Equality vs Liberation

I’ve often heard people say when engaging with someone sceptical of Feminism “Well do you believe men and women are/should be equal?” and if the answer is yes they are proudly proclaimed feminist.

Increasingly I feel this sells feminism short. I am not about equality, because -well what does it really mean? I have no disire to see women as equal oppressors, or equally opressed as men often are. I don’t want to see men and women struggling the same to make the minimum wage into a living wage. Or on the flipside working equally in the City, with crazy wages and spending scant free time depressed in Spearmint Rhinos’ wondering if they have freinds anymore or only collegues and money. Equality in politics is only a good thing if politics is not opressive but rather exists to facilitate the happyness of all those involved (whether forming policy or victim to it). So sure maybe feminism means equality- but more than that for me it has to mean liberation.

This is an oldfashioned word now, rapidly going out of favour. In Student Unions at least – Liberations Campaigns and Officers are being rapidly replaced by Equality officers. Yet Equality for me seems to signify that somewhere in our tangle of opressive structures there is one group that we are all aspiring to be like. I don’t want to live the life of a rich, white man. Its is not my ideal, and i’m not even sure it makes the rich white men happy, healthy people – maybe it just offers them more distractions to buy before they die early. I do want to be liberated however from gender which threatens and restrains me, and from the connotations of my white skin and British passport that link me to some histories which make me ashamed even whilst they still make me materially richer.

So Liberation – which will eventually mean equality but equality on our terms, in all their glorious differences. Where people can be free idividuals, doing what they want: respected, valued and safe from violence and poverty.

Idealist much? Yes and proud.

Abortion, Ireland & Choice

‘Not the Church, and not the State, women will decide their fate’

I have just finished reading Ann Rossiters book, ‘Ireland’s Hidden Diaspora: ‘the abortion trail’ and the making of a London-Irish underground, 1980-2000′ its truly a stunning book despite the off-putting cover and academic-ey title.  There aren’t many non-fiction books i have been unable to put down, but I finished this within a day.  Its history telling at its best – human, tangible and relevent.  The liberal use of testimony from activists and support workers, describing what they did and the abortion seeking women they helped brings alive a history I really knew little or nothing about.

I dimly recall the good friday agreement (I was about 12- it was on Newsround) and a few years ago I stumbled my way through a bad essay about the ‘troubles’ but really remember endless confusion at the numerous anacronyms, and the familiar sense of disconnection I get when studying History   Too many Momentous Struggles, Defining Battles, Turning Points for me seem to miss the sense of people, and as a result never feel as important as the capital letters and dedicated lectures imply.  This book made it all seem real, recent and painful.  The Prevention of Terrorism Act being used to detain women arriving in london for abortion at once makes the extent and indignity of the law aparant, and the rabid Anti-Irish racism around until so recently is shown quite powerfully. I never really understood the viciousness of ‘paddy’ as an insult.

So I bought this book because Abortion Rights Edinburgh and The Radical Book Fair are hosting a talk by Ann Rossiter in November, and I started reading it now because of a link posted to this article, on the EFN mailing list.  I am, it will suprise no one, happily part of the pro-choice majority.  Ultimately I believe that the only person who can decide matters about their own bodies is women or men themselves. Not church, state, or family – people own their own bodies.  Pragmatically women will end pregnancies whether it is legal or not, and the option for safe, clean abortions just saves lives.  Denial of this- the outlawing of abortion- won’t automatically ’save’ foetuses but will kill women.

Women in Ireland (north or south) currently must travel to England, Scotland or Wales for abortion- not always an easy endeavour, and particularly at risk from this situation are migrant women who cannot travel. Migrant women in England, Scotland or Wales, are also vulnerable if they can’t afford abortion, are ‘illegal’ or are denied NHS healthcare (legalese those with “no recourse to public funds”).  Not forgetting the difficulties women in rural or conservative areas face accessing the often limited and patchy NHS services.

One of the things I noticed in the book, is the test cases which have sparked legal reforms are of very young woman who have been raped, resulting in pregnancy.  The grudging acceptance of abortion in such cases (not always) and laws which allow abortion following rape but not for ’social’ reasons indicate a weird attitude towards pregnancy.  It seems that pregnancy is veiwed as a punishment visited upon women, for daring to have sex.  In cases of rape, the woman is not to “blame” and therefore is not required to bear out the punishment of taking a pregnancy to term.  This is a dark veiw of women’s sexuality, and of our fertility and  pregnancy.  My body, sexuality and fertility is mine, and isn’t there to punish me.  I can do with it what I wish.  Veiws to the contrary limit choice, even where abortion is legal or available.

The article I mentioned before that went round the EFN mailing list is well written, and documents the manipulative and conniving work of those campaigning against women’s reproductive autonomy.  However, this bit troubled me at the end:

One young woman at a clinic in the Bronx described her story to activists. At the age of 15, she was raped and became pregnant. When she went to what she thought was a women’s health clinic, she was told that she was six months pregnant, and it was too late for an abortion. It turns out that this was a lie, but by the time she knew that, it really was too late.

Now, she is 25 with a 10-year-old daughter. She was unable to go to college, works a low-paying, dead-end job, and has to rely on food stamps to put food on the table.

I am, I said pro-choice, for me this means giving women real, plausible choices not ultimatums.  The article clearly argues that it would be better for the woman to have had the option of abortion, and I agree.  I would however like to see her having a better choice than abortion or destitution, and I’m suprised the socialist worker didn’t point this out.  Yes, abortion is a vital option, and this woman may have taken it anyway.  However the option for motherhood without poverty, without abandoning education or work oportunities is also a part of real pro-choice agenda.

Women in Politics

I really enjoyed the last Edinburgh Feminist Network Discussion meet, and not just for the tea, biscuits, chocolate, meeting lovely new people and catching up with the regulars (anyone notice the shameless advertising?). The topic was women in politics – sort of emerging from the Harriet Harman attacks as her oh-so-radical feminist agenda inched forward when Gordon Brown went on holiday. Her crazy idea that balanced teams of men and women might be a way forward was greeted with derision, fear and scorn. Anyway, it was really good just to sit down and talk it all out. I’ve been dabbling in anarchist thinking for a little while, not something I really admit generally as people have wild impressions of what that means and hence form defensive positions around the nearest starbucks or, lets face it, more commonly they laugh. Increasingly though I’ve come to wonder about the state focussed politics around me and how effective it can ever be to ensuring happy, healthy, fulfilled people. Once again it’s feminist thinking that has led me to thinking this way. The absense of a equal number of women in Parliament is embarrasing to the system. Women persistently don’t engage in party politics to the same extent as men, and have few ambitions in the direction of parliament or even the higher echelons of many unions. Whilst I’ve harboured secret MP ambitions for a while, and try to encourage everyone into political stuff I’m starting to wonder if maybe I’m the one that’s got the wrong idea.

Firstly I realised a while ago that the problem isn’t women. I know a lot of women, as most folk do. Amongst them are a range of talents – there are certainly strong, communicative, resourceful, common-sensible, capable women. Women who can look at situations and assess what needs to be done as well as any people can. They do it everyday. Like everyone does. So my experience tells me that women could be parliamentary political folk, as the games politicians play aren’t that hard – bluffing, arguing, name-calling, networking, public-speaking. Even the more in depth stuff – policy review and formation, select committees and reports – its not especially difficult to do to the level done in parliament, a lot comes down to opinion, and much of the work is facilitated by the civil service. We pretend it’s so, so difficult but mostly its training.

Now it maybe that women haven’t broken through the embedded barriers of sexism, and simply can’t balance family ties with stupid Westminster working hours, and a lack of childcare facilities – there are certainly more women in the Scottish Parliament which is better on these things. Or it might also be that a lot of us Women don’t want to, that most women (and other people too) don’t see parliaments as an effective way to build a better society. Look how women broke into male-dominated doctoring in huge numbers, also teaching, partly because they really really wanted to. If women don’t want to get involved in parliamentary politics – maybe the problem is with the politics. Women are political animals, as much as men are. They have ideas about how their community should be run, they organise a lot of things in communities; they have opinions on schools, hospitals, waste disposal, unfair wages, child care, migration, and defence. They aren’t stupid, irrational, home-bound or incapable – and least no more so than men. So let’s assume opting out of parliamentary politics is a rational choice. Problem solved – if women don’t want to be in parliament, why force them? They can live as respected equal citizens without making the laws – it’s their choice. Feminists go back to combing your leg hair, there is no problem here.

Except there is. If women, and a hell of a lot of men, opt out of participating in parliamentary politics (or even unions), it doesn’t mean they aren’t affected by the rules and laws formed by them. The policies passed affect our lives- massively- and if we didn’t make them it means someone else is telling us what to do or controlling what we do. For those of us with wombs, one very concrete example of this is abortion and contraceptive laws. A group of people, mostly men I don’t know pass laws which control or limit what I can do with, even inside my own body. Another example is marriage and sex laws – this same group of people believes they have the right to sanction or coerce me in choosing who I live with, if I marry and who I can share sex with and when. Of course in reality they have less control than they’d like, people rarely do what they are told unless it makes sense or they are threatened, but the coercian, incentivising, and threats deeply affect people’s lives and how they conduct them. This can’t be right surely? If more women get involved in the decision-making group, will this fix the system? Will it mean that laws about my body are more legitimate somehow, because people with bodies more similar to mine helped make them?

In truth I don’t think so. It might make some laws better for me, for women generally – it might mean I have easier access to contraception, or better childcare provision – but it also might not. There is no guarantee. It certainly won’t mean I can run my own life without someone else telling me what to do, and I think maybe that is the real problem.

Ladyfest Edinburgh

Its been a long time with no writing.  Or rather a lot of dissertation writing and less of the fun stuff – but Ladyfest Edinburg is coming, and I just wanted to write a brief bit about it.  Sadly my brief attempt at Historical Research is a bit thin – wikipedia, and some academic articles with some Serious Sociological Points to make  (the kind of thing i write).

So what is Ladyfest?  I got an email this morning from Marylou one of the Edinburgh Ladyfest group with this excerpt from Ladyfest Belfast which sums up the idea:

Ladyfest is a non-profit volunteer run DIY festival of music, art, performance and workshops organised and orchestrated by women activists, artists and musicians and is supported by our friend’s of whatever gender. It helps to showcase the skills and talents of a diverse group of groundbreaking women working in the arts, community building and activism. It is a PARTICIPATORY festival, a community festival.

Its about what folk can do together, and  particularly what women can do – which often gets missed out by the mainstream.   Ladyfests emerged out of the Riot Grrrl scene in the States. Think the angry rebellious music of  the likes of bikini kill.  The the first one was in Olympia in 2000 but theres been many, many since.  Thing is, as Ladyfest is an idea – not a big organisation -  all of the groups which have organised around the idea have made it their own and looking at all the different websites, the artwork and approaches are different and just really creative.   So its activism, its fun and its music and arts and people.  Yeay!

Its really been great being involved in the group this year. I missed the first Ladyfest Edinburgh last year being away but it from all reports it was a success – though exhasuting for the organsers.  This year its a short and sweet weekend – 24th – 27th September.  All the details of the event are up on the website – www.ladyfestedinburgh.com – which has been amazingly put together by Alyson, who taught herself how to do it for Ladyfest (!) and the artwork on the site, and our amazing posters (and flyer about) were drawn & designed by Catherine.  The festival is about what people can do, and create and build and well, I can’t really think of anything else to say but – come along :o)

Harriet Harman: you can’t trust men in power

Harriet Harman: you can’t trust men in power – Times Online.

Okay granted – Harriet Harman has said some pretty stupid things in past times, but then give me a politician, or indeed a person, who hasn’t. Her latest headline stealing comments just aren’t one of them. The Times’ headline implies she said -you can’t trust men in power –but interestingly the article contains no quote that backs it up what they actually quote her as saying was:

“I don’t agree with all-male leaderships … Men cannot be left to run things on their own. I think it’s a thoroughly bad thing to have a men-only leadership.”

and

“In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men running the show themselves,”

and

“I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions. That’s one of the reasons why I was prepared to run for deputy leader.”

Now what exactly is the issue here? Do people actually disagree with these statements? Or with all the things people imagine she said, and imagine she meant – the removal of men from politics, a new matriarchal order or whatever has the establishment running in fear of female invasion.
Can we be absolutely clear about this: the British Parliament is not starting from a position of splendid meritocracy where anyone can choose to have a say in the structures that govern them. It is not accidental that the people that end up in parliament are still by and large, white and male, educated in particular institutions and/or coming from particular trade unions. This is the result of a long history of institutional sexism, and racism, and elitism and it is persistently hanging on even now. Now I have no idea what to do about it – but can we at least admit that it’s not perfect and needs reform instead of pretending that lacking participation of significant swathes of the population is some sort of admirable natural selection.

It clearly is the case that white, upper-middle class, men are better at our current politics and getting on in this system. It seems fairly obvious these men have some natural advantages which mean they play the game better: they get selected, promoted and elected, become ministers, and advisors, and perform better. I am honestly not surprised. If a system is evolved and shaped by one sort of person, if one sort of person decides what qualities are needed, if the social scene that feeds the system is about one sort of person, and the rules of the game were set by an exclusive environment. Is it really that surprising that lots of people choose not to play, that don’t feel like its about them, and the whole thing feels a bit…. wrong or dull or boring?

It wouldn’t matter so much if this wasn’t the system that decides so much about our lives – regardless of whether we are white, or male, or educated.  We need women in politics.  Now I don’t want any people to be restricted or defined by their sexual organs, or enforced ideas of identity which go with that.  I don’t want being a woman to be a  great thing, or a terrible thing , I don’t want it to matter.   The answer though is not to pretend that we live in a society like that already. We divide people into male and female, very young, and we are shepherded into different experiences and life choices which reflect their reproductive parts, within structures of class, and race, and ethnicity. This means that laws affect these (artificial) groupings differently and if one group gets to decide the laws for all the rest – ignorance or self-interest can easily distort them. So Harman is right surely – a men-only leadership is not ideal – It’s a reflection of a system in need of changing, until its genuinely a government we are all part of.

Living Dolls

- I have no words to describe this.

Okay, I was quite looking forward to reading this book – a friend was telling me about it, an interesting premise. I read a few reveiws about her previous work (if not actually the work itself) so I thought I’d have a look on amazon: only to be greeted by the cover art. I honest-to-goodness do not think i can buy a book with this cover. Did the publishers even READ the book before they commissioned the cover artist?? For a text that challenges

“a society that sells women an airbrushed, highly sexualised and increasingly narrow vision of femininity”

The cover is a sick sick joke. Using ridiculously airbrushed digitally epilated white female bodies to catch attention… not exactly in keeping with the reported content is it? I intend, when I’ve actually done a bit more work, to write to Virago and ask what the hell they think they’re doing. Its not irony dammit its the problem. Now if they had used a non-photoshopped female body complete with pubic hair – that would have made a point worth making.

Honestly who do they think they are marketing this for???

Ps. I’m not criticising Ms. Walter here – as authors have little control over their cover art as explained in this article from author Charles Stross who has had similar issues…

I have an Ethnic Background, no?

government pic for ethnicity- wierd

I just got a email about a job – amusingly:

“offering an 18-month Fellowship to an arts professional of ethnic background.”

I suspect they mean by this a “Black and Minority” Ethnic background and will not be expecting a English white woman to apply – but those extra words do mean something. White and/or Majority ethnic backgrounds do exist – and I’m not intending here to start sounding like dear Nick Griffin, asserting my need to defend white rights for that poor persecuted majority. I just mean that ethnicity is not something special that folk of colour have, that marks them out as special – it gets discussed for BME people because its made into a problem, because of racism and racist attitudes. White Majority ethnic people have an ethnicity too, its just that more often than not their ethnicity is not noticed, normalised, and gives them an advantage. Ah privilege again.

Having said that, I’m not convinced by the category of Ethnic at all. Feels like buying into a genetic race as a defining fixed category. Although how you get rid of that without erasing the real problems people experience because of racism, I just don’t know.

Also I say white majority together deliberately here, because there are numerous white ethnicities which don’t automatically give you an advantage…. why oh why is the world so complicated?

Finally I can’t spell, I’m not sure it makes me a bad person.

Angry

Islam Relief's damaged shop in Glasgow

Some idiot decided to burn down an Islamic Relief Charity shop on Thursday.

I wish I had something smart to say about it. I like Islamic Relief – as religious organisations go, its the best kind. The Christian Aid, rather than Tearfund end of the religious-charity spectrum. It gives aid where aid is needed, in a non-descriminatory way, and not as a recruitment device. Plus, in a minor way it claims the adjective “Islamic” putting it in a not-scary context. I’m so fed up with it being simply used as a derrogatory term.

So why attack their shop?

I’m drawing some comfort from this comment from the Head of Islamic Relief Scotland Habib Malik:

“This despicable incident, which could have easily cost lives, has rightly been condemned by the whole community and by people of all faiths and none. We are genuinely humbled by everyone’s offers of support and we will be working around the clock to get normal service resumed.”

I’m glad to see that people have rallied, and come together. Silver linings and all.

but, still, grrrr.

Feminism was for our mothers???

Okay this is a quick angry rant, I’m meant to be writing a dissertation around about now, but instead I read this article by Ellie Levenson – confusingly titled “Feminism was something for our mothers.”

I just feel like screaming “Haven’t we got past this yet?” loudly.
Yes it was and still is for our mothers, our fathers, and us, and everyone. eh?
I’m so fed up at being pigeon holed, and I really don’t appreciate it from a fellow feminist. We do ‘our mothers’ a great disservice when we bow down, and spread around ideas that their feminism “was” a humourless movement overly concerned with body hair. The feminism our mothers, and their mothers and grandmothers practised was about liberating women from oppression, not always laugh-a-minute-stuff. It was about getting women the vote, equal pay for equal work, the right to own their own bodies, to divorce violent husbands, to call rape in marriage rape, to speak out about abuse, to be in parliament, to be in public, and so much more. So lets just move on from hairy legs shall we? The point was that our legs are our legs, they have more than ornamental function, so get over it.

If rejecting the term feminism is

“about rejecting the judgemental attitude of some previous feminists, and the humourlessness that comes with it.”

Then fine. Whatever. But then can embracing the term feminism is about embracing the amazing campaigns waged and won by feminists, and the joyfulness that comes with that too?

She charges that

“previous generations of feminists have given the impression that you have to subscribe to a specific set of views, and agree with all of them, to be a part of it. What is more, you have to look a certain way be it keep all your body hair or wear shapeless clothes”

Was that the feminists now? Or was it the backlash against them which time and time again tells women that stand up and say something, that do dare challenge the accepted ‘norm’ – that they are humourless, and too ugly to be listened to. If I have hairy legs, and wear shapeless clothes – does that mean I’m less good at politics? at feminism? Sorry who is writing this version of history?

Criticism where criticism is due, so by all means call feminists for things that they got wrong, or are getting wrong – but please NOT for their dress sense, or their hairyness. How can this matter so much?

Finally, those women of our mother’s generation – a lot of them are still around, and still feminists. Feminism is not just about young women exercising free choice to wear heels and pole dance. Its about all of us, together fighting injustice. All generations of people matter, so stop writing them out of the scene.

Okay – so can we please, please, please, not obsess about bodyhair and feminism and maybe talk about something that doesn’t conform and confirm to the stereotypes put on us.

Drinking, Rape and the Metropolitan Police

There are moments in life, in the dentists surgery, or a friends house, or when curiosity just gets the better of me and I read a copy of Heat, or its celebrity clad equivalent. I know its not sensible, that its only going to be upsetting and that actually Jordan’s love life holds little emotional satisfaction for me. Its a subject I am largely indifferent on, and it rarely fills me with glee, envy, misery or whatever.
I am saved from embarking on an exhausting examination of celebrity-based misogyny by an advert from the Metropolitan police. I found it whilst trying my best to be disinterested in a Worst Fashion Disasters in the History of the World EVER article. I’ve not found a copy online yet, so a description from memory: The background image was a couple of shadows on a wall, at night, sinister urban setting with the text over the top.

“Would you let a complete stranger walk you home? You wouldn’t start a night like this, so why end it that way?”

The advert is part of a broader campaign to stop binge drinking by the Met. The reasoning behind it: that binge drinking is linked to anti-social behaviour and violence and therefore the police can campaign to stop this violence before it starts.

This particular advert surely misses the point?

Being walked home, drunk or not, by a stranger is not an antisocial act, neither is it violence, or any sort of criminality. So we I assume the implication is that ‘you’ may be raped or assaulted, because of your bad drink-induced judgement call, so don’t drink so much. Well I’m sorry but how is this an acceptable message? It plays in to three ancient myths:

1) That you are responsible for not being raped/assaulted.
2) That the risk of rape or assault is something you can control.
3) That rape and assault is most commonly perpetrated by strangers

Rape, and any other crime is caused by the perpetrator and not by the victim. This is a campaign to stop crime caused by binge drinking – rape and sexual violence are not caused by binge drinking, so why bring this into it? By doing so the Met have decided to use the threat of sexual violence to challenge women’s drinking habits.

Now I’m no advocate of binge drinking – there are many reasons why its not a great idea: your liver is very handy in later life, vomiting is never fun, negotiating stairs in high heels is challenge enough when the world is staying still, and lampposts can be dangerous hazards to the drunkard. I can see the point of informative campaigns explaining the side effects of drinking too much (although if i were supreme leader i’d put my resources elsewhere) BUT Being raped is not a symptom of alcohol abuse. Rape does not happen without a rapist. Women’s bodies are not public spaces, with rights of access, and alcohol saturation is not an ‘excuse’ for violence.

Myth two is that women can control their ‘risk’ of rape. Women are told not to walk alone at night, to cover up, not drink too much, wear sensible shoes, carry an alarm. All of which imply that a certain ‘type’ of woman gets raped. Which is patently not true. Women of all ages get raped, of all backgrounds, races, classes and wearing very different clothes. Rapes happen in public spaces, in homes, and offices, factories and at all times of day – its not just dark alleys at night. A woman was raped in Edinburgh near where I live at three in the afternoon. I remember a friend repeating 3pm in horrified astonishment – whereas at three in the morning we expect it? The fear of rape restricts the way we live our lives, scares us into conforming, but does it actually make us safer?

The third myth the Met advert plays to is that rape is commonly perpetrated by ‘strangers’. Its overwhelmingly not. In the vast majority of rapes and sexual assaults, the woman knows her attacker. So lets not be scared of the man in the dark alley – if we’re going to worry, lets worry about the over-protective and jealous men who try to stop you walking anywhere on your own, or ask you never to speak to strangers, or think you shouldn’t go out, or tell you what to wear. Beware the men that tell you they are ‘protecting’ you, because being scared and dependent puts you at more risk that short skirts and night walks. We teach our children about stranger-danger, but not about how to cope with abusive relationships, funny eh?

I wouldn’t have given this advert as much thought if it were not for it being a Metropolitan Police campaign. The police I feel should have a very limited scope. If we have police, they should exist only to protect people from those who break the laws we have decided on. The police should be making us feel happier, and safer, and able to go about our lives however we choose – if they don’t they’re failing. They should not be telling us we ‘risk’ rape if we drink too much, or using fear to make us easier to police. How seriously will they take reports of rape, if they think rape is a result of drinking, and not the actions of a violent man?

Well, I can hear a few indignant folk huff. – women do need to take responsibility for their actions. I agree. Drunken women do need to think about drinking and what they do when drunk -if they are violent, or anti-social, drink drive, scare other people, cause accidents, vomit everywhere, and upset their friends -just as men need to. However rape-victims cannot EVER bear responsibility for rape. You cannot rape yourself. Rape is not ‘sex-gone-wrong’ it is a deliberate act of violent, domination. It’s a crime which disregards the basic human necessity to own your own body. Something that often gets lost with women’s bodies. I guess thats why Heat feels free to discuss every detail of Jordan’s body.

Ps. I have assumed the advert is targeting women as I have only ever heard of women being “walked” home…