'You can't be what you can't see' - or why gender parity at conferences matters

In 2011, Jennifer Siebel Newsom's documentary Miss Representation captured the imagination of those who are passionate about seeing girls and women reach their full potential. Despite the advances made in recent decades, women are still subject to messages from society that tell them their worth lies in how they look, assigning them a narrow set of priorities and limiting their horizons. That year, the motto "You can't be what you can't see" was everywhere. As I wrote at the time:

"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'." 

In recent months I've had cause to look back at my diaries from years gone by, and what has struck me more than anything else is the sense of alienation that I felt from the church as a young woman who didn't feel like she conformed to the popular stereotype of 'Biblical womanhood'. When I finally found women 'like me', particularly women who I could see doing the things that I felt I was gifted to do, I knew that they were my people. They were mentors and cheerleaders and role models for women like me, and they gave me hope that contrary to the impression I'd been given, there was a place for me in the church.

At the end of 2013, I was involved in the initial conversations that grew into what is now known as Project 3:28. These conversations were inspired by the discussions about that year's The Nines conference, which began with a tweet from Rachel Held Evans: "More than 100 speakers and four of them are women. This is not what the church looks like." We wanted to take a look at the UK Christian conference scene and see if we'd fared any better than The Nines. In our first year of analysing conference line-ups, we found that although it's claimed 66% of churchgoers in the UK are women, they make up just 34% of speakers at conferences.

Last week, we released the statistics from 2014's conferences, and it was encouraging to note that several organisations had been encouraged to think about gender parity in their line-ups that year. The report, once again, prompted plenty of conversations. There has been news coverage, and there have been blog posts. Some people think that the report is a terrible waste of money (hint: it didn't really cost anything at all), and others have argued that it's obvious that women are underrepresented - why should we need a report to tell us that? I would argue that a report was needed because it has spurred people into action. It has recognised the efforts of organisations trying to be inclusive, and in giving people the figures, it underlines the extent of the issue. The vaguely negative accusations levelled at those of us involved in the project have been interesting and frustrating, not least because they're no different from the stock responses that those passionate about gender and the church have to deal with every time they stick their heads over the parapet.

Nobody's saying that we should prioritise a 50:50 ratio of speakers over gifting, knowledge, and experience. 

What we're simply saying is that the gifting, knowledge and experience of the body of Christ is often not reflected in who gets to speak, who gets to lead, and who gets to be considered an authority.

Yes, women sometimes have different styles of leadership to men. And they often make different life choices due to lack of confidence. 

But as Miss Representation told us, you can't be what you can't see. I speak from personal experience when I say that many of us who are underrepresented in leadership benefit from having people like us to model it for us before we can believe it's something we can do, something that would be possible. That doesn't just go for women and the church - we're talking about all minorities here, in all areas of life. If women aren't stepping up to speak at conferences right now, that's not to say things can't change if they start to see a better way modelled.

Women are mothers. And?

Some of the women who have been the greatest influence on me in recent years are mothers. And they're doing what they're doing despite being mothers. It's my firm belief that mothers who are called to lead can do so with the right support, whether that's more equally shared parenting or conferences and organisations being considerate of their needs and helping out with childcare, or enabling them to bring along another adult to watch the children while the preach happens. It is simply not true that the secular feminist movement, the Christian feminist and egalitarian movements and conferences with a commitment to gender parity have little interest in promoting a more equal approach to parenting. It's one of the keys to women realising their full potential, And we must continue to advocate for it.

If women feel that their children take priority over ministry and career, so be it. That's their prerogative. But it's not the whole story. To say this is the case for the majority of women is incorrect - and it casts a disapproving eye on women who feel otherwise: women like me, and so many other women I know, who don't feel that a few hours of evening preparation and a day spent at an event means our children are worth less than profile and accolades.

Lack of gender equality isn't the problem. Conferences and high profile speakers are the problem, apparently. 

All that scoffing at Christian events and 'well known speakers' and snide little 'ughs' at the very idea of desiring to hold a leadership position or stand on a platform or teach people looks a little bit suspect when it's coming from people who are the leaders and the speakers and the high profile names, by which I mean white men - sorry, but that's exactly who I mean. It's all right for you, isn't it? You can scoff, and talk about how Christian culture needs to change, but come conference season everyone on the line-ups will look a bit like you, sound a bit like you - and they'll probably include some of your friends as well.

Project 3:28 didn't spring up when a bunch of people in thrall to the idea of helping women to become 'big names' and 'Christian celebrities' decided to try to make it happen. We'd all agree that a culture of Christian celebrity and waiting for conference season for a yearly spiritual high at the expense of the local church, of building relationships and grassroots organisation is inadvisable and can be toxic. But at the same time, we know that events and conferences are important to many. People go to them in order to be fed, to be inspired, and to grow in their relationship with God. We all need a balance - and while we know that Christian culture can be problematic, there's no reason we should seek to model gender justice in this very visible sphere.

How is making women more like men the answer to inequality?

Let's get one thing straight: appealing to the 'why should we squeeze women into a male mould?' school of thought doesn't wash. If you think the 'masculine flavour' of church leadership and speaking is a problem, why seek to uphold the status quo and fob us off by pretending we're better off out of it? Let's challenge inequality together, not by keeping men and women in separate spheres. Change the 'flavour'. if women lead and speak in different ways, let them do it.

What about [insert issue here]? Isn't that far more important? 

Maybe it is. But gender justice is my thing and I'm going to stick to it, for all the women who have ever felt they can't be the person they want to be because they can't see anyone like them paving the way.

Feminist t-shirts, call-outs and commodification

At the beginning of the year I made a resolution of sorts, to distance myself from the sort of feminism that only actually mentions a feminist campaign or organisation when it's tearing it down. There's nothing wrong with critique and highlighting issues within reason, but by the end of last year I'd become thoroughly bored with performative call-outs as a primary form of engagement. This has had its plus points: for one thing I haven't had to spend most of my precious little free time telling everyone how I'm not here for this sort of feminism and not here for her brand of feminism, thanks very much. And one debate I haven't had to wade into recently has been the one surrounding ELLE's next step on its mission to bring a reinvigorated feminism to the readers of glossy magazines. 

It is definitely a good few years since I first wrote about my discomfort with the commodified 'trendy feminism' campaigns that women's magazines have run, with varying degrees of enthusiasm and commitment, in the last five years or so. Here's one disclaimer: I do appreciate ELLE's commitment to focusing on women's issues in recent years; they've managed to do it better than other women's magazines (putting aside that whole thing with the 'rebrand' of feminism. But I get it. I know they can't exactly take a crap on consumerism; I'm just not going to say I'm comfortable with it). But I haven't been able to force myself to care all that much about the magazine's new partnership with Whistles and the Fawcett Society and, it seems, various attractive famous men (another disclaimer: I own an original Fawcett Society 'This is what a feminist looks like' t-shirt, as I've supported its work for the last eight years). 

It's nothing we haven't been through before. Feminist merchandise at £45 a time (£85 if you want a sweatshirt), unavailable any bigger than a size 16. The publicity opportunities for politicians and celebrities and the 'outrage' that David Cameron wouldn't wear one. We know that there are some redeeming factors - well-known public figures at least claiming to support gender equality; exposure to people who might not otherwise think very much about feminism or think it's something they can be a part of. If it changes anyone's life and makes them a feminist or somewhere, somehow, improves a woman's life, then, I will concede, fair enough. In the spirit of the times, online news outlets have shown us image galleries of people wearing these t-shirts and proclaimed that Benedict Cumberbatch being our ally 'is everything'. So far, so predictable.

Things took an interesting turn on Saturday night, when Twitter got wind of the Mail on Sunday's front-page exposé of exploitative conditions in the factory where the t-shirts have been made. One worker is quoted as saying: ‘How can this T-shirt be a symbol of feminism? These politicians say that they support equality for all, but we are not equal.’ The Fawcett Society was absolutely on the ball with crisis management and quick to issue a statement saying it had been assured by Whistles that the factory producing the t-shirts complied with the highest ethical, sustainable and environmental standards possible. I don't doubt that this was a key consideration for Fawcett, and as we've seen, Whistles and ELLE have subsequently issued statements to the same effect. Ensuring standards are met isn't always easy and the garment industry is a minefield in this respect.

Much has been said about the credentials of all involved in the campaign and in the Mail on Sunday's exposé. Politicians taking part in publicity stunts - how much do they know about how their clothes are made? The investigative journalism tearing down a very public feminist campaign, published by a newspaper with absolutely no previous form for supporting gender equality or migrant workers. What I haven't been able to get behind, though, is the smug trashing of Fawcett, ELLE, and anyone who's supported their campaign and bought a t-shirt. It's a sad state of affairs when the first sign of interest in either ethical working conditions or marginalised women from the Mail comes at the expense of feminism, and the glee with which the whole thing has been reported needs nothing but contempt. What it doesn't need is to be held up, alongside the screengrabbed tweets of Fawcett supporters and well-known names, as 'everything that is wrong with feminism', a stick to beat the same old women about the same old things in the same tedious fashion. Nobody wins.

ELLE and Whistles have received a trashing, despite their best intentions. The Fawcett Society has, as far as I've seen, gained some support for its professional handling of the situation - yet has clearly still received a trashing. The Mail on Sunday has jumped at the opportunity to take part in the same tedious progressive/left/feminism-bashing they've been doing for years. And I'm betting it won't devote much time to covering exploitation of women and migrant workers overseas in the future, because clickbait misogyny and xenophobia will always be much higher on its agenda. Women working in factories in Mauritius are still working in the same conditions. The garment industry won't get an overhaul any time soon - and certainly not thanks to the sort of people on Twitter who, as ever, will keep on posting screenshots of Things Well-Known Feminist Campaigners Have Said and devoting hours at a time to sneering at them. Politicians will continue to display a dubious grasp of what 'improving women's lives' means. No-one will ever mistake David Cameron for a feminist.

So: no victories. Feminism got commodified, celebrities got column inches, activists got called out, and the majority of women in the UK remained completely untouched by whatever it was trying to achieve. Good job, everyone. I'm continuing to support the Fawcett Society because I believe it is a real force for good. I genuinely hope that this whole situation is resolved for the best and that all involved are able to make it clear that they did their utmost to ensure ethical production. But if awareness-raising initiatives can't make a break with consumerism and celebrity PR opportunities, then I can't help thinking that we'll see something similar happen again. The co-option of feminist activism into profits for t-shirt manufacturers has been much discussed in the wake of #YesAllWomen and more recently, FCKH8's 'Potty-mouthed princesses' video. Women in the movement can't prevent this sort of thing from happening, but campaigners can be smarter about how they hope to engage women with feminism.

On equality and power: a post about a post

This is a post about a post. It is unfortunate; as combative blogging is somewhat looked down upon by much of the Christian blogosphere these days. But if this post makes people disappointed, or saddened, so be it, because there are things that need to be said.

Alastair Roberts has been writing a lot about gender, power and equality recently. I respect Alastair and what he brings to the table, even though I don't agree with many of his conclusions on these particular subjects. He's absolutely right to point out that a narrow definition of feminism based on a shallow sort of 'equality' that favours the privileged - 'equality', for example, that cares a great deal about getting more women in boardrooms but little for women on the breadline. But in saying that "there is an implicit class opposition within equality feminism that is seldom adequately addressed", he is wrong. While it may be seldom addressed by the mainstream media, the examination of liberal feminism and what it offers (or doesn't offer) to the majority of women is a key topic of discussion within the movement and has been for years.

Movement women are very aware of the fact that the idea of "equality" has not so much advanced the lives of all women so much as the lives of a privileged few. At Greenbelt festival last weekend I spoke on feminist activism and made a point of talking about this very problem, highlighting it not as a reason for feminists to be discouraged and dismiss the idea that the movement could have something to offer all women, but as a reason to work for greater inclusion, giving space to the voices of the marginalised.

Yesterday, some of Alastair's comments on equality and power were reposted by Andrew Wilson at the Think Theology blog. The debate that ensued encouraged me to write this, because of how incredibly disappointing I found it that Alastair's words were posted with very little context in what looks very much like complementarian point-scoring to me. What can be taken from the post is a description of the feminist movement as focused on equality of outcome above all with value on the most the privileged, when society could do with more focus on, as described:

"...robust and accessible universal healthcare, better maternity leave and more provision and flexibility for part time workers, equitable wages, secure jobs for their husbands and partners, a strengthening of marriage culture, the deepening and enriching of local community life and its groups and institutions, a society that is more mother and child friendly, action and stigma against domestic abuse and such things as street harassment..."

I don't think that anyone could argue that society could benefit from increased focus on achieving these goals, which is why feminists have been working towards them for decades. And if these things could be more successfully achieved without the banner of feminism to hold them back, I'd be interested to know where the pushback, where the actual work on these issues is coming from outside the movement at present? Is the example being set by the complementarian gatekeepers? Walk the walk on gender issues if you believe it's important; without succumbing to benevolent sexism; without denying women the place to speak from their own experience.

I realise that might be difficult, if you're generally in agreement with statements such as:

"...the entrance of women into new spheres has often led to a weakening of the social power of those spheres, as women are often more vulnerable and easily exploited..." 

and

"In Scripture, this priestly role is often associated not merely with men, but with ‘alpha’ men. The Church is strengthened as a body when it is led by persons with steel backbones, principles, and nerves, persons that can withstand others in more confrontational situations." 

It helps no-one when men's reactions to the absolutely justified pushback against such statements is described as "emotive", "all the shouting", and "brouhaha". Egalitarian and feminist women and their allies as pawns while the gatekeepers believe they're above such displays of emotion and subjectivity. As I mentioned to someone on Twitter earlier today, I do not wish for the experiences of individuals to be paramount at all times and at all costs, but yesterday's post was a prime example of when the experiences and intepretations of individual women are important - women for whom this is not theoretical; women for whom this is their life, their calling, their gifting. While complementarian gatekeepers discuss their theories about what we're good for and what we're allowed to do in closed circles and echo chambers, women are representing more than half of the church, leading, pioneering, keeping on keeping on. And they're doing it regardless of whether these gatekeepers believe a church with women in leadership is an "increasingly impotent institution".

They're also well aware that the majority of Christian women don't aspire to be bishops. When I helped found the Christian Feminist Network, we agreed that one of our aims would be to take the conversation on Christianity and feminism beyond women in church leadership and women bishops, not because we believe it's not important but because we believe Christian feminism is for the mothers, the grandmothers, the CEOs and the entrepreneurs, the women on the breadline and the women who have been abused and the women who don't want to lead from the front but support from alongside. If people like Andrew Wilson were more willing to dialogue with us then they'd know that. But I'm not sure that the activities of grassroots women's groups figure much inside the echo chamber.

Yesterday's post, with its out-of-context remarks on caring more about the marginalised, "alpha male" leadership and the reasons why women are supposedly unsuited for certain roles was published at an inappropriate time, with the scandal of child abuse in Rotherham making headlines. The scandal of child abuse - an appalling misuse of power carried out on vulnerable young people and ignored by powerful men. An inappropriate time, too, as the saga of noted alpha male Mark Driscoll continues and the sagas of abuse of power by patriarchal church leaders - Bill Gothard, Doug Phillips, pastors involved with Sovereign Grace Ministries - continue to make headlines in the USA. Those who want to uphold the dignity and equality of women without the banner of feminism would do well to walk the walk regarding these incidents. And yet, so often, what we see instead are calls for "grace", or indeed, complete silence, as the echo chamber of privileged and powerful men with little personal interest in those they so enjoy theorising about  - remains immutable.

Talk to us. Listen to us. It's a year now since I made the decision to stop justifying myself to anyone in the name of egalitarianism and feminism, so if that's what you want, look elsewhere. But don't attempt to portray a political movement as irredeemably blinkered to suit your own ends, then act surprised when people aren't happy.

Read more:

Equality is not always about numbers - Jenny Baker

#FaithFeminisms - Where we've come from vs where we must go

Reading so many stories of women coming to find their feminism alongside, or as part of, their faith this week made me realise the details of how it happened for me had become slightly hazy. I've told people the tale so often now: I went to university as a lifelong Anglican who'd never been taught a single thing about gender and religion, but also as one who had also started identifying as evangelical. In the following years, I slowly began to learn that some people didn't believe women could be church leaders, and that they also believed in rigid gender roles. I struggled to feel as if I fit in at church, feeling as if people wanted to cram my personality into a box marked 'Biblical femininity' and do away with all the bits that made me who I was. I'd started to pick up the messages from leafing through books and from coming across blogs aimed at Christian women. Even though I'd grown up far removed from the US evangelical culture of the time, it was starting to affect my life. When I got engaged, more than one person told my husband-to-be that they didn't think I was right for him and advised him to reconsider. I was the young woman who was Too Much, with the wrong sort of upbringing and the wrong sort of ambitions.

What I'd forgotten over the years is how much this hurt. These days I tend to consider myself quite privileged to have come to faith and grown up outside the sort of Christian culture that has caused so much pain to so many. Looking back at my Livejournal (yes, my Livejournal) from the time it's filled with accounts of news stories I found that worried me intensely: The Silver Ring Thing trying to raise its profile in the UK; people I knew starting to talk approvingly about Mark Driscoll; conservative blogs on 'Biblical womanhood' that named as 'selfish', among other things, working outside the home, eating disorders, and 'giving in to PMT'. I worried about what would be expected of me as a married woman, and I didn't know what to do. I knew something wasn't right, but I worried that the problem was me. In 2007 I was writing about asking God to show me where the problem lay. Was I displeasing Him? Was I, as ever, Not Good Enough?

Enter my discovery of egalitarianism, and I know many of you know where that led me. Reading back into my story today has reminded me not to forget the place I came from. Yesterday, I told someone how strongly I feel that as a community of women, as Christians and feminists we must tell our stories, but also move past the incessant going over of those 'moment of realisation' posts, the posts about how yes, indeed, faith and feminism are compatible. They give us warm fuzzy feelings but do they move us forwards? I remember today the women who will be reading through the #FaithFeminisms posts this week with a growing sense of excitement and a sense of sisterhood, the feeling that they're not alone and the problem isn't theirs to 'get over'. I was there once, and then everything changed.

For the rest of us though, when we've been here a while we can be tempted to get tired of it all. At a time when discussions about the feminist movement often seem to be centred on its 'toxic nature', an incessant cycle of call-outs, fall-outs, and the drawing of lines in the sand, it's easy to hold up our hands and step back. Are these our people after all? Aren't they, well, a bit angry? But if we disengage and seek solace in the safety of our own privileges, of evangelical subculture and its respectability, I don't believe we'll be the women we're called to be. It's easy to take the 'I'm all right' route, stay content in our progressive crowd and forget about all those for whom things are very much not all right. Even as more progressive voices make themselves heard, there's still an emphasis on watching our tone, being careful not to be 'divisive' and being careful not to upset conservatives or men. Often, it seems as if the message is: you'll never win them over unless you play it safe and play nice and make sure that men get to take centre stage too. 

I believe what we're called to do instead is bring the very best aspects of our faith to the feminist table. Foster understanding, demonstrate love, and stand against injustice. Demonstrate true sisterhood. Don't be tempted by performative social justice activism that prioritises call-outs, ideological purity, and ejecting people from the fold over recognising people's humanity and discussing problematic behaviour in a productive way. We feel saddened by the performative gatekeeping of Christianity, with its 'farewells' and smackdowns. Let our feminism not fall prey to the same problems. This week I've seen people better known by the mainstream movement and from outside the movement altogether exclaim how open and welcoming they've found #FaithFeminisms. I've always found this to be the case and I hope they're values we hold on to.

I've met some of the very best people I know thanks to being a young woman with an internet connection and a lot of thoughts and feelings about faith and feminism. At the beginning, it seemed that patriarchal Christianity had the monopoly on the popular books and the websites I was seeing and the messages I was getting. Today, women I am proud to call my friends have published books on egalitarianism and feminism. I've been involved in networks of women working together and supporting each other as we navigate what it means to practice faith and feminism. I'm a founder member of one of them. I'm involved in a group that's trying to get another one off the ground. Once we felt silenced, now there is a definite voice that has the power to speak to the church and to the secular feminist movement. And we can build on this by coming alongside each other and doing what, as Christians, we're supposed to work at doing best: creating real and productive community - those that support, those that organise, those that lead - no longer voices in the wilderness but a movement for change.

This post is part of #FaithFeminisms week. Do read the amazing posts that have been written by other women.

Rereading the second wave - Susan Brownmiller

“I can attest that in New York City during the late sixties and early seventies, nothing was more exciting, or more intellectually stimulating, than to sit in a room with a bunch of women who were working to uncover their collective truths.”

My contribution to the New Statesman's series on rereading second wave feminism in the light of the so-called 'fourth wave' was published last week. It's now a couple of months since I read Susan Brownmiller's In Our Time - her memoir of the women's liberation movement, spanning the late 1960s to the middle of the 1980s - and felt that it has much to offer today's activists on the subject of conflict and infighting - particularly those who have, in the last couple of years, felt alienated from the movement and 'put off' by the very fact that feminists don't seem to agree on a lot of things and spend a fair amount of time getting angry about it. 

The number of pieces written and time spent talking about 'call-out culture', 'toxic feminism', or whatever we're currently calling 'feminists publicly disagreeing about stuff' means that it can become the sole focus for many people. It's sometimes cited as the main problem with today's feminist movement, a 21st century phenomenon. But while the internet has added a new dimension to activist infighting, In Our Time reminds us that the struggles - who has power, who should speak for the movement, what it means when women achieve a public profile and platform, and which issues should be our main focus - have existed for decades, and that our aim should be to work through them rather than letting them define us, becoming the obstacle that cannot be overcome and the sticking point that stops women participating. In Our Time is a fantastic memoir of the achievements of the second wave of feminism and the way its activists brought issues into the public consciousness for the very first time. Times may have changed, but there is much to inspire us and much we can learn from.

"Brownmiller came to see these disagreements and denouncements as par for the course in the women’s movement. “You have to believe that the Sturm und Drang are worth it,” she writes - and it seems she did, very much so, until the last gasps of the second wave in the 1980s. Weakened by the ‘pornography wars’, the decade’s family values-obsessed mentality and economic necessity of getting a job and ‘settling down’, with the women’s bookshops, the feminist press and utopian dreams in decline, the movement’s militancy petered out. In Our Time’s challenge for feminists today is to encourage us to keep the balance – effecting change despite robust disagreement. The aim of feminism should not be the creation of a synthetic sisterhood focused on little more than affirmation and making women feel good about every choice they make. Neither should it be the constant assumption of bad faith on the part of women who are still learning, doing the best they can, and sometimes getting it wrong – the idea that trashing other women is progress."

Read the full essay

Image: John Olson, from here

What you should have read recently

Ann Lovett: Silence that will never be broken - Caroline O’Doherty 

"Everyone wanted to know how a girl from a family of nine siblings in a town of barely a 1,000 people could have carried a baby to term without anyone finding out, if indeed her pregnancy was the secret the community claimed it to be.

Questions were asked about what kind of society made a bright girl feel unable to ask for help or undeserving of support at what must have been the most frightening time of her life."

The politics of black hair - Emma Dabiri  

"It can feel pretty frustrating that white supremacy has bequeathed a legacy in which, for many black women, simply wearing our hair in its own natural state can become a complex and politicised act. At the same time - despite the connection between said supremacy and the relationship that many black women have to our hair - most white people demonstrate absolutely no idea about the everyday maintenance of Afro hair, let alone its politics."

Woman-hating by any other name - Meghan Murphy

"There’s an air of superiority from those who busily seek to ruin and silence other feminists: “We’re doing it right; she’s doing it wrong.” By pointing our fingers elsewhere we keep ourselves safe from attack. It seems pretty clear, though, which white feminists are using valuable ideas like intersectionality to advance their own careers and gain popularity, without an ounce of interest in movements towards ending oppression and with little understanding of structural inequality."

5 black women in history every egalitarian should know - Gail Wallace

"In a recent study of Black women’s leadership Ngunjiri, Gramby-Sobukwe, and Williams-Gegner note that “early preaching Black women were radical in their commitment to consistent egalitarianism and social justice within the Black church and community as well as society at large” and refer to them as “tempered radicals”... "

What is subversivism? - Julia Serano

"Subversivism is the practice of extolling certain gender and sexual expressions and identities simply because they are unconventional or nonconforming. In the parlance of subversivism, these atypical genders and sexualities are “good” because they “transgress” or “subvert” oppressive binary gender norms. The justification for the practice of subversivism has evolved out of a particular reading (although some would call it a misreading) of the work of various influential queer theorists over the last decade and a half."

No-one leaves or stays in church for the perfect reasons - Ed Cyzewski

"I also needed to read Introverts in the Church and Quiet as a way of explaining my discomfort in church. So much of my church experience had been shaped by the expectations and standards set by extroverts. We were always doing more stuff, meeting more people, attending more events, speaking in front of more people. The introvert in me just couldn’t keep up. Church felt like hard work, sucking the life out of me rather than renewing, strengthening, and, the favorite word of extrovert church leaders, “equipping” me."

Are you being TOO sex-positive? - Be Young & Shut Up

"Sex positivity is well-meaning, and a lot of its practices have helped to make people more comfortable with their sexuality. But its execution is flawed. Many are excluded or harmed by the community’s practices of the philosophy, and even the pure philosophy itself. Its monolithic identity means that if you take issue with sex positivity, you’re the stuffy patriarch enemy. The problems are such that sex-negative feminism has become a legitimate movement that, while it has its own serious problems, is just about as respectful of people’s sexual choices as sex positivity is."

The (possibly incoherent) ramblings of a guilty mum - Littlee & Bean

"Since going back to work I’ve learnt that sometimes I have to let go. I’ve learnt that sometimes it’s enough just to do my best. I’ve learnt that tending to my happiness and sanity is important. And I’ve learnt that immersing myself in the world that exists beyond the periphery of my motherhood experience, is key to my family’s happiness. I’m grateful that most of the time work keeps me sane."

A quick and dirty intro to black British feminism - Vimbai Dzimwasha

"However, after watching that amazing conversation between bell hooks and Melissa Harris Perry, I realised I desperately needed to find a feminism that reflected my specific experiences of being a black woman in Britain and navigating through issues of ‘black identity’, ‘black womanhood’, dual cultural identity among other issues. Black British Feminism."

What you should have read this week

I'm reviving my weekly-ish round-up of things worth reading!

 

Black Women and The 41st Anniversary of Roe v. Wade: Thoughts About Reproductive Justice - Gradient Lair

"While some women are fighting not to conceive children—which matters—others are fighting to able to, to not be sterilized, to not be shamed and abused during pregnancy, to not live in poverty with that child and to not worry about State interference and oppression no matter what the choice may be. Whether Black women need abortion or need support for entering motherhood, both choices are valid and both need deliverance from the impact of White supremacist capitalist patriarchy on Black womanhood and Black motherhood."

I didn't fully understand what it means to be pro-choice ... until I decided not to have an abortion - Sarah Ditum

"I thought about the decision that was mine to make. And surprisingly, solidly, I realised what I would do: I would have this baby. At the time, I didn't know that there is a critical difference between unplanned and unwanted. At the time, I would barely have described myself as “wanting” children. I had never felt that cooing hunger which teenage girls called "broodiness", the longing to put their arms around a baby – even when small, I preferred reading to playing with dolls. And I will never feel the ravenous grief that older women call broodiness, either, the anguish of love with no object. But I did want a child, and specifically I wanted a child with the man I was with. It was ten years premature, but this was that child."

Not caring isn’t caring more: Lord Rennard, Michael White and feminist priorities - Glosswatch

"In the meantime, though, we feminists are stuck with this endless list of reminders from those far cleverer than us. Just in case you’ve forgotten, you shouldn’t worry about banknotes because you should be worrying about Page Three. You shouldn’t worry about Page Three because you should be worrying about every other page of the Sun. You shouldn’t be worrying about the Sun because you should be worrying about the representation of women across the whole of the media. You shouldn’t be worrying about women in the media because you should be worrying about violence against women. You shouldn’t be worrying about violence against women because you should be worrying about FGM."

The glitter and gloss of the faith of my youth - Nish Weiseth

"After I got married and we left Boulder, a deep-seeded cynicism set in, and every little thing about that former church were all things I despised about Christianity. I mean, really, WHO NEEDS A FOG MACHINE AND LASER LIGHTS? But now, working through that cynicism and suspicion, I've come to have a tender place for churches like that. The glossy evangelical megachurch is a part of my story, just as much as the more gritty, hipster, urban church we're in now.

But, more than missing the worship service and the big-church feel, I miss having an answer for everything and having a checklist to live by. I miss the Christianity of my younger years. I miss that chapter of my story, and in some ways, I truly long for it. Being naive was so much easier."

She's All That : 15 years and 5,000 words - Bim Adewunmi

"I first watched She’s All That back in 1999, at the Stratford Picturehouse some weekend after school. I remember loving it, because it hit all the spots it was supposed to: boy and girl got to have each other at the end, and bad guy kind of got his comeuppance, which is as it should be in real life. The 90s – especially in the mid-to-late period – was a significant time for teen movies. It was a golden period, during which the industry enjoyed a purple patch starting around 1995 with Clueless, continuing into 1996 with The Craft, and exploding in a high point of acne, prom and hormone-fug in 1999, which saw the release of 10 Things I Hate About You, Cruel Intentions, Never Been Kissed, Election, American Pie and of course, She’s All That."

Inside Nigeria's ruthless human trafficking mafia - Tobore Ovuorie

"It is on the windy Sunday evening of October 6 that I make my first contact with the outer ring of this mafia. A big party with VIPs is on the cards; the kind of party an ordinary girl, or rather ‘product’, as we are called by traffickers, is not usually invited to. But I am currently on a fortune ride: Oghogho’s favourite. Additionally, I have been classified as ‘Special Forces’, or ‘Forza Speciale’ as my new contacts say, borrowing the Italian term.  It’s a rule of thumb, I understand, that a syndicate subjects girls to classification through a check on their nude bodies and I, too – in the company of some male and female judges, headed by a trafficker called Auntie Precious – had been checked. I had received the highest classification. “This means that you don’t have to walk the streets. You can be an escort for important clients,” Auntie Precious had told me in a soft, congratulatory tone. The ones of ‘lesser’ classification were referred to as Forza Strada, the Road Force."

And finally...

- This week I finished Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie's Americanah. Get on it, if you haven't already.

- C. Jane Kendrick is back on the blogging wagon. Hurrah!

- Sunday 26 January is World Leprosy Day (work-related plug alert). If you don't know much about leprosy now's your chance to find out how it's very much a 21st century disease. Watch the video!

- At the Christian Feminist Network we're organising a day conference that's being held on Saturday 1 March in Manchester. The conference will include presentations, workshops and discussion as well as the chance to network with other Christian feminists. Find out more and sign up.

The return of Spare Rib: here to save a movement?

This week we've heard that journalist Charlotte Raven is relaunching Spare Rib magazine. Reactions so far show that people don't seem too sure about what this means. Some are excited - and with good reason; the idea of a feminist magazine sitting "alongside Cosmo on the newsagent's shelf" is what many have wanted for years. Others are troubled - and queasy - at the idea of a launch event involving George Galloway and Rod Liddle dressed in costume and serving drinks (although it's currently unclear whether or not this is Raven's idea of a joke).

Putting that thought out of our minds for a moment, however, there are a lot of things to look forward to about the promise of a feminist magazine in print. Its tagline, 'Life not lifestyle', is a great nod to the fact that issues affecting women are invariably consigned to the 'lifestyle' sections of newspapers and websites. Its founder is citing Nina Power's One Dimensional Woman as inspiration for what she wants Spare Rib to be.

"SR will revive the spirited and soulful vision of feminism that SR once embodied, not the timid liberal one that dominates the mainstream media," said Raven this week, something that again should be something to look forward to, as long as the magazine doesn't become, like the mainstream media, a place for cliques of privileged friends to write about a narrow range of issues and speak up for each other at the expense of those who are less well-known, causes that are less fashionable, and groups of people who are less privileged.

That's probably something we should be wary of, with talk of the magazine as a 'member's organisation' according privileges to those who can afford to donate more than £100 to the cause, and monthly 'immersive theatre events' open to members only. Of course I'll have to reserve judgment on this point until the magazine gets up and running, but the red flag is there.

Sophie Wilkinson, writing for the Observer today, welcomes Spare Rib's return, but not just because there hasn't been a feminist magazine on the shelves for years. No, it's because it will provide an antidote to 'internet feminism'. In the past year, 'internet feminism' has become a catch-all term for over-the-top drama, Twitter bullying, hounding of journalists, the ostracising of women who aren't the 'right sort', and behaviour that's supposedly putting a whole generation of women off supporting the movement. While you can't deny that drama has occurred, the 'internet feminist' is threatening becoming another strawfeminist, the updated version of the dungaree-clad man-hater wielding a bra and a blowtorch.

Wilkinson describes the internet as a place where "lazy clicks equal approval, retweets supersede debate, feminism is twisting and turning in on itself". She writes about the way the internet, though a force for good that has had a democratising effect, has ultimately led to women being less supportive of each other, of more fractured debate. Spare Rib, she hopes, will save us all from internet feminism, a "guiding light" and voice of reason in a time of "idle clicktivism".

It's sad that in lampooning online activism she's failed to take into account the fact that much of this is related to, or translates into offline action from groups and individuals that have used the internet to come together, share information, and gather support. The internet is a space where we can learn about things that fall outside our life experiences and our comfort zones. It is a place where women who struggle to do much offline activism due to their location or their health or their job or their family circumstances can do something, and this is a point that must never be forgotten or dismissed.

In suggesting that feminism today has little to do with 'genuine activism', Wilkinson sadly ignores everything taking place across the country at grassroots level, the networks and organisations and campaigns, and focuses on Twitter-based so-called 'infighting' as the reason that the magazine will be a breath of fresh air. It's also ridiculous to assume that a more 'reasoned' approach to feminist thought in printed form wouldn't be divisive. The minute Spare Rib is published, people will be poring over it, ready to write and talk about which bits they liked, which bits they hated, which bits they felt were problematic. As someone who read the original said to me this morning, the letters page of the magazine in the 1980s was continually full of argument.

Sometimes it may feel as if circular 'dramas' involving the same 20 people are dominating 21st century feminist discourse, but the actions of countless women everywhere else should demonstrate otherwise. We're going to have to wait to see what Spare Rib will become, but in the meantime it's probably best if we don't position it as the saviour of a movement represented by clicktivism and Vagenda.

Image

Fear not the mythical Evil Twitter Feminist

In recent months people have been discussing the extent to which women who are new to feminism are potentially being "scared off" the movement by more seasoned feminists who are keen to tell them that they're doing it wrong and are, in fact, not feminists at all. The stereotype of the Evil Twitter Feminist has developed over the past year or so - you've probably heard of her. She's a better feminist than everyone else. She's a thought-policing bully who wants to dictate what words you use, is quick to jump to conclusions and quick to trample anyone who disagrees with her about the finer points of gender equality. She just loves declaring who is and who isn't a feminist, and she probably doesn't like you. Sounds a bit...exaggerated, right? That's because it is.

This stereotype has come about following a series of long, involved and drama-filled debates that have played out on blogs and on social media. In general, they've happened because well-known public figures who identify as feminists have said and done things that aren't so great. There have been arguments. There has been flouncing. And as a result, I've seen several people say they're feeling as if feminism's a secret society that they can't join.

All this is supposedly making women feel that they don't have a place in feminism and that if they don't say the right things and have the right knowledge, they'll never be part of some imaginary Special Feminist Club. This is really getting me down, and not for the reasons you'd think.

But as the myth of the Evil Twitter Feminist - henceforth to be known as ETFs - gets perpetuated, as articles are written saying "ETFs make me feel like I'm not part of their exclusive gang" or "ETFs are intimidating and they just seem to fight all the time", I think that people are beginning to believe it. They're beginning to see these feminist mean girls as exactly what's wrong with the movement and exactly why women don't want to get involved with gender equality activism.

I think a bit of perspective is needed here, so have put together some tips in an attempt to stop all these "ETFs don't want me in their crew" mutterings.

Try not to be put off by debate and disagreement

All philosophies and movements are the same. You'll find a range of opinions and from time to time there will be drama. People will argue. When I was a "baby feminist" and started reading feminist blogs, there was a lot of conflict surrounding the issues of porn and sex work - whether you were pro or anti. People were quitting and deleting their blogs; there was a lot of bad feeling. I thought I knew how I felt about the issue, but then I realised there was a lot I didn't know and a lot I didn't understand. I didn't try to wade into the arguments, but I didn't think "This feminism lark's not for me, thanks" either. I read the blog posts. I looked at sites that helped clear up my confusion and knowledge gaps. We are, after all, talking about the internet here - and the internet thrives on conflict. Different schools of thought within a movement are not just "infighting" or "a spat" - it's not a requirement that everyone comes to the same conclusions about every issue.

If you mess up, put things right

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people find this difficult. Particularly, it seems, high profile people. Everyone makes mistakes and often, we don't even realise what we've done. One of the main points to come out of the many feminist Twitterstorms of recent months is that a lot of people use words and phrases that are considered offensive by other groups of people. They get used because they're popular, they're slang, they're just what people say. And then someone calls you out on it and says "I'm not ok with that". When this happens, it's best to apologise, admit you messed up, and move on. Getting defensive and spending several days telling everyone that the racist/sexist/homophobic word you used was soooo not racist/sexist/homophobic and can't people just get off your case and stop trying to police your speech is not the best plan.

Be prepared to look at your heroes with a critical eye and accept that "big names" divide opinion

Let's say you're a big fan of a particular well-known woman. You think she's great and she's really influenced you. Maybe she's even helped ignite your passion for equality. Then you see some other women saying that they're not happy with something she's said or done. Actually, they think she's done something pretty bad. They think she's giving feminism a bad name. Fear not! This does not mean you are a bad feminist. You do not have to turn in your feminist card and slink off, shamed. It's possible to agree with some things a person has said, but realise that they've also said some pretty unfortunate things too. The key, again, is looking into what's going on and learning.

If you have a lot of privilege, listen to those who don't

Privilege. That old chestnut. If you're new to feminism you probably see it being discussed a lot. Where there is drama, there is usually an argument about privilege. This post has some great pointers for engaging with debates surrounding privilege - tips such as "learn to listen", "you aren't bad for having privilege", "it's ok to make mistakes" and "criticism is not hatred". Where a lot of people fall down is going on the defensive because someone has mentioned their opinion on something is coloured by privilege of some sort. It's easy for this to happen. You might think "This person appears to be hating on me for being white/middle-class/straight! I didn't CHOOSE to be this way! They obviously think I'm a bigot and I've done nothing wrong!"

Stop. Don't make it about you. Don't get huffy if they use words you aren't familiar with. Google is your friend. Part of the reason the stereotype of the ETF reacts with such anger to issues like this is because in general, feminists get a bit tired of people refusing to admit that someone might be better placed to talk about something than they are.

Remember why you're doing this

The answer is, of course, because you're passionate about gender equality and want to see it become a reality for everyone. You don't have to have the same areas of interest as all the feminists you know. You don't have to agree with them all or even get on with them all. You can align yourself with other movements and belief systems. You don't have to be out protesting every weekend and signing every petition and blogging about every outrage. Somewhere, you will find community and friendship and the things you feel most moved to act upon. And when you do, it will be awesome.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz, which sadly closed last week after four and a half years of great content and three and a half years of providing me with some wonderful opportunities.

Young motherhood, feminism, and privilege

There's a good piece in the Telegraph this week. Written by Prymface, it discusses women who have children in their teens, the inequalities they have to battle, and how all this relates to today's feminism, which can focus overwhelmingly on taking a path through life that doesn't involve young motherhood. Prymface writes:

"As a society, we spend a lot of time helping those with the most options in their lives to have access to even more choices. When we talk about inequality, we need to look at where we are placing our values and whose values we are adopting."

This is an important point and of course, where privilege comes in. We see it in the focus on getting more women into boardrooms and in the way that media coverage of young feminists - and the activism of young feminists - is often limited to the experiences and concerns of middle-class university students and graduates. This isn't to say that these things aren't important, but it can all be pretty excluding for women who have different priorities and are facing different inequalities and judgement from people.

As a young(er) feminist issues surrounding children and motherhood weren't really on my radar either. I was one of the aforementioned middle-class university students and the big issues for me were objectification, (thin) body politics, rape and sexual assault, the media and advertising. Pretty typical, and it did take a while for my horizons to broaden. It's only been in recent years, as I started to consider becoming a mother, that the battles associated with what a speaker at a conference I once attended referred to, not entirely favourably, as "the mummy track" became apparent to me.

I couldn't find an up-to-date statistic on the percentage of women in the UK who do not have, and will never have children, either by choice or circumstance. One statistic from a few years back put it at around 20%, which indicates that therefore four out of five women do. This should tell us that feminist issues related to motherhood and children are pretty important. I hate Daily Mail-style handwringing that positions joyful motherhood as the ultimate goal of all women as much as the next person, but sometimes I think the inevitable ensuing chorus of "We're not just WOMBS, you know!" misses the point that these are issues that matter to women, whether you, personally, have chosen to have children or not.

I believe that the way we focus on abortion rights can often have the same effect - an emphasis on not having children, excluding those who have chosen otherwise and meaning that the issue of forced abortion as a form of abuse, and abortion as a way out taken by women who would have preferred not to have one but felt they had no choice (feminist issues both) get overlooked. I don't want to be misunderstood on that point - I say it as someone who is pro-choice and has written about it many times, but it ignores the full spectrum of issues.

Considering motherhood and children is hardly something new or revolutionary - free childcare was one of the seven demands of the British Women's Liberation Movement (and of course the cost of childcare remains one of the most important and limiting economic issues affecting women and their working lives). But in today's discussions of giving up careers to stay at home, or the "consequences of delaying motherhood", or  endless dissection of the choices exercised by relatively privileged mothers, the issues affecting young mothers - and by association working class mothers are left untouched.

I wonder, then, what needs to happen to encourage such issues to start appearing on the radar of many feminist activists today.

Equality and the privileged woman

You know what saddens me? Seeing extremely privileged women eagerly registering their disapproval of feminism because they 'don't believe in equality', at the same time as telling everyone how satisfied they are with their loving husbands, wonderful marriages, beautiful children, idyllic home life and charmed existence.

In a bubble where husbands always earn enough for their wives to stay at home, in a bubble of beautiful houses and perfect tableaux of rosy family life some women are free to decry feminism and all it has done for them because they don't have to fight any more. They don't 'believe' in equality because they don't have to, their lives are just fine as they are, thank you very much. It's all too easy to think that 'rights' don't matter when you're not worrying about feeding your kids, or an abusive husband, or getting an education, or fighting oppression in every area of your life. When you don't have to worry about that sort of thing you can easily reduce it all to a matter of biology and say 'well, men and women are biologically different so this means they can NEVER be equal' as if this is the be all and end all, the final word in gender issues.

But this view relies on having a responsible, caring, loving, respectful husband. It relies on good self-image and seeing-yourself-as-God-sees-you and being satisfied with fulfilling a particular role. It relies on having had all the choices you want in life - going to university? Choosing when you want children? Having economic freedom? It's all there. I think some people need to remember that this sort of life isn't a reality for millions of women and this is why we need feminism. Or even if you don't want to call it feminism (and I don't see why not because it's a great word) - a worldview where women are of equal worth and status to men.

You can make all the self-satisfied comments you want about 'angry feminists' and 'I have all the rights I want - that's what matters to me'. Actually I can't let that one go because it is genuinely distressing to think that people feel that way. I know plenty of people do but when we are called to help the last, the least and lost what sort of selfish, insular person lives by that mantra? It's sickening. Every time I encounter a sniffy comment from an affluent white woman saying 'feminism is all about choice - and it's my choice to be anti-feminist' at the same time as extolling the virtues of her perfect husband/children/house/life/cupcakes every part of me screams 'YOU HAVE CHOICE. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVE THAT CHOICE. How about you change places with a woman who DOESN'T and let's see how you feel about equality.'

Middle-class white women standing by and taking advantage of all the privileges feminism has awarded them at the same time as disapproving of 'equality' and seeing it in terms of physical differences is obviously nothing new. We're coming up to International Women's Day and I just wanted to reiterate where I stand on that point because it is SO IMPORTANT.