Just came across this useful call to action piece by Katherine Marshall in The Washington Post.

As the author points out, it is the season of Big Important Global Political Meetings. Internationally, there is the upcoming G20 Summit in Pittsburg (starts on Wednesday), the Annual Meeting of the World Bank and the IMF (6-7 October), and the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (7-18 December).

Marshall highlights how difficult it seems to be to keep two issues in particular live on the emerging global agendas despite the fact that they represent, in my opinion, perhaps the most important social justice failings we are currently witnessing on the one hand, and also the most important keys to overall human development on the other: poverty and gender inequalities. Citing the unhelpful coverage of the pre-talks for the G20 as an example, she writes:

Maybe that's not a fair screen, but it underscores how very hard it is to keep issues of social justice on the agenda when world affairs are discussed.

What Marshall doesn't say explicitly is the extent to which the decisions to marginalize women's rights and poverty are political decisions. This means they can be influenced, and also that there are people we can hold to account for them. It also means that there is nothing inevitable about the state of the world we are living in - we are creating it, so we can undo it. For my part, I'd really love to see some leadership from our politicians, someone who will stand up and say, 'Enough already with the political posturing and the pseudo-economic analysis; let's get real.'

The author does offer some ideas for ways forward. For example, she discusses how the information decision-makers collect and use to influence their decision-making is itself part of the problem: in asking the wrong questions, they get information that does not actually address the key global challenges.

I'm always frustrated that we know so much about financial and market transactions, down to the most intricate detail, but know so little about the human indicators that are the barometers of social welfare. The best indicator of a society's changing circumstances may be infant birth weights, but they are not reported in newspapers.

If Marshall were to extend her logic of course, this would mean that women's health and well-being, as perhaps the most important influence on infant birth rates, is also one of the best indicators of society's current state of well-being - which are also not generally reported.

Closer to home, we are in the midst of the annual party conference season:

• Conservatives: 5-8 October
• Greens: 3-6 September
• Lib Dems: 19-23 September
• Labour:27 Sep - 1 Oct

This is the time that parties set their policy agendas for the coming year. It would be brilliant of they, too, could get real and recognize that women's rights are the issue they should be prioritizing this Autumn. What would it take do you think?

Photo by manu contreras, shared under a Creative Commons license

I've been ruminating on 'direct action' more than usual over the last few weeks. It was promted during my participation in Awaaz's G20 march, and then hung out at the G20 protests. I had quite opposite experiences at each which has had me reflecting on how action translates to change, or not. Then, over the past few days, I've been debating the ethics and efficacy of the 'pirating' that's been happening off of the Somalian coastline for the past year or so following this piece by Johann Hari. This morning I found myself reading about the stoning of some women who have been protesting the proposed new laws in Afghanistan.

My question: how best to express discontent and secure change for women from a system/people that are not listening?

At the Awaaz march, I went on my own, and hooked up with a friendly feminist activist as I walked along, and then lost them, and just kind of went with the flow. It was really positive and uplifting, with singing and music making and general hilarity as people got creative with their climate change costuming. It didn't feel aggressive or negative at all. I left the demo feeling sad about the state of the world but happy about people's willingness to speak out and try to make a difference in whatever small way they could.

At the G20 protests, I went along with a couple of inspiring feminists from the Women's Environmental Network, hoping to touch base with one or two of our colleagues that were already at Climate Camp. By the time we got there, the kettling was already locked in, and everywhere we navigated to was controlled by the police in some way. They were heavily kitted up, with riot gear for instance, but also dogs and these vehicles that I can only describe as 'army' because of the way they looked like tanks. There were a few officers here and there speaking with activists, and some appeared to be friendly, truly, but on the whole the impression was one of 'guarding' with police generally grouping in packs and ordering people to go left or right or this way or that. It felt aggressive and male.

We eventually managed to get to London Bridge to exit it all, whereupon we found ourselves being corralled anyway: 'please walk single file down the side of the bridge'. As I walked by the line of twenty or so officers that had spread the width of the bridge and were marching toward us in a line pushing everyone crossing to one side or the other, the guy officer 'ordering' us (it was definitely not a request) to walk single file etc barked at me 'yeah, you're smiling now, but you won't be when a bottle hits you in the head'. Wonder if I can be stopped and searched for smiling?

My debates with my friends about the 'pirates' largely revolved around whether or not the pirating activity is justified and/or effective for the objectives - including what were the supposed objectives. There is a lot of energy going into shutting down the pirating right now by NATO and rich countries, but I'm not really reading anything about what is going to be done about the illegal fishing and nuclear waste dumping that European ships and companies have been engaged in, which actually created the initial impetus for the pirating. The local fisherman that are losing their livelihoods and the population that have become sick from the pollution, what of them? No stories either on how women are coping, whether they're taking on the healing/support/livelihood work as everything unfolds and as some of these men go pirating.

So, what options, then, for the women who disagree with the proposed 'women's law' in Afghanistan? I have heard from more than one source that the changes offer more liberty to women than current tribal laws, but I think it's fair to say that that's still really sad. Better than the worst case isn't really a great situation. What would it take to shift the paradigm, and how could feminists in Afghanistan make it happen? Is direct action a good option for them, stoning or no?

Photo by cathredfern, shared under a Creative Commons license

Just 12 hours left to listen again to the first episode in Radio 4's Call Yourself a Feminist series.

Historian Bettany Hughes presents the first in a series of three discussions tracing the development of feminist ideas from the 1960s onwards.

A panel of guests explore the issues which motivated women to join together under the banner of feminism. While activists pursued campaigns involving street protests and fighting through the courts, other women were alienated by their arguments. Both feminists and non-feminists join Bettany to recall key events.

Bettany's guests are journalist Ann Leslie, American academic Elaine Showalter, activist and historian Sally Alexander and co-founder of the US National Organisation of Women, Sonia Fuentes

It all disappears tomorrow as the second episode is broadcast at 9 am and again at 9.30 pm.

Historian Bettany Hughes presents the second in a series of three discussions tracing the development of feminist ideas from the 1960s onwards.

Bettany's guests are former local government leader Linda Bellos, businesswoman Roz Morris, academic Lynne Segal and author Beatrix Campbell. They discuss feminism in the 1980s and what it meant to them.

Final episode airs next week Tuesday, again at 9 am and 9.30 pm. This one includes me and feministing's Jessica Valenti, plus an academic who talks about the pink pants action in India (fun!).

Photo by The Rocketeer, shared under a Creative Commons license

It kicked off yesterday at feministing with a live chat with the co-editors and some of the contributors, and today is being hosted by The F Word. See the full schedule for the rest of the tour at the end of this post - and be sure to tune in tomorrow's episode: a live chat (3pm EST) with Julia Serano & Latoya Peterson at RH Reality Check.

For our segment, we're doing a Q&A with the inspiring Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha who I've had the very good fortune of organizing with in Toronto while she and I were both there. Welcome Leah!

Starting interview... now:

What has been the outcome of writing about your experiences for your organizing and politics with queer, trans and women of colour communities?

Writing about being a survivor of violence has had only good outcomes for me within the movements I'm part of. People ask if its vulnerable or whatever, and I guess it is, but I guess also that my amazing protective mechanisms (the ones that allow me to wait for a bus at midnight in a miniskirt and not get fucked with, ever) keep a lot of what could be weird shit away. Also, it's not like my experience is rare- it's really fucking normal to have survived violence, and when you tell your story about it in a way that resonates with folks- I mean, people are just so hungry to hear experiences that sound even vaguely like theirs told out loud. I feel really amazingly happy to be one of many people involved in radical woman of color and queer and trans of color communities, families and activism who are talking about the shit we've survived and what we've done with it and how we can change our communities and world. Both on a personal level, and that these movements exist, where there are many radical women, queer and transfolks of color and we are not going away and not apologizing for shit and not having to explain ourselves all the time- we're centering ourselves and our experiences and genius and working inside our multiple communities.

Why did you decide to contribute to the book/what about the project appealed?

I wanted to make sure that women of color's voices and queer people of color's experiences made it into the book. I also was glad that there was a book that was being marketing to a really wide audience whose editors were commited to representing really different views on sex and violence.

What role do you think talking about sexuality in a positive sense has in terms of tackling 'rape culture'?

I kind of hate the term "rape culture", but if what you mean is, how does talking about the sex we have that's not messed up challenge the overwhelming violence we face on an everyday basis- I think it's really important, especially for women and queer and trans people of color, for us to talk about the ways in which even with all the shit we face, we still find a way back to our bodies. It's a fucking miracle, the ways we figure out how to keep having sex and have desires stay alive.

We need to write down our stories, because I think QTPOC and women and trans people of color are miracle makers. Especially in societies where we are continually told we're hypersexual or nonsexual, freaks or ugly, claiming our bodies through our sexualities is incredibly important. We create a new paradigm in the belly of the beast- in the middle of the everyday world where childhood sexual abuse and adult sexual assault is happening all the time, in our famillies, as we try and cross the bullshit that are borders, we are also loving and fucking and resisting that way, without killing each other. We're creating the new world in the belly of the old and we have to let folks know this.

I think it's also hella important for survivors who are of color and/or queer and trans people of color to write really specifically about the ways we find to take our sexualities back after growing up with or experiencing violence. People are hungry for models and road maps and there are so few out there- The Survivor's Guide to Sex is great, but it's one book!

How far is it possible for feminists to generalise their own experiences and not fall into the same trap as the "recovery" industries and essentialise women who've experienced childhood sexual violences as victims in constant need of surveillance and treatment?

It's possible when we stay humble and committed to knowing that while we can theorize from our experiences, we have to stay open to hearing and respecting everyone's experience, and know going into the work that people will tell us stories we havent heard before- and that's the point.

Unfortunately, many second wave feminists have been just as guilty as the recovery industry of generalizing from their experiences and enforcing how survivors should be and look on other survivors of violence. In fact, as second-wave feminism mainstreamed and got institutionalized (and whiteness and class priviilege was a huge part of that) that part of the movement did a lot to silence survivor voices and contribute to the professionalization of survivor culture. For example, saying that all sex workers who have survived violence are of course reenacting trauma if they're doing sex work, instead of looking at the complex continuum of sex workers' experiences doing sex work (and what sex workers, themselves, are saying about their experiences, instead of thinking that sex workers are too stupid to think for themselves); or enforcing an idea that all sex has to be vanilla or you're re-traumatizing yourself, or not really being able to think beyond an identity that remains broken to thinking about what an identity would look like that both still broke the silence about how common being a survivor is and was resilient, had moved forward, what healing looked like in real life. We need to learn from this- that we need to continuously challenge ourselves in our movements to stay fresh and free of bullshit.

Is there a danger that feminist inspired accounts of childhood sexual violences are being appropriated, not just by the incest industry, but by mainstream society as either titillation or entertainment?

Yeah, but what else are we going to do? We can't shut up. There's always a danger that some asshole is jerking off to our words, but we have to keep speaking to each other and our communities. Accounts of sexual violence told in our own voices aren't hot topics on talk shows the way they were in the 70s and 80s. But it's always important to think about possible ways you might be co-opted and how you're going to deal with that. One of my main coping mechanisms and organizing strategies is to focus on where I'm strong and ignore much of the bullshit of the outside world. It has its weaknesses, but overall, I think it works.

What writers have been influential in forming your ideas on this, and how have they contributed to your work?

My roots as a radical incest survivor stem from when I was 16 in 1991 and getting zines in the mail from other girls who were incest survivors, or rape survivors, or whose famillies were violent and crazy, who were mad as fucking hell and were writing our stories down, exactly how they happened, because no one was doing it for us. Zines like Body Memories: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexual Abuse, Fantastic Fanzine and Upslut were hella important to me as a young survivor- to both be like, this is what it feels like and other folks are writing it down and not being killed for doing so, and also to see that, hey, this is writing- it counts. Despite riot grrls' racism and clasism, it was amazing to feel a part of a movement of 16 year old queers and freaks who were not going to shut up about our experiences and who were screaming out our raw truths on the page. I grew up to find Chrystos and Sapphire's writing, which is practically the survivor cannon, especially for queer girls of color, as well as Dorothy Allison, Aurora Levins Morales and Suheir Hammad's work. I also appreciate the work of my peers, including Mango Tribe, Maria Cristina Rangel, Nico Dacumos, Zuleikha Mahmood, the Mangos With Chili family and the poets I work with as a Student Teacher Poet in Poetry for the People. I really appreciate the ways we've found as queer and trans people of color to articulate the ways in which the violence we've survived is part of our whole lives, and also to articulate the ways we find to transform violence.

How does your contribution to this collection relate to other activism you are involved in?

Working on issues of violence from an integrated radical women and queer of color feminist perspective is my whole life, and I really especially like creating concrete tools that can help folks deal with shit. I'm an INCITE representer even though I have a hard time making it to meetings. I'm part of The Revolution Start At Home collective, which co-edited and released a "zine" on partner abuse in activist communities and what community accountability strategies look like in real life. I say "zine" in quotes because it turned into 108 ful sized pages. It's available at Incite's website for free download, but it's also going to be published next year by AK Press, yay! I also co-created The Femme Sharks with my SBBFFF (slutty brown best femme friend forever) Zuleikha Mahmood- we're a movement of fierce, tough, queer femmes of color who are the leaders and defenders of our communities. We like to do things like show up at the March for Life counterprotest wearing hot pink satin fins and evening gowns and screaming SLUTS FOR CHOICE at the protestors. Peep the manifesto here. Seriously, creating the Sharks with Zuleikha has been one of the best forms of "activism" that I've ever done, in terms of center women of color and queer and trans POC's life experience in a rage-filled, sexy and totally fucking fun way.

I also work part-time for Generation 5, the organization founded by Staci Haines, the author of The Survivors Guide to Sex, whose goal is to end childhood sexual abuse in 5 generations through creating community accountability strategies. Generation 5 rocks my world and is an awesome resource for radical survivors interested in resiliency and resistance. You can find themhere.

Finally, I view my work as a writer, performer and cultural producer as activism (I am not the only one who has a hard time making it to meetings- there are other ways you can fight and resist) and giving voice to stories about surviving violence is a big part of that. My one woman show, Grown Woman Show, is all about exploring being a long-term survivor of violence, that violence's impact on the queer familly my QTPOC fam make, and my experiences exploring trying to get back in touch with my family after years of estrangement out of their denial. It's touring right now- hit me up if you want to bring me to your women's studies department or performance series!

-------
A bit about Leah:
Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha is a queer Sri Lankan writer and performer, based for ten years in Toronto, recently relocated to Oakland, CA. The author of Consensual Genocide (TSAR, 2006) her work has been widely anthologized in the queer, feminist and of color press, including in Yes Means Yes, Homelands, Colonize This, We Don't Need Another Wave, Bitchfest, Without a Net, Dangerous Families, Geeks, Misfits and Outlaws, Bent on Writing, Femme, Brazen Femme and A Girl's Guide to Taking Over The World.

She writes for Bitch, Colorlines, Herizons, Hyphen, Make/Shift and Xtra magazines, and regularly performs and tours her work throughout North America. She is the co-director of Mangos With Chili, North America's only annual touring cabaret of queer and trans of color performers, and is currently touring her one-woman show, Grown Woman Show, a meditation on long-term incest survivor identity and queer of color love and heartbreak.

Her first memoir, Dirty River, and second book of poetry, Love Cake, will be published in 2009 and 2010. She teaches creative writing at Poetry for the People, the program founded by June Jordan at UC Berkeley, and is a proud Femme Shark. Visit her to find out more.

-------
Rest of tour Yes Means Yes:
RH Reality Check - 4/2
Live chat with Julia Serano & Latoya Peterson

Our Bodies Our Blog - 5/2
Q&A with Brad Perry & Lisa Jervis

Shakesville - 9/2
Live chat with Jaclyn Friedman

Scarleteen - 10/2
Heather Corinna

Angry Black Bitch - 11/2
Q&A with Tiloma Jayasinghe

Shapely Prose - 12/2
Q&A with Kimberly Springer

Bitch Ph.D. - 16/2
Guest blogging with Jaclyn Friedman & Jessica Valenti

Shameless - 17/2
Q&A with Jill Filipovic

IMPACT - 18/2
Q&A with Anastasia Higginbotham

Radical Doula - 19/2
Q&A with Hazel/Cedar Troost

Feministe - 20/2
Grand finale conversation: Rachel Kramer Bussel, Toni Amato, Javacia Harris, Kate Harding, Stacey May Fowles, Hanne Blank & Heather Corinna

Trafalgar Square, 2pm, Saturday 17th

Rally followed by march from Trafalgar Square to Downing St

The march is calling for Gordon Brown to demand an immediate end to Israel’s bombing and an opening of the borders to let food and aid in and civilians out.

We need as many women at the march as possible to show:

• our solidarity with people of Gaza
• the strength of women's objections to Israel’s bombardment
• our support for women’s actions in the Middle East and around the world

More on the third national demo here.

It was sort of inevitable, no? Get your own copy from Ms magazine.

Or join in the debate about what it all means:

Is the cover a giddy celebration of the feminist potential in the Obama administration or a patronizing depiction of feminism's "male savior"?

Hat tip: Ben Cornish

Update: Read what MS publisher Eleanor Smeal has to say about their choice.

Photo by QueenofSpainErin, shared under a Creative Commons license

So what's in store for us this year? What with the situation in Gaza and Shireen Ebadi's trials which we've already blogged about here, it's not a good start. There has been some good news though, including Joyce Bamford Addo becoming 'the third most powerful person in Ghana'. Nice.

Closer to home, there's much to consider as well.

The Centre for Women and Democracy informs us (via its e-newsletter, which is very good incidentally if anyone wants to sign-up) that 73 countries are going to have national elections this year, and it's going to keep on eye on how women fare, with a special emphasis on what this means for the UK's position in the league tables:

CFWD will continue to bring you news of how women candidates have fared in as many national elections as possible, as well as producing information on the European elections and the 2009 UK local elections. We will also continue to monitor how the UK is doing in relation to other countries - at the moment there are 68 countries with a greater percentage of women in their legislatures than us, but that may change as the year goes on. If there’s any country you’re particularly interested in, let us know and we will try and cover it.

On Woman's Hour this past week, a panel including foreign correspondent Ann Leslie, assistant editor of the Financial Times Gillian Tett, space scientist Dr Maggie Aderin and director of Liberty Shami Chakrabati discussed '2009 - What's in it for Women'. For some reason the 'play again' file won't play on my computer right now, so if anyone has had a listen and heard something interesting, please let us know in the comments.

On the legislative side, the Queen's speech has committed the Government to tabling a number of new bills and reforms this year, including changes to the licencing regime that affects lap dance clubs (success to Object and Fawcett's campaign!), a new Equality Bill, Welfare Bill and Child Poverty Bill, and new rights on flexible working. Read Fawcett's analysis of what they mean for women from here.

It's also the centenary of a pretty cool piece of feminist activism this year:

On 23 February 1909, two suffragettes, Miss Solomon and Miss McLellan, posted themselves by express messenger to 10 Downing Street, in an attempt to deliver a message personally to Prime Minister Herbert Asquith.

Oh yes. Want to hear more? Attend the talk by the director of Fawcett on the role and use of the postal service in the feminist movement that's planned for 26 Feb from 7-8 pm at the British Postal Museum and Archive in London. It's free but you need to book. Call 020 7239 2570 or email info[at]postalheritage.org.uk if you're interested.

Update: Actually I'd be quite interested in hearing what others think (or hope) this year will bring for feminism/women. What shall we wish/struggle for these next twelve months?

Photo by our very own cathredfern, who made this piece of art and then took the picture, shared under a Creative Commons license

For Londoners: assemble 12.30 at Speaker's Corner, Hyde Park, for a march to the Israeli Embassy.

For those in Edinburgh: assemble 12:30pm East Market Street, behind Edinburgh Waverley Train Station for a march through the City Centre to the United States Consulate. Bring in-date medicine and spare shoes (for victims in Gaza I believe).

Further details on Stop the War's site, including info on coach arrangements to London from all over.

There's also daily protests and vigils across the country, including in:

• London: at the Israeli Embassy, 5.30 - 7.00 pm, High St, Kensington, London W8
• Bristol: 5.00 - 6.30 pm, on the Centre (opposite the Hippodrome)
• Manchester: 5.00 - 6.00 pm, outside the BBC

Finally we want to emphasise that the involvement of women in any peace negotiations is necessary. We would like to remind the UK about that On 31 October 2000, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) unanimously adopted Resolution 1325 which recognises the disproportionate and unique impact of armed conflict on women as well as recognizing the under-valued and under-utilized contributions women make to conflict prevention, peacekeeping, conflict resolution and peace-building, and stresses the importance of their equal and full participation as active agents in peace and security.

Update: While I still believe that posting a picture of something happening in the world is not necessarily endorsement or support, I am concerned that I have upset readers with the previous image used for this post, and have therefore changed it. I have also used this new picture because it was not clear from the previous image that the woman was at a protest, which was my motivation for using it in the first place. Thank you for raising your concerns.

Photo by Takver, shared under a Creative Commons license

The situation of Nobel peace laureate and human rights defender Shirin Ebadi grows increasingly critical. Over the last two weeks the organization she heads, Defenders of Human Rights Center, was shut down, false accusations of tax evasion were made against her in the media, her private law offices were raided and confidential case files seized, and on January 1st a mob of 150 demonstrated in front of her house in an orchestrated attempt to connect her to the Israeli actions in Gaza. Protestors began kicking the door to her home and vandalized the exterior of her property in an attempt to further intimidate her.

A coalition of over 80 organizations and activists are calling on the Iranian government to cease its actions against Ebadi, and guarantee her safety and access to civil and political rights. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has also issued a statement of concern.

Find out more, see who's part of the coalition already, and add your voice to the campaign via this page.

------
Cross-posted on Feministing community site

According to the news report, 'drug misuse'(1) amongst British Asian women, by which they mean British South Asian women I think, was 'unheard of' just a decade ago. Today, Nafas treats 20-25 women a year for heroin addiction, which the organization 'believes is just the tip of the iceberg.'

Within the BBC story, we go from this - increasing treatment of Bangladeshi women in the east London borough of Tower Hamlets for heroin addiction by a specialist service project - to the idea that British Asian women are facing a major substance misuse problem across the country.

Scanning Nafas' website, I cannot find any reference to a press release, report or info to find out more. Indeed, the problem seems to be relatively untracked:

There are no official figures but drug experts agree it is a growing problem, not just in London but in places with large Asian communities like Birmingham, Bradford and Lancashire.

Which is perhaps why Sunny over at Pickled Politics is sceptical. Yet the BBC report neatly explains why we can't use our personal social circles as a litmus for the extent of the problem:

because of a sense of family honour or concern for public image, the problem remains hidden.

And later:

Mr Ahmed [a manager at Nafas] believes the situation is similar to that of Asian men 10 years ago, where the community was aware of the problem but reluctant to speak out or seek treatment for friends or family.

Which of course is perfect: 'family honour' is ever so pesky, undermining our attempts to learn more about any difficulties facing South Asian women... we can't confirm, we can't deny, and, most importantly, we can't deal with issues because we simply don't have the information and can't seem to get it. The 'Asian community's insularity' strikes again.

Yet, clearly, Nafas has some expertise in this department. As do the mysterious 'drug experts' the BBC refers to. And stigma around substance misuse is hardly a South Asian phenomenon.

Great to see the story breaking; looking forward to more about why the problem exists/is developing, and what to do. For instance, what's up with these boyfriends?

"Often they start using because of their boyfriends. Some of them get tricked into using drugs and many of them are driven into prostitution to feed their habit."

-----
(1) I put 'drug misuse' in quotes because of this study by the Joesph Rowntree Foundation, which finds that some people are able to control their heroin use

All over the country:
Tired of the gender pay gap? Come join Fawcett's No Pay Day campaign on Thursday 30th October for a day of action wherever you are in the country. Take 1 minue, ten minutes, or several hours to make your voice heard with any of these actions, or come up with your own!

In London:
Concerned about the proliferation of lap dance clubs in the country? Come join Fawcett's Sexism in the City campaign on Tuesday 4th November for a public meeting on reforming lapdance club licensing, held in partnership with Object. Chaired by Polly Toynbee. 6.30-8.30pm, Portcullis House at Parliament. Register by email.

Photo by ismasans, shared under a Creative Commons license

Spotting Sexism is a four-week crash course in feminism, and how it applies in our lives for those who feel they are near the beginning of their feminist journey. If you're ready to spend three hours a week exploring feminism and unpacking the jargon, click here for application details or email us if you have any questions.

The course includes:

• two-hours of facilitated discussions on key feminist topics via conference calls
• guest speakers
• a secure space to ask difficult questions (where it's OK to make mistakes or just not quite understand what 'patriarchy' is)
• readings lists
• activities tailored to help draw out your knowledge and experiences

Places are limited. Open to all. Registration closes on 25 September.

Is it more important to have a woman, any woman, in the White House than a pro-choice President that is a man? No. Don't do it America - a woman does not a feminist politics make!

And this from someone who has regularly argued about the importance of women in politics.

Update: I should explain. I'm not actually trying to say one party is better than another or dictate to people how to vote (ok, maybe I am a little bit). What I mean is that I don't think people should vote for someone just because she is a woman. I think the politics of the person matter, not just their identity, however symbolic. And I put quotation marks on 'race' because of stories like this. I think we would be having a different conversation about Clinton's defeat if she had been beaten by a white man who didn't have a middle name that is in the Qu'ran.

The first workshop is called Spotting Sexism and is for people who feel they are at the early stages of their feminist journey. It will run for four two-hour sessions on Wednesday evenings starting on 1 October.

Places are limited. Open to all. Click on the links to find out more.

Exeter Women's Aid is looking to improve services to lesbians, bisexual and transgender women affected by domestic violence and would appreciate your time in filling in a questionnaire they are circulating. You can download the questionnaire from here.

All completed surveys are totally confidential, in line with Exeter Women's Aid Confidentiality Policy. Please send these back direct to EWA.

1. In the Guardian today, I fear Jessica Valenti rather underestimates just how bad the 'mainstream feminist' response to the 'Obama situation' really is. Not only is there less commentary/action on the sexism that Michelle Obama faces compared to when Hilary Clinton was facing similar during her campaign, The Herald informs us that some Democrat feminists are so mad at Clinton's loss that they are actually planning to vote for McCain in protest. Messed up much? Here's hoping Katha Pollitt is right and there's only, like, five of them.

2. Britain has signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights, CEDAW and the Refugee Convention, introduced its own Human Rights Act and is bound by various European equivalents of the above. In treating women asylum-seekers the way it currently does, then, the British Government breaks international law, European law, and self-made national law. To help the UK Border Agency get to grips with its malpractice and what it can do to transform itself, Asylum Aid has developed a Charter of rights of women seeking asylum. Endorsed by over 50 organizations already, including Amnesty, Liberty, Fawcett and Refugee Council, the Charter lays out a clear framework of principles on how to treat women asylum seekers properly. Click on the link above to find out more, join the google group or endorse the Charter yourself. Watch 'Random Acts', a play about the story of one woman asylum seeker developed by Debora Singer, Coordinator of Asylum Aid's Refugee Women's Resource Project, here (18 minutes).

3. feministwebs.com has successfully secured funding to develop their site further (which includes the fab I’m not a feminist workshop (Word doc)). I'm mentioning this next phase of theirs because it looks to me like a concrete intervention into that old 'waves' chestnut. The group will be training young women in oral history so that they can interview older women about their involvement in feminist youth work from the 1970s-early 1990s. Collected stories and physical artifacts will be collated into an archive that will then be launched online and at Manchester Metropolitan University. They're currently recruiting for young women to be involved, click here for details. If anyone does participate, can you write back and let us know: are we third wave or what? Inquiring minds want to know. (Apparently. Personally, I'm not that fussed.)

4. The quite impressive Ulfah Arts is developing a Muslim Women Music Makers (MWMM) International Campaign, to be launched at the World Music Expo in Seville in October. One of the main aims of the campaign is

To bring these artists together under a banner to push for space at mainstream festivals and events, radio play, profile etc

If you know any Muslim women artists, please ask them to complete this questionnaire and send it to Naz Koser Ulfah Arts' Director before 1 September. Isn't it nice to read a whole paragraph about Muslim women and not have the words 'forced marriage', 'culture' or 'cohesion' bog down your reading?

Photo by Rico Thunder, shared under a Creative Commons license

From their press release (word doc):

UPDATE: Southall Black Sisters' Victory against Ealing Council

'There is no dichotomy between funding specialist services and cohesion; equality is necessary for cohesion to be achieved.' Lord Justice Moses

On 18 July at the High Court, in a dramatic turn of events, Ealing Council withdrew their case after one and a half days of a hearing which saw their defence rapidly unravelling. From the outset, it became apparent to the presiding judge, Lord Justice Moses and to all those present in the courtroom including the packed public gallery, that Ealing Council was skating on really thin ice in attempting to justify its decision to cut funding to SBS and to commission instead one generic borough wide service on domestic violence on the grounds of 'equality' and 'cohesion'.

Ealing Council has committed to paying not only SBS' legal fees, but also the EHRC's which intervened as a third party. Full costs will run to just about £100k - the same amount that was cut from SBS in the first place! More details via Ealing Times.

Much to discuss in terms of what this will mean in the longer-term for the Government's cohesion agenda and how guidance is interpreted, so comment away.

It was a great protest, really made my day. Check out Cath Elliot's testimonial and analysis on Liberal Conspiracy for more.

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.

The Bill has finished its second reading and is awaiting a date for the Report Stage. Evan Harris MP has tabled two amendments to expand abortion rights and my colleague believes that Nadine Dorries has issued her amendment as a reaction to force another debate at the third reading of the Bill.

While the Commons would likely try to dismiss her amendment as it has already voted on it, we could face a situation where the House of Lords says that another debate is warranted because the issue is not resolved, sending the Bill back to the Commons. If it gets to the point where the two Houses start to ping-pong, each sending the Bill back to the other, the Bill schedule could be disrupted. If this happens, the whole Bill would be at risk and everything that has already been agreed could be undermined.

It all seems very unlikely to me, but I don't know enough about it. Do others?

Progress of Bill dates here.

National Electronics Week (NEW) was conceived to provide an event that showcases every aspect of today's electronics market including the latest innovations in electronic design, silicon, hardware systems, software design, components, test tools, assembly equipment, production systems, contract manufacturing services and distribution.

XJTAG decided to support the National Electronics Week as the organisers are committed to creating a dynamic event with an international dimension. Here, at last, is an opportunity for the leading UK-based companies and universities to highlight their world-class innovative talents in research and development at a UK event

Here it is from the press release, which I received an excerpt of by email yesterday:

We urge everyone to come along to the event, celebrate our world class capabilities and put the UK electronics industry back on the map," added Simon Payne. "The event is far more than a showcase of products and services, it is a major networking opportunity, a place to interact face-to-face and cross-fertilise with peers in the industry."

The XJTAG girls - follow the link below to download a high resolution image - will be welcoming visitors to this inaugural event. The XJTAG team will be on stand C61.

Here's the link to the image, but it no longer works! Fortunately, we have a screen shot, below, clearly showing that it was once available on XJTAG's website. You can also see more shots on Simon Payne's own profile here.

From the same press release:

Photo caption: XJTAG's international models Gemma Massey and Laurena Lacey will be welcoming visitors to National Electronics Week at Earls Court (17-19 June).

Thanks to Jan for the head's up.