Comments on last month’s features and reviews
From Fiona
I just wanted to say this was a great article and i agree that the
mental agony of anorexia is both deadly and is ignored. I was
diagnosed with atypical anorexia over a year ago and although i have
managed to maintain my body weight and eat regular meals every day my
mental torment has been ignored by everyone including professionals at
the eating disorder clinic. It is not enough for me to eat regular
meals everday, thats not really the problem, the problem is that i
have no self esteem – i would say that since the age of ten (i am now
approaching 23)i have hated my body. This self hatred means i live a
very resticted life and its awful to think im not the only one with
this self loathing. Although i have no idea how to promote a more
positive body image unless women are told their bodies are beautiful
and feel empowered anorexia and body dismorohia are not going to
disappear.
From Kellie
An honest and intelligent article with a new perspective.
From Matty
Re: Revolution Girl Style Now!: Riot Grrrrl completely changed my life. When I first heard about it I
was really into the concept, but at the age of 14 or so I did not
have any particularly formed feminist opinions. I was a little young
to really get into the thick of the movement, but I went to a few
gigs here and there, read a few zines and a few interviews in the
NME.
I do remember a women only riot grrl gig being advertised and
thinking “I don’t like that, separatism is not the way”, but was
convinced to go by a friend who had no-one else to go with.
It was that gig that had a powerful enough effect on me to stamp a
feminist mindset on me from that point onward. It took me a long
time to crystallise my views, but they were all born from the
realisation that I behaved, felt and acted utterly differently when
surrounded only by women. It wasn’t, I realised, an exercise to ban
men, but to help me question and understand myself as a woman in a
patriarchal society.
I’m a performer now, and 15 years later it’s memories of the riot
grrl movement that caused me and a friend, Lucy to open a women only
comedy night where I know for a fact I’ve brought the concept of
feminism to women who hadn’t previously considered it. It may have
taken a few years, but Riot Grrrl made a feminist out of me and no
mistake and through it I’m still trying to spread the message to
other women and understand it myself.
From Jessica
Re: Feeling a bit uncomfortable?: While reading Jane Purcell’s ‘Feeling a bit uncomfortable’, I found
myself in a whirlpool of laughing and crying and also flinching, esp.
at the flaming nipple section. My friend has recently fallen pregnant,
and it has given me an opportunity to think about the rituals of birth
and raising the child thereafter. My friend is planning on a home
birth. I’m fully supportive of this, my own mother regretted having
me in hospital, because of the atmosphere, I was not the problem. She
had my sister at home, and although she admits to it being easier in
part because of the second birth phenomena, she also is adamant that
hospitals cause a great part of the discomfort and stress that is
felt. I was reading Germain Greer’s ‘Female Eunuch’ in which she
suggests that lying down is not a position that allows the woman to
harness her potential strength. Greer suggests standing or crouching,
allowing use of the back muscles and gravity. I suggested this to my
mother, and she said this was an absurd suggestion, great in theory,
but women giving birth are so tiered withing the first stages
alone…well she suggested I try it, see how I feel!! It is
interesting to think about just how much of the “medical” rituals are
useful for women during birth and how much Purcell’s “NFI” theory is
in actual fact relevant.
Jane Purcell, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comments; it’s lovely to get some feedback. Regarding home birth, several of my friends have had one and all said that despite the pain, they felt more in control, because they were in familiar surroundings and felt they could do as they pleased. Hospital routine, hospital smells and sometimes medical staff acting as though a woman in labour is the most almighty inconvenience, can all contribute to birth being an experience to recover from rather than celebrate.
I strongly believe a woman should have the right to whatever birth she wants, including the right to change her mind halfway through and demand more drugs than Eric Clapton is capable of ingesting. And since Germaine Greer has never actually given birth, I’m with your mother on that point! I tried to move around in hospital but the pains were so overwhelming and came so fast that I couldn’t move. As for the NFI – I heard that directly from a doctor I was seeing several years ago.
One more thing. If you get the chance to read your medical notes – read them. And make comments. They especially hate it when you correct their spelling, or comment on their diagnosis. Ha!
From Ruth
I loved Jane Purcell’s article. It’s always great to read an article
about motherhood from a feminist perspective (as I think some people
believe that once you become a mother you instantly stop being
capable of being a feminist).
There was just one part of the article that I might – just slightly –
take issue with.
“But the gap between knowing why you should breastfeed and the
experience of it is enough to drive away 55% of UK women in the first
week.” That’s true. However what’s also true is that of all the women
who stopped breastfeeding in the first six weeks, 90% didn’t want to
stop. I think that’s a real shame. For the ten percent that did want
to stop, it’s fantastic that they managed to breastfeed as long as
they wanted to and stop when they wanted. But for the others?
Just telling women not to beat themselves up about it isn’t enough.
In fact I think it almost detracts from the issue. Of course women
shouldn’t feel guilty (although sometimes that’s a bit like telling
the pope not to feel catholic) but sometimes I think saying “oh don’t
feel guilty it’s not the end of the world” is a bit of a fob-off when
what they might be better off hearing is “yes it’s terrible you did
not receive the support you deserved and you have every right to feel
angry, rather than guilty, let’s do something about this so it doesn’t
happen again” and investing money in midwives’ pay (although this
should happen as a matter of course anyway) won’t work (as who is
going to use their own wages to pay for extra training?). We need
breastfeeding to become a priority. Not in a “ram it down your throat
if you don’t want to do it” type way of course, but in such a way that
midwives and health care professionals are actually ALL fully trained
in how to support women who do want to do it.
I do agree that far too much is done to try to persuade women to
breastfeed in comparison to how much support there is to actually do
it… there is support, but it tends to come in the form of unpaid
volunteers (like myself) or the occasional fully-trained
breastfeeding midwife, who might work part-time (like the one at our
local hospital) and be unable to get to you when you’ve delivered.
However I have to say, I never had breastfeeding rammed down my
throat; in fact the opposite was true. I was told by midwives my baby
needed formula in hospital; when I returned home I was told by a
midwife I should give him a bottle to help him sleep, a health
visitor told me he was gaining weight too slowly so I should bottle
feed him… again, all issues that could be solved with better
training of paid professionals.
I think in the main though we see eye to eye on your article! I think
that it really is a woman’s right to have the birth she wants, whether
this is at home with candles and a birth pool, in a birth centre or in
a hospital with all available painkillers, and I think whichever she
chooses she should have access to the best possible appropriate care,
and not treated like a second class citizen.
From Jo
In response to Jane Purcell’s article on Maternity Ward experience.
What a fantastic article! Well written, funny and insightful. This is
exactly the kind of thing I want to hear about to get a better idea
about what having a baby might actually be like. It’s not often you
hear about post birth ‘shock pain and terror’. I loved the
description of the ‘hand grenade’ feeling too! This is a real account
of birth, much more helpful than looking at pictures of smiley smug
‘Alice band wearing’ types. Thanks very much.
From Susan Francis
Re: How not to write your policy on transgender rights: I agree totally with Emma Wood’s article on transgender policies. I’m
shocked that A:gender present such gender-essentialist views at all,
let alone as Truth.
The trans activists I’ve read are allies of genderqueer people. It
seems such an obvious place to stand – does anyone really want to be
tied into those straight-jackets of gender roles that the
gate-keepers in the NHS (used to) demand?
I’ve been puzzled by the attitude of some radical feminists to trans
issues, which seems highly biological-determinist in its turn (and
also ignores the existence of transmen as far as I can tell); I
wondered where those writers got the fantasy from of ex-men playing
up to patriarchal stereotypes of womanhood. Looks like they’re in
adversarial symbiosis with those plonkers at A:gender.
Emma Wood, author of the article, replies
Hi Susan,
This is an interesting point as I’d definitely define myself as a radical feminist, meaning literally that I like to get to the roots of patriarchal society, not as popularly supposed that I’m an extreme feminist. The problem being of course that there as many different definitions of ‘radical feminist’ as there are definitions of ‘Marxist’.
I do think the radical feminist position on transgender issues has often been confused somewhat with a biological essentialist position (though there are no doubt some “radical feminists” who are biological determinists). The radical feminist position, at least my radical feminist position, is that gender is a social construct.
That doesn’t mean bodies don’t matter – there is a lot of very real discrimination based on (perceived) biological sex, just as race is a social construct but there’s a lot of very real discrimination based on (perceived) race. I think this is where a lot of the confusion around the radical feminist position has arisen – not least among radical feminists. I personally don’t believe (biological) males are born to rape and abuse, any more than I believe (biological) females are born to clean kitchens. However in western society as it is currently constructed my position is that females are disadvantaged in economic terms and experience violence (physical and psychological) because of their gender “woman” which is layered onto a biologically female body by the surrounding society.
This has often been perceived as determinism, when what radical feminists have actually been saying is that in a patriarchal society which discriminates based on gender, which is in turn layered onto biological sex, biology is destiny simply because as an individual you can’t transcend the patriarchal social/economic system, and that this must be destroyed before any real change can occur.
From Jennifer Drew
Emma Wood’s article on How Not to Write Your Policy on Transgender
Rights was spot-on. As Wood wrote this policy takes the view that
women and men are all innately different. The answer of course, is
because women’s brain are different from men’s. This is biological
essentalism wherein all humans are either female or male irrespective
of physical features because biology says so.
Such views serve to reinforce sexist discrimination and guess what it
will of course, be women who, because they horrors – differ from men
are therefore less than men. Well done Emma for raising this
biological essentalist nonsense.
Emma Wood, author of the article, replies
Thanks for the comments Jennifer. This is the problem with biological essentialism – there is frequently a hidden agenda behind it whether it is racist, as in the case of James Watson or sexist as in the case of a lot of the stuff you read about the ‘natural differences’ between men and women.
I’m not saying that the people who wrote this policy necessarily intended to be sexist – the problem is that these ideas are embedded so deeply in our society that it’s hard to recognise them for what they are. And we need to recognise the dangers of them.
It’s perhaps unsurprising that after years of being told they had a mental illness some transpeople may welcome a biological ‘explanation’ for gender dysphoria. But even if this is the case, this doesn’t justify extrapolating a whole lot of other things from it about the ‘essential’ nature of men and women.
But there are other reasons why essentialism and finding biological causes for things is a bad idea. In 1993 after a genetic cause for homosexuality was supposedly found the Daily Mail ran the headline Abortion hope after gay gene finding.
And as activist Peter Tatchell pointed out – to investigate the ’cause’ of homosexuality immediately implies it is somehow abnormal and undesirable. “If you are investigating the causes of homosexuality, why not look at the causes of heterosexuality? The implication is that heterosexuality is normal, natural and unproblematic.”
From Kate Middleton
An interesting commentary on the Home office policies on so-called
‘gender reassignment’.
You are quite correct that it is disturbing that biological
essentialist views are being promoted in this way by official policy
documents. Like so many of these documents, much of it is a pastiche
of previously published material which includes the ‘the current
medical viewpoint’ produced for the Parliamentary Forum on
Transsexualism by the ‘expert’ psychiatist Dr Russell Reid which
argues that transsexualism is biological. As usual with these
policies it includes unattributed quotes from this document as if
they were fact.
However, the ‘gender is socially constructed’ paradigm of thought is
just as tyranical as biological essentialism in my view and can be
used to argue that ‘gender identity disorder’ is a result of faulty
learning on the part of a child and used to justify ‘behavioral
modification therapy on young children. This ‘diagnosis’ has been
used increasingly to persecute children who are suspected of possibly
growing up to be be gay or lesbian as well as those who might need to
transition to the sex opposite to that which they were identified as
at birth.
In Phyllis Burke’s book Gender Shock, she records how Professor
Richard Green of Charing Cross Hospital believes that homosexuality
is biological in origin but that parents have the legal right to seek
medical treatment to try and modify possible pre-homosexual behaviour.
Green was recommending ‘intense behavioral modification therapy’ as
late as 1987 and was greeted on his arrival at the GMC in March by a
group of women with a transsexual history who were no loner under his
control with ‘look, here comes Satan!’
The concept of gender was promoted by psychatists in the 1950s and
1960s like John Money and Robert Stoller in order to explain people
with intersex conditions as well as transsexualism. Money’s attempt
at reassigning a normal boy as a girl which was used by Kate Millett
in Sexual politics 1969 as evidence that ‘gender’ is learnt and that
male/female behavioral differences are purely social in origin but
this experiment later was revealed as a disaster and academic fraud
and David Reimer had transitioned back to being a man before
committing suicide in 2004.
The stereotypical assumptions revealed in this policy are most
disturbing; anyone who doubts that women can be aggressive should
read Alice Sebold’s Lucky and the poems she wrote about what she
would like to do to her rapist. Or Judith Herman’s Trauma and
Recovery which includes accounts of what certain women would like to
do to the men who had violated them.
I sat in briefly on Dr Russell Reid’s trial in the GMC in March and
listened -to my absolute disgust- to the male ‘experts’ talking about
the ‘female role’. What is that? Flying fighter planes? sailing alone
round the world? Playing Rugby? Women do all these things though this
does not seem to be a fact of which these people are aware.
I would argue that there is a place for biological theories of
causation if it reduces aggressive attempts by the medical
establishment to change people’s sexuality or sense of being male or
female and protect the rights of children and young people to be
treated with compassion and humanity. The study to which you refer
has actually been replicated with 40 more subjects in 2000 with the
same results and, one would hope that it might encourage a new
generation of practitioners to treate the people who they are
supposed to be helping with humanity and humility. Or course, the
danger is that they might just find ways of trying to eliminate what
they perceive as undesirable people if the causes were identifiable.
It was refreshing to read your thoughtful post after reading Julie
Bindel’s incredibly uninformed and prejudiced nonsense on The
Guardian website comparing ‘gender ressignment’ with ‘aversion
therapy’ under the banner of lesbian feminism. As the policy to which
you refer points out, there was about a thirty percent suicide rate
with such treatments.
It is very sad to see such people advocating ‘counselling cures’ for
other people when they might very well be subjected to such abuse
under the psychiatric ‘diagnosis’ of ‘gender identity disorder’ in
order to ‘cure’ them of their lesbianism. It is very sad to see
others who have been persecuted inmoseing their views on others and
spreading misinformation in this way.
The most important thing is that people should be allowed their
personal autonomy over their life, body and expression of personality
without interference and persecution from ignorant people.
Emma Wood, author of the article, replies
Thanks for the remarks (I presume you’re not the same Kate who’s going out with Prince William!). One thing we certainly agree on is that the autonomy of the individual should be paramount. I didn’t know the origins of much of the material – that’s interesting particularly as Dr Russell Reid has been the subject of a disciplinary hearing. Personally I think the huge mistake that’s being made by both sides in this debate is confusing ‘gender’ (socially constructed male and female roles) with a person’s biological sex. I don’t doubt that there are people, because I know quite a few personally, who for whatever reason want to change the physical body/biological sex they were born with and that this isn’t imagination, or internalised homophobia (not least because many of them are heterosexual before transition), or anything else. This may well have a biological origin, at least for some people. Just as homosexuality may have a biological origin
But why should we care one way or another? I’m wary of seeking ‘explanations’ for things – the next logical step is to seek ways to eliminate them. We shouldn’t forget that when a ‘biological’ cause for homosexuality was found as recently as 1993 the Daily Mail ran the headline ‘Abortion hope after gay gene finding’. If homosexuality is genetic, that doesn’t stop people trying to eliminate homosexuality, it just makes the preferred method of elimination more sinister. Curiously the discovery of the ‘gay gene’ was more welcomed in the US than the UK. The US reaction was that a ‘biological’ cause for being gay meant that it was ‘natural’ and therefore somehow ‘justified’. Whereas here Peter Tatchell commented “If you are investigating the causes of homosexuality,why not look at the causes of heterosexuality? The implication is that heterosexuality is normal, natural and unproblematic.”
There’s really no connection at all, in my opinion, between the way a person perceives their physical body and ‘gender’. which is what I mean when I say gender is socially constructed. I’ve got absolutely no desire to change my body – well my biological sex at least – I wouldn’t mind being three inches taller and a few stone lighter. But I don’t identify in any way with a conventional ‘female’ gender role – I do loads of things that aren’t ‘feminine’.
I don’t wear skirts, I don’t wear high heels, I don’t wear makeup, I have short hair and I can do jobs around the house – in defiance of all the people who keep warning me I should get a man to do them. And I occasionally get abuse in the streets because as I don’t look ‘feminine’ people assume (correctly) that I’m a lesbian. They don’t of course say that to some of my ‘straight’ looking (ie more conventionally female) lesbian friends, so the confusion is obviously widespread – the assumption being that a ‘masculine’ looking woman is automatically gay when that isn’t the case. I’m not a lesbian because I identify in any way as male, I’m a lesbian because I’m a woman who is attracted to women. And I’m not attracted to ‘femme’ looking women either which destroys another cliche I’m afraid.
So much for cisgender privilege which supposedly I am the proud possessor of. This is defined in wikipedia “a type of gender identity formed by a match between an individual’s biological sex and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one’s sex “. By that definition I am transgendered. But I am not of course transsexual because I don’t wish to change my biological sex in any way. And I wouldn’t really consider myself transgendered either, just someone who ignores what I see as pointless social convention and believes that you need a black and decker and some rawlplugs, not a penis, to put some shelves up.
From Rosemary
Re: Does ‘gender neutral’ language serve to cover up male violence?: 5th December 07. BBC Breakfast ran a story on how young girls are
being duped into prostitution by teenage boys. Did they ask what can
be done to stop boys selling out younger girls? No! They focussed
solely on how we can empower girls to say no. That’s good, but what
about catching the criminals? What about educating boys to respect
their female peers??
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
I totally agree with your views. I have in fact just read this report
and once again male accountability is invisible. Instead we must
supposedly simply tell girls to say ‘no’ to boys’ sexual demands. Such
claims totally ignore how gender inequality operates. These teen boys
receive the same messages as teen girls, namely that male sexual
entitlement is normal and acceptable and female sexualities are for
men’s use/abuse.
I do know that Womankind have been working in a number of schools
challenging the embedded male sexual harassment of girls which continues
unabated and is often dismissed as ‘just boys being boys’ or just ‘boys
trying out their masculinities’. However, girls continue to be socially
controlled and if they deviate from what is perceived as appropriate
feminine behaviour they are punished. Boys however are not punished and
neither is their behaviour or attitudes challenged.
You might want to have a look at Womankind UK’s website because there is
a section on schools. It is interesting reading.
From Ingrid
I was kind of puzzled by the article. Perhaps the lack of references
were to do with the writing form of f-word but it did make me wonder
if you were basing your view on generalisations rather than actual
empirical research of the media. Similarly the framing of rape by
the media is much more complex -and I think it is the unspoken
assumption that the perpetrator is male which the language hides, and
that the portrayal of the victim as a gendered person (woman, she etc)
is done, maybe misleading or poorly, to invoke a connection.
Interestingly I was speaking to a journalist about the legal
restrictions on what the could print before someone had gone to court
and in the initial cases where the police don’t have a suspect they
may be legally unable to confirm that the person is a male/man. And
as to saying that statements about the public being aware/careful, I
wonder if it is indeed the intention of the police to make everyone
aware -in that everyone should look after others they know.
I went on to Google and tried to look for recent articles where the
gender of the rapist wasn’t mentioned and from what I can see the
situation is much more complex that you outline. In some cases the
portrayal of the victim and how she was raped seems aimed at
gathering sympathy and more importantly empathy which heightens the
feeling and maybe preventative behaviour ‘that situation could
happen to me’. This view is based on a brief analysis of the whole
content (i.e. the gender not being specifically referred to as
‘male’ but the person being referred to as ‘he’ and photos of
the ‘accused’ being included).
Similarly with domestic violence -some statistics indicate that as
high as 19% of domestic abuse victims are male, in half of which the
abuser is male. Having grown up in a household where my mother was
violent against my father and now seeing my sister being violent
against her boyfriend, I can only but conclude that gender plays is
far different role that the simple one you wish to outline.
Perhaps you are drawing on more detailed work, in which case I’d be
interested to read it.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
The article was written for the general reader and therefore empirical
evidence and research which certainly does prove gender neutral language
is never ‘neutral’ would not have been appropriate.
However, I believe I clearly demonstrated by using examples of how the
male perpetrator but never a female perpetrator is always invisibilised
when the media reports on male violence against women and children.
From Deborah Svidler
I really appreciated your article. Thank you for bringing attention to
such an important issue that most men AND women tend to omit. It
definitely sends out the right kind of message we should be getting
in our society, something that is so difficult to encounter nowadays.
Great job.
From Noel
As I see it, it’s not specified if males commit acts of violence
(either against males or females) because violence is perceived as a
male thing. If you hear the phrase “…a soldier tortured and
killed…” do you think about a male, or a female? You don’t think
about this picture,
right?
I, as a male, see this as a bad thing, because I’m someone concerned
about the violence against anyone, specially against woman. I don’t
like to be thought as violent just because I’m a male, just as my
girlfriend doesn’t like to be thought as submissibe just because
she’s a woman.
I’m wondering: how should we clearly state when a male attacked a
woman or girl, without tagging the whole male gender as violent,
reinforcing the male violent attitudes?
Anyway, your article made me think =)
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
The image you refer to is a classic case in point. The media focused
solely on this female soldier’s acts of sexual violence against some
Iraqi prisoners and deftly omitted to mention or hold responsible the
male soldiers who also participated in these crimes. So again one has
to ask why? Why was the media’s attention solely focused on the acts of
one individual female soldier, when they knew at least three or four
male soldiers were also involved and one male soldier was clearly
ordering the other soldiers to commit these crimes.
The actions of this female soldier were not an everyday occurrence which
is why the media sensationalised this case. However, male sexual and
physical violence against women is not only a daily occurrence it
happens nearly every hour every day, somewhere globally. But these
cases are rarely reported because male violence against women is nothing
out of the ordinary, rather it is ‘natural’ and ‘normal’ male behaviour.
Only the more sensational acts of male violence against women are
reported with of course always the media reporting a woman was
raped/sexually abused/murdered but with no mention of the gender of the
male perpetrator. We never read reports that a man raped and/or
murdered a woman, instead we read a woman was raped and or
murdered. Which leads me once again to ask did another woman commit
this crime, or perhaps it was was a child?
In fact rarely do we read reports ‘a solder was killed today’ instead we
read about people being killled if the military casualties are more than
one person. Only when a female soldier is reported having been killed
in action do we read ‘a female soldier was today killed etc.’
Overwhelmingly violence is being committed by men and boys against women
and girls but they continue to be reported as isolated cases not ones
wherein men and boys are systematically abusing women and girls because
they believe men are entitled to control and dominate women.
However, women as a group are not in the fortunate position of having
their gender invisibilised. Whenever a
woman or girl is reported as having committed an act of violence, the
media always ensures the reader knows the gender of the woman or girl
within the very first sentence. The gender of male perpetrators is
never mentioned, instead we simply read a woman was
raped/murdered/sexually abused.
Not naming the gender of male perpetrators effectively invisibilises
widespread male violence against women and negates these men’s
accountability.
It is very easy to state when a man or boy commits violence against a
woman or girl. All that is required is for the media and institutions
to say in the first sentence ‘a man/men/boy(s) raped/sexually abused
etc. a woman/girl. The very wording does not say ‘all men are violent,
neither does it say all men and boys committed violence against the
woman or girl.
The media has no compunction in reporting the gender of a woman or girl
whenever they commit a crime of violence and I have yet to hear women
claim such reporting leads them to believe all women and girls are
innately violent against men/boys/women/girls. What I do hear is that
the female perpetrator is being held accountable and responsible for her
actions. Men who commit violence against women however, are not being
held accountable for their actions.
I’m pleased to note you do not condone or justify male violence against
women but sadly, many men do justify their violence against women. If
you re-read my article you will see that I clearly stated not all men
commit violence against women. The real problem is men and many women
too, become very uncomfortable when they read articles or the rare news
reports wherein the gender of male perpetrators is clearly highlighted
at the beginning of such reports or articles. But hiding the fact men
not women overwhelmingly commit violence against women only helps to
invisibilise the fact male violence against women is men’s problem not
women’s. Women are not to blame when a man or men commit violence
against them but using gender neutral language acquits these men of
their accountability.
Many men do challenge other men’s physical and verbal violence against
women but sadly such men are very much in the minority. For example,
the White Ribbon Campaign is a male organisation which has branches in
many countries. This organisation actively speaks out on male violence
against women and works with women to challenge men’s violence and their
behaviour. These men are not bystanders because they do not believe
male violence is innate but rather it is learned behaviour and as such
can be challenged and changed. But at the same time they recognise the
power imbalance between women and men and how men as a group continue to
hold more power than women. They also recognise how male violence
against women is excused and justified as well as rebutting myths that
women in equal numbers commit similar acts of violence against men.
Your girlfriend rightly refuses to be considered submissive but
unfortunately the media, Government and other institutions still
promote the myth that women as a group are submissive and ‘vulnerable.’
Which of course means women’s submissiveness and vulnerability is the
real cause of men’s violence against women not the fact men as a group
have been given more power and authority than women. Of course, if a
woman or women are perceived to have deviated from what is believed to
be appropriate feminine behaviour, then the woman or women is
automatically held accountable for the man/men’s violence committed
against them. This is not the case however, when men commit acts of
violence against women, instead great effort is made to excuse or
justify men’s violence which includes cleverly omitting those taboo
words male words man, men, boy, boys etc.
Just to reiterate I do not believe men as a group are violent because of
their biology. Aggression is not solely a male trait it is a human one,
but women unlike men are subject to more social control and punishment
if they deviate from their supposed feminine role. Men however, are
taught that in order to be a ‘real man’ aggression and violence is
natural masculine behaviour. It is not and therefore can and must be
challenged.
From John F.
Regarding the article “Does ‘gender neutral’ language serve to
cover up male violence?” by Jennifer Drew. I actually want to throw
out a comment to Jennifer specifically, for her to think about.
Omitting the “male” in “male-perpetrated violence,” as I see it, is
somewhat the opposite of what you describe, yet at the same time can
make the same negative contributions.
People tend to not mention the sex unless it’s NOT a man for the same
reason a straight person will assume others are straight unless told
otherwise: Because our limited viewpoints cause us to expect the
default. Hell, the act of widespread social expectation itself
defines what a default will be.
This means that it’s more a normal thing to most for a man to commit
violence, and a more abnormal thing for a woman to do so. This can
be seen by masculists as the “assumed guilt” of all men and a
lowering of their social status. Or some can see it as, such as you
say, excusing (through normalizing) the actions of men as less
important/fixable/problematic than the violent actions of women.
But of course all this only comes from the fact that yes, men are
more apt to commit physical violence than women, but there are only
two sexes and one is most likely going to be better or worse at any
one thing than the other gender is. Beyond that, more reasons for
this go back to animal nature itself, and the checks-and-balances of
nature’s gender system of reproduction.
No, it’s not meant to be between pure equals, men and women are
slightly different in just the right ways, and have their more-unique
gender-specific positive and negative traits, coupled with many we
share more commonly as basic human traits.
And that’s what this is all about, traits, the same traits we see
every day in society and can see clearly through history, as well as
in nature. Some feel the need to criticize/fear those with whom they
don’t share enough traits, but that view is slowly becoming less
popular over the centuries.
From Eddy
In response to your article about the gender of words becoming neutral
in order to protect men:
I’m a gay male, and was raped by the same. He was also my best
friend.
So yeah, women are commonly the ones being raped, but not all the
time. Rape is not just a crime against women. A woman and be raped
by another woman, a man by and man, and any combination of the two.
If words are becoming neural, they should be done so to both, ie XX
were committed in 2007, so on and so forth.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comments. However, if you carefully read my article
you will see that ‘gender neutral language’ does in fact invisibilise
those men who commit violence against women.
You state a male friend raped you. The gender of the rapist was once
again male. Like women, you too were a victim of male violence, but
overwhelmingly male violence is committed with impunity by men against
women. Whenever cases of male violence against women are reported, the
language used is always the same, wherein the male perpetrator(s) gender
is always invisibilised. Instead we read a woman was raped/sexually
abused/physically attacked but the word man, male, boy is never used.
So, one has to ask why? Why are these words taboo ones. Perpetrators
must be held accountable for their crimes but unlike women the male
gender is rarely explicity stated. In doing so it invisibilises male
accountability. Women however, are not protected. Whenever a woman is
reported as having committed a violent crime, within the first sentence
the media ensures readers know the perpetrator is a woman. Not so in
cases of male violence against women. Why is society so afraid of
holding violent men accountable for their crimes against women but has
no hesitation in blaming women for violence they have committed. Of
course, it makes many men uncomfortable knowing that many men do commit
violent sexual and physical crimes against women but this does not mean
all men are responsible. Invisibilising the gender of the male
perpetrators helps to make male violence against women normal whereas in
fact it is not normal but must be challenged.
Cases wherein a male(s) rape another male are always reported with both
the perpetrator and victim’s gender being named, usually within the
first sentence. This does not happen when women are victims of male
violence.
Yes, a woman can rape another woman and yes men do rape other men, but I
repeat women do not rape men to the same extent as men rape women. Nor
do men rape men to the same extent as men raping women. Rape is
primarily a crime committed by men against women. This is a fact but
the media and Government by using gender neutral language effectively
invisibilise male violence against women.
From arvan
I could not agree more.
I agree that accountability is missing. I will personally use the
language that you suggest, for the very same reasons that you stated.
Generally, in life, I find that when accountability is ‘missing’ – it
is no coincidence: it is being avoided.
It is no coincidence that media outlets neglect / omit / or “forget”
to make overt statements of male accountability for acts of
aggression or dominance to women. Men enjoy greater wealth and
freedom over women, worldwide. Men control the media and government
messages.
I see that the state of women, as a whole is still that of a slave or
livestock. For every one woman who stands her ground, claims her
space in society and makes her own way, career and choices – there
are probably one hundred that are enslaved by brutality, religion,
deprivation of education and the bribes that come from dressing up
pretty for the “master’s” (man’s) favor over others.
The message you have drawn attention to here, is one of millions of
messages that reaffirms both the desired subservient state that men
relegate women into – and elevated state that men place ourselves
into.
I am not optimistic that this will change without catastrophe.
From Mia
Re: How to Look Good Naked: How is this show good for the women on it? I love Gok, he is
f-a-b-u-l-o-u-s. And I love the idea of showing the reality of what
most women in the UK look like, and normalising it within the media.
What don’t I love? I don’t love the way a group of women are lined up
in a row, going from thinnest to fattest, with the contestant (if you
can call her that) asked to indicate where on the weight scale she
thinks she lies. The fact that she may be smaller than she thought is
a moot point; there are women in that row who are larger, and by
framing the situation in such a way as to make the contestant happy
that she is not as fat as the woman on the end, one inevitably ends
up destroying that womans confidence for being bigger than is
acceptable for the show.
What the hell? It also disturbs me that it is seen as ok to line ’em
up and use them as dehumanised indicators of attractiveness. As is
they are not people, as if the only way to feel good is to feel
thinner than you are.
Would YOU want to strip down to your panties and act as an example of
what NOT to look like? Didn’t think so.
From sian
hmm, surely the real issue is why women have low self esteem, tackle
these reasons and you help solve the problem. fake tan doesn’t do
that! and so, unlike nicky hambleton jones, he doesn’t suggest
invasive surgery, and says you can look good with your figure, but
still involves slapping on fake tan, waxing, dying, fake hair to
achieve the ideal “feminine” look. this isn’t really celebrating
women’s natural beautty. and why does he have to say “my girl” all
the time? she’s not your girl gok – she’s her own!
From Marina Tyndall
I love love love your new shop. That is all.
Comments on blog posts
From Diane
Re: Men want ‘lobotomised’ women: O.k., is it really? I don’t think so. I want to know why more
feminists aren’t focusing on ageism(sp?)?. I hail from America,
unfortunately, and have witnessed many insults to the female,
especially the “aged” woman. What ever could they mean? They clearly
mean that a woman beyond a certain age (30?!!) is not worth the
chromosomes she hides within that all-important mitochondrial dna.
Men are no where near as important genetically, sorry. When we as a
species can decipher the merits of existence beyond reproductive age,
I will quit the cycle of self-destruction imposed (self-imposed) at
age 16! What a waste. Women should concentrate their efforts on so
much more than the latest anti-aging serum. Why preserve yourselves
for those that do not appreciate your cognizant contributions? There
is no minority that has been more abused than the female of the
species.
From Genevieve
Re: Who to blame for sexist Xmas cards? Feminists, obviously!: n response to the ‘sexist Christmas cards’ article–I was once sent a
card that showed a picture of Mary resting while Joseph held the baby
Jesus. Even though I don’t consider myself Christian anymore, I
still think this was one of the most positive cards I’ve ever
seen–portraying the ‘Holy Family’ as more like a normal family, and
Mary as a normal person with normal human needs (such as taking a nap
after having given birth) rather than some perfect saint-woman.
From Yvonne Douglas
Re: Testosterone causes humour? Oh, please: So if male competition for women is the reason the unicycling man gets
laughed at, what is the reason that I, a short fat woman on my bike,
also experience the same thing? Do they think that I am a lesbian
who may be competing for female attention? And how a concern for
other’s feelings translates into a lack of humour is anyone’s guess.
How does the researcher know what funny remarks the women were
thinking when they chose to be kind or encouraging instead? And why
do negative male traits always seem to get justified away with
evolutionary explanations that remove all personal responsibility for
their behaviour? Female anti-social behaviour = the masculating
tendancies of feminism. Male anti-social behaviour = necessary evil
for the wonders of human reproduction…. yeah right.
From dnx-x1
”It’s sort of ridiculous how easily scientists leap to the
conclusion that all observed results can be traced back to the womb
and/or hormones and/or DNA.”
It’s sort of ridiculous how easily feminists leap to the conclusion
that all observed results can be traced to the patriarchy, and/or
socialization.
I’m not going to say whether or not I agree with them, but I will say
this: men are more varied than women.
From Faintly Puzzled in London
Are you spoofing the fact that the BBC got taken in by a joke
article? Or has the BBC mislead you as well?
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
I sincerely hope this is a spoof, but I was unable to find anything to back up your suggestion.
From Julie
Re: On the Tube: I completely sympathise. In the summer I spent some time in New York,
and during one extremely crowded Subway journey, a man fondled my
backside. I immediately started shouting and making a fuss; I was
completely shocked and disgusted by this violation. A few weeks
later, during another Subway ride, this time on a deserted carriage
at night, a man approached myself and my female companion, making
lewd comments and refusing to leave us alone. We were completely
intimidated and struck dumb by the situation. We got off at the next
station and got a taxi to our destination, chiding ourselves for
making such a poor personal safety decision.
Why could I speak up about the first scenario and not the second?
Perhaps I felt that I felt in some way that we had invited the
latter; we were dressed up for a night out. In retrospect, however, I
was outraged by the first man because he violated social norms not
only by touching me, but by doing it in public. I felt almost as if I
had invaded the second man’s territory, by presenting myself to him in
a ‘private’ context.
From Yvonne Douglas
Just a quick word – don’t ever doubt yourself, if you
are in a situation where a person is making you feel uncomfortable,
there is almost certainly a very good reason for it – your testing of
the situation by walking around to see if he followed you was
absolutely correct – I would add, for what to do in a similar
situation, don’t be afraid to walk into a local shop or pub and ask
the manager to call the police as you believe you are being followed
– no reaction is an over-reaction where you may be in danger. For a
fantastic book read The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker – the first
chapter is absolutely harrowing and has put off many people I have
loaned it to but it is one of the best books I have ever read and
gave me great confidence in judging why a particular person or
situation was making me feel nervous, and what to do about it. It
also has some very good advice on how to deal with
unwanted/threatening male attention both from strangers and people
known to yourself and, refreshingly, recognises the phenomenon of
male violence in relation to women. It’s also important to remember
that a good, non-violent man will almost never become violent due to
your actions – no matter how crazy or paranoid he might think you
were it you started screaming at him to stop following you – so if
causing a confrontation or calling the police does then result in
violence, you can be fairly sure it was a possibility all along and
that your intuitions were correct.
Best of luck xxx
From Helen
Re: A lesson from Monster.com on the application of gender stereotypes: There have been a number of articles of the F-word recently
criticising the view that men and women think and behave differently,
and the “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” attitude. Whilst I
can agree that gender stereotyping is a bad thing, I am not sure it
is entirely in women’s interests to promote the view that men and
women are exactly the same in thoughts and behaviours. I went to a
girls school for seven years and then went to University to study
science in a very male dominated environment. It took quite a while
to adjust to the change in culture, which was very different. Whether
the differences are down to social conditioning or are innate I would
not like to say, but I was immediately struck by the fact that men
are (on average) very much more egotistical and aggressive than
women. This is not a small difference, it is huge. It took me
somewhat longer to realise that because of this, men and women also
tend to judge themselves and each other very differently. Men tend to
take other people very much at face value, and when judging
themselves, tend to put themselves towards the top of the ability
scale. Women on the other hand tend to be much more self critical,
and rather more supportive and generous in their judgements of other
people. I think this is because in female culture (at least at the
school I went to) big-headed people tend to be disliked and
disapproved of, and a degree of modesty and support for others is
expected. In male culture however, being modest is often simply taken
as an admission of being rubbish. The point I am trying to make here
is, that if we do not understand and accept that these differences
exist, whether down to social conditioning or not, women’s abilities
will always be underestimated. Because of this, I prefer the Fawcett
Society’s “equal but different” approach, which I think is more
helpful in this respect.
From An Edinburgh Feminist
Re: Nativity shmativity: I am a feminist and a Christian. If Charlotte Cooper wants to provide
a serious critique of the Nativity, that\’s fine. I am dismayed,
however, that she saw fit to publish something that betrayed
ignorance of the biblical passages that she dismisses. Ms Cooper
states that \”God impregnates the young woman without her consent, or
even her knowledge.\” If Ms Cooper had actually read the Gospel of St
Luke, she would have found that the angel Gabriel appears to Mary
*before* she becomes pregnant, to tell her what is going to happen.
Mary discusses God\’s message with Gabriel, who leaves only after she
has *consented* to what is proposed, with the words \”May it be to me
as you have said.\” (Luke 1:38). You could argue that Mary just does
as she is told, but so does Joseph when he plans to break off his
engagement to Mary and is *commanded* by an angel to marry her as
planned (Matthew 1)! You could also argue, as Ms Cooper does, that
\”The Nativity reinforces ideas of the male heir \” but that is
hardly surprising given that the story (whether you believe it or
not) is set 2000 years ago in a patriarchal, patrilineal society,
under the occupation of Rome, another patriarchal, patrilineal
society. This makes it all the more astonishing that Jesus grows up
to treat women as equals (Jewish or not), have female followers
(Martha; Mary; Mary Magdalene; Joanna; Susanna and others) and
actively intervene when women are being abused (e.g. when a woman is
about to be stoned for a sexual transgression – John 8). Please do
critique Christian beliefs on this site but please show some respect
by: a) reading the biblical passages that you are discussing, and b)
considering the historical context in which they were written. Thank
you!
Charlotte Cooper, author of the blog post, replies
I would love to be able to perform a serious critique of anything in such a short space. Alas, I cannot.
I thought the article quite obviously a joke at the expense of the rigorous shake down at this time of
year of the Nativity: if it’s neccessary/harming our kids/part of being British, all of which always
include crossed wires about the Bible/religion/Christmas/whatever. I’ve never seen it done from a
feminist perspective and just thought it would be awfully jolly.
I’m sorry if you found it offensive and find it more so that you think me so rude and dense.
Best Regards, Merry Christmas.
From Diarmuid
Re: Ronaldo named as footballer in rape case: Just read that article you wrote about how Christiano Ronaldo “raped”
a woman in a london hotel last year. Its typical that a feminist site
would condemn a man as soon as he is accused by a gold digging tramp
who wants to fleece him for all he’s worth. You took a woman at her
word purely because she was a woman and condemned a man because he
was a man, which surely you realise is most ironic from people who
claim they want equal rights with men. The claim was proven to be a
lie as i’m sure todays case against johnny eagles is which is why i
felt the need to email ye before you condemn another innocent man,
which im sure he is.
A little more responsible editing of your rag might be in order.
Louise Livesey, author of the blog post, replies
Thanks for your comments, it’s always nice to know people are trawling our archives. Sadly on this occasion you are mistaken. I’ve just rechecked the article and I consistently used the term “alleged” to describe the allegations. I’m not sure how the consistent use of “alleged” (and it’s derivations) escaped your attention but thanks for making contact. At The F Word we are always careful that we abide by the legal standards preventing defamation.
It’s rather sad that anyone would pre-judge the allegations – I made very clear that “whatever the rights and wrongs” of the situation the FA needed to start taking the run of allegations as a series and systemic issue rather than as individual cases. Unfortunately you decide to denigrate a woman I have no doubt you have no knowledge of whatsoever. As far as I remember (and I may be wrong on this) the Ronaldo case never got to trial so it wasn’t “proven” either way. There are several good texts which investigate the process of attrition in the legal system for sexual violence cases but I’d recommend CWASU’s Gap or Chasm? report and Sue Lee’s Policing Sexual Assault as important documents.
I’d also draw your attention to the fact that CWASU found only 5.8% of reported rapes resulted in conviction. If you add that to the number unreported (according to the Government’s British Crime Survey) then the figure is even smaller (less than 2%). Most cases remain unproven because they never get to court. As for feminists always taking women at their word, it’s a sad misconception that feminism is somehow about “man-hating” which couldn’t be further from the truth. As a feminist I believe patriarchy (the systematic privileging of masculinity) warps life for both men and women.
Obviously I hope you’ll proof-read my forthcoming blog about the latest Man U rape allegations as well. By the way, it’s Jonny Evans not Jonny Eagle. Jonny Eagle appears to be a tennis player.
From Karen James
Re: Filling the hole: Thanks Katie for a sane response
about eating disorders. I am so bored of hearing that it is an
‘individual’ response to inner-turmoil. It is not – it is a perfectly
sane response to a very sick society that denies women rights to a
voice and to their own bodies. It is at epedemic proportions and one
would think that if it affected as many men – that there would be a
society-wide and governmental response to such tragedy. Calling them
illnesses are just ways to avoid positive action and yet again – to
pathologize women’s experiences. And I say this as a recovering
compulsive eater. I could never have recovered until I let go of
being ‘ill’ and realized that I had to openly shun patriarchy.
Result? A loud and confident women!! Thanks again.