How is it possible for feminists to reconcile these two statements. The first, of course, is Simone de Beauvoir's most famous quote:

"One is not born, but rather becomes, a woman."

And the second is the entry policy for the upcoming conference, Radfem2012:

"We ask that RadFem 2012 be respected as a space where women born women living as women are able to meet and share information in a peaceful and safe environment."

Laura has already posted about how wrong it is for a radical feminist conference to intentionally exclude trans women.

But now Helen G follows this up with an analysis of the language they've chosen to use. Does the phrase "women born women" make sense? Can it be used in all conscience by feminists, who in general are no fans of the idea that gender is innate.

0 comments // Permalink

This is the third in a series of posts by Yasmin, a pregnant feminist who is sharing her experiences of pregnancy with us, in the hope that she is not alone in her thinking!

As I entered my second trimester, 3-6 months pregnant, I began to notice what seemed to be a leery quality in the gaze of a few men. It may seem odd to some to suggest that the pregnant body is in some ways hypersexualised. Or to others who are not feminist, that there should be a problem with being considered sexual when pregnant because, after all, you are fat and men/women can still find you attractive. The more noticeably pregnant I became, the more I could discern a look from many men that suggested the recognition that some man had "possessed" me; that I was concomitantly fertile yet safe ground.

Women, in particular, would begin to comment, publicly, on how my "boobs are so big", how "great" it is, as though this is the primary bonus of the whole process. It may seem like I am moaning again, but I find the talk problematic because it reinscribes as acceptable the objectification of the female form. Pregnancy requires that breasts be recognised as part of the female anatomy that is not simply there for aesthetic or sexual purposes. They are preparing to become functional entities, yet even now, there is an emphasis from without to maintain them as purely sexual.

In my previous post I wrote about the pressure on women to retain a sexual allure during pregnancy and in some ways, this is intensified throughout this particular stage. The famous talk of the "glowing" mother-to-be may well be true for some; for others, however, it is another objectified status that women are supposed to happily strive for. In not attaining it, one is deemed to be less than.

One pregnant feminist friend relayed the following story. During an antenatal class with one of the UK's leading charities in this area, couples were shown footage of mothers breastfeeding. One male participant chose at this point to ask why a more "attractive" woman could not have been shown. This was greeted with titters of nervous laughter.

It is paradoxical that this focus on and hypersexualisation of my pregnant chest will in a few months' time become even more acute. The stress upon large naked breasts as primarily fit for pornographic content like page three and top shelf magazines will mean that I will feel uncomfortable when bearing them to feed my child.

I myself had a female colleague, during lunch in the staff room, ask me whether I planned to shave my vulva in time for the birth. I explained that at the moment, I cannot SEE my vulva and did not relish the thought of taking a razor to it blind, as it were. How odd it is that I am supposed to care about the aesthetic state of my vulva at a time when, because I am in agony, I will really not give a second thought to who sees it and in what state.

A beautician confirmed my fears, telling me that a number of women close to their due date visit her for a Brazilian wax. Odd, then, that it is at this particular juncture, when the female body is perceived to be truly "woman", that the vulva is required to be taken back to its prepubescent form. To justify this, some women are fed dross telling them that it is for the benefit of the baby because a bald vulva will lessen the risk of eye and mouth infections that can be obtained by having pubic hair come into contact with these regions.

The "lovely" roundness of my belly and breasts, more importantly, detract from the more troubling conversations women could have about how difficult pregnancy can be on the female body. I should feel grateful and happy that I am now allowed to eat "whatever" I want and have a large chest to boot: clearly every woman's hidden desire. Yet, when I say that there are many complications people are visibly uncomfortable. I am not supposed to talk of the piles, constipation, bloating, heartburn, back ache, nosebleeds, sensitive gums, varicose veins... this list is, sadly, not exhaustive.

The sexualisation therefore goes hand in hand with a sanitisation of what actually can and often does happen when women are pregnant. (I will, in my next blog, discuss this in further detail.) And, as is often the case, the women are presented the carrot of attractiveness to tempt our concentrations away from more pressing matters.

0 comments // Permalink // Tags: body, body hair, breastfeeding, objectification, pregnancy, sexualisation

I expect many of you will be familiar with the recent Observer article by Elizabeth Day about philosopher David Benatar's claims that "sexism against men is a widespread yet unspoken malaise." (You may also be familiar with Suzanne Moore's response, along with Rhiannon and Holly of Vagenda's piece mentioning the book alongside other related issues.)

This notion doesn't seem to be unspoken to me. If anything, it's something I see a lot online, usually in response to a mention of sexism against women. While the "sexism" tag is often little more than a derailing attempt to preserve traditional roles, it's clear those traditional expectations are oppressive to men as well as women. Jo T touches on this when introducing her own critique of Day's article:

There's no denying that men are oppressed by certain cultural norms. These tell them that they shouldn't openly express their feelings, that there is only a very limited way to perform masculinity in an 'acceptable' way and that disagreeing with dominant tropes about what is and isn't 'manly' can lead to very unpleasant consequences. I read No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz and agree with a great deal of what is said there, about men, 'manliness' and the problems unique to men in a patriarchy. I also find Tony Porter's TEDWomen speech on the pernicious and damaging "man box" to be moving, and accurate, and highly pertinent.

However, as the section of the men's rights movement which hates women gains ground in online spaces, the recent Observer article by Elizabeth Day on the subject not only seems disingenuous but also potentially dangerous. Indeed, it all but concedes the vast majority of the anti-feminist talking points pushed by men's rights activists (MRAs). Before I begin, I should point out that Melissa at Shakesville has done a superb job of explaining many of the article's problematic aspects, not least that "it ain't women who are the primary gatekeepers of that bullshit [i.e. patriarchy]. It's other men."

The headline and standfirst of the article are bad enough: if women and girls were merely "lagging at school" and "the butt of cruel jokes", rather than victims of systemic violence and inequality, we'd count ourselves damn lucky. The piece then begins by setting out the usual tedious MRA talking points about the "supar sekrit!" oppression of men, using arguments promulgated by Professor David Benatar and men's rights author Warren Farrell. This is followed by a paragraph giving half a dozen examples of the oppression men supposedly face. In my opinion, these mislead the readers by omitting various highly relevant pieces of information and context...

Click here to read the rest of the review and comment

Picture shows the HTML for "end patriarchy" written in red pen across a white sheet that is placed on a pavement and tilted diagonally upwards into the top righthand corner. By ctrouper. Shared under a creative commons licence.

0 comments // Permalink // Tags: advertising, equality, feminism, feminism stereotypes, media, men, patriarchy

Here's this week's round-up of some of the bits around the internet we haven't had a chance to blog about. Please add links in the comments section if there's anything you came across that you want to share too. Please note that a link here doesn't imply endorsement or agreement, and some links may be triggering.

• We are all subversives: femme strength and queer solidarity (Radical Faggot)


• Jamie Walker at This Affected Youth on the news that Zimbabwean Senator has suggested circumcising women, shaving their heads and asking them to wash less frequently could halt the AIDS epidemic.


• The Australian Star (not unproblematically) interviews Andrea Roussel, a trans woman working as a prison warden who was able to stay in her job during and after her transition.


• 3 things professional women should stop apologising for (Fast Company)


• The government has halved the staff at the Equality and Human Rights Commission and removes its obligation to assess whether government policies will affect the poor, and makes the Chair a part-time post (via The Guardian)


• On the Ched Evans rape case: the Police speak to Sky News and Rima Amin on the Independent Blogs:(Ched Evans Conviction: The internet is not the place to dispute rape)


• Also in The Independent: Richard Garner (Older female newsreaders forced to become Stepford Wives).


• John Scalzi says being a straight, white male is "the lowest difficulty setting there is" (or 'privilege for gamers')


• A Latina woman in New York has been jailed for 10 days for calling a judge a "white racist pig" (via Fuck Yeah Marxism-Leninism)


• Black women's bodies, ourselves (and a twerkin' for mothers' video): An interview with strugglingtobeheard by leonine antiheroine


• Afghan woman pushes for rights from behind the wheel (AlertNet)


• RIP Donna Summer, queen of disco, who has died at 63 (BBC News)


• New tumblr: Is This Feminist? (Because being a marginally acceptable feminist is a full time job)


• Two comment pieces from The Guardian: Hollande's cabinet shows Sarkozy how to do gender equality - see, easy; and Fake gay weddings in Tokyo Disneyland are not a fairytale come true


• Gay Star News: 106-year-old transgender woman speaks at Burma's first IDAHO


• Londonist interview with the curator of 'Pink Does Not Exist' at Flat C, an art gallery inside the curator's own home in north London


• A hospital trust in the West Midlands is planning to allow unpaid job seekers (on 'Workfare' programmes) to deliver patient care on its wards (via The Guardian)


• The undercover reporter Mary Beith, who broke the 'smoking beagles' story in the 1970s, has died aged 73


• Dammit Quesada: Ragnell on the assertion that a big-budget comic-book movie with a female lead wouldn't work


• Rhiannon and Holly from The Vagenda write in the New Statesman. The men's rights zeitgeist: Don't buy into this pretend battle of the sexes.


• Asking: The Pervocracy on consent


• The (inaugural?) Intersect conference happened in Bristol last Saturday: read a summary of the day by organiser and former TFW guest blogger Natalie Dzerins at her blog, Forty Shades of Grey.

That's it for now - more next week!

Image by Flickr user duncan. It shows graffitti on a wall reading "Another subversive comment". It is shared under a creative commons license.

2 comments // Permalink // Tags: weekly round-up

The Her Noise theme began as a 2001 curatorial project focused on gender imbalance in sonic art. This led the creators to map women in the field, along with those in electronic music and punk, for a 2005 exhibition. A living DIY archive at LCC followed and on 5 May 2012, Tate Modern hosted the Her Noise Symposium: a day of discussion and art focused on topics such as such as women's voices and varied uses of technology.

Artist Joanne Matthews has reviewed the symposium for us. Here's a preview of what she has to say about it:

The Her Noise Symposium I attend on 5 May forms part of the Her Noise: Feminisms and the Sonic collaboration between Electra, CRiSAP and Tate Modern: a series of events investigating feminist discourses in sound and music (including performances by Meredith Monk and Pauline Oliveros that I sadly missed).

The Symposium is a day of talks and discussions among female artists, musicians, curators, writers and academics. It takes place in the Starr Auditorium at Tate Modern, which is not a particularly inspiring venue. As I'm not usually a fan of conference-style learning, I'm a little wary of spending an entire day in the uncompromising red room, with a slight hangover.

As an artist, I'm attending the symposium with the hope of farming for some inspiration to connect feminism to my artistic practice. I sometimes find talking about feminism rather stifling and need to explore new languages to liberate me from this. By exploring how feminist discourses are framed within a current cultural context, we can see tangible examples being explored and shaped.

Click here to read the review in full and comment

Picture shows several figures walking across the Millennium Bridge in London, approaching Tate Modern. Released into the public domain by its author, Adrian Pingstone.

0 comments // Permalink // Tags: art, music, punk, reviews, sonic art, sound, voice

I've come across ever such a lot of uses of the word 'slacktivist' or 'slacktivism' recently. Described on Wikipedia as "a pejorative term that describes "feel-good" measures, in support of an issue or social cause, that have little or no practical effect other than to make the person doing it feel satisfaction," it's a dismissive way of describing online activism.

There are all sorts of ways to be an activist. Until the internet became so ubiquitious, activism was mostly about thermal underwear, flasks of tea, and watching a placard disintegrate in the rain. Okay, that's perhaps slightly exaggerated, but my earliest activist engagement mostly involved being somewhere, physically, for an hour or so. And I'm sure it always rained.

Demonstrations are a great way to grab attention, I wouldn't deny that (and may I put in a little plug here for Reclaim the Night, 24 November 2012). Meeting up with others who think like you, raising, quite literally, a common voice - glorious stuff.

But. If your demonstration doesn't have that many people, and only lasts an hour, and gets no publicity, how many minds have you changed? A few? The vast majority of the world will carry on blissfully unaware that you have a cause at all.

Meetings, demos, consciousness-raising (CR) groups - all of these are great, but I'd say there are some ways in which slacktivism is better. The first is inclusiveness: mothers don't always want to bring small children to a demo, and childcare is inevitably difficult to source for such things. Disabled people struggle to get into town on disabled-unfriendly public transport. Younger people might not have the support of their families and be discouraged from physically attending events. Those outside metropolitan hubs might not fancy a 5-hour round trip just to get to a 1-hour meet. Working mums might just not have the time.

By contrast, slacktivism is open to many more people. Keen feminist teenagers can use the web at school, even if their parents would ban them from demos. Disabled people can use social networking forums, at their own pace and at whatever time of the day or night is convenient, without worrying about accessibility of an event.

The anonymity of the internet also allows people to share experiences online without the emotional impact of talking in person at CR groups. It's terribly difficult to tell someone, even a friend, that you've suffered sexual assault or domestic violence, for example. But log in with an anonymous username and it's much easier. The success of Hollaback! and similar groups both provides a valuable outlet and raises awareness: this is the CR of our times.

The second is impact. A huge demo will have a huge impact, but the logistics of organising that are huge. By contrast, an internet campaign can attract hundreds of thousands of signatures, retweets, facebook posts and emails almost overnight. In addition, online campaigns keep going. Nobody's going to be frozen solid and desperate for a wee after 3 hours online campaigning. And they have the ability to bombard politicians; thousands of emails on one subject to one person will at the very least persuade them that there is an issue. This isn't dissimilar to Amnesty International's letter-writing campaign which has been going for decades.

The third is dissemination. Write something on a placard and wave it for an hour, and an hour's passers-by see it. Write something on the web, tweet it and facebook it, and watch it go viral. A couple of months ago, I started a hashtag (#ididnotreport) - the archetypal slacktivism, if you like. Two months later, it's being used in five different languages. You don't get that sort of attention from standing outside the House of Commons in the rain.

Curiously, I've also found that people will ignore a protestor. We have a peculiarly British way of looking straight ahead and pretending that we can't see 100 people with placards - you saw it with commuters when the Westminster village was in place, too. There's a tent there? With pictures of Iraqi babies with missing limbs? Nope, choosing not to see that. Say something on the internet on the other hand, and your detractors are drawn magnetically to you, which is both a burden because they will probably be abusive, and a blessing because these are the people who need to hear it most. There's never been any point preaching to the choir.

I don't want to denigrate real-time activism - long may it continue. But there's certainly a place for slacktivists, and I'll wear my slacktivism label with pride.

The photo above is taken from Daryl @reMedia8 used under the creative commons license.

2 comments // Permalink

This is a guest post by Hennie Weiss & Elin Weiss

Many women, and men, encounter daily interactions in which gender role stereotypes and "typical" gender behaviours are manifested. Sometimes we behave in gender stereotypical ways without even reflecting over it. Often these behaviours are simply habits. If a person however strays from gendered expectations there are sometimes consequences. Often other people acknowledge that a person is straying and attempt to correct this "error" by saying something or by acting in a way that makes it clear that you are straying too far from what is comfortably considered feminine or masculine. Other times, non-stereotypical gender behaviour is punished with violence or harassment.

A person does not have to stray very far from gender stereotypical expectations in order to be corrected by others. We want to share with you some of our own experiences in which we felt that our behaviour was corrected or given attention by a third party, sometimes perhaps even unconsciously.

Gender role assumptions are often based on stereotypical notions of how men and women should act, what is "proper" for one's gender, and what one is capable of or good at. One example of this was experienced by one of the authors. "On two different occasions, while mowing the front lawn, I have had men come up to me (one who was walking by with his dog, the other was driving and then stopped his car in front of my house) to give me advice on how to properly mow a lawn. For example, these men suggested that I wear other more suitable shoes and the second one suggested I wear goggles to protect my eyes from rocks that could be propelled by the blade underneath the lawn mower. There are no rocks in my front yard and my tennis shoes were fine to wear. I felt that these men wanted to give me advice solely because I was a female performing "typically masculine duties". Their advice made me feel infantilised, especially as their paternal advice was of no use to me".

A second example of gender stereotypes of women as less knowledgeable in regards to "typical masculine duties" was experienced by one of the authors. "When calling the landlord to discuss maintenance of my rental apartment and providing the landlord with the measurements I took of a window, he refused to acknowledge me and instead called my partner, assuming that he would be the more competent and reliable source. My partner gave him the exact same measurements, without actually measuring the window himself since I had already done so. After talking to my partner the landlord was pleased with the results. I was furious that my competence was not taken seriously and that my partner was assumed more knowledgeable".

The above mentioned examples took place in or around our homes. When out in public similar gendered assumptions also take place. Often gender stereotypical assumptions imply, that when a woman is out having dinner with a man, the man should be paying for the meal. "Often times when my partner and I are eating out they put the bill in front of him rather than me, as if he is always the one who (should) pay. When we order food to go, and I hand over my credit card, it is common for the staff to hand my card back to my partner rather than me, implying that he is in charge of my finances and the money exchanged. I make my own money and I can certainly pay for my partner and myself".

Other examples again illustrate this notion: "I was out having dinner with a male friend of mine. I ordered a beer, while he ordered a cocktail. The same server who took our orders brought us the drinks and handed me the cocktail and him the beer. I felt that the underlying assumption was that men drink beer, not cocktails, and women drink cocktails and certainly not beer". Another example happened just a few weeks ago. "Recently, I had dinner with a male friend. When it was time to pay I put my credit card down. When the server returned she put the card and the receipt in front of my friend, assuming that he was the one paying".

Another common stereotype of women is that they should be calm, quiet, happy and non-aggressive. They should always walk around with smiles on their faces, even when they have had a crappy day and do not feel like smiling. "It has happened a handful of times, when I am out walking, that random men on the street have felt like they have the right to tell me to "smile". This angers me because I do not know these people and they are taking their gendered assumptions of women as always happy and smiley out on me. Leave me alone and I would be much happier".

These common and sometimes daily interactions display examples of larger societal expectations placed on women and men. In the above mentioned examples, however, we have focused on our own experiences as heterosexual cis women. We are equally interested in hearing about heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, queer and trans* (or any other way you identify yourself) experiences in which you have felt corrected because you might not neatly fit into, or act according to stereotypical gender behavior.

------------

Hennie Weiss has recently earned her Master's degree in Sociology. Elin Weiss has a Master's degree in Women's Studies. Their interests include feminism, gender, the sexualisation of women and the portrayal of women in media.

The image Gendered assumptions was made by Helen and is based on the copyright-free image Aiga_toilets downloaded from Wikimedia Commons. If you re-use this image elsewhere, please include a link back to the URI of this post (http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2012/05/gendered_assump).

7 comments // Permalink // Tags: gender policing, gender stereotyping

Like many of you who have been discussing the issue on Twitter and Facebook today, I was angered to learn that a new UK conference for radical feminists, RadFem2012, is not only playing host to a well-known transphobe, but is actively excluding trans women from attending.

The conference is open only to "women born women living as women". Now, I personally support and fully appreciate the value of women-only space, but that space has to be open to all self-defining women. Excluding trans women from an event that aims to build an "anti-oppressive movement for the liberation of all women from patriarchal oppression" is bitterly ironic.

Trans women suffer horrifying levels of violence, abuse and discrimination, fuelled not only by the fact that they are women, but by the refusal of the vast majority of the cis population to acknowledge and respect their identities. The organisers of RadFem2012 have actively chosen to align themselves with this majority, and in so doing are complicit in trans women's oppression. Radical? Feminism? I think not.

Then there's Sheila Jeffreys, who thinks that "transgenderism" is:

...a practice in which persons who do not adhere to the correctly gendered practices that have been placed upon the biological sex are considered to have something called Gender Identity Disorder and they're expected to cross over into the other sex. Not criticize the gendered system as it exists, because that's unthinkable but to make some kind of "journey" by mutilating their bodies and taking dangerous drugs for the rest of their lives in order to supposedly represent the opposite sex.

The same Sheila Jeffreys who has been invited to speak at a conference where discussion will be "rooted in the realities of women's lives". Are we sure this isn't Irony2012? Because if Jeffreys and the conference organisers could bring themselves to listen to trans people's stories, to try and understand or empathise with the realities of their lives, they would realise quite how ridiculously facile and patronising the above argument is.

See, when I was little, I didn't like girlie things. I thought I would rather be a boy. But do you know what I did? I ignored or worked through the girlie things and got on with my life on my terms.

Which is far, far, far easier than going through what trans people go through and putting up with the shit they have to put up with to enable them to live their lives as the people they know they are. Clearly there's something much more significant at play here than not wanting to adhere to "correctly gendered practices", otherwise why choose the hard path?

Personally, I don't care what that something is. The fact that some people know they are male or female regardless of the sex they were assigned at birth is enough for me, because I respect other people's lived experiences. I don't want to sit around "critiquing" trans people's identity because - aside from the fact that this basically boils down to a disgusting debate on whether people have the right to exist - as a cis person I'm in absolutely no position to understand. And, quite frankly, it's none of my business.

What is my business, as a feminist, is standing in solidarity with my trans sisters and fighting the system that oppresses all of us. A system of which the term "women born women" is very much a part.

Boycott RadFem2012.

Further reading:

You can't smash patriarchy with transphobia

Trans Feminism: There's No Conundrum About It

Rethinking Sexism: How Trans Women Challenge Feminism

Responding To The Feminist Anti-Transsexual Arguments

Where did we go wrong? Feminism and trans theory - two teams on the same side?

34 comments // Permalink // Tags: conference, exclusion, feminism, gender, not in my name, radfem2012, radical feminism, transphobia

Today ILGA-Europe launches its first Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2011 supplemented by the Rainbow Map. These documents are intended to offer an overall picture of the current status of the human rights of LGBTI people in Europe.

From a legal perspective, the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map shows that none of the countries in Europe can claim to provide full legal equality for LGBTI people and, on average, the level of legal equality continues to be very low in most countries.

Progress has been uneven, to say the least - at its best, there is increased recognition of the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, particularly in the fields of asylum and protection from violence. Various countries continued moving towards the extension of legal recognition and equal rights to rainbow families; and there are a number of legal proposals towards the introduction of humane laws regarding the change of legal name and gender of trans people.

However, on the negative side, in some countries there is either no progress, or worse, there are moves towards the adoption of legislation criminalising the 'propaganda of homosexuality'.

While the publication of this kind of research is broadly to be welcomed, and as eye-catching as the rainbow map is, it may be considered problematic in its conflation of LGB, TS/TG and Intersex issues. Note also that intersections of race, class, disability, etc, are not clear; nor is it recorded whether subjects are binary or non-binary identified.

Download the ILGA-Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2011 here

Download the ILGA-Europe Rainbow Map and Index, May 2012 here

0 comments // Permalink // Tags: IDAHOT

Swedish director Lisa Aschan's last year's début feature She Monkeys (Apflickorna) is coming to selected London cinemas on Friday 18 May (and to the Irish Film Institute in Dublin a week later).

Please see Peccadillo Pictures' website for details.

Bringing to mind films like Céline Sciamma's 2007 Water Lilies (ah, the joys of swimming pools!) or Catherine Breillat's 2001 À Ma Soeur! (oh, the perils of having an older sister!), Aschan's film remains fresh and original in its depiction of rivalry between two young female equestrians. The constantly tipping power balance and palpable sexual tension between the girls lead to unexpected twists and turns of the plot, making it a gripping viewing experience.

I reviewed the film for The F-Word last year so you can have a read here if you need more encouragement. WARNING: the review gives away some of the plot (but does not, arguably, contain any major spoilers).

0 comments // Permalink

More recent blog posts