Comments on the latest features and reviews
Self harm, by Nino
From LOU
Nino’s article on self harm is impressive for a young woman. I love the
title that makes both points instantly. Not only the narrow way this
‘social issue’ is discussed and ‘treated’ but that indeed all women suffer
the consequences of patriarcial exclusion.
From Anon
I really like Nino’s articles and I hope she will be back to write more.
I can relate to the way she described abusive relationships as a form of
self-harm from my own experience. The shame and guilt I felt after coming
out of such a relationship was much deeper and long-lasting than any
feelings I had for the man. I was embarassed at having been complicit in my
own destruction, for blinding myself to what was happening to me simply
because he was my boyfriend so I should love him, regardless of how he
treated me.
Because of all the distress at how I felt I had made a fool of myself I
hadn’t really considered outside influences on my behaviour – the societal
belief that I should want to hold on to an attractive and popular man and
that surely if he wasn’t a good person he wouldn’t be in such high demand.
Even when some of my friends spoke up against him I was still convinced
that he was only a crap boyfriend because I wasn’t a good enough
girlfriend. During that time I pursued no other interests than those I
thought would make myself more acceptable to him – I also completely
changed my appearance.
Another factor of our society I think may be an influence is that it is
acceptable for a man to do very little (clearly just having a penis is
achievement enough) but women are seen as lazy if we’re not constantly
striving at the ideals of thinness, beauty, financial solvency (to fund
beauty), an active social life, the pursuit of a mate and family life, and
other possible things I haven’t thought of. If we don’t feel like it we
become automatic underachievers and self-harm by abusive man has the
multiple solution of providing a mate, punishing yourself for not doing
anything else, and giving you a new set of standards to strive for. I think
this is what happened to me as I was made to feel bad for not wanting to
wear make-up and not caring that I wasn’t thin. I punished myself via a
nasty man for not being feminine enough, for having little interest in
stereotypical female preoccupations, for being less than I should be.
Now a little older and a little wiser I am glad to know that my identity
as a woman depends on no one else’s approval but my own, and that if I
would rather watch tv and eat biscuits instead of do my hair and makeup I
am entitled to. My greatest joy is in being unrestricted in my own home,
being able to indulge my habits without judgement and be comfortable with
myself. In that sense the restriction of an abusive partner doesn’t just
stop you pursuing your dreams, it stops you being able to ‘be’ at all.
(sorry this is such a long meander, this article affected me a lot)
From Kayleigh
your post- was amazing, so honestly and powerfully written. I can so
relate and you made me look at issues from a another perspective.
excellent. I used to self harm as a teenager, usually because of how I
was feeling due to guys treating me like shit, and my parents went berserk
and said they would send me to a psychiatric if i didnt stop, ridiculous!
anyway thank you for this post- it was very inspiring!
From Sam Jones
I just want to say a huge Thank You to Nino for her article on self harm.
It brought back a lot of memories for me of when I used to self harm as a
result of bullying at school. I was one of the girls who dared to stand up
to a boys and was so different, refusing to cow-tow to their assumed
superiority. As a result I was ostracized and mocked to the point where I
was cutting myself everyday just to make the emotional pain more bearable.
What helped me was the words of another girl who had been self harming for
a lot longer and who showed me her scars. Seeing those wounds on another
person brought it home to me just what I was doing to myself. I wasn’t
going to let the bastards win. That girl and I remained friends since we
left school and have been like sisters ever since. It is the support of
other women that was the true healer for me.
From Shea
I thought Nino’s article on Self Harm was possibly the most brillant thing
I have ever read online or in the mainstream media.
This phrase “Other than keep ourselves busy with pointless activities as
we wait to die. Your soul never dies. But you can misplace it and, hell,
you can lose it.” really stands out for me.
It seems apt that you used Ophelia– a while ago there was a book called
Vanishing Ophelia or something similar, talking about the crisis among
female adolescents, the rise of eating disorders and self harm. There
really is an epidemic where women, especially young women feel guilty for
existing. They try and literally disappear, carving away at their physical
presence through self harm and eating disorders, its so tragic its
unbearable.
We really need a strong reversal of this and “raunch culture” that women
are worth far more than their looks, that they have an intrinsic worth not
related to their appearance or intellectual capacity. Until we do we are
going to keep seeing young women, the modern Ophelia who have become
casualties of societies warped views.
Very relevant and very insightful, thank you Nino.
What a load of wank, by Sophie Platt
From Lori
I absolutely loved your article about female masturbation! As a female
masturbator myself, I have had many awkward moments where the subject of
sex comes up, and I plain tell them that sometimes, I just prefer
masturbation. It just feels better some times. I work with all women, all
of us over 20, and not one of them will even admit to masturbating. I think
it’s high time we taught females that masturbation is *good* and enjoyable,
and that there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.
P.S. I agree with the phallic sex toy angle. While I don’t mind using
them, sometimes, when I’m not in the mood, it kind of weirds me out that
one of the ways I get pleasure is through a fake penis. I wonder how many
men really use fake vaginas to masturbate.
From Aimee
This is a brilliant article! At school, I was ‘that girl’ you mention who
doesn’t give a damn about talking about masturbation and will admit to it
without shame, and I could never, ever understand why something which is
considered ‘natural’ for boys was considered ‘dirty’ for girls. It seems to
me that this idea is perpetuated because it implies that women are not for
themselves; they are for men to use and for them to use themselves for
pleasure is wrong. Like, if your Playstation turned itsself on and started
playing itsself. Girls need to learn that they exist ONLY for themselves
and NOT for the gratification of others.
Re; the issue of the university friend – I am incredulous as to why this
girl stayed with this joker. Surely, anyone with any respect for themselves
would have told him where to go immediately? Shocking.
From Jacqui
totally agree. Thought it was just me who thought like this. I didn’t
have an orgasm until I was 28 – and that was by going to the library as I’d
read the word “clitoris” somewhere and went to find out what it meant. I
know I was born in the 50s but this is ridiculous. I am still amazed by
the responses of women much younger than me (I’m in my 50s) who believe
they need a “good hard cock” to be satisfied sexually. I mainly keep my
thoughts to myself as I also believe I shouldn’t be joining in the sexual
banter at my age – so … we’ve a long way to go .. and we haven’t come
very far – but hopefully we’ll all keep trying to push the boundaries no
matter how old/young or experienced/inexperienced we are. But stuff like
this makes me feel so depressed. I really thought most young women were
getting it on like the boys – but I really don’t think they are – they’re
still lapping up what the media and society tell them.
From josie
I am in my forties and started vigorously and frequently giving myself
pleasure with some mind blowing orgasms since about the age of 12 although
I didn\’t start puberty until 15, and still doing it despite being married
for many years. I have NEVER discussed this with anyone! It would be sooo
embarrasing. Men discuss their sex lives with their mates and probably
some are keen to exaggerate their masturbating activity. Perhaps if women
talked about this more would it empower us or would it reveal too much
about ourselves and leave us open to criticism,and perhaps women are more
competitive than we think.
From Jennifer Drew
Our society has for over a century denied that pubescent girls and adult
women even experience sexual desire and sexual feelings let alone learning
there is nothing wrong in self-stimulating oneself. But of course female
sexuality has been declared to be for the use and pleasure of men NEVER
WOMEN and most certainly no woman or girl was supposed to stimulate herself
in order to learn what she likes or dislikes.
Which is why female sexuality is constantly promoted as one of performance
and exhibitionism always with the invisible male person in mind. Female
sexuality is never supposedly about a woman’s own sexual pleasure or
gratification.
So, excellent that this taboo subject has been challenged. As Deborah
Tolman has said ‘female sexual desire is the missing discourse.’ Girls
when experiencing puberty supposedly never experience sexual feelings or
emotions instead their primary focus is supposedly always on reproductive
issues.
There is a term for this social construction and it is called
phallocentricism which is why so many vibrators are made and promoted as
pseudo penises. Because according to male-centric notions of human
sexuality the penis is the only object which can stimulate a woman’s body.
The only reason why so many boys and men engage in self-stimulation is
because their penis doubles both as an excretory organ as well as a
sexually reproductive organ. Women’s bodies however, have the clitoris,
the purpose of which is solely sexual pleasure and not reproduction. Also,
because all males regularly handle their penises this gives them ample
opportunity to learn that touching and caressing this part gives them
sexual pleasure. Since the clitoris is not located outside the body but
just inside the vaginal area this partially explains why generation after
generation women have to re-learn the clitoris actually exists. So,
penises most definitely are not the be-all and end-all of human sexuality
despite what phallocentricism claims.
From Mark Headey
Actually, this comment is off on a bit of a tangent; namely men sitting
with their legs apart “taking up room”. While I am not going to deny that
this may sometimes be the reason, but I’d like to offer an alternative
explanation.
You women may not believe this but, take it from one who actually owns a
pair of testicles, sometimes sitting with your legs together can actually
be painful if the said objects are inconveniently placed. True, in the
comfort of one’s own space, this is easily remedied. Unfortunately,
rummaging around in ones trousers to put some order to the miscreants is
generally frowned upon in public. So, I too have occasinally sat with my
legs un-necessarily widely splayed until I could find the right occasion to
“adjust” myself.
Just thought you should know. It may not always be because we me are
being “macho” and demanding more space than reasonable.
From Moody
Fantastic article. Would be a great read for a lot of young girls whose
only sex education is the right wing abstinence program. Thanks.
From julia
Reading this piece, I realize that some things have changed. I know women
who never orgasamed or masturbated until their late twenties. Women who’d
been through marriages before they found their own sexual pleasure. That
said, it is still very sad that girls are taught to keep their bodies
tucked away, in every sense. And that boys are not taught that their hands
and tongues in the right spots can lead to fireworks for their partners.
The future of activism, by Deborah McAlister
From alison
I agree that we need to make our presence known to those who are scared of
feminism or think it doesn\’t exist anymore. Some of us are using ironic
flyers and \”This Insults Women\” stickers to put in/on offensive magazines
and newspapers to raise awareness and provoke discussion amongst the
general public. Obviously, the more people doing this the more impact it
will have. I also really like the idea of the art/graffiti approach, it
creates the impression of an underground movement and could be really
powerful.
From Liz Ely
Hiya – great article on activism ! In Edinburgh someone has been
stenciling little men signs about the place, to which I have been adding
skirts and hair and writing yay feminism. Probably won’t do much but sure
is fun :)
From Janet Hunter
Totally accurate! We are less active and society apears to have gone back
to the 1950’s. Mostly due to marketing and the mass media projecting images
of women’s bodies as commodities. I’ve noticed that the girls I teach are
much less well informed than I was about feminism in the early 1990’s and
much more eager to embrace steroetypes. Where do we go from here?
From Alice Tichborne
I think making and distributing feminist zines for school girls could be a
very useful (and non-arrestable) way of spending activist energy. I know
that if someone had left a stack of feminsit zines around in my classroom,
I would have gobbled them up.
From Alice Dale
Deborah is absolutely right. We need to do more and we can’t rely on just
venting our feelings on the internet!
We need to expand on the bat-phone call out idea (the alert system to let
other feminists know when comments on national websites are rude and
offensive). We need to set up an email alert system for when there is a new
petition to the Government, and don’t ASK people to sign, TELL them to sign
– and then TELL them to send it on. We need to get people turning 18
involved in the political process. If there’s a problem out there that
isn’t political we need to work out how to address it (complain about an
advert in the UK? Go to the Advertising Standards Authority!)
We need to build on the brand name of Active Feminism! So, any thoughts on
how to go forward from here?
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
Great ideas, but I can’t get behind the idea of “brand name Active Feminism”, I don’t think!
From Nino
Spot on. Activism is not active enough.
Movements don’t move
And people just point and wonder.
The graffiti idea i quite like. Mind you, I did spend this afternoon
cleaning the orange cock a lad called ‘2pac’ (I kid you not) graffitied on
my tree.
But I know the difference between art and vandalism and art is always a
good start.
i think it is important people know that we care. For my anti BNP
movement, I want to get poster put up in as many shops, businesses, cafes
etc who will take them. So that, although my and my breakdance crew cannot
smash the BNP – we can show them that we, and those people who let us put
up poster, care. Our caring may kill some of thier confidence. Women need
to use art and their individual talents and passions to decorate this
country and show people that yes, we know we live in a patriachy, we’re
over it. But guess what, we care about how we’re treated.
By the way, I’m chemically imbalance too, so yay! (we could also start a
club. or a cult.)
From Val
“There’s got to be a better way, any ideas?” I found myself asking the
same question lately.
I’m involved with women’s groups and I really appreciate
what they offer in terms of emotional support. However ,it seems to me the
focus is
more on helping women with their suffering rather than on what can be done
to prevent it.
I believe an option could be to promote local action. For example, having
small social meetups that take an issue, discuss it and propose what can be
done in practice to improve the situation. Then do it!
As far as I am aware, there aren’t any in my area (Brighton), but if
there’s anyone interested in such an idea, I’d be happy to develop it
further.
From Jess
I certainly agree with you about sending out a high profile and unified
message. My partner is a school citizenship teacher who is a bit of a
wannabe feminist (but can’t quite make that leap!). The kids in his classes
are aware about campaigns like fathers for justice but NOTHING about
feminist issues. Why is this? Personally, I think a lot of it is down to
the feminist movement being so fractured due to differing opinions by
feminists on issues like prostitution etc. I also think that there is a bit
of intellectual snobbery within the movement with certain people
deliberately seeking a more radical or alternative solution to a problem on
the sole basis of wanting to be considered different and furthering their
own agenda.
My view is that we need to have a campaign that we can ALL get behind,
something that is not inaccessable to women who don’t consider themselves
feminist (i agree “feminist” is considered a dirty word by many). I don’t
think it should be an inflammatory issue like lapdancing clubs, something
simple like “fathers for justice” (sorry to keep using that example). A
loud single message that is accessable to as many people as possible.
From lindsey spilman
Before I write my comment I have to say I too have ADHD!
The last generation of feminists had the task of changing laws. As in the
1970’s and 80’s a lot of the laws in place were sexist. Today equality
exists in theory, but there appears to still be some form of social
structure in place that discourages women from fully taking up equality.
The gender thing is still there, inequality is there as an unwritten law.
Examples are women going to work in office jobs wearing extreme high heels
and feeling as if they have to wear make up and heels to look smart. Men in
the equivalent job get to wear shoes that do not restrict there mobility
and do not have to wear make up. They have there cotton shirts which are a
luxury for women as most women shirts have added stretch which can make you
sweat. In law there is nothing to tell women that these things are needed
to look the part. But something in the social order of things is doing
this. Advertising is also getting more sexist, as it is becoming more
expectable to have gender specific ads for anything. All these things get
passed off as fashion. But fashion does not struggle to make stylish shoes
without heels for men. It also does not struggle to make clothes for men
that do not require the wearer to compromise for them. It appears that been
a woman means that you are expected to compromise for your clothes and
devote hours to your appearance. While men are done up with a bit of
fragrance, a pressed shirt (pressed by?) and a smart pair of shoes that
involve no compromise.
Being an activist starts from rejecting the things that you are expected
to do just because you are female in everyday life. I refuse to wear
make-up, skin tight clothes full of nylon in the summer, delicate shoes
that are not made for walking in. I go to the gym and keep fit, I refuse to
be bothered about sweating while I am there, I refuse to stick to lower
body only, I refuse to be obsessed with handbags, and I refuse to wear
impractical clothes. I refuse to diet; I also refuse to over eat. But at
the same time I do not deny myself items, I have as much right to as many
clothes as the average man has. I also have as much right as him to have
the same standard as him. I refuse to do femininity, but at the same time I
refuse to do masculinity. After all refusal to conform to femininity does
not make me less of a woman.
Today’s issues cannot be solved by demonstrating in the way the feminist
of yesterdays did as there is no law to fight. The only way to get a new
wave of feminism active today is to get feminism in a positive light in the
media as much as possible. Challenge the way TV cameras are used. When the
news cameras go to shopping centres, they always film women’s feet if
they are wearing heels. Or if a woman is in the news her feet will always
be shown if she has heels on. When women are doing femininity cameras
always focus on it as a way of reinforcing it. Even computer generated
images always show these things.
The things that people see on a daily basis do affect them, images of
gender stereotypes are every where and people are conforming to them
without even been aware that they are doing it. Today’s sexism is very
indirect and covert. I went in to a D.I.Y shop for some working gloves for
sanding the other day and the smallest size in glove was a 10. The average
woman takes a 7, this is sexist because the store had just catered for men,
and it had assumed that women do these types of house jobs. They instead
wash up. This is why they make washing up gloves in smaller sizes. When a
company makes something for women that is usually only made for men, like
boxing gloves they have to make them pink, again the focus is appearance
rather then function.
From Laura
We studied the amazing Liz Lochhead for advanced higher english (Mary
Queen of Scots and Dracula from a feminist perspective!). Although that is
only a voluntary part of the scottish syllabus in a subject that few people
take but the 2 boys in my class benefitted from it :)
Knife crime and masculinity, by Jennifer Drew
From Ruth Moss
Thanks so much for such an interesting and informative article. Certainly
food for thought.
From Nino
Now here’s an honest view the mainstream media would never give us! This
is a geniusely crafted piece of work that is highly unquestionable…
As a youth worker, hip hop head and anti voilence activist I’ve been going
back and forth with this shit for a long long time.
But the media’s demonizing and isolating of young people is what is making
things so terribly disfucntional right now.
The ideas we were having, the things we were doing that were having an
affect on young people like myself, were literally crapped on by the media.
And not only are we back on square one. We’re sliding below it.
The Channel 4 recent interpretations of my home town Bradford were totally
inaccurate.
I know them lads, I know this city, I know those spots. And you know what,
just how they made Bradford out to be hell in the Riots reception, its all
rubbish. Yes, like Peckham,like Oldham, like many many cities in the UK.
There are a few bad boys with a few bad toys. It is not general concern for
the public, nor is it something we see as a huge threat. after that program
was aired. Our weapon assisted crime went up. Cheers channel 4, my mate can
no longer dance on his right arm.
Another thing the media have not pointed out is the increasing number of
young women carrying knives – I stopped a girl on my train the other day
who wielded a bread knife, clearly from her mums kitchen at me. There is
also a prevalance of female gangs. who. trust me, should be feared way more
than the male ones.
The rest of the country who are fearing what they are been fed by the
media need to shut up, leave off and let those who know about this stuff,
from the inside, deal with it in the ways we know work.
Big ups again for the minting piece.
stay free and true
x
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
Thank you for your comments and especially your feedback. I quite agree
the media must be held responsible for constantly demonising young women
and men. I too agree media misrepresentations and deliberate
polarisation of cities such as Bradford. Areas such as Peckham provide
a totally skewed picture resulting in viewers or readers believing our
world is becoming increasingly dangerous and violent. But in reality
living in a home environment is still the most dangerous place to be,
especially for girls and women.
I do disagree however with your view that girl gangs are far worse than
male gangs. One of the reasons why girl gangs are perceived as ‘far
worse than boy gangs’ is because girls in general are socialised not to
adopt aggressive or violent behaviour. Therefore, when we hear, read or
have access to girl gangs we believe these young women are deviants
because they are not conforming to the narrow patriarchal feminine role.
There have been girl gangs for well over a century now and the reasons
as usual are complex but we should not fall into the trap of
stereotyping girls as ‘worse than boys.’ Quoting Chesney-Lind who has
conducted in-depth studies of both girl and boy gangs ‘the media’s
portrayal of girl gangs is one wherein they are represented as evil, bad
masculinised females which conveniently ignores the societal context,
particularly in relation to young minority women.
Why teen gangs exist is a complex issue and some of the factors include
a sense of belonging, power, protection, respect, prestige, identify and
not forgetting access to amounts of cash and drugs. Another factor
with regards to girl gangs is that many teen girls have experienced male
sexual violence committed against them and some join a gang in order to
belong and to have a safe refuge. However, this is not to say all the
above factors are present all the time because claiming they are would
essentalise and reinforce beliefs that gang members are all evil
deviants.
So, the reasons for girl gangs are complex and we must not fall in the
trap of demonising girls who are gang members.
I have not the slightest doubt that some teenage girls are carrying
knives but we need to ask the pertinent question why? Not ‘oh girls are
enacting masculinised behaviour now so they must be deviant, evil
monsters.’ Perhaps girls who carry knives live in fear of attack by
other teen boys or girls or else they believe it will give them added
protection since they have experienced or witnessed violence in their
lives.
This is not to excuse or justify girl or boy violence but as you say we
must not ‘other’ them and create a psuedo moral panic. But
unfortunately the present government and the media too, are intent on
doing precisely this and the end result is an increase in an
authoritarian and scapegoating society.
If we as a society sincerely want change, it will not happen when
certain groups are marginalised and demonised. This only results in
those with greater power and privilege ensuring the status quo remains
unchanged.
From Lynsey
An insightful article, I thought the very same thing the other day: it is
only boys stabbing each other, not girls. The Daily Mail are quick to point
out that this many are black, or have single mothers, or absent fathers,
but they don’t point out what’s staring straight at us: they are all boys.
The idea that if it was girls commiting these crimes, it would be reported
entirely differently is absolutely true: there would be absolute hysteria.
So i think it’s right that we shoudl stand up and point the finger and say,
we are not doing this; they are.
From Kevin
I only have two points.
Mothers are required to take responsibility for ensuring that their sons
do not go around stabbing eachother because, unfortunately, it is often the
case that there is no one else to do it.
The other point is that the incidence of “girl gang” violence, although
low, is on the increase.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
The only way our society could ensure
that mothers be held totally responsible for their sons behaviour and
welfare would be for the mother and boy to be held in total isolation
with no contact with the outside world or in fact any contact with their
relatives.
Since this would in effect be imprisonment and an abuse of the mothers’
and child’s human rights I do not think this situation will happen. So,
why should mothers alone be held responsible – could it be because
society and especially the government and other powerful institutions
have decided mothers will be the scapegoats for societal problems,
especially how masculinity continues to be constructed.
As already stated in my article the media has a very powerful influence
on girls and boys, but since my article focused on boys knifing other
boys I showed how the media perpetuates and mirrors what our patriarchal
society considers to be appropriate masculine behaviour. Girls and boys
are influenced and learn how to enact their supposed appropriate gender
roles via their peers, schools, families, relations and of course not
forgetting the media.
I suggest you read more about how gender is constructed and I highly
recommend Gender Stereotypes and Roles by Susan Basow or you might like
to read Jackson Kat’s book The Macho Paradox. Katz is a male activist
who has considerable experience and expertise in challenging myths
concerning males and masculinity.
With regards to your claim that ‘the incidence of “girl gang” violence
although is increasing’. Yes, the evidence shows that female violence
is increasing but statistics do not always tell the whole story. The
latest figures show that 87,200 young women were charged for a number of
offences including acts of violence. However, we do not have the
breakdown of what type of violence was committed. I have yet to read of
large numbers of girls knifing and murdering other girls or women. But
this is not to deny it happens, however when such cases are reported the
media immediately inflates the issue and claims ‘girl violence is on the
increase.’ According to the media girl violence is worse than male on
male violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The number of
males arrested for acts of violence has increased by 31,000 to 400,900
in the year 2006/7. So compared with the number of female acts of
violence male violence by far exceeds this number.
Attempting to deflect attention away from male violence is not a new
tactic because it has been used time and again. Obviously criticising
or challenging male violence is still a non-issue because males are
supposedly naturally more violent than females. Which explains why
there is such an outcry whenever a female commits an act of violence.
Women are not supposed to enact aggressive behaviour or commit acts of
violence. However, despite media claims, women and girls like men and
boys are human and both are subject to the same feelings and emotions.
How these emotions and feelings are expressed differ according to the
person’s gender. Women and girls are punished if they deviate from
patriarchal norms of femininity whereas boys and men are praised for
demonstrating their refusal to accept insults or disrespect from other
males and especially from women or girls.
So I repeat why should mothers be scapegoated for a social problem.
Rather than believing all the media hype and deliberate misinformation
we need to look at why so many teen boys are commiting violence against
other teen boys. Could it be that many teen boys live in fear of their
lives because if they appear to deviate from the constraints of
supposedly appropriate masculine behaviour they will be called ‘girls or
sissies’ by other boys who believe they are enacting real manly
behaviour. Come that – calling a boy or man a ‘girl’ says a great deal
about how women and girls are valued or rather devalued within our
society. Boys and girls learn our society is a hierarchal one wherein
powerful men are at the top, followed by less powerful males, then women
and lastly of course are children. Boys learn they must constantly
prove their supposed ‘masculinity’ because it so fragile and of course
who do they have to prove their ‘masculinity’ to? Why other boys and
men of course. Women’s and girls’ opinions are irrelevant because being
born female automatically makes the person a subordinate creature
according to patriarchal myths.
Claiming mothers are responsible is simply scapegoating and conveniently
ignores how society should in fact be analysing and attempting to
understand the complexities of male violence. Feminism which has been
much maligned and marginalised provides in-depth analysis and research
with regards to masculinities. But of course this challenges male power
and the media which is male-dominated cannot possibly allow alternative
views to be widely circulated. The government too is predominantly male
and refuses to listen to experts who understand how gender socialisation
operates in all its complexities.
From Lindsey Spilman
Gender rolls have changed in adult society over the past 20 or 30 years.
Young children are still brought up in the same gender binary way they have
always been. There is a conflict between child hood and adult hood. Boys
toys are mostly built on aggression (guns war tanks, action figures). As
are video games. All these behaviours are unacceptable in adult society.
Girls toys are mostly based around mothering or looking pritty. This
reinforces the old gender based ideas. A lot of the boy’s mags and games
show women who look like. Boys and girls are dressed differently; this
encourages them to play differently. In adult life both genders have to mix
together in the work place. All these issues could be solved if children
were treating as children not as girls and boys. Many studies have shown
that gender is inbuilt in the brain. So in theory there will be difference
anyway. When children are brought up with there gender constantly
reinforced it results in hyper masculinity or hyper femininity in adult
hood for many. This is because the natural gender differences which start
off small are magnified by up bringing. Gender is constructed to magnify
biological sex differences.
What really needs to be done is to encourage children to play for fun,
with unisex toys. Both genders need to build things, to help develop the
problem solving part of there brain. Both genders need to go out side with
nature and get dirty. Crystal growing, a telescope, making a volcano,
chemistry kits are good for both genders to get into science. I do not see
why girls need to play with dolls; the inbuilt maternal instinct will not
be strengthened by this. Boys do not play at being fathers. As for toys
that mimic doing the house work, these are silly, both genders need to help
out with some of the real stuff. Blue for boys only? Evidence shows that
blue and green help people to concentrate; pink can have the opposite
effect. A blue or green room may be better for both genders.
Boys from a young age are encouraged to put there creativity if they have
it, into building or constructing something i.e. there’s there to last
and they as well as everyone can see there achievement. Like making a model
of a car or something. Girls are encouraged to put there creativity on
there body for everyone else to look but them, they become the objects of
there own creativity when they put on make-up or do there hair, or put
glitter on there selves. There creativity is not there to last, is
disposable and soon forgotten after it is all washed off. The boys model
car is there being admired the next day. The girl is back to the start.
Then in adult life the same occurs with women putting there creativity
into make-up and fashion all of which have no permanent effect on the
world, instead they further undermine the confidence of women. Men are then
putting there creativity into more permanent things. Architecture and
building design.
Kink 101, by Kit Roskelly
From Jessie
The article on BDSM is fantastic. I & some of my friends are involved in
‘the scene’ but have never felt entirely comfortable with BDSM. This
article is very well written, has a clear train of thought and tackling an
issue I have found hard to get my head around. Well done on having the
courage to tackle such a heavy subject. This is very topical given the
change in laws regarding BDSM . It has also helped me to put words to how I
was feeling and thinking. Thank-you
From Lauren O
I think the article “Kink 101” was a great take on the BDSM scene. I am
not into that at all, but I think it is quite important to respect the
preferences of those who are.
If you haven’t read it already, I highly recommend the article Kinky Sex
for Social Justice over at The 1585.
From m Andrea
“Hey, I know you don’t like my choices, but shut up. You don’t have the
right to criticise. I am exempt from criticism. I claim
criticism-exemption privilege.”
Pleeeeeeze. Have you heard of this new thing? It’s called “free
speech”.
There’s also this other thing, it’s called “let’s pretend there are no
limits on healthy human behavior”. Let’s pretend every new thing is
“progressive” and “radical” and “pushing the boundaries” and everything
that has limits is “bad” and so everything which crosses that line
automatically, without thinking about it *at all*, becomes good.
No. Grow up. That crap doesn’t work when two years try it, and it
doesn’t work when twelve year olds try it, either.
From Emma
Kit, this is a great article and I’m really pleased to see a feminist
evaluation of bdsm written from a favourable perspective! I enjoy power
play myself, and I do get *very* tired of being told it’s unfeminist of me
to enjoy submission – particularly when I’ve been given much more respect
and found more importance was placed on my consent and enjoyment within the
relationship. Your point about exploring one’s sexuality being important
rings particularly true – and for me, that exploration is a part of my own
feminism and political stance; if I can accept it, and be aware of the
politics ramifications, then surely it’s ok – I don’t expect everyone to
enjoy the same sex as I do, but nor do I expect everyone to share the same
preferences in books or opinions on politics; if I can respect them, then
why must I be made to feel I’m not a “real” feminist. Thank you again for a
great article!
From Mobot
I really appreciated this article – although I can’t claim to have any
real knowledge of the BDSM scene, I like the idea that it promotes frank
and safe discussions about boundaries and consent. But mainly, I think it’s
vital that feminism in all its forms is respectful to individual
sexualities – I’ve had too many heated debates with feminists who appear to
have very fixed ideas of what is ‘acceptable’, which I believe can alienate
other feminists and potential allies. It’s a bit of a minefield though – I
can see the point in being anti porn, for example, but can’t quite bring
myself to pass judgement on a whole concept as if it was a straight forward
issue.
From Lemur
For your article on feminism and BDSM: thank you. Thank you, thank you. As
a feminist sub, i try hard to reconcile my beliefs about the treatment of
women and the need for change, and what I do in bed. Your article clarified
a lot of ideas I had but couldn’t articulate. If it’s ok with you I’ll be
linking to this (with credit) on my blog. You’ve helped me understand
myself, and feminism, better. So thank you!
From A different Helen
Kit Roskelly’s article “Kink 101” seems to be using similar arguments to
the sex and porn industry in trying to convince us that feminism should be
supportive of BDSM. We are told that because the sex and porn industries
provide employment for women and enable some to earn good money, being
exploited in pornography or selling ourselves as prostitutes is empowering
and feminist. To me however, this is missing the point. In my view,
feminism is not about individuals, but about what benefits or disadvantages
women as a group. When women are bought and sold as sexual commodities for
male use, this lowers our status in society, and encourages attitudes
amongst men that increase the likelihood of discrimination, harrassment and
sexual violence. To me therefore, working or supporting these industries is
not feminist, because in general, they do women more harm than good.
Similarly, just because some women have sufficient self confidence and
assertiveness to get what they want from BDSM, this does not make it
feminist. I am not familiar with any research in this area, but my gut
feeling is that normalising BDSM would simply provide more opportunities
for women to be coerced and abused, and consequently not something that
feminists should support. Furthermore, I would like to think that feminism
is about making the world a better place. Does getting off on other
peoples’ suffering and humiliation, even if they are consenting, make the
world a better place? I’m afraid I am inclined to think not. Sorry.
From Polly Styrene
Kit Roskelly presents feminist objections to BDSM as simply objections to
a ‘sexuality’ and therefore claims that feminists should not ‘pass
judgement’. Apart from the irony of someone writing an article telling
women that they shouldn’t tell other people what to do – since the
author themselves is thereby telling people what to do – this is quite
simply a false analogy.
The analogy is popularly used because everyone can see the injustice of –
for example – male homosexuality being illegal, and BDSM practitioners
therefore like to paint BDSM in the same terms. Which ignores the huge
differences – BDSM is not a ‘sexuality’ in the same way as
homosexuality but is a sexual practice that can be performed by
heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals. Objectors to homosexuality
object to the fact that the participants are the same sex, not the act
itself. Criticisms of BDSM are based on the idea that BDSM practices
themselves are harmful in some way.
My personal objections to BDSM are:
1) BDSM echoes and reifies harmful power relations in the wider society
2) BDSM is based on ‘consent’ but consent is not an absolute concept
and this ignores the extent to which coercion can be used to generate such
consent, especially when pre existing power relations between the
participants are unequal
3) Imagery used in BDSM is deeply offensive to many. It is frequently
racist and often includes the eroticisation of childhood sexual abuse and
rape.
4) BDSM can involve the infliction of actual bodily harm both
psychological and physical to participants.
Black American feminist Audre Lorde said in relation to Samois, the
lesbian S/M group founded by Pat Califia and others
“Without a rigorous and
consistent evaluation of what kind of a future we wish to create, and a
scrupulous examination of the expressions of power we choose to incorporate
into all our relationships including our most private ones, we are not
progressing, but merely re-casting our own characters in the same old weary
drama…SM is not the sharing of power, it is merely a depressing replay of
the old and destructive dominant/subordinate mode of human relating and
one-sided power, which is even now grinding our earth and our human
consciousness into dust” Lorde was saying quite simply that desires to
wield power in BDSM cannot be separated from unequal and abusive power
relations in the rest of life – as Lorde says “As a minority woman I
know dominance and submission are not bedroom issues”
Personally I find it difficult to imagine how a person could want to role
play abusive practices in their sex life and not want to express those
characteristics in the rest of their life – but even if they can, the
highly sanitised version of BDSM that Kit Roskelly presents ignores the
reality. The reality which includes themes of Nazi torture, images of
slavery, ‘rape fantasies’ and the eroticisation of child abuse. Leading
BDSM advocate Pat Califia advocated sex with underage children and even
defends child porn.
And produced a book called ‘Doing it for Daddy – short sexy fiction
about a very forbidden fantasy’.
This imagery is inevitably defended on the grounds that it is only
fantasy, but ignores the fact that it is often brought into the public
realm where it is hugely threatening for many women who have experience
real life sexual violence. Blogger Charliegrrl recounts here
her experience of being in a workshop on women’s sexuality and hearing a
BDSM practitioner talk – without any warning – about ‘rape
fantasies’ and ‘rape play’. Which caused many women who had
experienced rape to leave the workshop extremely upset. And of course much
BDSM imagery is deeply racist – slavery actually happened to the
foremothers of a huge number of women alive today, it wasn’t just a sexy
roleplay, it was actual human suffering. Max Mosley is currently pursuing a
legal case claiming his own BDSM ‘orgy’ wasn’t Nazi themed – which
shows how offensive and hurtful Nazi imagery is to many.
But BDSM often involves actual harm as well, physical and psychological.
“Operation Spanner” was a famous case in which a number of gay male
BDSM practitioners filmed themselves inflicting harm on the genitals of
other men – including nailing someone’s penis to a board. They defended
themselves on the grounds that the victims consented, but lost their case
as it was held that it was impossible to consent to ‘more than a trifling
injury’. So BDSM practitioners who inflict actual bodily harm – which
many do – are currently breaking the law. It was proposed by John
Major’s government to change the law on this, until domestic violence
groups who hadn’t been consulted initially, pointed out that it would
make obtaining convictions in cases of domestic violence almost impossible.
Which leads us to the question of ‘what is consent’. I personally
know women who have been in BDSM relationships to which they consented but
which afterwards they said were little more than self harm by proxy
(ironically Kit Roskelly’s piece follows Nino’s excellent article on
this very subject). ‘Stockholm syndrome’
is a well
recognised syndrome in the field of domestic violence where an abuse victim
will bond with their abuser as a survival technique. Those who have been
subject to abuse in their past are particularly liable to recreate abusive
relationships – many women I have met who have practised BDSM have past
histories of self harm.
Here feminist law professors
report on the case of Glenn Marcus who was found guilty of ‘sex
trafficking and forced labour’ with regard to the abuse of his
‘slave’ Jodi. Jodi was subjected to prolonged physical and sexual abuse
to which Marcus claimed she consented, by virtue of having agreed to be his
‘slave’.
Kit Roskelly conveniently ignores what Nino’s wonderful piece of writing
so points out ” It’s so much easier to be hit by someone else than it
is to hit yourself.” She completely ignores the possibility that someone
involved in BDSM may have pre existing vulnerabilities which render their
ability to ‘consent’ hugely skewed.
Glenn Marcus claimed that Jodi as his ‘slave’ (Kit Roskelly in her
piece also omits to mention that the collars she talks about are signs of
collaring – agreeing to be someone’s ‘slave’) had foregone any
right to say no. In the Uk there are many women also being kept as
‘slaves’. Remember the news story of the “Darlington Sex slave
cult”
Does Kit Roskelly really think this, or Glenn Marcus can be defended as
‘feminist?’ Is she aware of the existence of the ‘UK Slave Register’?
The inevitable response of BDSM practitioners to these criticisms seems to
be to claim that all these abusive practices are ‘not BDSM’. Which
sounds to me like saying that if you have a car accident you are not
driving because you didn’t do it properly. If it is represented as BDSM
and we are told that BDSM is a practice that is merely a ‘highly
desirable exploration’ of sex life, how are the unwary and vulnerable to
resist exploitation? It is not only permissible for feminists to critique
BDSM in my opinion, it is vital.
From blondegirl
I applaud the author of this article. She hit the nail on the head- when
consent is given, there is nothing but respect between the two players.
Many women who play a submissive role in the bedroom are anything but
submissive out of it- it’s all make believe- the role you play is for
sexual gratification, and most of the time has nothing to do with who you
are as a person. As the sex-advice columnist Dan Savage has said, “It’s
cops and robbers for grownups…with their pants off.”
In my experience, there are few real misogynists in BDSM; it’s easy to
recognize them, and as a result, other players will reject them. As one
woman famously put it, “He’s not a dom…he’s just an asshole.” These
people are not accepted by the community in general, by either men or
women.
Finally, let’s not forget- in actuality, it is the submissive who
ultimately controls the dominant. Everything is, in the end, done to please
him/her
The power balance is, in essence, equalized. Anyone with any real
knowledge of BDSM will realize it is perfectly compatible with feminism. I
personally count myself as both a feminist, and a member of the BDSM
community.
Domestic violence and disabled women, by Clare Laxton
From Sabre
Thank you for this. It brought to light an issue that I had never thought
of, and it was well written. That donkey charity thing is infuriating. I do
think that in our society people do still somehow blame disabled people for
their situation, add that to the blame placed on women for domestic
violence and it becomes even more difficult to find help when you need it.
From Torygirl
I found the feature on disability and domestic violence really thought
provoking and enjoyed reading it very much. However, although I don’t have
the statistics at my fingertips, I have a feeling that those experiencing
disability expands with age, and most disability occurs within the elderly.
Given the fact that women tend to have longer life expectancies than men
(and what a bed of roses those final few years turn out to be…) the issue
of disability and domestic abuse surely overlaps strongly with the issue of
elder abuse, yet that is not mentioned in the article. For this reason, I
suspect that there is less than a complete picture here.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, a review by Melanie Newman
From Claudia Flores
“What happened to the women in The Diving-bell and the Butterfly in its
transition from memoir to film, asks Melanie Newman?”
I watched the film last night, and being myself a sufferer of a chronic
non-degenerative condition, the attitude of Bauby is totally encouraging.
But that second scene you mention made me think about him in a totally
different way – couldn’t he be more respectful to the dutiful mother of his
children, asking ‘the mistress’ to call again next day?? I asked myself. I
was intrigued enough by the end of the film to find out ‘other truths’.
I’d rather think that the answer to your question is: culture shapes
gender relations to the point in which a successful and emancipated French
businesswoman, de la Rochefoucauld needed a very elaborated
revenge ten years later. That seems the case if besides of non-silenced
Bauby’s friends declarations in Beth Arnold’s article, you read Caroline
Iggulden’s interview to de la Rochefoucauld on The Sun (not that I read it
regularly, but it came up on my search)
Salon’s article states “When Bauby died, his children, Théo and Céleste,
were the inheritors of their father’s rights and royalties, and, naturally,
Sylvie de la Rochefoucauld acted as her minor children’s representative in
their business matters.” She seems to have been very skillful to make
Bauby’s father talk on the saving scene “Having a mistress is no excuse for
leaving the mother of your children”. But more importantly, in real life
Bauby’s son’s words “[I liked] the way Julian showed my mom strong and
getting over my dad”, echo a skillfully manipulated sense of her own
version of the relationship.
Perhaps de la Rochefoucauld cannot come to terms of having accepted an
arrangement with Bauby in which, deep down, she wanted him to have married
her. Or perhaps she wanted the respect that she did not give herself
allowing him to have “many mistresses. To learn what really happened to
“the women”, his girlfriend, Florence, should speak out.
From Ardella Jones
I’m really glad someone made these points about the movie and the
libertie’s taken with Bauby’s autobiography. When are we going to see a
film about an imobile, crippled woman with two devoted men by her side?
Comments on older features and reviews
Sex and the City the movie: Having your (wedding) cake and eating it, review by Catherine Redfern
From leaf
I had many of the same responses to the film ; that it was more
conventional and less daring than the series and a bit of a disappointment.
But what really bugged me was that it encouraged the habit of believing
that you can endlessley remedy your relationship. Let’s face it, in real
life a relationship of Carrie and Big would hardly be a happy one. On again
off again is very emotionally straining and I feel this film encouraged
it.too many women hang on to their boyfriends desperately and forgive them
everything already.
And why didn’t Samantha fuck Dante? Cannot forgive it, if she was going to
leave Smith anyway, she should have taken advantage of the occasion! We
were expecting it! There were hardly any decent sex scenes in the film!
And the implication that Miranda drove Steve away by not waxing was very
sexist and very reactionary. I never liked Steve anyway she shoulda dumped
him. Men who cannot handle pubic hair are not sexually mature. How credible
is a lawyer marrying a bar-tender anyway? And if they wanted to make this
one for fortysomethings they should have talked about second marriages.
From Susan
For the most part I agree with you. I thought Sex and the City (the
series) was original and brought up social issues in a contemplative (and
often caustic, but for good reason) way. The movie got all soapy and sloppy
to me. The whole wedding hoopla was absurd. But what got me like a knife in
the gut was this: last week I watched the last disc of season 4 with a
friend. I thought I had seen all of the SATC episodes. Well, there was one
I missed–A Vogue Idea. In this episode (as you may well know) Carrie
reveals to a senior male editor at Vogue that her father abandoned her and
her mother when Carrie was 5 years old, Carrie never knew why he left,
never had seen or heard from him again. This is about the saddest thing
that can happen to a child (in this way, in the sequence as described
above.) In fact, it would be so traumatic that one would be totally screwed
up in terms of the opposite sex, well, pretty much for life–and I saw this
as a child and adolescent psychotherapist. The writers did nothing with
this information other than have Carrie type “How much do father figures
figure?” (we know the answer to this, do we not?) But Carrie doesn’t (no
wonder she is a poor lost soul in this world) and she talks with Miranda at
the end of the episode about this, wondering if it was “significant” or
not–Miranda blows it off as “nothing at all” and says “my father was home
at 7 every night and I have no clue about men.” So the viewer is left with
the idea that, well, fathers aren’t important, really (a horrible view) and
that Carrie’s early trauma wasn’t really trauma at all. The writers by
putting this material in the series and handling it as they did was
pathetic. Never was anything else said. Carrie never gets help (real help)
for her early trauma and actually the writers have Carrie tell us this
information and then we are to watch her “act-out” in dysfunctional ways
for two more seasons, then add the movie and it’s all for “our enjoyment”
and “our fun”…I think that’s a terrible thing for writers to do to a
character. They simply used her and led us to also. It sickened me. No
wonder Carrie was drawn to “Mr. Big”….how does a father look to a 5 year
old girl when she looks up at him? Big. The whole idea of not knowing his
name is weird in this context (Big’s that is.) All of Carrie’s relationship
problems can pretty well be connected to that one episode in season 4–yet,
it is never developed. At all. It’s as if father abandoning their families
and never seeing them again….EVER…is well, just normative and fine. No
wonder Carrie hit Big in the face with the flowers like a child. (But who
would know this? I doubt the writers were even aware of their own
unconcious stuff)…no wonder Carrie would be drawn to Big, no wonder she
couldn’t commit to Aidan. And while a happy-ever-ending was presented,
Carrie has a huge hole in her heart from her past that has never ever been
dealt with and it’s a hole Mr. Big cannot fill. No way.
It’s no wonder the whole thing felt off-kilter. It was. The series was now
that I look back on it in light of the episode I speak of. I was just
appalled.
Jess McCabe, editor of The F-Word, replies
First, I have to admit that I’m coming at this having never seen a single episode of Sex and the City, or the movie. But I have to say that I really disagree with the idea that growing up without a father, for whatever reason, irrevocably spoils a woman’s ability to have good relationships with men later in life.
I just don’t think it stands up – sure, it’s a traumatic thing to happen to a child, but I’d urge you to consider the effect that this kind of sentiment has on the many, many people who have been in the – not incredibly rare – position, of growing up without a daddy figure for whatever reason. The important thing, in my view, is growing up with loving parents and family – whoever that may be. It’s also worth considering that the type of father who would do this may not be the type of father you’d want around.
Men! Feminism needs you! (Not your privilege…), by Anne Onne
From stephen m
The first time I read an article like this one about men’s participation
in feminist matters it was definitely hard to take. Later after thinking
about what was written, I had to admit it was very good advice and helped
me to further understand general feminist attitudes toward men.
I would recommend interested men discuss feminist issues with close
feminist friends (women and/or men). This puts the issues in very personal
perspective… every day, these issues are affecting the lives of women,
including the women you like/love.
From Kevin
There are some who argue that men and people who are white cannot be the
victims of sexism or racism. That, instead, they are experiencing the
effects of oppressed people reclaiming their rights. I must confess that I
do not hold that position. I believe that discrimination is about people
who have power (To grant access or to commit violence) abusing or misusing
that power.
From hannah
I felt the part in this article about the writer’s reaction to a scene in
Eastenders was silly and beside the point. As a feminist woman, I would
also say that shaking and feeling breathless while watching a woman get
threatened on TV is a little over-sensitive. That’s fine – some people are
over-sensitive. I personally can’t watch horror films at all because I hate
seeing people in pain. But I dislike the idea that all women are fragile
flowers who can’t bear to watch other ickle girls in dangerous situations
on TV. This kind of personal, all-pain-is-my-pain pontificating doesn’t
help anyone and is more likely to put men off than draw them in. But while
we’re on the subject of Eastenders – how about the evil baby-snatching
doctor? That particular piece of character development is practically the
living embodiment of anti-feminist backlash.
Anne Onne, author of the article, replies
I respect your right to disagree, or indeed to feel that the anecdote is irrelevant, but I have to disagree. I wasn’t writing about a reaction to a portrayal of a gender-neutral horrific experience, but an experience that affects women. The aim wasn’t to suggest that all women are emotionally invested in horror plots to a point they can’t stand them. It was to highlight how much more personal something is when it has the possibility of affecting you.
I never suggested that all women would feel empathy with the female character in the situation (though a few have emailed in telling us they have, so it’s not just me), but that men, as people not taught to fear rape, could not. And that as a result, it’s important to listen to those who are much more involved, much more at risk, rather than focusing on your own more limited and protected experiences. The point to men was that there are things they have never feared, or indeed thought about, and that women’s opinions and experiences in these fields would be very different. Many women might not have felt so involved, and that’s fine. Just like trigger warnings and 18 certificates, it’s up to individual people do decide what they can handle, but I do think it should be labelled. You might accuse me of being over-sensitive, but an actual rape victim should probably have more warning before being exposed to something that might give them flashbacks. That’s just my opinion.
I haven’t been watching the last few weeks of Eastenders. But I do agree the baby-snatching wicked witch trope is a tiresome reminder that feminism is still needed.
Hairy Anniversary, blog post by Jayne
From Shael
Being a 21 year old black woman who has NEVER shaved her legs can be
difficult. Make up. T-shirts with shoulder-cut sleeves. Hair less legs. No.
No. No! I must admit that I’m hugely self-conscious of my hairy legs. I
embrace your love for your own individuality. I just want to print out your
article and paste it on my phone and my office desk. Weird, I know. You and
other people who love different hairy parts on homo sapiens really
represent the heart of this world. I love my shorts (especially in the
South), and I wished that I would grow a pair of “nuts” and just wear them.
It just pisses me off that there are some people on this earth that always
have to give you their 2 cents when you have your own. This topic has been
challenging for me. I love reading articles (like this) about women who
love their unique body hair. So, maybe I am a feminist. If only I had the
power to block out other people’s 2 cents like the gov’t will probably do
to the actual 1 cent piece. Maybe I should become bilingual. Women like
you give me a little courage to put on shorts. Hey, I said that I am hugely
self-conscious of my legs. Maybe it will scare away dumbass men and stupid
girls who wanted to be your friend post-hairy leg reveal. This world is
cruel. Thank you! I have saved your article in my e-mail mailbox.
– Not responding to unsupporting advice from strangers is hair-raisingly
priceless…
Rape: an unfinished revolution, by Louise Livesey
From Tracey Heynes
Regarding the review of the book on the history of rape,the last comment
about “your granny’s birthdaygift” – even though qualified – was shamefully
ageist and stereotyping of older women….and unworthy of an article on a
feminist website!!!!! It assumes all older women would somehow be
uninterested(or offended)by the subject – how narrow-minded.
From James Walkling
I would just like to say please women keep up the feminist movement as a
man I use to have a very limited view of feminism. But after I read an
excellent review from g2 about the crisis women are now facing in the UK
and the world. It’s changed my view complete. For me to see a women as
less of an equal is beyond my understanding I can see a women only as an
equal except when it comes to multitasking. It makes me sick that old men
or right wing religious people are trying to take the freedoms of women
away. For example the argument in government about how long you can have a
abortion what right as old narrowed mind men got to tell you what you can
do with your bodies! In a very sexual culture I fear for women, the review
on the 5% conviction rate on rape is beyond a joke. What I found more
shocking that people put some of the blame on women if they are drunk or
wear certain clothes as part responsible for getting raped. all I’d like
to see what the results would be if a man who got raped because he was
drunk or wearied the wrong clothes would people say part of it would be
he’s fault? I really doubt I would see the same results. I could go on
and on but all I would say there are men that support the fight for women
rights I am one of them so please keep fight on!
A slice-by-slice attack on women’s right to choose, by Kit Roskelly
From Joshua Jackson
I support the work done by not only this organisation but by the feminist
movement as a whole, and as a male feel that this struggle for equality is
well faught and women deserve the equal rights of men in every respect.
Thank you for making my world a more equal place in which i live. Thank
you.
Female commentator kicks off barrage of sexism, by Katherine
From Amy Blundell
this is a really good article and i really enjoyed reading it. I am doing
some research for my dissertation which is about women being employed at
football clubs and what jobs are available to them in comparison to men.
this article provided some interseting thoughts about sexism in other areas
of football. thanks
Can burlesque be feminist?, by Chloe Emmott
From Poppy M Cherry (Philippa)
Thank you for this fabulous article about burlesque. I have been
performing at burlesque shows (mostly Bella’s, actually!) for just over a
year. I never feel that I am exploiting myself, rather celebrating myself!
I’m not a size zero. I’m not a size 10 or 12. That doesn’t mean my body
isn’t beautiful though and there is little more empowering to that thought
than a room full of people cheering when I’m on stage. Given that most of
the audience is women, there is really very little about the show that is
actually sexual; it is rather a sensual, cheeky and fun experience.
Please pass on my thanks to Chloe (or Inanna!) for being willing to open
up her mind and give it a go.
*hugs and sparkles*
How to create a woman’s glossy magazine in five minutes, by Catherine Redfern
From John
I’m a returning student in graphic design and really enjoyed your article
on how to make a magazine in 5 mins. It is so true all the comments you
made. Amazing how people fall for the same magazines month after month but
never really get anything out of them. touche’
We Need to Talk About Kevin, review by Janet Phillips
From Amanda
The review of “We need to talk about Kevin” was conventional to say the
least. It was a novel that appalled me (mostly for the hideous writing
style and artificial epistolary format), but also because of the
representation of motherhood and parenthood, disability and mental illness.
Your review did not go into any of these complex issues raised in this book
– apparently Eva could have been doing more important things than raising
her child, and she was degraded and humiliated by the act of motherhood.
This is not the case. The character, wealthy and self-indulgent in the
highest degree, chose motherhood (she was not forced into it in any way –
in both instances, she did not inform her partner she was ending her
contraception), and when she found pregnancy required self-sacrifice on her
part, decided she no longer wanted her child. She chose to see her seven
week old child as deliberately malicious, as somehow deliberately
“refusing” her breast and “performing” for her husband even at that young
age. Her account is unreliable and self-interested. Rather than finding
this a novel which explores the experience of motherhood as a marginalising
and degrading experience, I found it to be a novel which exposed the
self-interested and self-indulgent nature of American culture, which
creates children capable of mass-murdering other children. At the same
time, questions of mental illness and social disorders are totally
overlooked – I found that to be offensive.
The epidemic of male violence against women, by Jennifer Drew
From loggylogic
When are these men hating feminists going to stop all this propoganda and
realise that men are also victims of abuse by vicious women.It really irks
me that there is so much hatred towards a fellow human being.
Filling the hole, by Katie Muller
From Michael Morgan
Men do have a hole inside them as well. Your assumption that it can be
filled by a women is wrong. I have a hole and I have a marriage the is
good, but the hole remains..
Are women and girls vulnerable?, by Jennifer Drew
From Chris
This article seems a little bias. I appreciate that frequesntly describing
women as vulnerable can be linked to an older way of thinking of them as
“the weaker sex” (a phrase that implies more than it literally states) but
I take issue with this article. For one thing many of the quotes of
“vulnerable” have been taken from lawyers trying to secure convictions – of
course they are going to use emotive terms like that to convince a jury,
and if it helps get these criminals locked up that’s a good thing.
Furthermore, on average, women are significantly less physically strong
than men, so in the crude everyday sense of the word it is true that women
are more ‘vulnerable’ – they find it (on average) harder to fight off an
attack, and I fail to see how acknowledging this is in anyway pandering to
the idea that it is not men’s fault. This article also claims that women
are told [ t o ] : “always believe male colleagues, male acquaintances and
male family members are completely trustworthy”. Now a commonly quoted
statistic is that most women who are raped are raped by men they know well
and trust. It is easy to find in mainstream media, so I would like to know
who exactly is trying to brainwash women in to trusting all men, because it
certainly isn’t the mainstream establishment. I would also like to point
out the conceptual difference between being a rapist and being a
msyogynist. If I murder a man, even several men, it does not mean I hate
men, or despise their gender. If someone rapes a woman, that does not show
them to be a msyogynist; it shows them to be evil, selfish, vicious and
probably sex obsessed. (not obsessed in a sense that makes them less
responsible for their actions – being obsessed with money does not make you
less responsible for fraud). The article raises a question as to why these
men rape women, and seems to find the answer to be that it’s because they
are mysogynists. It is clear however that one can be a mysogynist without
raping any women (a gay male mysogynist for example) and that a rapist need
not be a mysogynist. I have no doubt that mysogny is a factor in some rape
cases, but if Jennifer Drew is going to claim that it is the main
explanation, and that it is a result of what children are taught by
mainstream society, then she must cite evidence, for example psychological
surverys and profiles of sex offenders. She cites no statistics, surverys
or reliable empirical evidence, and yet is convinced that her radical
answer is correct and the more obvious answer wrong. It looks as though she
is basing her views on faith rather than reason.
Please do not get me wrong, I consider myself a feminist and if there is
empirical evidence such as psychological surveys that supports Drew’s claim
I will change my position on the subject. I hope this gets a response, I am
open minded and will readily change my mind if given a rational reason to.
For the record, I beleive (based on employment/income statistics and
statistics of domestic violence) that there is a significant amount of
sexism left in our society.
Jennifer Drew, author of the article, replies
Clare Loxton’s
article Domestic violence and disabled women, says that often disabled women are not in
themselves
‘vulnerable’ but rather they are ‘disabled’ because of societal
attitudes, prejudices and exclusion. In other words, disabled women who
experience male violence do not experience this because of their
‘vulnerability or disabledness’ but because they experience disadvantage
due to societal attitudes and beliefs.
Likewise, claiming a woman who has experienced male sexual/physical
violence is a ‘vulnerable’ person subtly implies the woman’s supposed
vulnerability was partially responsible for causing the male perpetrator
to inflict an act of violence on the woman.
Prosecution council and the media too routinely depict women survivors
of male violence as ‘vulnerable individuals’ and therefore it is their
very ‘vulnerability’ which made them a victim of male violence. Using
such terminology subtly deflects attention away from the behaviour and
actions of the male perpetrator. It effectively pathologises women
because they are supposedly weaker and hence ‘vulnerable’ to men’s
sexual and physical violence. Reality is that not all women are weaker
than men and likewise not all men are stronger than women. Research has
consistently shown that some women are physically stronger than men and
some women are taller than men. Janet Shibley-Hyde has conducted a meta
analysis of research into the supposed innate biological differences
between women and men. Same Difference written by Rosalind Barnett and
Caryl Rivers also analyses and debunks myths concerning women’s supposed
innate weakness compared to men as a group. The Frailty Myth by Colette
Dowling discusses and analyses how women as girls are indoctrinated into
believing they are physically weaker than boys. Both these books
provide factual research evidence of how the myth men are stronger than
women is used to maintain male dominance and power over women as a
group.
Likewise the media rarely if ever reports news items wherein women and
girls have successfully fought or resisted a man or boy intent on raping
them. I highly recommend the book ‘Her Wits About Her: Self-Defence
Success Stories by Women’ edited by Denise Caignon and Gail Groves. Here
you will find real life stories of women and girls – yes girls too who
used their wits in order to outwit a male intent on raping them.
Physical strength in itself is not always a guarantee that a male rapist
will succeed in raping a woman or girl.
You claim that labelling women survivors of male violence as
‘vulnerable’ does not deflect attention away from the male perpetrator’s
accountability. But in fact, claiming a woman or girl survivor was
‘vulnerable’ does negate male accountability. Imagine if a male
survivor of male violence were labelled ‘vulnerable.’ Such a definition
would be hotly disputed because the assumption is that no man is ever
‘vulnerable.’ Whereas women are supposedly ‘vulnerable’ and because
they are ‘vulnerable to male violence’ it is their responsibility to
ensure they never put themselves in danger or at risk of male violence.
By individualising women’s supposed ‘vulnerability’ it neatly
invisibilises how unequal power operates and it also invisibilises how
society accords men as a group greater power and rights than women.
Yes indeed women are commonly told they should trust male colleagues,
male friends and especially male relatives because the real villains are
supposedly deranged male monsters who are not normal ‘respectable men.’
In fact the media does not accept that most rapes are committed by men
who are acquainted with the female survivor. Repeatedly the media
commonly provides examples of male strangers raping and sexually abusing
‘innocent women and girls.’ It is still widely disputed that men who
are a woman’s partner, relative, work colleague, acquaintance and even a
date, are the ones responsible for committing sexual violence against
women.
Eaves Housing recently published in-depth research which showed the
media has consistently deliberately misrepresented male violence against
women and in particular has portrayed ‘real rape’ as only occurring when
a deranged male stranger has raped a woman or girl. If you look under
the sub-heading Lilith Project there you will find a variety of research
which has been conducted in respect of the multiple ways men enact
violence against women and children.
Our patriarchal society does not want to accept the reality of male
violence against women, which is why the conviction rate for men charged
with raping a woman or girl is still only around 6%. Most rapes are
committed by men who know the woman or girl and since the male rapist
knows the female survivor, rape myths immediately come into play.
Likewise misogynstic beliefs concerning what is supposedly appropriate
female sexual behaviour and male sexual behaviour ensure that most male
rapists are acquitted. Further information concerning rape myths can be
located on the Rape Crisis website and also End Violence Against Women
website. The book ‘I never Called it Rape’ by Robin Warsaw is an
excellent starting point in order to learn how male-dominant ideologies
concerning male sexuality and female sexuality are used to excuse and
justify men raping women.
One of the central reasons why the legal system, society and the media
too refuse to accept feminist research concerning male sexual violence
is because if our society accepted it is men’s responsibility not to
commit rape this would effectively curtail male privilege and power.
Consider how male sexuality continues to be constructed as predatory,
uncontrollable once aroused, plus of course men are rarely held
accountable for their behaviour. Instead it is a woman’s responsibility
to ensure she is not raped by a man and if she fails it is her fault
never the man’s. It is considered acceptable for a man to use pressure,
coercion or even the threat of force in order to gain sexual access to a
woman he considers has ‘signalled sexual availability.’ Rus Funk has
written a book aimed at men and I highly recommend it in order to learn
how boys are socialised into accepting predatory male sexuality as
normal and natural. The title of this book is Stopping Rape: A
Challenge For Men. Christopher Kilmartin
and Julie Allison have recently published a book entitled ‘Men’s
Violence Against Women: Theory, Research and Activism.’ Again I highly
recommend this since the authors are experts in the field of male
violence against women.
A man does not have to be a rapist in order to believe misogynistic
myths
concerning women as a group. Misogyny means hatred and or contempt of
women as a group and it also means devaluing women compared to men.
Misogyny also means holding women in contempt or hating them because
they are biologically female rather than male. This is the essence of
misogyny believing women are inferior to men because of their sex.
The difference between murdering a woman and murdering a man is that
predominantly men who murder a man or men do so not because they hate
men but because of something the male victim has done or threatens to do
and therefore the only way of silencing the man is by murdering him.
However, many men murder women because female victims happen to be women
not because of their actions or behaviour. I have yet to read of men
being murdered because they happen to be male. Ask yourself why do so
many men murder their female partners when the woman declares she is no
longer prepared to continue living with him. Because these men believe
they own the woman and she has no right to act independently of his
wishes. Such men believe women exist to serve men’s needs and desires
and have no independent rights of their own. Therefore, these men
believe it is their right to punish the woman because she has deviated
from male-defined views of how women should behave and act. Male acts
of violence against women are predominantly committed because they are
women and such acts of violence are used to enforce male dominance and
control over women as a group. Not all men commit violence against
women but the very fact that many men do so serves to reinforce the
oppression of women by men. Likewise acts of violence committed against
men and women of colour are predominantly committed not because of
individualised hatred or contempt but because our white society still
believes that non-whites are inferior to whites and as such are a lesser
and subordinate group. So it is with male violence against women and
many men use violence in order to maintain and enforce male control over
women.
An excellent example of how male privilege and power operates. Do most
men become concerned when venturing out in a public sphere that another
man will approach them or as he passes by call out sexualised insults or
tell the man to get his kit off. Of course not yet it is common for
women and girls to experience constant male sexual harassment in public
spheres. Many men consider it their right to leer, yell at women and
tell a woman to ‘get her breasts out for his sexual pleasure. It is
not considered male sexual harassment but rather male sexual right to
comment and make sexually degrading comments about a woman’s or girl’s
body, since women and girls supposedly exist for men to leer at and
demonstrate their male power by these misogynistic insults.
No, most men who commit rape are not monsters, evil or sex obsessed what
they are enacting is the extreme continuum of masculinity. Men learn as
boys that one of the main privileges of masculinity is the belief it is
a male’s right to seek sexual access to women and girls. Men learn as
boys they are expected to always initiate and control any sexual
interaction with women and men are expected to use pressure, coercion or
threats of violence in order to gain access to the woman’s body. Rape
is both male violence and also male belief it is his right to have
sexual access to any woman. This is what most individuals find so
difficult to understand. Men are taught as boys that their sexuality is
supposedly uncontrollable once aroused and it is a man’s right to seek
sexual satisfaction with any woman he considers ‘available.’ The woman’
sexual desires and wishes are irrelevant because the man’s sexual
desires and wishes supercede hers. Hence the centuries old
justification for men committing rape because women and girls supposedly
lead a man on and once he becomes aroused he is not held accountable for
his actions. Far too many men believe it is their right to force a
woman to accept penetration once sexual activity has occurred because
this is the logical conclusion of a sexual encounter – successful
penetration of a woman’s body by the man. It is not ‘real rape’ because
the woman supposedly really wanted the man to penetrate her body and she
was just
acting coy. In effect women’s sexuality continues to be subordinated
and controlled by men for men’s sexual pleasure and gratification.
Rape is also commonly used by men to humiliate and punish women who they
believe have disrespected them or to destroy their bodily integrity.
Rape in war is common and its aim is the destruction of ‘enemy women’
and men who rape ‘enemy women’ do so in order to systematically destroy
the enemy society. After all, globally it is still widely held that
women are responsible for men raping them and once a woman has been
raped she is ‘shamed and has lost her honour.’ Raped women are commonly
cast out from their society and if they are married their husbands
commonly abandon them.
You appear to be taking an individualised stance wherein you believe
that the actions of individual men have no bearing on how male power and
privilege operates. All men do not have to commit rape in order for
women to live in fear of a man raping them. It is how society
consistently condones, justifies and excuses male violence against women
which ensures that men retain their power and privilege over women.
Yes indeed men who are homosexuals can be misogynists but remember the
term misogyny means male hatred or male contempt for women.
The reason I did not give examples of research, evidence and feminist
analysis of male violence against women was because this article was
intended for the general reader. As already stated above, I have given
excellent examples of how male violence against women operates. Do
check out Rape Crisis website and also End Violence Against Website.
You might also investigate the UN’s website because there you will see
overwhelming evidence of men’s continued violence against women and
children.
If you consider yourself a feminist then I have to ask the question why
do you disbelieve the predominance of male sexual and physical violence
against women. The evidence is available within the public sphere but
of course the media which is male-dominated is not interested in citing
statistics and evidence.
You might also consider checking out the website The White Ribbon
Campaign. This is a male-led pro-feminist organisation which originated
in Canada shortly after a male student cold bloodedly and callously
murdered a number of women students. This man’s twisted logic was that
he had been denied a place in studying engineering because these uppity
women had usurped his male privilege wherein being male supposedly
entitled him a place studying engineering.
The White Ribbon Campaign is for men only and its aim is to challenge
dominant misogynstic notions of what it means to be a ‘real man.’ The
ultimate aim of The White Ribbon Campaign is to further egalitarian
relationships between women and men rather than the patriarchal system
which claims that men are innately superior to women and it is natural
and right for women to be subordinated to men as a group.
Remember that research reports cannot possibly cover all the
complexities of why so many men engage in violence against women neither
can such reports always cover the complexities of how societal beliefs
such as the construction of gender and sexuality operates to ensure that
women as a group continue to be perceived as defective humans compared
to men as a group. One only has to read a few newspapers to begin to
gain an understanding of how women are portrayed. The newspapers
consistently portray men as being at the ‘centre of the universe’ and
reports all focus on men’s actions and initiatives. Women if they
feature are rarely shown as diverse individuals, instead women are
primarily represented in relation to men or the focus is on the woman’s
sexualised body parts. When the media reports publication of new
research in respect of gender, predominantly the focus is on women’s
negative aspects compared to men’s supposedly positive traits and
abilities. I believe this helps to perpetuate society’s increased
misogyny and women-hatred.
‘Honey! Your vagina needs a mint’, by Samara Ginsberg
From David Harris
I guess I’m weird; I PREFER hairy vaginas over bald ones and size doesn’t
matter; what matters is the chemistry with the woman. On the other hand, I
have heard from several sources that penis size DOES matter, so that shifts
my opinion a bit to preferring vaginas small enough for me to give her a
thrill, over and above foreplay, licking, massaging…whatever.
Also, The Vagina Institute (which I have never heard and which doesn’t
interest me) is nothing but a porn site, run by people who can’t make that
much money any other way, so who cares what they say about it? Mostly
people like them.
Are you married? If not, why not?, by Victoria Dutchman-Smith
From Rachel
I came on your website while “googling” for articles on marriage in
general. I am 28 year old, been in a relationship for less than a year
with my 32 year old boyfriend. We are considering getting married.
I was opposed to marriage for a while and the reason is I found it was
useless. My parents are divorced and I was once engaged to someone which
also turned out to be going the wrong person.
Until I met the man of my life… he explained to me his perspective on
marriage and I happened to agree with it. To us, marriage is a commitment
to each other that we will spend the rest of our lives together and will do
everything to make this relationship work. It doesnt matter who proposes,
who wears the rings, what religion we are in, who will be at out wedding,
or whether or not we decide to change our name.
In fact, I intend to propose to my boyfriend, and he already said he
would say yes. I will propose because I want a stable relationship, I want
a partner who will be there for me in good and bad days… its not about
who wears the pants… its about being a team and facing life’s future
events together.
Stopping violence against women at its primary root, by Matthew Provost
From Shev
I was really interested to read Matthew Provost’s article on the link
between misogyny and sexism and playground bullying. Social norms are often
most fiercely enforced in a place like school, where fitting in is
all-important, vicious power-struggles are the norm, and everyone is trying
to work out who they are and where they fit in.
I recently read an article in a free gay community magazine (Istrongly
recommend these, incidentally, even for straight men and women – a powerful
source of news that you would not otherwise hear on mainstrem news outlets.
G3, fyne times, pink paper and bent are all good, and free in local gay
bars). A Stonewall survey found that out of the 10 most common insults in
the playground, 8 of them referred specifically to homosexuals, and the
other two… yep, you guessed it, to women, or in this case, girls. And
yes, of course the insults were sexual in nature. If this is what children
are learning as a form of social control (homos are bad, girls are bad,
sexuality is really bad – and also entirely the fault of homos and girls),
then it is of no surprise that these attitudes continue over to adult life,
and cause so much pain and misery to all of us.
PS – I really hate Chris Moyles.
Why men should care about gender stereotypes, by Alex Gibson
From Marge
As a woman I truly enjoyed reading your article because I
have found many men easily accepting these brutish stereotypes from their
teens. I am tired of the “sex-obsessed” and aloof versions of male
reality we are presented in the media and after reading your article I
found hope in the fact that there will one day rise an aggregate of men who
stand up and say No! Also, what these stereotypes foster is a focus on
male domination in relationships rather than clear communication between
two humans. You can yell, scream, cry, and hug in the process and you will
merely display human empathy rather than what would be defined as
“sissy” behaviors. This clear communication strengthens bonds and
helps in both party’s quality of life, so I might be running out of space
here to explain, but ultimately if we put aside gender stereotypes, and as
you say see one another as human we will be much better off. Keep up the
good work. Best wishes from California!
Jacky Fleming on drawing for feminism, by Jess McCabe
From Laura Bennett
I adore Jacky Fleming. I’d have been interested to see her response had
your interviewer asked her about her decision to draw for “You”, The Mail
on Sunday’s magazine?
The biological clock, by Catherine Redfern
From Mel
I agree with this article – although I am 12 years older than the writer
and the decision to not have children becomes even more pressing. I long
for improved contraception, I long for people to accept my and my partner’s
decision, I long for society to realise that not all women want to be
mothers. Feminists have fought so hard for mother’s rights, about time we
started fighting for our right not to be a mother.
From Corinne
Just a quiick BRAVO for Nino who wrote the article on self harm. I think
you’re an amazing woman who has displayed wisdom and maturity far beyond
your years….far beyond my years even and I’m a Granny ! I admire your
insight and bravery and applaude your ability to communicate in a down to
earth accessible way…Good on you, Lady !