Quick hit: that’s enough politeness – women need to rise up in anger

As usual. Laurie Penny is pretty on the money:

Women, like everyone else, have been duped. We have been persuaded over the past 50 years to settle for a bland, neoliberal vision of what liberation should mean. Life may have become a little easier in that time for white women who can afford to hire a nanny, but the rest of us have settled for a cheap, knock-off version of gender revolution. Instead of equality at work and in the home, we settled for “choice”, “flexibility” and an exciting array of badly paid part-time work to fit around childcare and chores. Instead of sexual liberation and reproductive freedom, we settled for mitigated rights to abortion and contraception that are constantly under attack, and a deeply misogynist culture that shames us if we’re not sexually attractive, dismisses us if we are, and blames us if we are raped or assaulted, as one in five of us will be in our lifetime.

[...]

Like the suffragettes and socialists who called the first International Women’s Day over a century ago, women who believe in a better world are going to have to start thinking in deeds, not words. With women under attack financially, socially and sexually across the developed and developing world, with assaults on jobs, welfare, childcare, contraception and the right to choose, the time for polite conversation is over. It’s time for anger. It’s time for daring, direct action, big demands, big dreams. The men who still run the world from boardrooms and government offices have become too used to not being afraid of what women will do if we are attacked, used and exploited. We must make them afraid.

[independent]

In brief: women to be vaginally probed before abortions (via thinkprogress)

Yesterday, my day was ruined by reading about some stalker “research”; today, it’s been ruined by reading about a law which is about to be enacted in Virginia. Under this law, women who seek abortions will be forced to undergo a “stunningly invasive procedure” beforehand “for no medical reason whatsoever”. The state wishes to see an ultrasound of the foetus before a woman can have an abortion. The aim? Well, presumably to shame the little tart into changing her mind. And here’s where it gets gruesome:

Because the great majority of abortions occur during the first 12 weeks, that means most women will be forced to have a transvaginal procedure, in which a probe is inserted into the vagina, and then moved around until an ultrasound image is produced.

Nice, huh? One would hope that the authors of this law had just not realised exactly what it is that they’re doing, and how brutal this procedure really is, but that’s not the case, as the following statement by one GOP lawmaker suggests. The thinking? Well, they’ve already consented to being “vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant.” *

Atta boy! If she’s a little slut already, then we can assume she won’t mind a lump of metal shoved up there. And, you know, that would be a proper shaming for the little tramp, amirite?

–

(Source: thinkprogress)

–

* UPDATE: Please note that this quote was initially attributed to Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R). That was an error. Gilbert is reported to have actually said: “in the vast majority of these cases, [abortions] are matters of lifestyle convenience,” which some might argue illustrates as little understanding of, or sympathy for, women’s lives, needs, and decisions as his GOP colleague above.

Abortion Rights – Anti-choice counselling: tell your MP to say NO!

This might well be the most important thing I post all year.

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.

16% think it’s OK for a man to hit his wife? (Trigger warning)

[Trigger warning for violence.]

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.

Abolish maternity leave in the UK?

Hat tip to redlightpolitics for this piece.

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…

In brief: women keeping women in their place

(In brief because I’m still too busy with work.)

If you need any convincing today that religion and feminism just do not mix, have a read of this piece. The site on which I found the piece seems to be devoted to merging religion and the state as much as it can (and we all know what a good idea that is!), and claims that it wishes to “support the self-evident truths found in the Declaration of Independence, and their faithful application through upholding the U.S. Constitution, as written. Its purpose is to thoughtfully and courageously advance the cause of our nation’s Founders”. Um.

The piece in question maintains that the Christian church (denomination unclear) has bought into the “lie” of feminism and women’s rights. In doing so, the church has  allowed the poor menz to be emasculated and has (breathe deeply) put women on the pulpit. Women don’t have “god-given” roles. Men do. Women should be kept in their place. And that place is not the pulpit. Bonnie Alba, there. She knows her place.

When we see women pastors standing in the pulpit, we have to wonder, what happened? to the men and male leadership? Thirty years of being emasculated and undermined by women striving for an equality they already had, men have ceded to women. Men have abandoned their God-given roles.

Reading further, the author engages in a little bit of slut-shaming just for good measure. “Fallen women” always want a man to blame, or something. That bit doesn’t make a great deal of sense. I think she just wanted to have a bit of a go but wasn’t really sure how to go about it.

The author concludes that because of feminism (read: women in general) the US of A is on its frickin’ knees. Much like women should be, I dare say…

SlutWalk: reactions, responses and comments

I have yet to go through and read most of these but, for your information, here is a list of several reactions to and comments upon the recent “SlutWalks”, which have taken place in various locations (originally in Toronto). For those of you who don’t know, SlutWalk came about as a response to a police officer in Toronto saying that women who don’t want to be raped should not dress like “sluts”. I know! One wonders how anything is ever going to change in the face of such victim-blaming.

Anyway, here is a list of pieces (some for, some against) about SlutWalk, diligently compiled by feministfrequency (thank you!).

If you’ve been following the feminist blog-o-sphere there has been a lot of talk about “SlutWalk”. SlutWalk has become a mini-movement that was originally conceived in Toronto in response to a police officer who claimed that women should stop dressing like “sluts” to avoid assault. The folks in Toronto were rightfully upset, as the police officer’s comment is an unfortunate example of the victim blaming that assault survivors are subjected to on a regular basis. Out of the controversy, Heather Jarvis and Sonya JF Barnett co-founded SlutWalk, a Toronto based march to end “slut-shaming” and victim blaming. This has spawned numerous follow-up marches that are happening globally in cities such as Vancouver, Boston, London, San Francisco, Melbourne and Los Angeles etc.

Because of the controversial nature of the name, SlutWalk has gotten quite a lot of press, there have been many debates, interviews, articles etc.  While the conversations have ranged from useful dialogue to outright horrible much of the framing of the conversation has been shaped by the supporters of SlutWalk (such asHeather Jarvis and Jaclyn Friedman, co-editor of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & a World Without Rape). It seems that Gail Dines (author of Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked our Sexuality) has been one of the only feminists repeatedly invited on TV and radio shows to serve as the counterpoint.

I have been quite vocal in my little internet space about my strong dislike for SlutWalk, for the name and for the unstrategic organizing which sadly, seems to ignores the systemic and institutional issues of rape culture, victim blaming and well, radical feminism.  It is easy to be swept up in the excitement and momentum of SlutWalk and not take a critical look at what the message really is that’s coming out of these marches.  After listening to a series of interviews and reading a handful of articles, I began feeling alienated within feminism because as Meghan Murphy points out, “… embracing the word slut sounds, to me, a lot like we’ve all drank the systematic kool-aid.”  Luckily, through Facebook and Twitter I found several feminists and allies who do not support SlutWalk for a variety of reasons.  I want to highlight some of the counterpoints and some of the voices that are not being amplified.

More, after the jump.

Acid in YOUR face

I didn’t hear about this case until this morning (trigger warning for image).

In a literal application of the sharia law of an eye for an eye, Iran is ready for the first time to blind a man with acid, after he was found guilty of doing the same to a woman who refused to marry him.

Majid Movahedi, 30, is scheduled to be rendered unconscious in Tehran’s judiciary hospital at noon on Saturday while Ameneh Bahrami, his victim, drops acid in both his eyes, her lawyer said.

The first part of the story I heard was about the proposed punishment. I felt sickened upon hearing it – the barbarism of such a punishment (particularly as we know that it’s habitually used to punish Muslim women for their lack of “compliance”) could never be justified. When I heard about the rationale for the punishment a few seconds later, however, I felt conflicted. Movahedi is due to receive this punishment from his female victim, whom he blinded with acid. This decision is taking eye-for-an-eye to a whole new level.

But that’s the rub. I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty, which is arguably the most extreme eye-for-an-eye punishment that exists. Research tells us that the death penalty has neither a general nor a specific deterrent effect, and it offers little cathartic or healing effect to victims’ families. (Its system costs a fortune to run in the US but that issue is unimportant, in the scheme of things.) However, I can’t help but think that the punishment Movahedi is due to receive is warranted and deserved. Because this time, it’s personal. Women in too many places are living in fear of acid attacks for doing something as minor as being seen in public without a male chaperone. Movahedi’s victim, Ameneh Bahrami, suffered such an attack for refusing to marry him; for making a decision about her life and her future that women the world over make every day, without fear of repercussion. But not Ameneh Bahrami; she had to be punished for not doing as she was told.

I defy anyone to tell me that they’ve not had desire for retribution when they’ve been wronged – it’s as human an emotion as joy and sadness. This is retribution for a horrible, vicious, life-changing wrong, and I don’t think I’m going to bother apologising for feeling that it’s deserved. Are there lots of “what ifs”? Certainly. Will it achieve any deterrent effect? Unlikely. But will it help Ameneh Bahrami? Very probably.

That women in Iran might now be given a stronger voice, and that female victims there might be allowed a real say in the judicial process, is a whole other debate (heck, we still don’t know what we’re doing with victims in our “civilised” justice system in the west), but that’s something that won’t be clear for a while. For now, if one woman gets to throw acid in some patriarchal, violent fucker’s face, and in doing so achieves one tiny little bit of liberation for her sisters, then she can have at it as far as I’m concerned.

What I’ve been reading – rock and roll whores, and sexy women aren’t actually human

I’m still trying to process this particular story: girls who like rock and roll are whores (thegloss, hat tip to lastyearsgirl). One should always begin a discussion which involves the word “whore” with the question: “what is a whore”? It’s a much-used term yet I’ve never quite understood what it means. It’s generally directed at those women who have sex and enjoy sex, though if those women are married the term doesn’t apply, as I understand it. So, unmarried women who have and enjoy sex are whores. (So what about lesbians who can’t legally get married in the traditional sense? Or does it just apply to heterosexual females?) There’s also a consideration of the number of partners, I believe, although that number is entirely arbitrary and subjective. I don’t know if five sexual partners makes you a whore, or if it’s 10, or if it’s 20, or if it’s 100. Other behaviours are often discussed also; for example, if a woman likes a drink of an evening, she may be a whore. There’s probably an age consideration also, with younger women arguably more likely to be “labelled” whores than older women, and there could also be an ethnic element in the mix. And, of course, if a man whistles to a woman on the street and comments on her “nice tits” and she ignores him, it’s very likely that he will call her a whore. Because, you know, that’s a complement, right, and she’s a slut for not indulging his ego and god-given patriarchal right to objectify her. But I digress. A whore is anything or anyone you want it to be, m’kay?

In the case of the linked piece, Men’s Health – that pinnacle of philogyny – reports that women are whores if they like rock and roll. Women who listen to Nirvana are more likely to “put out” on the first date than women who listen to Coldplay.* (Yes, seriously!) And why? Because of the lyrics, of course. Cobain was a shagger and Martin is, well, he’s not a shagger. (They do make a semi-interesting point about normalising different sorts of behaviours but it’s impossible to take any of it seriously when it’s all intended to slut-shame.) It is admitted that the study is unscientific. Ahem.

–

In somewhat related news, Psychology Today reports that Princeton researchers have found that sexy women are more likely to be seen as sex objects. Why? Because some male brains neurologically deny sexualized women “humanity”. When these men viewed pictures of scantily clad women (that’s the study’s definition of sexiness, by the way), their brains did not perceive them as being fully human. (Other studies have found, you may be interested in noting, that such women are less moral, likeable and intelligent!) A couple of things. First, these men can’t help themselves if they dehumanise a sexy lady because it’s all to do with their brains and their cognition over which they have no control. Irrelevant, it seems, is the patriarchal culture which has permitted them to dehumanise women in the first place. Second, sexy ladies, you only have yourself to blame if you’re not given the respect you deserve; again, remember, it’s the poor menz brains going all awry when they see you. Third, perhaps you just shouldn’t be sexy at all, for your own sake. And, by sexy, don’t forget that we mean scantily clad. If nothing else, you should have a care for what your appearance is doing to these poor blokes whose brains are fried every time they turn the corner. Not a bit wonder they see you as sub-human, you flipping harlot! Psychology Today there, always good for larks.

–
* Women who listen to Coldplay have a whole other term in my book but it applies to men also.

Calm down, dear. Fuck off, toerag.

Yes, I know Osama Bin Laden was killed today or yesterday or overnight but I have a feeling that’s been done to death (pun intended) at this stage. Frankly, I’m trying to avoid seeing any more menacing crowds full of people who seem to be delighting in the bloodlust. It’s stomach-churning.

And I want to write about something else anyway.

Many of my betters have commented on calmdowndeargate before me (and have done so better than I could hope to) so I won’t labour over it again in much detail. For those of you who have been in hiding, or who have genuinely not read about or watched anything but the royal nonsense for a week, you may not know that our delightful PM, David (“Call me Dave”) Cameron, last week instructed a member of the opposition in the Commons to, “calm down, dear” during Prime Minister’s Questions. It will not come as any surprise to you that said member is a woman.

Cath Elliott wrote a wonderful piece in Comment in Free which lambasted Dave for his sexist remark. In the piece, she discusses Cameron’s categorical denial that he’s a sexist pig by rightly arguing that if he were not, such a remark would not have just rolled off his tongue. Sexism (just like racism, ableism, ageism, homophobia, etc. etc.) does not just “slip out” if you’ve never considered it before. Dave has all the trappings of a would-be-sexist, of course: old Etonian and member of the Bullingdon Club in Oxford (I went to Oxford; I’ve had some of the misogyny from those charmers first-hand), so the evidence is already stacked against him. Add into the mix his brutal budget cuts, most of which impinge on women most severely, and his virtually all-male cabinet, and there’s little point in him denying his sexism further. That, Dave, is a cert.

But why the vehemence of the reaction, you ask. Well, it’s because we’re fucking sick of it. Women have been told to “calm down” since time began, normally when they’re trying to make a point, argue a perspective, or offer an opinion. To do so, and to do so passionately, is hysteria, you see. Women shouldn’t have discussions because they get too damn emotional and invariably need to, yes, calm down. From Cath Elliott again:

Whatever his excuse turns out to be though, any woman who watched [Wednesday’s] exchange will be able to attest that “Calm down, dear” is neither humorous nor edgy; it is instead a classic sexist put-down, designed to shut women up and put them back “in their place”. “Calm down, dear” is what women hear when we’re allegedly being “hysterical” or “overemotional”. It’s that tired old gender stereotyping, the sort that implies that if we can’t even keep our emotions in check, then we obviously aren’t cut out for the more serious male world of politics and debate.

I have a colleague – a classic misogynist who thinks he’s a feminist because he “likes” women and supports them in their little endeavours – who tells his female colleagues to calm down all the time. He doesn’t realise (or doesn’t care) how utterly offensive and silencing those two little words are. I’ve told him, but it doesn’t need to matter to him. He and Dave are never told to calm down because they’re educated, privileged, white men who are allowed to have opinions and to express them in whatever way they please. Their faults, whatever they are, could never be called “uncalm”.

Women, on the other hand, have to checked, reprimanded, and reminded of their place all the time. That’s the first rule of the patriarchy. Let’s face it, they’d be better off not speaking in the first place if they can’t avoid being hysterical, amirite? ‘Course I am. And wouldn’t that be a happy day for you, Dave?