally have a tolerance for the belief that feminism is some sort of dirty word that should be avoided (and there’s a discourse, currently, that we should change the name because it’s so loaded with negativity), and I have little patience for the argument that the term has come to represent something that is so uncomfortable to many that they would rather deride feminism than identify with it, but at the same time, insisting that there is only one way to “do” feminism is nonsensical. (That sentence got very long; I apologise.) It’s not a case of “you are either with us or against us”; it’s a not a binary state. Yes, one would assume that there is a fundamental set of core beliefs that feminists share but there doesn’t need to be a rigid typology to which we all must subscribe. Bindel appears to be advocating that there is. If you are not part of a “radical” movement that seeks to overthrow the patriarchy, then you’re not allowed to play in her gang. I mean, who doesn’t want to overthrow the patriarchy? I certainly do. But if I’m the kind of feminist who doesn’t see that as our most crucial goal, would I be any less of a feminist? I don’t think I would. If I want my feminism to include men, am I not a feminist any more? Don’t be ridiculous!

Which brings me to a related point. We feminists can be an unforgiving lot. We will call you on your privilege, we will tell you each and every time you’re being patriarchal, and our –ism radar is like a finely tuned military machine. We will shout and scream. (Or maybe that’s just me.) The feminist interweb, which is where the majority of the feminist debate takes place now, is a minefield. Half of the feminist blogosphere seems to be waiting for the other half to say something which could remotely, vaguely, even at a stretch be construed as anti-women or anti-feminist. Sometimes this vigilance is welcome (trolls and misogynists are easily identified) but sometimes it means that feminists who have things they want to say are too terrified to say them. If you say something anti-woman/ feminist, then of course you should be called on it but too often that’s not the real motivation. In short, what some feminists are very good at doing is silencing other feminists. (If you’ve ever happened upon some in-fighting between feminists on one of the more popular blogs, you’ll know what I mean.) As a rule, it’s the young, “new” feminists who are most silenced by the older, established (and generally quite privileged) feminists who are there and ready to pounce. I don’t think it’s even a conscious action at times, but it is prevalent. Bindel is one such established (and privileged) feminist. And in defining and stating what she thinks is “pointless” feminism, she has silenced an enormous number of young feminists who are still trying to find their way with the movement and who have many important things to say.

By the way, I consider myself one of those “young feminists” even if I am next door to ancient. So well done Julie. If your aim is to establish some sort of monopoly on feminism, keep at it; you’re doing a good job. On the other hand, if you want to contribute meaningfully to a movement that is as vital now as it was when you first identified with it, then allow others to do the same.

PLEASE follow this link and write to your local MP.

We need you to stand up for access to safe, legal abortion and the right to impartial information.

The Department of Health is planning to introduce new counselling requirements for women seeking abortion, which could limit their access to impartial advice and delay access to services.

Based on amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, the proposals strip abortion providers of the right to provide pre-abortion counselling, and could see anti-choice groups invited to offer pregnancy counselling in their place.

The purpose of these proposals is to limit access to impartial information and deter women from having the procedure. We believe they are damaging, unnecessary and should be rejected.

The amendments could be debated and voted on in the House of Commons as early as 6th or 7th September.

We want to make sure MPs know the facts about what these changes would mean for women and hear the views of the pro-choice majority who support the right to safe, legal abortion in this country.

Grammar aside, is this not a very good question?

I don’t know where this  board is from but I have but two words I want to say about it.

Fuck.

and

Off.

Ok, more than two. Yeah, we can all laugh (and we do!) but there are too many people who believe in what this board says (i.e., that a woman should be chained to the kitchen sink if she wants to keep her man and make him happy or she’ll lose him and it’ll serve her right) and that is no fucking laughing matter at all. I feel sick when I see messages such as this one and realise that both men and women subscribe to these ridiculous and hateful norms. Let’s not even start on the heterocentricty of it all. It’ll be another couple of centuries, I’d say, before the bible-bashers are able to have a sensible conversation about that.

I can see how it works, and the piece does present a logical argument in and of itself (e.g., there’s no doubt that there’s a continued right-wing furore around women’s sex lives and reproductive choices) but I can’t help but conclude that the argument overall is rather too flippant for such an important issue. Apart from this bit. This bit is true no matter what the problem is.

This crisis was averted, but we should not forget the important lesson learned here.  The constant feeding of the paranoid, sexually and racially panicked right wing extremist imagination does not come without consequences.

Also, right-wingers, you’re not looking so clever now, are you? In fact, if you weren’t so destructive, you’d be laughable. But regardless: in the words of the yoof, you’ve been pwned!

Though he referred heavily to his fellow Norwegian, the blogger Fjordman, it was Robert Spencer, the American Islamophobic pseudo-academic, who received the most references from Breivik — 55 in all. Then there was Daniel Pipes, the Muslim-bashing American neoconservative who earned 18 citations from the terrorist. Other American anti-Muslim characters appear prominently in the manifesto, including the extremist blogger Pam Geller, who operates an Islamophobic organization in partnership with Spencer.

Alternet.org describes how these hate-mongers were cited more times in Breivik’s manifesto than anyone else. If there was ever a time to address Islamophobia in the US, it’s now. We have Islamphobes in Europe too, of course, but they’ve not been given the same time, power or political voice as their counterparts in the US.  Unfortunately, the former Republican presidency condoned and encouraged Islamophobia in the US because it suited its own political ends, and it’s arguable that Obama hasn’t done as much as he should have to address the trend. Though I’m not sure how he could either.

I went to a conference paper recently which was describing research examining the ways in which we (i.e., society) in 2011 think about (and address) isms/ obias. They all still exist (sexism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, etc.),  of course, and some are more prevalent in certain pockets of society than others (e.g., the religious and homophobia) but Islamophobia is new, very widely dispersed throughout all sectors of the population, and is increasing frighteningly quickly. But to what end, I ask? What is there to be gained from a blanket hatred of an entire religion and culture? I’ve never been able to work that out. Are we in the west still such unremitting colonialists that we can’t even now understand or accept a culture that differs to our own? That’s the only plausible explanation I can think of right now. And seriously, I’m mortified for us!

This piece from alternet.org really doesn’t require much additional comment. A report  (link to PDF) from a group called UN Women has revealed some frightening views on violence towards women,  and includes data on, for example, the massive gender pay gap (particularly between white men and women of colour) and sexual violence against women of colour.

On violence against women:

One of the most shocking statistics in the report? The public perception of gender violence as sometimes acceptable, within the context of marriage. This is from the report’s language: “In the USA, 16 percent of women and men agree that it is sometimes justifiable for a man to beat his wife.”

Sure, 16 percent is a fairly standard number for representing the lunatic fringe of American culture, but the fact that these respondents willingly admit they think it’s okay certainly sheds a disturbing light on why violence against women remains widespread: “Prevalence surveys in the USA show that 22 percent of women have experienced physical violence, and 8 percent have been targeted for sexual violence in their lifetimes.”

On the justice system and the justice system and rape cases:

One of the hindrances to women seeking a fair application of the legal system is a lack of women’s representation in that system’s hierarchy. While three female Supreme Court justices are certainly a step in the right direction, even that huge stride gives women disproportionately small representation. Women are under-represented as prosecutors, judges and police officers throughout North America. Statistics cited by UN Women indicate that “data from 40 countries where women are present in the police, reporting of sexual assault increases.”

…

“Evidence shows that jurors in the USA are especially likely to question the credibility of African American and Latina female witnesses in rape cases.”

On sexual violence towards Native American women:

One other element to these statistics that may be lesser-known is the issue of rape against Native American women, which is astoundingly high. Native American women are more than twice as likely as other women to be raped. One of the things compounding the problem was a confusion over judicial jurisdiction: “Crimes committed by non-Native Americans on reservations often went unpunished, due to uncertainty over which jurisdiction applied. This is thought to have contributed to the high levels of rape of Native American women, Progress shows.“ In other words, a culture of impunity existed.

On the gender pay gap:

We passed Lily Ledbetter, right? So why is this still an issue? Well, the gender pay gap remains at 23 percent in the USA, according to the new fact sheet from UN Women. If that number isn’t dismaying enough, for African American and Latina women, that gap swells to huge proportions: “On average 39 and 48 percent less than white men, respectively.”

It’s well worth reading the full report if you have time (it’s not long), not least because it includes a variety of other striking statistics (e.g., 127 countries do not explicitly criminalize rape within marriage, 61 countries severely restrict women’s rights to abortion), and it should be commended for including some very positive content on recent improvements in women’s rights worldwide.

I’m still reeling from the 16% statistic, mind you.

An Iranian man who was ordered to be blinded for carrying out an acid attack on a woman has been pardoned by his victim, state television has said.

Ameneh Bahrami had demanded qisas, a rarely used retributive justice under Sharia law, but the report said she had forgone that right at the last minute.

(via BBC News)

I blogged about this case some time ago. I’m still conflicted about how I feel about the initial decision that allowed Bahrami retributive justice for her victimization. One thing is for certain: I have endless respect for Bahrami. She said of her decision:

“I struggled for seven years with this verdict to prove to people that the person who hurls acid should be punished through ‘qisas’, but today I pardoned him because it was my right.

“I did it for my country, since all other countries were looking to see what we would do.”

From the article at The Telegraph:

Mr Hilton, the Prime Minister’s strategy director, reportedly suggested the radical ideas during discussions on scrapping red tape and bureaucracy to boost economic growth.

Mr Hilton also suggested to Mr Cameron that he simply ignore European labour regulations on temporary workers, to the alarm of the most senior civil servant in Downing Street.

“Steve asked why the PM had to obey the law,” said one Whitehall insider. “Jeremy [Heywood, Mr Cameron’s permanent secretary] had to explain that if David Cameron breaks the law he could be put in prison”.[…]

According to a report in the Financial Times, Mr Hilton also recommended sacking hundreds of Government press offices and replacing them with a blog for each Whitehall department.

The newspaper quoted a source close to Mr Hilton suggesting that he thought that maternity leave rights were “the biggest obstacle to woman finding work”.

redlightpolitics’ comment: We already have retro fashion, retro design, retro music trends, etc. I don’t see why retro politics wouldn’t eventually make a come back. Next up: do women really need to vote? And other pressing matters.

Yeah really! But in all seriousness, what?! I can’t understand the coalition government’s perspective on women in the workforce at all. On the one hand, it seems to be keen on relegating women to the reserve taskforce again so that the main workforce can comprise of men (because they need to work more than women, don’t you know). It also seems to want to get as many women back into the home as possible so that (1) again, men can have the jobs and (2) society can re-establish a normative family structure – men at work, women at home with the children – and address what Cameron et al see as the degeneracy of youth (the fault of feminism, natch).

Now, however, it seems that the Tories may be suggesting that we abolish or lessen maternity leave so that women can stay in the workplace. So what gives? My first thoughts? The economy is not growing (in fact, it at best remained stagnant and at worst decreased in the last quarter) and when it comes to the economy all other bets are off. If we need women in the workplace to boost the economy and to contribute to fiscal growth, then it’s probably OK. If we need to lower maternity allowance to make that happen, then that’s OK too. If we can frame that in a “we’re doing it for the women and their careers, really” fashion, then that’s probably the best way to make it palatable and may even disguise that we’re actually just using women when it suits us. And if we keep the other plans quiet for now, then all the better. We can get them back into the home when we’re solvent again.

Or maybe I just really am too cynical…

Anyway, |’m back now. Sort of. And I have a new design. I ain’t ‘alf tired of the stock of wordpress designs. They do add new designs often but none of them do quite what I would like. (I’m not sure what that is but I would know it if I saw it.)

The world seems to have been taking some very funny turns recently. I still can’t fathom what happened in Norway (though I’m not entirely surprised by it either). Breivik appeared to despise anyone who wasn’t white, western and male, and it’s always disconcerting to hear about those sorts of views. He’s not the only one, of course, but most anti-“other”s don’t go shooting up whole islands of young people. Most of the coverage of Breivik’s atrocities have, thus far, been predictable (the war on terrorism, a [re]new[ed] white-supremacy, a growing xenophobia towards the east) but I was intrigued by Anne Applebaum’s slate piece this morning which compared Breivik’s beliefs with those of the birthers in the US. Applebaum argues that Breivik’s main objection is to his government’s legitimacy (or lack of) in the same way that the birthers question the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency. Such views are conspiratorial at best, and ridiculously paranoid at worst. But they’re still having their day.

In any case, while I think that Applebaum is not correct in dismissing Breivik’s racism (and sexism and homophobia etc.), she does make a good point about a growing (though disorganised) trend in these sorts of revolutionary movements.  She mentions Marx, too, but seems to be dismissing him as a nonsense. As I read about her thoughts on these new rebellions, however, I started to feel unnerved that The Revolution, when it’s arrived, has not been that advocated by Dear Old Karl, even though that’s the one that we’ve all been told to wait for.

Let’s face it, many of us would be quite happy with the overthrow of capitalism (at least those of us who have old socialist souls), but at the same time we can all be secure in the knowledge that it’s not likely to happen any time soon so we don’t have to worry about imminent mess and inconvenience. One can’t be so sure with these illegitimists.