"Justice" for Dominique Strauss-Kahn? Don't make me laugh.

Oh hey! Do you like knowing you're right? Me too! What about justice? Hooray for justice! How about demonstrations of blindingly ignorant privilege coated in the faux-language of 'objectivity' or 'reason'? Wait, what..?

Privilege Denying Dude: he's always right

I didn't study gender at school. My school syllabus was based on the theories white English guys made up about the world for the past thousand years. At school, some things were up for nuanced interpretation, like English literature (a girls' subject). Sometimes, at most, we were asked to consider 'the role of women in...' But hard, manly subjects like science and maths, defined as fact, could not be disputed.

Apparently there's a major branch of theoretical thought called 'feminist epistemology', or something. Most people don't know about it, because we only learn white-guy-theories at school. One of the great things it does is to challenge the idea that what a culture thinks of as "knowledge" is objective, or neutral. Here's a quote that summarises the central point nicely:

"One cannot survey the human race from a great and learned distance, proclaiming loudly that one has found the truth for the good of all the nameless faceless abstractions that one has never bothered to take seriously." (Elshtain, 1981)

And here's another:

"Reflection on how social phenomena get defined as problems in need of explanation in the first place quickly reveals that there is no such thing as a problem without a person (or groups of them) who have this problem: a problem is always a problem for someone or other." (Harding, 1987)

In other words, feminist epistemology focuses on the roles of real people in abstract theorizing. When we're talking about knowledge, it matters who is doing the knowledge acquisition, and who the knowledge is being acquired about. The people involved - their positions as members of oppressed or privileged groups - affect what facts get churned out, and who gets to decide what counts as fact.

What falls out of feminist epistemology is the extent to which "knowledge" generally reflects the perspectives, not to mention the will to power, of the people in charge. How do societies come to believe that we are most threatened by those who are worst off: the Jews, the immigrants, the blacks, the gays, the benefits scroungers? As a direct result of the taken-for-granted "knowledges" made up by those with more power, that's how. And we believe it. We read the newspapers, we absorb the prejudices handed to us.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, despite facing (or rather, evading) repeated allegations of rape and sexual assault, gets to speak at the Cambridge Union debating society because of these power imbalances in the process of knowing. Facts about "the law", "justice", "innocent until proven guilty" are taught to us year in and year out. These are the representative tenets of our great liberal democratic society. They are the mighty principles of the fair society, we must uphold them, free of nuance, free of interpretation, lest we become a Stalinist Soviet Union! Innocent until proven guilty! That's an objective fact! You don't get to decide the law, the law does, and the law is defined as not-wrong!

But there are other facts here that don't get heard, or taught, or learned. These are the facts about the crimes of those with more power against those with less power, and the proportion of the time that the law fails to uphold justice when the victim is a woman, or a person of colour, or someone defined as 'vulnerable'. Could a black chamber maid ever prove a rape case against the white male leader of a political body? I doubt it, whatever the evidence was.

Do I need to quote, again, the attrition rate for rape cases in the UK? It's less than 6% Do I need to mention that 1 in 7 women experience sexual or physical violence whilst students, that about 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted as adults? Is it worth pointing out, again, how many cases there are, how few of them reach the police? What about the figure for the number of cases reported that are simply dropped due to what dominant knowledges say about false allegations?

I'm so bored of talking about these facts, but no one from the "innocent until proven guilty" camp considers this to be valid knowledge, worth using to interrogate Dominique Strauss-Kahn's free pass to propound his views. Instead, we hear "innocent until proven guilty" repeated over, and over, and over, like a cult mantra. That's the only knowledge that counts, the justice that protects the rights of the guys in charge.

What about the "innocent until proven guilty" that should have been upheld for Nafissatou Diallo and Tristane Banon? Instead we had the "guilty, just guilty" treatment meted out to Diallo, and the "you have a case, but the law is designed to stop us from pursuing it" reaction to Banon. Given that the law did nothing for them, I reckon Cambridge should give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd suggest that we should believe that they aren't just vindictive, pathological liars - but of course that's not the kind of justice that we're used to.

For what it's worth, I agree with "innocent until proven guilty". It just doesn't apply here. We don't have a fair process for finding people guilty. Dominique Strauss-Kahn isn't going to court on these charges - he got let off. 

The case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is damning: Diallo and Banon are just the women who have come forward. Their heinous treatment at the hands of the law, in the name of "justice", suggests to me that Dominique Strauss-Kahn will go on to rape and to assault with impunity. And all the while student debating societies will invite him to chat about economics. After all, it's a much more important subject, rooted in facts and objectivity. That's the stuff that really counts.

To sign the Disinvite Dominique Strauss-Kahn petition, click here: http://www.womens.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/strausskahn/

A well regulated press would also be a freer press, if it could do anything to end media sexism

Not another picture of Pippa Middleton's ass

The Leveson inquiry drags on, akin to the 1000 pages in the middle of The Lord of The Rings where the hobbits do nothing but walk across a cliff. We're still only on the first half - the bit of the inquiry in which press culture, ethics and practices are vigorously talked about. In fellowship terms, we're barely out of the shire.

Lord Justice Leveson is now indicating that he is unlikely to consider any government regulation. That may not be so disappointing, given the government's seeming view on regulation, otherwise expressed as 'we hate regulation'. But this does leave us to speculate on exactly what actions Leveson may be intending. In a manner quite dissimilar to that of Tolkien's oeuvre, the inquiry does not seem to be leading to any massive inexorable conclusions. 

At the end of last year coalition of mainstream feminist groups (the End Violence Against Women coalition (EVAW), Eaves, OBJECT and Equality Now) submitted to the Leveson inquiry that it should address press sexism as part of a full investigation into the relationship between media and society.* How unbelievably heinous; it takes a country-wide media culture overhaul to enable official challenge to media myths of the alien species, 'women', who do nothing but lie about rape, wear clothes, or not wear clothes.

In this video, a Sky News commentator speculates - ever so insightfully - that the inquiry's outcome may be a 'tougher, beefed up, testosterone fuelled regulator.' Sexist language aside (and the identification 'good=masculine' could be one of the first things to go, if you ask me) a proper independent press complaints commission would seem to be one highly logical outcome of the inquiry. We already have one, after all, giving it teeth would be relatively easy. 

The problem is that enabling it to take action against sexism would take greater ovaries than Leveson could ever countenance. The culture is too longstanding, and it runs too deep in the national psyche. The suggestion of any anti-sexist regulation stronger than 'um, guys, can you please play nicely?' is invariably met with the outraged cry: 'FEMINIST CENSORSHIP!!!!' or 'A FREE PRESS IS THE SOLE HALLMARK OF A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY!!!' or, as with Clare Short's campaign to end Page 3, you are clearly just 'fat and ugly' and 'jealous of beautiful young women'. 

Here is what will (probably) happen instead. Between now and the announcement of a new PCC, the bit of the inquiry that was about countering media misogyny will get lost. Or looked over. Or watered down so much that it will become irrelevant. Some concession may be made to not displaying 'inappropriate' materials pre-watershed, 'where children can see'. But the banal onslaught of everything that is idiotic in our culture, the four hundred pictures of Pippa Middleton's bum, the appraisal of women politicians on the basis of their clothing choice - all this will continue.

Those who get on the high horse about the inalienable right to free expression forget that in practice this has meant the unabated reproduction of unsubstantiated ideologies about less powerful groups who, non-coincidentally, have less press control. The people who read rape reports focusing mainly on 'false' accusations, skirts, and alcohol consumption, are the same people who comprise juries who sit in on rape cases from which rapists repeatedly walk free. That's the very definition of a vicious circle.

To mandate that women should be represented as people who partake in the public sphere in roles which are not primarily aesthetic is simply to mandate representations closer to the truth. An end to the barrage of boobs and bimbos would make life a lot freer for the women who would like to be assessed on the basis of their actions rather than for the shape of their behinds. I hope Lord Leveson is brave enough to say so.


*Disclaimer: I don't agree with everything that was put forward by all of these organisations, but implementation of anything vaguely anti-misogynist would be better than what we have now. 

All I want for Xmas is a stocking full of really arousing feminist porn

Originally published at The F Word: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/12/all_i_want_for_

This isn't quite doing it for me

Wrongheadedly, I visited Anne Summers the other day. Hidden at the back of the store next to the 'Dominatrix' range (exclusively advertised with pictures of submissive women - I don't think they get it) was the section marked 'Porn for Women'.

A less interesting porn section could scarcely be conceived of. Whoever is designing this porn seems to think that women will descend in droves to purchase any porn which replaces the 'for men' signifiers 'slutty/anal/hungry/cock/bitch/fest' with the more delicate, pleasant, feminine word 'couples'. As if 'couples' is any draw in a film that conforms in every other respect to the male subject/female object binary.

I'm sorry for women if that's what porn 'for women' amounts to. Perhaps I shouldn't expect revolutionary female-driven narratives about sexualities and the female gaze in the Anne Summers porn section, but I would at least like to be slightly titillated. The barest hint of a sensation in the knicker department would be enough.

Still, it's only the most commercially successful sex shop 'for women', after all. In a more fringe way, women, or rather, feminists, have been conceiving of, directing and distributing feminist porn - or porn which tries to subvert the misogynist narrative - for ages. The downside is that the lack of mainstream market support results in small, independent distributors who seem to spring up and then go under (and not in the fun way, either). Last month, notably, saw the sad departure of Filament Magazine, billed wonderfully as the 'thinking woman's crumpet'.

It's a small relief that the Feminist Porn Awards are out there, attempting to give voice to the desires of those mind-numbingly bored by the restrictive fare conventionally on offer to women (let's not even get started on the soft/hardcore misogyny that passes for general/men's porn). The Feminist Porn Awards reckon that porn is feminist if it is hot and:

"1) A woman had a hand in the production, writing, direction, etc. of the work.
2) It depicts genuine female pleasure
3) It expands the boundaries of sexual representation on film and challenges stereotypes that are often found in mainstream porn."

Or, as Caitlin Moran succinctly put it, "I JUST WANT A MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR INTERNATIONAL PORN INDUSTRY WHERE I CAN SEE A WOMAN COME."

That all sounds great, so why is it rare to find hardcore porn which fits these quite minimal criteria? There are, of course, commercial successes. There are the Anna Spans of the straight world (though her failure to look critically at mainstream porn is rather damning), and there are the Courtney Troubles and Shine Louise Houstons on the other end of the spectrum. But it isn't enough, it isn't available enough, and what there is doesn't do enough to undermine the free tube sites of the industry.

Isn't it strange that an activity which - much of the time - is something men and women do together, should be so invariably so distorted when put on camera? I don't think there is anything about the presence of a camera, or indeed a mass market, that necessarily turns sex into misogyny, but it is depressing when this is so often the case.

Lisa Saunders' interesting and well-argued anti-porn/pro-sex article on this website yesterday suggests that 'it's about as easy to get hold of 'ethical' pornography as it is to score 'ethical' cocaine.' My suspicion is that feminists will lose out if we completely write pornography off, forever, the end. The continued presence of feminist voices in other unethical industries hasn't created any feminist industries, but it has changed some things for the better.

The sustained critique of the industry and its wider cultural normalisation that anti-pornography feminisms provide are extremely persuasive, but I am reluctant to condemn all porn that exists or could exist on the basis of the industry as it stands. Women watch, and get off, on porn which doesn't cater to them, which is misogynist, racist, and unethical in every other respect. If this is the case with such rubbish porn, how much better could it be if feminist porn were to flourish?

Can feminist porn can break away from mainstream misogynist narratives? Are the criteria given by the Feminist Porn Awards enough to make porn feminist? Is there feminist porn which genuinely represents women's sexualities? Have you seen any that really stood out? What are your recommendations for feminist porn?

A rape culture 101, for the unsure.

'Men have defined the parameters of every subject. All feminist arguments, however radical in intent or consequence, are with or against assertions or premises implicit in the male system, which is made credible or authentic by the power of men to name.' - Andrea Dworkin

Word


I am pissed off, fucked off, at having to write this. This is about rape culture. It's about the ability of powerful and less powerful men to rape with impunity, whilst worldwide everybody looks on and says, 'ah yes, but it's "he said, she said"/it has to be innocent until proven guilty' or just *stereotypical rape apologism here*'.

I am sick and tired of having rape discussions that start from the premise, 'it is terrible for a man to be falsely accused of rape'. Yes. Of course it is terrible to be falsely accused. Can we stop pretending that we currently have a fair system which simply and rightfully attempts to make sure that innocent men aren't convicted?

More to the point, it is terrible to *be raped* And, putting this out there, MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE RAPED THAN ARE FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPING. THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS MORE. Stop catering to the Daily Mail's victim-blaming mythologies. Can you, for once, put it into perspective??

Shall we talk about the ways in which rape victims are sometimes treated in court? Shall we talk about the victim-blaming preconceptions of jury members? Can we have a discussion about misogyny and how this might affect cases, for fuck's sake? Or do we have to keep acting as if that none of this other stuff happens, that the only thing at stake is deciding upon a legal principle: innocent until proven guilty?

I have lost count of the amount of conversations I have had about rape which have not been about how thousands of people get raped and don't bring convictions, but that instead centre around the tiny minority of cases where a false allegation is brought. Conversations about rape should not start with me having to reassure your fragile ego that in general, *women don't lie about rape*. Any woman (and I'm focusing on woman because men do not face the same kinds of prejudices) who makes a false rape accusation, and who has half a brain cell, knows what she is getting into. She will be disbelieved, mocked, denigrated, shamed and shamed and shamed. People will simply not believe her. People will sympathise with her rapist, not with her. There is nothing so stigmatising as being a rape survivor; except maybe talking about it.

If in conversation you find yourself defending those who are accused of rape on reflex, ask yourself why. Is it because you are scared that one day you may be falsely accused? If the latter, maybe you need to start thinking about what consent is. Are you having sex with people you aren't sure are consenting? The absence of a 'no' is not enough for consent. You need an enthusiastic yes, and if you aren't sure, ASK. It is highly unlikely that you will simply encounter a vindictive psychopath who puts herself through the hell of a legal rape claim just to get at you. It could happen, but equally, you could get struck by lightening.

Or do you sympathise with the accused because you think that in most cases of rape, it is one person's word against another and the most important thing at stake is innocent until proven guilty? (Aside from the rant about to follow, please see Zoe Williams' point here, that as a false allegation of rape is also a crime, the only reasonable presumption is that you don't know .)

What is rape culture?

Rape culture is one in which the default position in a rape case is not just innocent until proven guilty, but I'm sure that *something happened* but it was probably consensual and she just changed her mind or she was probably drunk and regretted it or she was wearing a short skirt and asked for it or she had some reason to blackmail him or she was walking alone at night and shouldn't have been or she's a bit emotionally unstable anyway or she's a sex worker or she got into his bed or they've had sex before or she isn't credible anyway, look, one time she took drugs, or she's into group sex so how can we tell or she's a member of the BDSM community and that's what happens if you get into that kind of situation or she's a slut anyway or he seems like a nice guy, why would he do something like that, or she has lied before in her life or it wasn't that violent so it can't have been that bad. ETC ETC ETC.

Rape culture is where only 6.5% of reported rape cases lead to conviction. (Thanks, The Guardian, for reconfirming that fact here)

Rape culture is where women and men feel too afraid to go to the police when they have been raped or sexually assaulted. They know there is every likelihood that police treatment will be belittling, denigrating and unsupportive. They know that their word will immediately be put on trial. Rape crisis centres and refuges, at least, often *believe what the survivor is saying* - oh, except most of their funding has been cut.

Rape culture is where being a crime victim leads to your credibility being destroyed in any way possible. You'd better have a 100000% perfect memory of the rape, the events before and the events after - if you mix up the details at any stage of the million recountings you'll have to do, you're clearly lying. In fact, you'd better have lived a saintly life, because if you've ever done anything wrong, you're legally unrapeable.

Rape culture is where the media can spread a lie about the survivor across the world in the pursuit of destroying her credibility. See Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Rape culture is when every major news outlet tells this story: 'charges expected to be dropped', 'prosecutor says charges will be dropped, and accused may rejoin presidential race in spite of other rape allegations', 'prosecution says witness unreliable'... can you see a pattern here? I can, it's one in which powerful white men are allowed to rape powerless women of colour.

Rape culture is where sex, in general, is seen as dirty and bad and only to be done in hetero-monogamous marriage. It's where women are shamed for having sex, or for not having sex. It's where men are taught to aggressively pursue potential sexual partners; to see sex as something to be acquired from the initially resistant (dehumanised) target. It's where sex education doesn't really happen. It's where we don't know, or don't care, that yes means yes and no means no.

Rape culture is where media coverage of rape fixates on, amplifies, hypes, endlessly reports on the small percentage of women who (a law enforcement body has decided) made a false allegation.

Rape culture is where rape coverage relays every grisly detail of an attack.

Rape culture is where falsely retracting a rape allegation can land you in jail. (Supposedly Keir Starmer has now put a stop to this)

Rape culture is when women are invariably represented as devoid of subjectivity, sexually submissive, and acquiescent to forceful sexual overtures.

Rape culture is the fact that a husband could not legally rape his wife until 1991.

Rape culture is where copies of soft porn magazines are seen as appropriate reading material for juries waiting to be called into cases. Possibly rape cases. (I'm not making this up, Snaresbrook Crown Court has copies of FHM in the jury waiting area).

Rape culture is where rape is accepted as an inevitable part of male sexuality. Please see Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

Rape culture is where the onus is put on women (men aren't ever seen as victims) to prevent their own rape. Ignoring the fact that preventing yourself from being raped is impossible, however you act. Ignoring the fact that not calling an illegal minicab doesn't reduce the risk of you being raped if your partner, friend or acquaintance decides to rape you.

Rape culture is where you can't withdraw consent after you've given it.

Rape culture is where fucking someone whilst they are asleep, who therefore *cannot* have given consent, is not seen as rape. Rape culture is where preventing someone from using protection is not seen as rape. Please see Julian Assange.

Rape culture is where you can't discuss rape without ending up, or beginning, in a discussion about false allegations.

This list could go on forever. Please feel free to add to it.


What can I do to oppose rape culture?

Make sure you know what rape is and then don't do it, look at these websites, challenge rape apologists. Also give all your money to Rape Crisis:

http://www.scarleteen.com/

http://www.object.org.uk/ (Caveat: I have heard a lot of criticism of OBJECT. They take an explicitly anti-porn and anti-sex work position. You may or may not agree with this, but what they say is nevertheless very much worth your time and thought.)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/call-end-violence-women-girls/government-stern-review?view=Binary

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/

http://www.thehavens.co.uk/advice.php

http://www.aswaterspassingby.org/sexualabuse.html


I leave you with another quotation from Andrea Dworkin, who said some good, invariably misrepresented stuff:

We are very close to death. All women are. And we are very close to rape and we are very close to beating. And we are inside a system of humiliation from which there is no escape for us. We use statistics not to try to quantify the injuries, but to convince the world that those injuries even exist. Those statistics are not abstractions. It is easy to say, Ah, the statistics, somebody writes them up one way and somebody writes them up another way. That’s true. But I hear about the rapes one by one by one by one by one, which is also how they happen. Those statistics are not abstract to me. Every three minutes a woman is being raped. Every eighteen seconds a woman is being beaten. There is nothing abstract about it. It is happening right now as I am speaking.