This article on how the manager of an NHS eating disorders clinic managed to get away with coercing several young women patients into "relationships" for 20 years states

The investigators blamed poor management, missed opportunities and the reluctance of his victims to come forward as the reasons for Mr Britten "grooming vulnerable patients".

By "poor management" and "missed opportunities" they mean, I assume, that four other staff members knew about this.

What is to blame:

• The culture of disbelief. Especially since the victims were young women with eating disorders - they have a mental illness and are therefore unlikely to be believed, because, you know, all women, especially ones with mental health problems, are crazy and delusional, or liars.
• The masculine culture of entitlement that says men "have needs" and are entitled to do anything to have sex, including coerce and abuse.
• Rape culture, that insisting men do the pursuing and "persuade" women to sleep with them.
• The culture, especially bad in medical circles, that authority figures are always right and not to be questioned. (Which may explain why some of the staff members who knew about the abuse did not do anything. They may have feared for their jobs.)

Britten is described as a "predator", but essentially he was just doing what our culture says that men do.

Who is not to blame:

The survivors, for not coming forward

They would have known that they were unlikely to be believed. That their abuser was respectable and nice men don't do that, so they would be dismissed as fantasists or liars.

They were recovering from eating disorders, and so probably did not have the mental and emotional energy to go through the investigative process, which would inevitably scrutinise their character.

It's probably not as if coming forward would have achieved anything, as most likely Britten would have been cleared. The women couldn't have known there were other victims anyway, and even if they suspected it, couldn't have known who they were.

Oh and can people stop the patronising "vulnerable" fetishisation? Surviving mental illness and this abusive relationship makes the survivors pretty strong and tough, actually.

The only purpose calling women vulnerable serves is to belittle those with mental health problems and portray them as weak victims.

This does not empower women in this position. What we need is for them to be able to say no to advances by overentitled, unprofessional, creeps and to report it. We need to believe women when they report misconduct, abuse, and rape. We need to stop believing that respectable, professional men would never abuse their power, and that women are liars. We need to stop blaming victims.

Ever feel the fire has gone out of your feminism? Tired of having to explain why something might be offensive to women? Maybe you just want to look at pouting pictures of hot chicks and then some? Whatever your wants, just check out Chikipedia.com, a great step forward into the future by Break Media, the company ‘who knows guys’ and obviously feels the need to create a 'legitimate' comprehensive wank bank.

The ‘ultimate user generated guide for everything you want to now about sexy famous women’ be she underwear model or TV star, stacks up the ‘chicks’ in the same format as wikipedia, providing scant information about her life and career and a sketch of a female body next to her measurements (where available). You can even choose to sort the archive by "similar chicks". A handy resource for men who want to learn more about their favourite ‘babes’, or any babes as the endless list of chicks seems to suggest.

There is the option to request moderation, but I don’t think they accept as a valid complaint ‘offensive due to the perpetuation of women as objects and not real people’. The site is user-generated so the creators probably take little responsibility for the content, the fact that there are pictures prove the need for it, right? However the attached blog really reduces the company’s faith in men for being anything than huge throbbing penises.

User-generated content has been the bon vivant of publishing for the last few years: engaging people, breeding loyalty and ensuring a wide range of voices and opinions are presented to an audience. So it’s no surprise to see Christian Aid jumping on the bandwagon for their new venture. Aimed at the youth audience, Ctrl+Alt+Shift is a new magazine and online community aimed at helping despondent teens get keen on human rights and global issues of poverty, disease and climate change.

While the main body of content is user generated, Chantelle Fiddy, journalist with her finger on the pulse of young blood, grime and giving a shit, via her work as senior mentor at Live! Mag, and Neil Boorman, founder of Shoreditch Twat as trashed in TV series Nathan Barley, keep watchful eyes as editors. But with articles voted into the magazine by community users, it’s hard to know who to take to task for two seedy and offensive articles approaching women’s issues. Page Three Stunnah is a feature about prostitution in India and is handled with little interest or empathy and illustrated with an image of a prostitute, shirt pulled down to bare her breasts for the flash of the camera (don’t worry, it’s tastefully adorned with two red stars…) The jokey tone of the article, which opens: "Anybody fancy an Indian?", and chortles through the fact she had her cheek slashed, seems totally inappropriate.

Sold! For Two Cows and a Bottle of Beer stumbles through bride price in Africa and after a series of irksome questions (Is your mum filth or a Milf?) the mag's handy African correspondent tells us what the girls are really worth.

I’m all for a laugh and fully support the effort to mainstream perceived troublesome ideals in feminism, equality and social justice but perhaps we could find a way of doing it without treating anything involving women as a bit of a sexy joke.

Saying this, an article on the dangers of pregnancy in Afghanistan breathes a little balanced, informative and interesting life into Ctrl+Alt+Shift and it’s only fair to remember this is just the first issue. User-generated content means everyone gets a say so I recommend signing up and contributing, voting with your fingers and helping choose the content and saving the magazine from making Christian Aid look desperate and stupid enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Most of the women attending the talk were over 40 and had been involved with the women's movement in the '70s. They discussed what had been achieved by their efforts and drew contrasts with what is happening today. Grandmothers reflected that gender stereotyping exerts much more influence over childrearing now than it did in the '70s and 80s. There was general concern that ground won by feminists has been lost in areas like the proliferation of porn and the sexualisation of girls.

It was really interesting to hear these perspectives on how things have changed. My eyeballs began to bulge slightly at the mention of ‘young women’ and ‘young feminists’, terms that were used fairly interchangeably. The women present were critical of the lack of active protest from today’s generation, and the tendency to ‘reinvent the wheel’ by revisiting old arguments and divisions. One woman thought the actions of current feminists are so insignificant that they don’t add up to a movement at all.

I was irritated by some of the views expressed about ‘young feminists’. I don’t want everything I do to be couched in terms of when I was born, or whether or not it lives up to the amazing stuff done by women in the '60s and '70s. Feminism momentarily seemed like a very heavy mantle to bear; there are fewer of us, the laws around protest are much more restrictive, politics is more insipid, and it’s much harder to use the dole to fund your activism. How could we ever live up to what these older women had done? I wanted to resist the broad brushstrokes being used to lump me in with a group of women who don’t bear contrast with the previous generation.

My next thought was that I was as much a feminist as anyone else in the room, and that feminism is not some kind of gymkhana in which different generations compete against one another. The older women were saying ‘young feminists’ in the same way young women often say ‘older feminists’ - a blanket term for ‘those other women I don’t have much contact with or can’t be bothered dealing with’.

A discussion on the FAF list over the last few days has covered similar ground, prompted by a proposal for a book called New Feminisms: mapping out the lines of feminisms-to-come, which "aims at creating an experimental space for new voices, thinkings and practices of feminism to be articulated—the 'new' entailing the capacity to move away from (though not necessarily reject) the 'past' of feminism as a moral, interpretative body of knowledge and experience, in an attempt not to dismiss the latter per se, but its status and workings as a prior enunciation, a savoir that engenders present and future imperatives to feminist thinking and practice." Posts on the FAF list in response to this criticised the overly complex language, which could exclude some people, and there was ambivalence about whether contemporary feminism could be described as ‘new’. Do we need to "move away from (though not necessarily reject) the 'past' of feminism"? It seems to me that the New Feminisms proposal and the discussion at Housmans both suggest there are two generations of feminists, and that there is a disconnect between them characterised by mutual suspicion.

This relationship feels more like a mother-daughter bond than sisterhood; close links verging on dependency, but also a touch of tension, judgmentalism and an inability to enter each other’s world. It is a false, or at least an arbitrary distinction between different generations of feminism; older women are still around and still active, and there are feminists in their 30s and 40s as well as their 20s and 50s. There never have been two neat parcels of feminists in two age groups and with two distinct perspectives, but we often act as if there were.

There is so much to be gained from feminists of all ages and background working together. We don’t have to think about what’s going on now as some kind of zero-hour for a new movement, either in terms of activism or theory. Why not think of what's going on now as a development of what went before? It could be really exciting and enriching.

Photo by mollydot, shared under a Creative Commons license

After this, and some comments on her original post, Samara wrote some extra explanation, which you will find at the end of this guest post, and you can also read on her original entry - Editor.

Sometimes my body disgusts me, sometimes I despise it, sometimes I am so repulsed by it I want to run razors across it, to burn it, to deny it food, to overload with food and then throw it up again, but you know these feelings can't be real they must just be a front, according to Samara's post I can't really feel guilty or negative about my body and food.

The attitude in this article really angers me, it is both ignorant and dismissive of women with eating disorders/disordered eating.

In the second to last paragraph of the post Samara writes: "We'll only stop this madness if we refuse to join in." I can't refuse to join in, I can't suddenly not have issues with food just because I want to. I would love to not have issues with food, but I can't magic them away and nor can other women. It's good that Samara doesn't have issues with food, that she has a healthy attitude to food, that's excellent but its not okay for her to belittle other women, other feminists who have issues with food.

Also food issues are not by and large about food, they are about control, power, space, unacknowledged emotions. From piecing together my own personal narrative my food issues come predominantly from three places:

1) Severe physical neglect in infancy. Studies show that people neglected during infancy have a much higher rate of eating disorders than others because the brain doesn't lay down the right pathways that regulate your food intake, (for me this means I don't get hungry till I'm about to faint, and I don't know when I'm full so I eat too much).

2) My main care givers through most of my childhood were power freaks over food and removed food as a punishment.

3) Severe sexual abuse during my adolescence.

My issues with food are complicated and, unless I spell it out, I don't think its immediately obvious that I have food issues - but I was borderline anorexic for a really long time, with a bit of bulimia thrown in there, and now I tend to binge eat, and eat things that I know are really bad for me as a kind of self sabotage.

Now I need to lose weight, not want to, need to - I am edging up to a size 18, and that's not comfortable for me. I have a history of heart disease and diabetes in my family, and I need to take some pressure of my joints, but I find this really difficult to talk about in feminist spaces, because of attitudes like the one in this post and some of its comments. If I talk about healthy ways of trying to lose weight, will I get told that its somehow anti feminist to want to lose weight, even though I have good reason for it?

Then we come down to, actually we do live in a society that expects women to be a certain size and shape, and penalises bigger women. Maybe we should be critiquing why there weren't any women at that press conference who were over a size 12 - are women over size 12 incapable of being journalists?

I also find the thought of someone making "observations" on someone else's eating really disturbing. If I know people are watching me eat and making judgments on my food intake, I either stop eating or finish what I'm eating and then go and throw it up.

Yes, we do live in a society where almost all women (whether they are technically eating disordered or not) have an unhealthy relationship with food but I don't think essentially telling them to buck up and get over it is particularly helpful.

Women will stop having issues with food when we are allowed to take up the psychological and physical space we are entitled to, when we are allowed to display negative emotions rather than repressing them, when we stop having our body boundaries breached, when we stop being told both overtly and subtly that our bodies are messy and out of control and need disciplining.

Working towards these things is much more radical and useful than dismissing women with food issues as being involved in "madness".

Samara:

Believe it or not, I was a fully-fledged anorexic by the age of 12, so it's not as if I'm a stranger to eating disorders! I had an utterly horrific childhood, which I won't go into here, but let's just say I'm not quite the privileged middle class type I seem. So I was really horrified that people thought I was referring to women who really did have serious issues with food! The thing is, I had been pretty much unaware of this "I mustn't eat this and that" culture until such time as I started making a massive effort to get better permanently. When I had promised myself that I would never again restrict what I eat, suddenly the whole world seemed to be telling me that I needed to police my eating habits. The fact that I was trying very hard to no longer police my own consumption really opened my eyes to just how "disordered" most women's relationship with food seems to be, or rather how disordered the relationship with food that we are "supposed" to have is. It makes me angry that perfectly healthy women feel the need to feel bad when they eat "bad" things, and it makes me angry that if I hadn't had an eating disorder, if I hadn't been forced to examine my own attitude to food in order to get better, and if I hadn't been forced to swear to myself that I would never, ever diet or restrict my food in any way unless I got overweight, perhaps I'd be participating in it too. I'm really sorry if I've offended anyone, but I do stand by what I said - I think that most of the time, saying things like, "I shouldn't eat this, I'm being really naughty" is a frivolous female bonding exercise, but it just doesn't help any of us. And it especially doesn't help people who really do have genuine issues. I've lost friends over this - for years I was too fragile to be around girls who talked about their restrictive eating habits all the time. I really regret not saying this in the original post, but it seemed a bit too personal at the time. I now realise that a bit of context would have been appropriate! Seriously, I really am sorry, and extend my heartfelt sympathy/empathy/best wishes to anyone of any gender struggling with any kind of eating disorder.

Upon my habitual trawling of the right wing press to see what we are up against today I come across this article on a new book the 'Retrosexual Manual' - it was in the Daily Mail’s ingeniously titled ‘femail’ section.

The book claims that women are tired of metrosexual men and goes through certain qualities that a ‘real man’ must hold in order to be attractive to women. They include focusing solely on sex, beer and football (apparently women envy the ability of the retrosexsual man to have such an uncluttered mind), having strong arms to open jars and never cooking anything more complex than a Pot Noodle - as cooking is the women’s job! It goes on with other generically sexist rules like never say ‘I love you’ after sex, never ask for directions and obviously never have cushions or curtains in your house or flat.

Not only is the article and book completely patronising to women and all that they have achieved - and are still striving to achieve, it reinforces all the gender stereotypes that we work to eradicate and gives reason for, nay, glorifies men acting in a misogynistic way - backing up every sexist’s verbal masturbation with ‘the lads’ down the boozer. Though this is a slightly tongue in cheek portrayal of a retrosexual man - apparently the author - a Mr Dave Beasley - was inspired to write the book when he saw what effect Gene Hunt from Life on Mars had on women……I wonder what women he was speaking to, as I can tell you right now that Mr Hunt had no effect on me apart from being thankful that I wasn’t a woman in the 70’s. He believes that if women are true to themselves they will admit that they want a ‘real man’. Will we? I’m not sure but I think that women don’t really like being told how to think - especially since we are in the strong starting position of our full minds, of course. In practical terms, are we really after directionless sex smelling of beer, and post-coital patter about Chelsea’s latest signing? Count me out.

It's also deeply homophobic - giving tips on how to scrutinise interactions with other men to avoid any appearance of "suspicious relationships":

You have mates - but never Best Friends. Famous buddies such as Starsky and Hutch, Butch and Sundance, Batman and Robin, and even Ant and Dec are highly suspicious relationships.

No matter how tough those men may be, nor how straight, the Retrosexual can't help thinking they're all riding a little too close to Brokeback Mountain.

I read this article with a sense of absolute disbelief but also a vague hope that men and women around the country don’t read the book or take it seriously.

The idea for a 'Ladies and the Trans' forum at Ladyfest was intitiated by myself and my co-organiser Scratch. We were invited to take part in Ladyfest as transmen who also still identify strongly with our feminine and masculine feminist selves. I wanted to do this because, since my transitioning took over, it had become harder for me to re-enter women's spaces where I had spent 38 years of my life. Some people have argued that I am a man now, so I have no right to go into women's spaces. I totally disagree. The Western medical system and patriarchy say I am a man, or I was a woman before - but it's not true. I've always navigated somewhere in between. It's never been either one or the other for me. Its always been something else… everything... oneness..

So, five transmen rocked up. We were joined by around 25 people. (The forum was open to all trans-identified people, and gender varied.) We were all given the time and safe space to tell our stories. It ended up been a really interesting discussion all around - afterwards I was approached and thanked by one person, who felt that things had been made clearer in their head. It was great for us all to have the opportunity to speak out and I think everybody got something out of it. Thanks Ladyfest. May we continue to have those spaces…

I first heard Pauline Campbell speak at a meeting in March 2007 organised by Women in Prison (WIP) regarding the publication of the Corston Review. She spoke eloquently and passionately about her daughter Sarah (who died in Styal Prison in 2003) and the overall treatment of women in prison.

I wrote a piece about her campaigning work highlighting the shocking number of women dying in prison on Socialist Unity blog, and she contacted me.

I eventually got to meet Pauline when I attended Macclesfield Magistrates court with her in March 2008 for a pre-trial review. She had been arrested for the 15th time and for obstruction. I admired Pauline’s boldness and conviction when she stated her case in court. Pauline later wrote: “Events in court today had to be seen to be believed. I have never before felt so dehumanised.” That comment from Pauline summed up my own reactions.The bureaucracy and the utter minefield of the proceedings showed up the lack of compassion and responsiveness of the court.

In early May, the CPS decided afterall to abandon the trial (it was set for late July-early August) due to not being in the public interest. The emotional impact the court case had on her was immeasurable and soul destroying:

“From start to finish, this senseless prosecution was a waste of the court’s time, a scandalous waste of public money, and an enormous drain on my emotional health. Yet another attempt to criminalise and punish me has failed, and the CPS and the Attorney General have met with a barrage of letters complaining about the vindictive nature of the case, demanding to know how the prosecution could be in the public interest (I have seen copies of some of these letters).”

I am glad I met and corresponded with Pauline as she was bold, intelligent, funny and strong. Her energy and tenacity illustrated her defiance and how she was only too willing to speak out against hidden injustices and for the powerless. And her love for Sarah.

As INQUEST says: “Borne out of experience, Pauline became a formidable campaigner committed to exposing the injustices and inhumanity of the treatment of women in prison”.

We can learn so much by her example. I will miss her deeply.

Refusal to acknowledge the patient’s experience? Check. Outright discounting of her interpretation of events? Check. Use of words such as ‘sophisticated’ and ‘high level of skill’ to reinforce authority? Claims of patient ignorance and ‘exaggeration of facts’ when he was not even present for the event? Yep, it’s all there, in all its ugly and hateful glory. This is exactly the kind of arrogant attitude that creates a chasm between those with a skilful and sympathetic bedside manner and those whose emotional detachment can lead to patient violation. Taking the human aspect out of patient care isn’t the practice of medicine; it is the following of protocol and technical training. Is this what was intended when the Hippocratic Oath, undertaken by all doctors, was written to say:

In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing...If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.

Respect is a two-way street. When medical professionals start disrespecting their patients’ wishes, how can they be surprised to discover that, in the process, they have lost the trust of those they are meant to help and heal? Doctors of the world, wake up and smell the revolution: being an MD (or a midwife or a surgeon or a nurse) doesn’t mean you get to play God, nor does it entitle you to make decisions on behalf of your patients in the guise of protecting them from themselves. As much esteem and power as you think your title automatically gives you, I and many others still think that you have to earn it. And that means listening, respecting, advising and learning to back off, even if it goes against your instincts and training. We still have the right to say no, even if your answer would be yes.

To specifically address Dr. Crippen’s comments about my article on birth rape, I would suggest he read more carefully my words. I never intimated nor stated that all obstetric intervention or even that all traumatic births are rape. I am fully aware that sometimes intervention is warranted and wanted. I am grateful for those interventions. I am aware that plenty of women experience traumatic births where no assault is involved. An unnecessary or botched c-section, pressure to have or not have pain relief, an early induction...the ethics of these things is questionable, indeed, and anger many people. If a woman reluctantly consents to these procedures under duress and later feels duped, tricked or unfairly intimidated into compliance, she will undoubtedly term her experience as traumatic, rightly so. Maternity care in the UK, and elsewhere in the so-called developed world, is in crisis and the conveyor belt of convenience that women are being hauled down in the ill-fated quest for perfect, controlled outcomes is damaging not only to women’s bodies but their psyches and well-being, not to mention what it’s doing to mortality rates for babies. However, this is not the rape of which I speak.

Let me say it again: birth rape is when a procedure or exam is carried out in which a body part or object (such as a hand, finger, suction cup, foetal monitor, episiotomy scissors, forceps, drug or needle) is inserted into a woman’s vagina without her consent and often after she has specifically declined interference. Holding a woman’s legs open to perform a vaginal exam while she screams “No!” is not and never will be okay. Putting something into her vagina ‘for her own good’ is assault, plain and simple, and no less abhorrent than the man who forces his penis into a woman because he feels it is his right to. Just lay back and let the people in charge do their important work, right? It will all be over in a minute, right? Wrong. The scars these women bear will last much longer than those inflicted on their bodies.

Practicing midwife and blogger Navelgazing Midwife talks candidly and openly about how her training led her to do horrible things to women in the name of convenience or gaining experience. By her own admission, she has been the perpetrator of birth rape. She recognises this and deeply regrets it. If she can acknowledge the harm being done in her profession and work to rectify that, why can’t others? She is a fine example of the saying “Doctors (in this case, midwives) are human, too,” which is to say that they make mistakes and let their personal prejudices, opinions and goals cloud their judgment. Of course they do. No one expects them to be perfect. But refusing to take a long, hard look in the mirror, own up to these errors and look for solutions, even after hearing pleas from those whose care is entrusted to them, is decidedly inhumane.

Dr. Crippen’s attempt to portray birth rape victims only as previously assaulted women who are transferring that abuse onto their birth experiences and unfairly blaming those who attended them is ludicrous and ill-founded. If anything, the anecdote from the woman who says that her birth experience brought back memories of the rape she endured at age 14 is evidence that something is desperately wrong with how childbirth is being managed. Though I do not assert that her story is one of birth rape, the woman quoted says:

I had an epidural (against my wishes) during transition. When being on my back and numb from the waist down it gave me flashbacks to the rape...I had no anger towards the doctor, only myself. Of course I was angry towards the perpetrator who raped me as a teenager but I just didn’t expect it to come flooding back to me when giving birth. I had no control over this. It just happened. Completely out of the blue.

For too long, women have been treated as the sum of their parts. Even where we have made strides socially, when it comes to the physical we are still treated as the property of a patriarchal system that cannot and will not give us the deeds to ourselves. Sexually and reproductively, we are under the thumb and at the mercy of men. Pregnancy and birth in particular continue to be issues that those in power seem determined to hold onto, perhaps because they are exclusively women’s realm. And as we know, people in power often fear the unknown. There is nothing more loathe to some than that which they have little part in and which they will never be able to fully understand.

So when I, as a feminist, see abuses happening, I stop prettying it up and start calling it what it is - Assault. Rape. Injustice. Because I don’t care who it makes uncomfortable or whose delicate sensibilities it offends, only how it challenges their thinking and, hopefully, in turn, their behaviour.

I first found out about the plans for another Ladyfest London when I stumbled across the MySpace profile during some absent-mindedly browsing of the internet. I’d attended several other festivals around the country and was pretty excited to hear that one was finally going to be held in my city of residence again. I immediately fired across a message asking how I could get involved.

As well as being great places to meet and network with other feminists, Ladyfests always offer a chance to experience loads of interesting, creative female talent which can be pretty thin on the ground at more mainstream events. Because it’s not a commercial enterprise in the same way as most festivals, the organisers can afford to take risks with the programme in ways that bigger promoters never could. Ay what other similar-sized event could you learn about bike maintenance and DIY publishing, watch the lesbian karma sutra, see comedy and cabaret performances and then boogie to a Hollywood-soundtrack featured artist, all while knowing that your cash is giving much-needed help to worthwhile causes rather than being stuffed in the grubby pockets of Mr Club Promotor/Beer Brewer?

Ladyfest also shows how to put on a festival that’s ethical, non-hierarchal and has a social conscience without compromising on the customer’s experience. With a growing dissatisfaction in our city with the increasing commercialisation of music and the arts, and the growing free/squat party scene which has sprung up in retaliation, this is just what an audience of cynical fans needs in our city.

But most of all, Ladyfest is fun! With all the media stereotypes of us feminists being miserable, angry, prudish killjoys, it would certainly shock a few Daily Mail journalists to see so many of us coming together for a huge party. The festival aims to be all-inclusive and accessible, so that those new to feminist politics or checking out their first ever Ladyfest feel just as welcomed as seasoned veterans. Neither are we subscribing to one particular strain of feminist thought, instead seeking to provide a friendly, relaxed environment where we can come together and celebrate women’s talent and creativity regardless of the finer points of our beliefs.

So what else better are you going to do this weekend than check out some great music, films, art, comedy, performance, with a huge dollop of feminist politics on top, all while having an immensely fun time? We’ll be seeing you on Friday then.

Ladyfest has become like an international travelling carnival of shared ideas and organising. Ladyfest London 2008 actually began a long, long time ago when a group of women responded to a call out printed in a zine. It was an event I felt some resonance with already, having been to Ladyfest Brisbane and reading about other ones in zines for many years. I think this is why I braved the social awkwardness of meeting a bunch of total strangers in a bar with the aim of plotting a huge feminist event.

But even after a meeting or two, we were still not entirely convinced about creating something under the Ladyfest banner. With it comes quite a weight of past events and we wanted to be sure that anything we organised reflected our communities and was decidedly a creation of London. Particularly as many of us were from other parts of the world and had adopted London as a home.

As well as the weight of past events, Ladyfest brings with it a shared and unique history of independent feminist festivals, of international dialogue and of shared knowledge and experiences. While on paper, this may sound hopelessly naive, it did mean we could communicate with people who had been involved in other Ladyfest festivals and ask (lots of) questions and share resources. I can't think of other festivals that would allow that, without at least an element of competition or ego.

Each Ladyfest starts with a clean slate. We were able to come up with our own aims and values, and certainly to make our own mistakes. And, no two Ladyfests are ever the same. Thankfully, there is no Ladyfest construction kit yet (although a hex key always comes in handy) .

Each Ladyfest ends with exhaustion, but also plans for new projects, new adventure. And the creation of Ladyfest London 2008 has certainly led to many late-night discussions about what comes next. And I can't wait to see that.

Photo by jwcline, shared under a Creative Commons license

There’s just over a week before Ladyfest London 2008 launches. I have been involved with organising the festival, which showcases women’s/feminist/queer creativity, for the last year. Looking back, it’s been an increasingly lovely and invigorating experience; meeting a whole crowd of new people, learning how to organise and co-ordinate events, going to gigs and films and happenings that have really challenged my outlook on things. Eating quite a lot of curly chips and vegan cupcakes.

Ladyfests sometimes get criticised for being shallow, focusing on entertainment rather than activism or political engagement. I have sometimes grappled with this myself, and wondered whether the Ladyfest organisers really share that many goals.

I stopped worrying about that when I realised the value of the festival is in creating a community, where people trust and respect each other instead of trying to come up with a startlingly good critical analysis of your performance. Sometimes it means you overlook differences of opinion, sometimes it means you celebrate them. It’s a bit like sisterhood, really.

I’m very, very excited about Ladyfest and I want as many people as possible to come and share it with us. Workshops cover everything from felt-making to self defence, the film programme is bursting with African and queer gems, and the music and comedy is going to be awesome. Most of all, I’m looking forward to being around supportive, positive people who want to celebrate what women can achieve when we work together.

The debate about the BNP/chocolate cake analogy continues to rage, which made me want to share an experience, which still confuses me even after some time has passed.

I was seeing a man, with whom I’d been friends for some years before anything more happened. One night, things progressed into the bedroom, at which point he told me that he didn’t have any condoms, so we couldn’t have penetrative sex.

Fine by me, I said, and we continued with what we’d been doing. It was all perfectly lovely and we were both enjoying ourselves.

Until suddenly he manoeuvred himself on top of me and began trying to enter me.

“What are you doing?” was the obvious question.

He looked at me, bewildered - “We’re going to have sex.”

“No, we’re really, really not,” I told him, and pushed him off.

Except he didn’t think that was an end to the matter, and he tried again.

By this time, I was so angry and, yes, a bit frightened, that sex of any description was totally off the agenda. Again, I said no and pushed him off, and suggested that maybe we should get to sleep instead. He agreed. And then woke me up in the morning with a similar tactic - like a few hours’ sleep would have made a difference, or he didn’t think I’d notice, or something.

I still don’t know what I should have done, or whether I should do anything about it now. This was a long-standing friend, and a man I really liked. Did he think his persistence was in some way flattering? Should I have left after his first attempt at sex? Should I have talked to him about it afterwards? I don’t know. What I do know is that I came out of it feeling stupid and slightly violated and angry with myself. And I’m still friends with him.

A year ago this spring, the seeds for a new feminist group were planted in Edinburgh. Women were drawn together by the shared goal of organising the first Reclaim the Night march in that city in at least a decade. As the group grew and discussion flourished, the planning team decided that there was much more that they wanted to do as a group. The women were not content to watch the political and social world go by; they wanted to tackle issues and create a space for women of all backgrounds and lifestyles. They decided to form the Edinburgh Feminist Network.

Members of EFN do not believe that feminism is a ‘dirty’ word or a movement of past decades. Rather, they believe that feminism is a crucial response to today’s society at a personal, local and global level. More than that, feminism is embedded into the lives and consciousness of the members of EFN. This group has provided many women with a place to go to be supported, explore new ideas, struggle with difficult topics, become politically active and enjoy the company of women with similar interests and passions.

Since its formation, EFN has grown into a hard-working collective. They accomplished their goal of organising a very successful Reclaim the Night March and Rally, which took over the streets of Edinburgh last October 11th. They also put on a fundraiser Ceilidh and host monthly discussion groups. The discussion group topics thus far have included such themes as Body Image and the Pornification of Young Women. This year has started out strong for EFN, with many events and discussions planned in the coming months. They warmly encourage new women from all backgrounds and levels of experience to become involved.

For more information, please contact us:

e_f_n@myway.com

Blog
Facebook
MySpace

The murder of Lawrence King at a California school a couple of weeks ago has served to highlight the increasing intolerance of anyone who 'dares to be different' (if only we had the choice) by what seems to be an increasing proportion of society.

In the Lawrence King case, the homophobic aspects of the alleged murder of one teenager by another teenager are emphasised. This was sufficient for Ellen DeGeneres to make this heartfelt plea on her television chat show recently.

She is absolutely right, of course, when she says: "And when the message out there is so horrible that to be gay, you can get killed for it, we need to change the message. Larry was not a second-class citizen. I am not a second-class citizen. It's ok if you're gay." (Transcript here)

That said, I disagree with her when she says, "This is not political". Of course it's political! This is a human rights issue. How could it not be political?

But it's a start - we may roll our eyes and say, "Oh it's 'only' daytime television", but remember that people like Ellen, Oprah and even our very own Richard & Judy, have become famous as a result of appearing on daytime television and consequently are in positions of influence. The point is that daytime television, like many other forms of today's mass media, can have a profound effect on shaping people's views - and it is attitudes that need to change, and be changed. It's all very well for the Obamas and Clintons of this world to boast about their involvement (however ephemeral) in safeguarding the civil liberties of GLBT people, but until there is a sea-change in the attitudes of so-called 'ordinary people', then hate crimes like this are not going to stop.

I think what disturbs me most is that this murder was apparently carried out by a 14 year old. How are things ever going to change for the better when teenagers believe that it's okay to shoot someone in the back and in the head and then drive around town in the victim's stolen, blood-soaked car, bragging to their friends that they've "killed a fag"? I can only hope that this is in not indicative of the mindset of the majority of young people, then the numbers of attacks on, and murders of, LGBT people can only increase. I have a 1 in 12 chance of being murdered? Deep joy...

Y'know, sometimes I despair of the human race...

By way of a postscript, I was interested to read this comment by RachelPhilPa on the post at Feministe. I only wish she had cited her sources for asserting that "King was killed not just for being gay, but more importantly for being gender-variant" and "[t]here's also the possibility that ze was trans". But I think she may have a point when she says "the media and much of the public conflate being gay/lesbian with being trans; 'gay' and 'trans' are the same to these people - in both cases the victims are 'faggots' or 'dykes'".

The Bilerico Project ("Daily experiments in LGBTQ") have posted an "open Letter from Barack Obama to the LGBT community" on their site - link here.

Even though it's about current affairs in the US, it's worth mentioning because it seems to me that what happens in the US today will happen here almost before you can sneeze...

So anyway, I've read the letter - and I'm confused.

Tell me, Mr Obama, just out of curiosity, what have you actually done for trans people like me. You say that "In Illinois, I co-sponsored a fully inclusive bill that prohibited discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity, extending protection to the workplace, housing, and places of public accommodation." - yes, but has that bill become law?

You also say "And as president, I will place the weight of my administration behind the enactment of the Matthew Shepard Act to outlaw hate crimes and a fully inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act to outlaw workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity." Yes but, that's for the future, if you're elected.

"I will never compromise on my commitment to equal rights for all LGBT Americans." Fine words, but the effect is rather spoiled by following it with this: "But neither will I close my ears to the voices of those who still need to be convinced." In other words, you're open to persuasion either way?

You see, Mr Obama, it seems to me that you haven't achieved a single thing in support of the civil liberties and human rights of trans people, and aren't exactly bursting with enthusiasm and Big Ideas to help us, either.

And the moral is? Why, never believe a politician, of course.

Plus ca change...

Recently there seems to have been an increase in the mass media's coverage of violent hate crimes against transgendered women. It's hard to keep up, but there seem to have been four or five such crimes in the past fortnight. The victims are all comparatively young, mostly of colour and they are all people who have been assigned male but lean toward the feminine.

Sadly, any positivity resulting from the mass media feeling more able to mention gender non-conformity is countered by the negative portrayal of TG women.

The murder of Sanesha Stewart is a case in point: the report in the New York Daily News was originally headlined "Fooled john stabbed Bronx tranny" until pressure from the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation persuaded the paper to change it to "Cops: Ex-con slays Bronx transsexual 'hooker'". But the article still contained comments about the way she dressed and presented herself, it made a point of misgendering her and alleged that she was regularly paid for sex. This, for example, is the second paragraph of the article and there is so much wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start:

"The victim - a 25-year-old man who dressed like a woman - was identified by sources as Talib Stewart, who often went by the feminine nicknames of Nesha or Sanesha."

The article is here:

Well worth reading - for balance - is Holly's post at Feministe which gives a radically different assessment - link here.

And now we have the murder of Simmie Williams and immediately - again - the dehumanisation appears in the press. See this article in which she is referred to as a "cross-dresser" and a "transvestite", we are told she "dressed like a woman" and "he" had an argument with two men before being shot and killed.

I find it hard to be objective right now, so will close by repeating urbanartiste's comment at Feministe, which I think pretty much sums it up:

"I think the bigger message here is that attacks on transgender individuals reveals that parts of society want to entrench traditional gender roles. Just as feminism is a threat to masculinity - to some- so is transgender. We have a long way to go in this country."

Transgender Basics is a 20 minute educational film on the concepts of gender and transgender people.

Two providers from the Gender Identity Project discuss basic concepts of gender - sex, identity and gender roles - as three transgender community members share their personal experiences of being trans and genderqueer.

The film targets service providers and others working with the LGBT community, but it also provides a fascinating glimpse into gender and identity for the general public.

"Our culture likes to make things simple, and gender isn't." Carrie Davis, Transgender Community Organizer, in Transgender Basics.

"It was the constant fight of me saying 'there is nothing wrong with being this kind of girl,' as oppose to, 'well, I'm not a girl.'" Nicco Beretta, participant in Transgender Basics.

Click here to view the film at Google Videos.

(Via TransAdvocate.com)

My main problem with the feminist movement today has been the lack of calls-to-arms, or a defining moment or idea to bring us together. Suffragettes were smashing authority and being trampled underhoof of horses. Second wave feminists threw open the doors of the office to show the glass ceiling and ingrained sexual harassment. And we, the third wave, struggle against a tide of pole dancing keep-fit clubs that proclaim ‘yes, this is feminist’, and float in the ever-changing tides of the so called ‘noughties’ with no uniting cause.

Imagine then, my unbridled glee when I saw the open invitation to the first meeting of the Feminist Coalition Against Prostitution. The new, pro-active group could very well define this era of feminism by liberating women from the chains of sexual abuse and physical violence, and pushing into place new, firm and fair legislation. Co-founded by Finn Mackay, founder of the London Feminist Network and lifeblood of Reclaim the Night, and Julie Bindel, a woman whose association with direct action feminism shatters the bones of the weak minded like plate glass windows in a sex shop, are putting in place a movement to shape the future.

Both women, however, took a back seat in the proceedings of this meeting chaired by Hilary McCollum, which aimed to breathe life into the coalition and kick start the activism to come. In an auditorium filled with nervous energy and eager faces, Aravinder Kosaraju, Jan MacLeod, Denise Marshall, Fiona MacTaggart MP and Gunilla Ekberg helped build the case for the FCAP and feed these feminists with the words they would need to spread the cause.

Kosaraju began by explaining her work at the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping. CROP offers much-needed support to the swathes of family members left in the cold when a child is professional groomed for prostitution and removed from the family fold. She explained how young girls are targeted, introduced to a myriad of men, drugs and drink, and forced down a road that will only see them find help when it’s too late to catch the original perpetrators. The crime of grooming children into prostitution is one which remains massively unrecorded, there are no national statistics. Confronted with this onslaught of information on the dark corners of abuse and coercion, one could only assume we were too far behind to mount an attack.

Then Denise Marshall, director of Eaves housing for women and Fiona MacTaggart solidly built a case for a change to the current English law - although prostitution is not illegal, prostituted women are targeted through proclamations against soliciting, while men get off scot free. Marshall ripped apart the sacred myths we see repeated so often in the press, about prostitution being ‘the oldest trade in the world’ and pushing ‘the happy hooker', while MacTaggart described the overly beaurocratic practices which are stalling change or real debate in Parliament. The combined effect of these two speakers provided great gusto to the cause - and the birth of this new coalition.

Hurrah then for Scotland, or more accurately Glasgow, where the city council has taken a hard line on prostitution, rightly tagging it as commercial sexual exploitation which should be stopped. MacLeod, part of the Glasgow Women’s Support Project which works alongside the council in coalition with voluntary sector, women’s police services, mental health and homelessness groups, enlightened the group as to the huge steps they were already making to clean up the country. Providing intervention when wanted, women are given a real exit plan to reclaim their place as equals in society. The courses of educating the public through training days and events are a star part of this plan, invoking discussion and debate, something at the heart of the successes in Sweden.

Gunilla Eckberg, Swedish specialist advisor on prostitution law, co-director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and general fempresario, rushed us through an array of ideas, legislation, information and anecdotes surrounding her enormous experience in breaking and making the system. Through lengthy campaigning to educate the people, parliament and police, she described how Sweden has become a favoured model for much debate - although not forgetting to touch on the current, conservative government's lacklustre implementation of the country's legislation - which criminalises men who buy sex but not women who sell sex. Some critics have argued that this has driven prostitution underground, but Eckberg explained that this is not possible - prostitution has already migrated online, for fear of arrest on the streets. She successfully framed the reasons why this approach would make an easy transition into the British statute book. And, as the last speaker, she clearly defined the point of the evening: where do we go from here?

Mackay made a rousing statement to close the meeting. We were to strike while the iron was hot; this was our time to make a change. In a movement underlined by apathy and confusion, occasionally tainted by the 'me, me, me' of the current climate rather than the grouped voice of change, this may unsettle some. It’s been a long time since we’ve had to organise for anything so important, and rather than shirk this responsibility we should embrace it. FCAP offers the chance to get involved and frame the changes we make to our society, a chance you would be stupid to pass up.

Help make prostitution synonymous with the violence, rape and abuse and you will be taking the first steps to reforming the way women are seen in society. One step closer to being people, no longer objects to be passed around for fun and satisfaction.

Appetites now thoroughly whetted I hope you can make yourself heard through the official website or subscribe to the Yahoo! group.

Another day, another burgeoning battle on the field of motherhood and breastfeeding - the pros and the cons are force fed to us like mother's milk, only it's not healthy at all.

In the Family supplement of last Saturday's Guardian, Kate Hilpurn detailed Dr. Caroline Gatrell's work on the running of the household between heterosexual co-habiting couples and her delightful findings on men's new keen place in the home.

Gatrell's study showed men's new larger share of tasks in the home included an increased amount of time spent with the kids, alone. Unluckily for the Daily Mail this does not show that women are abandoning the suckling of infants for a high-powered work-centred lifestyle, but that fathers 'cherry pick' their family time to increase their direct contact with a child:

Men's desire to have an equal parenting role does not extend to child related domestic chores such as washing clothes. Indirect childcare is tedious and does not further fathers' power in the household

This also extends to daddy's uncertainty over breastfeeding.

So strongly do some men feel about seizing all the quality time with their children that they even resent women for breastfeeding, according to Gatrell. 'Some fathers regard it as an inconvenient barrier to the establishment of paternal closeness to babies.'

No only, then, are women under pressure because of the health benefits of breastfeeding - often used to berate new mothers rather than build confidence - and because of the social stigma attached to the clearly hideous pornography of breastfeeding, but now because it might cut into their partners' 'special time' with the newborn.

Of course, if you Google male breastfeeding you'll find there are plenty of terrifying and interesting articles. So there's still a chance fathers can stop complaining and get in on the game, and maybe nursing mothers can get a little shut eye.

Editor: I couldn't resist adding this lovely quote from one of the husbands interviewed by Gatrell. The only possible response is too rude to post here:

"I know that intellectually I am supposed to agree with everything that is happening to me," he said. "And, you know, I do want a best friend, not a housekeeper. But if I am honest, there are times when this equality thing is hard. And I don't say this to her but I think, 'Well why haven't my shirts been ironed, and why is there no food in the house? Why can't [my wife] do it?'"

Photo by jessicafm, shared under a Creative Commons license