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.

As Jess posted on Wednesday, I joined a conversation with her, Jessica of feministing, Kira of the Guardian Women's Pages and Jemima of the techy space at the Guardian this week about 'women on the net'. Caitlin Fitzsimmons' write-up is a great start, but isn't able to do the full conversation justice, so I thought I'd write out some of what I've been reflecting on in more detail. I had so much to say though that I've had to split the post into three! A full podcast of the event is available here.

You can read Part 1 of this series here and Part 2 here.

Bat phone alert!
As part of the discussion at the event we talked about options for creating more constructive blogs, including several technical solutions for dealing with trolls. One of these was for commenters to develop profiles, which the recently redesigned version of the cif site seems poised to deliver.

Another idea I had was for feminists online to get organized and start swarming. As the first few/several comments tend to set the direction of threads (at least on cif), I think one way to make sure conversations aren't derailed is for feminists to get in to the comments really soon after posts go live. If we see a post go up, or know of one that will, we could send out a kind of bat phone or bat signal alert to other feminists online (via listserves or blogs or whatever) and then all swarm the post.

The idea wouldn't be to shut down the chance for others to contribute, but to make a point of debating the content of the post and set the ball rolling on that vein. It's not a long-term solution, but could be an effective remedy for the way feminist posts are treated (e.g. Cath Elliot's recent one which we then continued here) by challenging the current culture of the commenting. Eventually, hopefully, the increase in intelligent conversation would encourage most readers to buy into the idea of non-personal (and non-abusive) debate such that any breaches in conduct by a single commenter would be immediately challenged and dismissed by the whole cif community.

Who's with me?

Photo by Si1very, shared under a Creative Commons license

As Jess posted on Wednesday, I joined a conversation with her, Jessica of feministing, Kira of the Guardian Women's Pages and Jemima of the techy space at the Guardian this week about 'women on the net'. Caitlin Fitzsimmons' write-up is a great start, but isn't able to do the full conversation justice, so I thought I'd write out some of what I've been reflecting on in more detail. I had so much to say though that I've had to split the post into three! A full podcast of the event is available here.

You can read Part 1 here and Part 3 here.

You are your platform
It's true that Comment is free (cif) doesn't have an editorial policy. But it is not true that editors don't have strong ideas about what constitutes quality content, and what is disreputable and unworthy of inclusion. The problem with misogyny on cif seems to be a result of two issues: on the one-hand, some editors appear to be less discerning than others, and definitely use a different yardstick to the paper's editors. On the other, editors seem to be under the absurd illusion that comments are beyond their editorial purview.

On 11 April Comment is free published one of the most obscene and hateful pieces I've ever read. The first two sentences are:

I'm a fattist. I think fat people are just wrong.

Imagine replacing the object of discussion (very much object and nowhere near subject) with another group of people that are already the subject of ridicule and vilification. Homeless people? Rich people? Migrants? People who live in Birmingham? Can you imagine the Guardian publishing a comment piece in the paper with someone writing 'I think ___ people are just wrong'?

Even if we accept that cif is more 'open-minded' about view points than the paper, on what planet does saying 'I think x group of people are wrong', calling them lazy, comparing them to cows (in a particularly misogynistic section of the piece), and generally mean-spiritedly mocking them (I'm not above mocking, but in a nice way) constitute an argument? Being a hater is not debating. And what in the world was cif - which really is the Guardian let's not forget - thinking publishing a piece that insistently and personally attacks one of their own journalists - for what she looks like?!

Cif has also made the mistake of being rather light-touch in its approach to moderation in the past, which has set the tone for the community as a whole. Commenters seem quite secure in the knowledge that short of actually using a racial slur, for instance, they will generally be allowed to be disparaging along racial grounds - in other words, racist. Ditto sexism, but if anything, the threshold for what counts as sexism seems to be, maddeningly, even higher than it is for racism.

As a result, cif is now notorious for its misogyny. So much so that both Jess and Jessica, the editors of two of the most popular feminist blogs on the net, both admitted at the Guardian event on Tuesday that they are boycotting writing for cif!

I firmly believe Comment is free should take responsibility for the platform it is providing. Effectively harbouring a no-go/go-if-you-dare area for women bloggers online is a poor show for an organization with the Guardian's resources, reputation and reach. Is the Guardian seriously suggesting that it is comfortable developing a brand that is woman-hating? Because that is the danger if the moderators aren't offered more appropriate guidance as to what constitutes harassment and abuse, and more time to be able to actually do their moderating. With only five moderators and thirty posts a day, it's no wonder there is such a delay in deleting abuse and such an inconsistency in what is deleted.

Makes me wonder: how does cif measure success? Is it website traffic? Notoriety? Volume of posts? Shouldn't it be the amount/level of intelligent debate?

Update: Jessica asked me to clarify - she isn't officially boycotting cif, but has been less keen on posting there because of the commenting culture.

Photo by The Joy Of The Mundane, shared under a Creative Commons license

As Jess posted on Wednesday, I joined a conversation with her, Jessica of feministing, Kira of the Guardian Women's Pages and Jemima of the techy space at the Guardian this week about 'women on the net'. Caitlin Fitzsimmons' write-up is a great start, but isn't able to do the full conversation justice, so I thought I'd write out some of what I've been reflecting on in more detail. I had so much to say though that I've had to split the post into three!  A full podcast of the event is available here.

Part 2 of this series is here, and Part 3 here.

Participation can hurt
My first experience writing for Comment is Free (cif) was slightly traumatic. The level of personal abuse in the comments was so high that I felt emotionally attacked and drained as I participated. I felt particularly harassed because the attacks were about my gender, race and religion (as opposed to people just calling me stupid, say). As a result, I took a significant break between that first post and my next post.

The existence of rampant misogyny, racism and Islamophobia on cif is no secret. When I chose to write a second piece for cif I did so in the knowledge that I was likely to face a similar level of abuse. I therefore only took the decision when I felt that I had something I wanted to post that could benefit from an airing on cif - when my political agenda made it expedient. And I did it when I knew I would have time and energy to troll through the comments; I knew I would have to read through abuse to get to the content-relevant contributions.

Other women who write on the net face this choice too. Writing and engaging on blogs is emotionally costly. This has to be weighed against any benefits. For me, working at Fawcett and campaigning on issues of race and gender mean that when I write for cif (which I do in my Fawcett capacity), I will be covering topics that make me a target for abuse. My decision to write or not write for cif then becomes tactical: what will I gain by blogging on cif? And is this worth my professional and emotional time and energy?

Race matters
As a woman of colour, I face the threat of a different kind of misogyny than white women bloggers face. As a woman of colour writing about race and gender, I am putting myself at particular risk: if I were writing about, say, phones (?!), I could perhaps be expected not to face racism and sexism online, or at least not as much. Race matters both in terms of the writer and the content of the writing.

I have chosen not to provide a picture for my profile on cif because I didn't want to offer more fodder for the sexist racists and the racist sexists to work with. To my mind, the absence of the picture means commenters are at a bit of a disadvantage. Do I kid myself that not knowing what I look like means that readers have to evaluate my writing with more consideration? That they can't just say, 'well, she's just a ___' because they don't know if knowing what I looked like would tell them that I'm clearly not a ___?

Maybe I should do an experiment. Change my profile pic as I post different pieces and see if the nature of the comments changes. One day be in hijab writing about Muslim women, next day in full piercings and perhaps looking like I have a shaved head but still writing about Muslim women. Or post the same article under two authorships - one copy under me, and another under, say, Jess or a male blogger. Or both! Then we could really establish whether race or gender gets the rawest deal (as so many people are - ridiculously - trying to compete about, but I digress).

Photo by The Sizemore McCabe Project, shared under a Creative Commons license

In this situation, the defenders of 42 days are working to an idea of 'just in case' to bolster their defence. For example, according to e-politix,

Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington said the police needed to have the power "in their back pocket" for exceptional circumstances.

Meanwhile Andrew Dismore, the chair of the joint committee on human rights,

has described the definition of a terrorist threat under which the power would be triggered as "extraordinarily broad".

The BBC reported last week that Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary, has similarly stated that "safeguards would ensure it was used only in exceptional circumstances."

The underlying argument is that:

• the government can prove it is being suitably responsible about the proposals because


• it is indicating that the powers would only be used in extreme cases


• cases that are extreme need exceptional responses


• we could all be at risk if these powers weren't available for these extreme cases


• we therefore need the powers to be available just in case the authorities face such an extreme case

As the pro-choice campaigners did, it is very important for human rights campaigners to be vigilant against a slippery slope. The 42 days proposals are problematic in and of themselves. Debates about the how of implementing them are not about rationality - they are a deliberate distraction.

Photo by stephentrepreneur, shared under a Creative Commons license

Despite the excellent work that these and other writers have been doing, there is a worrying rumble just under our feet. It's the rumble of public opinion that is being inundated with well packaged and emotionally persuasive mythology that is tapping into something deeper: a taboo.

For example, the terms of the public debate on the HFE bill have been largely set by anti-choice campaigners. Pro-choice campaigners seem to be on the back foot a lot, arguing why a reduction on 24 weeks is problematic. Yet our abortion law is 40 years old - and deeply behind the times. Even the shadow health secretary is proposing scrapping the two doctor rule; no other medical procedure requires the permission of two doctors.

Why aren't pro-choice campaigners leveraging the time spent on the bill to visibly take the cause forward? The debate on the abortion law should be about improving access and advancing more progressive policies: in addition to eliminating the two doctor rule, restrictions on who can conduct abortions and where they can happen really need to be reviewed. Where is the campaign on any of this? Where is the surge of energy and lobby effort aimed at easing restrictions and promoting adequate access to this most important procedure?

The taboo is at work and the anti-choice lobby is using it to its advantage: what is actually an ideological campaign is being framed as being about science and medical advances. The result? The assault on women's rights is being masked and there is a very real danger that the reduction in the time limit will be de-politicized. While Labour has a majority, this may not prove disastrous. Not so if the tides change at the next election.

Take a look at comments on recent pro-choice articles by 'pro-choice' readers: how many of them say, 'I wouldn't personally have an abortion, but I respect the right of another woman to make that choice'? What's going on here? People are laying down their 'pro-life' credentials in the same breath that they espouse being pro-choice. They are playing into the idea that there is something shameful about having an abortion, assuring others that they would not be part of that, but still trying to maintain the 'pro-choice' label.

Why do I need to know whether someone would personally ever have an abortion or not? How is that relevant to the debate on whether abortions should be legal and available as needed? It's not. It's self-absorbed - a clear signal that one is conscious of the taboo and is feeling ashamed.

Don't be fooled. Sometimes the personal isn't political.

Photo by Laurie Pink, shared under a Creative Commons license

If you're in London and still making your decisions, Fawcett has video interviewed the leading Mayoral candidates about how they would promote women's equality and respond to the needs of ethnic minority women in the capital if elected. The videos mark the launch of Fawcett's new femocracy campaign on ethnic minority women and politics which aims to empower black women to make change in formal decision-making processes, including by voting.

If you're not registered to vote, I'd be really interested in hearing about why not in the comments...

Update: There's also an interview on Fawcett's site with Merlene Emerson on her experiences as an ethnic minority woman candidate in the Assembly elections and why she thinks political power is not in the hands of black women.

Photo by ianturton, shared under a Creative Commons license

Black** feminists aren't right about racism because they're black, but because they make a strong case (when we do). Otherwise, it's like saying that women are right about sexism because they're women (which is exactly what dearwhitefeminists does say unfortunately - in what is generally quite an interesting post). It's not my social identity that proves me correct, but my logic, rationale, analysis, evidence, conceptual clarity etc. It's not like there aren't women of colour who:

• Get it wrong about racism sometimes
• Disagree with other women of colour (uh oh, they're both black women - which one's right?!)

2. Share or surrender the platform:

Really welcome Feministing's thoughtful acknowledgement of their power. Think their idea to more actively try to link to black women's sites (not their words) as a way to devolve some of this power (which they frame as privilege) is helpful.

Would like to point out that linking to other sites is a paternal way of sharing power, it's not a true share-out. It also doesn't disrupt the privilege dynamic - it's up to Feministing to say, 'well done, we like you, here's a treat'. While the information available to Feministing and its readers will hopefully change through the process, which is good, the underlying power relationship won't (on its own). If Feministing recognizes itself as privileged already, what can it propose to help ensure this privilege isn't perpetuated as it makes its decisions about links and who to ally with or promote? Perhaps their upcoming community site offers prospects as they suggest? Perhaps information on how to pitch to the wicked Voices of series and how decisions will be made would help?

This relates to the question on 'how do we get more ethnic minority women*** to attend our events?' Short answer? Start showing up and supporting ours. Longer answer: get over the idea that having one woman of colour on a panel to 'represent' 'diversity' is going to cut it. (I'm assuming here that at least one woman of colour was already secured as a speaker; if all the speakers are white women, well we're in a whole other level of conversation.) Try something novel like having the whole panel be black women at a 'mainstream' (read white dominant) event - and have them talk about something other than their race.

3. Do your homework:

Unlearning is an important part of the political change process. And click moments are both unpredictable and awesome. I'm glad Laura chose to post her brave piece on how she is attempting to confront some of her privilege. What I appreciate less is the general call out to inform her (in her words, 'please let me know what is appropriate') 'how to refer to people who aren't white'. I read that as 'can you tell me what I should call you people?'

I've been trying to decide whether I would find it as problematic if the same kind of request was made so publicly about another social group. I've decided I think 'yes'. Which is unfortunate as Laura specifically wrote that she was worried about causing offense. D'oh.

Obviously it's fair enough to recognize that one is ignorant about a particular thing, in danger of mis-stepping as a result and to appeal for help. But there are levels of ignorance. I would categorize a question about how to refer to a social group that one is going to write a blog post about as a 101 question. (As in, beginners' class.) I would encourage someone in this position to try any of the following for this level of question:

• Google it
• Ask a friend
• Read a book
• Attend a workshop

It should not be up to women of colour to do white women’s work for them; it is not fair to ask us to take on the burden of your education. Make the effort to search for the answers as you would with anything else you had 101 questions about.

That said, Laura's particular point was around 'white guilt dilemma', and she does comfortably use 'women of colour' in her second last paragraph. So perhaps she was just being cautious? Certainly labels are tricky, and there's that pesky problem about how not everyone agrees on which labels to use (e.g. I'm not into BME**** at all).

So here are three reading suggestions I'd like to make to anyone looking for something to read on race and feminism as a bow to Laura's decision to take a risk:

1. Pretty much anything by bell hooks; perhaps 'Ain't I a woman: Black women and feminism' to begin with


2. A whole lot of the analysis on Colours of Resistance, and this for a start because it's funny


3. And for anyone still under the impression that anti-racism has nothing to do with feminism, this or this (pdf) or this or this (skipping to the article by Kim McKee about how the abolition movement started the women's suffrage movement in the UK) (pdf) or this (same thing, but for the US with some more little known facts about the history of feminism)

   
   (What a cheat! That's really seven reading suggestions, not three, and one of them is my own work!)

Notes:
(1) Written as a woman of colour speaking to a white woman

*I'm from Toronto and identify as a 'woman of colour' in my activist circles there
**I live in London and identify as a 'black' woman in my political circles here
***I work in the UK and identify as an 'ethnic minority woman' in my job and advocacy work
****BME is short for black and minority ethnic, which lots of anti-racist groups use in the UK, but which is grammatically nonsensical. Variations include BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) and BMER (black, minority ethnic and refugee). A full explanation on all of this is possible but besides the point for this post, so apologies to the anoraks, but I leave the **** here

In Jess' round-up yesterday she included a link to the Daily Mail's piece on sexist ads.

Please can I draw your attention to the third picture which suggests that a wife deserves corporal punishment if she gets it wrong with the coffee:

The ad is from 1952 which, it's true, was awhile ago. Unfortunately there are still plenty of ads that promote violence against women, don't let the Mail's framing its piece as a 'retrospective' fool you.

I've written about this over on the 16 Days blog on openDemocracy in a post about how advertising can actually be used as a force for good:

Many theorists argue that mass media generally, and advertising in particular, encourages male violence against women. Jean Kilbourne's third Killing us Softly film for instances argues that advertising:

• Normalizes violence against women
• Links masculinity with violence
• Presents violence as erotic and appealing

Dr. Scott A. Lukas makes a similar claim on his Gender Ads.com website where he has collected many examples of ads that use violence against women as part of his study of advertising and gender.

In a related piece, I look at feminist activist art projects:

There are a number of projects around the world that are taking on the challenge of reclaiming survivors' sense of power and some of the most poignant are the most effective for a very important reason: their presence disrupts the silence around violence against women in the public eye. How? They are visual and they are visible.

There's also a bit about the Gulabi Gang (meaning Pink Gang, it is a vigilante group of several hundred Indian women dressed in pink saris) in that one.

My main interest in both pieces was to examine the power of the visual in normalizing ideas about gender and violence on the one hand, and disrupting those ideas on the other. The piece on advertising for example examines how advertizing campaigns can be actively used by governments to change public opinions. The one on art meanwhile explores how women can reclaim a sense of power/empowerment through the process of creating.

Top photo by ahhhhmen, second photo by Miss Cellania, both shared under a Creative Commons license

The first is the Fawcett Society's response to the Government’s announcement which suggests that while the proposed changes are obviously most welcome, they might be a bit of a red herring because they:

will not by themselves lead to a significant improvement in the conviction rate as most cases fail long before they get to court.

Instead, Fawcett recommends:

wholesale reform is needed to tackle the failures in the investigation and prosecution of rape cases.

The second point I wanted to make was that while the Government is making these announcements focusing on justice for victims – which is very important – it is simultaneously continuing to undermine support for victims as the new report by the End Violence Against Women (EVAW) Coalition reveals today. Blogging on openDemocracy’s 16 days against gender violence blog about the Map the Gaps report (pdf), Holly Dustin, Campaign Manager at EVAW, writes:

Scotland is the only part of the UK where Rape Crisis Centres are actually expanding rather than closing! The reason for this is very simple; the Scottish Government is developing a strategic approach to ending violence against women that includes a commitment to funding specialised services.

Liz Kelly, Chair of EVAW, sums up some of the key issues in the report’s press release:

Support services for women who have experienced violence are essential for their access to safety, justice and the ability to move on. At present a third of local authorities across the UK have no specialised support service. Most women in the UK have no access to a rape crisis centre and fewer than one quarter of local authorities have any sexual violence service at all.

Finally, I’ve written a piece examining whether rape sponsored by governments should be considered in a different way to rape perpetrated by civilians, also on the openDemocracy blog. It’s a pertinent discussion right now because the US is in disagreement with South Africa about it at an international level. The US has drafted a new UN resolution that specifically targets the use of rape and sexual violence by ‘governments and armed groups’ to achieve military or political aims. South Africa is challenging the resolution, on the grounds that all rape is bad, and rapes in detention centres, situations of foreign occupation, and by civilians are no less despicable than those perpetrated by the military. There’s a comments section under the post if you want to share your opinions on the issue.

The energy around the conferences (there have been three) has been so high that a new resource and networking site has just been launched:

http://www.femsoc.org.uk

Called FEM SOC (hat tip to university student societies or SOCs), the site is designed for grassroots feminist activists. It aims to:

• Celebrate grassroots feminist activism
• Inspire individuals to get active in feminism
• Provide information and resources to support activism

It’s like a hub for feminist mobilisation. Activists from around the country can dip and out of the resources, share tools, strategies and successes, and generally be supported to get active.

It's also designed for anyone who wants to learn more about feminism and is thinking about what they can do to get involved.

For info on how to contribute or to help develop the project email Kat Banyard (founder of FEM Conferences).