Move over Nicki Minaj, meet the women making queer hip hop their own

Forget homohop, meet lesbo hop. Originally published at the New Statesman. 

God Des and She holding non-suggestive objects

You haven't lived until you've seen a lesbian hip hop duo rap about best pussy eating technique to three hundred excited women. Best known for their appearance on lesbo-drama TV series The L Word, hip hop act God Des and She enchanted the crowd at long-standing London queer night Bar Wotever last week. Bringing a signature mix of rapped swagger and ovaries-busting soul - “You and me together we got that vibe/Plus I'm a ten and your girl is a five” -  they ensured there wasn't a dry seat in the house. 

Yet despite being regarded as queer hip hop “pioneers” by EvOn, another lesbian rapper and writer of the LGBT Underground blog, many in the audience of dykes, queers and assorted misfits had only vaguely heard of them before the show. Read More. 

The rise and fall of the lesbian shock factor

Madonna and Britney get down at the MTV Video Awards. Cue worldwide shock.

I'm getting to grips with some really tough topics at Gay Star News these past days. Forget the Israeli elections and impending in/out/shake-it-all-about Eurogeddon. Put aside rampant un(der)employment and the destruction of the welfare state.

Instead, I present to you a gritty investigation into performances of same-sex desire in the British public sphere. Otherwise known as:

The rise and fall of the lesbian shock factor

I've also written a barrage of entertainment stories, including -

Alice Arnold, partner of sports presenter Clare Balding, speaks out on gay marriage:

Lesbian newsreader calls anti-gay marriage MPs 'hurtful'

Everyone's favourite child wizard chats about being a beat poet:

Daniel Radcliffe: Why not all English men are gay

This flamboyant guy who can't really sing (but who cries with incredible panache) is in another reality show:

Rylan Clark leaves Big Brother house for secret X factor rehearsals

Jodie Foster's six greatest moments

All Jodie, all lesbian, all of the time

Today it was literally my job to watch clips of Jodie Foster movies on Youtube. I mean, I may not be being paid, but I'm certainly being allowed to sit in an office and assess the merits of (now openly) lesbian film stars. Who else knew that Jodie Foster was Lindsey Lohan in the original version of Parent Trap? Not me. This important morning's work became the literary tour de force, 'Jodie Foster's six greatest moments':

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/jodie-fosters-six-greatest-moments160113

I also wrote a news piece about the 'Protest Transphobia @ the Observer' demo, taking place tomorrow afternoon. Do I need to mention Julie Burchill again?

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/anti-transphobia-protests-scheduled-following-withdrawal-burchill-hate-rant160113

Also, it turns out that queer women have to go for cervical screenings because lesbian sex is real, just like other sex. I think that the speculum may be irrelevant to smear tests, really. They do it just to punish women:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/lesbian-and-bisexual-women-risk-cervical-cancer160113


As I didn't blog yesterday, you can also read up on a couple of pieces I did then. First, a Stonewall walk against homophobic bullying:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/want-stamp-out-anti-gay-bullying150113

Second and finally, there's a big gala being held to celebrate the Teddy queer film awards in Berlin:

http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/soir%C3%A9e-diversit%C3%A9-awards-ceremony-launches-berlin-film-festival150113

UK: the power of the women’s vote

Y. Cooper you are so great please be my Prime Minister

I have a top story up on openDemocracy today. It's about how the "women" half of the electorate holds the cards in the 2015 General Election. But will any of the so-called political parties be brave enough to do something about it? Click here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ray-filar/uk-power-of-women’s-vote

"Intersectionality", let me Google that for you

So great? 

It's all kicked off on twitter over the last two days since The V Spot's problematic blog "In defence of Caitlin Moran and populist feminism".

In response, I've written a piece over at New Statesman.

It's called "'Intersectionality', let me Google that for you." It's on the issue of who feminism is for: http://www.newstatesman.com/lifestyle/2012/10/intersectionality-let-me-google-you


Here are some great pieces by others on the same debate:

Dear Vagenda editors: http://blackfeminists.org/2012/10/23/dear-vagenda-editors/

You don't need an MA in Gender Studies to know that race matters to feminism: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/23/race-matters-to-feminism

How to be better: on intersectionality, privilege and silencing: http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/how-to-be-better-on-intersectionality-privilege-and-silencing/

Feminist slam poetry for National Poetry Day

To celebrate National Poetry Day, here are some of my favourite feminist slam poems. They are clever, moving, amazing, and about as far from the GCSE poetry anthology as you can get, thankfully. Some are long but they are totally worth the investment. Enjoy bubbelehs, enjoy.

*trigger warning*

Staceyann Chin - My first period. Also features a haiku about George Bush.

"Even Jesus had to pass through a punani
Angels and messengers aside
Mary had to lend passage to god
Or them Christians might still be Jews 
Waiting for a christ that was stuck up the ass of some man
Who thought he could do what little girls do
Every day against our wishes" 

Andrea Gibson - Letter to a playground bully from Andrea (age 8)

"I am not 'always crying', 

I am just thawing outside the lines."

Sonya Renee - What women deserve

"Women do deserve better, 
Women deserve choice"

I think I have linked to this on the blog before, but it is just so great.




Alix Olson - Subtle sister 

"So I take back the whispers, the cute, mute act and the high pitched giggles, 
Yeah I take them back 
I won't avoid your stare evade your step 
Nothing of that kind, 
I won't help you help me victimise the only space that's mine." 



(Unfortunately this video is cut with other footage - but its the only reasonable version I can find on Youtube).


And finally:

Mindi Nettifee - For young women who don't consider themselves feminists (the last nerve)





Who have I missed out? Please share your favourite feminist poems below!



More:

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03/27/future-of-feminism-telling-our-stories-out-loud/

Contraception is no stroll in the park and men should share the stress

On a side note, all the stock pictures of women and implants are of white women

I have a new piece up on Comment is free. Its about a recent scandal in which contraceptive implants have become lost in women's bodies, and problems with the contraceptive market more generally. And the global pharmaceutical industry. And gender: Contraception is no stroll in the park and men should share the stress

The lesbian adverts that "One Million Moms" should be protesting

Mothers beware! This advert could influence your teenager to purchase tie-die.  

Urban Outfitters has been in the news as the target of a campaign by homophobic, optimistically titled hate group "One Million" Moms. The reason? A catalogue photo depicting this exceptionally chaste kiss between two flouncily-clad women. I hate the idea that tie-die is in fashion again, but apparently that's not the reason for the protest. Apparently One Million Moms campaign against "immorality, violence, vulgarity and profanity." That they have decided to make this ad a focal point for a campaign suggests that this "picture of two women kissing in a face holding embrace!" (as they call it, complete with exclamation mark) falls short on one or more of these points. It must be the old "immorality" chestnut.

As queer adverts go, though, "two women kissing in a face holding embrace!"is pretty tame on the immorality scale. Not even a 2 out of 10. Its nice to see some lesbian-ish (who knows, they could even be bisexual, or just good friends) action, but it's not inflammatory enough to get me out on the streets looking for the nearest straight child to forcibly convert. Of all the queer adverts that One Million Moms could have picked on, some are far more risque.

Relatively few adverts depicting same-sex attraction between women exist, but those that do seem to fall broadly into two categories. The first, and this is by far the biggest, is the shameless lesploitation genre. These adverts may feature same-sex activity between women, but they have about as much to do with self-defining queer women as Margaret Thatcher has to do with feminism. This ostensibly-lesbian-but-actually-lesbophobic-and-misogynist Jim Beam ad - which makes me want to sick in my mouth - is a prime lesploitation candidate.

Ignoring the poor dress choice, I think that the Urban Outfitters' "face holding embrace!" advert falls into another, second category. Its a normal scene (if your version of normal heavily involves Urban Outfitters Spring/Summer 2012), in a normal room, between two normal (if exceedingly slim, white and pretty) women. Unabashedly, it's a consumer capitalist image, but at least for once the content is aimed at the demographic it depicts. It's pleasingly devoid of gratuitously oiled-up nudity. It's a women's same-sex image, aimed primarily at women. 

Unfortunately, One Million Moms' immorality klaxon doesn't seem so tolerant as to enable any consideration of subtlety in intent or representation. Obviously not. If their main worry is that their kids might catch gay from a picture, or that they might be influenced by some queer subliminal messaging sneakily inserted into a handbag advert, then of course they couldn't care less whether the imagery does anything good for queer visibility or not. 

All the same, if they're looking for some other quite nice representations of queer women in advertising to protest, I've found my favourite five: 

1. KY scoops the lesbian audience

Ok look, I obviously hate the idea of orgasms as "that big moment", but actually this is pretty cute observational comedy. There's even a sneaky cat in the top left corner. I can imagine lesbian couples seeing this, then buying lube. Works for me (the depiction, not the lube itself. I haven't tried the lube. Yet).  

2. Lesbian cruises for lesbians: "It truly does change your life." 

An ad made by queer women, for queer women, featuring queer women? Also advertising an niche lesbian service, I know, so not attempting to corner a widely commercial market. But still, stop the press, butch lesbians have made it into an advert! 

3. Martina Navratilova: can't see past her incredible arms to work out what she's selling

Something to do with the supposed "pink pound"? I don't know. It's got Martina Navratilova in. 

4. H&M does ambiguity 

H&M are prime offenders in the sexism stakes, not least for their propensity to photoshop models' heads onto computer generated, identikit mannequin bodies. This ad, however, is part of a series of beautifully constructed ads using intimacy between women to sell to women. 

5. Devin & Glenn: Overturn Prop 8 and Make Homosexuals Marry!

Self-evidently this has little to do with lesbianism, but it is my favourite gay ad ever. If One Million Mom's were to protest anything, it should surely be this. Join them and let them know here: http://www.onemillionmoms.com/register.asp

"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/

Why the gender pay gap matters

The real castration complex? 

I have a new post at openDemocracy. It's about the gender pay gap, but is also sexy and exciting: http://www.opendemocracy.net/ray-filar/why-gender-pay-gap-matters

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. 

A helpful guide to not being a horrible nagging shrew this Christmas

Poor bird 

Here is a third December guest blog for The F Word, just in time for the big day: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2011/12/a_helpful_guide

Mad Women on the March

Alicia would probably be a better Prime Minister

Write up of Fawcett Society's 'Don't Turn Back Time March' - published at openDemocracy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ray-filar/mad-women-on-march

A thousand feminists, a million acts of violence

A piece about the UK Feminista 2011 conference and Violence Against Women and Girls. Published at openDemocracy: http://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/ray-filar/thousand-feminists-million-acts-of-violence

The problem with sexy children

This look: correct in women, totally perverse in children

Sexualisation: a buzzword for feminists, Christians and conservative party leaders. Most people agree it's a Bad Thing, particularly when it happens to our delicate little children, who must be protected. If sexualisation is impacting upon children, says everybody, then, and only then, must we take rigorous measures to oppose it. In particular, we must complain about Rihanna dancing on X-Factor in her too-risque undies, and make sure that schoolgirls wear trousers so that they don't invite sexual assault. In case you were face-palming there, let's just say that the latter policy clearly springs from the same mind that wrote the hilarious joke: 'what's the leading cause of peodophilia?'... 'sexy children'.

A desultory review of the internet literature on sexualisation reveals that it's affecting children everywhere. It pervades our culture through magazines, 'pornstar' slogans on children's clothing, under-wired bras for little girls, music videos (though the fixation is on female pop stars, not the male hip hop artists who use naked-gyrating-women as legal tender), television generally, and so on. These impressionable young minds see it, take it in, and start acting like sexy adults far too young. The solution, therefore, apparently, is to stop our children seeing sex-related things. 

Of course it would be totally fine if she was a bit older..

The most recent governmentally commissioned research on this, the Bailey Review of the Commercialisation and Sexualisation of Childhood, deliberately fails to define sexualisation. That's because it was written by a man whose agenda is not anti-sexualisation, but anti-sex. For Bailey, 'sexualisation' is just convenient modern jargon to slip a right-wing agenda under the policy radar.

Let's stop pretending that children and young adolescents don't have sexualities. Don't you remember your furtive childhood wanks? It's simply ridiculous to believe that sexuality rightfully gets switched on when we reach the age of consent, as if the benchmark 'sixteen' represents anything other than an arbitrary regulatory decision of the state.

The problem is not sex but its cultural implementation, and an aspect of that is the difference between sex and sexualisation. Part of me doesn't want my figurative children to find out just how limiting, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc, adult women's cultural sexual representation is, but I'm not going to sit around acting as if stopping them from seeing the images does anything to stop the images-as-messages from being there.

Girls are not sexualised because they develop and experience their own sexualities, nor are children-who-must-be-protected generally sexualised because they have sex. Girls are sexualised, rather, because women's and girl's sexualities are still culturally defined in a way that detaches genuine sexual pleasure from the body, replacing it with a narrow, limiting appearance of (submissive) arousal. Ariel Levy was saying something similar to this six years ago, by the way. Why is it considered sexy for women but not men to wear make-up, heels and lingerie? (I personally think men in make-up, heels and lingerie are incredibly sexy, but I seem to be the perverse minority)

The Bailey Review correctly identifies sexualised products, but doesn't really pick up on the other problems that comprise sexualisation: the normalisation of a particular kind of sexy-woman standard that all women are held up as wanting against. Sexualisation is a horrifically gendered thing whereby men sexually consume agency devoid women-commodities. The extensive possibilities for and variations in peoples' sexualities are denied except where they match the man-fucks-sexy-woman standard. I recognise that some women get off perfectly well under the popular narrative, which is great for them, but even as much as sexuality reflects society, many still cannot fit the box.

There is a fundamental problem with the idea that sexualisation is terrible up until the age of sixteen, at which point it's all fine and normal (The Bailey Review uses the term 'premature sexualisation'!) It's sad that girls will have to resist everything the sexualised society tells them about themselves, their desires and their bodies, in order to have fulfilling sex lives. Yet I would almost prefer that they learn about it early so that they can start developing the critical tools to call it out for what it is - a fabricated belief system of the misogynist imagination. Perhaps children should know their enemy. 

The comedians that Mock the Week missed out

The twitter war against @mocktheweek has finally ended. It could most closely be described as akin to a battle in which cannonballs are fired at a person who, protected by an imaginary brick wall, simply denies that the cannonballs, the wall, gravity, or any form of Newtonian law exists.

The social media face of Mock the Week, known only as "@mocktheweek", refused, in the face of all reasonability, to accept that there is anything sexist about a panel show in which women comedians are a: rarely booked and b: hate appearing when they do get booked. I can't be bothered to explain, again, why it is very, very, very, very, very sexist, so I will simply recall here that the all-female episode of Whose Line is it Anyway was one of the funnier ones. Just saying. Four comics who were women did comedy on a stage and it was funny. Anyway, if you are confused about why Mock the Week is very, very, very, very, etc, sexist, go on twitter, search 'mocktheweek', and scroll down the exchanges. I'm not linking.

Anyway, and instead, let us feast our ears on a compendium of comedians who, if they were men, would probably be Mock the Week regulars/would by now have their own road-shows and a pile of free money gifted to them by the BBC:

1. Isy Suttie:



In exhibit A (above, literally just above) we see a comedian making funny jokes to a large audience of people who are laughing. That comedian happens to be a woman, and therefore either a: will not be booked to appear on Mock the Week, or b: will not appear on Mock the Week because it is a particularly nasty atmosphere for women comedians - see Jo Brand.

2. Sarah Kendall [Edit 22/1/12: transphobia warning at around 11.30 mins]



One of my favourite comedians who probably won't ever be on Mock the Week. Unlike Russell Howard, who gets to be a regular in virtue of having a real penis, probably. I hope Sarah Kendall does go on it, but if she is her jokes will probably get edited out in favour of some look-at-me-mummy-i'm-clever-now nonsense.

3. Shazia Mirza



Bit of an obvious choice, but also, why the hell doesn't she already have her own show?

4. Josie Long



Pretty well known and stuff. Pretty funny. Probably hasn't been on Mock the Week, and I hope she doesn't go on it. I have a suspicion her style would get lost in the celebratory cockfest. She's spot on with the bit about turning 'go on then, make me laugh' guests into 'I like drinking water out of sponges' guests.

5. Here, to finish, is a trailer from the Funny Women awards of 2010. What's that about female comedians just 'not existing'?




Other things to look at -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/09/52-female-comedians_n_833214.html - because they have women comedians in America too.

What's that? Another women comedian talking about how Mock the Week is horrible? http://www.birminghammail.net/what-is-on-in-birmingham/birmingham-comedy/2009/12/11/comedy-shappi-khorsandi-takes-on-the-male-world-of-stand-up-97319-25366685/

Good stuff on the most recent sexism debate: http://minority-thought.com/culture/2011/09/twitter-diversity-audits-and-mock-the-week-why-the-bbc-is-failing-its-audience

Speaking out about abortion: four women share their stories.

I go to sleep fantasizing about shouting this at Nadine Dorries

So Downing Street looks set to advise MPs to vote against the “Dorries amendment”. About bloody time, too. The anti-choice, anti-women attitudes that stigmatise abortion, however, remain. When needed, abortion should be a matter of sheer common sense. The fact that in 2011 a vocal minority can come so close to restricting further the little control women have over our own bodies is terrifying. When a fundamentalist minority has this much influence over policies for the majority, we have a serious problem.

According to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one in three women will have an abortion in their lives. Yet publicly talking about it is still taboo. Here, four women speak out about their unwanted pregnancies, abortion counselling, and the social pressures they have faced:

How did you feel when you first found out you were pregnant? 

Robyn*: Sheer disbelief at first, then a lot of fear and guilt. I felt guilty because I knew I would have to have an abortion and I knew it would really upset/worry my mum.
Anna*: Scared, terrified, nervous, very alone...
Lucy: I already had three kids, and was very clear in my own mind that I didn't want to carry this one to term. The first child was the result of a one-night-stand (when I was twenty three) and I was a single mother from the start. The second was very much wished for by my husband and the third kid was planned too. My youngest was about sixteen months old at the time and I was still breastfeeding quite a lot. A fourth kid didn't fit into my plans at all, no space in the flat, no room in a normal car for four kids and I didn't want another. My husband was happy with my decision, neither of us have problems with the idea of abortion, especially if it is done early on in the pregnancy.
Sam*: It was pretty unreal, first I felt blank fear and then a brief moment of emotional helplessness.


How old were you at the time? 

Lucy: About forty, happily married, financially secure. 

Sam: Nineteen
Anna: Fourteen years old
Robyn: I was seventeen. 

What caused the pregnancy? 

Sam: Many excuses, but the main one being the sustained belief that I wouldn't be able to get pregnant by having unprotected sex the week following my period because really...there’s no egg there then
Anna: Unprotected sex with my first love... 

Robyn: Me and my boyfriend had unprotected sex.
Lucy: Carelessness with contraception because I was breastfeeding and my periods hadn't returned. Yes, I should've known better.

When did you first begin to consider abortion? What did you do? 

Lucy: Straight away. As I was travelling to the UK to visit my parents a few days later, I decided to try to get a chemical abortion while I was there. Unfortunately, by the time the clinic in the UK could fit me in, it wouldn't have worked out with the second appointment which needed to be in the same clinic and in person. I knew the score in Germany, diagnosis at your GP or gynecologist, appointment with counselling service, some "thinking time" and then the abortion itself. 

Robyn: I considered abortion as soon as I found out. I was seventeen and couldn't raise a child, I was in the middle of my A levels and wanted to do more with my life. I researched abortion services with my mum after I had told her I was pregnant and arranged a consultation. 

Anna: I talked with a teenage friend of mine, at the time. She suggested it, said she knew a doctor. She went with me to the appointment. I remember she was well-off, so I think she paid for it too... 

Sam: Pretty much straight away, it's weird because I went to a Catholic school but at the time it didn't seem like a baby, that's only something I've felt recently. I just wanted my period, it wasn't traumatic, although I was scared, it just seemed like if i thought about it in terms of making my period come on then it felt natural. I did what most would, went online, found a gum clinic and found out what time the drop in session was. 

Who was the abortion provider you eventually got in contact with, and how did they treat you? 

Anna: Dr. Tiller, I think was his name, in Wichita, Kansas. You can actually google what happened to him, later, much later, in life. He was gunned down and murdered, I think in front of his clinic? Or it may have been at his church? I can't remember...
Robyn: I got in contact with Marie Stopes. They treated me very well, provided me with helpful information leaflets on the different types of abortion and arranged a consultation with me a few days after I had found out I was pregnant. They told me about the other options, and made me feel very comfortable and not as if I was guilty for having an abortion.
Lucy: It was a day clinic and they chucked us all out at 6 p.m. My abortion went pretty well but there was a Chinese student all on her own in the recovery bed next to mine who was still feeling pretty bad at 6 p.m. I ended up getting my friend to drive her home.
Sam: The Gum Clinic were already really nice, they booked me an appointment with BPAS straight away, which I was so relieved about. All the nurses I met were lovely and it was their kindness that was reassuring, they were professional and that made me feel secure.


Do you remember your counselling sessions? Could you describe them? 

Lucy: As it was late August and a lot of people were on holiday, I had to wait two weeks or so for my counselling appointment. Luckily the woman was OK. I told her I'd got three kids and knew what I wanted, she was a bit cowed by my clarity and just gave me the minimum spiel. I only had one session with her. She signed my slip of paper and then at long last I was able to book an abortion (I think there was an obligatory wait/reconsider time) and had my abortion a couple of weeks later. 

Sam: On my first appointment at BPAS I met with three different nurses, one of which was just to speak to. She asked me if I was in a relationship, if I had considered the other option. Once I revealed how I came to be pregnant she also talked me through some other forms of contraception besides the pill. She was really nice, and when i showed interest said that she would recommend the same use of contraception to her daughters and was happy to hear that I was in a stable relationship and was receiving support from my boyfriend. I think at the time I was trying to reassure her that I was ok but as she was accepting of all my answers I felt secure in my decision.
Anna: Counselling was offered. It was just one session, rather long, maybe two hours, right before the procedure. Dr. Tiller was the one who counselled me. Asked about the father, activities of the father, I replied that he smoked a LOT of pot, and this worried me about any baby. I explained I wasn't ready to have a baby, I was too young, wanted to finish school and have a life. I was afraid on a lot of levels, and alone. I think the reason Dr. Tiller spoke with me to such great lengths, was because he knew it was "illegal" in Kansas to perform abortion on a girl of my age. He wanted to make sure I could understand the results of what I wanted to have done. My concerns were certainly listened and responded to, the conversation and atmosphere was pleasant, reassuring.
Robyn: I was offered counselling sessions, but I didn't take them, and although I have received counselling I have never told my counsellors about my abortion. This is not for any particular reason, it was just not an imminent concern.

Do you think that your abortion counsellor had a vested interest in making you have an abortion? Would it have been easy for you to finally decide not to have one? 

Anna: Dr. Tiller did not have a vested interest in making me have an abortion. He was just very concerned that I understood the implications of having an abortion, before he did anything. It would have been very easy for me to just walk out. I knew that. He was very easy to talk to. 

Sam: I would say that all the women I spoke to there were impartial. They were extremely sensitive and did not discuss my choice with me in depth, their focus was more medical.
Lucy: No, I think the counsellors here have to be pro-life or at least are obliged to tell you how great it is to be a mother and how much help you can get from the state.


What kind of attitudes do you think society takes towards women considering or having abortions? 

Robyn: I think overall the attitudes are better than they were, but I did have to rearrange the actual termination date because one of the consultation nurses warned me that on that particular day there are often protesters outside the hospital - which I think is disgusting. I didn't want to see any disturbing images or be made to feel as if I should feel guilt for what I did.
Anna: Well I had my abortion in 1975, so views then were very different than they are now. It was very hush hush. It was ok to talk to the doctor doing it but that was about it. It was not acceptable in society. People knew it was going on, but it was not discussed. 

Lucy: Negative
Sam: I used to believe that it was 'murder' because of a video that was shown to me in R.E. but honestly, I feel like our generation are pro-choice.

How do you feel about your abortion now? Why? 

Sam: I feel like it was some serious shit in my life that means that as you get older life becomes more complicated and harder. I will never forget because the feelings get more intense as time passes. As soon as I had it, it was straight out of my mind, but reflection and cute babies in public are a bitch. 

Lucy: Glad I did it. No regrets.
Anna: Well right after I had it done, I was very depressed. I think that's when my clinical depression started really, although I was not diagnosed with it until 1991. I started drinking a lot, became a very hard-core alcoholic, drank for years after... I didn't recognize the depression or link it to the abortion until many years later on. Now, as I am fifty one years old, I am ok with it. I know the baby is in heaven, I feel as if God has forgiven me. He is a loving and forgiving God. I am very pro-choice now, because the alternative would kill girls all over, and because women ultimately should have the say-so over what happens to their own bodies.
Robyn: I feel guilty because I could have prevented getting pregnant in the first place, and probably always will. However, I have learnt from the experience and am now extra careful.


Finally, is there anything else you want to share with me? 

Anna: Well I think I told you I was fourteen when I had the abortion and and I am fifty one years old now. So it has been a very long time. But the memories are as if it was yesterday. It was very painful for me emotionally, I think mostly because I was so in love with the daddy. I stayed in love with him for years and years afterwards. He stopped talking to me after he found out what I had done.
Lucy: I felt very frustrated that although I was very clear about wanting an abortion, I wasn't able to have the abortion for over a month. All that time I was feeling more and more pregnant and I knew the little thing was growing in me. I don't believe in the idea of a soul descending on an embryo at conception, so, for me, it's a sliding scale between a period and a baby. I was completely happy about getting rid of a small clump of cells, I was less happy the further it developed. I've always wondered why counselling before you have an abortion and yet no counselling before you take the much bigger, infinitely more life-changing step of having a baby (like I did at twenty three)
Sam: Sperm can actually stay alive in your vagina for a week.


*These names have been changed. 

Give abortion counselling responsibilities to Justin Bieber

*29/8/11: This entry has been edited to correct a mistake pointed out by 'Anonymous'*

Dear Nadine Dorries MP (and Frank Field MP, and the "up to 80%" of MPs who supposedly back you),

I am writing to commend you on your most recent attempt to obstruct women's access to abortion, specifically, the amendment on the health and social care bill stripping the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Marie Stopes, and other abortion providers of the right to offer women abortion counselling.

The decision to force abortion providers to offer counselling with alternative, "independent" providers - defined as non-statutory bodies who do not offer abortions - shows a level of regard for women's mental health and bodily autonomy which is genuinely staggering.

I would also like to make some suggestions for some alternative, genuinely independent counselling providers. I know (though your tolerance towards the distinction between truth and pure fantasy may lead you to deny it!) that your intention is to gain enough influence over reproductive rights policy to give counselling permissions to fundamentalist Christian 'charities'. It's a shrewd decision. After all, why assault the right to abortion openly when you can sneak restrictions in around the edges! I certainly do not want to think that women considering abortions should be allowed to speak only with people who believe in reproductive rights - we don't want fickle little girls having their heads turned by abstract notions like 'choice' or 'you have a legal right to an abortion, if you want or need one'!

On the other hand, I wonder if it might not be the case that Life, etc, are not really independent enough to take proper responsibility for the lie-filled shaming service that you think should be offered to women? If those who know about abortions are to be stopped from advising or supporting women, it shouldn't be done by half measures. Instead, why not contract out abortion counselling to Dawn French in this video? (1.00 onwards)



As you can see, Dawn French's advice is just as accurate and helpful as the more conventional fundamentalist Christian options. This is a women's rights issue, after all. As someone who might, conceivably, one day be considering abortion, I want to know that my access to correct information is being chipped away at by the state's caring paternalism. Being offered counselling with Dawn French would do just the trick, don't you think? And she's so lovely about it! She could reel women in, get them to trust her, and then make them too scared to even consider abortions! (Silly, easily frightened women).

Alternatively, I recognise that in this particular video Dawn French argues for abortion (though I'm sure she could be persuaded to argue the exact opposite with very few changes needed - the sledgehammer idea could be used as a good anti-abortion scare tactic?). If you prefer, how about instead offering women abortion counselling with this bloke I met in a club yesterday? Or I hear that Justin Bieber is considering a move into the charity sector? You guys totally have all the same opinions.

Oh my god! Do you know who would be awesome as an anti-abortion counsellor? That baby elephant Dumbo from the Disney animation Dumbo ! I don't remember him speaking much but he's really cute and would definitely switch on the natural maternal instinct that every woman always has at all times. I mean, fictional characters, fictional non-information about abortion, things that actually exist, charities with abortion expertise, it's all quite similar really isn't it?

How about letting me advise women on abortion? I'll lay out the 'facts'. Like this. "Stupid little girl: you sluttily opened your legs in the first place, so now deal with the consequences. I don't care what happened to you or what your situation is. Abortion always causes cancer. Abortion makes you evil and bad. Abortion will send you to hell. Don't kill your unborn child. Look, it's probably crying 'mummy!' in the womb right now. Yeah, it's fully formed right now, after two weeks of pregnancy. Have the baby, then you're on your own. What do you think we are, some kind of nanny state?? What do you and your scavenging kid want now?! Welfare? Daycare? Jobs? Child benefits? That's not really the state's problem, soz!"


Please let me know what you think of my suggestions.

Yours, in eternal hope that you will retire from politics,

Ray Filar



In all seriousness, here is the link to email your MP with a real letter: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/422/110/

And some news coverage: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/28/anti-abortion-lobby-reforms?CMP=twt_gu

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.

There's more to the UK riots than class vs. criminality

Protesters at Tahrir Square

When they were first released, images of women participants in the Arab Spring, particularly in Tahrir Square, were eagerly seized upon in the UK. We wanted to hold onto the idea that Middle Eastern feminisms were beginning to sow results recognizable in the language of Western democracy. We wanted to identify the uprisings with the values of the so-called liberal West - democracy, freedom of speech, and the right for women to participate.

But to participate only, and when the cameras were turned away from the Middle East, it was clear that those who had quickly heralded feminist revolution had delivered little more than overblown rhetoric. The rapes and virginity tests that shortly followed - designed to put women back in their place - were an unwelcome reminder that it takes more than a few women's faces on the streets to signify anything more than incremental progress.

Where riots are, mostly, women are. Yet when women riot, it is something that is focused on. It has been pointed out that women, as well as men, have been participating in the looting and rioting of the last few days. As I went to sleep in San Francisco last night, the most watched item on BBC news was this video: Riot Girls Brag About Violence. Women's participation in the public sphere, such as it is, is much greater in Britain than Egypt, and still it is notable, surprising even, when women take to the streets.

The empty pronouncements of our political leaders about 'criminality' are so devoid of critical engagement as to be self-parodies. But neither are these riots just about an underprivileged class reacting violently to deprivation, or even alienation. Nor is it just today's youth taking a culture of conspicuous acquisition to its logical conclusion. It is that, but that's not enough to explain it.

Aside from everything else, the UK riots are also what happens when a form of masculinity reacts when its sense of entitlement is confounded. I'm not 'blaming' masculinity. I don't think attributing blame willy-nilly is helpful here. I think, also, that it's a rightful sense of entitlement; we should all have access to jobs and housing (at the very least). It is, however, a particular cultural masculinity that allows for structureless violent disorder as a tenable response. This needs to be spoken about.

That men are allowed to react violently when threatened is a message taught and then reinforced. The cultural message that boys will be boys, that boys can't verbalise feelings, that an intimidating physical presence is sexually desirable, and so on, is everywhere to the point of nausea. Just yesterday on the bus, I listened in on the conversation of three teenagers; two boys and a girl. One boy was annoying the other boy, who quickly responded with, 'how about I smack you in the face?' The girl just laughed appreciatively.

Which is not to say that women aren't violent. Masculinity is not only (or always) found in men. But when we see women displaying the wanton violence that we associate with masculinity we find it shocking, and the exceptionalising and patronising media coverage often reflects this sense of shock. Violent women rioters are acting outside of their prescribed gender role. 'What are these girls doing on the streets rioting? Can we get a shot of some girls gone wild at the riots to symbolise the utter degeneration of our society's youth? You know, instead of tit-flashing we can have looting and destruction? Great.'

Even this, however, is better than its reinforcing counter-narrative, in which women and girls are represented as pretty, lovely peace-keepers. Remember this image from the student protests? Yawn. Tell me more about the looting yobettes.