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]

Quick hit: even in academia, dads don’t do diapers

To help women in academia advance, elite universities should consider scrapping their generous paternity policies. That is the counterintuitive conclusion of a research paper published in the January issue of the Journal of Social, Evolutionary & Cultural Psychology.

The writers, Steven Rhoads of the University of Virginia and his son, Christopher Rhoads, of the University of Connecticut, studied a sample of 181 married, heterosexual, tenure-track professors all of whom had children under two and taught at schools with parental-leave policies. While 69 percent of the women in the sample took post-birth parental leave, only 12 percent of the men took advantage of the available leave—even though it was paid. They also learned that the male professors who did so performed significantly less child care relative to their spouses. Worse yet, they report that male tenure-track professors may be abusing paternity leave by using the time to complete research or publish papers, an activity that enhances their careers while putting their female colleagues at a disadvantage. One female participant quoted in the study put it this way: “If women and men are both granted parental leaves and women recover/nurse/do primary care and men do some care and finish articles, there’s a problem.

[...]

Not quite. As the authors of the paper state: “Most of the academics in our study said they believe that husbands and wives should share equally, but almost none did so.” To be precise, only three men out of 109 reported that they performed half the child-care work.

[businessweek]

Quick hit: when states abuse women

Here’s what a woman in Texas now faces if she seeks an abortion.

Under a new law that took effect three weeks ago with the strong backing of Gov. Rick Perry, she first must typically endure an ultrasound probe inserted into her vagina. Then she listens to the audio thumping of the fetal heartbeat and watches the fetus on an ultrasound screen.

She must listen to a doctor explain the body parts and internal organs of the fetus as they’re shown on the monitor. She signs a document saying that she understands all this, and it is placed in her medical files. Finally, she goes home and must wait 24 hours before returning to get the abortion.

“It’s state-sanctioned abuse,” said Dr. Curtis Boyd, a Texas physician who provides abortions. “It borders on a definition of rape. Many states describe rape as putting any object into an orifice against a person’s will. Well, that’s what this is. A woman is coerced to do this, just as I’m coerced.”

[nytimes]

Quick hit: unilad set to return

Still laughing? These statistics, just like the article’s statistic that 85% of all rapes go unreported, illustrate the reality of the rape culture in Britain. It’s far more complex than just one “Uni Lad” making a joke about rape. One joke doesn’t cause rape to happen, but it also doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it contributes to a society were rape is trivialised.

43 per cent of female students who’ve been sexually assaulted don’t report the attack because they thought they’d be blamed for what happened. Almost half of unreported attacks on women students are not attacked because the victim fears they will not be taken seriously.

In January, Alison Saunders of the Crown Prosecution Service told the Guardian that, “the demonization of young women is contributing to the failure to secure more convictions of suspected rapists… Some victims are deterred from coming forward because they fear they will be vilified.”

Rape is one of the few crimes in which the behaviour of the victim is scrutinised so closely: Why were you walking home alone at night? What were you wearing? Had you been drinking? Were you on a date/in a relationship with the attacker? None of these things alter the fact that sex without consent is rape, yet the victim-blaming myths and accusations prevail.

[studentjournals] by my good friend Sarah Graham.

Quick hit: Why Patriarchal Men Are Utterly Petrified of Birth Control (via alternet)

This is an excellent article from alternet.org and explains, from an interesting sociological perspective, what the War on Contraception is all about. Excerpt:

With that one essential choice came the possibility, for the first time, to make a vast range of other choices for ourselves that were simply never within reach before. We could choose to delay childbearing and limit the number of children we raise; and that, in turn, freed up time and energy to explore the world beyond the home. We could refuse to marry or have babies at all, and pursue our other passions instead. Contraception was the single necessary key that opened the door to the whole new universe of activities that had always been zealously monopolized by the men — education, the trades, the arts, government, travel, spiritual and cultural leadership, and even (eventually) war making.

Full article.

Quick hit: can’t take a joke? Too right

Laddish “banter” is nothing new, but due to the leakiness of information online, women can now see the way that some men talk about us behind our backs. It’s as we’ve always suspected. Before they were chased from the internet by fire-breathing, feminist hell wraiths, the boys at Unilad apologised for “going too far” and for causing offence. This is an Olympian feat of point-missage: the problem is not the offence caused but that some men still think this is an acceptable way to talk about women in or out of our earshot.

[new statesman]

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.

Stalking for academic research

In what world is stalking a research “subject” acceptable? I would hope that you agree that such a “methodology” is never acceptable. As academic researchers, we must ensure that the privacy of our research participants is never invaded, that their identity is never revealed (at least so far as possible), and they we never do them any harm. When you stalk someone, you invade their privacy and you certainly do them harm. One would hope that the “researcher” who conducted this study would have known that. Maybe he did and just didn’t care.

In the numerous research projects I have conducted to date, ensuring that I am ethical with my research participants is always a priority for me. I am confident that I never did anything in any study to compromise the safety of a participant, or to cause them harm. I ask you again: In what world is stalking a research “subject” acceptable? Let’s ask the author of this article. It’s called: “Saved!” by Jena Malone: An introspective study of a consumer’s fan relationship with a film actress.

I think you all know what you’re about to read here.

For the “study”, the “researcher” developed an obsession with this woman, built a shrine to her in his home, spent several hours of his life devouring her films, had numerous pictures of her (included in the article), delved very deeply into her private life, and kept a diary and a “contemporaneous dataset” about his “relationship” with her – which, incidentally, stacked up to nearly 200,000 words.

He started off his description of this “relationship” with the following statement:

I still remember the day in April 2005, when I saw Jena Malone for the very first time. Her lovely smile and her beautiful eyes captivated me so much that my entire body was filled with the same prickling warmth that I feel each time I fancy a particular girl/woman.

If you, too, are picturing the archetypal peeping tom in a trench-coat, then you’re in good company here. He goes on to say:

Though I felt sexually attracted to her, my initial interest and admiration for Jena Malone was mainly based on her work and achievement as an actress. But the nature of my emotional attachment to her changed after suffering another major disappointment in my private life. As I hadn’t been on a date for a long time, I was filled with an enjoyable and arousing feeling of excitement, anticipation, happiness and nervousness mixed  together, when a nice girl finally agreed to go out with me.

What the actual fuck is wrong with you?! Is anyone feeling sick yet? Yes, you’re still in good company.

The whole narrative reads as if it were complied by a confused and horny teenage boy indulging his fantasy. But it wasn’t; this is a “study” by a grown man whose obsession is being passed off a piece of academic research. It is published in a respected academic journal. I’m finding it difficult to express just how unbelievable it all is.

OK, let’s breathe and start again.

So he never actually met the woman, and presumably he wasn’t hiding in the bushes outside her house with a flask and pair of binoculars, but that does not make his obsession any less disturbing. Stalking as a activity takes many different forms, particularly now with the increase in internet use and our unlimited access to other people’s lives (if you know where to look, wink, wink). This case qualifies as stalking just as much as any other. Perhaps she didn’t know she was being stalked (many women don’t, as it happens) but she was. This man knows everything about her life – intimate details about her past, her finances, her family and her upbringing. He’s no “fan”; he’s a repulsive obsessive. That he attempted to disguise this obsession as academic endeavour, and cynically used a theoretical framework to “explore consumerism”, does not make his obsession any less reprehensible. For crying out loud, he doesn’t even try to mask his motivations half the time!

Anyway, frustrated with having to live my lonely life as an involuntary single again, I started to seek romance and love from a very different source — Jena Malone.

My mind is well and truly boggled.  But creepiness, aside, this “study” has been published as a piece of  academic research. That is incredibly damaging to the academic research community. Cataloguing teenage masturbatory fantasies is not academic research. That is not what we do. Using theoretical terms to “introspect” on your teenage masturbatory fantasises is not academic research. That is not data. And stalking someone, whether in person, on the telly, online, or anywhere else, is not academic research. People like this give the rest of us a very bad name and I for one would like to see the publication of that article challenged.

The article ends:

This experienced ‘bond of emotional closeness’ can at times be strong enough to elicit a feeling of ‘personal friendship’ within the consumer or, in some way, even a feeling of ‘love’ towards the admired celebrity … that can express itself in a parasocial relationship. It also provides an explanation as to why fans sometimes feel enormously disappointed, when their most desired dream of actually meeting the adored celebrity in person comes true, because the celebrity turns out to be a different person in private life or just can’t live up to the (perhaps unrealistic) imaginary person that the consumer has created in one’s own mind.

Jena Malone, are you scared? I would be.

uniLad, rape culture, and overdoses in Ireland

If you haven’t read this piece already, you should now: Gang-rape woman arrested during trial, following overdose.

The linked piece concerns a woman who was gang-raped by three men and who had to stand in front of them in court and identify them. She was later arrested for not turning up to court again. Unsurprisingly, she self-harmed because she couldn’t cope with what was happening to her. The three accused men have since been acquitted. After the victim’s arrest, Mr Justice Carney said: ‘If she has to spend a long time in prison herself waiting for a re-trial that’s her fault.’ Yes, really. A spokesperson for the Rape Crises Centre (Ellen O’Malley) criticised the trial process, ‘As making the complainants “feel they are the ones on trial and not the accused”.’ O’Malley went on to say, ‘This system in our opinion is very imbalanced and needs radical reform. As a result Ireland has one of the highest attrition rates for rape and sexual assault cases in Europe.’

But it’s not on its own. The clear up rates for rape and sexual assault cases in England and Wales are equally low. The attrition to which O’Malley refers starts right after the attack takes place when women are too frightened to report it, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone. If they do report it, it may not be recorded and pursued by the police as a offence that can be tried. And that’s before anything even. reaches a courthouse where the horrific tales of victim-blaming, brutal cross-examination, and even threats from the crowd and blatant intimidation, are numerous. O’Malley is right when she says that rape victims too often feel that they are the people on trial. Clear-up rates for rape cases in England and Wales hover around the 5% mark. That means that there is only a 5% chance of a rapist being convicted for his crime.

Anyone who has been on the feminist blogosphere this week has heard about uniLad. This is a site that is run by male students (“affectionately” known as “LADs”) and seems to be something of a “tip” site for getting laid. Except it’s not. Observe this little beauty:

‘If the girl you’ve taken for a drink… won’t “spread for your head”, think about this mathematical statistic: 85% of rape cases go unreported. That seems to be fairly good odds.’

It doesn’t take a brainiac to figure out that that very sentence alone trivialises, normalises, and even condones rape. If the comments from the LADs are anything to go by, they’re on board with getting a bit of rape in when the opportunity is presented. When uniLad was challenged about its attitudes, it huffed for a while, then it got defensive, then it issued a sorry excuse for an apology (“We’re sorry that you were offended, but if you weren’t so sensitive” etc.), and then it started threatening women. One particular LAD threatened to murder and rape a woman for questioning uniLad’s content. It didn’t get much better from there.  They’re still telling us that we’re being too sensitive, that we’re all stupid hairy-legged lesbian feminists, that we need a good dicking, that it’s just a joke, that we shouldn’t be in the kitchen if we can’t stand the heat (though, ironically, that’s exactly where we should be), and that it’s just boys being boys. You’ve heard it all before.

But what’s the big deal, I hear you ask. It’s just a JOKE!

A woman taking an overdose and running away so that she didn’t have to face a trial of her attackers is the big deal. We, and by that, I mean women, walk around in fear of being raped (even though I live in a “safe area”, I will not leave my house before sunrise in the mornings, just in case), we see images of sexual objectification around us all the time, we’re encouraged to measure our entire worth on how fuckable we are, we’re expected to believe, and are frequently told, that our bodies are open property for men (and that being whistled at in the street, for example, is a compliment), we have police officers telling us that we wouldn’t get raped if we didn’t dress like sluts, and we have sites like uniLad telling the chaps go get out there and take what they want whether women like it or not. That’s rape culture. In rape culture, women are not even considered to be human beings; we’re not even afforded that simple right to exist in safety and without fear of attack. Rape is not even considered an attack; it comes with the territory of being a woman, it is par for the course, and it is very likely to be our fault anyway.

Don’t tell me that rape culture doesn’t exist. If it didn’t, there wouldn’t be a woman in Ireland today scared out of her wits, washing down handfuls of pills with vodka, and dreading the day that she runs into the three men who raped her, and there wouldn’t be a website which maintains that it’s all just a great big laugh.

–

Some links to uniLad commentary from the week, but there are lots more out there: stavvers; thefword; ontoberlin; petitefeministe; and sianandcrookedrib.

Quick hit: stalking – the terrifying crime the law may at last be taking seriously

This woman was forced into exile because the legal system in the country she was living in, like almost every legal system in the world, was utterly uninterested in recognising or responding to the daily terror that she was being exposed to. The police told her they could only act once she was physically attacked. She could have sought an expensive civil injunction, but to do so she would have had to turn up in court, in full view of the man she was desperately trying to avoid, and give him the tremendous satisfaction of hearing just how effectively he had frightened her and damaged her life.

“That’s everything he wants,” she said. “To force me to see him, to hear how scared I am and how powerful he is – that’s just what he’s trying to achieve.” She decided not to when her solicitor told her that the police rarely arrested any man who broke such an injunction. It was a waste of time.

Just don’t read the “poor menz, what about us” comments.

[guardian]