5 July 2008

New feature: Kink 101

BDSM may set off red flags for feminists, says Kit Roskelly. But so does sitting in judgment on women’s sexual preferences

“When we get freedom for all, you’ll do as you’re told!”

It’s an old joke, and its origins have got lost somewhere along the line. It may have been a trade unionist who said it first, or an anarchist. Or maybe even a feminist, because we are not immune to that unfortunate disease of oppressed groups - occasionally, we turn our oppression in and allow ourselves to repeat the patriarchy’s mistakes on smaller minority groups within our own ranks.

That is not how feminism should work. More specifically, feminism should not have a prescriptive stance on female sexuality, that subject of so much debate both outside and within the feminist movement. Feminists discuss and question; we frequently disagree and agree to differ; we debate assumptions and challenge stereotypes, but prescriptivism should not be on our agenda.

There was a heated debate among lesbian feminists in the 1970s and ’80s about the use of strap-ons during sex between women. One group argued furiously that women did not need phallic toys for pleasure, and that using strap-ons was a sign that we had not yet thrown off the shackles - and the symbols - of the patriarchy. Another side of the debate held that sometimes a sex toy is just a sex toy, and if they feel good, why should they not use them?

In more recent years, a middle ground has been reached. Women now are able to consider whether or not they are turned on by phallic sex-toys, and what that says - if anything - about their dependence on men. That choice is now seen as an individual one and few women will argue strenuously on the point. In more recent years, we have become more able to take a live-and-let-live attitude to these issues, and feel less inclined to police the grey areas of feminist discourse and female sexuality.

Click here to read on and comment

Posted by Jess McCabe at 5 July 2008 | Permanent link

4 July 2008

Councillors think Jewish women never victims of domestic violence; all rich

In evidence submitted to a recent report by the Home Affairs Select Committee on domestic violence, Imkaan described how at a London Councils grants meeting, councillors said that Jewish women don’t experience domestic violence(!), and if they do, they’re rich enough to pay for their own services.

Glad to know these are the folks responsible for doling out funding to women’s shelters. It’s not really worth answering this anti-Semitic drivel, but check out Jewish Women’s Aid if you really need a primer in ‘no women are immune from domestic violence’:

The lack of awareness of domestic violence in the Jewish community has caused damage. Women may remain silent through shame, embarrassment, a feeling of guilt or fear that they will not be believed. They feel alone, that no-one else has experienced such abuse and that it must be their fault. Being believed, accepted, supported and understood is vital. It brings strength and comfort and is the start of recovery.

See this story in the Jewish Chronicle for more - but you can read the full evidence here. Via Jewess

Posted by Jess McCabe at 4 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (5)

LGBTory?

What to say about the name and logo of the Conservative Party’s group for lesbian, gay, bisexual, but presumably not trans members?

Via Pink News - the story is actually about Boris Johnson preparing for his first ever appearance at Pride tomorrow.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 4 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (14)

My amendment is bigger than yours

Last week I reported on Nadine Dorries’ latest attempt to restrict access to abortion: she has tabled another amendment on reducing the time limit to twenty weeks onto the HFE Bill currently working its way through Parliament. Unity picked it up at Liberal Conspiracy and linked it to a real life example of why a twenty-four week limit, as a minimum not a maximum in my opinion, is so important.

I also reported on Evan Harris’ two pro-choice amendments, which Jess wrote about in more detail, and Kate at Liberal Conspiracy also discussed. Harris’ amendments effectively target two of the three key areas that some people believe need to be liberalized in the Abortion Act: the two doctor rule and who can perform abortions. The third is where abortions can take place. Abortion Rights and the Green Party have more on the pro side for all three proposals, and the BMA has a bit on the con on the latter two.

I speculated that Dorries’ amendment was in response to Harris’ (co-tabled by Chris McCafferty and Frank Dobson respectively), but was confused about her tactics, though some of you had some good theories.

Today I bring you the Amendment Olympics. On Wednesday and Thursday, six more amendments linked to the Abortion Act were tabled. Plus three additional ones by Vincent Cable that seem like they’re not related to the Act, but which I can’t be sure of because, frankly, I don’t understand them. And one by William Cash which really don’t seem related to abortions, but you never know. Here goes.

Frank Field has tabled two amendments, possibly in response to Evan Harris’, on the two doctor rule. The first reads:

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the required number of registered medical practitioners is—
(a) one, in the case of a pregnancy which has not exceeded its thirteenth week,
(b) two, in the case of a pregnancy which has exceeded its thirteenth week but has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week, or
(c) three, in the case of a pregnancy which has exceeded its twenty-fourth week.

So, to recap, Evan Harris has moved to remove the two doctor rule on the basis that, I imagine, (a) women are capable of thinking for themselves; (b) women should be able to decide what happens to their bodies without seeking permission from others, medical or otherwise; and (c) no other medical procedure needs two doctors’ permission, not even open heart surgery or something that could, you know, kill you.

Frank Field on the other hand seems to think that Evan Harris’ proposals are all a bit too revolutionary. Surely, some kind of check and control is needed to prevent women from rampantly aborting their unwanted pregnancies willy nilly. And evidently, the danger of willy-nillying gets worse the longer a woman has been pregnant, so more control is needed after thirteen weeks. Does anyone know what’s so special about thirteen weeks?

No wait, that’s not it, it’s not that women are less able to take responsible decisions about their own bodies and lives as time passes. It’s that abortions should be harder to get after thirteen and twenty-four weeks because, um… Hang on a minute, that sounds like the time-limit restriction argument!

It’s not that we’re against abortion or anti-woman, it’s that it all gets a bit more complicated the longer a woman’s been pregnant such that her body becomes less and less her own and more and more society’s/the state’s/the purview of pretty much everybody else.

It could be that Field is actually in favour of easing access to abortion, but feels that Harris’ proposals won’t pass and so has tabled amendments he thinks would be less controversial. But he voted to reduce the time limit to twenty and twenty-two weeks, which makes me suspicious. On the other hand, the introduction of a three doctor rule after twenty-four weeks, which he offers a second time in another amendment, is an interesting twist. Thoughts?

Frank Field’s second amendment reads:

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the required number of registered medical practitioners is—    
(a) two, in the case of a pregnancy which has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week, or
(b) three, in the case of a pregnancy which has exceeded its twenty-fourth week.

Nadine Dorries has introduced another amendment which reads:

(1)The Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1(1)(d) insert—
“( ) In section 1(1)(d) the term “seriously handicapped” does not include club foot, cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate”.

I’m not trying to dismiss a conversation about the ethical dilemmas of abortion as they relate to disability rights, but I would argue that invoking these rights in this way is a ploy by Davies.

Jacqui Lait meanwhile has, helpfully, tabled two pro-choice amendment easing restrictions on where abortions can take place. The first reads:

(1) The Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) is amended as follows.
 (2) In section 1(3), after “Service trust or”, insert “or in any location where a health care provider provides primary care under a contract with a commissioner of NHS services.”

The second, which only makes sense if you read it in the context of the actual Act, reads:

(1) The Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 1(3A) omit the words ‘consisting primarily in the use of such medicines’.

Chris McCafferty has also tabled an amendment but I’m not certain (I keep changing my mind) what it’s all about so will throw it open for any and all to debate:

(1) The Abortion Act 1967 (c.87) is amended as follows.
(2) After section 1(3) insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) such treatment for the termination of pregnancy consisting primarily of the use of medicines shall include the prescription but not the administration of a medicine which precipitates the expulsion of the products of conception provided that—
(i) medicines which end the pregnancy have been prescibed and administered in accordance with this section as part of the same course of medical treatment,
(ii) the administration is under the direction of a registered health care practioner, and
(iii) the pregnancy has not exceeded the ninth week.
(3B) The Secretary of State may make regulations which amend the provisions of subsections 3A of this section.
(3C) Regulations under subsection (3B) shall be made by statutory instrument.
(3D) No regulations may be made under subsection (3B) unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

The date for the Report Stage and Third Reading of the Bill have also now been set for 14 July so we don’t have a lot of time to get our heads around these amendments so that we can start lobbying our MPs.

Photo by alexandralee, shared under a Creative Commons license

Posted by zohra moosa at 4 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (13)

Action alert: email Virgin to protest deportations

Kemi Ayinde was trafficked to the UK seven years ago, where she was forced into prostitution. She faces deportation to Nigeria, with her 18 month old daughter and partner. She is five months pregnant. Bridget O’Koro came to the UK from Nigeria to escape persecution after she had a relationship with a man who was not a Muslim, and not a member of her Hausa tribe - when she became pregnant and was threatened with murder. She faces deportion, with her daughter Osaivibie, on Saturday.

This is a call to get in touch with both the Home Office and Virgin to ask them not to deport these women - both victims of violence against women.

Unity Centre Glasgow and Pickled Politics have more information on Bridget and Osaivibie’s case - best to check the Unity website for the latest information, but at the moment they are scheduled to fly out tomorrow at 10:30pm. Phoning and faxing Virgin and the Home Office may help prevent this happening.

Meanwhile, one attempt to deport Kemi and her family has already failed this week, after British Airways refused to take them. But now the Home Office has arranged for Virgin Nigeria to fly them to Nigeria on Tuesday 8 July, on flight vk292 from Gatwick North Terminal.

No Borders Wales urges us to contact Virgin Nigeria to raise your concerns that Kemi isn’t fit to fly and the family have not had their malaria immunisation. The number is 0844 412 1788, or email customer.relations@virginnigeria.com

You can also fax the Home Secretary:

Jacqui Smith,
Secretary of State for the Home Office, including the HO Ref S1387236.
Fax: 020 7035 0900
from outside the UK +44 20 7035 0900
Email: Privateoffice.external@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk

Photo by Eric Bégin, shared under a Creative Commons license

Posted by Jess McCabe at 4 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (0)

“Pregnant man” gives birth

Thomas Beatie, the so-called "pregnant man" (see also these previous posts here, here and here) gave birth to a baby girl on 29 June in Oregon, according to this report by Reuters. Father and daughter were said to be "healthy and doing well".

It is reported that the baby was not delivered by Caesarean section, but no other details about the birth were given.

"The only thing different about me is that I can’t breast-feed my baby. But a lot of mothers don’t", Mr Beatie was quoted as saying.

I, for one, wish the Beatie family good health and every happiness for the future, and await with interest, not only his forthcoming book about the experience, but also the ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ kneejerk reactions and hate speech which is likely to reappear once the mass media wake up to the ‘newsworthy’ aspects of the birth (see, for example, the comments after this article in The Times and this one at ABC News.

(Cross-posted at bird of paradox)

Posted by Helen G at 4 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (17)

3 July 2008

New feature: Self harm

Self harm isn’t always about cutting, says Nino. Too many girls and women are holding themselves back from fully living

Self harm doesn’t just mean cutting open your arms and pouring boiling water on them. It ranges from starving yourself, to giving birth, to ridiculous beauty treatments and tolerating abusive, unappreciative partners. Lifting weights and getting in fights as the stereotypical male does, aren’t actually particularly hardcore or challenging compared to the amount of physical and emotional pain we as females opt to put ourselves through. It’s so much easier to be hit by someone else than it is to hit yourself. But attacking and judging ourselves are an everyday focus for women and girls worldwide. Only when we get too skinny are we seen as really harming ourselves. Or our arms get too scarred. Or we jump in front of train. Or swallow a bunch of pills. But, in reality, it seems to have become perfectly acceptable, and indeed a given part of being a woman, to harm ourselves on a daily basis without anyone really giving a shit.

Somehow society has drilled it into us that this is completely fine. Because in fact, we deserve all the pain. It’s the Eve theory all over again. The lass who apparently brought sin into the world, and encouraged man to do the same. This justification is completely unreasonable. It’s like saying that because George Bush kills so many innocent people and talks so much crap, all Americans are to blame. We should punish them. Or Islampphobia - because a few idiots make up their own interpretations and decide to go on a killing spree, all the Muslims should suffer. These are views held by some people, but challenged by many. Yet when it comes to this Eve bullshit, nobody questions the fact that this misplacement of blame is just that. Bullshit. Women might argue, but we generally accept that we deserve to be persecuted, because it’s an idea a male-driven society has drilled into us.

Read on and comment here

Posted by Jess McCabe at 3 July 2008 | Permanent link

Pixar and gender

Via Feministe I found this brilliant takedown of Pixar’s gender problem. Vast Public Indifference was inspired to come up with this rating because of Wall-E, but these are my favourite bits of analysis (some of this might only make sense if you’ve seen the films):

About Ratatouille:

Collette’s right — the restaurant business is tough for women, especially when even the fictional rat-as-chef barrier can only be broken by a male character

About Wall-E:

“Hey, guys, we have this robot with no inherent gender identity. We want to give it an arbitrary gender. Maybe we could make it female. Yeah, no, that would just just be ridiculous.”

About newt:

There are few better ways to tell kids that male=normal and female=weird than to make sure that your male character has the same name as his species and your female character doesn’t.

And in overview:

I suppose what makes me so mad is not that Pixar makes movies about male characters but that they seem to go out of their way to make sure that this remains the case. This isn’t just a problem with their story choices, though they are a little heavy on the buddy film/father-and-son plots. On several occasions (A Bug’s Life, WALL-E), they have defied logic in order to make sure that the protagonist of their tale was male. When good female characters are part of the story (Elastigirl/Helen Parr, Jessie), they still focus on the male character’s plotline and development. They make infuriating choices (female main character = princess in fairy tale). It’s not just the stories they choose to tell, it’s how they choose to tell them: in a way that always relegates female characters to the periphery, where they can serve and encourage male characters, but are never, ever important enough to carry a whole movie on their own shoulders. Unless they’re, you know, princesses.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 3 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (1)

15 years of Bust and more

Bust magazine is celebrating its 15th anniversary - more at After Ellen.

Blog drama makes it to the LA Times! Boing Boing has deleted all posts by Violet Blue, only to produce this slightly mysterious non-explanation. Her latest column is called Margaret Cho, a bottle of whisky and a long night. Enough said.

Via Pai, we learn that the Feminist SF blog is running a poll to find the top 10 obscure feminist works of science fiction. Personally I’ve not read a single one of these books - but I found plenty of summer reading ideas.

The Boston Globe adds to the discussion on right-wing, sexist and racist attacks on Michelle Obama with a brilliantly titled piece: “Make over old views, not political wives”. Via Think Girl.

Amazon.com is (was?) selling t-shirts saying “anti-abortion, but pro-date rape”. Jezebel has more.

Jessica at Feministing points out that Marie Claire beauty director Ying Chu has some… interesting ideas about why women shouldn’t shave our faces. In an MSN column she said: “Face shaving is such a masculine act that it can be psychologically confusing to do as a woman.” As Jessica puts it:

I’m sorry, but what? Now I don’t know too much about the psychological consequences of hair removal methods, but I’m pretty sure that, you know, there are none.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 3 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (2)

2 July 2008

Summer of Our Lorde: Radical Study and Intentional Healing

brokenbeautiful press is putting on a study group centred on Audre Lorde.

The readings for the group are available online, so everyone can participate.

Via brownfemipower

Posted by Jess McCabe at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (0)

Another quick round-up

Gosh it’s blogging overdrive from me today, makes up for being quiet for a few days I guess!

So….pertinent to other discussions by gendered violence deniers on this site here’s a study from Wales which shows that 4 in 10 people know someone coerced into sex against their will but a third of whom still think a raped woman who was “drunk” (an amorphous term) is at least partially to blame. I can only hope that 40% and that 30% are mutually exclusive populations! This on the same day that it was reported that 3 members of the Welsh Assembly have experienced rape and, like much of the population who have had similar experiences, none had reported it. Hopefully we can move beyond “those who don’t report it’s because they lack real probity” style responses now.

Maybe those gendered violence deniers might learn something from the Doing Feminism Vlog post on those who blame women for rape.

In the US Pandagon reports that the “moral” refusal laws include EMTs (emergency medical technicains or paramedics/ambulance staff to you and me). This means if an EMT thinks transporting a woman to hospital will result in an emergency termination then they can refuse to carry the patient.

Elsewhere there has been some stuff around diversity and academics/trainers which someone other than myself might find interesting. So at passtheroti there is discussion that diversity can’t be truly addressed unless it’s accepted it includes classism and gender as well as ethnicity. And Feminist Philosophers has this piece on how female and male academics get treated differently. And Feministe has something on how the academic job market itself is structured against women’s participation.

Meanwhile Amptoons has this sadly all too true reflection on the chances of a female US president.

And Principia Comica has this little peon to the world of philosophy insults, which feels all too true (yes boys and girls apparently students feel “feminist” is a valid evaluation of female lecturer’s teaching (and it was in the bad box not the good)). Apologies for previous wrong attribution - entirely my fault!

And Morra Aarons-Mele has a very interesting post about why feminism is no longer cool in her reflection on Hilary/Obama and all that over at the Huffington Post.

Feminism is so nuanced now. We can’t burn our bras, shout, protest, and call it a good effort. Many women operate by maintaining an inner dialogue with our bad and good feminist selves, picking our battles, and enjoying shared, often subtle, protestations when with peers.

From The Huffington Post

.

Posted by Louise Livesey at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (4)

Pentameter 2 Trafficking Operation Frees Trafficked Women and Children

The BBC has just reported that 500 trafficked people including 12 children have been freed at the end of the Pentameter 2 operation. Lets just hope the Government does treat the trafficked women as victims of crime and not as illegal immigrants….

However the BBC outdoes itself in crassness by using this picture:

The problem? It gives a stylised portrayal of “prostitution” where a woman in fishnets is receiving money from a fully clad man ignoring the fact trafficked women forced into prostitution will generally never see the money they earn - if they did they’d be a chance they could work out they were paying off their “debts” and could claim freedom which would then necessitate further violence on the part of the traffickers/pimps. It’s wholly inappropriate for the story.

Posted by Louise Livesey at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (1)

Survey shows politicians not immune from the rape culture

A small survey of Welsh Assembly members has uncovered some findings which will sadden but not surprise.

According to the BBC, all 60 Welsh Assembly Members were sent a survey by Nerys Evans AM, asking questions about their experience with sexual and domestic violence. Only eight responded - seven women and one man.

Three had been raped.

One had been physically assaulted by a partner.

None of these crimes were reported to the police.

All eight assembly members knew someone who had been attacked by a partner and five knew someone who had been sexually assualted and had not reported it to the police.

The politics that takes place at the Assembly, at Holyrood and at Westminster does not take place in a different sphere from the frighteningly everyday incidences of violence against women.

University students were also surveyed as part of the research, uncovering widespread sexual and domestic violence and confirming trends identified three years ago by Amnesty, of retrograde but widespread assumptions about women being to blame for their own rape:

A third also believed a woman was totally or partially responsible for being raped or sexually assaulted if she was drunk or had been flirtatious, and a quarter thought she was in some way to blame if she walked alone in a deserted area.

Amnesty and the NUS described those statistics as a “shocking level of tolerance for sexual violence”.

More on this issue:

Julie Bindel points out this is yet more evidence rape is not committed by a small number of derranged men. Only read the comments if you’ve not eaten recently.

Unity suggests lobbying local authorities on why services for victims of sexual assault are so low down their priority list.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (1)

Majority of migrant domestic workers face abuse

Oxfam and Kalayaan today reveal that abuse of migrant domestic workers is mind-bogglingly widespread. The majority of these workers are women from developing countries, living in conditions close to slavery:

Migrant domestic workers have the legal status of workers in the UK - and are entitled to rights such as the minimum wage, time off, etc. Yet, of more than 300 workers registered with Kalayaan in 2006, 43% of workers reported not being given their own bed, 41% were not given regular meals, 70% were given no time off, 61% were not allowed out of the house without their employer’s permission. In addition, 10% reported sexual abuse, 26% physical abuse and 72% psychological abuse at the hands of their employers. Many workers were paid as little as 50p an hour, were made to work up to 16 hours a day, and were on constant call to their employers.

Yes, 61% are not allowed out of the house without their employer’s permission. 80% of the domestic workers registered with Kalayaan, an organisation which provides services for migrant domestic workers, are women.

From the BBC story:

One was blinded in one eye after her employer threw hot tea at her, and ran away after her employer’s husband attempted to rape her.

Another migrant domestic worker, who was regularly beaten for three years, said staff like her were “treated like slaves”.

One basic way of helping workers to escape these conditions is to allow them to change job while in the UK, so that they are not forced to chose between staying in abusive conditions or losing their right to stay and work in this country. The government had planned to scrap the domestic worker visa programme that provided this protection, but has agreed to keep it in place for another two years. From Kalayaan’s briefing document:

The British government proposes to eliminate the domestic worker visa as part of wide ranging reforms to the immigration system. Under these proposals, domestic workers will enter the UK as ‘domestic assistants’ on a modified business visitor visa. They will only be allowed to remain in the UK for six months and will be unable to change employer. Oxfam, Kalayaan, and many others feel that this change would return domestic workers to the levels of abuse and exploitation experienced before 1998:

• Being unable to change employers will result in many more cases of abuse and exploitation: employers will know that domestic workers are not able to leave their jobs without becoming ‘illegal’ in the UK, however badly they are treated.
• MDWs will not have the legal status of workers, so they will not have the right to the national minimum wage or limits on the number of hours worked etc. Employers will be able to keep their workers in conditions close to slavery.
• Abolishing the domestic worker visa will increase the risk of human trafficking: it will allow unscrupulous employers to recruit MDWs in poor countries overseas by promising them jobs in the UK, and then allow them to put the workers into what will be effectively forced labour. This will undermine government efforts to protect victims of trafficking under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

As usual, one of the things you can do is write to your MP to keep them informed of the situation, so they can push for this visa to be retained and also for the immigration system in general to be sensitive to the potential for human rights abuses. However the organisation is also seeking volunteer English teachers and advocacy support workers.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (3)

Sexual Violence in the news

Further to this Jill Saward has written this piece on why she’s standing for the by-election. Needless to say, it being a Comment is Free piece so far she’s been described as “pathetic” (robertdaniel), told to “grow up” (GoingGoingGordon), that her writing is “spurious” (RoadRiverandRail), that women reporting rape are all liars (comment detailed but quoted in another one), that women shouldn’t make this a gender/feminist issue (tangerinedream), that talking about rape is “sneaky” (Kvasnik) and that her campaign is “absolute bollocks” (funwithwhips). Lovely.

Meanwhile, cashing in on women’s fears of violence, Fiona Bruce and Jacqui Hames from Crimewatch have written another “women it’s all you fault” book. Although Bruce and Hames deny wanting to make women feel more vulnerable their strategy is:

neither woman wants to increase the general level of fear in the female population. Savvy! tries to reassure as well as warn, pointing out that the stuff of nightmares - the sex attacker lurking in the shadows near the lonely path or the burglar-attacker breaking in at night - will remain just that for the vast majority of women.

From Telegraph

They fail to mention that for women who are raped the shadow-lurking or burgling rapist is a figment of the imagination - because most women are raped by a person or persons they know. So why do I call this women-blaming, take this little snippet:

“Drinking excessive amounts of alcohol will raise you to the top of the potential victim stakes,” says Hames. “You’re not in full control; your awareness is impaired; you are vulnerable - and you look it.”

From Telegraph

Now I am all for everyone, woman, man and child, taking sensible and reasonable precautions with their safety, but to talk of their being “victim stakes” which makes it a matter of “odds” and “calculations” is, frankly, rather obscene to my mind. But there is no discussion of what constitutes excessive - a man preparing to rape knows that a woman who has ingested any alcohol will be subject to quizzing from the Police about her capacity to consent and memory of doing so (I speak from experience after being clobbered by a brick and sexually assaulted - I was asked whether the two glasses of wine I’d had impaired my memory (no that was the concussion) and whether I might have consent).

In the meantime, and to remind ourselves that sexual violence is just a UK concern, there is a biographical piece over here on Medicine Sans Frontiers nurses working with sexual violence survivors in Liberia.

Singer says the cases of an adult male raping a young girl are the majority of cases there. “Approximately 87% of our patients are under the age of 19 — 9% are under 5 years of age,” she says. “Eighty-five percent of the alleged perpetrators are someone who is known to the victim. It is also notable that when the age of the perpetrator is known, 29% are also under the age of 18.”

From Nurse.com

Posted by Louise Livesey at 2 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (3)

1 July 2008

Abortion - the fight continues

We always knew that the defeat of Nadine Dorries’ attempts to shrink women’s access to later term abortions was not the end of the fight. Many activists have been tallying up and shaking their heads at the small shift in the Commons needed at the next election to catapault enough Tory MPs into power to make a dent in the pro-choice, Labour-led majority.

But as zohra posted a few days ago, we can’t pause for thought even till the next election, as Dorries has tabled yet another anti-abortion amendment to the HFE bill in an attempt to force yet another vote. This is considered extremely bad manners, and may be thrown out for breaching the informal understanding preventing the same issue being debated again and again on the same bill.

Now, however, is the time to push forward and use this moment to liberalise abortion laws. Because Evan Harris has also proposed an amendmentment to get rid of the requirement for two doctors’ approval before women can have a termination. Abortion Rights is calling for us all in the UK to write to our MPs lobbying them to support this amendment. They have produced two model letters - one to send if your MP voted for and one to send if they voted against the attempts to cut the time limit.

Liberal Conspiracy has a whole set of excellent posts up on this - Kate rallies the troops, while Unity has more info on the issue of whether Dorries broke the rules on funding her website, the website she used to spout anti-woman propoganda including the dreadful 20 reasons for 20 weeks, which you’ll remember Laurie answered.

Photo by me

Posted by Jess McCabe at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (1)

Rounding up and over

In the US, most completed rape kits are never sent on to be tested, meaning that women are put through the trauma of a rape exam essentially for no reason, we learn via Feministe. 400,000 kits are sitting untested across the US:

When submitting to a rape kit collection, women are working under the assumption that their kit will go somewhere and will work towards prosecuting their rapist. It’s unrealistic to expect that undergoing rape kit collection will necessarily result in a conviction — but it’s entirely valid to expect that police will do the best they can with the evidence they have. It’s nothing new for police to violate the trust of those they’re most supposed to protect. But it’s still unforgivably wrong.

Un-fucking-believable. I wonder what the stats are in this country?

Michelle Obama Watch notes an article which frames Michelle as a homemaker.

Sinclair at Sugarbutch Chronicles is on a roll - check out this post on reclaiming language, and this reminder that not everyone is who they say they are on the internet, and not everyone speaks from actual experience or knowledge.

The comics blog Girl Wonder has a podcast! Actually, this isn’t news - criminally I’ve managed to miss Four Color Heroines for a whole six months.

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore interviewed Terrain Dandridge, recently released member of the New Jersey Four.

pass the roti posts some interesting thoughts on the diversity of her university faculty:

For instance, four of the ethnically-underrepresented faculty are of South Asian descent. One grew up in Delhi and did his early post-graduate work there before coming to the US for a PhD. Another grew up in a feudal fiefdom — as the child of the feudal lord — in Pakistan, and then went to the US for her education. The two others are, as far as I can tell, American-born and -raised desis, with undergraduate and graduate degrees from research universities. None of these four come from less than middle-class backgrounds…

Would any of the four faculty members I mentioned above be particularly sensitive to, say, a second generation Bangladeshi student who came to this university via junior college and whose parents ran a 7-11? Would they have anything in common, apart from the colour of their skin?

Rebecca at Jewess dissects the flap some in the US Jewish community have worked themselves into over a study that apparently shows women are “taking over”. Rebecca points out:

Take the umbrella organization the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, for example. Though it now has a woman at its healm (you go, June Walker), she is one of the few women among the heads of its member organizations. The breakdown is similar in the Forward’s last “Forward Fifty” feature, which included only 17 women (and that’s, given such lists in the past, a decent showing). And even NY Jewish Week’s 2008 list of “36 Under 36,” a measure of the younger generation’s Jewish innovators, includes more men than women (though the numbers are far more equitable than most such lists).

So it’s hard to take the claim of women’s domination that seriously.

ThinkGirl profiles a forthcoming documentary called “What’s your point, honey?” narrated by 9-12 year olds, asking why there’s not yet been a female president:

The directors took the title of their movie - “What’s Your Point, Honey?” - from a cartoon that has two characters: Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is pointing to a globe showing all the countries where women are heads of state and a man is asking, “What’s your point, honey?”

Madam Miaow has composed an excellent poem about the experience of being asked to go on a BBC radio show - ostensibly to talk about “China and the Body Beautiful”, with a focus on the Olymics - which got entirely derailed. An extract:

Still Sue Lawley calls the faithful of

The Rational Front

One by one

They lecture us on human rights

When we’re giving up ours without a fight.

What happened to the Body Beautiful, to sport,

What happened to tonight’s topic, in short?

Yikes! What’s happening to the time?

They had their turn now I want mine.

The ticking clock counts down

Time dessicates and runs through my fingers

Only five minutes to go and every contributor lingers.

Everyone speaking sounds white and posh

Braying and wittering and talking tosh.

One Chinese woman sneaks in from the floor

And lands a killer punch on one of the bores.

Good for you, sister.

Oh god, we all look the same.

A producer gesticulates, “Sue, you missed her.

That’s not the one. She’s over here,”

He’s pointing at me.

But Sue doesn’t seem to see.

Muslimah Media Watch and Feminist Philosophers tackle the presentation of female suicide bombers. As stoat says, which it’s necessary to point out that neither men or women have the right to be suicide bombers, this does actually raise numerous issues of how gender is perceived in our cultures. The two posts were kicked off by a feature in Time magazine, which was titled “The mind of a female suicide bomber” - as though the incomprehensible act of wanting to commit mass murder is any more incomprehensible when carried out by a woman.

And, finally, the latest Carnival Against Sexual Violence is up at abyss2hope.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (1)

Kerosene

Aulelia from Charcoal Ink kindly sent me a copy of her excellent zine Kerosene.

“The aim of this zine was to exhibit diverse voices of the diaspora,” Aulelia says in the editor’s letter. “I hope this slice of printed media will challenge and inspire anyone who reads it. It was created in the hope of stirring debate.”

And so it undoubtedly will. Here we have the typical dilemma of the zine - it wouldn’t be what it is if it had a greater distribution, yet a wider audience could definitely benefit from reading it.

The opening piece is by Tinashe Mashakavanhu, editor of Mazwi.net, about the experience of living as a Zimbabwean exile in Wales, is enough to make the heart sore:

“I am different. There is always baggage that comes with that, this feeling that you’re constantly on display, being judged and stereotyped and never knowing quite how people feel about you. Sometimes I just want to bolt and disappear.”

Mashakavanhu also calls attention to the poverty of the education system, and how it contributes to the situation in Wales:

“There is no Africa in their curriculum. There is now Africa in their imagination. Africa is one big country. There is no difference between Zimbabweans and Nigerians and Kenyans and Tunisians.”

Onyeka’s essay is also really interesting, as she describes the “coy” conversations people engage her in to get to “the bottom of the mystery of who I am”. She says:

“I shun all these useless labels: black, female, heterosexual, British - in or out. Identity is fluid, it is unstable, and it is multiple.”

But the collection is, as you would expect, very diverse. It includes an interview with Sylvia Kerali, the blogger behind I like her style!; articles by Orville Lloyd Douglas about the new trend for blackface and lack of black gay men on television; and a piece by Aulelia on black women bloggers - “the tide has turned,” she says. “Blogs have cut the women’s movement wide open and revealed a digital underground of articulate, sharp and opinionated black female bloggers”.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (0)

Call for Contributions for New Zine

Is midwifery a feminist issue? How do feminists practice midwifery? What are feminists currently thinking about childbearing? What do feminists think about midwives? This is a ‘call out’ to feminists who would like to contribute to an upcoming ‘zine’ about feminism, midwifery, pregnancy and birthing. A ‘zine’ is an informally published / DIY magazine. If you’ve never seen one then imagine a cross between a leaflet for a local jumble sale, a comic and a text book.

This particular zine will be distributed free or for donations - via free PDF documents and cheap printed copies… contributors will retain original copyright but agree for ‘copy-left’. This means anyone is welcome to copy the zine as long as it’s not for profit and says where the info comes from.

You can contribute anything printable to the zine - writing, rants, poems, cartoons, drawings, photos, quizzes and crosswords, origami birth plans, cut out and keep guide to your womb, birth in the NHS self defence tip cards… anything flat! Contributions deadline - first draft = 30th August 2008.

Please think about making your writing understandable to a wide audience - how you write is up to you, but it might be useful to avoid midwifery jargon or writing in a very academic style. We are interested in the views of student and qualified midwives; doulas; mums and other parents; birth activists and feminist health folk - if you don’t want to use your name you’re welcome to use a nickname.

Some ideas so far…feminist midwifery: birth without borders? - refugee women birthing in the NHS; queer parenting; freebirthing; trans-men birthing; techno-birth ‘v’ ecofeminism; independent midwifery radical or elitist?; dykes midwives and homosexual panic; earth-mother consumerism; birth as power; birth crisis and birth trauma; sexuality and breastfeeding; dads in the labour room; babybonding - myth and reality; Where are the male midwives?; midwifery, horizontal violence and sexism…

Please contact Mannion or Rachel Feminista at:
feministas@riseup.net

Posted by Louise Livesey at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (4)

Backlash alive and well - as if we hadn’t noticed…

Kira Cochrane has written a very cogent analysis of the ways in which women are still discriminated against.

I found myself tripping over signs, left and right, that not only does the feminist movement still have far to go, but that arguments we thought were long-won have been re-opened, rights we thought were settled are suddenly under threat. These signs came in a whole variety of forms, some ridiculous, some devastating.

Read More Here

And The F Words gets mentioned too which is a lovely bonus!

Posted by Louise Livesey at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (44)

Snog, Marry, Avoid?

It’s like the execs at BBC3 sealed themselves in a room and tried to think of the most sexist idea for a makeover show ever. Thanks Flying Saucer for letting us know about Snog Marry Avoid, a “make under” show presented by Jenny Frost and a reality TV version of HAL. Presumably the mean comments would have sounded a little, well, meaner if not delivered by a children’s TV-esque fake AI.

During this make under, the apparently overly made-up volunteers are asked to select whether male members of the general public would, you guessed it, “snog”, “marry” or “avoid” them. Then they predictably get to watch footage of random blokes saying they’d avoid them, only to be informed that around 75-100% of men agree (I’m sure the sample size was very reliable).

Where to begin? With the reduction of women’s self worth and image to what percentage of men on the street want to get off with them? Or the fact this is yet another addition to the ranks of programme that centre on ‘fixing’ women? (And one man, but even he came with a wife to make over too, and co-incidentally they had their original look validated as an expression of individuality by the presenter).

UK readers can see the latest episode on the iPlayer.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 1 July 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (16)

30 June 2008

Turkey’s first women’s shelter

Muslimah Media Watch points us to a really interesting feature on Turkish Daily News, about the first women’s shelter in Turkey. When was it established? The late 17th century.

The exact location of the world’s first women’s shelter is unknown, but historic data suggest that one was founded in the Ottoman capital of Istanbul in the late 17th century and remained in service until the mid-19th century. Ottoman women escaping from violence from their fathers or husbands took shelter in the Hatunlar or Hatuniye convents, also known as the Karılar dervish convent, where they learned various art forms and survived independent of men. About 100 women aged between 16 and 80 lived in the Hatuniye shelter.

I’ve got to admit that I was guilty of thinking women’s shelters were a 20th century, western European invention. The more I learn, the worse educated I feel (although apparently I’m not the only one under this misconception).

“I am not an advocate of women rights,” said Sedes, but she was impressed by the existence of such an organization centuries ago. “There is a misperception that everything starts in the West. But we see that the Ottomans also had similar institutions. The difference between the West and us is that we do not know how to claim our historical heritage,” she said.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 30 June 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (4)

More on medical rape

Debi formerly of The Burning Times has set up a project to collect women’s stories of medical and obstetric rape. MORAG:

When most women go into hospital to give birth to their babies, or to attend for a gynaecological appointment, they probably expect that the staff there will act in their best interests, be caring, and respect their wishes. For the majority of women, their time in hospital is at least comfortable, with each procedure and process being explained to them and their consent being sought for all actions. Unfortunately, for some women, that is not the case, and they can leave hospital with their new baby, or having undergone a gynaecological procedure, feeling violated, traumatised, and in shock.

The site has a good section on definitions of rape and another on whether experiences as described are “real rape”.

Some background links:

Doctor blogger exploits stories of birth rape and assault, ridicules victims
On postmodernism and medical rape
Medical rape and the medicalization of childbirth

Posted by Jess McCabe at 30 June 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (8)

Stephanie Toumi - an indictment of our immigration system

26-year-old Stephanie Toumi was on the first leg of a forced journey back to Cameroon. Her asylum claim had been rejected, and she’d already passed through the notorious Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Whether or not she ‘deserved’ to stay in this country is moot. She was deported - and during that process, she was allegedly beaten so badly that she now needs to use a wheelchair, and so badly that Belgian immigration officers refused to allow security guard to put her on the plane to Cameroon. When she cried, the guards abused her using sexist language.

The Independent says:

Ms Toumi alleges she was assaulted by four Group 4 Securicor (G4S) guards when she approached BA staff on the plane to inquire about her luggage.

She alleges: “The escorts threw themselves on me. One scraped me and I fell on my stomach, the other trapped my arms, twisting them behind and the other two put on handcuffs. I felt a very severe pain in my body and I wanted to twist my right foot to get up, but one of them totally paralysed this foot by giving me a sharp blow with his knee.

“When they finished handcuffing me one of them caught hold of my hair to lift me up. I felt ill as I have never felt ill all my life.” She alleges that when she started crying, the guards said: “Shut up, stupid whore.”

At Brussels airport, where the escort and the asylum-seeker were due to catch a flight to Cameroon, Belgian immigration officers noticed Ms Toumi was now unable to walk unaided and informed the escorts they would have to take her back to the UK.

An independent doctor’s report found her injuries were due to the alleged assault. Ms Toumi has lost the use of the wheelchair, so cannot make her way to the Yarl’s Wood dining hall.

Sick to your stomach yet?

Today a report by the Independent Asylum Commission (IAC) calls on the Home Office to only employ forced removals as a last resort and authorise “dawn raids” by immigration officers only in extreme circumstances. Eight months ago another woman was so badly injured during her removal that the Cameroon government refused her entry and sent her back to Britain. Beatrice Guessie, 29, returned to the UK in a wheelchair but the Home Office dismissed her allegations of abuse. Both women are bringing legal actions against the Home Office.

Time to write to your MP and encourage them to back these proposals, and petition the Home Office for action to be taken. Contact details for the security firm here.

Posted by Jess McCabe at 30 June 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (2)

29 June 2008

Tennis star’s disgustingly sexist attack on Anna Kournikova.

The Times reports that former mixed doubles Grand Slam title winner Justin Gimelstob verbally laid into Anna Kournikova and made sexist comments about other female tennis players during a US sports radio show, resulting in a one match suspension without pay from the tennis league in which he plays. When questioned about his upcoming march against Kournikova, Gimelstob claimed:

“I’m going to serve it right at the body, about 128 [mph], right into her midriff,” he said. “If she’s not crying by the time she comes off court then I did not do my job.”

Asked if that meant he hated the Russian, with whom he trained as a youth player, he replied: “Hate is a very strong word. I just despise her to the maximum level just below hate.” He added that he would not like to sleep with Kournikova, “because she’s such a douche”. Instead, “I wouldn’t mind my brother, who is kind of a stud, nail her and then reap the benefits.”

He also referred to other female players as “sexpots”. His remarks have been condemned by Billie Jean King, Serena Williams, the Association of Tennis Professionals, of which he is a board member, and the Women’s Tennis Association, who for some reason responded with incredible generosity:

A spokesman for the Women’s Tennis Associationsaid: “We believe that he has learnt from this and will not be repeating his behaviour,” adding that the player had apologised personally to Larry Scott, the tour’s CEO.

Apparently Gimelstob does not “feel that the views I expressed last week accurately represent the person I am or strive to be”. So either an arrogant misogynist who has no idea when to keep his mouth shut took control of his body for the duration of the interview, or he needs to get striving a little harder, because all the rest of us are seeing is an nasty piece of work who deserves far more than a one match suspension. I know which option I’m going with…

Posted by Laura Woodhouse at 29 June 2008 | Permanent link | Comments (9)