What may become a weekly round-up

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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.