tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-68905455708264447642024-03-08T12:19:55.901+00:00It's just not femininescallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-55145175650346129362014-06-05T14:24:00.001+01:002014-06-05T14:24:15.112+01:00BBC - Language around male violence...againI seem to be on a mission with the BBC and their reporting at the moment. As with this article, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27665393" target="_blank">some might call it inevitable</a>. The problem I have with the article is part of a wider pattern of BBC reporting on male violence against women.<br />
<br />
Peter Foster murdered his partner. He killed a woman yet the article is framed to seem actually sympathetic with him because he took his own life.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Mr Carver said Foster was "full of remorse" for what had happened, but that his death was "inevitable". </em></blockquote>
What evidence is there of remorse? So full of remorse that he tried to <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-18592456" target="_blank">dispose of evidence and dumped her body</a>. Remember this is a man who killed his partner, who had recently given birth, by <em>"hitting Det Con Cooper over the head 10 times with a baseball bat and stabbing her in the throat."</em> There was no remorse for Heather Cooper. The only remorse was all for himself and the fact he was caught.<br />
<br />
The article then goes on to describe some of the trigger points in Foster's life which is understandable as it is an inquest into his suicide. But it is the way these points have been selected and the way they have been described that minimises what he did.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>...not being able to see his children after his arrest had a "profound effect on him".</em></blockquote>
Are we meant to feel sympathy here? He brutally killed their mother. He shouldn't have access to them. He needed to face the consequences of his actions. This was one of them. What about the effect his actions had on his children? Did he think about the profound effect it may have had on them? The self absorption of the man can really be seen in that comment.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>He said Foster had been abandoned by his mother and brought up by his grandmother.</em></blockquote>
The language here is so telling. '[A]bandoned' is such an emotive word. Did she abandon him or did she leave him in the care of his father or grandmother? Fathers who abandon their children are far far more often described as 'absent' or 'not around'.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>He also had a difficult relationship with his father and suffered bouts of depression.</em></blockquote>
What does 'difficult' mean exactly? His mother abandoned him and his father he had a difficult relationship with. A bit of disparity going on there with the wording. Maximising the effect of his mother's actions on his life and minimising the actions of his father who clearly wasn't around much either as he was brought up by his grandmother.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>...Foster's father was murdered in January 2009, which he had found hard to cope with.</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Later that year, he was found close to death on his father's grave after taking pills and alcohol.</em></blockquote>
So he had a history of of wanting to take his life. In between which he took someone else's life. Why are we asking the question of why he took his own life but not asking why this man decided to direct his violence outwards on to someone else? And on a wider basis why men so often direct their emotions outward in a violent manner because this is by no means restricted to Foster. And we should remember, from the second BBC article linked to that Heather Cooper wanted to leave him. He promised to go to anger classes. The violence was already there before he murdered her. This was a violent, abusive man.<br />
<blockquote>
<em>Prison officer Geoff Gordon described Foster as a pleasant and calm man who was interesting, vulnerable and bright.</em></blockquote>
I really feel like swearing at this point. This is a total eradication of what he did. He brutally murdered a woman. How come some are so quick to overlook that? Such privilege is rarely offered to female murderers. Would a female murderer's suicide garner this much sympathy? 10 women a week commit suicide due to domestic abuse. They certainly don't garner much sympathy and they didn't kill anyone.<br />
<br />
Taking these excerpts that the BBC chose at face value, you would think that Peter Foster was a tragic soul who'd had things happen to him. Not someone who had taken a life incredibly violently and deprived his children of their mother. Language matters. Let's use it correctly around violent and abusive men. He was nasty and brutal.<br />
<br />
However I do agree with the BBC and Mr Carver on one point. His suicide was inevitable because here was a man who refused to face up to the responsibility of his actions.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-21185568936251863162014-04-25T09:34:00.000+01:002014-04-25T12:32:32.812+01:00BBC buys into rape culture...again<p dir="ltr">The BBC appear to be on a mission to uphold rape culture within our society at every opportunity. Every time I open an article about male violence against women there seems to be misinformation, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808" target="_blank" title="">misleading implications</a>, <a href="https://twitter.com/bbcandrewh/status/453524148816707584" target="_self" title="">inaccuracies</a>, victim blaming and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-22213942" target="_blank" title="">shifting the focus away from or minimising appalling male behaviour</a>. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-27141983">This article</a> about a boy who repeatedly rape his young sister is no different.</p><p dir="ltr">The main sentence I have an issue with is:</p><blockquote><p dir="ltr"><em>"The attacks ended when the boy, now 18 and from South Lincolnshire, formed a sexual relationship with another girl."</em> </p></blockquote><p dir="ltr">This a sentence loaded with implications. And none of them good.</p><p dir="ltr">The inference of this is that the boy was having a sexual <em>relationship </em>with his sister too. He wasn't. He was violently abusing her. In fact abuse is a word never used in the article. It was systematic and deliberate. The further implication of this was that he was only raping his sister because he wasn't in a relationship with another girl. This is inaccurate and victim-blaming. It also positions the boy as not having control over his actions. He had to fulfil his sexual desires so he raped his sister. Over 50 times. Rape isn't about sexual desires. Whilst the act of raping his sister probably satisfied some part of him, that isn't sex. That isn't a sexual relationship. It is entitlement, power, control and violence. The fact he got off on those things has absolutely nothing to do with sex.</p><p dir="ltr">There is the very real suggestion in that sentence that girls/women are interchangeable objects. One replaced another. It is hugely dismissive of the trauma his sister must have gone through. And yes, the boy was undoubtedly hugely dismissive of his sister's feelings and emotions and treated her like an object, but that does not mean the reporters should do the same thing.</p><p dir="ltr">I also have an issue with the words 'sexual relationship' in the same sentence as girl. The girl with whom he then entered a 'relationship' is given no age. But again the implication by using that word is that she was young. Younger than an adult. In that case was it even a sexual relationship? Or more systematic abuse? I hope she is OK too.</p><p dir="ltr">BBC please start looking at your reporting of male violence against women and girls. The victims of these crimes deserve better.<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span></p><p> </p>scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-79474411700450282312014-03-28T20:32:00.001+00:002014-03-28T20:32:53.476+00:00The Heraean GamesThis post is very much out of my comfort zone. I have never ventured into the area of Greek History. In fact this is the first time I have done any research into it or honestly learnt anything about it. I gave up History at the first opportunity (aged 14) and we hadn't ever been taught anything from the Ancient Greek times. However one of my lovely friends, @AlexPolisTigers thought it might be great idea for Women's History Month. So here we are!<br />
<br />
The first thing that struck me was how little information there was out there about the Heraean Games (or Games of Hera). I know we are talking millenia ago now but the information available about the male equivalent is in far greater quantities and better quality. As a result there is a lot of conjecture around the Heraean Games. It is a fantastic demonstration of the erasure of Women's History. Despite the fact that they ran for centuries alongside the male equivalent <span style="line-height: 1.3em;">they are considerably less well known</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">. Most of the limited information seems to have been taken from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pausanias_(geographer)" target="_blank">Pausanias </a>and his <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Description-Greece-Volume-Corinth-Classical/dp/0674991044" target="_blank">Description of Greece</a> and then extrapolated from there.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><br />
</span> <span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span>The Games appear to have been established by <a href="http://www.in2greece.com/english/historymyth/mythology/names/hippodameia.htm" target="_blank">Hippodamia </a>sometime during the Archaic Period (800C - 500C BC). She wanted to offer her gratitude to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hera" target="_blank">Hera </a>for her marriage to <a href="http://www.maicar.com/GML/Pelops1.html" target="_blank">Pelops</a>. It seems odd to create a predominantly female space in thanks for being given to a man. Maybe she felt the need for more women-centric activities after joining her life with a man! Hera, however was a strong, independent and dignified woman so was a great taliswoman for the games despite what the linked Wikipedia article says. History has consigned her to being the petulant, jealous wife of Zeus. How the narrative is rewritten according to who writes it! In this case it was the patriarchal Christians who assigned Goddesses as lesser than the Gods and introduced a patriarchal view of the women in Ancient Greek times. In the same vein much of the information about Hippodamia is only available in relation to her husband or father, despite the fact she was obviously a capable woman in her own right. This is not to say that Ancient Greece was a bastion of feminism. In all likelihood it wasn't a great period for women and a patriarchy is very much in evidence. But subsequently misrepresenting women only makes matters worse.<br />
<br />
Hippodamia assembled the Sixteen Women and together they founded the Heraea. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physcoa" target="_blank">Sixteen Women</a> are thought to have been peace-makers between Elis and Pisa and are likely to have been married women. There are several interpretations as to how these women were brought together and where they were from. Some think that the group was made up of women from sixteen cities from Elis and Pisa, others that they were all from Elis. They did succeed in peace between the two regions, after which they were given the task of building the Heraean Games and weaving a spiritual robe for Hera. <span style="line-height: 1.3em;">It is possible that these games may have even pre-dated the men as some think that the male Olympiad were established in honour of Pelops' death.</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span>The Games were held in the Olympic Stadium that the men used and were held between 3-5 years apart. The time between events seemed to vary throughout their existence although it is thought that for the most part they matched the men's games, every 4 years. They consisted of three foot races, one in each of three different age categories. Again there is very little information about the format of the races or what the age categories were.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/goddess-games-pre-date-olympics-games-of-hera-hecate-and-artemis" target="_blank">Patricia Monaghan</a> believed that the the age groups match the three phases of women's life: maiden, mother and crone. Hera went through those phases as mortal females did even though she was a Goddess. I like the thought of that I must say. Much more inclusive and female-centric. However, most other sources I looked at, including Pausanius, seem to think the age groups were much younger than that and that only maidens competed. I<span style="line-height: 1.3em;">t is entirely possible that whatever the actual age of the </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">participants, they </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">may have represented the phases Monaghan mentions. It is difficult to confirm or reject with any certainty, due to the paucity of information.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><br />
</span> <span style="line-height: 1.3em;">It is known that the women used a shortened form of the men's course at the Olympic Stadium and that one of the races was a 160 yard dash. The athletes wore a chiton, which was an off the shoulder short dress in which the right shoulder and breast were left bare. This was an adaptation from a garment that men used to wear when doing labour in hot temperatures.</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><br />
</span> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://scallopsrgreat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/fddc3-greekrunninggirl.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" class="" src="http://scallopsrgreat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/fddc3-greekrunninggirl.jpg" height="320" id="blogsy-1396037271486.5164" width="231" /></a></div>
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;">Courtesy of The British Museum</span></i> </span></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;">
</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><br /></span>
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;">They won an olive wreath crown and a portion of the ox/cow that had been slaughtered for Hera on behalf of all the contestants. There may also have been inscribed statues created in honour of the winners. One of the known winners was Chloris. Chloris was the daughter of Niobe and Amphion and was spared being killed by Artemis and Apollo. They killed all (except possibly one other) of her siblings in revenge for Niobe insulting their mother with taunts about how many children she had. The misogyny in there is worth a post in its own right, if in fact that was what actually happened. As mentioned earlier we are looking at this through the prism of male, Christian patriarchy. There seems to have been an awful lot of jealousy/rivalry between women to explain male violence. Some may recognise these excuses even today.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"></span>There is also evidence that there were other sporting contests in Sparta in which women competed. The girls of Sparta had unprecedented access to education and sports. The reasons behind this seem very patriarchal in that they wanted more healthy warriors. The cynical side of me thinks that it is typical that equality can be given to women when it suits men's ends! Again there is not much known about the women of Sparta for two reasons. Sparta seemed to have deliberately not recorded its history and those observing and recounting the history were overwhelmingly male and it can probably be safe to say had little to no interest in women and maintaining their history. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnopaedia" style="line-height: 1.3em;" target="_blank" title="">Gymnopaedia</a><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> seems to have been a sporting event where young women competed.</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> There does seem to have been some links with this and a showcase for marriage potential with young men making up some of the spectators. Like a sporty debutante ball!</span><br />
<span style="line-height: 1.3em;"><br />
</span> So the Heraean Games were created in response to a woman being thankful for being married to a man. Not the most auspicious of starts nor the most feminist. However its establishment could well have been, in part due to the exclusion of women from the male Olympiad. It could have provided both some kind of parity and satisfied their desire to compete. This pattern is still seen today where women are excluded and organise themselves to redress the balance, especially in sporting events. Even the lesser status of these events still holds true. <br />
<br />
If the games did indeed predate the male equivalent then it seems that as far back as Ancient Greek times women recognised the importance of organising women-only or predominantly female spaces. Having read only a little about the amount of misogyny and horrible acts perpetrated against women in these times, I can understand why the women would have wanted to praise and celebrate their own sex.<br />
<br />
<h3>
References</h3>
<i>Pausanias, Description of Greece 5. 16. 1 - 8</i>scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-20735366341864507582013-12-07T12:42:00.001+00:002013-12-07T14:37:15.187+00:00Why I focus on male violence<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gksjcrscPyA/UqMwrHCHiiI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/aWLN_FllEX0/s600/Photo%2525207%252520Dec%2525202013%25252014%25253A26.jpg" target="_blank" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-gksjcrscPyA/UqMwrHCHiiI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/aWLN_FllEX0/s500/Photo%2525207%252520Dec%2525202013%25252014%25253A26.jpg" id="blogsy-1386427015924.5745" class="aligncenter" alt="" width="500" height="340"></a></div>
<p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="line-height: 1.3em;">As most feminists know, the most common response you get when you specifically point out male violence is hat women do it too. I know. I've been a victim of female violence. So why do I focus on male violence?</span></p>
<p>The quick answer, of course is that male violence is at the root of our oppression as women. It is the tool that maintains that oppression. As a feminist and a woman I'd quite like it to stop. Men, as a class, are the biggest threat to women. If male violence stops, the patriarchy will quickly dismantle. Female oppression and the supporting structures that criss-cross our society won't ever be eradicated without eradicating or at least severely reducing male violence. However there is more to it than that.</p>
<p><em>Why not focus on all violence?</em></p>
<p>By focusing on all violence we aren't addressing the gendered nature of violence. Most violence is perpetrated by men and women are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it. This massive skew is significant and needs to be named before it can be addressed. If you can't name the problem you can't address it. But female violence gets discussed proportionally more given the relative incidents of female/male violence. Female behaviour in general gets analysed and criticised far more than male behaviour. Focusing on male behaviour redresses that balance and gets straight to the heart of the problem rather than tinkering around the edges.</p>
<p><em style="line-height: 1.3em;">But no violence should be ignored surely?</em></p>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.3em;"><em>No violence should be ignored.</em></strong><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> Female violence is an issue, albeit on a much smaller scale than male violence. It can also affect women in different ways to male violence. Portia Smart illustrates this very well in her blog post </span><a href="http://portiasmart.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/we-need-to-talk-about-women/" target="_blank" style="line-height: 1.3em;">We Need To Talk About Women</a><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">. Women can be violent for different reasons to men and have been subjected to different experiences. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">These differences could be one reason why it is so important to make a split according to sex. </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">However, male violence is at the root of female violence. </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">Violence exists because men perpetuate it. They perpetuate it </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">in order to continue the hierarchy of violence in their favour</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">.</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">As such </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">there is an underlying assumption and expectation that men have the potential to be violent</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">. </span><a href="http://www.psni.police.uk/index/updates/updates_campaigns/updates_be_smart.htm" target="_blank" title="" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Authorities like to remind women</a><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> at regular intervals that men can and will be violent towards them and it is used to </span><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/jan/11/joanna-yeates-murder-impractical-advice" target="_blank" title="" style="line-height: 1.3em;">restrict their actions</a><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">. Male violence is so pervasive and linked to society it almost goes unnoticed. It is certainly unchecked. Just look at the recent examples of <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/jan/21/mary-beard-suffers-twitter-abuse" target="_blank" title="">violence and threats through social media</a>. <strong><em>No violence should be ignored.</em></strong> Yet here we are and such a quantity of male violence is accepted, unrecognised or disregarded.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">Female violence is a reaction to male violence, not only because a significant amount of female perpetrators of violence will have been abused themselves but because they are acting within a framework of a society underpinned by male violence.</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">Women see men being violent, experience it and know they get away with it. That threat is always there. It stands to reason that </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">those without power (and I don't </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">just </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">mean physical power) will learn the tools of their oppressors are a way of gaining power. Add to that when what little power you have is even further removed by direct violence is it any wonder that you try to act in the same manner as your oppressors to get it back.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.3em; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Ultimately it boils down to this: Women are scared of men. Men are scared of men. </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">Men are not scared of women. </span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">If female violence were completely eradicated then male violence would still exist. It is just too prevalent to be any other way. However, if male violence were eradicated then female violence would be illogical and odd. There would be no need for it. It makes sense to target male violence.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<!-- start LinkyTools script --><script src="http://www.linkytools.com/thumbnail_linky_include.aspx?id=218217" type="text/javascript" ></script><!-- end LinkyTools script --><p> </p>scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-32552898871434265662013-07-11T14:34:00.000+01:002013-07-11T14:34:11.315+01:00Marion Bartoli - Well Done!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/RT_marion_bartoli_wimbledon_jt_130706_16x9_992.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://a.abcnews.com/images/International/RT_marion_bartoli_wimbledon_jt_130706_16x9_992.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
I did think about writing a post about the misogyny that Marion Bartoli faced when she won Wimbledon. After all this is a feminist blog with a side order of sport. I mainly didn't because, as usual, <a href="http://mediadiversityuk.com/2013/07/08/sport-and-objectification/" target="_blank">many other</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/commentisfree+sport/marion-bartoli" target="_blank">eloquent feminists</a> beat me to it! But also because part of the issue with the misogyny she received was that it detracted from her achievement.<br />
<br />
Here is a 28 yr old woman who has just won her first Grand Slam in only her second final. From the moment she stepped on the court she owned it and completely outplayed her opponent. She was never going to lose that match. This is an amazing achievement and it should be shouted from the rooftops.<br />
<br />
So Marion Bartoli:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Welcome to the top few of your sport</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Well done in achieving what only a handful of other women (or men) will achieve</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Well done in reaching your goals</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<h2 style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Way to go Marion. Enjoy your moment!</span></h2>
<div>
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-16184210830295331872013-07-10T15:49:00.001+01:002013-07-11T14:33:43.659+01:00A Portrait of a Male Space - Henley Royal Regatta<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jj7SzD9-QsI/Ud11t4hNIlI/AAAAAAAAAH0/BWBapdQzI98/s1600/henley_1435753c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jj7SzD9-QsI/Ud11t4hNIlI/AAAAAAAAAH0/BWBapdQzI98/s1600/henley_1435753c.jpg" height="200" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
Most people within the UK have heard of Henley Royal Regatta even if they know nothing about rowing at all. The picture conjured up is probably one of white, male, public school, wealth and privilege and that is incredibly accurate. Let's make no mistake Henley Royal Regatta (HRR), the most prestigious rowing regatta in the world is all about the men, white men at that. Oh yes women attend but overwhelmingly in support roles.<br />
<br />
Lets look at some of the stats<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Out of 1550 rowers<sup>1</sup> who will be competing at HRR 136 (8.8%) will be women.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Out of 301 crews 32 (10.6%) will be female. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Out of 20 events 4 (20%) are for women. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Of those 4 events 3 are for International standard crews and one is for juniors (under 18). So no events for women of a reasonable/intermediate standard (there are 8 events of that nature for men). </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Out of 65 Henley Stewards<sup>2</sup>, 2 are women.</blockquote>
Mind you, we should be grateful. This is a massive improvement. Back in the day (pre 1993) it was an exclusively male event. Then the men at the top woke up one morning, enlightened, realised how sexist they were being and opened the regatta to women, apologising for their privilege in the process. Not really. Years of campaigning, negotiating, begging and justification occurred before they deigned to let women walk the hallowed ground and compete on the same river as men. Crumbs off the table.<br />
<br />
But the benefits for men don't stop at the adulation of their sporting prowess and being the main focus of attention. Prizes for the men go beyond the regatta: entry to the most prestigious and elite rowing club in the UK; invitation to become a member of the Stewards Enclosure<sup>3</sup>; talent spotted for the GB squad; more networking and career advancing opportunities not afforded women (be that rowing or other careers). And this is how male spaces work. The power and money gather and bestow their gifts on the chosen few.<br />
<br />
And they don't just work to advance men, they work to exclude women. It's not just that women are woefully under represented in terms of the athletes, there are many other subtler exclusionary tactics.<br />
<br />
For a start, there are special enclosures which require special badges to enter. The two main ones are the competitors enclosure and Steward's enclosure. The more exclusive and therefore higher in the networking stakes is the Stewards. Tickets to these are predominantly held by men so who is allowed in and out is governed by men.<br />
<br />
Then there are the obligatory uniform, rules and regulations. Entry for women to the Stewards will only be allowed if they are wearing a dress or a skirt <em>with a hemline below the knee. </em>This is in bold on the HRR website, less we forget what modest feminine qualities entail. No trousers, shorts or culottes. In addition, <em>"it is customary for ladies to wear hats"</em>. Dear God, what century are we in? Men basically have to wear a suit. Although they aren't allowed to take off their jackets (unless it gets so hot they are passing out. Who said the patriarchy didn't hurt men as well?). Most men have a suit. Do most women have a dress with a hemline below the knee given today's fashions?<br />
<br />
Another rule of the Stewards is that no children under 10 are allowed in. Personally I wouldn't take a child younger than a teenager in because there is literally nothing to do other than talk, watch racing, drink and eat. But this exclusion of children will also exclude women as the predominant child-carers. It is really common in male-dominated spaces.<br />
<br />
But HRR is so much more than a rowing event. It is a Corporate Hospitality event. And guess who holds most of the tickets to those because Joanna Bloggs off the street can't just wander in and sip champagne with Corporate elite. Yep, men. Plenty of business takes place at Henley. Men again hold the power to regulate who gets to network and do business and who doesn't. The cards are stacked against women.<br />
<br />
All these exclusive little areas, rules and regulations are just so patriarchal. They are designed to either directly exclude women, to make it more difficult for women and the women who do attend have to conform to a certain view of women.<br />
<br />
We also have the 'banter' that seems to come hand in hand with male dominated spaces. The casual and not so casual sexism can be intimidating and excluding for women. There is implied or direct pressure to accept with a good grace or a laugh. Even though there maybe a lot of women around at HRR men still own the space and like to remind women of this fact.<br />
<br />
And then we get on to violence. In the last 10 years or so, not unrelated to an uptrend in attendees and an increase in hospitality tents, violence has been creeping in over the evenings. This is exclusively male on male violence fuelled by alcohol. The local boys butting heads with the Hooray Henrys. I feel sad that this seems to be inevitable. Men are prepared to put up with violence in order to maintain their privilege, be that privilege be over other men or over women.<br />
<br />
In order to counteract the whole exclusivity of HRR, a wonderful group of women headed by Rosie Mayglothling in 1987, decided to set up an event that would be the pinnacle of a female rowers year - Henley Women's Regatta (HWR). This was not without its own issues. From the <a href="http://www.hwr.org.uk/about/history" target="_blank">Henley Women's Regatta - a short history</a> it is hugely apparent that even though women were organising their own event men were still pulling the strings. Words like "permission", "allow" and "prevent" are used a lot. Here are a couple of extracts to illustrate:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Naturally, the crux of the matter was the attitude of the Stewards of Henley Royal Regatta. Whilst they do not own the water, they do own most of the land each side of the course, as well as all the installations, and their support was vital. The reaction of the Chairman of the Committee of Management to Rosie Mayglothling’s initial approach was such that the idea appeared to be a non-starter; nevertheless, the polite but determined persistence of Rosie and the first Chairman of the proposed event, Christine Aistrop, finally won the day and permission was given for a women’s regatta to be held on the Royal Regatta course in June, 1988.It was made clear from the outset that the ‘Henley Women’s Regatta’ (HWR) could not use the HRR enclosures or boat tents. HWR was to be held three weeks before the Royal and, should bad weather delay the timetable for the regatta installations (as had happened in the past), the course would not be usable by HWR. It was at this point that the project was saved by the enthusiastic help and co-operation of the owner of Remenham Farm, Mr Tom Copas. By offering the use of the farm as the enclosure for HWR, the problems of boating and spectator facilities were largely solved.</i></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Difficulties didn't end there though when the regatta wanted to expand to the whole weekend rather than just the Saturday:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><i>After the increased entry in 1989, the Chairman, Margaret Adams had sounded out the HRR Committee of Management on the possibility of HWR becoming a two-day regatta. This had been rejected on the basis that men’s crews racing at Marlow traditionally rowed up to Henley on the Sunday and they would be prevented from doing so if HWR was extended to two days.</i></span></blockquote>
Women couldn't be allowed to prevent men rowing up the river from a regatta in a nearby town for some random tradition. A woman's event couldn't possibly be given priority over a man's event.<br />
<br />
However despite this HWR has been a complete success. There are no exclusive areas. There are no dress codes or spectator rules and regulations. There are no Corporate event tents. The spectators can walk the whole course, right next to the rowers and all the rowers are women. It is a lovely event with a massively positive feel.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless the men are still not happy. This event is not about them, obviously, yet they still feel fit to offer their opinions. On rowing forums you can often see derogatory (and misogynistic) remarks about the women and the events. There are subjective opinions on 'standards' under the guise that if only women were just 'better' then they would be able to join in with the men, they would be treated equally and respected (sound abusive anyone?). There are remarks about the inadequacy of course length (which is not within women's power to change) and other things like the size of the event which are again out of women's control. And to a certain extent they are correct HWR is the poor relation to HRR. But that isn't women's fault. It is men's fault. They are the ones setting these limitations. Women aren't allowed to organise events for themselves and be left alone, they have to be approved by men.<br />
<br />
So here we have a male dominated space that even though women are allowed in the opportunities are still predominantly for men. Then a woman's space that is routinely disparaged and prevented from fulfilling its potential by men. This is what structural oppression looks like. This is how it is maintained. It is incredibly different to achieve liberation and equality when we are being kept down from all sides.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Please note: Although I only mentioned it briefly at the start of the piece, there is also racial exclusivity at work too. Rowing is overwhelmingly white and HRR and HWR both represent that.</b></i><br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup> In 1975 female coxes (steering the boats) were allowed. In any particular year there are only a handful of female coxes and without access to all the crew names it is impossible to tell how many are female so coxes in general have been omitted from the statistics.<br />
<br />
<sup>2</sup> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Stewards_of_Henley_Royal_Regatta" target="_blank">Henley Stewards</a> are the management team of the regatta and make decisions on the major changes for the regatta, alongside the Chairman and his team.<br />
<br />
<sup>3</sup> The <a href="http://www.hrr.co.uk/spectators/stewards-enclosure/" target="_blank">Stewards Enclosure</a> is an enclosure set up by the Stewards which allows members to access the spectator area near the finish. Members of the Stewards Enclosure number 6500 and are predominantly male. To become a member of the Stewards involves an application form, sponsors and a very long waiting list.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-27918759837106077422013-06-25T23:13:00.002+01:002013-06-25T23:13:59.521+01:00War on Pregnant WomenIt seems that once more what pregnant women do and ingest is public property. The <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-23005367" target="_blank">latest gem</a> is from <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-iris-project/iris/staffprofile.php?ref=SPILL91" target="_blank">Professor Stephen Pilling</a> and the harm that taking anti-depressants could do to unborn babies (unborn babies, you note, not foetuses). More about that particularly disturbing piece later.<br />
<br />
A couple of weeks ago it appeared that pregnant women really just aren't doing enough to keep their foetuses safe from harm. So much so that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists decided to be done with it and just make their advice so vague that it could pretty much cover coming into contact with everything at home or work. OK that may be a teeny exaggeration but take a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22775024" target="_blank" title="">look for yourself</a>. The list is a little unrealistic to say the least. My particular favourite:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><ul><li>avoid buying new furniture, fabrics, non-stick frying pans and cars when pregnant or nursing</li>
</ul></blockquote><ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul><ul></ul></ul>Yes you did read that correctly. When pregnant, don't buy a non-stick frying pan. Not being a chemist I wouldn't like to speculate on the exact reason that is on the list but I am wondering whether the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists had a rare bit of insight. Maybe they realised that pregnant women might become inclined to start chucking the frying pans around in frustration at the lack of life they suddenly find themselves with and the information overload they experience. Who knows who those irrational, hormonal women may hit and what damage they may do with a frying pan in their hand? Best just keep them strapped down, I say. Except of course that's no good for you either. This little gem appeared on my Twitter timeline last month: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-r8EF9lj5DuQ/Ub2R3sqQjUI/AAAAAAAAAHk/lnFYf5a9gMQ/s1308/Photo%2525205%252520Jun%2525202013%25252009%25253A12.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="" class="alignnone" height="222" id="blogsy-1372197602946.0464" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-r8EF9lj5DuQ/Ub2R3sqQjUI/AAAAAAAAAHk/lnFYf5a9gMQ/s500/Photo%2525205%252520Jun%2525202013%25252009%25253A12.jpg" width="500" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;">Now, how much exercise is required to achieve this 25% increase isn't clear. Nor is what a 25% increase in neurons actually means. Presumably it is a good thing, probably something to do with IQ <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html" target="_blank" title="">that well known measure of intelligence</a>. I'll let him off that though, in this case. After all he only had 140 characters to work with. So pregnant women don't even get to laze around in bed all day being waited on hand and foot. Never mind. Getting up and cleaning the house should give us a good workout. Oh wait...</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;">A couple of weeks before it was all about <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22607161" target="_blank" title="">iodine</a> (also linked to IQ). That one was really serious. The male-dominated media didn't decry that one. Maybe that was because they weren't in danger of having to take responsibility for cleaning the house in the same way that this latest statement could imply (given that responsible pregnant women will be naturally in current, heterosexual relationships, preferably married and not on benefits). Yes that is truly cynical of me, but to be honest we have reason to be.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;">The Daily Mail, not wanting to lose out on women judging <span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">gave the Duchess of Cambridge their seal of approval (she must be so relieved) for not being </span><a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2344376/Royal-baby-gender-Kate-Middleton-Prince-William-DONT-know-sex-child.html" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);" target="_blank">too posh to push</a><span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">. If you don't want to open a Daily Mail link <a href="http://glosswatch.com/2013/06/19/too-posh-to-push-can-we-please-kill-this-phrase-now/" target="_blank" title="">Glosswitch</a> does a great take down without you having to read the article.</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);"><br />
</span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;">So back to Prof Stephen Pillling and SSRIs. The piece is disturbing on several levels. He frames the discussion as though taking SSRIs were a lifestyle choice like drinking or smoking and in fact directly compares them. No alternative or support is offered and any implications for stopping medication are dismissed. Finally he thinks that all women of child-bearing age should be considering this:</div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>"It's not just when a woman who's pregnant is sitting in front of you. I think it needs to be thought about with a woman who could get pregnant. And, that's the large majority of women aged between 15 and 45."</em></span></blockquote>So women are now in a state of pre-pregnancy. And that, as a woman is a very frightening thought. How much of women's freedom could be curtailed by using that argument?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div>This is all beginning to look much more like control. We just can't be trusted. Again that may seem cynical but you don't have to look that far back in history to see how pregnancy, childbirth and feeding babies, exclusively female tasks, have been co-opted by medical personnel, law enforcers, religion and anyone else who had an opinion on how women should be doing things. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;">But it isn't 'anyone' that has these opinions is it? It is, in the greater part, men. Men wanting to take control of something beyond their control. Breastfeeding being a perfect example. Male doctors decreeing that breast milk just wasn't good enough, backed up by a capitalist society to create formula. Men wanting to punish women when they feel <a href="http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/mix-fm-presenter-chrissie-swan-admits-to-smoking-cigarettes-while-pregnant/story-e6frfmqi-1226572082685" target="_blank" title="">they have transgressed</a> from their advice or <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1242952.stm" target="_blank" title="">move out of their control</a>. It is deliberate and it is part of our oppression.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: none;"><br />
</div>This eradication of autonomy and not being allowed to take responsibility for ourselves has had the added bonus of being accompanied by objectification. Whilst running the story on avoiding chemicals when pregnant, Channel 5 showed picture of a pregnant belly - no head or even legs and feet, just a torso. So now we are walking wombs (a popular but apt phrase) or if you prefer, breeders, nicely illustrated by those pictures. The lack of autonomy, the attempts to take control of pregnant women's lives all adds to the general objectification of women in society. We are seen as lesser humans on this planet only to fill particular roles e.g. being objects for men's desires or in this case giving birth to babies. This also has a knock on effect into motherhood. A father's role seems to be able to also encompass his needs and wants. A mother's role is supposed to sacrifice those needs and wants. We are no longer human beings in our own right. Our needs and wants and our children's needs and wants are intertwined in ways a father's is not. And I am not just talking about those early days. A mother's role is to be there for their children, not to be selfish and not to be a burden on anyone, whether that's their partner or the state, especially not the state.<br />
<br />
I don't know whether these roles women are slotted into are as a result of objectification; whether objectification leads to women being put into roles or even whether the two are too intrinsically linked to tell and therefore does it matter? One thing is for certain, both aspects are part of oppression and help maintain it.<br />
<br />
So what's wrong with just giving us the facts and then letting us make up our own minds? Well, in theory, nothing. But the fact that even needs saying shows how far down the road we already are in losing control of our choices and bodies. I also feel that this is too simplistic in the context of the society that we live in and have a couple of issues with it as a concept.<br />
<br />
Firstly not all the information given is <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/may/29/health.medicineandhealth" target="_blank">accurate</a>, <a href="http://www.webmd.com/baby/features/drinking-alcohol-during-pregnancy" target="_blank">complete </a>and can even be contradictory or offer impossible choices (mental health vs very small risk of damaging the foetus being the perfect example). Plus the sheer volume of information makes it difficult to decide on priorities. Who has time to sift all the information out to see which is important or should be prioritised during their pregnancy? Most women have jobs to do. Some are just trying to survive day by day through their pregnancy.<br />
<br />
The second point is that by instructing women on what they should and shouldn't be doing through their pregnancy, there seems to be a definite shifting responsibility for raising new generations from society to individual woman. Rather than looking at the way society has been shaped, we are looking to individuals to change their lifestyle and overcome their social conditioning to get around the obstacles society has put in front of us. Instead of questioning why we have toxic <a href="http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/should-pregnant-and-breastfeeding-women-avoid-some-types-of-fish.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=216#close" target="_blank">food </a>and household products that pregnant women can't eat or use we are asked to avoid them. That then conveniently absolves the state out of any responsibility for the damage caused. Then there is the contradiction of advertising cleaning products predominantly to women (fit, young women of child-bearing age, no less) and then instructing them not to use those products when pregnant, which has not gone unnoticed. Will there be adverts directed at male partners of pregnant women to take over the cleaning now? I think not. Just like there aren't campaigns to tell men to avoid alcohol as it may increase their chances of committing abuse and violence and therefore damage their foetus and its mother. Or that SSRIs may damage sperm too. Nor will there be efforts to make these products and foods safer. It is all the woman's responsibility.<br />
<br />
So a juxtaposition is created. On one hand there seems to be a healthy dose of absolution of responsibilities from society on to women. But then they are implying that we just don't trust women with all that responsibility and bearing children so we need to interfere and give them an impossible set of guidelines to adhere to without the proper support.<br />
<br />
It is a lose-lose situation for women that's for sure. It keeps us running round in circles whilst men get on with running the world. Because that is what oppression does to you. Keeps you preoccupied whilst your oppressors are freer and lighter of responsibility and guilt.<br />
<br />
So just to reiterate. Yes, we are fully human, not objects to be used. No, we aren't breeders. Yes, we have wants and needs. Yes, we have rights. Yes, we want the fact that we have a life to be recognised and valued. And yes, be scared of pregnant women brandishing non-stick frying pans.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-525468533239823492013-04-20T11:47:00.001+01:002013-04-20T11:57:35.933+01:00Sport and Feminism collide....this time in RugbyThis is not an unusual occurrence. Most organised sport is male dominated both in participants and the decision-makers. They don't tend to have women's best interests at heart although they throw the odd carrot in our direction. So my feminist hackles rise quite regularly. However this latest revelation of nincompoopery* within Rugby really does merit analysis. And although this post is a bit after the fact, it is a really good example of male privilege in action and an unawareness of said privilege.<br />
<br />
I recently started following @WRUWomenSupport on Twitter (Welsh Rugby Union Women's Support). From their tweets it became apparent the the Welsh Rugby Union were about to make a decision to the detriment of their Women's national team. They were proposing to remove the women's team from the six nations tournament along with Scotland and Italy thereby creating a 2-tier event with England, Ireland and France in a "top" division. A divisive proposal in more ways than one. Thankfully they came to their senses and the motion was defeated on the 10th April 2013. But how was this even an option? Can you ever imagine the removal of the Scottish, Welsh or Italian mens' teams from their respective tournament, even if they were continually losing? In fact the Scottish and Italian men regularly end up fighting for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_spoon_(award)" target="_blank" title="">wooden spoon</a> yet no proposal has been ever been made to removing them.<br />
<br />
A brief history of the tournament: The 6 nations competition for women began in 1996 as a 4 nation tournament for England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. France and Spain joined in 1999 and 2000 respectively. However in 2007 RBS took over the tournament and substituted Italy for Spain to bring it in line with the men's tournament. Whilst I am sure the increase in sponsorship was very welcome and did a lot of good for the chosen teams, it was more than a little ruthless to discard Spain like that. They were certainly collateral damage. And bringing it in line with the men's tournament does still make men the default.<br />
<br />
Following this year's tournament where Scotland lost two games 76-0, they and the Welsh Rugby Union put forward a proposal to <a href="http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/rugby/women-s-six-nations-could-be-set-for-split-1-2878992">split the tournament</a>. Whilst I appreciate that it must be soul-destroying to lose by that much, regularly and in fact have not won a match since 2010, why is the reaction to this to cut the funding and sponsorship for the team by splitting the tournament? Surely a more logical approach would be to support one of your national teams to greater effect. Unless of course, they were disposable.<br />
<br />
Well from the WRU's <a href="http://www.wru.co.uk/downloads/WRU_ARA_2012.pdf" target="_blank" title="">annual report</a> from last year it does in fact appear that the Women's national team is indeed disposable. From page 9 of the report:<br />
<div class="page" title="Page 7">
</div>
<div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(11.000000%, 13.800001%, 17.600002%);">
</div>
<div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(100.000000%, 100.000000%, 100.000000%);">
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
</div>
<div class="column">
</div>
<ol start="0" style="list-style-type: none;">
<li> <span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #272626; font-weight: 700;">Elite Rugby </span><span style="color: #272626;">includes our funding, staffing and support of the national team, the national age grade teams, the sevens team, the national academy, the regional academies and a £6.2m sum to the four Regions for international player release, in addition to £1.2m to the semi-professional Premiership Clubs. </span></span></li>
</ol>
I would like to think that <em>the national team</em> refers to the women's team but that would be a folly. In a 104 page document the word "women" is mentioned 11 times; there are two photographs of the women's team, one playing and about 2 1/2 pages including photos devoted to the women's game. <span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">Although it is only an Annual Report it is yet another example the eradication of women in daily discourse. In this instance men is really the default. In fact the women's team is always referred to in the report and in media as the Women's National Team. The men's team has no reference to their sex.</span><br />
<br />
It is laughable really that anyone would actually think that "the national team" refers to the women given the amount of spending on the two national teams. Men's Team: millions; Women's Team:10's of thousands. And of course the amount of media coverage both teams get is pretty much incomparable as is the pay. The Welsh women's team is self-funded and not allowed personal sponsorship. No pay and no leave entitlement. Absolutely disgraceful. They also have no development squad, no U19s or U20s either. This proposal could have decimated women's rugby in Wales. The fact is, that any further support and finances that could be devoted to women's rugby would be seen as a detraction from men's rugby. And let's face it, that's what is important here.<br />
<br />
So how did a proposition to remove the Welsh team from the 6 nations even gain any ground. Well if we look at the <a href="http://www.scottishrugby.org/about-us/who-we-are/board" target="_blank" title="">Scottish RFU Board</a> and the <a href="http://www.wru.co.uk/eng/thewru/structure/wru_board.php" target="_blank" title="">Welsh RFU Board</a> we can see they are all men. Every one of them. No representation of women at all. Is it unsurprising that women are disposable, their voices eradicated? I did find a woman, Julie Paterson on the Welsh RFU Executive as the Director of Compliance. The irony of that job been given to a woman is not lost**. And there is a woman, Kath Vass on the Scottish RFU Council, representing Women's Rugby. There appears to be no direct representative at all from Women's Rugby on the Welsh boards.<br />
<br />
But surely some reference/collaboration/consultation was made with those who manage and run the women's game or even some recourse made to the players. Apparently not. How divisive is that? Not unsurprisingly the players themselves felt unimportant and dispensable. And despite vocal opposition from players and <a href="http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ireland-women-s-rugby-coach-philip-doyle-opposed-to-two-tier-six-nations-1.1342147" target="_blank" title="">other teams</a> the proposal was still viable until a couple of days before the meeting, when Roger Lewis, the WRU Chief Executive finally came out and said he would oppose it.<br />
<br />
From a more structural and societal aspect this is another example of men believing that they can tell women what they should be doing and making judgements on women's sport (generally subjective ones). Within sport there seems this constant reference to men's sport and not treating women's sport as an entity in its own right. Constant references to competitiveness, training workloads, skills all in comparison to the default of men. Women's sport is not allowed to grow by itself, is not allowed to be given similar credence, proportional spending or in fact any kind of equality unless men say so. That is not equality, it is benevolence and pretty sexist benevolence at that. As a woman I don't want my equality being decided on the whims of men. I want women to decide it and women to structure it so the world is more suited to women (in this case the world of sport) rather than us having to fit in with the existing world that is structured for men. Men: Hands off our sport!<br />
<br />
*A lovely and fitting term co-opted from <a href="http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/?view=flipcard" target="_blank" title="">TheRealSGM</a>.<br />
<br />
** That is in no way meant to be derogatory towards Julie Paterson and her work. It is just a reference to the word "compliance" and how women are trained and stereotyped into being compliant from an early age.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-65505659745404441532013-04-04T13:48:00.001+01:002013-12-07T14:51:54.951+00:00Hate Crimes: What about crimes against women?<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/53932000/jpg/_53932483_53932424.jpg" id="blogsy-1386427897554.6472" class="" alt="Sophie Lancaster tolerance game card" width="304" height="171"></p>
<p><br>
The tragic and horrific murder of <a href="http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22018888" target="_blank">Sophie Lancaster</a> has been in the news again today because the constabulary responsible for investigating the crime (Greater Manchester Police) have added subcultures such as emos, punks and goths to the list of groups affected by hate crimes. This I have no problem with. What I do have an issue with is the list of current hate crimes.</p>
<p>From the article, Lord MacDonald said "People's racial origins, their religion, their sexual orientation, people's dignity in the face of disability - these have been lines in the sand with the law saying, look, these are crimes that threaten social cohesion as a whole and therefore national life." Again I have no problem with this statement, as it is, and have no doubt of its veracity.</p>
<p>He then went on to say "I'm a little cautious about watering down this concept." Clearly he is so worried about watering down this concept he hasn't even considered that crimes against your sex would "threaten social cohesion as a whole and therefore national life." That is crimes against over 50% of the population. The implication by omission that crimes against women doesn't threaten social cohesion (whatever that may mean) is a complete denial of what women experience every single day. Just look at sites such as <a href="http://www.everydaysexism.com/" target="_blank">Everyday Sexism </a>or <a href="http://www.ihollaback.org/" target="_blank">Hollaback!</a> to see how social cohesion is being disrupted on a daily basis for women everywhere.</p>
<p>So what are the many thousands of rapes reported as? What about the sexual assaults, the domestic abuse/violence, FGM (although no-one has actually been <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/nov/13/female-genital-mutilation-prosection-uk" target="_blank">convicted for that in the UK</a>), honour killings, serial killings against women? What are they all counted as? All those crimes are perpetrated against women just because they are women. Why are these crimes not being counted as hate crimes, they surely fit the definition?</p>
<p>Well the reason probably lies in the results if they were counted as hate crimes. It would bust the myth in cloud cuckoo land that women are being treated equally and would highlight that in fact we are still oppressed. The overwhelming problem of male violence against women would then become massively apparent and something would have to be done about it. In addition patterns which are currently denied would also become apparent. Patterns such as controlling and abusive behaviour and how this manifests itself throughout a range of crimes and behaviours. There is also a reluctance to name male violence for what it is. By not including crimes against women, such as rape, as hate crimes then the perpetrators of hate crimes can be hidden behind vaguer language such as "people", "groups" etc. But hate crimes against women could really only be down to the opposite sex i.e. men.</p>
<p>This reluctance to name and see male violence as the problem ties in with the truly desperate and awful deaths of the six children, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse, Jayden, and Duwayne, killed by their father Mick Philpott. His previous behaviour seemed to offer no red flags to social workers. No pattern has been identified in the media or in the courts with other family annihilators even though the similarities are there. The Tories would rather put this down to <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/tory-mps-respond-philpott-case-calling-new-curbs-child-benefit" target="_blank">child benefit</a> than male violence. I mean, how much more sleight of hand, misdirection and just basic lies do we have to put up with? </p>
<p> </p>
<p>I don't know if Sophie's death was as a result of being a woman or a goth or a combination of both but really lets call a spade a fucking spade. Sophie, Jade, John, Jack, Jesse, Jayden and Duwayne all died at the hands of men. That is the problem. How many thousands of other victims do there have to be before this is dealt with head-on?</p>
<!-- start LinkyTools script --><script src="http://www.linkytools.com/thumbnail_linky_include.aspx?id=218217" type="text/javascript" ></script><!-- end LinkyTools script --><p> </p>scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-21527434062507566412013-03-30T14:08:00.000+00:002013-05-09T14:10:36.470+01:00Retribution or Justice?Part of my feminist discovery journey has been to question my previous steadfastly held beliefs and look at them through a feminist lens in the context that we live in a patriarchy. One of these closely held beliefs is the abolition of the death penalty. All the usual reasons apply:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
I couldn't kill someone, why should I expect others to do it for me?</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
It could be a mistake.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Two wrongs don't make a right.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Civilised society shouldn't be killing people.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The distastefulness of an eye for an eye type mentality i.e. lowering ourselves to the criminal's level.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The inhumanity and torture of keeping someone locked up only until it is time to kill them (and them knowing that).</blockquote>
In my lofty, privileged position I also felt that I had to make this decision for myself before anything awful happened to my family or someone I loved as obviously raw emotions would kick in then and death to the perpetrators may look very appealing. And that would be seen as revenge, which, of course is very wrong. We are also told that raw emotions are never a good foundation on which to base a decision.<br />
<br />
And then we come to the horrific rape and murder of Jyoti in Delhi, India. The perpetrators of this crime are facing the death penalty if found guilty. Immediately I felt my conditioning kick in. My first thought was who are we to execute these men, no matter what they did? <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a1658543-Five-men-facing-death-penalty-after-bus-rape?msgid=36578815" target="_blank" title="This thread">This thread</a> on Mumsnet, however, prompted me to have a rethink about where these beliefs are coming from. On the thread, a couple of people were quite vociferous in stating that we couldn't be feminists if we didn't think these men should have the death penalty. Now there are only a handful of reasons why I think a person can't be a feminist and opposing the death penalty isn't one of them. But it did get me thinking as to why I almost unthinkingly accept that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstances and whether that was a feminist stance or an anti-feminist stance in the wake of extreme violence against women.<br />
<br />
I did realise quite early on in reading the thread that I just don't care what happens to these men. Not at all. Which was uncomfortable. I would prefer it if they could just slink away and die without me having to think about it emotionally or critically, but that won't happen, so here we are. How real are my convictions about capital punishment and how much is social construction? Well I'll probably never know the answer to that. But I do wonder whether the resistance to capital punishment is gendered. Women are socially constructed to be less violent so it would make sense that we would oppose other forms of violence more than men. Which then led to the thought that is this a trick of the patriarchy to keep us submissive. Engender in us this hatred of violence so that we won't use it against men. Could violence against men in particular circumstances be exactly what is required to gain freedom from oppression? If women were to start killing their rapists and abusers would that actually stem and even stop male violence? And if it did then capital punishment would seem to be more like justice, not revenge.<br />
<br />
Then I think, am I being hypocritical rethinking this subject in light of the monstrous attack on Jyoti? Is it the nature of the attack that makes me have less care about the fate of the perpetrators? I mean it was so brutal and as a fellow woman I am frightened to the core by how much pain and suffering this woman went through. Would I feel this way about a brutal murder of a man? Possibly not, although I was highly disturbed when the BBC aired the depiction of the murder of a man in very similar circumstances. But the investigation into a similar crime on a man would not be scattered with victim-blaming and man-hating (instead of the misogyny seen in this case).<br />
<br />
I know I would feel the same about a similar crime committed against children though. So, are crimes against women & children special? Yes, I think they are. Children for obvious reasons - their size, age, vulnerability and general innocence. Women because we are still oppressed and it is male violence keeping us oppressed. The oppression keeps happening and people, more specifically men, seem unwilling to do anything about it. And not only that we get blamed for the crimes against us. That feeling of impotence is rage inducing.<br />
<br />
Would my feelings be different if violence against women were actually dealt with properly on any level? Very probably. If I felt justice was being served to women who were being raped and murdered; if I felt that we were winning the war against male violence then yes I would care about being humane towards the perpetrators of this terrible crime. But justice isn't being served and we aren't winning the war at the moment. These men thought that Jyoti didn't matter, that nobody would make them be responsible for their actions because they see women being treated appallingly everywhere and nobody does anything about it. That is why they felt it was OK to do this, in plain view. They thought they would get away with it. Surely justice in this case would be to send out a message to deter other men from casually raping and murdering women. Draw the line in the sand. Except of course it isn't a line in the sand. Because there are so many fronts to fight on. And is capital punishment even a deterrent?<br />
<br />
I really don't know what my conclusions are on this. I know you can still be a feminist and not believe in the death penalty even for crimes against women. In fact I find that whole argument quite bizarre. And it certainly isn't my place to say who is or isn't a feminist (unless they are actively anti-feminist and then I reserve judgment!). Somehow, I would feel happier if Jyoti had survived, tracked her torturers down and killed them single-handedly. That would seem much more like justice and probably send out a much stronger signal. But it isn't about whether I feel happier and of course Jyoti can't do that. Part of me, a significant part, just doesn't think that the way to handle violence is with state-condoned violence, especially when that state is a patriarchy. It is just more patriarchal, bullshit violence. Whether that is the conditioning kicking in or something else does it even matter? Part of me, though, a small part, would like those men who did this to her and all those other men who torture and kill women and children to die. I can live with being a hypocrite on this.<br />
<br />
<em><span style="font-size: xx-small;">I started writing this ages ago but it seems appropriate to publish it today in honour of <a href="http://www.internationalwomensday.com/" target="_blank" title="International Women's Day">International Women's Day</a> and for the <a href="http://www.millionwomenrise.com/" target="_blank" title="Million Women Rise">Million Women Rise</a> march, today in London. So this is for all the women fighting the fight against male violence in a peaceful manner.</span></em><br />
<br />
<div id="blogsy_footer" style="clear: both; font-size: small; text-align: right;">
<a href="http://blogsyapp.com/" target="_blank"><img alt="Posted with Blogsy" src="http://blogsyapp.com/images/blogsy_footer_icon.png" height="20" style="margin-right: 5px; vertical-align: middle;" width="20" />Posted with Blogsy</a></div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-79551367107202163112013-03-29T11:20:00.000+00:002013-03-29T16:07:35.409+00:00Separating art from the artist: Why should we?Recently there have been two high profile cases of men who have been celebrated and allowed to continue working having committed serious violent crimes against women. In both cases it has been deemed that their work is more important than their crime. Their crimes have either been ignored or not deemed serious enough to interrupt their career.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.bfi.org.uk/roman-polanski">BFI</a> had a "two-month retrospective" of Roman Polanski over January and February. Oh joys. On 10 March 1977 Roman Polanski was charged with the rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen. He pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse but never faced sentencing as he did a runner, to put it bluntly. The BFI didn't even acknowledge the crime in their "retrospective". Conservative with the truth, let's say.<br />
<br />
Now, admittedly, I am not an avid "Art" fan. I like some of it, I enjoy watching films, love reading books but I will never be completely immersed in it. Maybe this is why I can't see beyond a man's crimes to appreciate his art, or maybe it is because I am a human being. However, you can see evidence of Polanski's misogyny in his films and his inappropriate fixation on young girls. Chinatown and Tess are particularly problematic in this area, not mention Polanski's relationship with Nastassja Kinski when she was only 15. The attitude and sense of entitlement it takes to rape someone doesn't just appear in isolation. It permeates throughout their life including their work.<br />
<br />
I may not be an arts fan but I am a sports fan. On 14th February 2013 Oscar Pistorius killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp by shooting her 4 times. This is not in doubt. Following this killing there was a lot of disbelief and misplaced adulation and barely a mention of his victim. This eradication of Reeva and what happened to her has continued now in that Pistorius has been granted leave to compete abroad whilst waiting on bail for his trial (set to be in June). So the judge in South Africa saw fit to prioritise his career above the crime he has been charged with. Again there is a separation of the crime from the work of the man as if the two are not related.<br />
<br />
Pistorius showed a glimpse of his sense of entitlement at the London 2012 Paralympics when <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/sep/03/paralympics-oscar-pistorius-angry-loss" target="_self" title="">losing the 200m to Alan Fonteles</a>. Elite sportsmen often have an arrogance and selfishness which gets them to the top. This selfishness is only one step away from feeling entitlement. When all around you tell you how good you are and how you deserve to win, it will have an impact on your mindset. Allowing him to compete whilst waiting for trial is another incident emphasising that he is allowed special and preferential treatment. It does require a sense of entitlement to shoot your girlfriend through a bathroom door, four times.<br />
<br />
You can't separate a man and his work. His work is part of him as is his crime. They don't sit in separate compartments. They overlap. Compartmentalising it is very convenient for the men who commit these crimes and for all other men who commit violence, especially against women. Seeing a crime in isolation from the man denies the connection and the pattern that these men follow. It encourages only focussing on the individual and not only the overall problem of male violence. It perpetuates the rape culture we live in, allows male violence to continue and keeps women oppressed. Ignoring men's behaviour when they commit crimes against women and promoting their work really only sends out one message: women and their lives do not matter.<br />
<br />
Not only do we we need to name the problem of male violence but punish it and remember what these men did.<br />
<div id="blogsy_footer" style="clear: both; font-size: small; text-align: right;">
<a href="http://blogsyapp.com/" target="_blank"><img alt="Posted with Blogsy" height="20" src="http://blogsyapp.com/images/blogsy_footer_icon.png" style="margin-right: 5px; vertical-align: middle;" width="20" />Posted with Blogsy</a></div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-89337549676927980102013-03-18T22:56:00.001+00:002013-03-18T22:56:39.827+00:00Steubenville and CNN: Perpetuating Rape CultureI don't normally write about topical things because I am just not that quick off the mark (or at the zoo) and by the time I get round to it several hundred other wonderful feminists have articulated it far better than I could, with my O'Level in English Language. However, this whole incident/issue has just given me the rage. I am an angry feminist. And the more angry feminists that speak out against this shit the better. It is a travesty that there are probably only hundreds of people speaking out about this. It should be millions. Steubenville should not be allowed to happen.<br />
<br />
And that is the problem. This is what happens when you live in a rape culture despite those that <a href="http://judgybitch.com/2013/03/10/episode-one-judgybitch-on-rape-culture/" target="_self" title="deny its existence">deny its existence</a>. <em><warning don't click on that link if you believe men should actually be responsible for their behaviour or you have the critical faculties required to join the dots together></em><br />
<br />
Rape culture not just men raping women although there is enough of that about. It is the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/100000-assaults-1000-rapists-sentenced-shockingly-low-conviction-rates-revealed-8446058.html" target="_blank" title="">low conviction rate</a>. It is women changing their behaviour to try and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-19091566" target="_blank" title="">avoid rape</a>. It is <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/05/ched-evans-twitter-users-fined_n_2077186.html" target="_blank" title="">victim-blaming and shaming</a>. It is <a href="http://www.bfi.org.uk/roman-polanski" target="_blank" title="">idolising perpetrators</a>. It is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/sports/high-school-football-rape-case-unfolds-online-and-divides-steubenville-ohio.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all" target="_blank" title="">covering up </a>for perpetrators. It is wanting <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7746046/Rape-accused-to-be-given-anonymity.html" target="_blank" title="">anonymity</a> for perpetrators. It is the reporting of rape as '<a href="http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/384153/Jimmy-Savile-sex-scandal-Police-set-to-make-more-very-high-profile-arrests" target="_blank" title="">sex scandals</a>'. It is the public regulation of what <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/28/tory-mp-richard-graham-rape-short-skirts-high-heels-vulnerable_n_2565059.html" target="_blank" title="">women wear</a>. It is expecting women's behaviour to be <a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/india/2012/12/21/delhi-gang-rape-case-she-deserved-it-is-not-a-good-argument/" target="_blank" title="">different</a> or of a <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/02/07/rape-attacks-blamed-on-victim-drunk-flirt_n_2638103.html" target="_blank" title="">higher standard </a>than men's. It is the culture that <a href="http://stephendann.com/2009/07/26/absence-of-consent-is-rape-and-not-technical-rape-and-is-not-an-excuse-for-victim-blaming/" target="_blank" title="">expects a woman to say no</a> otherwise <a href="http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/2013/03/13/16/06/us-footballers-face-court-over-rape-of-girl-who-didn-t-say-no" target="_blank" title="consent is implied">consent is implied</a>. It is where <a href="http://www.everydaysexism.com/" target="_blank" title="">men shouting obscenities, making sexual advances or groping wome</a>n is seen as something women just have to put up with. It is prioritising a <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808" target="_blank" title="">tiny amount of false accusations</a> over the thousands of rapes that occur every year in the UK. <span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">It is the pornographic images seen all over the web. It is the culture where men buying women for sex is acceptable.</span> I could carry on ... and on but I am sure you are managing to join the dots by now. The coverage of this rape (and the backlash against the convictions) has ticked so many of those boxes. To be honest the coverage of most rapes normally does.<br />
<br />
But <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/17/cnn-grieves-that-guilty-verdict-ruined-promising-lives-of-steubenville-rapists/" target="_blank">CNN</a> have truly managed to surpass themselves with their reporting of the sentencing of the Steubenville rape. The language used about the boys - "promising futures"; "still sound like 16 year old boys"; "difficult to watch [their sentencing]"; "their life fell apart"; "[the boys] lives are destroyed" - was sympathesing with the perpetrators of a crime whilst completely eradicating the victim's experience. It was as if they felt justice hadn't been done. I suspect that we have that in common, although for completely different reasons. How the media report crimes like this is incredibly important. The regretful language used to describe the fact that the boys are now on the sex offenders register gives the impression that they have been hard done by. Their upset at being caught and found guilty (because this wasn't remorse as shown by <a href="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/18/fox-news-airs-name-of-16-year-old-steubenville-rape-victim/" target="_blank" title="">Mays statement</a> about how the photographs and video should never have been taken - no mention of the rape) has been validated by this coverage. This is like a green light for abusers - validation for their feelings, sympathy for their punishment even sympathy for what they had done like it was all a big mistake. Everything they believe has just been reinforced.<br />
<br />
I have two young sons. I have already started teaching them not to rape through respecting their boundaries and their bodies and getting them to respect each other's. <a href="http://www.askmoxie.org/2013/03/a-letter-to-my-sons-about-stopping-rape.html" target="_blank" title="">This</a> is such a good letter to sons. Yet the society we live in will be fighting back against those teachings all the time. Everywhere they look will be "evidence" that women are there to be raped; their boundaries can be crossed; there is no consequences for rape and if you were unlucky enough to get caught and convicted then you will still get sympathy and understanding.<br />
<span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">Shame on you CNN. I hope you are </span><a href="http://www.change.org/petitions/cnn-apologize-on-air-for-sympathizing-with-the-steubenville-rapists" style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);" target="_blank" title="">forced to apologise</a><span style="-webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969);">.</span><br />
Shame on you Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond. I wish your sentence was harsher, it is what you deserve.<br />
<div id="blogsy_footer" style="clear: both; font-size: small; text-align: right;">
<a href="http://blogsyapp.com/" target="_blank"><img alt="Posted with Blogsy" height="20" src="http://blogsyapp.com/images/blogsy_footer_icon.png" style="margin-right: 5px; vertical-align: middle;" width="20" />Posted with Blogsy</a></div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-79155179666957831942013-03-04T00:47:00.001+00:002013-03-04T00:47:21.398+00:00Lucretia Grindle: A little bit of feminism with your mysteriesI've read two Lucretia Grindle novels <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lost-Daughter-Lucretia-Grindle/dp/0330509500">The Lost Daughter</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Villa-Triste-Lucretia-Grindle/dp/0330509497">The Villa Triste</a> and enjoyed both immensely. Both books are modern day crime mysteries, set in Italy with the roots of the mystery in the past. In the case of The Lost Daughter the story centres around events of the 1970s and especially the murder of the politician Aldo Moro and the Red Brigades. In modern day a young woman goes missing while studying in Italy. Her father and stepmother have just arrived to celebrate her birthday and prove to be the link back to a 1970s conspiracy. The Villa Triste begins in 1943 and the Italian partisans. In the modern day a partisan hero has been killed in highly specific circumstances possibly related to his time as or because he was a partisan. Both have been well developed mysteries with decent female characters.<br />
<br />
The two main investigating police officers in both books are in fact male but the stories and mysteries are most definitely female-centric. In fact the focus doesn't really stray from the female lead roles even when the story switches to the investigation that is taking place.<br />
<br />
She is a woman who clearly likes other women and has an understanding of why, even not so likeable women behave the way they do. She doesn't follow the stereotypes, which is refreshing. The female characters all have faults and positives. There is no dwelling on how the female characters look, in fact their appearances are only mentioned to set an initial impression and if relevant. They are also all <em>doing</em> something. They aren't just companions to men or facilitating men doing things. They are the stars of their own story.<br />
<br />
Grindle shows a real awareness of abusive relationships in The Lost Daughter. She seems to understand how and why abuse begins and why women get caught up in it. In fact the two main female characters, stepmother and daughter are groomed when they are young. However, in addition to that the police officers also recognise the dynamics at play. There are no excuses made or minimising of the abuse.<br />
<br />
In The Villa Triste Grindle writes about two sister's experiences during WWII. Apart from being really interesting, punctuated with factual information and statistics, it is an account of the war through women's eyes. As most of history has been written seen through men's eyes I really enjoyed reading about the emotions and fears of the two women, even though it was a fictional account. But it was more than that. Grindle seems to have an awareness that women's history has been largely eradicated and makes an effort to highlight that and fill in some gaps. For example, did you know that out of approximately 200,000 partisans, 55,000 were women and 35,000 of them fought in armed engagements. So much for women not fighting on the frontline. So much for women not being as capable or too weak or too high a risk. This is emphasised perfectly in this quote and also sums up quite nicely why I have enjoyed her books:<br />
<blockquote>
'That even in that day and age,' he said, 'in any day and age, that people always insist on believing their heroes are men.' </blockquote>
<div id="blogsy_footer" style="clear: both; font-size: small; text-align: right;">
<a href="http://blogsyapp.com/" target="_blank"><img alt="Posted with Blogsy" height="20" src="http://blogsyapp.com/images/blogsy_footer_icon.png" style="margin-right: 5px; vertical-align: middle;" width="20" />Posted with Blogsy</a></div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-65040707912906024252013-01-22T10:29:00.002+00:002013-01-23T11:06:00.546+00:00Pro-choice - what other choice is there?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TiL8p3wee0/UP5qeDVIYfI/AAAAAAAAAF8/THjOgfGHMQc/s1600/bfcd-2013.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9TiL8p3wee0/UP5qeDVIYfI/AAAAAAAAAF8/THjOgfGHMQc/s1600/bfcd-2013.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Let's make this absolutely clear because it seems that those of us who would like ALL women to have free access to abortions, have to say this:<br />
<br />
I am not pro-abortion.<br />
<br />
I am a pro-choice. Not only that I believe in choice right up to birth.<br />
<br />
So why?<br />
<br />
I believe in a woman's right to autonomy over her own body. For me, this is non-negotiable and is part and parcel of being a feminist and a woman. And that means being able to decide what can and cannot happen to your own body at any stage, including being 39 weeks pregnant. It is hard to imagine any conditions in which I, personally, would need or want a late-term abortion so I found the discovery that in fact I was pro-choice at any time, difficult to accept. But of course, I don't have to have a late-term abortion. Other women are not so lucky. <br />
<br />
The argument against women having abortions up to term is based on women-hating rhetoric and no fact whatsoever. Yes a woman in 1983 did have an abortion at 38 weeks because she wanted to buy a new pair of shoes instead*. Women really are that flaky. So obviously we need to penalise womankind because of it. Instead of trusting women to know what is best for them, we are treated as fickle children. We are not allowed to decide what can be done with our body, just in case a woman really does decide to buy a pair of shoes over having a baby. <br />
<br />
Trusting people involves accepting that some will make a decision that you may not deem correct. There seems to be this view that as soon as abortion is allowed to term women will suddenly decide, for no good reason to abort foetuses at 30 weeks +. There is no evidence that would be the case, but hell, we are women. Who knows what we will do? But realistically, given <b><i>a completely free choice</i></b>, i.e. without external influence and pressures or problems with health of mother or foetus, how many women would actively choose to have an late-term abortion? If your answer is greater than 1 in a million then take a serious look towards your internalised misogyny. You also need to revise your understanding of pregnancy, late-term abortion and birth.<br />
<br />
And that should be enough of a reason shouldn't it? Except it's not, of course. Because we don't live in an equal society, free from the patriarchy, where our choices are free. In fact if we did, abortion rates would probably be considerably less than they are. And, of course, we don't have free access to abortion up to term (at least not in the UK). So here are my other reasons I am pro-choice.<br />
<br />
Because society unfairly penalises women for having children in terms of monetary income, career options, status etc.<br />
<br />
Because women are raped.<br />
<br />
Because women are subjected and trapped by domestic violence and abuse, often beginning during pregnancy.<br />
<br />
Because of monetary and logistical constraints.<br />
<br />
Because the woman's life may be at risk.<br />
<br />
Because contraception fails.<br />
<br />
Because men and women have sex without contraception.<br />
<br />
Because of society's preoccupation with PIV (penis in vagina) sex rather than other non-penetrative forms of sex.<br />
<br />
Because the foetus may not be able to survive or may have severe disabilities if born.<br />
<br />
Because circumstances for mother and foetus can change throughout the pregnancy.<br />
<br />
Because men are always trying to get rights over women's bodies:<br />
<a href="http://jezebel.com/5934975/paul-ryan-sponsored-a-bill-that-would-allow-rapists-to-stop-their-victims-from-aborting">Paul Ryan - allowing rapists to stop their victims from aborting</a><br />
<a href="http://jezebel.com/5975076/paul-ryan-once-again-sponsors-the-bill-that-would-make-it-possible-for-womens-rapists-to-sue-them">Paul Ryan (again) - trying to make it possible for rapists to sue women who abort</a><br />
<br />
Abortion gives women choices. These choices, in some situations are desperately needed. Access to abortion is a key necessity in our fight for equality and to free us from oppression. It saves women's lives. It gives them some control. It is essential.<br />
<br />
* I made that up - just in case you were in any doubt.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-9325803394002218362012-12-06T15:26:00.000+00:002012-12-06T15:27:58.411+00:00Women-only Spaces<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9rNgMoLjxZU/UMC4DCDXlJI/AAAAAAAAAFY/iuRcjWlfgGU/s1600/women_meeting2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9rNgMoLjxZU/UMC4DCDXlJI/AAAAAAAAAFY/iuRcjWlfgGU/s1600/women_meeting2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Today I went to my first Women's Forum meeting at the University I work at. Until Tuesday I hadn't even known there was a Women's Forum but by the power of an Internal Communications e-mail here I was. I arrived quite nervous not knowing what to expect or even how many people would be there. Well there were about a dozen women of different ages and different professions, some Academic, others Support/Technical Staff. We even got lunch (which if you know me is a winner all the way!)<br />
<br />
The main topic of conversation was an initiative called <a href="http://www.athenaswan.org.uk/">Athena Swann</a> designed to help redress the inequality of women in science and technology academia. I had recently read about a study in science that showed up the gender bias as early on as the <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-in-science-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/">application process.</a> I work in technology too so this was immediately of interest and although it was aimed at academic staff the actions put in place would have some reverberation over the whole University.<br />
<br />
I plucked up the courage to inarticulately ask a question. Whilst stumbling over my point, instead of someone talking over me to say it in a better way (and therefore steal the question and answer as his own) there were supportive noises and words coming from the table to help me finish what I wanted to say. I have been at the University 12 years and that is the first time this has happened to me in any meeting. It was reassuring, without being patronising and it was great! I then noticed that throughout the meeting everyone had let everyone else speak. There had been no talking over each other, no rewording of anyone's points, no ignoring or silencing. These women were articulate, professional and knowledgeable and most of all they were respected in the room.<br />
<br />
Now that could have partly been because these women are focussed on women's issues and are well aware of the studies that show how much men take over group situations and talk over women and be sensitive to letting other women be heard. It could also be that they are respectful because they don't know each other that well (although I didn't get that impression. I think a few of them had worked together a lot). But nevertheless it was a breath of fresh air and I will be attending the forum some more.<br />
<br />
So while I was feeling the sisterly love and on a bit of a high we started talking about <a href="http://mentoring-works.com/reverse_mentoring.html">Reverse Mentoring</a> as a tool within Equality and Diversity. The idea being that LGBT, women, ethnic minorities would mentor those staff less versed in issues these groups of people face. I do have an issue with the terminology (in the description in the link too) but I thought it was a great idea and again, apart from terminology so did the women in the room. My thoughts moved on to ways we could apply this in my department both within the Equality and Diversity remit and perhaps with a student/staff mentor scheme. And there are plenty of opportunities to apply it. I then thought about how I could engage the men I work with (as I work almost exclusively with men). <br />
<br />
And I crashed down off that high and just felt like putting my head in my hands.<br />
<br />
And now I just want to go back into that meeting room with those lovely women and remember how discussions could happen and how ideas could take shape and be implemented.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-26806400406950988752012-12-05T23:23:00.001+00:002012-12-05T23:29:38.096+00:00Red Flags<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LI73pt8-Ttw/UL3HhbrAiHI/AAAAAAAAAFI/kdPRYSOBCWU/s1600/12652281.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LI73pt8-Ttw/UL3HhbrAiHI/AAAAAAAAAFI/kdPRYSOBCWU/s1600/12652281.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<i>Note: I have deliberately used the language of men being the perpetrators and women the victims of abuse. It is not intended to antagonise. It is intended to highlight the direction of power in the overwhelming majority of abusive heterosexual relationships. It is also part of <a href="http://bugbrennan.com/2012/04/06/name-the-problem/">Naming the Problem</a>. Gay relationships are certainly not immune from abuse and the issues discussed in this post could be equally applied to same sex relationships.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> Red flags within a relationship are warning signs that you may be with an abusive partner, the relationship is abusive or the abuse is escalating. They are useful for both the women in the relationship; their friends or family who may be worried about them; counsellors or anyone else seeking to help the abused party. Often it is an accumulation of different signs or a pattern of behaviour that gives the clearest warnings of an abusive relationship.<br />
<br />
Abuse comes from attitudes and values rather than feelings. This is why it is so hard for abusers to change. Ultimately they want and feel they deserve to have ownership of their partners. This may be ownership of their partner's feelings and thoughts or their behaviour or their movements. One thing all abusers have in common is a sense of entitlement and a level of narcissism. They believe that their wants and needs outweigh anybody else's and they are entitled to have their partner (and maybe children) focussed solely on them. To achieve their aims, abusers have to exert some form of control over their partners. Where that control is directed may differ but all are controlling. It is the method by which they perpetuate their abuse.<br />
<br />
<i>So Red Flags are born out of a sense of entitlement and are aimed at controlling the partner and focussing on the abusers wants and needs.</i><br />
<i><br />
</i> <br />
<h4>
Why are the warning signs of an abusive relationship seemingly so hard to spot?</h4>
<ul>
<li>Women, generally, are taught by society to ignore them and in some cases positively embrace them. For example, how many films do you see with over-blown romantic gestures or stalkerish type behaviour? These are the basis of most rom-coms. Take the films <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101912/plotsummary">Frankie and Johnny</a> (where Frankie is deprived of sleep and food before succumbing to Johnny's charms) or <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0128853/plotsummary">You've Got Mail</a> for examples of stalkers and abusers being seen as romantic This isn't just limited to films many songs condone violence to women e.g. Eminem's <a href="http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Kim-lyrics-Eminem/4432064E087ED29F482568FE00279E5B">Kim </a>and a lot of hip-hop and R& B. Rihanna's songs are quite disturbing. The Twilight books and 50 Shades of Grey also depict abusive relationships. If the average person cannot recognise an abusive relationship when it is presented to them in black and white then it is no wonder that a woman in an abusive relationship can't.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Until recently Law Enforcement has been complicit in retaining men's ownership of women and allowing domestic abuse to continue unchallenged. It has only been since 1991 that it is illegal for a man to rape his wife. And only since the 1990s that any significant progress has been made in the prosecution of men for domestic violence. As a result emotional/verbal/financial is only just being recognised and is still not illegal.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>In isolation red flags can appear as just bad behaviour so for example shouting and name-calling during an argument.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Sometimes the signs are "revered" e.g. a workaholic providing for his family is ignoring the selfishness required to leave the house and childcare up to their partner.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Sometimes, again in isolation, they just seems annoying e.g. sulking for hours/days, doesn't do housework.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Abusers are not abusive all the time. This is known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cycle_of_Abuse.png">Cycle of Abuse</a>. Time between episodes may be long enough for the victim not to notice a pattern initially. They will invariably escalate though and the time between periods of abuse will diminish.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Most people can exhibit an incident of abusive behaviour and red flags at some part in a long-term relationship but what makes a relationship abusive is a pattern of behaviour. And this behaviour will generally escalate. A man will not hit a woman on a first date because the woman would probably run a mile. Yet even though a lot of women are shocked by a partner's first violent outburst this is always an escalation of previous abusive behaviour.<br />
<br />
Here are some signs prior to a relationship starting. They may not all prove to be abusive traits but could indicate a tendency towards selfish controlling behaviour:<br />
<br />
<b>He is disrespectful or has a low opinion of other women</b> - this won't change with you.<br />
<b>He has never lived alone</b> - may expect you to be doing all the domestic chores.<br />
<b>He is a workaholic/successful business man</b> - selfish behaviour. Behavioural traits that makes you successful in business are not necessarily compatible with being a good partner.<br />
<b>He spends a lot of time playing sport/getting fit</b> - again could be a sign of selfish behaviour<br />
<b>He doesn't respect boundaries</b> - he brushes against you; doesn't accept no and always tries to talk you round.<br />
<b>Doesn't respect your opinion.</b><br />
<b>Is an "Alpha" male.</b><br />
<b>Drinks too much and/or gets belligerent when drunk.</b><br />
<b>Becomes aggressive or intimidating to other people in social situations</b><br />
<br />
<h2>
<b><span style="font-size: small;">Common warning signs (Red Flags):</span></b></h2>
Any physical or sexual violence from a man in a relationship is abusive.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Speaks ill of previous girlfriends/wives</i></b><br />
Especially if they were "abusive" or turned their children against him. This is unlikely to be the case and in fact he is likely to have been the one who was abusive and his children recognised that.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He is disrespectful towards you</i></b><br />
These could include name-calling; telling you you suffer from a mental illness; ridiculing your beliefs, values, ideas or opinions; disregards your accomplishments or uses them against you; harasses you about things you did in the past e.g. previous boyfriends; breaks dates/cancels plans at short notice; does not acknowledge the work you do or seems to think you don't work hard (especially with regards housework/childcare); humiliates you.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Does favours for you that you asked him not to or didn't want. Is inappropriately generous or loving.</i></b><br />
Grandiose public displays of affection; brings you presents you don't want so you feel bad about refusing them; takes you places you don't want to go e.g. expensive restaurants especially after you have asked him not to.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He is controlling</i></b><br />
Controls your access to money and what you spend it on; takes away car keys, money or credit cards; isolates you from friends or family; withholds approval, appreciation or affection; likes to tell you what you should be doing during the day or expects you to account for where you have been or what you have done, like he is your boss; tells you what to think, wear, how to behave; interferes with your work or school; sulks - not for half an hour like normal people but hours/days/weeks even.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He is possessive</i></b><br />
Is angry if you pay too much attention to someone or something else (children, friends, school, etc.); gets jealous very easily or irrationally; is very concerned about his belongings and not so much about yours; treats you as property rather than a person.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Nothing is ever his fault</i></b><br />
Turns arguments around to blame you; doesn't take responsibility for his actions; minimises or denies being abusive. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting">gaslights</a>.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Life revolves around him and his wants/needs</i></b><br />
Does not include you in important decisions; expects you to cook his dinner, tidy up after him and generally put him first and becomes angry if this is not done to his liking; you find yourself thinking about him and what he wants all the time, neglecting your own wants.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Substance abuser</i></b><br />
Uses drugs or alcohol to excuse their behaviour; An abuser is an abuser without substance abuse. That sense of entitlement will still be there even if he gives up alcohol or drugs. But the nature of the abuse may change and escalate with substance abuse.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Sexual coercion and manipulation</i></b><br />
Does not allow you to sleep; whines or nags about sex regularly (even though you may be having it several times a week); you wake up with him trying to have sex with you; barters chores for sex.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Very intense about the relationship at the start</i></b><br />
Telling he loves you early on; putting you on a pedestal, initially, so he can knock you off it later in the relationship; fiery passionate behaviour.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Intimidation</i></b><br />
Shouts; talks over you or fires questions at you during an argument; invades your personal space; criticises or threatens to hurt your family or friends; smashes up possessions (more often than not your possessions rather than his); reckless and angry driving; intimidating behaviour towards other people and strangers when angry.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Double Standards</i></b><br />
He has affairs. makes contradictory demands; expects you to respect him whilst disrespecting you; comes home at late hours refusing an explanation.<br />
<br />
<b><i>Negative attitudes towards women</i></b><br />
Stereotyped beliefs about sex roles for women; thinks women are conniving, manipulative, stupid or inferior; believes women should do domestic duties; addressing other women bitches, slags, sluts, whores;<br />
<br />
<i><b>Different public/private personas</b></i><br />
He treats you well in company and calls you names in private; he puts you down in public and treats you better in private.<br />
<br />
<b><i>He appears attracted to vulnerability</i></b><br />
Attracted to women who much younger than them or suffered abuse in another relationship or as a child.<br />
<br />
Some of the feelings you may encounter whilst in an abusive relationship may include:<br />
<ul>
<li>Feeling afraid of your partner</li>
<li>Avoiding certain topics out of fear</li>
<li>Feeling you can't do anything right</li>
<li>Believing you deserve to be hurt or mistreated</li>
<li>Wondering if you are going crazy</li>
<li>Feeling numb and helpless</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Thoughts constantly revolving around him and pleasing him</li>
</ul>
<br />
The above lists are not exhaustive and taken in isolation some of them may not be abusive behaviour. If in any doubt please ring Women's Aid and speak to someone. They are very used to spotting abuse and helping victims.<br />
<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Resources used:</span></h2>
Lundy Bancroft: <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling/dp/0425191656/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316686588&sr=1-1" target="_blank">Why Does He Do That: Inside the minds of Angry and Controlling Men</a><br />
<a href="http://divorcedwomenonline.com/2010/08/17/emotional-abuse-checklist-are-you-being-emotionally-abused/" target="_blank">Emotional abuse checklist</a><br />
<a href="http://helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm" target="_blank">Signs of abuse and control</a><br />
<br />
<h2>
<span style="font-size: small;">Helpful resources for abused women:</span></h2>
<a href="http://www.womensaid.org.uk/">Women's Aid</a><br />
<a href="http://refuge.org.uk/">Refuge</a><br />
<a href="http://www.rightsofwomen.org.uk/">Rights of Women</a><br />
<a href="http://www.crasac.org.uk/">CRASAC</a> - Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre<br />
<a href="http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/">Rape Crisis</a><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><a href="http://www.domesticviolencescotland.org/home/">Domestic Violence - Scotland</a></span><br />
<br />
<a href="http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/16-days-of-action-on-violence-against.html">16 days of action on violence against women</a><br />
<br />
<!-- start LinkyTools script --><script src="http://www.linkytools.com/thumbnail_linky_include.aspx?id=173442" type="text/javascript"></script><!-- end LinkyTools script --><br />scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-83622908434083622792012-11-26T23:09:00.000+00:002012-11-28T10:54:22.389+00:00Misogyny - a taboo word?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JeOOJ9k2wvQ/ULXjJlKYvjI/AAAAAAAAADk/rWl_9nhyG-8/s1600/misogyny.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JeOOJ9k2wvQ/ULXjJlKYvjI/AAAAAAAAADk/rWl_9nhyG-8/s1600/misogyny.jpg" height="193" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Misogyny is a word I have only relatively recently begun to use quite regularly. Before that I felt uncomfortable about it but without really understanding why. I have been prompted to try and articulate why by two recent incidents:<br />
<ol>
<li>A man online stating <read <a href="http://karenhealey.livejournal.com/781085.html">mansplaining</a>> that rape wasn't always an act of misogyny and those that perpetrate it weren't always misogynists.</li>
<li>While I was reading Lundy Bancroft's <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Does-He-That-Controlling/dp/0425191656"><i>"Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men"</i></a>. As wonderful as the book is I think he has missed a trick when he states that most abusers are not misogynists.</li>
</ol>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The notion that abusive men hate women was popularized by Susan Forward's book <i>Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them</i>. Dr Forward's description of abusive men are the most accurate ones I have read, but she was mistaken on one point. Most abusers don't hate women. They often have close relationships with their mothers, or sisters, or female friends. A fair number are able to work successfully with a female boss and respect her authority, at least outwardly."</blockquote>
It seems that misogyny/misogynist conjures up images of a man who actively and demonstrably hates all women. After all not even a rapist can be classed as a misogynist, it seems. Dictionaries tend to define misogyny as "hatred of women" which is ambiguous and sounds almost pathological. For me, it is much subtler and more pervasive than this.<br />
<br />
Take my first incident. This man (lets call him Bob) went on to say that not only was rape not always misogynistic but the fact that thousands of Russian soldiers raped thousands of German women at the end of the second World War proved it. They couldn't all be misogynists?<br />
<br />
Why not? Why couldn't they all be misogynists?<br />
<br />
Is it because they had wives and daughters and mothers that they loved? Yet there they were doing a heinous act to someone else's wife/daughter/mother.<br />
<br />
Is it because there were so many of them? Surely not all those men could be misogynists? Because that would then open the door for all those men who really do like women but who find themselves "inexplicably" doing hateful acts towards them, suddenly being misogynists. How could that be true?<br />
<br />
Is it because it was just a single isolated act? I think this is where both examples start to merge. A man who does one hateful act to one woman can't possibly be a misogynist. A man who treats one woman or only a few women badly can't possibly be a misogynist. Yet in the quote from Bancroft's book he actually gives a clue as to why that probably isn't true. <i>A fair number are able to work successfully with a female boss and respect her authority, <b>at least outwardly</b>.</i><br />
<br />
<b><i>At least outwardly</i></b>. So this suggests that beneath a polished surface is a bit of turmoil as to whether he respects his female boss. This is one of the keys. A misogynist has an underlying disrespect for women. He may treat his mother or sister well because they are on that pedestal of "acceptable" women. However the disrespect bubbling beneath the surface "allows" him to commit these seemingly one off acts or abuse only certain women. When Bancroft goes into more detail about abusers it is clear that a lot of them (if not all) have a previous history of abusive relationships; they talk about women in derogatory terms; they want to control their partners. Just because they may be nice/civil/outwardly respectful to some women in their life, does it mean they aren't a misogynist? There is still a pattern of disrespect and disrespect of women is a form of low level misogyny. It isn't the overt hatred that seems to be expected from a misogynist but it perpetuates the subjugation of women.<br />
<br />
Bob may have had a point albeit he put it very ineptly in his eagerness to educate us (I am being more than a little generous there). What makes a seemingly ordinary man do such a terrible act as raping a woman? I think that this points to the other half of the definition of misogyny - the fact it is systemic i.e. society allows men to treat women badly and society sees women as less human than men. It gives them permission. This is how so many men abuse the women they are in relationships with. This is how so many soldiers raped so many women. Although the difference was that the soldiers were given explicit permission without repercussion rather than the implied permission abusers take. An important point to also note is that they were given permission to <i>rape</i> specifically because their victims were women. But to actually commit the act of rape they must have thought those women as lesser to themselves. That disrespect must have always been there. It was just brought to the surface.<br />
<br />
In Bob's redefinition of rape as a non-misogynistic act he also failed to take into account of the victim's feelings and experience. I am pretty certain that the women being raped thought that the individual soldiers hated them. Coupled with the fact that there was no recourse over their violent acts would make the women feel it was misogynistic. They were raped because they were women. It has always been a special punishment for women. What is more misogynistic than that? How dare this arrogant and privileged man deny these women their experience? To a lesser extent Bancroft is doing the same. He admits society allows men to get away with abusing women yet he fails to make the leap to it being misogyny that allows that. And abusive men, by taking advantage of society become misogynists themselves.<br />
<br />
However we are looking at an extreme and unusual act with the mass rape of German women. The average rape is common place and committed by men in pretty average circumstances. Are these men misogynists? Of course they are. The average rapist hasn't just raped one woman for a start. They are using a tool of subjugation against a woman for the purpose of power and control. These men really don't like women. It is quite simple, much more obvious than with an abuser. It is hate. It is misogyny. The clues will be there in their interactions with women.<br />
<br />
Overall misogyny is a lot more passive than the traditional view would have you think. Disrespect, viewing women as less than men rather than out and out hatred is what drives it. Society also provides the vessel in which it grows and continues. Without that vessel it would just be individual men doing individual acts of violence and abuse to individual women.<br />
<br />
I am not the only person who thinks that the popular definition of misogyny is too simplistic and the actual definition should be much wider than the hatred of all women all the time. <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/misogyny-definition-to-change-after-gillard-speech-20121017-27q22.html">Julia Gillard</a> has prompted a rethink by the Macquarie Dictionary and other dictionaries. This is no bad thing. Misogyny is much more widespread than a lone nutcase on a vengeance trip against women. It is time that mainstream society caught up with that.<br />
<br />
On a more positive note, not all men have this disrespect and bubbling hatred for women. I am absolutely certain that some of those soldiers refused to rape these women, for example. Just like men refuse to abuse their partners even though society will allow them to get away with it. And it is reversible. We have to believe that. Men are human. They have the capacity to love and admire and respect us too.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/16-days-of-action-on-violence-against.html">http://therealsgm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/16-days-of-action-on-violence-against.html</a><br />
<br />
<!-- start LinkyTools script --><script src="http://www.linkytools.com/thumbnail_linky_include.aspx?id=173442" type="text/javascript"></script><!-- end LinkyTools script --><br />scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-33465636889097540482012-07-07T10:56:00.001+01:002012-11-28T10:58:56.022+00:00Are we really having this same argument again?<div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I_SZZt38GR0/ULXuLolPBAI/AAAAAAAAAD8/ev89TXbc4FE/s1600/Martina+Navratilova.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-I_SZZt38GR0/ULXuLolPBAI/AAAAAAAAAD8/ev89TXbc4FE/s1600/Martina+Navratilova.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
So it is Wimbledon fortnight 2012 (yes that is 2012) and five years after women finally received equal pay in grand slam tournaments some people (<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/9360519/Wimbledon-2012-Frenchman-Gilles-Simon-claims-men-deserve-better-prize-money-than-ladies.html">Gilles Simon</a>) are still arguing the toss about this. <i>“Equal Pay for Unequal Work”</i>, the cry from the detractors, superficially could be, a convincing cry. However, along with that is much misogyny and the definite implication that women are inferior.<br />
<br />
First of all it isn’t pay that we are talking about, it is prizes. It is perfectly normal and reasonable for men and women to receive the same prize within sport. Take the Olympic Games for example, all winners (and runners up) receive the same prize, no matter what their sport or their event. But the argument against paying equal prize money centres on the fact that women only play best of 3 sets in Grand Slams and men play best of 5. So women are only doing 3/5th of the work of men so should only get 3/5th of the pay of men.<br />
<br />
Well let’s take that logic to its conclusion. Athletics is a good example. A marathon runner therefore should be paid how much more than a 100m runner? 10s compared with 7500secs (2:05 hrs - men’s marathon world record). So marathon runners should receive about 750 times the amount of 100m sprinters? Really? No, because of course that would be ridiculous. They all work hard in their own event, no matter how long it lasts. And that hard work is rewarded with the same prize. The hard work is also recognised as not starting and finishing on the competitive field. <b><i><span style="color: #e69138;">The misogyny</span></i></b> is in the implication that female tennis players don't work as hard as men. Well that is an age old argument outside sport as well as within it and worthy of a blog post by itself. Suffice to say, its veracity is not held in solid foundations.<br />
<br />
Whilst still on the 3 sets vs 5 set argument, within Grand Slams women aren’t allowed to play 5 sets. It isn’t because they can’t or because they won’t, but because they aren’t allowed – like recalcitrant children. They obviously need to prove their worth to the men in charge. And of course timetables would need to be altered and that is obviously too much of a logistical obstacle. <i><b><span style="color: #e69138;">More misogyny</span>.</b></i> It is of course male privilege that allows men to play 5-sets. If women were considered equal to men then it would be bizarre that men and women didn't have the same competition parameters. Yet here we are and tennis is by no means the only culprit within sport.<br />
<br />
Most tennis tournaments for men and women are only best of 3 sets and most tournaments are single-sex. As a result women already get paid a lot less than men on tour because the prize money is related to the revenue the tournaments can get. Women’s tournaments are less supported. <i><b><span style="color: #e69138;">More misogyny</span></b></i>, under the guise of women’s sport just not being good enough or not interesting enough or too shrieky or whatever is flavour of the day. The whole revenue argument is skewed in favour of men anyway, because men are revered for their sporting talent, women not so much. Men have had a monopoly on sport for so long, women are just breaking into it.<br />
<br />
Then, of course there is the quality argument. As we all know women’s tennis just doesn’t compare to men’s tennis. The standard is infinitely lower and there is no strength in depth. In fact, why don’t they all just quit now? Well first of all quality and standards are pretty subjective. Then, who gets to be arbiter of whether women have reached a sufficient standard that they are now equal. If, indeed, that mythical standard could ever be achieved (because after all women just aren’t men). At this point it is important to note that there are many more barriers for women than men in entering sport. There is societal pressure and gender stereotyping, lack of media attention, lack of funding and encouragement and also the legacy of women being banned from certain sports and events (some of which is still in evidence today) which means women are behind the men in terms of numbers and probably strength in depth. However, women’s tennis is probably on a par with men’s tennis say 30 years ago, yet men weren’t being denied their rewards for their labour then. <i><b><span style="color: #e69138;">More misogyny</span></b></i>.<br />
<br />
However, this is constantly comparing women to men which seems pretty pointless as they don’t play against each other. It also sets men as the default, as usual. If tennis was a women-only sport then the emphasis on quality of play would be in comparison to previous years/decades. And if you look back over the decades then there has been huge improvement in women’s tennis. <br />
<br />
Even accepting that women's tennis may not be as competitive as men's tennis, why does this matter? The women involved are still doing the training, still putting in the effort to win. In fact, why would a discrepancy in prize money be the best way of increasing the quality and player base? Maybe giving equal pay, increasing revenue, better coaching, participation initiatives and further encouragement of women within sport might be a better way of going about it. Penalising women financially, isn't going to be an incentive to increasing competitiveness, if that is of course the goal. If the goal is to put women back in their box then financially penalising them is entirely the right way of going about it.<br />
<br />
Male tennis players have not had to forfeit any privilege, power or revenue in order for women to be paid equal amounts (<a href="http://aeltc2010.wimbledon.org/en_GB/about/history/prizemoney_history.html">Wimbledon prize money since 1968</a>). So they have given up nothing yet they still argue against it. They really just don’t think women are equal or deserving. And of course they want the final word as to when the female tennis players are worthy. Really, this could on for decades. Any excuse to justify why women should not be paid as much as men. It's all a bit chilling.</div>
scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6890545570826444764.post-72403954736444971242012-06-30T15:53:00.001+01:002012-06-30T16:31:09.344+01:00Quick IntroI think I have always been a feminist at heart, I just got a bit lost on the way. Before rediscovering feminism I thought it was all about choice and being more like men to get along in this man's world. It was becoming a mother for the first time 3 years ago that made me realise that all those "choices" women had were loaded. We are pointed in certain directions by society and it is pretty difficult to not only resist but sometimes to recognise that influence. For example, despite being the higher earner in my partnership, I am still the one working part time.<br />
<br />
So a straight talking chat forum soon made me aware that in fact feminism was not only still needed, but vital for a better world for me and my sons. Many questions were answered and posed. Many light bulbs went on.<br />
<br />
With this newly discovered perspective, I found that a great deal of my interests and life demonstrated that equality still doesn't exist and perhaps more importantly, men don't want to give up their privilege. This is deeply apparent within the working and sporting worlds I occupy. It came as a great shock to realise that within the sport I love, women are being discriminated against, dismissed, prevented from realising their potential, disliked and abused or merely tolerated, all because of their sex. In the workplace I seem to have an expectation that I would be disadvantaged for having children, which is why I waited so long to have them. Why was that expectation there? Why should I be disadvantaged? The answers came down to sexism and a patriarchal society.<br />
<br />
The solution is feminism.scallopsrgreathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07769365210807013344noreply@blogger.com0