We Mixed Our Drinks

Page 3, rape myths and bikini bodies: media misogyny at Leveson

2012-01-24T20:36:00.000Z

Today saw representatives from several women's groups speak about media misogyny at the Leveson Inquiry. Speaking on behalf of Equality Now, Eaves, Object and End Violence Against Women, they called for changes in the way newspapers operate around a culture of sexist stereotypes and objectification, while perpetuating damaging myths and insinuations regarding violence against women and girls.

No-one can say this wasn't long overdue. One of the issues I have been most passionate about - since I first began writing gender-equality themed missives in my journal and before this blog existed - is the way the media rarely manages to portray women in a positive light. Whether it's the obvious grim sexism of Page 3 and the thankfully now-defunct Daily Sport, the misogyny masked as "women's interest" pieces on working mothers (boo! hiss!) and body image in the Daily Mail, or the frankly disturbing way some media outlets will do anything they can in an attempt to paint rape victims as "evil liars", there's often nothing for us to be encouraged about. Even positive coverage of all things woman-based is relegated to the "lifestyle" sections of the papers, with the fashion and the recipes and the dating ads.

I was angered afresh on seeing old stories mentioned as part of the evidence. The time the Daily Telegraph misrepresented research findings and completely made up others in order to run a story entitled "Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists". The story was quietly pulled after several people had debunked it, but the intention was there. Then there was the time the Daily Mail, in one of the most unpleasant instances I've ever seen, took 12-year-old girls who had been gang-raped to task over their clothing, Facebook profiles and upbringings, describing what happened to them as an "orgy" and calling them "lolitas", while discussing how the allegations would probably have ruined the careers of the accused.

All this, of course, was punctuated by numerous tales of upskirt shots and headlines about celebrities' breasts - and what happens to those who speak out against this culture. Clare Short, lest we forget, was vilified by The Sun as "fat" and "jealous". A woman in the public eye who speaks out against media sexism is letting herself in for accusations of being humourless, bitter and "ugly" - just as we who blog about it expect these comments from trolls below the line.

Some people might dismiss all this. Why take notice of such trash? They're tabloids - what do you expect? But for many people, it's not a case of being to tune out and dismiss it all and look down their noses. We should care about media misogyny because it influences public opinion, particularly when it comes to issues surrounding VAWG. The tabloid rape and sexual assault narrative, that there are "good" (virginal, wealthy, attacked by a stranger in a dark alleyway) and "bad" (working class, dressed in a miniskirt, in a relationship with their attacker) rape victims - has become the narrative many members of the public ascribe to. The disproportionate coverage of "false accusation" cases and "women ruining men's lives" has led to these sort of things being the first thing people often mention if you bring up rape cases. It has been getting worse for several years now, as outlined in the 2008 report Just Representation? Press Reporting and the Reality of Rape. Victim-blaming is the norm.

So what effect does this have on women who have experienced rape and assault? The End Violence Against Women Coalition's submission to the inquiry states:

"Coalitionmembers tell us that when the media reports stories in a way whichimplicitly or explicitly blames women for attacks on them, theyreceive a spike in calls from new and former service users who are‘retraumatised’ by this continuing implication that what happenedto them was in some way their fault."

One thing mentioned at the inquiry today was the way women being abused or even murdered by their partner or husband is reported in a decontextualised way, the actions of a "psycho" or a "monster", drawing attention away from the fact that violence within relationships is, in fact, incredibly common and often perpetuated by men who appear to their friends and colleagues as "normal", the "average family man". The insensitivity of journalists towards service users in their quest for sensationalism is also highlighted:

"Theycommonly ask for case studies who are willing to forego anonymity(with little thought to the consequences of this for some), and who,more sinisterly, fit a certain ‘type’ which they (or theireditor) has calculated will suit their editorial line or theirperceived readers’ prejudices (victim should be young, should beattractive, should be British, should have no criminal record etc).It is rare for the journalist to ask any question about, or make anyprovision for, the impact of giving an interview on the victim andany follow up afterwards."

It's easy to dismiss media sexism as the preserve of pathetic rags that aren't worth our time, but the impact of the damaging messages they use to shift copies hits women hard and affects the way people see VAWG. They're also unacceptable at a time when such material wouldn't be permitted on television before the watershed, and in some cases has actually been censored for content by the inquiry. All this and yet it's freely available in the daily papers for all to see.

The groups appearing today called on Lord Justice Leveson to consider regulation of the press to ensure more balanced and contextualised reporting of VAWG, with journalists receiving training on the myths surrounding the issues. It's so important that we see changes take place. Although I sadly can't see the tabloids changing their tune on objectification in the near future, will the inquiry be the start of something good?

Further reading
New Statesman - Helen, 28, has some thoughts on Page 3

Mark Driscoll v the British church

2012-01-13T16:23:00.000Z

"You don't have one young guy who can preach the Bible that anybody's listening to on this earth."

"I go too far sometimes; almost every other pastor I know doesn't go far enough."

"What you're doing ain't working so you need to do something else."

These are the words of Mark Driscoll, addressed to Christians in the UK. The latest controversy involving He Who Must Not Be Named comes as he has a book to promote - quelle surprise - and is therefore on the global interview circuit. The above quote was recorded as part of an interview for the February issue of Christianity magazine, which is available to listen to in part here (from 34 minutes in).

It's predictable that people - especially those who have dedicated their lives to ministry - were upset when Christian Today broke the story yesterday with a piece entitled: "Mark Driscoll takes aim at the cowards in the British church". I've refrained from writing a post about Driscoll's new book, Real Marriage, because it has inspired so many posts and debates that at present I feel I have nothing to add, especially since I certainly have no plans to buy the book. Some people have said that Driscoll's comments about UK Christianity are best ignored lest we give him the oxygen of publicity. But as Krish Kandiah said yesterday, how can we move forward and see change without engagement, especially on an issue which has made those working in the church feel very hurt?

“Let’s just say this: right now, name for me the one young, good Bible teacher that is known across Great Britain. You don’t have one – that’s the problem. There are a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth.”

It is, according to Driscoll, a "full-blown crisis".

Let's look at this carefully. The problem for us is not that the church is full of "cowards", but the problem affecting the way Driscoll sees it is that he doesn't know any "big names", which he feels we need to have - and which he feels must be male and under 40 - in order to reach out to unchurched men. I believe that to a certain extent, people are able to relate easily to and feel comfortable with those of their own age and gender, so yes, of course it's important that we see the younger generation "stepping up" into ministry, whether they happen to be men or women (and I know he wouldn't agree with me on that point). But effective ministry does not mean "being like Mark Driscoll" or "being famous".

As a nation, we are extremely uncomfortable with personality cults surrounding leaders and "celebrity pastors". It has been said that being British is characterised by "social dis-ease", and there is certainly a lot of "dis-ease" about "big name preachers". It's not that we don't have them. I can think of so many church leaders and Bible teachers who are well known and well respected on an international level - and they're not preaching "vaguely spiritual self-help", as Driscoll also believes. I just don't think we elevate them to such a place that they own private jets and people talk about being their "fan". We're the same with our politicians. A US-style election would never work here because most of the electorate would feel too embarrassed by the rhetoric to watch any of it, save for whatever they could see through the slits of their fingers with hands clamped over their eyes.

I know a few people who feel uncomfortable at that moment when a guest speaker who's also an author comes to your church and mentions his or her latest book and the fact you can purchase a copy after the service. For some, it's pretty much the first step on a slippery slope that culminates in demanding money with menaces in return for "blessings" on some obscure religious cable channel. It's just not cricket.

And so we do have groups of pastors who work together for common goals and hold events together. We do have plenty of conferences every year with a full programme of excellent UK-based speakers. We do have internationally-known Bible teachers and evangelists. And you could never say that Christian initiatives in the UK aren't "working". I could name you plenty of excellent "young" preachers. They just tend not to get branded, like the so-called "Reformed Big Dogs" - John Piper, Al Mohler et al - a term that makes me cringe. Just because they don't have 10 satellite set-ups from their original megachurch doesn't mean they're not doing great work in their communities. And it is often the those who shy away from the limelight and the accolades who have had a major impact on people's lives.

I'm being really facetious, but what I'm trying to illustrate is that talking about UK Christian - and certainly UK evangelical - culture on the same terms as the culture in the US, means there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things are - and it doesn't mean that we're "in the wrong" or have a problem. Around half of Americans attend church on a Sunday, compared to around 10 per cent of Brits. Britain IS a more secular country. There are plus points though - we have a negligible number of fundamentalists, for a start - and no dominionists making bids to run the government. Around 60 per cent of these churchgoing Brits are Anglican. Yes, that's right - 60 per cent attend churches that put sissy, limp-wristed excuses for men in dresses on a Sunday and let women lead a church. The Church of England, like every group of churches, has its issues, but it's our issue-filled group of churches, and it works for many very faithful people.

Those attending churches of the sort Driscoll would see as the "right sort" probably make up 10 per cent of that 10 per cent of British people who go to church regularly. And there we have the reason why there is no UK equivalent of the "Big Dogs". In his blog post hitting back at his UK critics and lampooning Justin Brierley, who interviewed him for Christianity, Driscoll made reference to anti-Christian attitudes from the public and in the media "that can cause preachers and teachers to whisper their beliefs rather than proclaim them".

It is true that the media here tends to use the word "evangelical" as an insult or something to be suspicious of (and I really dislike this fact), but it is no small part down to the way US "evangelical" culture has become stereotyped as narrow-minded, as steeped in excess, as populated by pastors who end up spectacularly falling from grace. In no way is this right, but since Driscoll's remarks were made public yesterday I've seen several people say things to the effect that "this is why I'm happy we don't have more input from American Christians over here". In making these comments about the church in Britain, Driscoll has once again assured that many Christians here will have a negative view of the church in the US, which is unfair and sad.

I feel that his post yesterday has only made the situation worse. He goes into more detail about what he sees are the problems facing British Christians, but has nothing good to say about his interview with Brierley, who he brands "cowardly" and a "liberal" (once again, he needs to think about the fact that this is a term with different connotations in the UK than in the US), apparently thanks to him being married to a minister and saying that he believes the doctrine of penal substitution "can be expressed in an unhelpful way".

Ruth Dickinson of Christianity has commented in a statement published today that:

"Justin’s interview with Mark Driscoll was robust and fair, and I utterly reject the claim that it was adversarial, disrespectful or subjective [nb: as he has claimed on his blog]. We took great care to ensure that his quotes were in context, and gave him the opportunity to talk about his new book, as well as his life and theology."

I'm sure plenty of people are now awaiting the publication of the full interview with interest, but doubt that Driscoll's latest attempt to engage with Britain has won him many sympathisers.
Further reading:

James Ogley: "An open invitation to Mark Driscoll"
Kouya Chronicle: "Driscoll, Kandiah and Cultural Assumptions"
Gurdur's blog: "A blog post for American Christians and Mark Driscoll"
Christian Vision For Men - working specifically and successfully to reach men in the UK (without espousing potentially damaging views on gender).

Image via Mars Hill Church on Flickr.

Phrase du jour: "the new Tory feminism"

2012-01-10T14:04:00.001Z

It started with the build-up to the release of The Iron Lady. In the past week, it's gained momentum with newspaper articles and magazine features about Tory women. And yesterday, Cristina Odone blogged on the "superior form" of "blue feminism". That's right - here in Britain we finally have our own version of the neverending debate that began across the pond when Sarah Palin claimed feminism for herself and heralded the emergence of a band of supposedly equality-minded conservative women.

Sure, our version doesn't carry the requirement to be in favour of limiting reproductive choice, the expectation that they'll be vocal Christians and that they'll champion those who choose to have many children. But in many other ways it's very similar - from the emphasis on personal achievement and success, the talk of the "potential" of women to the calls to "reclaim" gender equality from the left. And of course it's generating debate - for the simple reason that while the spokespeople for "blue feminism" are all about what a good thing it is, it doesn't actually have much to say about most aspects of most women's lives.

My disclaimer here is that as a left-wing woman, I often find it impossible to concede that the policies dreamt up and supported by the right can truly lead to any sort of equality. I think we need to be careful about being precious about left and right and whether a woman from the latter can truly be an advocate for gender equality - but at the same time there are some important points to make on the subject. I'm also really aware that in newspaper coverage of a subject like this, opinions and quotes are going to be cherrypicked to fit an agenda. So I'm not saying that these women have absolutely no interest in certain important issues. They're just not talking about them.

What we have are some glaringly obvious issues surrounding "the new Tory feminism", and while I may seem biased because I'd never vote for these women, this is my take on them.

1) You can talk about "merit" all you like but that doesn't mean you're good for women.

One of the main points to come out of all this is that apparently, your average Tory gender equality warrior has got her head screwed on properly because she doesn't believe in tokenism and quotas. Instead she believes in women getting to the top through hard work and merit and ambition. What that often translates as, of course, is celebrating the achievements of women "at the top" as empowering and inspirational. And much of the time, such women can be considered "inspirational". But at the same time, is there concern for tackling the entire spectrum of inequality so that women who aren't white and middle or upper class get to "rise to the top"?

Louise Mensch sees self-made women as the "essence of feminism" but I don't believe that an emphasis on personal success is the right way to go. It is, of course, very typically Tory - don't think I don't see that; don't say "well what do you expect?". Mensch told Gaby Hinsliff for the Guardian that she believes women should be encouraged to "chase money rather than career satisfaction at work". She speaks of "getting on" and "breaking the glass ceiling" as if it's the be all and end all of being a woman. People keep talking about "bootstraps" with reference to the way Margaret Thatcher saw everything. How realistic a focus is this for many women today? What hope for the disadvantaged and those who are discriminated against and those who actually, simply don't want to strive for buckets of cash and a seat in a boardroom? Making your interest in equality about profit and "getting ahead" doesn't exactly sit right with the current economic and societal situation, even if it does sit right with Tory thinking.

If, as Mensch believes, such success makes it easier for other women to achieve the same, why the complete refusal to admit that the cuts might be doing women a bit too much harm? Why the sneering from women on the right at feminists like Harriet Harman, or the refusal from women like Charlotte Vere to be lumped in with all those "extreme" man-haters on the left along with much talk about not wanting to upset or alienate men? I agree that this works both ways (we can probably be too quick to criticise those who are not on the left and assume that we can't work with them), but they're not exactly helping themselves. If we're talking about the "true blue sisterhood", I'm not feeling the "sisterhood" part all that much. It's not just about party politics and getting one over on the opposition.

2) Let's not pretend Margaret Thatcher was something she wasn't.

Namely, a feminist icon. Yes, she can be considered inspirational for the fact she was Britain's first (and so far, only) woman Prime Minister. It would be nice to think that in the near future, someone might follow in her footsteps. She showed that a woman can lead a country. But she had no time for "women's issues". She wasn't interested in solidarity and she certainly had no interest in equality of any kind. Michele Hanson summed it up last week when she said:

"The grocer's daughter who fought her way up to the top job. But what did she do to help other less fortunate women when she got up there? Even on the way up she'd taken their kiddies' milk away. Then she took away much of their affordable housing by egging everyone on to buy council houses. She privatised the utilities, and up went the household bills, and she crushed the unions. The miners' wives didn't have much to thank her for. And just to show that women can do anything men can do, she started a war, rode around on a tank in her headscarf, created loads more widows, thought herself terrifically grand and used the royal plural for her very own. What a wasted opportunity. From the great heights she looked down and thought not 'How can I raise up other women?' but only 'How can I poop on the poorer ones?' ".

Following this post on the Women's Blog, a woman wrote to the Guardian to tell of the time they'd written to Thatcher - in 1979 - to ask what she could do for victims of domestic violence. She had been running a refuge at the time. She received a response explaining that the Prime Minister was "not interested in women's issues". What would the Tory sisterhood have to say about such a letter today? We know they have concern about some of the same issues as left-wing feminists - porn, Page 3 and objectification are all mentioned in the Hinsliff interview. But what about areas where - unlike sex - feminists and the right might traditionally not overlap? And in the areas where we do overlap, how can we stop everything boiling down to a discussion about morality and actually achieve something?

3) A successful woman and a feminist are not the same thing.

Being a woman in a position of influence doesn't make you a friend to other women. It doesn't mean you have any interest in tackling misogyny, making things better for all women and changing attitudes in society. It might just mean that you're personally successful in your career. And if people think that's an indication of a gender equality heroine, they're confusing feminism with individualism. It's all very nice for the person in question, but for the most part, it has no bearing on the lives of other women or the global equality situation in general. To talk about getting more women from your own party in government, to crow about the fact you've set up a group for conservative women MPs - that's great. But what about the rest of us? Do we only matter when the government is worried that women voters are angry at them? Last year, when a leaked memo revealed the coalitions's plans to "win back" women voters, it came across as being about approval ratings and polls, about coming up with some plan to make us trust David Cameron again.

Fair enough, a successful and wealthy woman might be an inspiration to others who see themselves choosing the same path in life, but I'm not sure it goes much further. Hopefully, she can show men in her field that she's their equal. But we know that doesn't always happen. Cristina Odone's bizarre blog about the superiority of Tory feminism ticked all the boxes in assuming that power and feminism are the same thing - Thatcher as icon purely for being PM, an anti-quotas and tokenism stance meaning that Tory MPs know they're "the best for the job". And then there was the bit about "feminine wiles" being an asset to your average "blue feminist". Odone cited Louise Mensch's "gloss" as a prime example. This brings us on to the fact that...

4) Everyone is really confused about femininity. And it needs to stop.

The Guardian asked Louise Mensch about cosmetic surgery (and whether she has had any) in a recent interview. Certain newspapers gave her a telling-off (referring to her as "the twice-married mother of three") for posing for a photoshoot (for GQ magazine), to accompany a feature in which she talked about women in the public eye being trivialised over their appearance. Janet Street-Porter has gone for her this week too, attacking her for supposedly being interested in clothes and calling herself a feminist at the same time. I agree with JSP's concern about this new right-wing support for gender equality but really, Janet? Picking her up on her appearance?

Let's just stop talking about what women in politics wear. And what they look like. And their "feminine wiles". And what reflection it has on "the sisterhood" if they dye their hair. Because it has no bearing on their job. I often struggle with this apparent need from some quarters to wrangle over "femininity" so much - in relation to any women's issue, or whether or not people identify as feminists. If it's finding its way into a discussion about politics, it's just not relevant. Yes, I know that the media is compelled to talk about women's clothes and appearance as if it's all we should be thinking about, but I expect better, especially when the politicians themselves are criticising this approach.

2011 in feminist rage

2011-12-30T11:06:00.001Z

After enjoying recapping 2010 in humourless feminism at the end of last year, I thought it would be great to make it an annual thing. 2011 has had more than its fair share of outrage, drama, facepalm moments and frustration. Here's a rundown of some of the issues that have made the most headlines - and why they've been causing so much trouble.

1) The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case

In May, when former IMF head Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexually assaulting a maid at a New York hotel, politicians and commentators in his native France rushed to defend him, painting the alleged incident as mere "philandering" by a "great seducer", insulting his accuser and even claiming that the disgraced politician was the victim of a conspiracy. In time, the maid - Nafissatou Diallo, had other aspects of her life picked over by the media (including one accusation of operating as a "hooker") and in August, the charges against Strauss-Kahn were dropped thanks to a "concerns about the victim's credibility", and a supposed lack of conclusive physical evidence - despite earlier reports that proof against him was "substantial".

In the meantime, another woman had come forward to say that he had assaulted her some years ago. And since, Strauss-Kahn has admitted his behaviour with Diallo was "inappropriate" - although he maintains no force was involved. Whether an attempted rape happened or not, the whole affair raised significant concerns about the treatment of domestic workers and women of colour by privileged white men, and the stigmas associated with being the "wrong" race or class, especially when reporting a crime committed by someone more powerful and influential.

2) Conservative assaults on women's health and reproductive choice continue

Earlier this week Amanda Marcotte dubbed 2011 the year of "The War on Contraception". She goes into more detail about each individual attack on a woman's choice to use birth control in this article for RH Reality Check and it's when you say it laid out like this that you realise just how extreme things have become. Earlier in the year we saw Planned Parenthood and thousands of its supporters fighting back against proposed legislation which would have prevented its centres from providing services to women through federal health programs. With the drama level ramped up to 'verge of government shutdown', the Republicans finally gave up on their plans. But as the Department of Health and Human services announced plans to give women birth control without copays, anti-choice activists went on the attack again.

2011 has also introduced the nightmare of what constitutes 'personhood', with Mississippi trying and failing to define fertilised eggs as 'persons' and Ohio attempting to ban abortions once an embryo's heart has started beating.

3) Misogynist abuse online hits mainstream media

Bloggers and those who frequent the comment sections of websites have been complaining about it for years, but it's only recently that the global media seems to have woken up to the fact that women actually get treated pretty appallingly online, simply for being women, in a way that men will never experience. Several high profile women, from politicians to journalists, "came out" in the press to talk about the abuse they've received, ranging from being patronised and silenced to being threatened with rape and stalked. In the following days, the issue received coverage like never before in a variety of countries. It was interesting to see so many people - male and female - shocked to see what women are put through all for having opinions, and I know it changed the way a lot of people see online interaction.

Some newspapers asked what could be done to combat the problem, and although I'm not sure how much of an effect any efforts will have (especially with increasingly stalkerish behaviour from men's rights groups happening), it feels like many have woken up to the reality of what women put up with from the internet.

4) Sports Personality of the Year forgets about womenAt the end of November, the BBC unveiled its shortlist of nominations for Sports Personality of the Year - and we were all dismayed to see that it featured no women. A supposedly "expert" panel of sports editors chose the shortlist, but while men who have had less than spectacular records this year made the grade, women who have been crowned European and world champions missed out.

While no-one wants women to be nominated purely for being women, the incident has highlighted the ridiculous lack of coverage, lack of recognition and dismissive attitudes that women in sport have to put up with. The only "exposure" they seem to get is when they pose in lingerie for men's magazines or "saucy" calendars, which I can guarantee is the only reason some of the GB Olympic team's women have been making headlines this week.The plus side of all this? Various sites and newspapers have been running features on the sportswomen they feel deserve more coverage. Will it force a change in the way the media treats women in sport?

5) What next for the women of the 'Arab Spring'?

The wave of revolutionary demonstrations and actions across the Arab world has provided some of 2011's most explosive news stories. The fight for human rights has been a central feature of the protests but in many countries, the women who took part have struggled for recognition and equal treatment - and there's concern that things will get worse as political systems are rebuilt, despite this year being hailed as the "Year of the Arab Woman". Today's women of the revolution want representation in government and a say in decision-making but worry that anti-Western feeling might create a backlash against women's rights and make things worse for them.

Take Egypt - thousands of women played a part in the revolution there, yet the country's new cabinet has been criticised for including just one woman. And in recent weeks, the news has been full of shocking reports of violence and sexual assault against women by police attempting to clamp down on protesters. This week, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachelet of UN Women have spoken out about such incidents and although the Egyptian military has made an apology, Clinton has also been accused of "interfering" in their business. It looks as if 2012 will be a crucial year for the women continuing to fight for their rights.

Honourable mentions:

- The ongoing coverage surrounding the rape charges against Julian Assange
- The global media interest and engaging of a new generation of feminists (with mixed results) achieved by the Slutwalk movement
- Everyone's least favourite MP, Nadine Dorries, (somewhat poorly) attempting to make "pro-life" and "abstinence" the newest buzzwords in UK politics

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via The Opinioness of the World.

"As Many Pairs of Shoes as She Likes" - spot on or way off the mark?

2011-12-15T13:17:00.000Z

"So long as she works hard and doesn’t throw bricks or ask awkward questions, she can have as many qualifications and abortions and pairs of shoes as she likes."

Jenny Turner's piece for the London Review of Books, entitled As Many Pairs of Shoes as She Likes, has been splitting opinion and giving people headaches for the past couple of weeks. Supposedly a look into the 'confused' state of feminism today, it's had a very mixed reception. It begins with an account of the behaviour of some of the young women during the London riots. Here, Turner tells us, is 'the problem with feminism'. "Young women ‘of good character’ losing their heads and wishing they hadn’t."Confused yet? It's only just beginning.

Stripped back (a lot), this is an essay about wanting more intersectionality in the movement, frustration at 'consumer feminism' or 'feminism TM'. It's about frustration with the narrow scope of what's now publicised as 'the new feminism' - the books, the groups, the personalities. It has its good points - which should have been condensed and laid out more effectively - but there are bad points too.

It's also pretty scathing at times. Activists from Object and UK Feminista are 'genteel' and 'let-them-eat-cakey', with no place for 'humour or even humility'. Their problem, we are told, is 'narcissistic self-absorption'. The knives are out for Andrea Dworkin (but of course), who was an 'egomaniacal victim-magnet', and Betty Friedan, for only appealing to middle-class women with her writings about frustrated housewives (she has a point). Turner seems particularly 'down' on the 'confusion' of 21st century feminism, but in many ways, she fails to delve more deeply into the reasons the movement is perceived in this way - and this lets the piece down.

I would expect, for example, that the majority of us agree with Turner when she says that the public face of feminism deals little with issues such as race, poverty, international women and economics.

"It’s true that women, as a gender, have been systemically disadvantaged through history, but they aren’t the only ones: economic exploitation is also systemic and coercive, and so is race. And feminists need to engage with all of this, with class and race, land enclosure and industrialisation, colonialism and the slave trade, if only out of solidarity with the less privileged sisters."

You can't fail to disagree that this is important, but it is happening. What Turner doesn't do is give space to the groups and the campaigns that actually focus on these things. And they're not hard to find; they're not hidden, because I read their blogs and follow their updates and get involved with their campaigns. Turner actually quotes the UK-based Black Feminism blog at one point, so I assume she has visited and read it. There are plenty of complaints about the groups and people she takes issue with, but no praise for the countless women working on the issues she thinks we should be paying more attention to. No mention of Women Against The Cuts. Or Climate Rush. Or No Women No Peace. Only criticism that feminists 'don't care'.

"...the 16 per cent pay-gap masks a much harsher divide, between the younger professional women – around 13 per cent of the workforce – who have ‘careers’ and earn just as much as men, and the other 87 per cent who just have ‘jobs’, organised often around the needs of their families, and earn an awful lot less," says Turner.

"Feminism overwhelmingly was and is a movement of that 13 per cent – mostly white, mostly middle-class, speaking from, of, to themselves within a reflecting bubble."

Here we must admit that this is true among the 'big name' groups and campaigns - and of course this isn't helped when political discussions about helping women in the workplace result in a 'solution' of networking events for high profile London businesswomen and talk of getting women into boardrooms, which is so far removed from the working lives of most women that it's laughable.

Turner's feelings about the issues Object et al work on also seem confusing. These groups - and the women who represent them to the press - are predictable targets for those who don't share their views on porn or sex work. It's never long before words such as 'prim' and 'prudish' and 'snobbery' start being used. Comments about the way members speak when interviewed, making assumptions about their backgrounds. Articles about their work are always met with comments asking why these feminists aren't campaiging on issues that actually matter - that classic withering putdown used by men and women alike.

Turner says she agrees with Object's views on porn, but goes on to say that this is all 'beside the point' in a free-market economy - it's always going to exist and there's nothing that can be done about that. The same, in her opinion, goes for the commercialisation of childhood and that current area of panic, 'sexualisation'. She accuses anti-porn activists of not looking at the world around them and ignoring other issues. Yet several paragraphs later she's bemoaning the way (as most of us do) that modern, media-friendly feminism has become too compatible with the free market and neoliberalism, with its focus on 'choice', 'economic capacity' and whatever women's magazines have decided that 'empowerment' currently means. So if it's pointless and laughable to fight neoliberalism, yet distasteful to support it, what's a feminist to do?

And at the end of the day, is there really anything wrong with groups of activists choosing to have a particular focus? Many other groups and organisations do it; it's not 'wrong'. I tend to focus on particular issues in my blogging and my activism, but that has no bearing on how I feel about a wider range of problems. Furthermore, I already know of two feminist conferences taking place in the UK in 2012 that will have a particular focus on intersectionality. Both have come out a desire from some quarters to see a focus on wide-ranging issues and activism, increasing the profile of those issues and those women so often marginalised by the public face of the movement.

Let's go back to the idea that the movement has become too unpleasantly bound up with neoliberalism, capitalism and all those other unmentionable things (abandoning any Marxist roots) - glossy magazines, the rich, celebrities, "sleek high-end infotainment', as Turner puts it. Nothing new or challenging, just worship of materialism. Like the supposed invisibility of activists who care about intersectionality, the problem here is more often media coverage, media narratives and the way these influence people. It is a major cause for concern - and one that is discussed frequently - that the press chooses to focus only on aspects of the movement which will titillate, cause drama and look provocative. It's also nothing new, as proved by coverage of feminism in decades gone by.

And so this year we saw plenty of coverage of Slutwalk, articles on the protest against the Playboy Club, lots of discussion on this month's 'Muff March' protesting against the rise of labioplasty. Conferences about porn inspired a couple of pieces in the Guardian. For the tabloids, anything about 'having it all' or gender roles within marriage is a guaranteed story. And in magazines, the concept of feminism as 'on-trend' has arisen in the last couple of years, guaranteed to be focused around Sex and the City, Lady Gaga, makeup and boyfriends - much to the chagrin of almost every feminist I know, with its rhetoric of 'empowerment' and 'choice' linked to buying handbags or owning a sex toy.

I believe this coverage influences activism and helps create a vicious circle of narrowed aims and interests. Much of what the media has focused on in the last five years has been a 'resurgence' of young women. When you combine the issues of most interest to the majority of the young women profiled (white, university-educated) with the focus on buzzwords such as 'objectification' and 'sexualisation' and coverage of just a handful of issues, I think this inspires other women to start up activism of their own, which is obviously not a bad thing. This can be seen by the growing numbers of groups based in cities and regions all over the UK. But it tends to replicate the activism seen in the news and done by other groups. Same backgrounds, same concerns, same areas of focus - with less space given to issues which might not directly affect peoples' lives or their current situations.

Turner wants to know what has happened to the old feminist concerns about raising children, shared parenting, nurseries. That's something that seems odd to me - yes, in mainstream consciousness it may seem buried under chicklit and pressure to be the perfect mother, but again, look past media coverage of activism related to all things titillating, and the discussion is there, in many forms. She accuses the revitalised movement of relying on the 'books-as-bombs' model, with said books 'missing out the interesting bits' (politics, economics) in a bid to appeal to young readers. She criticises last year's three-part documentary series on feminist activism, Women, for its lack of diversity - and let's face it, who didn't criticise it? It's all too easy and too lazy - and it leaves a bad taste in the mouth because at times it just reads like smirking nastiness.

The piece runs out of steam before the end, and it feels like it took a very long time to request more of a focus on intersectionality, all the time being unreasonably critical of a movement where you don't have to look too far to find women who do care about a wide range of issues and are just as tired of tedious media coverage as Turner is. You can't disagree with her assessment of certain problems, but I can't say I could identify with her stance on others.

Image via natashalcd's Flickr.

Things you should be reading this week

2011-12-13T19:31:00.000Z

"We cannot afford to wait for permission to make change; women themselves must be the change."

Today I bring you links to a fabulous trio of posts from my North American sisters. Because they got there before me (I've just started a new job), because they're important and thought-provoking, and because they really spoke to me.

Dianna Anderson has written a post in response to, and to add to the thoughts of Preston Yancey, who has blogged here and here about a new page gaining thousands of 'likes' on Facebook, which is entitled "I'd rather have a Proverbs 31 woman than a Victoria's Secret model". Preston has written a response to this "Live 31 movement" based on women of the Bible (which is very good and essential reading), then followed it up with a more detailed explanation of his thoughts.

Be The Change - Pretty In Pink

"But what makes the campaign connect with people is also that which gives it the most problems. Regardless of which category you fall into – let’s lift the veil and call it what it is: The Virgin or the Whore – it is still something inspired by how one is perceived by the other gender. This is something I see reflected in the Christian singles culture over and over. The focus of the campaign especially is on Proverbs 31:30: “Charm is deceitful and beauty soon fades but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.”

Praised by whom? Why, men, of course! And this is the fundamental problem: Regardless of whether or not you’re living as the virgin or the whore, if you’re doing it because you think it will be more attractive to the opposite sex, then you’re doing it for the wrong reasons."

For me the whole thing has a lot of weird parallels with all those "Men love real women who have curves!"/"I'd rather have a real woman than a bag of bones!" statements and Facebook pages, which similarly seem to gain tens of thousands of 'likes'. Replacing one ideal with another and framing it around desirability as judged by men. But Dianna is spot on and addresses a part of the discussion that had up until now been missed.

Both Sarah Styles Bessey and Rachel Held Evans have blogged their thoughts on a "big question" that seems to have arisen this month, with discussion centering on a certain post by Tim Challies, in which he explains why he does not condone women reading aloud from the Bible in church. A lot of posts have been floating around but I chose to highlight these two because they say everything that needs to be said so well.

Emerging Mummy - In which I am done fighting for a seat at the table

"This is one more gift that the emerging church gave me more than a decade ago: when you don't find it, you simply create it. You emerge from what currently is into what will be, as pioneers, rule-breakers. Stop waiting for permission and get on with the work that God has called you to, stop waiting for permission and be brave, be courageous, be boldly full of Love and gentleness but step out into the space to create.

So I am no longer standing beside your table, asking for a seat, working and serving and hoping to be noticed and then offered a seat or arguing for my right to a seat. I don't care to sit here any more. I have no desire to be indoors, in your neat boxes."

Rachel Held Evans - "...your daughters will prophesy"

"Meanwhile, churches are spending years debating whether a female missionary should be allowed to speak on a Sunday morning, whether students older than ten should have female Sunday school teachers, whether women should be allowed to read from Scripture in a church service, whether girls should be encouraged to attend seminary, whether women should be permitted to collect the offering or write the church newsletter or make an announcement.

Those of us who are perhaps most equipped to speak and act prophetically in response to the violence, poverty, and inequality that plagues our sisters around the world are being silenced ourselves.

Folks who see the leadership of women like Huldah and Junia as special exceptions for times of great need are oblivious to the world in which we live. Those who think the urgency of Pentecost has passed are deluding themsleves. They “have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear.” "

Where are all the women? In Life & Style, apparently.

2011-12-05T12:45:00.001Z

"In a typical month,78% of newspaper articles are written by men, 72% of Question Time contributors are men and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4's Today show are men. Where are all the women?"

Kira Cochrane's article on the under-representation of women in public life, published online yesterday and in G2 today, gives us the statistics that prove what women have been discussing for some time. Indeed, I remember the topic generating much discussion and strong feeling when she mentioned it as part of a panel discussion at UK Feminista's 2010 Summer School.

In June, Cochrane tells us, she began counting bylines, analysing presenters and guests on news programmes, on current affairs shows such as Question Time and news-based comedy shows like Have I Got News For You. She details the results in her article - and as you'd expect, they're depressing and predictable. She also mentions the number of women MPs - 22% - and notes that when the results of her analysis of women's representation in television and newspapers are averaged, at 22.6% the figure is almost the same.

It's really great that someone has finally laid out the facts and challenged people to improve the situation in the national press. But there's just one problem - a problem that perhaps sums up the entire issue. Cochrane's article appears not in the main news section of the Guardian, not in Media or Politics as would also be appropriate, but in Life & Style.

I know I've mentioned this in my posts a number of times and that many other women have too - the consistent sidelining of news involving anything deemed to be a "woman's issue" to the section of the newspaper with the features about clothes, about food, about children. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with writing about these particular subjects; it's more the insinuation that certain topics are a woman's domain - and that even if these news stories have something to do with politics, or international development, or law, they're to be filed under "women's interest".

Take a look at the headings in the Life & Style section (all other newspapers are just as guilty; I'm only picking on the Guardian because of Cochrane's article). You'll see that Life & Style encompasses the Christmas gift guide, fashion, food, health, homes, gardens, craft, family, relationships, women and dating. As someone said to me this morning: "One of these things is not like the others". You'll see this even more clearly if you click on "Women" and discover the subheadings within - feminism, gender issues, equality and women in politics. Today, under "Women", you can find stories on maternal health, women in the Congo and Afghanistan, the controversy over women in sport and the Sportsperson of the Year award, "honour" crimes, and birth control in sub-Saharan Africa.

Something is going badly wrong when it comes to the representation of women in the media and in politics. You want a television show with more than a token woman on a panel? You're limited to Loose Women and the fact that it represents everything truly awful about stereotypes of women. On the radio? You've got Women's Hour, which I have no problem with, but it is only an hour. You write about peacemaking in Afghanistan or maternal health for a national newspaper? It gets filed under "Life & Style" with the Christmas gift guide.

Newspapers like the Guardian should be doing better than this and according more visibility to issues that affect over half the world's population. Maybe it's time for the women on their staff to demand change not just for the women they don't see on television or in parliament, but also to put more pressure on those in charge in the media to practice what they preach about equality. In fact, I know this already happens, so maybe it's time for those in charge to listen.

Sweeping it under the carpet

2011-12-03T10:08:00.001Z

I haven't written a post on here for the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender Violence because last month, Anna at Goannatree asked me if I would write a guest post for her 16 Days series.

My experience of talking about violence against women and the activism aiming to tackle it is that there are a lot of uncomfortable silences. People give you odd looks; they try to change the subject. They turn it into a big joke – “When’s International Men’s Day, then?” – or they regale you with a “statistic” they’ve heard somewhere (or possibly made up on the spot) – “Did you know that most violence is now committed by women against men?” (yes, this was actually a colleague’s response when I told him what a Reclaim the Night march was).

When you say the words “rape”, or “domestic violence” people look even more uncomfortable. They’re not nice things to think about, for a start. Yes, of course it’s awful, but we don’t need to discuss it, do we? Injustices happening a long way from home are easy to talk about. They’re also easy to accept, to sit back and do nothing about, because people feel they can’t help. No matter how bad the situation is, it’s down to a matter of different cultures, different religions, different worldviews. And so violence against women used as a weapon in conflict – that’s awful. Women killed as a result of so-called “honour” crime – that’s awful. Trafficking? Also awful.

Read on and comment here...

This week in online harassment...

2011-11-26T14:17:00.001Z

Speaking out about online harassment constitutes "over-reacting" for some. So how far does it have to go before it becomes worth bothering about?

In recent weeks the long-running debate about the way women are treated online has finally hit the news, with bloggers, journalists and public figures from numerous countries weighing in on how much of a problem it is.

Plenty of discussion has also focused on how it can be stopped - although many of the women involved in the debate have been subject to further blog posts and comments telling them they're "over-reacting" and that misogynist abuse online just isn't that much of a big deal.

While almost everyone I know has welcomed this mainstreaming of the issue, it has of course meant that we've all become very familiar with the term "gaslighting" - the way people undermine what women are saying by telling them that they're being "emotional" or "hysterical" or "over-sensitive".

And so considering that pointing out online abuse seems to be such an "over-reaction" in the eyes of many, something we ladies simply need to "man up" about, I was interested to learn this week of a particularly unpleasant case of online misogyny not being that much of a big deal at all.

Misogynist-baiting blog Manboobz tells us that one of the more high-profile men's rights websites is offering "bounty money" to anyone able to track down the personal details of a group of Swedish women who have made a video they don't like.

The women posted an admittedly ridiculous video on YouTube over a year ago, advertising a theatre production based on Valerie Solanas's SCUM Manifesto and showing the shooting of a man, followed by a victory dance by the women.

So it's publicity for a play, which isn't, you know, real. Like countless other plays and films produced every year that involve scenes of murder. But the guys at A Voice For Men see it more as a call for women to enact killing sprees directed at the opposite sex and have acted as they see fit, calling for those who are involved in the video to be publicly shamed. This includes:

"...asking for the full legal names, home addresses, places of employment, email addresses and contact phone numbers of the women and man who produced and starred in the video described above."

All just a bit of fun, right? Actually, no. Not when men's rights activists are involved. Stumbling across their websites is a discomforting experience. Many of these sites try to maintain a veneer of "reason", but you never have to read very far to realize that they're beloved hangouts of individuals who really do despise women, or at least all women who don't fit their ideal of feminine behaviour and let them treat them as they wish. Even when the contributors to these sites attempt to discourage completely vitriolic comments and attacks, you're going to get readers who can't help themselves.

It's also telling that they want to publish the personal details of the women on a site called "Register-Her", which purports to reveal the identities of women who have "falsely accused" men of rape. If that's not an encouragement to disturbed individuals looking to go on the rampage, I don't know what it is.

And that's why stuff like this - demanding that people track down the personal information of women so it can be publicized online - isn't just a bit of fun. It's encouraging the unpleasant people who frequent men's rights sites to intimidate and harass women, intruding into their personal lives, all because they've produced a satirical play.

In recent weeks some bloggers have spoken out about how worried they have been by threatening emails from people who have found out their addresses or information about their families. It does happen – and we all know that on the internet, you really don't have to look far to find people who will do genuinely disturbing things.

A writer at A Voice for Men has already been contacted by a Swedish journalist who seems concerned about what's going on. The writer himself seems more concerned about Sweden supposedly being one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to oppressing men, so I can only guess he missed the memo regarding that whole "countries with the highest quality of life" thing.

Another day, another example of women being targeted for harassment.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via screaming_monkey's Flickr.

Sunday linkpost/final thoughts - Christianity/gender edition

2011-11-20T14:40:00.001Z

A lot of discussion has come out of the issues surrounding gender equality and Christianity raised by various posts published in the past week - from different perspectives (which is good) and bringing up different points. I have collated the ones I have read here for future reference and for anyone who hasn't seen them yet.

Vicky Beeching - Christian feminism is not an oxymoron

Krish Kandiah - Women, men, church and Twitter

Goannatree - The F word; or, I don't have to be a feminist to object to sexism

Elizabeth Esther - A necessary anger

Lay Anglicana - Aristophanes was the original complementarian

James Prescott - The masculine/feminine balance

Girltaristhan - Can I be a Christian and be a feminist?

Jo Royal - The one where I 'come out' - Part One and Part Two

and from me - Gracious debate, tone arguments and silencing, followed by Gracious debate part two - the silencing around gender issues

If you have a post to add to the debate, please comment and tell me!

The posts and discussion I have read and been a part of this week have raised two issues that warrant further exploration:

1) Masculinity and femininity in relation to the Bible. Can we interpret scripture to understand that a "Godly" man or woman should have particular traits, interests and personalities as well as "roles". To what extent is 21st century teaching on this informed by cultural gender stereotypes and expectations? And should we be looking to the men and women of the Bible for pointers on the right sort of "masculine" and "feminine" behaviour?

A lot of what I read online and in books about "Biblical" masculinity and femininity is heavily based on cultural expectations and stereotypes. I don't believe this is correct or helpful and actually think that we shouldn't be defining desirable and "Godly" personality traits, interests and lifestyles according to gender when they don't really have anything to do with whether one is male or female. Many other people take a different view. But what is very apparent to me is that a lot of people want to know what "Biblical/Godly" masculinity and femininity actually look like - and apply this to their lives. Personally, I'm not that fussed any more. Godly behaviour and personality? Yes - this is something we should all be striving for. Godly gender stereotypes? Not something I'm looking to implement in my life. But for some, it may be helpful to their situation or issues they are dealing with. So do we need a new conversation, a new approach to this? One that is less narrow-minded and more accepting of differences? One that doesn't attempt to tell us that Genesis 2 gives us a picture of man's "inherent strength" and woman's "inherent softness" (because let's be honest here, it really, really doesn't)? It's something I would hope to explore and discuss more in the future.

2) Working together despite difference to address issues of injustice. Something I've seen agreement on this week, from both sides of the debate, is that global gender inequality IS a justice issue and IS important. In my own contribution to the debate I wrote about wishing that comment threads on gender equality would stop boiling down to the holding open of doors and portrayals of men in television adverts for cleaning products as if that's all this issue is about. I don't think you have to believe that women can be pastors, or want an end to "traditional" roles within the family, to have a heart for global women's issues. Thankfully, the discussion has been steered away from trivial things. Some of the things I have seen people discussing in that respect are sex trafficking, rape and access to education. It would be great to see more of a "cross-party initiative" on these issues taking place, in the interests of both combating injustice and also working together to understand each other more.

Gracious debate part two - the silencing around gender issues

2011-11-14T20:51:00.001Z

On Saturday night, when I was mulling over all this and deciding how I would tackle it, I realised I was going to have to split my thoughts into two posts. Tone arguments are one thing, but that day Vicky Beeching had just posted something brilliant and I saw that I needed to discuss the obsession with "being gracious", silencing and shaming as it relates to discussing gender issues, particularly as I had been in London at FEM 11 that day and the subject of women receiving abuse online has been a hot topic recently.

As I mentioned in my previous post, all Christian bloggers fall victim to readers' preoccupation with tone, but none more so than women when they discuss gender issues and/or feminism, which is such a loaded word for Christians that many don't even use it, even if it's a label they claim for themselves privately. In the post linked above, Vicky mentions that she was excited by all the tweets about FEM 11 appearing in her timeline on Saturday but decided not to retweet any of them because of the reactions it would probably set off among some of her followers.

What I said in my comment on Vicky's post and what I feel is something really important to consider here, is that as Christians we need to look past stereotypes and media hype and analyse the real issues at hand without resorting to uninformed attacks. When people judge us and our faith based on negative or untrue stereotypes, it makes us annoyed. When they take the actions of a few Christians (the antics of Westboro Baptist Church members - or any other hardline right-wing Christians - spring to mind here) and act as if the rest of us are all the same, it's frustrating. The same applies to feminists and those who believe in gender equality. It's disheartening when people dismiss our concerns or silence us, using clichés and misinformation to do so.

Firstly, it's important for Christians to understand that the feminist movement is wide-ranging. I cannot begin to describe how frustrating it is when someone mentions the word and readers immediately start qualifying it only in terms of a woman's role within the church and the family, or otherwise in terms of sexist television adverts, holding open doors and giving up seats. Don't begin to dismiss our work as unimportant and "outdated" until you know the many issues we work on and how they might affect women worldwide. Secondly, read a decent definition of radical feminism and make sure you use it correctly. Thirdly, consider what you're really doing when you say you don't believe Christians can sign up to the concept of gender equality because of the actions of a few "extreme" feminists. You're still following Jesus despite the actions of Fred Phelps, aren't you?

In my comment on Vicky's post, I highlighted a few of the issues related to gender equality:

"Equal pay. Racism. Poverty. Violence against women and girls. Trafficking. Under-representation in public life, politics and senior positions in business and decision-making jobs. The sort of future available to today's girls and their aspirations. Issues surrounding motherhood, income and the workplace. All this cannot be ignored while the discussion is reduced to simplistic statements about 'anger' and 'feminism going too far'."

When you reduce the concerns of the women's movement to holding open doors and adverts for cleaning products, believe me it grates - as if these are somehow examples of gender equality having gone beyond all acceptable limits, ruined the lives of women and emasculated the world's men. Similarly, it grates when people talk about gender equality as a concept promoting the establishment of female superiority over men and even doing away with them altogether. Look past your own front door and remember that people who aren't western, middle-class churchgoers have problems too. You see some people say that all these problems aren't what we should be concentrating on, as Christians. That they're not issues discussed in the Bible, so concerns about them are purely "cultural" and "of the world". Maybe that's true, for them - but some people happen to feel convicted about gender issues.

When they do, and especially when women do, it's important not to dismiss this, shut down the debate and label their conviction as "hysterical", "emotional" or "ranting". Nine times out of ten when I see a woman told she's "ranting" in a blog post she's simply expressing a strong opinion, or saying that she thinks something is wrong. When the popular male bloggers do this, it's unusual for someone to pull the "emotional" card, let alone the "hysterical" one (are people still holding on to the old definition of "hysteria" as health problems caused by the womb?). Treating a woman as your equal online doesn't involve using this sort of language, even as a "last resort" when you are frustrated or don't know where to take the debate. As a fellow blogger said on Twitter at the weekend:

"We are unfairly criticized when we are simply calling crap crap."

Unfairly criticized because according to gender stereotype, as women it's our job to put up, shut up and keep sweet lest we be told we're "out of line" or labelled "harpies". And it really is as simple as that. No matter how much some people believe they treat women well and respect them, the stereotype creates an underlying, uncomfortable feeling about how we should be regarded for speaking out about something.

Some time ago, a man responding to a blog post of mine said that he felt the issue of gender equality was not a crucial one (and therefore not one worth spending much time discussing) because it was "not a salvation issue". But know this: I have read the accounts of women who have lost their faith because of issues of gender and the church. I know women who have turned away from God because they cannot see how they can reconcile Christianity with calling themselves a feminist. I have heard the accounts of women who have been incredibly burned by the church and its attitude towards their gifting and their opinions. For these women, gender equality was - is - a salvation issue.

And when women talk about their own experiences with gender inequality - in or outside of the church, they might have painful memories to share. I know that I certainly have painful memories about gender inequality to share. According to those who enjoy silencing, tactics, we should be sharing these stories without emotion or a sense of injustice (and we all know that God hates injustice), because that would be ungracious and make us seem bitter and negative.

If those readers with their tone arguments were in fact correct, just asking for an end to injustice nicely, without being critical, would have done the job years ago and no-one would still have to question rape conviction rates or women bearing the brunt of poverty. Telling us that "things would be different if today's women were just happy to be women" (meaning content to live according to traditional gender roles) doesn't help. It's incredibly patronizing for a start - and yet again it's a "solution" that applies to a narrow range of issues - women's role in the church and family, yes, but not even a thought for the others I mentioned above.

As I said in my previous post, no-one should be resorting to bullying or un-Christlike behaviour. Caring deeply about an issue - and expressing a sense of injustice about it - is not the same thing.

Gracious debate, tone arguments and silencing

2011-11-13T15:19:00.000Z

It started with a couple of tweets from me, aimed at my Christian friends and fellow bloggers.

"To what extent do you think talk of "being gracious" is used to silence and shut down debate, particularly when it comes to issues involving women and the church?"

I asked this because, to put it bluntly, I am sick to the back teeth of seeing comment threads on blogs overtaken not by discussion of the issues at hand, but by discussion of whether or not the post and the tone used by the blogger was "gracious" enough, or "negative", or "bitter", or "Christlike". I believe we are called to Christlike debate. But I also feel that this obsession with tone is a classic derailing and silencing tactic, which at best comes across as patronizing - and at worst, incredibly unpleasant and shaming.

For those of you active in the feminist blogosphere, the term "tone argument" will probably be a familiar one. It's the argument a reader will make when telling the writer that "If you just expressed your feelings in a nice, polite way, others might listen to what you're saying". It's also the line that a reader will use when telling a blogger "Thank you for expressing your feelings in such a measured and rational way - so different to all those angry, aggressive bloggers". We Christians have our own equivalent of this. But the Christian tone argument favours a particular word - one which is fast becoming one of my least favourite words ever.

That word is "gracious". What I'm seeing, on an increasingly regular basis, is an obsession that blog posts on "difficult" or "controversial" issues must be "gracious". If they are not considered "gracious" enough by those reading, everything the blogger has expressed becomes invalid. This seems to mean different things for different people. As someone on Twitter said to me, sometimes people use the word when they mean "being kind". Sometimes they use it when they mean "agreeing with me". Sometimes they use it when they mean "taking others' opinions into account". Much of the time, the extent to which someone is believed to be "gracious" is dependent on how little they seek to "rock the boat".

There was a controversial post about the role of men and women in relationships on a very popular blog a few weeks ago. The post, written by a man, generated hundreds of comments, blog posts in response - and it's fair to say, plenty of drama. What really stood out among the hundreds of comments on the post, for me, was the number of comments by fans of the blog directed towards those who had disagreed with the post, telling them how bitter, emotional and ungracious they were. Bitter, emotional and ungracious - why? Because they'd dared to disagree with a prominent name in the blogosphere? Because they'd told their own stories of how the opinions expressed in the post had caused a great deal of hurt to them over the years?

I'm pulling no punches about this: it has to stop.

I see the tone argument pulled on men, too, when they express dissent. But when it comes to being shamed for expressing disagreement, anger or conviction, women are always first in line. It's an effective way of shutting us up, you see. Tell us we're "ungracious" or "un-Christlike". No-one wants to be seen as the person Jesus would disapprove of in an argument. It's also an effective way of rewarding us, giving us a cookie for playing the good girl and not rocking the boat. When I posted those tweets a few days ago, I was thinking of a particular post written by a woman whose blog I read, a woman I greatly admire and respect. Recently she'd written a post that I could tell had been difficult to write and had stirred up a lot of feelings in her. The post received a lot of comments. Most of them at the time I was reading seemed to be focused on how "gracious" her post was. "Thank you for being so gracious in the way you have written this". You know how it goes.

I was annoyed for her. Were people engaging with the issue she wanted to discuss? No, they were patronizing her for being good enough to write the post without getting "angry" or sounding "bitter". I didn't say anything about it to her, until we were discussing all this on Twitter on Thursday night.

"I hate it when [readers] pat my head and congratulate me for being gracious..." she said.

I told her which post I knew she was thinking of. She was. And she had felt patronized. She wanted people to engage with her opinions, not tell her how gracious she had been, when as she said, "I try to be respectful in hopes that they will hear my point instead of get defensive because I was too forceful". I think that this can be a good thing to do in the Christian blogosphere. There is, sadly, a great reluctance to see someone's view as valid if they are forceful in the way they write it. And so some people choose to adapt. And of course, there is no good reason to be vitriolic towards people, or act like a bully. But you can't talk about controversial issues without some sort of disagreement happening and we shouldn't try to stamp it out when it does.

When I see another post where the comments are more focused on tone than actually debating issues, where women are repeatedly criticised for having a strong opinion, feeling angry about something or disagreeing with someone (particularly a "big name" male blogger or preacher), my heart sinks. When this criticism comes from a place of male privilege, or from the perspective of women who are reinforcing the status quo, it reinforces the position that many Christian women see themselves in constantly - that they are ignored when they speak out and that no-one shares their concerns. We all need to listen to each other and understand that there is nothing wrong with righteous anger, or feeling emotional about a particular subject. There is nothing wrong with dissenting opinion. There is absolutely no reason to congratulate someone just for being nice and making sure they don't upset anyone, if this does not achieve anything. If Jesus's ministry had not caused dissent and controversy, where would we be today?

This post is part one of two. In part two I hope to discuss how this relates directly to discussion and understanding of gender equality and the feminist movement within Christian circles.

The image at the top of the post, from here was the first thing that showed up when I typed "gracious living" into Google Images. I thought it was quite fitting, considering the subject matter.

Exciting times for the Dorries-approved womb (plus women and blogging)

2011-11-08T12:36:00.001Z

So back at the beginning of September I wrote a post for Nadine Dorries, all about my womb, which I described as "just about the most boring uterus ever". Behold, it does the same thing once a month with no fuss, I said, adding that Nadine would most heartily approve because I'd never managed to "go and get myself pregnant".

Yet unbeknownst to me, my womb was harbouring a secret. A big (not literally), life-changing secret. One week after I wrote that post I was staring at a positive pregnancy test. It said "3 weeks +". This was not entirely unexpected; I'll add (more Dorries points for me). I was pleased I'd been out partying the weekend before and therefore had one final hurrah on the booze (that's what's known as hyperbole, concern trolls; I don't binge drink). Aside from that, I was, quite simply, freaked out. When was I going to start getting symptoms? Was I going to have hyperemesis, like my mother?

The past couple of months have been interesting. Much to my mum's chagrin, the dreaded sickness never reared its ugly head. Mostly, it's been all about complete exhaustion. I'm used to being tired - I get up at 6am, I have a long commute, a busy job, I write a lot in the evenings and I work out. If you're wondering why blog posts have been thin on the ground since September, it's because I've tended to hit "the wall" at around 2pm. For several weeks, I felt like I could barely function by the time I got home from work. I've dragged myself to the gym occasionally and genuinely felt as if I was about to nod off while on the cross trainer

I've also been dipping in to what is uncharted territory for me: parenting forums and blogs. This has confirmed what I knew already: that despite being great places for advice and support, these places often take judginess to a whole new level. If you blog about taking a "relaxed" (as opposed to "smothering and paranoid") approach to parenting, there are people out there who will email you to let you know you don't deserve to be a mother (yes, this really did happen to a friend). Let's not even go there with the monumental breastfeeding bust-up that's recently happened among certain bloggers I read.

And then, there's "mummy blogging". Or "mommy blogging", if you like. C. Jane has been talking about it a bit recently, following her talk to university students about women and blogging. She asked me if I had any thoughts about being a woman and being online. Clearly I do. At the time I'd just been to the Christian New Media Conference and had attended the panel discussion on gender and digital media. The panelists asked the audience if they felt that "blogging is a man's world" and almost everyone said "no". This much is true in the sense that women are a very visible presence online and we don't shy away from writing. Yet how are we perceived, as bloggers? This is something I've written about before and also something of a hot topic recently, as shown by this column by Helen Lewis Hasteley for the New Statesman.

"The sheer volume of sexist abuse thrown at female bloggers is the internet's festering sore: if you talk to any woman who writes online, the chances are she will instantly be able to reel off a Greatest Hits of insults. But it's very rarely spoken about, for both sound and unsound reasons. No one likes to look like a whiner -- particularly a woman writing in male-dominated fields such as politics, economics or computer games. Others are reluctant to give trolls the "satisfaction" of knowing they're emotionally affected by the abuse, or are afraid of incurring more by speaking out."

Over the last week the subject of abuse faced by women online has really taken off with discussion not simply limited to blogs or Twitter as is usually the case, but a number of articles, very long comment threads and links being exchanged back and forth across the pond. There's been a hashtag - check out #mencallmethings to see women discussing the abuse they've faced. Cath Elliott has also done a good round-up of posts on the issue here.

So we have the misogynist attacks, the insinuations that we know nothing about particular subjects, the "silly girl" and "hysterical and emotional" put-downs every time we get passionate about something. And then there's the distinct lack of sisterhood which comes hand in hand with a lot of the parental judginess I mentioned above - something I was privy to when I wrote a guest post for Courtney earlier this year and found myself being berated by other women for being "young" (and therefore ignorant) and not yet having any children, among other things. I wasn't even writing about children or parenting, yet for some readers, it was clear that as a childless woman, I was somehow deficient and not worth their time.

Courtney doesn't like the term "mommy blogger" because it always ends up having a lot of negative connotations and being associated with unpleasant and often misogynistic stereotypes. The freebie-hungry mother who's out for the giveaways and trips and products to review and nothing more. The vacuous mother intent on portraying her life - and her children - as winsomely perfect. The oversharing mother who regales her readers with every tedious detail of her little darlings' development. From the post on Courtney's talk I linked to above I gathered she discussed the commercialization of it all, the pressures of modern womanhood extending to the blogosphere and the kowtowing to patriarchy which she sees as a particular issue for women of faith, but which of course applies to us all.

I've been part of conversations where people - men and women - have pretty much spat out the words "mummy blogger", with great disgust, or otherwise used it in a mocking, smirking way. I've read mummy/mommy blogs from the excellent to the very, very bad; of course they're not a terrible thing per se. I'm not sure if I'll ever want to count myself among them, though. Because for the time being, now I'm feeling a bit better, I'm happy to keep on writing about my usual topics. You might see pregnancy-related posts (you may wish to avoid them), who knows?

Last week I had my dating scan and saw my baby for the first time. Things feel more real now, and less stressful, for the time being. And so, it starts. I am starting as I mean to go on and taking it to its first feminist conference on Saturday. Let's hope I manage to stay awake.

I blame the media: equality, consumerism and sensationalism

2011-10-30T15:18:00.000Z

For the past two or three years, most newspaper coverage of the feminist movement has heralded its return, its new-found popularity and the renewed fervour of 21st century women to see gender equality realised. In the past I've written about how this has become tedious. How many times can you talk about the "return of feminism" - especially when you've done so on a regular basis since 2008 - before it gets old?And yet it seems that not all Guardian journalists feel the same way.

On Friday, a piece by Tanya Gold, entitled "I blame the media for ignoring feminism in favour of makeup", appeared. It's in the third paragraph that she says:

"I pondered why the feminist movement seems so comprehensively to have stalled. Feminism seems so tiny today, so niche, of such little interest to the outside world and even to women."

Stalled. Despite new groups of activists and campaigns and conferences and demonstrations and petitions and documentaries and blogs and tireless work by many people I know: stalled. I don't think the movement has stalled. It's just hard to be heard when the problems of the world are so numerous and women's voices are the most marginalized.

As we read on we see that Gold is referring to the depressing statistics we learn of on a regular basis. The pay gap, the workplace, the treatment of women in politics, the beauty industry, celebrity. It's not an attack on what the activists are doing, it's an attack on a society that refuses to listen and media organizations that won't give issues any coverage unless they're explosive and sensationalized. I don't always agree with everything Gold writes, but I really identified with what she's saying here, from the rage at government cuts to her recollection of how many people she knows react to the concept of gender equality.

"That was their comment on modern feminism – an indistinct, half-imagined dislike for Harriet Harman, although they cannot remember why."

It's all too familiar, isn't it? And it's a miserable thing to think about, the thought that as far as some people can see, our efforts as activists aren't changing anything because as far as the rest of the world can see, talking about "Millie's Fillies" is funny. We have "career women" and "working mums" but not "career men" and "working dads" and when you point that out to some people, they fall about laughing because you're just so ridiculous and then roll their eyes because "no-one cares". The media's favourite statistics are the ones that reinforce traditional gender roles, victim-blaming and negative stereotypes of women. The stats and reports that show men in a vaguely negative light don't get the same attention, because then men get upset, which just won't do.

The examples Gold uses of this lack of progress, of impact, from the movement, are numerous. The glorification of less equal times through television shows like Pan Am. The media's role as a vehicle for the fashion and beauty industries and the oft-promoted lie that consumption, spending power and rampant materialism equal "empowerment". This is one of my all-time favourite bugbears: the co-option of "choice" so that it becomes less about gender equality and more about the choice to buy a dress or a handbag, to feel "sexy" by using a certain product, empowerment by "doing what feels good" and spending your money on whatever you want, or choosing a certain brand of chocolate or tampon. "It's my choice, I want to do it, therefore it's empowering to me and how it affects other people doesn't matter". Nina Power calls it "Feminism TM", and Sian Norris has written more about it here.

Gold argues that feminism is now seen as so insignificant that it is not having an impact on these things that matter - objectifying and sexist imagery, or the idea of consumerism as empowerment. I would argue that these are not the only things we work for and that while it is critical, there are other things that we're focusing on that matter just as much. Consumerism and objectification are often criticized, when relentlessly focused on, as the concerns of privileged, middle-class women who prioritize such concerns over issues like poverty, the economy, race and VAWG, refusing to step outside the bubble and acknowledge the experiences of others. You've all seen the call-outs and the discussions. This is important and I think we all agree that the focus can't be so exclusive. But as Gold - and the rest of us - are sadly very much aware, these are the issues that get the media coverage.

Slutwalk and protests against Playboy get the attention because they're "titillating". It means the media can talk about sex and print pictures of young women. It means the trolls can castigate the protesters for being "ugly" and everyone can have a good smirk at the shrill, bitter harridans who clearly just need a good shag. Equality legislation, issues surrounding race, pregnancy discrimination and anti-victim blaming perspectives on the justice system aren't titillating or explosive enough - and so coverage is limited to the feminist blogs and the couple of daily newspapers that are more sympathetic to the cause. And it's not in the interests of the media to denounce capitalism and criticize the things they're so invested in - beauty, materialism, celebrity. It happens up to a point, but at the end of the day money has to be made. When you start to discuss these things with people outside your own little bubble, you remember that not everyone thinks consumerism is a problem. For many, it's an absolute joy.

A friend said on Twitter yesterday:

"To me, it always feels as though women are being encouraged to consume to please some huge 'other'. It's as though you're always being told to strive for perfection, and the only way to achieve perfection is by buying more shit."

Even for many who set themselves apart from the unbearable side of mainstream consumerism, it's still about defining themselves by the things they've acquired and cultivating an image carefully based around said things. And this, no matter what, will always trump "boring" reports on various aspects of equality from the women's sector.So do we change tactics to get the media coverage and hope it brings about more change? And does this inevitably involve "dumbing down" and sidelining the issues that "no-one cares about", the issues that invariably involve women of colour and working class women?

When Caitlin Moran criticized the obsession with beauty and handbags in her autobiography, discussing sex and body issues and relationships and clothes, thousands of women read the book and many said it made them think about things, for the first time, that they'd never really considered before. But many others were perturbed that it focused on, "yet again", the concerns of the privileged and ignored the wider concerns of the women's movement. It got a lot of media attention and a lot of hype.

Next month, the Fawcett Society will hold a day of action in London. Women are being encouraged to come to march dressed in "50s get-up" (pinnies, rubber gloves, dresses, headscarves, chains) to symbolize the way the government wants to "turn back time" on women's rights. We are also being encouraged to hold "Don't turn back time tea parties" to raise awareness locally. It's a nifty gimmick. Remember the approach to freedom and equality in the 50s? That's what we could return to! So let's make like it's the 50s and make sure people sit up and take notice, right? Some people are unhappy with the gimmick. Tea parties? 50s housewives? Hardly representative of the experience of all women! Is it a great way to protest what the government's doing - or is it dumbing down and excluding voices in the name of hoped-for media coverage?

The concerns of today are just as important as the fights for equality legislation and involvement of women in public life four or five decades ago. The spectre of consumerism today, however, is larger and it's seen as laughable to challenge it, despite what has happened in recent years with the economy and everything else that should have sounded warning bells. The media is driven by sensationalism and sex, and while feminism may be "back", gender equality is still a big joke to many, including those in positions of great power.

It's difficult to know which track to choose in the quest to see change happen. Go for the marketing and focus on popular culture, like the industries we criticize, or watch as yet another successful protest, another victory, happens largely without coverage? How can we make sure that the media cares about the issues that affect those other than the privileged? As we feminists like to say, it's problematic.

Image: Barbara Kruger

Miss Representation tells it like it is

2011-10-28T14:51:00.000+01:00

A new film exposes the way representations of women in the media lead to under-representation of women in positions of power. And it's long overdue.

"You can't be what you can't see". The words jump out at us from the screen in the trailer for Miss Representation, a new film exposing and challenging the media's portrayals of women and girls, which is causing a stir in the US since its broadcast premiere last week.

Written and directed by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, the film interviews teenage girls as well as famous faces like Condoleezza Rice, Nancy Pelosi, Rosario Dawson and Gloria Steinem in a quest to show the public just what's so wrong about the way the US media treats women and girls and what sort of effect it's having on their lives. Its findings are depressing, showing that while women continue to be seriously under-represented in politics, business and journalism, they're continuously judged on their looks, age and weight. Its aim is to get people thinking about just what is so wrong with all this.

"I'm hoping that we can start the discussion, and actually the discussion turns into action around valuing women in our culture. And that's huge," said Siebel Newsom in a recent interview.

Even if you haven't watched the trailer yet, with its footage of bikini-clad women in music videos interspersed with derogatory newspaper headlines about women politicians, you can probably reel off a list of the ways the media and popular culture makes it abundantly clear what us women are good for. We're the eye candy, the gender whose worth is bound up in how "sexy" we are. We're the bitches and the backstabbers and the lovers of "catfights". The "yummy mummies" and the "slummy mummies". The bosses from hell and the boardroom "ballbusters". When we go into politics, the newspapers run stories on our dress sense and cleavage rather than our achievements. Men turn up at our public appearances holding banners saying "Iron my shirt".

How is this making the women of the future feel and what's it doing to their ambitions? Miss Representation reveals all. It reveals how such toxic imagery is making girls and women feel devalued and ignored - as one teenager says, it's as if no-one cares about their brains, only their looks. It reveals how girls' dreams and ambitions change over time, as they find themselves trapped in stereotypes of what a woman should be and treated accordingly by boys, trapped by the perception that "feminine" or "like a girl" means "inferior".

It feels as if a film like this is long overdue. We've seen the reports on the value of really including women and raising them up to their full potential. The positive impact when they participate fully in the workplace, in the making of laws and the running of nations. And yet in countries like the US and the UK - countries seen as leading the way in other areas - women are being let down badly.

The way we're guaranteed to get media attention is by taking our clothes off. Of course the reception will only then be positive if we adhere to certain beauty standards, otherwise our "imperfections" will be raked over. Keeping our clothes on doesn't make us immune either - we're encouraged to judge and snipe from the off at unflattering cuts, visible body hair and unsightly bulges.

I hope the film will really make people think and start productive discussion about how we can combat these messages about women. All too often I think they're accepted as a fact of life. Even when people aren't happy about it there's a shrug of the shoulders and a roll of the eyes: that's just how the media is, right? Wrong. Something has to be done - and thankfully, Miss Representation isn't just a film: it's also a campaign.

By signing up through the organisation's website, you can become a Social Action Representative, download materials for use in schools and universities (US/Canada only) and access a conversation guide to help you bring up the issues the film raises with your family and friends.

I for one am excited about the impact all this is going to have as more people watch the film and are moved by its message. If taking action would mean more girls reaching their full potential and not being afraid to show who they really are, would you do it? By refusing to buy into and take notice of the stereotypes that bring us down and patronize us every single day, I think it's possible to effect change.

Check out Miss Representation on Facebook and Twitter for more news.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Photo via guelphguy's Flickr

A tale of two rape prevention campaigns

2011-10-19T21:00:00.000+01:00

Here is the poster for Rape Crisis Scotland's new campaign, "Stop Rape!"

As the organisation's website says:

"Rape Crisis Scotland has adapted an apt and popular revision of the traditional approach to rape prevention in a new poster and postcard campaign. We hope this will help to reverse the popular trend of focusing rape prevention messages on women and instead transfer these towards more appropriate recipients - potential perpetrators."

You can click here to read the list of "top 10 tips to end rape", which include "Don't put drugs in women's drinks" and "Don't forget: it's not sex with someone who's asleep or unconscious - it's RAPE!"

Here is a poster produced by South Wales Police, spotted in Swansea today by the eagle-eyed and subsequently enraged @welshfeminist."Don't be a victim," it urges women, adding that "alcohol features in two thirds of all rapes".

It seems that every winter brings a fresh crop of anti-rape campaigns from the police or local authorities. It's the dark evenings, deserted streets - and the festive season with its "high spirits" and partying that sets them off. And every winter, you can guarantee that at least one of these campaigns will find new, catchy, and creative ways of victim-blaming.

In 2009 we had the Association of Chief Police Officers telling women to "Let your hair down, not your guard". The campaign's poster aimed at men, on the other hand, said "Rape: short word, long sentence". But when the media got hold of the story, the focus, as usual, was firmly on the fairer sex."Women hitting the town for Christmas drinks are being warned not to make themselves easy prey for rapists," said Sky News, while the Metro's story told us that "Women heading out for Christmas drinks have been warned not to make themselves easy prey for rapists". It's telling that I haven't managed to find a standfirst explaining that "Men have been warned to think about the consequences of committing rape this festive season".

I'm sure you can think of similar campaigns. Another that came to mind for me was TfL's campaign, also from 2009, warning women of the consequences of getting into unlicensed taxis.

I love Rape Crisis Scotland because they make it their mission to challenge victim-blaming culture through in everything they do, including the brilliant Not Ever campaign. And this new campaign is a great example of how all the old lines used against those who have been raped can - and should - be turned around so that they place the blame firmly where it should really lie. I've read a few discussions on the campaign this week and among all the support there's been a smattering of voices claiming that it's "extreme", "patronizing" and "anti-men". Of course the wording sounds a bit patronizing - as is explained, it's reversing the usual, thoroughly patronizing messages that women have to put up with from other campaigns. You think telling women to be careful about how they dress, where they go and who they talk to isn't patronizing?

Actually, a lot of people don't, because it's what we're used to. As women, we need to be "warned" and "encouraged to stay safe" because that's just how it's done. And so we've ended up with a situation where some people feel "uncomfortable" about campaigns targeting perpetrators because it seems, well, you know, a bit harsh and unfair.

I noticed that Rape Crisis Scotland have promoted the Welsh Government's "Stop the Blame" campaign from Christmas 2010, which used traditional victim-blaming excuses - alcohol, clothing, flirting, being in a relationship with the perpetrator - to emphasize that it's time to put the onus on those who rape to stop. Clearly South Wales Police missed the memo. Discussing alcohol could have been a good opportunity to turn the message around because I'm sure that it's a pretty major factor in the choices rapists make. But alas!

"Don't be a victim" is such a negative slogan. It implies shame; it implies that the matter is probably more trivial than the person who has been raped thinks. It encourages people to think of themselves as having done something wrong. I would say that it certainly gives out a message that could discourage people from reporting a rape, something that's already a huge problem due to the current level of victim-blaming exhibited by these campaigns, by the media and consequently, by the public.

When will the police take notice?

Thinking positive about women in the church

2011-10-13T19:21:00.002+01:00

Today I have a guest post up on Anna Blanch's blog, Goannatree, entitled "Thinking Positive about Being a Woman in the Church".

"Being “a woman in the church” is fraught with problems. We know this because we experience it, we think about it, we write about it. A lot.

It is absolutely vital that we discuss what it means to be a woman in the church and the things we come across that upset us, that make us feel patronized or limited or ignored. Some years ago, I was struggling with finding my identity and wondering whether or not it was okay to just be myself at church. I was a bit concerned that it wasn’t okay and that this was backed up by a lot of books and other materials aimed at women, which tended to talk about “Biblical womanhood” as if this was a specific set of personality traits and skills. How wonderful it was to find different voices out there, through blogs and through books; women who felt the same way as me and who have helped me immeasurably on my faith journey."

Click to read on

This Saturday I will be at the Christian New Media Conference at City University London and am really excited about learning a lot from the sessions and talks on offer, as well as getting to meet some online acquaintances. You know what do if you spot me!

Image via State Library of South Australia's Flickr.

Return of the round-up

2011-10-10T19:58:00.000+01:00

Feministing - Topeka, Kansas considers decriminalizing domestic violence to avoid prosecuting cases

"Last month, the Shawnee County District Attorney’s office, facing a 10% budget cut, announced that the county would no longer be prosecuting misdemeanors, including domestic violence cases, at the county level. Finding those cases suddenly dumped on the city and lacking resources of their own, the Topeka City Council is now considering repealing the part of the city code that bans domestic battery."

Observer - Joyce Carol Vincent: How could this young woman lie dead and undiscovered for almost three years?

"The video cut away from Joyce to the Wembley crowd and I thought of her, backstage, in her element, on a high, talking to Anita Baker and Denzel Washington, shaking hands with Nelson Mandela, in a room with verifiable stars. She was 26 years old, ambitious, beautiful, full of hope for the future. She had her whole life ahead of her but in 13 years she would die and nobody would know and nobody would notice."

Role/Reboot - Men Still Frame the Debate: Baseball, Banking and Why it's Not the End of Gender

"It is still considered important to be tough when participating in areas that are traditionally male-dominated. In fact, many women consciously try to avoid seeming feminine or naïve when they interact with men in professional and even casual settings. Although more women have become doctors, it’s important to note that few men have become nurses. This begs the questions: is it that women have learned to participate like men in male culture, while men have not really been forced to change their behavior?"

Public Religion Research Institute - Evangelical Woman Criticizes “Biblical Womanhood” By Embracing It

"My purpose in embarking on this project is not to belittle or make fun of the Bible, nor is it to glorify its patriarchal elements. It is simply to start a conversation about how we interpret and apply the Bible to our lives. In the end, I hope my misadventures inspire women to cut themselves and one another some slack….because the truth is, we all do a little ‘picking and choosing’ when it comes to biblical womanhood!"

The Simple Pastor - Should A Church Be Excellent?

"OK, maybe I’d be a little more gracious than that. Perhaps I’d say this, ‘I’m sorry you didn’t think our worship service was excellent in every way but we were never going to get there. We are just ordinary people loving an extraordinary God who loved us when we were his enemies and getting it all wrong. And sometimes we still get it wrong but we’ve found a freedom and a love and a grace that means we don’t have to be excellent to be loved, we don’t have to be excellent to be accepted, we don’t have to be excellent to be a success...’ "

The Independent - Why equality is a distant dream: Girls, boys and the real differences between them

"Fewer than half of British boys agreed that it would be good to have the same number of women as men leading top companies. And British girls are twice as likely as boys to clean the house and help with the washing and cooking. Although the vast majority of girls in the UK think that boys should help in the same way, only 71 per cent of their male peers agree.

Almost two-thirds of UK boys think that a woman's most important role is to take care of her home and cook for the family – something less than half of girls agree with. And 39 per cent of British boys think that men should have the "final word" at home – compared with 20 per cent of girls."

Joy Bennett at A Deeper Story - Burn, Ladies, Burn

"She thinks God made a mistake. And to be honest, I’ve often thought the same when all I saw around me were lines I wasn’t to cross and barriers to keep me out. What is a woman supposed to do with that fire? Why would God give us such unquenchable passion to right wrongs and stand for justice, and then hem us in?

I tell her she’s right about one thing - God did give her that fire in her belly. But God did not make a mistake. God does not forbid women from taking action."

Guardian - Is Iceland the best country for women?

"Parents here talk strongly of community support, of collective care for children, and there is no sense that motherhood precludes work or study, which effectively changes the whole structure of women's lives. "You are not forced to organise your life in the 'college-work-maybe children later' way," says Thorunn, who is a single mother to a young daughter. Andrea says when she had her first child, on her own, at 19, she took him with her to school, "and the teacher would hold him while I was studying"."

Barna Group - Six Reasons Young Christians Leave Church

"The research points to two opposite, but equally dangerous responses by faith leaders and parents: either catering to or minimizing the concerns of the next generation. The study suggests some leaders ignore the concerns and issues of teens and twentysomethings because they feel that the disconnection will end when young adults are older and have their own children. Yet, this response misses the dramatic technological, social and spiritual changes that have occurred over the last 25 years and ignores the significant present-day challenges these young adults are facing."

Women in Afghanistan, 10 years on

2011-10-07T14:49:00.001+01:00

Will Afghanistan's women see more positive changes in their lives in the decade to come? Many fear the future.

This Friday will mark the 10th anniversary of the US and British military intervention in Afghanistan. Its goal? To dismantle the al-Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban from power and create a more democratic state. In the last decade, billions have been spent, thousands have died - but the war has ensured that progress has been made.

As this anniversary approaches, organizations are assessing the effect the last decade has had on the people of Afghanistan, and plans are being made for the country's future. We can expect much discussion and assessment from world leaders, ahead of a conference in Bonn in December, where representatives from 90 countries will come together to talk about the country's future and plans for withdrawal of troops, currently planned from 2014 onwards.

Several organizations have this week released documents focusing on the situation for Afghanistan's women and among them is A Just Peace? - a report from ActionAid, which has obtained a rare insight into the lives of Afghan women by polling them about the issues that matter to them.

One of the major promises made by politicians ten years ago was that life for women would improve as a result of the war. The situation for women under the Taliban is now notorious, characterized by violence, forced marriage, a ban on having a job, no going to school beyond the age of eight, restricted access to healthcare, and restrictions on appearing in public.

After the fall of the Taliban, equal rights were enshrined in the country's new constitution and women are now, in theory, free to do the things they could not before. But it's not that simple. Women still continue to suffer discrimination such as forced marriage and domestic violence. Women who take an active role in public life are the targets of attacks and threats. Many women vote only on the direction of their husband or father. There is concern that they are also being "frozen out" of the peace process, which could have dire consequences should the country see a return to Taliban control. Just recently, Afghanistan was named as the second-worst place in the world to be a woman.

Without the participation of women in political decisions, the clock could be turned back on the gains made. And as ActionAid's report shows, Afghan women are deeply concerned about this. Almost three quarters of those ActionAid talked to said they felt their lives today are better than they were 10 years ago.

Unsurprisingly, 86% of those surveyed said they were worried about a return to Taliban-style government, rising to 92% in urban areas. One in five of these cited their daughters' education as their main concern here, while another major concern across women of all ages was sexual assault. In fact, more women singled it out as their biggest fear above abduction, being kidnapped, and being caught in an explosion combined.

So going forward, what do Afghan women want? They want to see an end to conflict in their country, but they also want their rights respected and are clear that they do not want a government that does not give them equality. This is why ActionAid and other organizations are calling on the international community to ensure that they support this vital part of the peace process, consider funding struggling women's rights groups in Afghanistan and fully include women in decision-making.

How can you get involved this week? For a start, take a look at this video giving a glimpse into women's lives, 10 years on.

Check out the #10yearson hashtag on Twitter to join in the discussion, share links and raise awareness of the importance of this Friday. Urge your MP to acknowledge how crucial women's rights in Afghanistan are.

Earlier this week, Afghan MP Fawzia Koofi spoke at a session at the Conservative Party's conference in Manchester. She has already urged David Cameron to make sure Afghan women's lives are at the top of the international agenda. The UK government can make a difference and you could help.

On Friday, the No Women No Peace network, which includes ActionAid, will be launching actions, including a petition to the government, to mark the anniversary of military intervention. Follow @nowomennopeace for more information.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via DVIDSHUB's Flickr.

Links on women's ministry

2011-10-03T20:17:00.002+01:00

The role of women's ministry and how it is done is a major area of concern for me, something I've discussed at length with other women online and something I've written about before, so I was really interested to read these two posts from Sarah Styles Bessey on how she feels about women's ministry and what can be done to tackle these issues.

My church doesn't have a "women's ministry" program, which I do quite like because I think this encourages all the things that Sarah talks about wanting - studying together, genuine fellowship, praying together, offering up our skills to serve - without compartmentalizing and falling back on stereotypes. But when I read about such programs, conferences and events I'm always left wondering whether they are serving all women as best as they could.

In her post from Saturday, In which I write a letter to Women's Ministry, Sarah says:

"Please may we be the place to detox from the world - its values, its entertainment, its priorities, its focus on appearances and materialism and consumerism?

So here is my suggestion: Please stop treating womens' ministry like a Safe Club for the Little Ladies to Play Church.

We are smart. We are brave. We want to change the world. We run marathons for our sisters, not so that we can lose weight. We have more to offer to the church than our mad decorating skills. I look around and I can see that these women can offer strategic leadership, wisdom, counsel and even, yes, teaching. We want to give and serve and make a difference. We want to be challenged. We want to read books and talk politics, theology and current events. We want to wrestle through our theology. We want to listen to each other. We want to worship, we want to intercede for our sisters and weep with those who weep, rejoice with those that rejoice, to create life and art and justice with intention."

And in her follow-up post today, she invites readers to talk about what might be done to address the issue and wonders if women's ministry as an organised, structured thing is even necessary.

"I know one church in my personal sphere that does womens' ministry incredibly well. (I wish I could get there for their weekly meeting but it's too far away.) They inspire me with their passion. The women of the church are ferocious for love, beauty, justice, honesty, true relationship and sisterhood. Even though they do the girly-thing sometimes, its balanced out well. And they work tirelessly out in the community, empowering each woman to use her gifts to make space for God in her family, her friendships, her work and her sphere of influence. They truly are a prophetic voice for peace and wholeness and the kingdom of God as a sisterhood.

So it can be done.

Since there are so many of us, waving our hands and saying YES! to my letter, what do you think we can actually do to bring our perspective forward within the context of the Church - with humility, love and a heart to learn?"

If you haven't read the posts and joined in the discussion, I thought you might be interested in doing so. As Sarah says, I don't think it's as simple as telling women to go out and create the women's ministry they want, if that just means another program that achieves little. It's an issue that needs more consideration.

What's a girl worth?

2011-09-26T12:45:00.000+01:00

The problem with "worth" is that it has become difficult to accept that it might be inherent, rather than dependent on following sets of rules and scriptures, academic achievement, jobs, relationships, looks, possessions and what others think of us.

At different times in our lives we struggle with different facets of these issues and on our bad days we might start to feel like we're somewhat lacking in worth. We might feel like that all the time. People in our lives might make us feel like that. Terrible things might have happened to us that make us feel like that. And it's difficult to turn this around, I know.

What are you worth?

1. In my little world One of the great trends in blogging/online writing in recent years, to the extent that I think it's become a cliché, is the Faux Angsty Post Because I'm In My Late 20s and Society Quite Obviously Hates Me Because I'm Not A Responsible Adult, Married With a Mortgage and Climbing The Career Ladder. I say "faux angsty" because it's usually very evident that the writer is actually pretty happy with their life and just kind of likes the idea of looking like they're sticking it to the man, rather than just being your average urban middle class hipster.

If you let it get to you though, it will - and suddenly your worth will be bound up in how much you've achieved in your career and what you've got in your house and what sort of wedding you're going to have. It's whatever expectations society's currently pushing. What your parents expect of you. What the media's telling you. If it's not the Wedding Industrial Complex, it's the body beautiful or the look that this blogger has or the hair that this other blogger has or what the other women are saying on that forum. If it's not your friends and acquaintances it's the way that porn and exploitation has infiltrated culture to the extent that a girl's worth is measured by one thing only. Rachel Hills recently posted on Tumblr saying:

"Thought: Twitter, Facebook, blogs, etc make people feel more crap about themselves than any women’s magazine ever did."

That could be a long, long essay.

What's a girl worth - and how much does it depend on her looks, her possessions and her lifestyle, her relationships and her sexuality?

2. In the church Sure, you might be told that you're made in God's image and that He sees you as a "princess", but how many of us know that reconciling our worth with the things we hear and the impressions we get can be really, really hard? On one hand you've got the lists of scriptures assuring you of your worth in Christ, on the other you might be getting all sorts of messages about how your worth relates to the way you dress, whether you're single or married, how many children you have and how they behave. What you do at church, how often you're there and how holy you act. In some churches, your worth might be bound up in how well you're seen to be submitting to your father or your husband, because only they can facilitate a connection between you and God. And when you don't follow the rules, bad things happen.

Bad things that might not be as bad as getting disowned by your family or thrown out of the church (although they might be), but as "small" as doubting your calling because you don't know if it's right for a woman to want to do that, or doubting what God's saying to you because it means stepping outside the box that the church so often creates for "the fairer sex". One of the feelings I've seen most expressed by women and girls in my years as a Christian is that they're "not good enough", whether that means God's standards or the church's standards or other people's standards. Why is this - and are we doing enough to deal with it?

What's a girl worth - and how much does it depend on how much she follows the rules and projects a certain image?

3. Out in the rest of the world The fact is that the world is not a good place for girls and does not recognise their inherent worth. Their worth continues to go unnoticed when they become women. If it is noticed, it's quantified by the extent to which they follow rules, keep in line with society's expectations, don't rock the boat and don't push for change.

Women perform 66 percent of the world's work, produce 50 percent of the food, but earn 10 percent of the income and own 1 percent of the property.

What is the worth of girl according to society when she can't get an education, when she risks death or injury for going against her family's wishes? When she risks being sold, trafficked at a time when there are more slaves than at any other point in history? When she has to drop out of school with the advent of puberty because she doesn't have access to sanitary products? When she's an unwanted child purely due to her gender, so that she's aborted or abandoned at birth? When she must marry at the age of 11 or 12?

What is the worth of a girl when she becomes a woman and has no legal rights and cannot vote? When she is excluded from gaining skills she needs to earn money? When she cannot access healthcare when she is pregnant? When the police will do nothing if her husband beats her? When she is the face of global poverty? When the armed forces and the authorities are complicit in her rape and abuse? When she and her daughter must go hungry because it is more important that her husband and her son eat?

What's a girl worth? We know that the answer is "so much", but this is not a reality. Half the world. Made in God's image. As potential bearers of new life, the future of humanity. With the power to change society, change culture for the better, turn around economic problems, assure a better life for their families. With the power to lead, learn, educate, nurture, support, raise up, influence, complement, break boundaries and set the world alight - through being who they really are and doing what they were born to do. Not conforming needlessly, not suppressing and not laying aside their dreams.

How much are you making the girls and women in your life aware of their worth and helping them to achieve their best?

And I mean, REALLY? And it's got to be more than a few platitudes in a blog post or reading some article by a lifestyle guru. What's a girl worth to you? Do you truly believe she's worth investing in? How can you show her that she is worth so much more than gender stereotypes, than a second-class citizen, than her relationships with men? In a world that doesn't do this very well at all, we need more people to help girls understand and come to terms with their worth.

This post is a contribution for Tamara Out Loud's call for responses to the question "What's a girl worth?"

Further reading: The 10 Worst Places to Be A Woman and The 10 Best Places to Be A Woman.

Image via Samyra Serin's Flickr.

Sex-selective abortion and playing into anti-choice hands

2011-09-23T14:00:00.000+01:00

How can we encourage effective, productive debate on sex-selective abortion?

Most of us are aware of how this practice is contributing to declining ratios of girls to boys. We hear the most about the problems it's causing in India and China, but recently have learnt more about the fact the "trend" is now affecting countries such as "Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia, the Balkans and Albania, where the sex ratio is 115/100".

Clearly, the issue of societies that value boy children over girl children (and the associated issues this ends up contributing to, such as sex trafficking and prostitution) to this extent should be a major area of concern for gender equality activists, but what poses a problem here is the extent to which any discussion is obviously going to provide fuel for anti-choice fires.

I haven't read Mara Hvistendahl's book Unnatural Selection, but her analysis of the situation got plenty of attention this summer.

"Historically, societies in which men substantially outnumber women are not nice places to live. Often they are unstable. Sometimes they are violent," she says.

But instead of purely focusing on the cultural aspects of what makes sex-selective abortion acceptable, she makes a case for the West playing a major part - exporting as it has modern technology, safer abortions and ultrasound scans. What's clear is that there is a lot to be considered.

The way in which discussion on all of this is likely to become unproductive was demonstrated perfectly by Laurie Penny's column in the New Statesman yesterday. Laurie was characteristically emotive, writing of "missing girls" and the "howls" of the "ghosts of girl children", while giving ideas as to how the "trend" can be reversed, citing South Korea as an example.

"Better education of girls, equal rights legislation and more participation by women in public life made prejudice against female children seem outdated, according to a recent report by the Economist," she wrote.

Below the line, several people commenting chose to attack Laurie for what they saw as her "hypocrisy", writing that she "can't have it both ways" and insinuating that her belief that abortion should be safe and legal is an enormous contradiction of her stance on sex-selective terminations. Obviously this is untrue, but I know it made a lot of people wonder how, as feminists, we can move forward in discussing the issue without falling into the trap of using phrases that wouldn't be out of place in anti-choice literature and playing into the hands of those who are quick to call "hypocrisy!".

I think what this demonstrates is the need to be careful with our choice of words, not relying on imagery - such as "ghosts" and "howls" that can easily be turned into an attack from the "other side" and look pretty suspect when we know that we would be quick to criticise the same language if it came from elsewhere. Said @sofiebuckland on Twitter yesterday:

"The last thing we want to do is hand tools to the rightwing or anti-choice to beat us with our own perceived hypocrisies. Which this does."

So where do we go from here? After talking about this on Twitter yesterday, some of us felt that an open discussing stemming from a post outlining the problem might be a good idea because several people had a lot to say. So: feel free to discuss and make suggestions!

Interesting link via Education for Choice on US implementation of anti-sex-selection policies with an anti-choice undertone for those who are interested - Arizona's faulty logic on sex-selective abortion.

Photo via achiemcphee's Flickr.

Stripping off in the fight against discrimination

2011-09-21T18:55:00.000+01:00

If a group of women pose naked to "fight" ageism and sexism, how much does it achieve?

The problem with ageism on television is that it's also one of those issues that disproportionately affects women. Women who find themselves sidelined and taken off camera once they're a little more "mature". Women who are told they might want to try wearing more makeup to minimize their wrinkles, lose a few pounds and get a more "youthful" haircut.

At the same time, male presenters of advanced years continue to grace our screens, often accompanied by a much younger female presenter (see the pairing of Bruce Forsyth and Tess Daly on the BBC's Strictly Come Dancing for a start). Older men on television are "distinguished". Older women are "past it" and caricatured as hags.

The problem of women being sidelined as they reach middle age has, in the past few years, reached the stage where one television presenter, Miriam O'Reilly, has won an employment tribunal against the BBC on the grounds of ageism, and it has been reported that the BBC has settled out of court with 12 other women presenters.

In 2010 former newsreader Selina Scott spoke out in the press about the problem of sexism and ageism on television. This year, a group of presenters and actors are going one better in their quest to prove that middle-aged women have a place on screen.

In a magazine interview and photoshoot this week, Loose Women presenters Sherrie Hewson and Andrea McLean, along with actors Beverley Callard and Gillian Taylforth - who range in age from 41 to 61 - discuss ageism on television. In the feature for Best magazine's "body image issue", they talk about feeling passed over for roles because producers think they're too old and because few storylines are written about women their age.

"In TV, it's OK for men to be 50 or 60, but for women it's very difficult. Older actresses can feel put by the wayside," says Taylforth.

The best, however, is yet to come. In the photos accompanying the story, the four women are seen posing naked. Tastefully naked, I might add, covering up breasts and with strategically placed legs. The point, of course, is to show that while they may be middle-aged, they've still "got it". That producers may sneer at their wrinkles, but they're embracing the way they look because it's a natural part of getting older.

There's just one thing. Isn't it telling that you'd never expect to see a group of male actors and presenters "stripping off" in a bid to prove they're still worthy of airtime? Can you imagine George Alagiah or Terry Wogan getting naked, revealing what clothes size they take and the secrets of their exercise regimes (as the four women do) while discussing ageism on television? You can't, because it would be ridiculous.

It's only ever women who end up having to do the whole "Look! I've still got it!" routine for the media. Men never have to go through the whole charade - why would they? Women having to prove themselves shouldn't be our reaction to the problem of discrimination. It should be seen as part of the problem.

It's pretty sad, to be honest, that the first thing that comes to find when the media wants to focus on a major issue of sexism and ageism involves targets of said sexism and ageism stripping off to "prove" themselves worthy contenders in the "fight" against such discrimination. It's similar to when the newspapers profile groups of businesswomen and insist on "sexy" photoshoots, or when they run features on sportswomen and show them in lad's mag-inspired poses, talking about their love lives (of course!).

On one hand they're trailblazers and role models, on the other it's still part of their job to be hot when required, lest they run the risk of becoming one of those women in the public eye who's derided for having a "mannish" haircut or wearing unflattering jackets.

I do think there's a lot to be said for attempting to promote satisfaction and body confidence among women of all ages and so I can see why Best chose to run the feature. It's good that it's getting more coverage outside the usual news stories of women in television suing their employers. Plenty of people are probably going to see it as a light-hearted bit of fun - so Calendar Girls!

But what I'd really like to see is the problem tackled in a more imaginative and truly positive way. There's so much work to be done and I wonder how much of an impact women "stripping off" can have outside of providing tabloid fodder and further ingraining the difference between the way men and women in television are expected to look and act.

Let's not fight ageism and sexism with more sexism, albeit sexism that's wrapped up in a chummy, encouraging, Gok Wan-esque package.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. "Home made Botox" photo via Emanuela Franchini's Flickr.

Coalition plans to win back women voters

2011-09-14T11:32:00.000+01:00

The coalition has finally wised up to the fact it's done nothing but annoy the fairer sex since the last election. It must be time for a patronizing strategy!

It emerged yesterday that the government is planning to win back female voters by implementing policies such as changing the way child benefit is distributed and developing a strategy to encourage more women into politics.

A leaked memo, circulated to government departments in the past few days, outlines possible actions and details the need to "assemble a first-rate team" to develop the most effective strategy possible, with the aim of bringing "good news for the next generation", recognising "what women do" and underlining that "women are key to British growth and success".

Sounds good, right? In the months leading up to the 2010 General Election, we heard over and over that women's votes were key and that the parties were going to do all they could to get us on board. Unfortunately, this seemed to play out as little more than a few soundbites on issues related to children - as if that's all we care about. The press responded in the same way, speaking to women voters about issues they were interested in, but making it all about nurseries and child benefit, keeping all other issues - the supposedly "big" issues, firmly as "men's issues".

Obviously childcare in the UK is a major issue, as the recent news stories about the fact it's the most expensive in Europe and extent to which it is forcing families into debt show. But plenty of women I know felt sidelined and patronized back in 2010 - and they feel much more strongly about it now, with the government cuts having disproportionately impacted women.

Cameron and co. seem to have finally worked this out - and it's no surprise, seeing as recent polls show that just 18% of 18-24 year-old women support the Tories, compared to 30% in 2010, with support for the Lib Dems having fallen from 34% to just 8%. And so they're concocting a plan to encourage us to put our faith in them again.

Says the memo: "We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the government than men". It goes on to say that there are many coalition policies that "are seen as having affected women, or their interests, disproportionately". It goes on to say that they've recognised they haven't really lived up to their promise to be the "most family-friendly government ever".

I have to say, it's nice that those in charge finally seem to be catching on, 18 months after women's groups and some politicians started saying that the cuts would hit women the hardest - because at the time there was precious little concern from Dave et al. And so a list of ideas - from banning advertising aimed at children to promoting women in business and reconsidering the decision not to criminalize forced marriage - has been drawn up.

There's just one little thing. Does the memo point to a genuine concern for the issues women care about and the damage the coalition is currently doing with its cuts and its dismissal of gender issues? Or is it simply a cynical ploy to turn around falling approval ratings and claw back the support that women have withdrawn over the last 18 months?

I'd say it's the latter. Why? For a start, Cameron needs to look at the way he and his colleagues are treating the women they work with, not just the electorate. There was Cameron's "calm down, dear" riposte to Angela Eagle back in April. Last week, we watched aghast as he quipped that Nadine Dorries was "frustrated" during Prime Minister's Question Time, then sat back as his cronies sniggered like 15-year-old boys. I have no love for the thoroughly unpleasant Dorries, but she didn't deserve to be treated like that.

Secondly, the fact the content of the memo clearly comes as a response to lack of support and the fact the coalition has gained a terrible reputation among most women speaks for itself. It's all about approval ratings, gaining power and preserving their reputation. It's a bit insulting, to be honest. So the women are revolting? Throw them a bone! Big up women in business and chuck in a few platitudes about women being "the future". That'll make 'em vote for us come the next polling day!

I'd like to see lots of the ideas in the memo become reality. It's just sad that they have to be dreamt up as a "tactic" by politicians who have realised just how angry women are with them, rather than politicians who thought this stuff up in the first place because they really do see women as "the future".

I didn't vote Conservative in 2010, and I'm pretty sure the plan to "up the game" on communications, using these ideas as a "hook" to draw us in, isn't going to change who I give my vote to next time. And I know I'm not the only one. Sadly for the coalition, I don't think the majority of women will be as easily placated as they think.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via The Prime Minister's Office on Flickr.

"Thinspiration", as seen by the Daily Mail

2011-09-08T12:41:00.000+01:00

Hey, Daily Mail!

I don't believe I've done this for a while, possibly because there's only so many times we can criticise abominations like the Sidebar of Judgment and the Mail's hypocrisy relating to the sorts of pictures and stories they feature there, but I felt I should point something out following Lorraine Candy's most recent column, published yesterday.

In this column, Candy talks about being amazed at the self-discipline and willpower Victoria Beckham must have to be appearing in public looking "back to normal" so soon after the birth of her fourth child. And so as one might expect, the Mail decided to illustrate this point of a picture of Beckham with baby Harper.

What I find particularly inappropriate, particularly "squicky", about this is the picture caption, which reads "Thinspiration: Victoria Beckham".

Let's get this straight: "thinspiration" isn't some casual descriptor you can insert into picture captions on the website of a national newspaper. It's a term that has long been used by pro-eating disorder websites and sufferers, as described in the Wikipedia entry for "Pro-Ana" (warning: triggers abound in the form of photos).

It has very particular connotations, none of which make it acceptable to use in a column about post-pregnancy weight loss. Given that the Mail has enjoyed, over the years, expressing outrage at the harmful influence of thin celebrities, Kate Moss's quote "Nothing tastes as good as thin feels" and "the size zero trend", you'd think it would be clued up on appropriate usage of the word "thinspiration".

Let's not see this become a regular occurrence.

Man attempts to sue LSE over "sexist" gender studies course

2011-09-08T11:23:00.000+01:00

The Evening Standard reported on Monday that a man is taking legal action against the London School of Economics, claiming that its gender studies courses are discriminatory against men.

Tom Martin quit the Gender, Media and Culture Masters course after six weeks and is hoping to sue the university for breach of contract, misleading advertising, misrepresentation and breach of the "Gender Equality Duty Act" which, weirdly, doesn't actually exist. He claims that the course had a "sexist agenda" and that he was required to read "anti-male" texts.

Ho ho ho, "what about teh menz", right? It's all faintly ridiculous and seems like a bit of an attention-seeking stunt by a guy who didn't like his course and is bearing a bit of a grudge. "Man objects to learning about things from the perspective of women".

The first thing I'm wondering is that surely he read about the content of the course and knew at least some of what to expect before he applied for it? Having looked at details of its content, areas of focus and recommended reading areas on the LSE website, I know that such information is out there. It's also pretty clear that the recommended reading isn't exactly a catalogue of man-hating extremism - focusing, in fact, on a wide range of topics and the intersection of gender, race, sexuality, class and economics. This particular course is called "Gender studies" rather than "Women's studies" for a reason.

Secondly, I'm wondering whether it was less a case of "anti-male" teachings and bias, more a case of actually having to study oppression and discrimination in detail and feeling uncomfortable that men seemed to be playing a pretty big part in it all?

It's a common argument you see when someone writes an article about rape statistics, or atrocities committed during wartime, or to be honest, most areas of discrimination and attack by men, aimed at women. Men get upset that simply by mentioning that some men have done bad things, the newspaper or the blogger in question is "anti-male", or "tarring all men with the same brush". Sometimes these comments are mild-mannered and jokey, but often they're vitriolic and on blogs in particular they seem to have a habit of turning into threatening diatribes.

The thing is, analysing experiences as they relate to women isn't anti-male. Addressing issues which only affect women isn't anti-male. It seems like Tom Martin could be suffering from a particularly belligerent case of unchecked privilege. And he's not just making a snarky comment on a blog in retaliation - he wants £50,000.

And as we all know, when privilege goes unchecked, when people don't acknowledge that they are at a significant advantage, any challenge to the status in society it gives the most privileged is often seen as "discrimination" or "unreasonable". We see this when measures to ensure greater racial or gender equality are implemented somewhere and as a result, white people or men start claiming that it's SO UNFAIR because having a problem with patriarchy is totally the same as hating all men.

These complaints against universities aren't new. Over the years there have been several cases, in various countries, where students have attempted to claim that having a university Women's Officer is discriminatory - and in 2009, London's School of African and Oriental Studies debated whether it would be a good idea to appoint a "Straight, White, Men's Officer". As many people pointed out at the time, the point of having officers to represent non-white students, or women students, or gay students, is because there are particular issues affecting them and it's important to have space to discuss it all, as well as the opportunity to organise campaigns.

An investigation carried out by the LSE following Martin's comments has apparently found "no evidence" to support his claims and the university's legal team has claimed that any "discriminatory effect" was "justifiable", which I have no doubt it was. For the time being, I'm wondering how long it'll be before the right-wing press picks up on this and starts analysing the nefarious impact of gender studies courses on the nation's men.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image, showing an image and slogan that was actually campaigned against by men's groups in 2003, via Phil Wiffen's Flickr.

Edit: Jonathan Dean now has a post up at CiF attempting to dismantle some of the myths about gender studies courses and critiquing Martin's opinions. As usual, people commenting haven't bothered to read what he's saying, nor do they seem to understand what gender studies courses entail. There are over 600 comments and I wouldn't advise reading most of them.

"The people you meet": gender and the church edition

2011-09-05T11:43:00.000+01:00

The "Chesney Hawkes""The choices I have made are the ONE AND ONLY indicator of true womanhood and YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT AWAY FROM ME. You say that equality is about choice, but if you had your way I wouldn't be able to be a wife and SAHM, which is, by the way, MY CHOICE, thank you very much."

The "Delusions of Gender""But I'm a girl! I like baking and babies! If equality means having to do icky guy stuff like go on camping trips and walk the dog, then it's not for me!" Sadly, I haven't even made that up.

The "Keep It Sweet""Isn't it such a shame when our dear sisters turn from the Lord's plan for their lives, bless their hearts!" You know what they say about the phrase "bless your heart"? Yup.

The "Velvet Glove""Why, of course I'm interested in productive discourse on this issue! Go ahead and debate with me!" Five comments later: "I no longer feel it is helpful to comment further as the opinions of over-emotional women seem to be the only counter-argument, when I everything is say is totally clear and correct from a plain reading of scripture."

The "No Questions Asked""You know I don't think it's good to rock the boat. All this upset and bad feeling. This is how it's always been and 90% of people have always been happy with it, right? I mean, look at me! I'm content with my lot in life! AND I can't believe you criticised Mr Famous Pastor's opinions!"

The "Shiny Happy Blogger""I am sad to say that after posting this comment, I will be removing this blog from my reading list. I used to come here for the inspiring, joyful posts. Posts about "issues" such as this are a sorry indicator of the way the author has changed and I no longer want their negativity in my life."

The "Christianese Overkill""This is a wordy comment. I mean, it's a really wordy comment. Isn't it just so sad that so many people live their lives blighted by such bitterness and anger? Such a critical attitude! I pity their unhappy, empty lives. Here are some more words, lots of words. Words about bitterness, and critical attitudes. Words about further bitterness and sadness. Let's end with more musings on bittterness. You want lemons with that?"

The "Unoriginal Atheist""At the end of the day, you wouldn't even have to bother having these discussions if you didn't believe in the SKY FAIRY. Ya hear me? SKY FAIRY. The most amusing description of your so-called 'God' OF ALL TIME. Of ALL. TIME. Never gets old!" Hint: it does. Fast.

The "Older/Better/Faster/Stronger""You think you know everything about the world because you listened to a bunch of deranged screeching career-obsessed harpies in the so-called 'learning environment' of university?! HA! As you're under 40, you clearly don't know as much as I do. Furthermore, as someone who has no children, your opinions about everything are automatically invalid. Come to think of it, we haven't discussed why you don't have children yet. Oh wait - it's because you're a selfish disgrace ignoring your high calling."

The "Anti-Choice Broken Record""Yeah, but as a supporter of 'women's equality', you're a baby killer. Nothing else you say matters, because you're a baby killer. I don't care if this discussion has nothing to do with abortion. In case you haven't got the message yet, you're a baby killer."

A couple of weeks ago, Rachel Held Evans wrote a post about the way women get pigeonholed when they try to write about or debate the issue of women and the church. Rachel has been writing about this a fair bit of late and she has noted that with her posts on the topic have come the accusations, via comments, of being "emotional", "snarky", "self-righteous" and "out-of-line". There seems to be concern from commenters that this issue leads women to get angry - and that this is something that automatically invalidates everything they have to say.

Although I meant to, I didn't comment on Rachel's post, but I read everyone else's responses with interest, because the post made me think - a lot. Rachel offered some ideas as to how we can effectively engage with others about women and the church - and for the most part I agree with these. As she says, debating any issue from a place of anger probably won't get us very far, because it means we won't listen to each other properly; we'll be prideful and clumsy in our arguments. She asked readers to offer ideas about effective discourse and how the ways we respond to difficult issues make a difference.

In my time reading about and discussing gender and the church, I've come across all the "people" above. Some of them, if I'm honest, just have to be ignored. Some are really frustrating to talk to. Some just get nastier and nastier until you have to leave it, because you know it's not going to go anywhere productive. The funniest thing about this is even when the comment thread is starting to go that way and you're trying to be "as civil as heck", you know that someone is going to accuse you of being the "emotional, hysterical harpy". You also know that this would not happen to a man blogging about the same issue (as Rachel talks about being the case when she wrote about "Effemigate").

As an aside about the sort of people who declare they're no longer going to read your blog due to a change in subject matter or one post they didn't like, I think this is part of a wider problem where readers of blogs have come to see themselves as the "customer", complaining about posts that don't fit their expectations and being hard on the blogger for not sticking to their usual style or topics, when truthfully, any blogger should be able to write what he or she wants without obligation and shouldn't feel beholden to anyone to avoid controversial posts.

On the other hand, you get people who'll be just as angry as the vitriolic ones you have to ignore, but they'll couch it in "nice" language. And that's something you can't escape if you read blogs written by Christians. People are very sensitive to tone and enjoy calling people out on it. They often don't like snark. For some, expressing a alternative opinion in itself is rude and "critical". They "struggle" with things. They find things "problematic" and they use the word "bitterness" a whole lot. Heck, I even use those first two a fair bit. And why? Is it because I know that my interpretation of scripture alone might get you labeled a "screeching feminist" (that's feminist in the pejorative; I am definitely liable to get called out as one of these except I have quite a deep voice so I don't really screech as such, fyi), so I don't want to open myself up to more abuse? Or is it because, as one commenter on Rachel's post said, because "nice girls don't rock the boat"?

Anger can be unproductive, but I think it's also a necessary step in recognising, dealing with and healing injustice. Mike Clawson, the commenter I just quoted, talks in his first comment of the fact that anger should not be silenced because when people have been put down and abused it's a natural reaction. It can be cathartic, it can help express feelings and impact others who don't have a voice or struggle to articulate their anger about the same issue. When we are told it's not appropriate to be "emotional" or "negative" about something, it can suppress things that need to come out and be dealt with - and this can be devastating. One example we can draw on here is the blogs and other accounts written by people who have come out of the Christian patriarchy movement.

Something which has been a real problem in the past - and continues to be one today - is the line of thought which tells women they shouldn't criticise, shouldn't cause trouble, shouldn't disagree, should "keep sweet" and do as they're told. Anger, even righteous anger, isn't feminine - and it emasculates men. One of the insults most frequently thrown at us women is that we're "too emotional". Those who disagree disdain our unpleasant hormonal fluctuations and sneer at us if we cry. It's been used as a reason for us not to lead or preach. Hysterical behaviour. For some, a woman expressing any sort of strong opinion is "out of line".

Obviously, this isn't right. It shouldn't be the case that we can't express anger. As women today, where would we be without yesterday's women of strong opinion? But sometimes we have to sit back, leave it a few hours before we write the post or send the message, and word things carefully. Some of my favourite and most popular posts on this blog have been ones I've hammered out in half an hour after becoming absolutely incensed by something. On occasion, it works - but it can't always be like that. Sometimes it's about knowing your audience and how to best engage with them. Other times it's about thinking things through a bit more and realising that while there's righteous anger, there's also the anger that comes from being trolled, or the frustration of trying to debate with someone who won't stop patronising you because you're female - and that this might not translate into anything productive. As Rachel says:

"So I guess that I'm trying to say is that the anger is certainly justified, but if we let it control us - if we write and speak while seeing red - we'll lose opportunities to affect change."

PS: When she calls for us to make sure we know our scripture, that's vital too.

Image shows a depiction of harpies, via Duncan Harris's Flickr.

Dear Nadine Dorries...

2011-09-02T12:36:00.000+01:00

Hey Nadine,

Like many other women have done, I thought I'd write to you about my uterus this week. If I’m honest I know it’s not going to be riveting. In fact, this might be the tale of just about the most boring uterus ever as far as you’re concerned. After a few painful and unpredictable years working itself out in my teens it does the same thing once a month on a nice regular cycle with no fuss save the usual symptoms. It’s also one of your favourite types of uterus, that is to say one that’s happily ensconced inside the body of a nice, married, Christian woman who “just said no” when she was a teenager and has never “got herself pregnant”. It accompanies me to church every week and together we sit and learn more about Jesus and how we can be more like Him.

This brings me round to an interesting point, Nadine. I believe that part of being a Christian is acting with integrity and genuinely trying to help those in need. As a result, I really worry about the level of care provided by the groups you endorse and hope to see offering counselling to women. I have no problem with optional, impartial, agenda-free counselling which helps women to figure out what’s best for them and feel that ALL organizations offering services probably need to assess where they could do better. But I don’t believe that this is what you want. It worries me that research has shown some of the “help” on offer at counselling centres to be fact-free, manipulative and misleading. And that’s just not Christ-like.

I have never been pregnant. In the future, I would very much like to be, meaning that any pregnancies would in theory be planned for and very wanted, given security by my happy marriage, supportive family and (currently) just-about-enough income. But there are other factors I can’t know about yet – my health, for example – or the health of the foetus. And despite my privilege as a potential incubator of new life, I know that countless women are not in the same situation, and that they have different things to consider. I don’t know what’s best for them – and neither do you. Or the people at LIFE, for that matter.

My uterus may have had an uneventful life so far, but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to say on this issue.

Your sister in Christ (Yes! I went there!),

Hannah

This post is part of the Dear Nadine Dorries project.

Adventures at "Christian Summer Camp"

2011-08-25T11:55:00.000+01:00

This month, the Guardian featured two differing views on "Christian summer camps" for young people just before I was set to go on holiday - a negative piece from Thomas Prosser, published first, followed by a response from Steve Clifford. Both interested me as the example Prosser focused on was that of Soul Survivor, the organisation whose events I have attended and participated in for eight years now - and the organisation whose summer festival for 20 and 30-somethings, Momentum, was what I was due to head off to.

So what was it all about, this week of brainwashing made palatable by trendy guitar music and "yoof lingo" (as Prosser would have you believe)? Or as Clifford described, was it more of a revolutionary call to inward transformation and action in the community? As I'm heavily biased with a distinct agenda I lean towards the latter, but with good reason. Soul Survivor's festivals aren't for everyone nor should they be immune to criticism but I genuinely believe that the organisation is brilliant at what it does.

I saw a threefold focus this week - on living like Jesus, looking to God and Biblical example through all circumstances, and mobilising delegates to go out into the world and be proactive in realising and living out our callings - the last point being something greatly emphasised (hence "Momentum"). This played out through teaching on the life of Paul and lessons we can learn from his ministry (Andy Croft), through teaching on "living in the desert" drawing on various examples from the Old Testament (Mike Pilavachi), through teaching on Jesus's commands to action and sending out of the disciples and the way this is so important to us now (Danielle Strickland). Twitter has led me to a guy who has helpfully typed up all his notes from the main meetings and seminars he attended and shared them on Tumblr - do have a read if you want to know more because it saves me doing a lot of typing.

Outside of main meetings, there were 80-something seminars and so much to choose from. I ended up mixing things I'm familiar with and wanted to get fresh perspectives on with encountering some new faces and for the first time, material focused on leadership in a general sense. So while this all led me to tried and tested major inspirations Elaine Storkey on the "unchurched, deadchurched and dechurched", Jo Saxton on leading as a woman and Roger and Maggie Ellis on communication within marriage, it also led me to new finds - Patrick Regan from youth charity XLP on politics, discussing responses to the London riots and showing us footage of him in 2007, discussing with politicians the fact that if nothing was done about societal inequalities in London, there would be dire consequences within a few years. It led me to Danielle Strickland speaking on trafficking. This woman is awesome; she's even managed to use cupcakes for non-nefarious purposes - as part of an initiative helping women to exit prostitution and supporting those working in brothels, if you're wondering.

I think things managed to strike a good balance between "meaty" and "chilled" this past week. Here's the thing: I am a geek - and I like teaching which leaves me with several pages of notes and something approaching exegesis-induced brain overload. And quite possibly a reading list with a section headed "heavy" (as I left Graham Cray's seminar on women and leadership holding). I also like simple and straightforward points with real life examples, which focus on the application or exhortation of a specific verse. Via main meetings and seminars I was able to learn from both - and I believe that the two ways of teaching are important and really valid, particularly where young people at different stages of faith are concerned. There's no point in overwhelming, but there must also be challenges.

Aside from the teaching, worship and speakers, I wanted to take some time to explain a bit about why I support Soul Survivor's work. Not because I have some sort of vested interest, because I don't. I'm just writing from a place of knowing what an impact the organisation has had on my life and the lives of some of my friends, and the lives of other people it works with and helps.

Five things Soul Survivor does really well

1) A passion for young people, their lives and their potential. The work done by Soul Survivor - its summer festivals, partnerships and teaching focus - is geared towards teens and people in their 20s and 30s, who are encouraged to step out, develop their gifts, get stuck in and make a difference. Additionally, the difficult issues faced by these age groups aren't ignored and there is also a real commitment to addressing them in a productive yet non-judgmental way. The organisation's commitment to this generation is clear to see from the enthusiasm of its key figures.

2) A focus on justice. Soul Survivor recognises that social justice should not be the sole focus of Christian life, but as an organisation it's really committed to making activism and global issues a major part of life for young people. There's its long-running partnership with Tearfund through the Soul Action campaign and Soul Action's new What If? campaign, which focuses on human trafficking and was launched at Momentum. Throughout the week we heard from long-time friends of Soul Survivor working for justice in many areas of the world and as always, there were plenty of organisations on site promoting their work - from fighting poverty and calling for tax justice to helping asylum seekers and working with disadvantaged young people in our cities. On one hand, I look at all these opportunities and get ever so slightly jealous, because my mortgage and my office job mean I can't get involved with most of those trips and internships and programmes. But I also know that Soul Survivor really fosters a sense of caring about justice in delegates - underlining that there are opportunities for all to get involved with the causes they're passionate about.

3) An atmosphere of fellowship. One of the things that always moves me about the summer festivals is seeing people who are going through tough situations and making hard decisions being really supported and looked after by their friends. This sounds incredibly cheesy - as if we all head off down to the West Country for five days of vomit-inducing Christian love once a year, but that's not what I mean. Even though people giving out "free hugs" are a common site at the Bath and West Showground in August. There's a real sense of brotherhood and sisterhood and all being part of one body. Great efforts are also made to create a safe space to deal with issues and hurt. No hype; no manipulation; careful explanation of what's happening; support from the leadership team and suitable processes in place.

4) A positive attitude towards gender equality. Because I bet you were wondering if I might just get to the end of a post without mentioning those two words. Seriously - I'm really proud to support an organisation that is committed to a belief that all roles in the church are open to men and women and also to supporting and training women with a call to leadership. As far as I know, Soul Survivor decided to explore making a firm commitment to gender equality after a time of ministry at Momentum several years ago revealed the extent of female delegates' struggles and hurt with this issue. This has translated into seminars, the one day conference, Equal, which I attended in June, right down to some really great women speaking on the main stage - and there are plans to expand on the "Equal" theme with discipleship networks and mentoring. It needs to be emphasised that all this is done in a way which doesn't attack those who disagree, but sets out a firm stance on what's at stake.

5) A commitment to ecumenism. This is pretty simple. I'm big on co-operation and fellowship between denominations, groups, and different types of churches. I don't want to hear partisan rhetoric, I don't want to hear particular churches or groups of believers criticised or mocked from the main stage, and I don't want entire denominations or organisations denounced as "dead" or picked apart over doctrinal disputes. Disagreements are to be expected and totally fine. Particular behaviours arising from such disagreements are not. Furthermore, I don't think elitism is a very effective way to work with young people. And so this week I've met people from a variety of churches, seen loads of people in Methodist hoodies, actually, (was this just me?), heard messages from a Salvation Army Captain and took communion presided over by a bishop (as Catholic delegates also took communion of their own). Not once did I see someone make the Face of Distaste when a particular denomination is mentioned, or make a sermon all about how another group of churches have "gone wrong". And I'm really, really okay with that. Long may it continue.

Image via plinkk's Flickr

Feminism's back! Again!

2011-08-17T11:51:00.004+01:00

If feminism has been in "resurgence" mode for nigh on a decade, why is it still treated as some new fad?

Last weekend, around 500 people travelled to Birmingham for the second Summer School run by UK Feminista, the organisation which brings together people interested in gender equality and equips them for action. I couldn't make it this time - although I attended last year and had a fantastic weekend. This year's delegates spent two days attending workshops and discussions on topics such as running a feminist group, effective campaigning and engaging with the media. I followed the action via Twitter and was pleased to see so many people coming away inspired and equipped.

I was also pleased to see Summer School, for the second year running, getting some positive attention in the press. But why, yet again, the familiar tone of "recent resurgence", of "new groups", of beliefs being "repackaged" thanks to "the new feminists"?

Wasn't that the case last year, when we saw a pile of fabulous books discussing 21st century feminism published and The Guardian declared that "Feminism is not finished"? Wasn't that the case in 2008, when the first annual Million Women Rise march took place in London? Wasn't it the case in 2007, when the Observer profiled BitchBuzz's Cate Sevilla in a feature entitled "The new feminists"? What about in 2004, when Reclaim the Night London was revived and UK Feminista founder Kat Banyard put on her first feminist conference?

You get the picture. It must have been some time around 2004 when I first started looking into feminist resources on the internet and noticed that there were new conferences, regional groups and networks starting to pop up. Today, there are many, many more - thanks, of course, to this "resurgence". But as Kat Banyard said in an interview before this year's Summer School:

"We've got this massive resurgence in feminism and the question is not now 'Does it exist?' but 'What can it achieve?'".

Unfortunately, despite the best intentions to give the movement publicity and chronicle an exciting time for women, the media is still somewhat stuck on "Does it exist?" The conclusion reached, of course, is always "yes", but it's still hard to find coverage which looks past the idea of "the new feminism" as a some sort of fad and delves deeper than portraying it as "Fresh! Rebranded! Cool again! Look what these girls are getting up to!" and ignoring wider issues while also discounting women who have gone before in the process, sometimes resorting to referring to them only as negative stereotypes: those crusty second-wave bra burners.

I know it's often trying to portray the movement in a positive way and support all that's happening. But it's getting a bit old.

Part of it's down to the media's taste for the titillating. Remember when pretty much every single newspaper and news site obsessed over Slutwalk and the protest against the opening of the new Playboy club in London? But of course! It gave them the opportunity to talk about sex and feature pictures of women wearing skimpy outfits. Where are the tabloid spreads when the "new feminists" are talking about the role of women in the Arab Spring or assessing the impact of government cuts on women? Exactly. Reclaim the Night marches have always aimed to address the same issues as Slutwalk, but very few people mentioned this in all the furore about using the word "slut".

The fact is, it won't be long before "the new feminism" is a decade old. Right now, it's not quite there, but its achievements are many and it's engaged a new generation of women with gender equality issues. It's provided a voice against misogyny and a sense of community for those who want to do something when they hear about funding cuts to women's services or the shameful rape conviction rate or see a lack of options available to their young daughters. True, the media's interest in feminism really has returned in the last two or three years - and this in turn has inspired many young women, but let's not forget all the women, groups and events that have been paving the way for longer than that.

Come on, newspapers, let's move past the fad of "the resurgence among young women" and towards recognising that gender equality is for everyone, helps everyone and isn't just some trend, something to cover in what is essentially the same article, a two or three times a year. It's really great when you give the movement coverage, but it's time to diversify.

This "rebranding" has been going on for a long time now; I think it's safe to say that we're not just "back" - we never went away. Yes, there's been a resurgence in activism getting mainstream media attention. But stop acting so surprised and consider, as Kat Banyard said, what it can achieve.

This post originally appear at BitchBuzz. Image via sizemore's Flickr.

This is a round-up

2011-08-15T12:57:00.002+01:00

The Independent - Caring costs - but so do riots

"It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Barbara Ehrenreich for CiF - How America criminalised poverty

"In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalisation of poverty has actually intensified as the weakened economy generates ever more poverty. So concludes a recent study from the National Law Centre on Poverty and Homelessness, which finds that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with the harassment of the poor for more "neutral" infractions like jaywalking, littering, or carrying an open container."

Ekklesia - Rich thugs, poor thugs

"I oppose the corporations who have looted the treasury through their tax avoidance, the bankers who assaulted society through the financial crash and the arms dealers who profit from selling weapons to tyrants. I oppose Cameron, Clegg and their gang of thugs who are launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society with their vicious cuts to public services and the welfare state."

Rachel Held Evans - My story is more interesting than that

"I am not a supporting character in a story that a man is writing.
My story is more interesting than that.

I am not defined by my sexuality, my past, my marital status, or my body.
My story is more interesting than that.

I have not cried into my pillow waiting for someone else to give me purpose and direction in life.
My story is more interesting than that."

Elizabeth Esther - How to live a good love story: a top-eleven list for my daughters

"1. Avoid advice from middle-aged, unmarried men who have yet to live one successful love story.
2. Be wary of the man who always refers to women as “girls.”..."

Another Angry Woman - When not reporting a rape seems like a sensible option

"Layla Ibrahim was attacked and raped by two men. She was courageous enough to report this to the police, even though the police had a track record of repeatedly arresting her twelve year old brother and failing her sister after a beating, due to being a mixed-race family in a predominately white area. Despite overwhelming forensic evidence, the police chose not to believe Layla. She was sent to prison for three years."

The F Word - When we are very wrong

"We must always respect the lived experience of those we have privilege over, and take note when they take the time to tell us about it. So if a black woman challenges something racist said by a white woman, or a disabled woman challenges a disablist attitude, or a working class woman challenges middle class privilege, it is time to listen."

Thought Catalog - Surviving an 80s childhood

"If you survived a childhood in the 80s, you’re probably starting to feel a bit long in the tooth, even though you’re not really. You just can’t help feeling old when you’re at a bar and you meet someone who was born in 1993. If you survived a childhood in the 80s, you may, from time to time, wonder what growing up with an iPhone, Katy Perry and the Internet must be like, and how you survived without all the things that seem so intrinsic to your survival now."

Thought Catalog - Surviving a 90s puberty

"You wish could still throw your phone against a wall and it wouldn’t break. You miss how everything was riddled with layers of meaning, and you probably have a secret yearning for the earnestness of the decade that defined your coming of age. You revel in having grown up through the 90s, because it’s sort of like being part of a secret, special club that no one understands except the ones that were there with you, and even still they don’t really understand you; because despite your cynicism, you still hold onto a scrap of that poor, tortured, isolated, misunderstood soul a puberty in the 90s gave you."

Cosmopolitics - Fundamentally fearful fashion

"What’s ‘fun’ or ‘fearless’ (hah!) about feeling unable to wear even a loose, opaque, drapy garment without an expensive, uncomfortable underdress to control your unacceptable (and entirely natural) curves? Curves which you’re elsewhere instructed to ‘flaunt’: wearing nothing but a bra (‘be sure to flaunt the cutest of bras!’ Let’s infantilise feminine sexuality!) and an unbuttoned cardi, apparently, is a good idea."

Are women deserting the church - and what can be done?

2011-08-10T22:03:00.001+01:00

If you mention the issue of gender differences and church attendance to a group of Christians, chances are they'll start mentioning how congregations generally have far more women than men; how men have left the church in droves in the past couple of decades; they'll mention "the feminization" of the church.

Back in June when I attended the conference on gender and the Bible put on by the Sophia Network, I was surprised to hear one of the speakers talking about the major problem of women in their 20s and 30s leaving the church, and going through some of what she believed were the reasons this is happening. I was surprised, not because I didn't believe her, but because it's not something you hear a lot about. What we've seen in response to the alleged "feminization" of the church is teaching and events which glorify masculinity, promote traditional gender stereotypes with a "trendy" edge, and go out of their way to appeal to the modern man and what he feels comfortable with.This isn't always helpful. I think it can and has led to some problematic ways of doing things and reaching out to communities taking hold. It's high time that we saw some deeper analysis of what's really going on in the church today with regard to gender disparity and the appeal different ways of "doing" church holds.

Yesterday I found out via a post by Sharon Hodde Miller on the Her.meneutics blog that his month has seen the publication of a report on gender and religious belief by The Barna Group, part of their State of the Church series which has examined trends in religion over the past 20 years. Although this is a small survey which obviously shouldn't be used to pass judgment on the church as a whole it's really interesting to note what the research found.Among those surveyed, church attendance had dropped by 11 percentage points since 1991 for women, but by six percentage points for men. And while the proportion of "unchurched" men was found to have risen by nine percentage points since 1991, the increase for women was 17%. Bible reading among women had plummeted by 10% among women, so that 40% of those surveyed read the Bible at some point during a typical week, compared to 41% of men (showing no change from 1991 and 2001).

The survey also detailed the fact that although women were at one time relied on as the "backbone" of church life, volunteering, helping out and providing hospitality, this is no longer the case, with a 9% drop in women volunteering at their church.

I wonder to what extent statistics like these are influenced by the drive to get men back into church - and the resulting books and articles we've seen which have criticised churches for being "too feminized", encouraged leadership to focus on building up and empowering men and displaying a scornful attitude towards all things "girly". I also wonder to what extent a drop in attendance and volunteering has been influenced by greater demands on our time ("having it all" takes up most of the day, don't you know), meaning that people want more of their free time to themselves, or don't want to get up early at weekends.

But let's say there is some truth in these statistics, that the church has lost male and female members but that women are now leaving at a greater rate than men. How could this be addressed? Miller rightly says:
"The decline of one gender in the church should not be the catalyst that launches concerted outreach."

While looking to appeal to a certain demographic, the church should not run the risk of excluding others in the community. So how can this be done without shutting people out?

1) Appealing to women from all walks of life, accepting different personalities and giftings. At the Sophia Network conference, providing networking and support to women working in the City through groups that meet or breakfast or at lunchtime in Central London was mentioned as just one example of this, just one example of working with the free time that people have. Miller's post brings up an important point in relation to this issue - "...in order to communicate with increasingly educated and professional women, Christian women must be able to articulate what they believe and why. How is the church equipping women for this?". There must be efforts made not to bring down and disapprove of women who have "a career" and enjoy their job, which is liable to happen in churches which are more conservative on gender roles. It's also useful to consider the different things extroverted and introverted people might be looking for in a church.

2) Showing a commitment to including the generation which is supposedly leaving the church - those in their 20s and 30s - and investing in their talents. Many women in this age group are neither married nor mothers and an incessant focus on marriage and children is particularly alienating. Trying not to focus all women's events and Bible studies on "family and home" is a good start - we do have other interests and areas of gifting! An outlook which leaves unmarried women unable to lead or take initiative in any way is also unhelpful here, as is a focus on marrying as young as possible. As Miller says:"How might a newly converted, female CEO find her gifts expressed in an evangelical church? How might a woman with financial savvy or her own law practice be able to serve her local congregation? Will these women be welcomed as resources, or ignored and untapped?"

3) Making an effort to include more women in church activities. I can't tell you how much my heart sinks when I see that the only options for learning together and socialising as women in a church are through mum-and-baby/toddler groups or Bible study/prayer groups which meet only during working hours. My heart soars when I see events scheduled in the evenings or at weekends, because although baby groups and daytime events are great (and an opportunity for friendship and support which I will no doubt avail myself of in the future, should I find myself able to), women like me - and the women who are my friends and colleagues - can't go to them. Similarly, if there are weekend or evening events, they don't always need to involve cupcakes and manicures. I have said this before, but I'd love camping trips and curry nights too.

4) Respecting female members of the congregation (and potential members of the congregation) by not preaching that being "like a woman" is synonymous with "traits which are undesirable or worthy of mockery". I cannot stress the importance of promoting equality and standing against misogyny. Today's 20 and 30-somethings have also been made wary of the church by scandals, spiritual abuse and lack of integrity, which is worth remembering. It's one of the cheesiest and overused clichés, but being authentic and operating with integrity is vital.

Some of the comments on Miller's post provided examples applicable to these points and are really worth reading. Women cited a pressure to marry and have children, male-dominated church culture, busy lives, churches trying to pigeonhole them into certain areas of serving, being introverted, and not wanting their daughters to be made to feel inferior due to their gender as reasons they had been "burned" by the church. One commenter noted sadly that this research had been interpreted by some bloggers as showing that now is the time for men to "take back the church", seeing as women are leaving it. This could not be more wrong.

Image via Beaverton Historical Society's Flickr.

Problems with faith-based crisis pregnancy centres exposed

2011-08-03T12:49:00.000+01:00

Yesterday the Guardian published the results of a survey of ten faith-based and anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), which has been carried out by Education for Choice in the wake of the government's decision to consider offering counselling roles outside of the NHS to organisations such as Life and Care Confidential. Such a move would be at the expense of impartial services such as those run by Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).

What Education for Choice discovered in the course of its research is, quite frankly, horrendous. The inclusion of Life on the government's new Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV has been hailed as a victory by the anti-choice camp, and has also been welcomed by those who feel that all viewpoints should be given a say on the matter. The problem here is that instead of providing "impartial" advice and truly wishing to help women, it's clear that this is far from what's happening at many CPCs.

"A survey of 10 centres operated by Christian and anti-abortion organisations found evidence in most of them of poor practice and factually incorrect advice, while the quality of counselling differs widely. Advice ranged from scaremongering – linking abortion with breast cancer, for example – to actions apparently designed to steer women away from abortion, such as showing them baby clothes..."

For a start, the fact that organisations like Life are strictly anti-choice should not ever mean that they are free to offer misinformation and manipulative actions as a response to women who may be vulnerable, making a difficult choice, unsure about the facts or looking for support. Faith-based groups have got history with this - think of the way many of the groups involved with abstinence education in the USA built education programs for teens around informing them that any sexual activity would give them cancer, make them infertile and leave them unable to find a partner to marry. There needs to be a commitment to offering correct information which values facts over religious agenda and there is simply no excuse for some of this "information" being given out to people:

"At a Life centre in Covent Garden, London, the undercover researcher was given a leaflet entitled Abortions – How they're Done, which said incorrectly that 85% of abortions are carried out using vacuum aspiration. It stated that 'the unborn child is sucked down the tube' and that 'the woman should wear some protection. She has to dispose of the corpse.'"

What was also clear from Education for Choice's investigations is that many CPC counsellors appear to be lacking the training and information needed to appropriately respond to clients (although staff at two centres were reported to have given good and helpful advice):

"When asked whom to talk to about arranging an abortion, the counsellor stated that the organisation was pro-life and could not recommend any service. She claimed not to know the names of abortion providers."

A counsellor at one centre under the direction of Life "repeatedly suggested the client should wait two to three weeks before making her decision on abortion". I don't need to spell out the impact this could have in terms of taking women further into a pregnancy and closer to the upper limits of legality.

One counsellor at a centre overseen by Care Confidential - which, according to its website, offers "unbiased counselling" - "did not know the legal time limit for abortion, claimed that there were no statistics on the number of women who have terminations and had little idea about local services". The undercover researcher was also given an "abortion recovery" manual which stated:

"If we are to walk this journey with a woman then we need to clearly see which boundaries she has crossed … immorality, coveting, lying, as well as taking innocent life."

I have no doubt that some women do feel upset and ashamed after having made the choice to have an abortion and that in these circumstances they should have full support available to them - and yes, faith-based support if they feel comfortable with this. But each case is different and it simply isn't right to treat all women as sufferers of this fictional "post-abortion syndrome". I believe that even those who believe abortion is always the wrong decision to make need to be educating women responsibly. It's appropriate for them to outline their agenda as an organisation but never to use this as a front for lying and refusing to help people. It's not, in my opinion, appropriate to distribute materials defined by faith-based jargon and principles to those who might have no experience of that particular religion and no affiliation with it, while offering no additional information.

It is especially inappropriate when you consider the endorsement of such organisations by politicians such as Nadine Dorries as "balanced, impartial, accountable and caring", while BPAS et al are denounced as having a "vested interest".

As a Christian it concerns me that these reports are increasingly aligning faith-based services in the UK with manipulation and misinformation. There needs to be a responsibility to speak the truth and not hide behind the label of "impartiality" while providing counselling which is anything but. I have no desire to attack groups for holding pro-life views, but research like this makes it hard for me to accept much of what they're doing. I'm sure it's possible to espouse a "pro-life" message without resorting to distorting medical facts and statistics. CPCs need to be clear about where they stand, but also that they are willing to help women and tell the truth. Promoting guilt and shame isn't the answer and it has potentially damaging consequences for women who are dealing with additional issues such as mental health problems, pregnancy resulting from rape, or domestic violence.

A spokesperson for Care Confidential has apologised for the services researched by Education for Choice and says that a "full review of quality control, training and support" will be carried out, including rewriting training manuals to reflect diversity of faith in society. I hope that with rising public awareness of what CPCs do, they will commit to training counsellors to give advice tailored to their clients' needs and make a move away from such obvious misinformation.

Read the executive summary of Education for Choice's report here.

Photo via benuski's Flickr.

FT reports "elite" schools openly offering up attractive pupils for results day photos

2011-08-02T12:47:00.001+01:00

In case any of you happen to have missed this earlier today (I was tweeting about it during my commute), here are a few interesting snippets of information relating to the annual media cringe-fest which was in recent years come to be known as "Sexy A-Levels Day".

As we're all aware, there are certain stories guaranteed to appear in the national media around the middle of August every year, when the nation's Sixth Formers receive their exam results. There's the standard coverage of rising numbers of passes and top grades, complete with outraged opinion pieces on "Why today's exams are worthless and dumbed-down". There's the "Behold! A ludicrously clever family!" story, in which a set of twins or triplets manages about 20 A grades between them. As a variation on this theme we also have "Behold! A ludicrously clever child!" in which we'll meet little Johnny, ten years old and collecting his top marks in maths and further maths.

And then, across local and national papers alike, we'll see almost identical photographs showcasing gangs of attractive blonde girls (with an occasional brunette for variety - if you want to see boys, forget about it) grinning, hugging, jumping up and down and brandishing envelopes.

Last year we saw such photographs compile for the first time on the Sexy A-Levels Tumblr, "a blog exploring the hypothesis that UK newspapers believe that only attractive girls in low-cut tops do A-Levels".

Now last year, someone I know saw that I'd linked this blog and was quick to denounce it as ridiculous. Why would the media do that?! Why would schools want anything to do with it if that was the case?! According to a story appearing in the Financial Times yesterday, schools aren't just happily going along with the media obsession, they're pandering to it.

In "We're just not that kind of newspaper" (free registration required to read), Chris Cook explains that "a little cadre of English private schools compete to supply attractive young women to the national press". He mentions that Bedales School never sends out pictures of its male pupils receiving exam results, and recalls a voicemail message he received from Badminton School last year:

“'Hi Chris, . . .Just wanting to give you some details of some absolutely beyootiful girls we’ve got here who are getting their A-level results tomorrow.'”

It's bad enough that certain schools seem to be promoting students as good "results day" material based on looks, but it gets worse. Cook continues:

"Most alarmingly, another (very grand) private school invited the FT education correspondent to an end-of-year sports event. I was, alas, too busy. It was a shame, I was informed by a senior teacher. He said that watching the girls playing sports would have given me a unique opportunity to pick out promising candidates for A-level day pictures."

How inappropriate. And indeed, creepy. And most likely against the supposed values of such schools, which usually make plenty of noise about an encouraging atmosphere, open-minded acceptance, and support for individuality in the "ethos" sections of their prospectuses.

Image via hammersmithandfulham's Flickr.

Esquire gets it wrong with rape joke

2011-07-26T14:32:00.001+01:00

This week's award for not only Most Ill-Advised Rape Joke, but also Most Tasteless Celebrity Death Tie-In and Least Sincere Apology definitely goes to Esquire.

So. You're running an article themed around sex and you want to make it current and oh-so-relevant to the issues hitting the headlines right now. How about a guide to satisfying oral sex? Good thinking. How about running it as a tie in with the Strauss-Kahn rape case, using details of the incident to proclaim that it doesn't have to be so bad, if readers take your advice on board?

Yes, Esquire went there. Accuser Nafissatou Diallo, who, as the case threatens to fall apart amid numerous controversies, has this week gone public, telling her side of the story to Newsweek. She has revealed her ordeal in graphic detail. And in the original version of the feature, which was entitled "How to have more satisfying sex than DSK", Esquire described this as "a tragedy". No, not the fact that a woman has told of being raped, but the fact that the act itself obviously wasn't particularly enjoyable. Readers were told in the opening paragraph:

"A blowjob need not be hurtful or degrading, for either party."

And whatever you think about this statement on its own, I think most people would agree on the fact that it should never, ever be used to apply to situations which involve rape. Especially in a way which suggests that you know, it's a bit, well, funny. Because the fact she didn't enjoy it meant that she could probably do with a few sex tips, right? "Ladies: How to get the most out of your rape". My sides are splitting. They went on to tweet a link to the article from their official Twitter account:

Within minutes Twitter had exploded with what it does best: outrage. Esquire deleted the offending tweet and even cut the first paragraph of the article to remove any trace of reference to DSK. It was just a shame, then, that they followed it up with a pretty poor excuse for an apology. "Sorry if an earlier tweet offended anyone"? It's nice that they plumped for "if", there, referring to their "sense of humour", as if, in the grand scheme of things, anger at rape jokes is merely a matter of some people just not getting their zany way with words. Because at the end of the day, it's easy to confuse run-of-the-mill oral sex with traumatic non-consensual incidents.

Let's be clear here - rape jokes aren't funny. In case any members of staff at Esquire are wondering, here's a handy guide that explains when it's okay to mix rape and humour. The gist is this: if you're thinking of making a wisecrack at the expense of rape victims, don't do it. It's not big, or clever, and it contributes to the wider problem of what we call rape culture.

That's the way in which society rationalizes and normalizes rape - by laughing about it, victim blaming, saying it's a natural consequence of various actions like drinking or wearing short skirts, treating it as 'a compliment', using it to make cracks about the attractiveness of the victim, using the word when you mean that your football team lost a game or someone hacked your Facebook account. And guess what? It has a devastating effect on the many men, women and children who, each year, become victims of rape and sexual assault.

Call it another tiresome drama for the pitchfork-wielding Twitterati or hysterical feminists with their knickers in a twist if you like, but Esquire definitely crossed a line. And that must be a theme for them this week, as Monday was also the day its style blog ran a post entitled "In tragedy, a style appreciation for Blake Fielder-Civil". Yes, that Blake Fielder-Civil, Amy Winehouse's ex-husband - currently serving a jail sentence for burglary and possession of a firearm, the man who was at her side during some of her most self-destructive moments and someone who's been widely condemned as an unhelpful presence in her life in the wake of her death at the weekend.

Seeing as we'd already had the most mind-boggling of Winehouse tie-ins when the Huffington Post published "Amy Winehouse's untimely death is a wake up call for small business owners" on Sunday - Esquire decided to run with "most tasteless" instead. Good work, guys!

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz.

Blogging for Mulheres do Brasil

2011-07-25T18:09:00.002+01:00

Today I'm blogging in support of ActionAid Brasil's new initiative, Mulheres do Brasil - Women in Brazil.

Through raising awareness about the particular challenges affecting women in Brazil, ActionAid is hoping that it can do more to help combat poverty, lack of access to education, sexual violence and domestic abuse with this new campaign.

When I visited Brazil earlier this year I spent plenty of time talking to some of the women ActionAid helps support and it was clear that there is a need for more focus on gender equality and tackling deeply ingrained problems. Everyone we spoke to was agreed - domestic violence is a major issue; economic inequality is a big worry. In fact, domestic violence is the leading cause of death for Brazilian women aged between 16 and 44, killing more than car accidents and cancer - and it is estimated that more than a million women are victims of abuse there every year. Although pioneering legislation like the Maria da Penha law - recently recognised by UN Women as a landmark reform in the struggle to end VAW - is making a difference for many women, domestic violence is still seen as a private matter which is kept hidden by families and communities, and a decrease in the number of incidents has not been seen for a decade.

ActionAid is monitoring the effects of anti-VAW legislation, funding training and education so that women can set up businesses and generate their own income using local resources, and running courses on equality and citizenship to help them become more aware of their rights and the opportunities available to them. This is vital work and I've seen first-hand that it's successful and providing inspiration and motivation to many, as well as the skills and knowledge to fight gender inequality, and help women to be independent, get back on their feet and provide for their families.

I'm blogging about this today not just because I feel it's important but also because I hope that it might encourage some of you to look into the work ActionAid Brasil is doing to help women and promote equality, take part in today's blogging or even consider offering your support by making a donation. Check out the #mulheresdobrasil hashtag on Twitter or ActionAid Brasil's tweets for more information and further blog posts.

Media favourites: the 'myth of having it all'

2011-07-21T12:49:00.002+01:00

'Having It All'

1. Phrase coined by former editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine, Helen Gurley Brown - and the title of her book published in 1982.
2. A lifestyle which involves having a successful, demanding and well-paid career, a stable relationship and a happy, fulfilled experience of motherhood.
3. A concept popularized by feminists, ball-busting 'career girls', women's magazines and television shows.
4. The ultimate falsehood. Unattainable, unwise, leading only to depression, divorce, infertility, misandry, badly-brought up children and low self-esteem.

Common usage:

1. "The myth of - "
2. "The grave consequences of - "

"Of course women can have it all - they just don't want it"
"They have it all...so why is it so hard for some women to be happy?"
"Girls 'can't have it all': Bridget Jones author warns of the perils of mixing family and career"
"The truth is that modern women can't have it all. They may succeed in their careers and they may succeed as mothers, but to do both at the same time? No."

The rules of discussing 'having it all':

1. Context: must be mentioned that the 'pressure' was brought about by 1970s feminists, as opposed to capitalism, 1980s popular culture, the media and an emphasis that women must be perfect in everything they do (although even Gurley Brown's book was condemned by figureheads of the women's movement at the time).
2. Gender: on no account must the concept of men 'having it all' be discussed. The thought of a man combining a career, marriage and fatherhood is never considered impossible, a pressure or a lifestyle doomed to failure. It is expected, praised and seen as the norm.
3. Stock words/phrases: "making it in a man's world"; "comes at a price"; "superwoman"; "trade-off"; "Sex and the City"; "high-flying"; "juggling work and family".
4. Shifting the blame: on no account explore the idea that societal pressure on women to never trip up, falter, have a bad day or appear less than perfect might be partially at fault. Continue to promote fad diets, pushy parenting, unobtainable beauty standards and harsh criticism of women who don't 'measure up'.
5. Equality: refuse to explore idea that increased pressure on women may be due to men and businesses failing to adapt to a changing world. Stay-at-home fathers are 'emasculated', men doing housework is 'demeaning', and 'supposed' workplace inflexibility and sexism is a sign of women just not having what it takes to run with the big boys. Expecting things to change is 'laughable' and 'hopelessly outdated'.
6. Mental illness and unhappiness: a direct result of attempting to 'have it all'. Prevalence would be less great if society made a return to traditional gender roles and hierarchy (nb avoid all mention of 'mother's little helpers').
7. Public figures: bonus points incurred if person denouncing 'having it all' is a celebrity, politician or middle-aged figurehead of feminism. Double bonus points if the story is published in time for International Women's Day.
8. Furthering the debate: under no circumstances attempt to steer discussion of concept in a productive direction.

This post brought to you by a read through today's Daily Mail story, "Successful and childless: The career women from Generation X who have it all... except a family" and the articles a search for 'women+have it all' brings up (istyosty links).

Created or Constructed? Part One

2011-07-20T21:35:00.002+01:00

In my post on Mark Driscoll's response to the 'effemigate' furore, I briefly discussed the statement he used as a standfirst. When Driscoll wrote:

"Gender. Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?"

he started a lot of discussion about what it means to be male or female. Although he acknowledged that it's a very complex issue, the feelings he outlined about the debate appeared to be insinuating that this is a mutually exclusive dichotomy and that he firmly believes that gender roles are God-given. I don't entirely agree. While I agree that our gender identity is God-given and that the Bible does have plenty to say about men, women and the church, I do not believe that this brings with it specific desirable personality traits, emotions and skills, rather that the majority of those promoted by Driscoll and others who are strong on 'traditional' gender roles are heavily influenced by society and cultural trends. Indeed, perceptions of gender roles and responsibilities within Christianity differ, as can be shown by comparing official statements on three main strands of teaching.

Contrasting perspectives on gender roles:
Patriarchy (typified by Vision Forum) - The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy
Complementarianism (typified by the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) - The Danvers Statement
Egalitarianism (typified by Christians for Biblical Equality) - CBE Statement on Men, Women and Biblical Equality

So, to what extent are Christian views on gender roles and gender-appropriate behaviour defined by cultural factors? It's obvious that there is major influence, whether we're talking about the hold the 19th century 'cult of domesticity' or 'cult of true womanhood' still has over society, the hyper-masculine all-American action hero (with added super-Godliness) promoted by Driscoll or the crusading warrior/waiting for Prince Charming stereotypes of books like 'Wild At Heart' and 'Captivating', which tell us:

"Little boys want to know, Do I have what it takes?...Little girls want to know, Am I lovely?"

Some who believe in distinct gender roles and behaviours feel it is important to emphasise these when raising children - for example encouraging girls to enjoy personal grooming and wearing 'feminine' clothes, or encouraging boys to play sports and take 'leadership' roles - so that they will grow up with an awareness of what it 'means' to be male or female. This is echoed by our society in general, which stereotypes children from almost the minute they are born, judging every movement, cry and aspect of behaviour as evidence of being a 'proper little boy' or 'proper little girl'. Despite the case against so-called 'hard-wired' gender differences, explored by Cordelia Fine in her book Delusions of Gender, society dictates that even as babies, girls and boys and to be treated according to socially constructed ideas about what it is to be male or female. Before the recent birth of the Beckhams' daughter, the BBC ran a feature which showcased all the old stereotypes to the extreme.

Describing girls as 'manipulative', 'evil' and 'hell-bent on showing off' while underlining a predilection for all things pink and princess-related. Referring to boys solely in conjunction with mud, football and dinosaurs while discussing their lack of 'hidden motives'. Thankfully we also hear from those who believe such differences are mainly the product of parents' imaginations:

"According to Dr Helen Barrett, developmental psychologist and research fellow at Birkbeck College, University of London, studies suggest even when baby boys and girls are lying in a cot kicking their legs at the same rate, boys are seen as more energetic.

And a newborn boy's cries are seen as more forceful and may be responded to quicker, even when there is actually no difference."

Undoubtedly, Christian thinking on gender is influenced by 'the world' in this respect - and we can see further parallels with views on 'roles' in the family, the home and the church. In US Christian culture, it's more obvious that some aspects of these views are a direct response in opposition to what's seen as the un-Biblical and nefarious influence of feminism, which if you believe some critics is directly responsible for promiscuity, failed marriages, deadbeat dads, emasculated men, manipulative women, domestic abuse and indeed the majority of social problems you can think of. The traditionalist view of gender roles is not only 'Biblical', but if accepted by society in general might herald a return to happier and more righteous times, when 'men were men and women were women' (and presumably, marriages were blissful, homes were happy and everyone knew their place). The anti-equality perspective is obviously present in other countries, but it's the US which seems to have spawned the majority of the backlash.

There's a real resistance to the word 'equality' in a way which makes me uncomfortable. Equality as the way of the devil, if you like, because it 'denies difference' and shockingly, emphasizes similarities. I find it incredibly hard to get worked up about this denial of difference, possibly because I'm one of those feminist egalitarians, but I think it's also because I don't believe equality 'denies difference', rather that it describes worth and purpose, male and female being created 'in his own image'. Equality is not an insult, or a dirty word, as I have seen implied. I wonder, when I read comments to that effect, just how deeply certain gender roles have been ingrained so that despite clear teaching on equality of worth in God's eyes, there is real horror at the suggestion of 'sameness' between men and women. I often wonder if it has much to do with the same views on gender roles which lead people to say "Well I LIKE cooking and babies and shaving my legs so I am HAPPY to be a REAL woman, thank you very much, feminists!'

I think it's very easy to get bogged down in perceived similarities and differences which actually have little to do with relationships, gifting and a call to ministry - and are not hard and fast to begin with, easily dispelled by countless people who do not 'fit the mold'.

As part of this ongoing exploration into gender in the church, I've ordered a copy of Elaine Storkey's Created or Constructed? The Great Gender Debate, which I've been meaning to read for a while. I'll be reading and discussing it here.

Image via Steve Rhodes's Flickr

This week's round-up

2011-07-18T15:34:00.000+01:00

Judith Woods, writing in the Telegraph, was disgusted to learn that Nick Clegg, who feels that his children "come first", shoehorns the school run into his busy daily schedule. Apparently this is the worst kind of reflection on his "militantly ball-breaking missus", the "scary global law expert" Miriam, "who prefers to be known as Miriam Gonzalez Durante", (rather than "Miriam Clegg" - I know which I'd choose - and it's not the latter) and told Grazia magazine that she and her husband share parenting duties equally. Interestingly she doesn't see it as a plus side of Clegg's approach to fatherhood that he wants to continue to spend time with his children. Nope, it must be his wife, being all emasculating.

"As an Alpha female, she deliberately chose a Beta mate she could boss about. The masterplan, which she may or may not have outlined before the wedding, was that she would breed, then bread-win and he would be a house-husband, stocking the fridge with Petit Filous and managing the recycling bin in a blamelessly ineffectual Lib Dem sort of way. Now he has been inexplicably catapulted into government! That was not the deal. No wonder she’s so cross!"

Today we've learned that the deputy Prime Minister has hit back, saying:

“I love having the opportunity as often as I can to take my children on the school run. And much more seriously, look this is 2011. It's not 1911.

“The idea that fathers or mothers can't do a very good job in whatever walk of life but also remain as dedicated fathers and mothers is frankly an attitude which belongs in the last century or the one before that.”

How To Be A Retronaut - Suffragette Surveillance, 1913

In 1912, Scotland Yard detectives bought their first camera, to covertly photograph suffragettes. The pictures were compiled into ID sheets for officers on the ground.

Sian and Crooked Rib - Consent, statutory rape and the Daily Mail,

There’s a lesson here. Anyone out there who rapes a child, but who then can find a way that makes it look like the child was to blame has nothing to worry about. Just admit it frankly, show a bit of remorse and easy. You’ll be out of jail in less than a year.

Marina Hyde - Celebrity magazines must be scrutinised

I don't know if Lord Justice Leveson has a permanent mobile phone number – he's probably using burners – but if anyone has it can they give him a bell and ask if his inquiry into press behaviour will take in celebrity magazines?

I only ask because I'm looking at one of the cover headlines on this week's New! magazine – Broody Kate's Anorexia Nightmare – and the grim, confected "story" about the Duchess of Cambridge that lies therein, and wondering whether such titles will escape this opportunity to take a long hard look at what they do, before stabbing themselves in the eye with rusty knives?

Emerging Mummy - In which I am part of the insurgency

I will be the small underground movement, the insurgency, the one taking every opportunity, however small, to strike a blow for the Kingdom's way of womanhood.

It's in the small ops then. The monthly cheque sent off to Mercy. The determination to value my daughters and sons for their intrinsic worth, their mind and hearts as well as their appearance. To give respect and honour to the stories of women around the world - and in my neighbourhood. The raising of my tinies to follow the example of Christ first. It's in the refusal to ignore the stories - however much I want to stick my head in the sand and act like it's not happening.

Elaine Storkey for Christianity Today - A Liberating Woman: A Reflection on the Founder of Christians for Biblical Equality

With utmost meticulousness, Kroeger sought to reconcile the Pauline passages that restrained women with the clear directives calling women to proclaim Christ. Rather than offer a clumsy cultural relativism that glibly dismisses Paul as a "man of his time," she showed how better knowledge of Greek helps us to understand the kephale ("head") metaphor in Ephesians 5, the silence of women in churches in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, and head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Careful contextual work raises questions about traditional interpretations. (For example, if Paul's fellow-worker Priscilla was exercising a clear gift of teaching to correct the theology of Apollos [Acts 18:26], then the injunction on women not to teach [1 Tim. 2:12] must be a limited one.) The interplay of language, historical context, and archaeology excited Kroeger. This was particularly evident in "I Suffer Not a Woman", which, written with her husband in 1992, opened up new ways of understanding 1 Timothy 2:11-15.

The Frisky - How I learned about feminism and motherhood from Molly Weasley

It was a form of magic to see the same qualities play out between this made-up mother character in my favorite books and my real mom. My views on modern motherhood were inherently affected by witnessing both mothers nurture all children who need them, not just their own blood; manage to hold their families together under any and all circumstances; have unconditional love and support, even in the most frustrating moments; and partake in empowering, female-friendly movements that positively influence their daughters and sons alike.

Hopefully to come later this week (if I have time) - exploring deeper into the concept of gender as God-given and role-based vs gender as a social construct.

Mark Driscoll responds to 'Effemigate'

2011-07-14T06:19:00.004+01:00

Well, I have to say that I'm surprised. As a result of Rachel's post, I think Mars Hill Church must have received a lot of emails this week - not to mention the many blog posts I've spotted in addition to those I linked in my previous post. What I'm surprised about is that we have a public response, of a sort.

It's not really an apology. It provides an 'explanation' of why Driscoll asked that question on Facebook last week and I think it does miss the point a bit in doing so. So a man explained to Driscoll that he was put off church because the worship leader at one he visited was "effeminate". To put it bluntly, in my mind that doesn't point to problems within the church. Why treat so many in the church with disrespect in order to fall in line with cultural stereotypes of masculinity? Such behaviour isn't consistent with Jesus's attitude towards ingrained cultural norms. As well as a reinforcement that Driscoll feels distinct gender roles in the church, society and the home are important, the post is also a major plug for his upcoming book and website.

In asking "Gender: Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?" he seems to suggest that the two are mutually exclusive. I disagree and believe that while it is a God-given identity to the individual, many facets of what we see as 'gender' and what it means to us are socially constructed. I also believe that it is not wrong to challenge translations of the Bible which refer only to men and do not use language inclusive of humankind when this is plainly what is intended. Looking to what the Bible says about gender identity and God should enable us to see through societal constructions and I really hope that in exploring the issue further on his new website, Driscoll will look into this (I have a feeling this may be a hope too far).

So what's good about it? I'm happy that he admitted he has been spoken to by elders in the church and told to address these issues more effectively, because it's important that leaders are accountable and can be encouraged to change problematic behaviour by those they work with. I know that accountability was a concern for many who have been upset by his remarks. I was pleased by the acknowledgement of the enormity of gender issues in the church and in theology as a very wide-ranging matter which needs to be taken seriously, not reduced to throwaway comments on Facebook. There was also acknowledgement of the cultural problems on which he bases many of his opinions - that according to some studies and reports, young men today are allegedly slow to take responsibility, immature and unreliable, contributing to toxic relationships, shirking the duties of fatherhood.

I don't think it's wrong to want to address this and I absolutely believe that churches should be encouraging maturity, responsibility, Godly behaviour and respect for women in men. But I don't believe that this has to go hand in hand with reinforcement of 'roles' and stereotypes which, when it comes down to it, are rooted in modern American culture. I think it is possible to do this in a positive way. Interestingly, Driscoll asks:

"How can the church compel men to rise up without pushing women down?"

I think many people would welcome deeper dialogue from him regarding this as it's been a sticking point in the past. It's also one of the most important questions facing Christianity today, with the patriarchal movement gaining adherents and the continued marginalization of over half the church. I know I probably won't agree with many of the conclusions Driscoll will come to when he goes into more detail about gender issues, but I hope for a more measured approach on his part.

Mark Driscoll, the Facebook status and the blogosphere fallout

2011-07-10T20:23:00.013+01:00

I thought I'd do some sort of post collating all the posts written over the past few days in response to the latest controversy involving Mark Driscoll and his interesting beliefs about gender roles and stereotypes. On Thursday he invited fans on his Facebook page to engage by telling him about some of their experiences of church. Namely, "So, what story do you have about the most effeminate anatomically male worship leader you’ve ever personally witnessed?".

So this is the man responsible for gems such as:

"In Revelations, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down His leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, diaper, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up."

and

"Paul is simply stating that when it comes to leading in the church, women are unfit because they are more gullible and easier to deceive than men. Before you get all emotional like a woman in hearing this, please consider the content of the women’s magazines at your local grocery store that encourages liberated women in our day to watch porno with their boyfriends, master oral sex for men who have no intention of marrying them, pay for their own dates in the name of equality, spend an average of three-fourths of their childbearing years having sex but trying not to get pregnant, and abort 1/3 of all babies – and ask yourself if it doesn’t look like the Serpent is still trolling the garden and that the daughters of Eve aren’t gullible in pronouncing progress, liberation, and equality."

and

"After church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity... go to a country where there hasn't been the spread of Christianity and they're having human for dinner."

And it aggrieves me, no matter what people say about his supposed skills with leadership and preaching and getting people, particularly young people, engaged with God. It makes me profoundly uncomfortable that he happily talks about vetting his wife's emails and the anger he has felt towards other men who so much as go near her or look at her. His entire approach towards gender aggrieves me and I know it gets a lot of other people wound up too. That's why it was so interesting to read the varying responses to that Facebook post, which ended up generating over 600 comments before it was eventually removed at some point yesterday.

It started with a fantastic post from Dianna Anderson for Jesus Needs New PR.

Do you think those archaic gender roles, which aren’t even clearly laid out in the Holy Scriptures of your religion, might just be wrong? Do you feel like who you are as a person is being ignored because of what you happen to have between your legs?

If you actually followed that thought process all the way through, you have just a little, tiny sliver of how it feels to be a woman in the church. When you say to the men in your congregation, “being womanly is wrong,” the men aren’t the only ones listening. Yes, be bold, preach the gospel (or what you think is the gospel), but be aware: there are others listening, and they are not liking what they hear.

I loved Dianna's post; she gets right to the heart of why Driscoll's schtick on men and women is so offensive - firstly because it relies on stereotypes very particular to his own culture and place in history rather than anything Biblical, and secondly because he consistently implies that anything 'feminine' or 'womanly' is a bad thing, something to be mocked. Of course, he would probably reply that that doesn't mean it's bad for A WOMAN to display 'feminine' characteristics, because that's what she's supposed to do. It's only bad if a MAN behaves like that. This doesn't make it any less offensive and negative about women and only serves to promote the extreme anxiety you see in many Christians about the word 'equality'. You know - "But equal means 'THE SAME'! And men and women are NOT 'the same'! Therefore equality is wrong."

Dianna Anderson - A Jesus I Can Beat Up

"If you are a mainstream Christian, then you assert that Jesus WAS beaten up. One whole hell of a lot (pun intended).

He was whipped. He was forced to carry the instrument of his own death. A crown of thorns was shoved onto his head, to the point that he bled.

While you may not like it, the fact remains: If you believe that Jesus died and rose again – in other words, if you profess the Christian faith – you ALSO must believe in a man who was beaten to a pulp, a man who took a massive beating and who did not praise the violence."

Dianna is now doing a series of follow-up posts about gender and the church which I'm very much looking forward to - the above is one of them.

Elizabeth Esther - God DOESN’T hate gays–but pastors mocking them is A-OK!

"Honestly, how can ANY pastor justify publicly inviting people to publicly humiliate other Christians? As a Christian I feel embarrassed and grieved by this kind of public display of graceless behavior."

Joy Bennett - Don’t Take Pot-Shots at Worship Leaders, er, I Mean, ANYONE

"Whether or not you believe that men should dress and act a certain way, you cannot dispute the clear commands to Christians to speak kind grace-filled words. We are to use our words to build up, not tear down. Romans 1:29 and 2 Corinthians 12:20 and 1 Timothy 5:13 all state that gossip is a sin, included in lists alongside envy, murder, deceit, jealousy, and anger."

Elizabeth and Joy talk about one of the other main points to have come out of all this - that the very act of a high profile megachurch pastor inviting other Christians, on a public social networking page, to tell mocking stories about the way other Christians look and behave purely because they don't measure up to his macho ideal of what a man should be, is spectacularly un-Christlike.

Brian Wooddell - A Letter To Mark Driscoll

"I’m a man, Mr. Driscoll. I’m a man because I do everything in my power to help the less fortunate and the downtrodden. I’m a man because I respect and love others. Most of all, I’m a man because I spend every day striving to be how God wants me to be.

And I refuse to let you or any other bully with a pulpit tell me otherwise."

Tyler L Clark - Mano-a-Mano: A Letter to Mark Driscoll

"When you put out a call on Facebook for people verbally attack “effeminate anatomically male” men, I find myself back in high school—shoved against a locker, with the bullies calling me a faggot."

Brian and Tyler write as Christian men who don't live up to Driscoll's stereotype of the ideal man - due to their interests, their clothing choices and their personalities. Both speak of feeling 'bullied' by other men and church leaders in the past about such issues - and the effect this has had on them.

Are Women Human? - Dianna Anderson: Dear Mr. Driscoll

"Try to see, just try, how this kind of daily, ceaseless attack on femininity makes the many, many people who don’t fit into the patriarchal model of gender feel. Try to see how it makes us feel like we have to embrace an identity of inferiority to be part of the church, or leave."

Grace says that Driscoll sends out a clear message that he believes anyone who does not place patriarchal masculinity above all else in their views on gender and the church is to be mocked and shunned - and how this impacts Christian women.

Rachel Held Eavns - Mark Driscoll is a bully. Stand up to him.

"Godly men imitate Christ — who praised the gentle and the peacemakers, who stood up for the exploited and abused, who showed compassion for the downtrodden, who valued women, and who loved his enemies to the point of death.

If this Facebook status were Pastor Mark Driscoll’s first offense, it might not warrant a strong response. But Mark has developed a pattern of immaturity and unkindness that has remained largely unchecked by his church. In evangelical circles, he’s like the kid from high school who makes crude jokes at every opportunity, uses the words “gay” and “queer” to describe the things he most detests, encourages his friends to subject the unpopular kids to ridicule, and belittles the guys who aren’t “macho” or “manly” enough to be in his club."

Rachel encourages readers to take direct action and contact Driscoll's church, talk to him and attempt to start some dialogue on why he continues to feel this sort of behaviour is acceptable. There has been some discussion over the weekend that 'open letter'-style blog posts, while often very articulate and important, are becoming an overdone form of indirect action which achieves little. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but I will be emailing Mars Hill Church.

Picture of Mark Driscoll via jgordon13's Flickr. Screenshot of his Facebook page via HomeBrewed Theology.

Digital equality revisited - new report on gender and digital politics

2011-07-08T11:45:00.003+01:00

Hat tip to Cath Elliott for alerting me to a new report by the Hansard Society entitled Gender and Digital Politics, published yesterday, which I would have missed otherwise thanks to a certain story dominating the news.

Reading the report reminded me of the post I wrote on debating digital equality at Netroots UK after I attended the conference in January. Cath was also there and I recognised many of the issues we discussed that day in her blog post from yesterday, which covers many of the main points I feel it's important we make here. The way women's voices are sidelined by the 'blokosphere', abusive behaviour below the line and a dismissive attitude towards such abuse, the way many of the things women write about are categorised as 'Life and Style', even when they're actually important political issues (sorry Guardian, I'm looking at you). Is it any wonder that the report identified that the majority of commenting on political blogs is done by men? Not at all, when you get to know about the level of abuse and intimidation leveled at many women who get involved.

As Cath says:

"Until that changes and feminism is recognised as being political rather than seen as some kind of niche lifestyle interest, we’ll continue to see questions like “why are political blogs dominated by men?” being posed, when in reality the question should be: “Why do men always get to decide what is and isn’t politics?"

In the last election we saw how the majority of issues were framed as 'men's issues' while women were portrayed as only having interest in areas of policy such as child benefit and flexible working. Never mind the fact that every other issue affected them too.

Says the report:

"There is also evidence to suggest that women are discussing politics online in places that would traditionally have been perceived as non-political. Mumsnet, which is dedicated to sharing information and tips on parenting, has a campaigning focus, lobbying government and private companies on a variety of issues. This site has blogs from female contributors, and features a talk section, where users are able to discuss issues such as childcare, children’s food and education, lifestyle issues, health and politics."

This was a key aspect of our discussions at Netroots. Many people felt it's important to recognise that there is massive engagement in political issues going on which is not limited to the 'big' political blogs, which are male-dominated and are often a very hostile environment for women. But because these blogs are the ones getting the attention, it's assumed that there is a lack of participation, that women have a tendency to interact on 'lightweight' websites and talk about 'lightweight' issues - when in fact it's more often the case that women are combining discussion of politics with discussion of other topics. The same goes for blogging.

Overall I feel the report missed a lot of important points and that the reasons for political exclusion and how this links in with male-dominated political discussion, with a lot of stereotypically 'female' issues being seen as secondary or 'fluffy', need more analysis.

Royal Baby Bump Watch Begins

2011-07-07T10:18:00.002+01:00

It's official - Royal Wombwatch is ON. As Kate and Wills prepared to tie the knot in April, I predicted that it wouldn't be long before the speculation over their potential offspring began. And I was right.

This week, the media rumour-mill has gone into overdrive - becoming the journalistic equivalent of the annoying relatives who drop pointed little hints and quiz you about the 'pitter-patter of tiny feet' every time they see you and your partner. And it's all thanks to just four little words uttered by Kate as she chatted with a well-wisher while visiting Quebec on Saturday.

British ex-pat David Cheater wished the Duchess well in her efforts to start a family - and Kate replied, not as you might think from all the fuss being made about it, with "Yes, we're trying already!" but with "Yes, I hope to."

And just like that, the press and the blogs have gone for it with gusto:

“Kate Middleton & Prince William’s Baby Plans – Kate’s Ready To Be A Mom!”

“Broody Kate Middleton Reveals Baby Hopes”

“I'm a mummy in waiting, admits Kate”

All off the back of "Yes, I hope to," which is the sort of thing you might say when you plan to have a baby some day, in a few years' time, or, yes, soon. But it's hardly an admission of broodiness - and it's not as if it hasn't been mentioned before. While being interviewed around the time of their engagement, William stated that they both wanted children.

But now Kate has officially been classified as 'broody', the media will be watching her clothing choices, her waistline and her activities in a more obsessive way than ever, much in the same way that they hover like vultures over Jennifer Aniston, waiting for the merest signs pointing to babies or marriage.

If broody's the same as 'I hope to have children one day' then I'm sure many of you are now looking at your opinions about starting a family in a different light. Go forth and start charting your body temperature, ladies!

Getting in on the action, The Telegraph obliged with a nice run-down of some the royal women who have gone before Kate, detailing how long it took them to produce the heir after they'd got the ring on. Princess Diana gave birth to William 11 months after her marriage, whereas the Queen waited just short of a year before popping out Charles, don't you know. Of course no-one would dare to suggest that the couple should be getting a move-on, but in these Kate-obsessed times it would seem like the thing they should be seeing to next.

Otherwise I'm not sure if I can take much more of this overblown analysis of the couple's every move, typified by this month's tour of Canada. The eight-day visit has been chronicled with daily picture roundups and dissection of everything from Wills and Kate's body language and jokes to their clothing choices.

They take cookery classes! They compete in dragon boat races! They do a whole lot of walking about and smiling! And Kate looks radiant in a succession of "classic yet contemporary" outfits, destined to sell out the minute the papers reveal she's bought her dress from Reiss or Whistles.

I'm not sure whether the nation's women believe that by owning the Shola dress or the Natalie clutch, they'll exude a little bit of Kate-style poise and elegance, but the instant rush on items she wears is being touted as 'The Kate Effect' and it's currently big news. At the weekend I turned on the television to find Kate's hats and shoes being discussed at length on BBC News.

I have to say I'm hoping that the frenzy around the tour of Canada is more because it's their first tour as a married couple than anything else. That or the papers have realised that they can't create news based around who Pippa Middleton may or may not be dating every single day.

For now, I await with dread the first time Kate wears a flowing top or slouches slightly and the gossip pages explode with 'COULD THIS BE A BUMP?!' I'm sure she's thinking the same thing and I hope she can rise above it.

At the moment it's looking like her life is a choice between being tediously portrayed as either a Womb or a Fashion Plate (not forgetting, of course, her lovely glossy hair). So much for 'a very modern marriage', as far as the media is concerned. Times may have moved on - and I'm sure they have for Wills and Kate behind closed doors, but for the press it's still all about clothes and motherhood.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Brian Gratwicke's Flickr.

Daily Mail claims teachers' strike caused girls' death

2011-07-01T14:44:00.004+01:00

Now this really is a piece of work. I spotted this story in my local daily, the Peterborough Evening Telegraph, which describes the death of Sophie Howard, killed by a falling tree branch at a park yesterday as a 'freak accident' and a 'tragedy', both of which are fairly accurate assessments.

Head on over to the Daily Mail (istyosty link) and we've got the same story reported not as a 'freak accident', but as a tragedy caused by the fact Sophie's teachers were on strike yesterday, meaning that her school was closed - hence her fatal trip to the park with friends. Yes, it's the teachers and the unions who are to blame for Sophie's death.

Said Charlie Brooker on Twitter: "Most despicable headline since The Sun's notorious Hillsborough insult?"

And for once, the commenters at Mail Online seem to be in agreement with the 'Twitterati', indicating that the Mail has truly gone beyond the bounds of acceptability this time.

"The single most appalling and vindictive piece of journalism I have had the misfortune to stumble across for many years. It shows a total lack of respect for the family and the teaching profession. An unambiguous apology to all sides is needed without any delay,'" writes 'Mike, Lincoln'.

I think we're all in agreement with that.

Edit: As word started to get round that even some DM journalists were disgusted by the story, the headline was swiftly changed to "Girl, 13, crushed to death by a falling branch as she sat on park bench on the day her teachers went out on strike" and the story moved further down the front page of Mail Online.

Poll reveals Americans apparently prefer boys over girls

2011-06-30T16:33:00.002+01:00

When we think of countries with a culture of bias towards baby boys, we tend to think of places like India and China. But as the results of a recent Gallup poll show, this mindset is also prevalent in the USA - and has been for the last 70 years.

Gallup has asked Americans about their preferences for boy or girl children 10 times since 1941, using slightly different wording each time but always asking whether, if they were to have a child, they would prefer a boy or a girl - or have no opinion. And what's surprising is that the answers haven't changed an awful lot over the years, despite massive changes in society,

In 1941 38% of those surveyed would have preferred a son with 24% preferring a daughter and 23% saying they weren't sure or it didn't matter. This year, the percentages stand at 40% for a son and 28% for a daughter with 26% of respondents saying that it didn't matter, when asked which gender they would prefer if they could only have one child.

What's more noticeable are the differences when you break the responses down by gender, political leanings, age and level of education. Conservatives showed a bias towards sons, as did those educated to high school level, compared to liberals and those with a university education, who seemed to value sons and daughters more equally.

For some reason I would have assumed that the older generation would show greater preference for boys, due to generational differences regarding opinions of men and women and their roles in society - yet this wasn't so. It was interesting to see that as the age of those surveyed increased, their bias towards sons actually decreased, with 54% of 18-29 year-olds preferring a son and 22% preferring a daughter, while the figures for the 65+ age group were 31% for a son and 29% for a daughter, with 40% stating they had no preference.

The more noticeable difference is between men and women. 49% of men would prefer a son as opposed to 22% wanting a daughter, while out of the women surveyed, 31% plumped for a son and 33% for a daughter. In men of all ages, the bias towards boys remained pronounced - particularly in the 18-49 age group (54%), while there was very little difference in the gender preference of women in general.

In recent months we've seen a lot of coverage of the favouring of sons and its shocking effects, particularly as it relates to India, where the 2011 census has revealed a serious decline in the number of young girls in the past decade. In one district in the north of the country, the ratio of girls per 1,000 boys under seven now stands at just 774.

The preference for sons has meant that girls are neglected as children, abandoned and left to die, or aborted once their parents find out the sex of their baby - a practice increasingly common among middle class couples who have access to good healthcare. It's estimated that there are 15 million 'missing girls' in India - and 25 million in China.

Everyone is agreed about just how horrific these statistics are and that it's shocking that things are getting worse - so it's intriguing to see how, despite the usual protestation that "Of course we don't mind!", plenty of people clearly do care whether they end up with a son or a daughter - even though it's not particularly socially acceptable to admit it.

While reading some articles about the poll, it was interesting to read the reasoning people gave 'below the line'. As I suspected, a few of the reasons I've heard real-life acquaintances use when discussing babies popped up.

You know the ones - that girls are "little drama queens" and "too hard to handle", that you have to worry about what they'll get up to with boys, about teen pregnancies and paying for weddings and catfights in the playground. Boys are, apparently, "less trouble". Maybe the fact you tend to hear this from younger adults accounts for the difference of opinion which comes with age.

I do wonder whether these are things that people actually do think about - or whether they're just things that people say because everyone says them, much like the oft-repeated criticism of women in general being 'catty' or 'bitchy' or 'high maintenance'. Not being a mother, I haven't yet had to seriously consider it, but I find it hard to believe that so many people really have their potential daughter's potential sexual exploits on the brain while pregnant.

Maybe marked preference of sons as far as men are concerned has some roots in all the old clichés some men trot out about wanting a son to take fishing or to play football with, forgetting, of course, that girls can do that stuff too (I know, right, controversial stuff). Maybe it's about 'carrying on the family name'.

Or is it a sign that deep down, societies still value sons more than they would care to admit - even the ones which would consider themselves far more progressive than countries where the neglect and murder of girl children is a problem? Let's not get too hung up on the results of one small poll, but it definitely makes you wonder.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Micah Taylor's Flickr.

Book review: How To Be A Woman by Caitlin Moran

2011-06-22T11:34:00.004+01:00

Journalist Caitlin Moran's much-anticipated memoir-cum-feminist rant, entitled How To Be A Woman, was published less than a week ago, but the buzz surrounding it has been incredible. I'm calling it "buzz", but some would regard it as controversy because for the feminist camp, it's turning out to be a little bit like Marmite.

I knew it was coming, from the moment I read that little blurb, reminding us of Emily Davidson throwing herself under the King's horse and feminists protesting the Miss World pageant, telling us that this is 2011, sisters - this is the year that "Caitlin Moran rewrites The Female Eunuch from a bar stool". For months now, a lot of people have been reading Caitlin's tweets with excitement and gearing themselves up for the big event.

As a result, many of the comments I've seen online - often from people who haven't actually read the book, choosing instead to pass judgement after reading a newspaper article or two - aren't too positive. Moran's talking about bras and shoes and sex! About what it's like to be a woman today, with her trademark wit and turn of phrase! What a bandwagon-jumper. What a "fun feminist".

Now I'm a fairly humourless, strident wimmin's libber. What's become known as "fun feminism", the sort of dubious twaddle about pretty much everything - heels, strip clubs, capitalism - being great for women and "empowering" and awesome because these days feminism isn't about being a hairy man-hating lesbian, it's about CHOICE - and BEING SEXY, girls, doesn't wash with me. The thing is, it does't wash with Moran, either.

Here, she's written a gloriously funny memoir, but also an exhortation to women to stop falling for the lies the world tells us about what it is to be a woman - and as a result, start having a good time. And because it's a memoir, it's not a book about global women. Or intersectionality. But there's much to be gleaned from reading it all the same - much about the ordinary lives of women who aren't quite feeling the thick academic tomes and wading through theory, but will probably find a hell of a lot of food for thought in this book.

Moran talks us through her adolescence and the milestones we all remember so well - body hair, bras, crushes, bad fashion choices - weaving in her memories of how she found feminism and what it came to mean to her, at the same time encouraging readers to use the term to describe themselves. Let's not see the adjective "strident" as a bad thing, she tells us.

"Feminism has had the same problem that 'political correctness' has had: people keep using the phrase without really knowing what it means."

She looks back on her teens as a time when women were much less visible in the music industry and when she had to put up with appalling sexism in the office - but also remembers the joys of being a young woman in the era of riot grrrl and then Britpop - minimal makeup, clumpy boots and drinking lager as standard, a time when no-one could have predicted what the "Noughties" would bring - the rise of the Pussycat Dolls and Katie Price, the 'WAG' and the return of lapdancing clubs as an acceptable place to be seen on a night out.

If you were thinking that How To Be A Woman is all about the hilarity, it certainly isn't. Moran devotes entire chapters to her experiences of being in an abusive relationship, going through one horrendous experience of childbirth (and another one which was much easier), experiencing a miscarriage and having an abortion.

I don't agree with everything she says. We're agreed that the porn industry represents an enormous and thoroughly unpleasant problem and that a lot of men have simply been conditioned to see us as second-class citizens but I don't think I'm with her as far as pole dancing goes. Or the role of women in history. I don't think it's necessary to always 'be polite' in order to further the strident feminist cause.

What I really do love about this book, though, is the way Moran pulls no punches in identifying exactly what is toxic about our society's treatment of women - and telling us that we should just stop taking notice of it all, laugh at how pathetic it is and refuse to get involved.

Wearing shoes you can't walk in, which leave you in excruciating pain? Saving up hundreds of pounds for that "investment handbag" that the glossies say every woman needs? Wasting time and money removing every last strand of your pubic hair? Obsessing over finding "the one" and judging women's decisions about having children? Buying magazines which make you feel uncomfortable, with their relentless speculation about celebrity women, weight and cosmetic surgery? None of it's necessary. It's poisonous - and I think too many people in Moran's position are afraid to say this.

As she says, we're conditioned to believe that being content and comfortable in our own skin is not quite right - we're supposed to be that little bit neurotic, worrying about dating and weight loss and wrinkles and aspiring to be princesses or someone's muse or indeed, anything but ordinary. But isn't being an ordinary woman who's happy with herself, in control of her mind, her body and her destiny more important than all that? I'd say so.

"Because if all of the stories in this book add up to one single revelation, it is this: to just...not really give a shit about all that stuff. To not care about all those supposed 'problems' of being a woman. To refuse to see them as problems at all. Yes - when I had my massive feminist awakening, the action it provoked in me was...a big shrug," says Moran.

And it's here that I really identify with her, because as the saying goes, the truth will set you free.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz.

Flash-in-the-pan feminism: back to normal for the media?

2011-06-21T11:52:00.005+01:00

At the beginning of the year, when I wrote a feature on the way feminism was portrayed in the media last year for The F Word, I wondered what the media would do with its coverage of our activism and concerns in 2011. In 2010, the publication of several books and the prominence of certain issues forced newspapers and magazines to take a closer look at the movement, interview some of its more well-known names and faces and concede that yes, the end of the 'Noughties' had seen the 'return of feminism'.

Things were going well, I thought. Some things were getting a bit more coverage - the impact of the cuts on women, FGM, trafficking, International Women's Day, the diversity of the movement. The backlash was still the same, but that was to be expected. However I think we're increasingly seeing the situation, yet again, where the movement is being defined not by its diversity and its engagement with so many different issues affecting society, but by whatever seems provocative, gets broadcasters talking about sex and gives the impression that we're interested in little more than policing other women's lives.

Take the coverage of Slutwalks. Before the march in London a week and a half ago, the papers were full of debate about what this 'new' kind of activism (never mind about Reclaim the Night, right?) means for women. On and on it went, focusing mainly on the clothing choices of women who had taken part in earlier marches (such as the one in Toronto) and on the connotations of the word 'slut'. There was comparatively little discussion of the main aim of the march and when it was mentioned, it was never long before people weighed in with their opinions that 'If you left your valuables lying around they would get stolen, if you know what I mean'.

Now despite supporting its overall aim, I think there are some really valid criticisms of the Slutwalk movement, whether we're talking about white privilege, unexamined power dynamics or reclaiming a word which has never been positive. What valid criticism isn't is 'Is this what feminism is nowadays - campaigning for the right to act like sluts?'

Unfortunately, due to the media obsession with the attire and quotes of individuals, this is what happened. And when thousands of men and women took to the streets of London on June 11th, marched through the capital and had a thoroughly positive and inspiring day, where was the coverage we'd seen in the weeks leading up to it? Well, it wasn't particularly evident. Because musing on women's clothing choices and judgmental opinion pieces about the silliness of young women today is more newsworthy than whatever happened on the actual day of the march and the rousing speeches given at the rally.

"It's become very confused," said one commentator, talking about the aims of the movement. Personally I don't think people would have been half as confused about the issues Slutwalks hope to address if the mainstream media hadn't insisted on twisting them in the hope of a good argument or two, reports of 'catfights' and a chance to snigger at the women involved. I watched a segment about the London march on BBC Breakfast where any discussion about rape was immediately derailed as the presenters attempted to tie the 'clothing' issue in with everyone's latest obsession, 'sexualisation' - and ended up with a debate on what sort of clothing was 'appropriate' for parents to allow their teenage daughters to wear out of the house. It was frustrating to say the least.

The problem with the 'sexualisation' issue is that it's getting focus for the wrong reasons. As I said last week, people are incredibly keen to point out its nefarious effects, newspapers are running stories about it so they can show yet more screenshots of Rihanna videos and tut about kids doing pole dancing classes - but they're not offering solutions or taking a long hard look at the way they portray women. The helpful suggestions of people who don't go along with this futile performance of horror are largely ignored outside of the blogosphere - that is until someone like Charlie Brooker says something about it.

And then there's Playboy. You want a prime example of the trivialization and misinterpretation of feminist activism? This is it. No longer a protest against the way Hugh Hefner runs his business and his treatment of women over the years, Eff Off Hef! became, at the hands of the tabloids, an outdated protest by prudish 'bunny boilers' against the women who work at the club, their right to do whatever job they please and the fact that they're attractive. We saw several opinion pieces outraged at these bitter women, these humourless hags seeking to take away real, liberated women's rights to be sexy and do whatever they want.

In the wake of these distortions, manufactured drama and straw feminists, come the articles telling feminists to stop being so silly, ladies - and concentrate on the feminist issues which really matter. The economy. Poverty. Violence against women. Said Victoria Coren in the Guardian last weekend:

"Mostly, I am sad that feminism is suddenly all about clothing. Maybe that's the answer to what I find rum, what makes me suspicious: it feels like just another way to chat about fashion. The only piece of clothing which is relevant for modern feminists to debate – the only one with a complex argument, counter-argument and serious social implications either way – is the burqa. Shorts, bras, bunny ears? Meh, leave that to Sex and the City. None of it matters. None of it means anything."

All that's happening in the world of feminist activism this year isn't a 'way to chat about fashion'. Or at least it wasn't until the media started focusing on a couple of issues above all else, insinuating therefore that they represent the extent of the women's movement. Giving column inches to the other issues, yes, but putting them nearer the back of the paper or hidden away on the website because they can't be accompanied by pictures of women in 'provocative' clothing and debates about sex. It's because of this that those critical articles are full of straw feminists, it's because of this that people want to know why we have to hear yet another discussion about skimpy clothes and vajazzling on a news programme.

It's because every other issue is being pushed off the agenda and the result, as ever, is people being dismissive about feminism, no matter how well women acquit themselves when they go on the radio or on television to talk about Slutwalks or the Playboy Club, the reaction from many remains dismissive. We're being pigeonholed with increasing frequency by media outlets which should know better, while so much dedicated work and activism goes ignored.

Photo via Ben Ponton's Flickr

What may become a weekly round-up

2011-06-20T12:17:00.004+01:00

Bad Reputation - BadRep goes Slutwalking

'Personal stories told by all kinds of people, but all pointing to the same conclusion. Rape happens to people regardless of what they are wearing. Rapists, not those who are raped, and certainly not the clothes of those who are raped, are to blame.'

The Independent - Brian Haw was the conscience of a nation grown quiescent

'Over time, Brian has been proven wholly right. It's pretty obvious to everyone now that we went to war on a lie. In many ways he was the guilty conscience of all the complacent, lazy people who hadn't taken a stand or examined their views at all. I think people often felt threatened by that.'

The F Word - Women's erasure from women's memorials

'The monument to the women of World War II, in contrast, commemorates 'women', but carefully avoids portraying any actual, physical women - only their empty suits of clothes. I'm aware of only one statue for a woman war hero of World War II, Violette Szabo GC, and the monument on which her bust sits actually commemorates Winston Churchill's Special Operations Executive, which organised agents working across enemy lines. So her face does not stand for herself, for Violette, but for the countless anonymous agents of Churchill's 'Secret Army'.'

Lesley's Blog - Women in the Episcopate - A Response

'I’m tired of being perceived as ‘a problem’. I simply want to get on with what I’m called to. God has called me to be a priest and I believe he is calling some of the women in my generation to be bishops. I dare to believe that the Church of England needs us. No one has asked what might happen if the three thousand women clergy in the Church of England were to decide that ‘enough is enough’, and move to another province where their ministry is welcome. No one has contemplated the effect of a further ‘rejection’ of their orders on those without whom the Church simply could not now function. Women clergy don’t wish to hold the Church to ransom: but they also don’t want to be taken for granted.'

Nothing Special - The Guardian catches up...almost

'The mainstream press, and especially those journalists who wish to criticise or gain an insight into the tabloid newspapers, would do well to read blogs like Tabloid Watch, Minority Thought and the others listed in my Links Sidebar. This is yet another example of mainstream journalism lagging behind the blogosphere in important discussions.'

Guardian - Harriet Harman: 'You can't leave equality to the Tories'

'Does she think the coalition is anti-women? "No, it is anti-public services and anti-public spending, but the fact that women are hardest hit is something they just don't notice. Basically they have no idea of women's lives and the impact on them of these cuts. They are not gender aware."'

Huffington Post - Looking Through the Bushes: The Disappearance of Pubic Hair

'Educated women must increasingly submit to the sexual demands of a shrinking pool of suitable men for whom the bedroom is one of the last domains outside of a football stadium where men can be men. And reciprocally for women, it is increasingly only their bodies that set them apart. Bodily hair masculinizes them, so hairlessness becomes a way to hold on to the feminine. Clean is acceptable code for pretty, like the smooth cheeks on their faces. Clean is a form of historical forgetting.'

The Daily Beast - OMG! Women's Sites Need to Grow Up

'With such tickle-me-hormonal content online, it makes one wonder, where is the content for women who want the equivalent of GQ, with sharp articles about powerful women and fascinating trend stories, written by writers as good as Tom Wolfe or Joan Didion? Where are the fashion spreads that make you feel aspirational, not inadequate? Must everything be shot through with a shade of red or pink? And does everything have to end with an exclamation point?'

Bust - The Backlash of Girly Culture and Online Media

'Maybe I’m just the kind of person who likes cute designs, excitement, exclamation points, and joyful reading material, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want solid writing nor do I want to be talked to like a little girl. I don’t think liking cute things and being talked down to go hand in hand. Super girly culture and smart writing are not mutually exclusive in my opinion. I’m pretty sure I can like kittens and rainbows and still be a feminist.'

Racialicious - Who is the black Zooey Deschanel?

'The wide-eyed, girlish, take-care-of-me characters that Deschanel inhabits on film are not open to many women of color, particularly black women. We can be strong women, aggressive women, promiscuous women…we can do Bonet bohemian and Earth Mother (as Andrea pointed out), but never carefree and childish. Even black girls are too often viewed as worldly women and not innocents.'

Guardian - Afghanistan worst place in the world for women, but India in top five (includes links to indepth reports and interactive info)

'High maternal mortality rates, limited access to doctors and a "near total lack of economic rights" render Afghanistan such a threat to its female inhabitants. "Continuing conflict, Nato airstrikes and cultural practices combine to make Afghanistan a very dangerous place for women," said Antonella Notari, head of Women Change Makers, a group that supports women social entrepreneurs around the world.'

Men, Women and the Bible

2011-06-16T19:12:00.005+01:00

Yesterday I was privileged to attend the Men, Women and the Bible day conference put on by the Sophia Network. Last autumn I undertook Sophia's eight-week theology course on gender in the Bible and having gained so much from it, it was great to see the course finally published as a resource, as well as getting the chance to network, listen to wisdom from three wonderful speakers and just have the opportunity to think so hard about the issues surrounding gender, scripture and the church.

The three teaching sessions - Maggi Dawn on hermeneutics, Howard Worsley on why a theology of gender matters and Lis Goddard on how to engage effectively with those who disagree with us - were very useful in that they gave us plenty of starting points for research, recommended reading and things to consider - in the hope, of course, that we would go away and do plenty of work of our own. There was discussion of particular verses and interpretations and we even had time to have a bit of a chat about privilege. It was so good to discuss the 'dos and don'ts' of debate. As one of those strident wimmin I am a bit confrontational - although I think the same could be said for most people when debating something they're passionate about - so it was interesting to get some food for thought on engaging in a Christlike way.

Overall the day underlined for me just how passionate I am about these issues and how important it is to me to see an egalitarian interpretation of scripture and ministry - or 'restored mutuality' as Lis called it - worked out in a way that can benefit Christian women and enable them to fulfill their true calling, using their unique gifts, in side-by-side partnership with men. An interpretation that takes into account the fact that a hyper-masculine image of God and scripture means that both women and men suffer and are limited. I believe passionately in a Creation/Fall narrative which depicts mutuality, partnership without hierarchy and that we should not live our lives according to the results of the Fall, but strive to emulate pre-Fall male-female relationships.

In an open discussion panel at the end of the day, both panelists and delegates raised incredibly important issues. Over the past couple of years we've heard so much about the 'feminization of the church'. Just type that phrase into a search engine and you'll come across scores of blog posts and articles lamenting what has been happening to Christianity, resulting in men leaving the church in droves, but off by the way it seems to be female-orientated. But Lis said something interesting yesterday. She said that the truth is that the group of people leaving the church fastest and in the greatest numbers are women in their 20s and 30s. And they are leaving because they're disillusioned with church life, confused about what God has for them and burned by being brushed aside.

Let's think about this. Church should be for everyone. But a major challenge for a lot of churches is actually catering to everyone. Women my age are often poorly served in churches where opportunities for women to make friends, get together and grow spiritually frequently come in the form of mum and baby groups, or women's prayer and study groups held on weekdays during working hours. In recent years there has been a big focus on getting men together, hence the breakfasts and curry nights and men's days we see a lot of. And these are good. I do feel that they often rely too heavily on promoting a very stereotypical 'manliness' which is more of today's world than anything and the same could be said for plenty of women's days which focus not just on teaching and worship but also on 'pampering' and eating 'treats'.

It's not always possible to cater to everyone with these sort of events, particularly in small churches with limited resources, but there is a real need to help women find community, a way to serve and a way to develop their gifts. They must not feel that they need to find a husband or have children in order to fit in. They must not become discouraged because they have been told they can't serve in the way they feel called to - perhaps in a position of authority. They must not leave meetings in tears because they've been told they can't speak or make a decision because they are female. They must not feel that it's always right to instantly defer to what men in the church want to do.

They must feel confident in working together with men as a team which works well, not one which is beset by power struggles and dismissive attitudes. And they must feel that if they are worried about one of these things, they can talk to someone about it without being told that it's not important, that egalitarians aren't proper Christians, that gender isn't an issue and that there is no room to discuss it, particularly when this is being said by a man who will not know what it's like to be told that he must limit what he can do for God according to his gender.

Why do I feel this needs underlining? I am part to a church where women are built up, encouraged and given many opportunities to 'do' Christianity the 'mutuality' way, whether that's on a Sunday morning or at home with their husbands. But this is not the case for so many of my sisters. From some churches and groups of churches has come a 'push' towards a more hardline approach to women in ministry and I know for a fact that it is causing hurt and affecting peoples' relationship with God. As I said earlier, this hardline approach doesn't just impact women in a negative way. The stereotypes, the limiting lifestyles it imposes on everyone are not of God and will not, I believe, lead to a fulfilled life.

I can't stand by and watch with an aching heart while high profile Christian leaders say publicly that they would not take a book on scripture written by a woman seriously and while women's concerns are ignored. It creeps in subtly like this, but at the same time we have people believing that God created all women to be subordinate to all men and others using scripture to justify abuse.

So this is me, beginning to take a stand.

The battle against 'sexualisation': what next?

2011-06-15T23:03:00.004+01:00

So it's just over a week since the publication of the controversial Bailey Review, the independent review carried out in an attempt to address that buzzword of our times, 'sexualisation' - and how it affects children and teens.

The report, carried out by Reg Bailey, Chief Executive of the Mother's Union under the banner 'Letting Children Be Children', has issued a series of recommendations to businesses, advertisers and the media after finding that some parents are concerned about the way their children are exposed to 'inappropriate' messages and 'sexualised' imagery.

It comes after many months of discussion surrounding the concept of 'sexualisation', and the effect it may be having on young people, but how much of an impact is it going to have - and how useful are its findings?

One of the issues I've had with the outcry against 'sexualisation' is that a lot of it seems to be about expressing shock and disgust at high heels for little girls, or Rihanna's dance moves on primetime television, or Bratz dolls - but that's as far as it gets.

Every few days you'll come across an 'Ooh, isn't this awful! Think of the children!' story in a tabloid newspaper, or a programme like Channel 4's Stop Pimping Our Kids will feature a presenter showing passers-by on the street miniature miniskirts or thongs. The passers-by will look shocked, talk about how they wouldn't want their daughters wearing clothes like that and the presenter will nod triumphantly.

But what has it actually achieved? Very little, so far. What I see is a lot of people very happy to moralise about the state of the world today but far fewer people showing an interest in the issues behind the problems they see.

In the days following the report's publication I read some really insightful blog posts and articles from people talking about looking past 'sexualisation' - this word which is fast becoming meaningless - and at the expectations surrounding sex and relationships, commercialisation and obsession with money which is fueling the issues detailed in the Bailey Review.

"The problem is not the sexualisation of childhood, but the commercialisation of sexuality," wrote Symon Hill for Ekklesia.

Suzanne Moore, writing in the Guardian, accused the review of telling us nothing we already knew and providing no evidence to back up its claims.

"What is needed then is not some weird repression of sexuality or of young people, but of a rapacious capitalism that commodifies every desire and yes, will sell sex to children," she said.

There's also been criticism of the snobbery implicit in the furore, with some commenting that the government are only taking steps to placate middle-class parents and care little about anyone else.

My major problem with those clutching at their pearls about 'sexualisation' is that they often offer little in the way of criticism of what our culture expects of women in general.

They get upset at children being sold padded bras and heels or wanting to be 'sexy', but say nothing of the fact this is pretty much expected of adult women - the role models girls emulate. They talk of little girls looking and acting like 'tarts' and 'sluts' without a second thought at what that says about sexism in our society and gender stereotyping.

As Holly Dustin said, also in the Guardian, our culture:

"...reinforces stereotypes of women and girls as sexual objects who are sexually available to men and boys and sends strong messages about what it means to be a man or a woman."

The Bailey Review has recommended such solutions as getting retailers to sign up to a code of practice stating they will not sell 'inappropriate' clothes, covering up sexualised images on magazines and restricting the types of advertising which can be displayed near schools and playgrounds.

But these are recommendations and voluntary measures rather than new laws. One newspaper report last week suggested that the media industry is taking a 'relaxed' view of the review and that there is relief that measures will not be enforced.

There's been talk of tighter controls on what gets shown on television early in the evening, but all in all the media has reverted back to the usual outrage about children's beauty parlours and pole dancing classes for three-year-olds.

All at the same time, of course, as running the usual dearth of stories about celebrity starlets, models and hot royals 'showing off' their 'stunning' legs/curves/bikini bodies and posing for 'steamy' photoshoots. On the front pages of their newspapers or with large photos on their websites.

Want a comprehensive unpacking and discussion of the issues surrounding the Bailey Review and 'sexualisation', without the media spin? Sex educator Dr Petra Boynton has done a great job over at her blog.

Post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via natalialove's Flickr.

Top 10 Christian blogs...in the world?

2011-06-13T09:20:00.003+01:00

Interesting to see that New Statesman's The Staggers has published a list of Top Ten Christian Blogs. If we're being picky, one (The Twurch of England) is a Twitter aggregator rather than a blog, but as the piece says - "The list is not exhaustive, but gives a flavour of what sort of online resources are out there for the global Christian community".

I like the fact that there's a bit of diversity in the list. They're not all blogs that I would necessarily read (mentioning no names) but it's nice to see an inclusive round-up focusing on more than one denomination or viewpoint, as can often be the case when our media looks at Christianity - which means you could often be forgiven for thinking that just three groups of Christians exist - the Church of England, Catholics and fundamentalists - and that there isn't much more to our lives and beliefs than infighting and intolerance.

Which are your 'best Christian blogs'? Some of my favourites are listed in my sidebar.

Image via viclic's Flickr

Street harassment on a sunny Saturday

2011-06-11T18:47:00.006+01:00

Unless you've been living under a rock recently, you'll probably be aware that today was the day the Slutwalkers hit London with their anti-victim blaming message about sexual violence. I wasn't able to go. Here's what happened to me today instead:

It occured as I got off the bus on one of the busiest streets in Peterborough city centre. As I started to walk away from the bus stop, a man walked towards me. As he walked past, he barged up against me, moving his hand on my inner thigh. Then he carried on walking.

I turned and shouted; he turned round and looked me up and down, smirking. I stood as he walked off down the street - he looked back at me a couple of times as he went over to talk to another man. I realised my hands were shaking as I took my phone from my bag. I was enraged, but couldn't figure out what to do. In the end I left it too late - I walked in the direction he had gone, planning to confront him, but he was nowhere to be seen.

I decided to take a trip into town because it was a nice day and I had nothing to do this afternoon. It was supposed to be enjoyable. Now I don't like having my personal space invaded even in the most innocuous of ways. The city centre was packed and as a result I spent the next couple of hours feeling incredibly anxious and angry every time someone came near me. I was cross with myself for not going after him, for taking a photo of him, for doing something more.

I shouldn't have had to be made to feel like this, but this is what happens when some men think they have the right to harass other people in the street. When they feel entitled to touch people and intimidate them and afterwards, smirk and saunter off. When they feel fine about treating women with such little respect.

The message of today's march in London was that the way someone dresses is irrelevant to the way they are treated by those who rape, assault, harass and abuse. One woman carried a placard saying: "I was wearing jeans and a jumper". One marched in a wedding dress, raising awareness that abusers can be husbands too. The harassment today happened while I was wearing somewhat baggy trousers and a cardigan. This isn't the first time I've been a victim of street harassment and I'm sure it won't be the last. It has happened when I've been in heels and office attire, when I've been in gym gear.

As the website of anti-street harassment movement Hollaback states:

"Sexual harassment is a gateway crime that creates a cultural environment that makes gender-based violence OK."

It's not a compliment. It's not a 'fact of life'. It's not a case of 'boys will be boys'. It's beyond unacceptable and it disgusts me.

In somewhat related news, when I heard the news that Andrew Bridgen MP has been arrested on suspicion of sexual assault, the first thing I thought was "here we go again...". We don't know an awful lot about the details of what happened and so obviously no-one is in any position to pass judgement as yet. Whether or not the Daily Mail is in any position to pass judgement is, as usual, completely irrelevant to what it decides to do about stories like this.

Why did I think "here we go again..."? From the Mail today: Woman who says Tory MP assaulted her was 'drunkenly flirting with other men' (don't worry, it's an istyosty link). In the story, we learn that:

"The 29-year-old former political aide was seen chatting to a number of different men..."

"...onlookers told the Mail that his accuser was inebriated and in high spirits when she talked to Mr Bridgen..."

"After closing time, the pair and the second man went back to Mr Bridgen’s flat in Westminster to discuss politics..."

- by which we infer that the Mail is determined to discredit the woman's allegation, based on other aspects of her behaviour that night. I knew there was something slightly odd about the fact that they'd published a couple of weirdly supportive anti-victim blaming pieces related to Slutwalk recently. I knew it couldn't last. No mention of her clothes, but they felt it was important to publish a story talking about the accuser's 'flirting' with 'different men' and 'drinking' in a way which clearly shows this should make us doubt her claim. It's predictable fodder from one of the most misogynist newspapers around but disappointing nevertheless.

Links of interest:

- UK Anti Street Harassment Campaign
- Stop Street Harassment
- This Is Not An Invitation To Rape Me

Things worth paying attention to this week

2011-06-09T12:23:00.003+01:00

Rachel Held Evans - The trouble with litmus tests

"I apply litmus tests to my fellow Christians because, for about five seconds, they make me feel better about my own decisions and beliefs. After those five seconds have passed, however, it becomes painfully obvious that my efforts at “fruit inspection” or “doctrinal correctness” are being seriously hampered by the massive log stuck in my eye."

From me on BitchBuzz - Help celebrate Emmeline Pankhurst's birthday

"This year, Manchester-based artist Charlotte Newson will be celebrating the birthday of the political activist, founder of the Women's Social and Political Union and feminist heroine with a special collaborative project."

National Geographic - Child Brides

"Child marriage spans continents, language, religion, caste. In India the girls will typically be attached to boys four or five years older; in Yemen, Afghanistan, and other countries with high early marriage rates, the husbands may be young men or middle-aged widowers or abductors who rape first and claim their victims as wives afterward, as is the practice in certain regions of Ethiopia."

Ekklesia - Britain's young people - sexualised, radicalised or patronised?

"Instead, consumerism promotes a narrow idea of what sexuality is all about. This is an image of sexuality that says a lot about money and little about love. Assumptions about what is acceptable have more to do with social convention than with compassion, consent or mutuality. The problem is not the sexualisation of childhood, but the commercialisation of sexuality."

Christian New Media Awards & Conference 2011 - Nominations are now open

Independent - How the right-wing press lost interest in Gabrielle Brown

"It’s a terrible thing to be cynical, but one could easily come away with the impression that these newspapers were only interested in Ms Browne’s opinions so long as they fitted with their own reactionary agenda on criminal justice."

Sarah Ditum for Comment is Free - To protect girls, women must have rights

"Sex-selection stories in the UK (when there isn't a urgent medical motive, like a hereditary sex-specific disease) tend to hinge on a parent's burning desire to have a child they can either kick a football at or cover in pink frills – reasoning that makes gender into a frivolous add-on in the quest to assemble a perfect family. But in the parts of the world that practise widespread sex-selective abortion, having a baby with the "wrong" genitals can be devastating."

Kathy Escobar - "Auntie Kathy, are you sure it’s not wrong for you to be a pastor?"

"You see, the 'we don’t really value your voice' message goes far beyond just whether or not women preach or teach. It’s the subtle ways women don’t have equal power, leadership, value, or voice, where entire generations of misogyny are built upon a few passages of scripture and the liberating message of Jesus gets lost."

Petition - Stop the deportation of Betty Tibakawa

"Betty Tibakawa has had her asylum application turned down and is facing deportation back to Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal. Gay women who are deported to Uganda risk being raped and assaulted whilst they are in custody. We are petitioning the Home Office to overrule this decision from the UK Border Agency, to give Betty the chance to live a life free from violence and fear. No one should be deported to country where they will be persecuted for their sexuality. We owe those seeking asylum in this country better than this."

One Off Productions - It began with name calling (scroll down for parts 1 through 5)

"I have a friend called Etta. She is a Holocaust survivor. It has taken her many years to be able to talk about her experiences. Now she does. She believes that she has to. To try and prevent Holocausts. She does it in memory of those she lost to the gas chambers and all those who she saw die. She does not want to let them down. Recently she learned of the EDL. She asked me if I would help her write this. This was her idea. It is the hardest thing that I have ever written. The bold is a simple version of horror that has happened. The rest are comments that have come from the Face Book pages of the EDL."

Gender Across Borders - "Boys will be boys" - and other language which rigidifies our conceptions of masculinity

"Unsurprisingly, women-centered idioms and expressions tend to be derogatory, as is the case with ‘run like a girl.’ This is, once again, an expression that is used to remind boys that in order to be real boys, they must at all costs avoid behavior that might be perceived as feminine."

More Than Toast - I am NOT a mumpreneur

"I don’t need to be congratulated or patronised. I thrive on juggling all my balls and I get so much more out of life and my daughter because of it. I understand my view is in the extreme and may touch a nerve with some, but to me the term ‘Mumpreneur’ is condescending, patronising and outdated."

Discouragement and wisdom from @feministhulk

2011-06-01T16:04:00.007+01:00

Just recently posts from me (and thoughts in general via Twitter etc) have been a bit thin on the ground. Much of the time this is down to life getting in the way of writing but over the past few weeks I've been experiencing motivation issues.

Motivation issues of the sort which happen when despite all the things you have to be positive about, the inspiring books you've been reading, the upcoming conferences you're really excited about attending and the events you can't make but are still really pleased are happening, things just get you down.

Those times when people you know discover the little corners of the internet dedicated to being viciously unpleasant about them because of the activism they do. Those times when it seems like everything is destined to end in call-outs and privilege olympics at the expense of anything productive. And when each day seems to bring a new wave of hatred and drama, often from below the line on a news story so you can't even be bothered to read comment threads any more.

For me it started with 'the Slutwalk debate' and the fact that so very few people seemed to be looking past the misinformation and the media hype and that word, whatever conclusion they ended up coming to, until it was even happening among the people hoping to attend the marches. It continued through discussions over Nadine Dorries and something called 'sexualisation' and ended up with rape apologist after rape apologist after rape apologist and arguments about Ken Clarke and Roger Helmer and Dominique Strauss-Kahn. The news has been full of it to the extent that someone only has to mention it and you hear people on public transport or in the office saying: "The real problem is all these women who ruin decent men's lives".

That's before you get to the rest of the world and the stories about virginity tests in Egypt and rising sex selective abortions in India, trafficking in Nigeria and access to women's health services being used as a way of political point-scoring in the USA - more reasons this fight needs to continue.

You start to wonder what the point of wading in might be because you know that as soon as you say something, someone will pipe up with a smug comment about 'hysteria' or 'rational discussion'. They'll make smirking asides about 'moralising' or 'jealousy' or 'catfights' or 'choice' because groups of people have decided to speak out against Girls Gone Wild or the Playboy Club coming back to London. But back to 'hysteria' and 'rational discussion' for a moment. You know that the minute you talk about anything from personal experience or try to relate the stories of individuals or - God forbid - show emotion in the form of anger or outrage at injustice those who just want to silence you and belittle you will pounce on it. You silly, irrational, emotional woman. They'll either pounce or you or they'll pounce on the people you're talking about and trying to defend.

"You're talking about the experience of a handful of people. Where's your evidence that it's widespread? You could be making all this up!"

"You're just overreacting."

"I'm sure your intentions are honourable but the fact is, these women just bring it on themselves."

In an introduction to her 1969 essay 'The Personal is Political', Carole Hanisch said:

“...they belittled us no end for trying to bring our so-called 'personal problems' into the political arena.”

That was 1969 and when you look at things from that angle we haven't come a long way, baby. The personal experience and anger at injustice and oppression which motivates much of the activism we're seeing, the blog posts and the things we say on Twitter shouldn't have to make us targets for the sort of people who only want to silence, intimidate and patronize.

That's why I've had some motivation issues in recent weeks and why, over the past couple of days, I've had to keep reminding myself that the fight is worth it and although I may not feel the urge to wade in with whatever I feel needs to be said in the form of a blog post or a 140-character smackdown, that doesn't mean the same as 'giving up'. Sometimes it's just called 'having a break'. You know these people are always going to be there but wearing yourself out engaging with the hatred isn't always helpful or productive.

Let's remember the recent and very wise words of our esteemed friend @feministhulk: FEELING OVERWHELMED NOT A SIGN OF FAILURE. FEELING OVERWHELMED A SIGN OF HOW IMPORTANT THE FIGHT IS. KEEP ON SMASHING!

Edit: and it's not just @feministhulk, I feel like I should maybe be quoting Samwise Gamgee in the epic motion picture Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers when he says:

"I know now folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding on to something...That there's some good in the world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for."

Check that out.

Nigella and the feminist act of baking

2011-06-01T10:26:00.002+01:00

So Nigella Lawson says that 'baking is a feminist act'. Speaking at the Hay Literary Festival on Sunday, the author, television presenter and go-to reference for the (not-so) 'new domesticity' told of the importance of celebrating the most traditionally feminine of culinary arts in an age where the blokey celebrity chef is king.

It's now over a decade since the publication of 'How to Be A Domestic Goddess', Nigella's book about baking and comfort food - and her first television show, Nigella Bites, which means that it's almost as long that journalists, social commentators and assorted navel-gazers have been musing on whether or not she symbolizes the 'ultimate woman' and whether we should aspire to have her body - and not forgetting, of course, the big question of how we 'should' be feeling about domesticity.

The beginning of Nigella's reign as queen of indulgent cooking saw cakes emerging as something fashionable as opposed to mere sustenance. Fast forward past the end of the Noughties and I don't think anyone, least of all me, wants to see another earnest feature using the phrases 'recessionista', 'cupcakes as a lifestyle choice' and '50s housewife nostalgia'. Which is why I'm going to shut up about that already.

I do, however, think that all this is part of the point that Nigella was trying to make when she said, of 'How To Be A Domestic Goddess':

"I think it's a very important feminist tract in its own right, and I'm not being entirely ironic. Baking is the less applauded of the cooking arts, whereas restaurants are a male province to be celebrated. There's something intrinsically misogynistic about decrying a tradition because it has always been female."

Nigella has had a great deal of success with her books and her broadcasting, but as she says, it's the more male-orientated areas of culinary skill which are seen as important and world-changing. Restaurants staffed by drama-loving men who cause scandal and tabloid intrigue. Foodie television shows and the careers, family life and social action projects of well-loved manly role-models like Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

It may now be socially acceptable for men to be into cooking, but it's still more likely for them to exercise their culinary skill for special occasions, barbecues and big 'show-off' meals while women often solider on with 'day to day' cooking, family meals and the sort of stuff that foodies couldn't care less about. And, of course, baking. Coverage of baking in recent years has tended to focus on it as 'on-trend', a bourgeois 'lifestyle choice' or the way overprivileged 'yummy mummies' engage in one-upmanship at the school fete.

I think we're all familiar with the denigration of activities and attributes considered 'traditionally female' - hence the sneering tone when some people say 'women's work' and the ultimate insult of acting or being 'like a girl'. So Nigella's absolutely right when she talks about the misogyny of criticizing 'traditional' cooking. What she's saying is "Go on - reclaim baking - take it back from those who see you as a 'silly woman' for enjoying it".

This isn't a new concept and over the years it's been applied to not just baking, but also activities like knitting and pretty much every other form of crafting, sticking two fingers up not only at those who see them as of lesser importance than 'masculine' pursuits, but also at right-wingers who spend half their lives bemoaning the way us feminists hate traditionally feminine hobbies and attributes as well as men, children, bras and fun.

The ways we spend out lives, whether that's in the office or climbing the corporate ladder or cleaning or childrearing, absolutely should be equally valued. It's about respecting those things which in the past have been devalued and derided - yes, even in the 'golden age' before the 1960s. Remember all those adverts for appliances and products which were 'so simple - even a woman can use it'?

I think the last time I baked a cake was at the age of 13 when it was required of me for Home Ec class, so maybe I am the archetypal right-winger's nightmare (no babies yet, puts off doing the ironing as long as possible). But that's not to say I think it's a pointlessly silly exercise and I definitely agree with chef and chocolatier Lagusta Yearwood when she says that Nigella's right:

"The great gift feminism can give to the mainstream world is precisely this: that the qualities we associate almost exclusively with women will, if allowed to flourish and given adequate respect, vastly improve society across all levels."

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via dklimke's Flickr.

Book review - The Liberating Truth: How Jesus Empowers Women

2011-05-23T21:48:00.005+01:00

"It's time to listen to Jesus..."

"In our churches, let's challenge the structures that are based on faulty translations and poor exegesis..."

"Let's celebrate the true concept and reality of marriage..."

"Let's change our mind about the things that limit God's work in us..."

"Let's demand the fair treatment of women and girls around the globe..."

The Liberating Truth continually exhorts us to do something about injustice.

Danielle Strickland's new book, which focuses on why the church should work to combat gender inequality - and how it can do this - comes with glowing recommendations from well-known faces representing Tearfund, Soul Survivor, Stop the Traffik and Spring Harvest among others. But does it live up to the hype?

Actually, it does. It's a slim volume and as someone who likes really in-depth analysis I wondered just how much it would communicate about something which is such a major issue, a divisive issue, a painful issue. The impact of the book is strengthened by how straightforward its message is. It's divided into two sections - the first exploring the problems caused by gender inequality and the different ways this is manifested, whether that means poverty, stifling marriages, male-dominated religion, prostitution and trafficking, negative stereotyping or violence against women and girls. The second lays out a Biblical response, looking at the so-called 'difficult' passages of scripture and encouraging an egalitarian approach to gender issues and a call to Christians to stand up and speak out against the oppression of women as well as a commitment to encouraging readers not to limit what women can do.

Being a woman who's gifted in an area of leadership can be incredibly difficult, as songwriter and worship leader Vicky Beeching tells in her foreword to the book. She writes of leading worship at a meeting then being asked to leave the room immediately afterwards - because the (male) attendees felt her gender should bar her from sitting in on a 'leadership' event. Vicky was shocked and upset. She writes of how she's felt hen working with churches which don't allow women to teach, preach or lead, saying:

"Some people don't ever feel aware of their gender in relation to their calling, but I can say I've felt extremely aware of it in all the twelve years I've been in ministry."

This is a key point. It's not something which everyone will feel bothered about, because they might not have the inclination and the calling. But this doesn't mean that it's a non-issue. Vicky mentions the "many women across the globe" who have poured out their hearts to her about struggling with being treated like second-class citizens within God's family. This is an issue for everyone. It's an issue which Jesus Himself confronted head-on. Rather than ignoring those groups which chose to oppress and branding them as extremists, or 'just culturally different', He worked in opposition to them to challenge societal convention.

Danielle kicks off her first chapter with a few musings on one of my least-favourite aspects of Western Christian culture: the books and resources which tell us that all Christian women long to be a pretty princess with a Prince Charming to complete their life, focusing on appearance, on strict gender roles and stereotypes as the be-all and end-all of being a Christian woman. She feels the same way as me - that in the real world, we are all different and neither men nor women have to fit into restrictive stereotypes.

"So this book is a celebration of the diversity of God's calling to all people," she writes.

One of the things I loved about The Liberating Truth was the number of times a line just jumped off the page and impacted me, usually just through its simplicity and truth. Danielle tackles what gender inequality looks like across the world today, making it exactly clear how she feels about what you'll see lampooned as 'fun feminism' or 'empowerfulment' in the blogosphere, what I feel when I think about how materialism and exploitation have become tied up with the notion of 'empowerment' in a late capitalist nightmare.

"The problem is that no matter how you dress up oppression, it will never lead to freedom."

Danielle pulls no punches She addresses the enormous and also incredibly difficult issue of domestic violence and abuse within the church - and the irresponsible and dangerous answers women seeking help are often given. She expounds on prostitution and the 'Nordic model' before moving into discussion of the acceptance of patriarchy, subservience and oppression in the church, drawing on the example of Catherine Booth as a pioneer of egalitarianism and calling readers to 'finish what she started', giving women the freedom to pursue God's best for them, whether that means preaching, teaching, leading, stepping out, fighting injustice or making changes in their marriages.

But what's the reasoning behind this? Danielle starts with one of the most important things you should know and one of the most important things which has impacted me as a woman and also as a wife. The story of creation in Genesis and its lack of hierarchical order, contrasted with the effects of the Fall and its obvious deviation from God's design for relationships. The precedent this sets for God's view of gender equality.

And she urges us to question the way we see and talk about relationships and marriages in today's world - where one person must always be 'in control', 'wearing the trousers', 'under the thumb', 'having the final word' and 'emotionally blackmailing'. To focus on relationships as they were meant to be, not on how they came to be.

"The real point is not that there is no difference, but that there is no equality distinction and no limitation in using our gifts..."

Danielle admits that there is a lot of confusion in the church about gender issues and that many people aren't sure what to think; they hear reactionary responses or cultural tradition being held up as Biblical truth and as a result women are existing with their potential being limited by their gender. In the second half of the book, she addresses common areas of scriptural confusion in a really helpful and enlightening way, drawing on the work of theologians such as Gilbert Bilezikian and N T Wright and emphasizing the focus on 'oneness in Christ' in the New Testament while tackling difficult issues such as Paul on women in the church, the 'Junia question', headship doctrine and that troublesome verb - 'authentein'.

These chapters went over much of what I already feel is important about Jesus and his relationships with women, but are a valuable resource and also really made me think about certain passages in a way I hadn't before - the focus on men having to have certain credentials in order to lead, which put me in mind of the way people often question the validity of a woman in a position of power within the church as if it's something to worry about, while paying little attention to the credentials of men in leadership, sometimes until it's too late.

The significance of Jesus's appearing first to Mary Magdalene and commanding her to inform his other disciples of what had happened is discussed at length and I found this fantastic and definite food for thought. This at a time when a woman's testimony was not permitted as evidence in either a Roman or Jewish court of law.

"Mary's commission was not limited to 'women's ministry'..."

As part of her final chapter focusing on scripture, Danielle discusses marriage and the oft-repeated fallacy that problems within marriages are simply down to a refusal on either the part of the man or the woman to accept their specific 'role' in the relationship. She issues a call to readers to consider the impact of an egalitarian approach to marriage, how freeing it could be and how much it could reflect what God is like to both the church community and 'the world'. This is vital. I know from first-hand experience the freedom she's talking about and I loved her final words on the subject - that through this the world might see past the negative stereotypes of Christian marriages.

"...they'll see a sacrificial and loving empowerment. A love that wants the best for each other, regardless of cultural norms."

The Liberating Truth is truth for everyone. It's powerful and affecting yet concise and straightforward. And I think it offers a lot of answers to the difficult issues affecting at least 50% - and more if you take into account the reports of a female-dominated church - of Christians in some way, difficult issues which have hurt many and are continuing to cause pain.

Nadine Dorries, abstinence and abuse

2011-05-19T13:03:00.001+01:00

She's known for being the politician who's teamed up with self-described religious fundamentalists and used fabricated statistics to push her completely anti-choice agenda. She's had very public fall-outs with bloggers and threatened journalists. She's the woman who admitted, when questioned about her expenses and second home, that:

"My blog is 70 per cent fiction and 30 per cent fact. I rely heavily on poetic licence and frequently replace one place name/event/fact with another."

No wonder it's been said that she's Britain's answer to Sarah Palin. I'm talking, of course, about the car crash that is Nadine Dorries, MP for Mid Bedfordshire, who's hitting the headlines afresh this month - not because of friendships with fundamentalists and bust-ups with bloggers, but because of her latest agenda: abstinence education.

Earlier this month Dorries proposed a bill which would mean girls - and only girls - between the ages of 13 and 16 would receive abstinence education. Somewhat worryingly, despite being founded on yet more fabricated information it passed its first reading.

As those of you well-versed in the major issues surrounding teaching of abstinence-only sex education in the US will know, the attitudes involved in this sort of 'education' need to be combated. I think we all agree that it did major damage in the years it was implemented Stateside and although Dorries isn't advocating an abstinence-only approach, the hallmarks are all there. Only teaching girls about it, for a start. Saying things like:

"Girls are taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no to a boyfriend who insists on sexual relations."

It's plain to see that her approach to young people and sex is incredibly one-sided, as well as that she seems to be ignoring the fact that teens are already most definitely taught that it's okay to 'say no' and that they definitely should if they have any doubts about the situation.

This week, however, Dorries has gone one step further. Appearing as a guest on Channel 5's The Vanessa Show on Monday, host Vanessa Feltz suggested that teaching children they can 'say no' already happens and that it already happens in an appropriate and sensitive way. The MP replied:

"Well do you know that’s really interesting because...if a stronger just say no message was given to children in school that there might be an impact on sex abuse."

Not content with putting the onus completely on girls to take responsibility for sexual activity, she now appears to be saying they should also be taking responsibility to prevent being abused.

Immediately and understandably, there was uproar. Supporting abstinence-based sex ed is one thing, blaming girls for being abused because they should have "just said no" is another. She moved on to linking the whole thing with high street shops selling bikinis to seven-year-olds and 11-year-olds learning the facts of life.

I don't really want people like Nadine Dorries dictating how things get done in this country. In addition to the list of embarrassments surrounding her, we now know she's the sort of person who holds these really quite damaging views about sexual abuse, its victims and its perpetrators. The idea that young people should be able to prevent sexual abuse from happening simply by saying "no" is ignorant. It's an attack on people who might already feel very much at fault for what happened to them and it lets abusers off the hook.

Since she made these comments I've seen tweets and posts from survivors of abuse, appalled at her insinuation that "saying no" could have stopped it from happening, that their abusers would have listened or that they were at fault for "letting" it happen. Posts like this one at Nightmares & Boners, entitled "Nadine Dorries Thinks I Was Asking For It", where Vanessa tells her own personal story and says:

"To say I am insulted that someone would insinuate that I caused my own abuse is an understatement. But this isn’t just about me, this is about everyone who isn’t able to live with the memory of what happened to them. It’s about children who even now are being abused and being blamed for their abuse: by their parents, by their abusers, by Nadine Dorries."

Vanessa ends by encouraging people to contact Dorries and express their feelings about her remarks and I think that's a good idea. It probably won't make her change her mind; she seems fairly set on promoting her unpleasant agenda no matter what. But maybe it'll give her food for thought.

At present, when she's criticised, she doesn't take it well. A recent interview in the Sunday Times had her ranting about those who don't agree with her, saying she "makes no apologies" for being sexist and lashing out at her critics on Twitter, calling the site a "sewer" full of "Trots" and the "socialist elite".

It's probably asking far too much to expect anything resembling an apology. But we can make more people aware that people like her are in government and they're out to cause nothing but damage.

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via Juliette Culver's Flickr.