Yes, I am a feminist

Really interesting article - and a very heartening comments thread (unusually).

What does David Cameron have against vaginas?

Yes, I'm talking to you David Cameron. Because this seems like a new low, even for you. Nobody thinks you're cool for using the word "twat" on national radio. Nor do they think that trying to defend this by having your people whine "twat isn't oficially a swear word" cuts any ice.

Seems like a bit of a mistake to have the leader of a party that's trying to shed its misogynistic image insult a portion of the population using a perjorative word for women's genitalia. Because a lot of intelligent women don't actually think there's anything wrong about our vaginas, that the word twat is a tawdry way to describe them and that using it to insult people makes you, David Cameron, a bit of an arse.

If you were really going for it, you might have used the word "cunt", which at least sounds a bit powerful. As much as I am reclaiming "cunt" for my own use, I wouldn't feel particularly happy hearing a potential leader of our country using it to slag off the electorate (or in fact, any swear word. Including "boob", "wanker", "dick" etc etc. The lesson here seems to be: slagging off
potential voters: EPIC FAIL)

So fuck you David Cameron, and next time you feel the need to be cool, insult your own genitalia. Leave my vagina alone.

First Innings

Today was my first day back at work after the Illness and although I now feel like a zombie (am so tired my face hurts) it wasn't too bad as (a) most people were on holiday and (b) the rest of us spent the morning basically watching the cricket.

It was awesome. More like that please.

Obviously, not quite as good as being *at home* watching the Ashes, but still. Its got to the point where I've even started dreaming about cricket. Even though I know very little about it. Although more than some of my colleagues, which I am secretly proud of.

I just wish that more attention/prestige was given to women's cricket, which England happen to be very good at. You'd barely know that the women were also playing for the Ashes, unless you happened to be interested in it. Women's tennis seems to be getting more of a high profile and I think it's definitely time for women's cricket to follow suit.

I'm trying to find a women's team in/near Oxford that caters for complete beginners/the malcoordinated and it's really difficult. Apparently only men can join sports teams even if they're rubbish. Women have to be almost at a professional standard to even get a look in. While this is the case, it's going to be hard to encourage more women to take the various sports (e.g. cricket or football) ad make women's games more widely followed. It's really disheartening.

Born to ramble

Several thoughts for the day:

(1) Marilyn French passed away over the weekend. An article here. It's so sad. The Women's Room is one of my favourite books - it really means a lot to me.

(2) It is obviously almost summer - the little bats have started flying around the garden again. I love the way they fly - so erratic but at the same time very graceful.

(3) I was secretly hoping someone in my office would get swine flu so I could have a week off work whilst being quarantined. I know this makes me a bad person, but in my defence, I was only hoping they'd get a *mild* case. Obviously, I have now ensured that should a terrible pandemic break out, I will totally be patient zero and die an horrible, lingering death. There'll probably be boils involved. You know, just because.

(4) Annie Lennox is totally awesome.

Is that your mother on the phone?

Early May is the time to celebrate my mother's birthday (for that, unsurprisingly, is when she was born). So, happy birthday Mum! Not that you read this blog, thank goodness. One feature of the event this year was my sister declaring herself to be a feminist. Hurrah! Apparently she got very into gender when researching her dissertation. Her own description of this epiphany was "Damn those men with penises" (men without penises apparently not so bad) but she hastened to point out that this was in a socio-historical context, rather than a straightforward men=teh evils way. Anyway, I'm not going to push her, but I'm pleased and excited that she's discovering feminist thought. Hopefully she'll start to form her internal narrative over the next year or so and then we can have lots of interesting discussions. Where I will attempt not to trample all over her views. Go me.

This whole episode is completely bewildering to my mother, who for years has treated my own feminism like a slightly socially awkward speech impediment. She was pleased when I announced my impending marriage (which probably merits a whole other blog post - do not get me started on the inherent contradictions in my decision to do this) - I think she secretly thought I was going to become a lesbian and join a commune. However, now that my sister has joined in, it's even more perplexing to her.

"What did I do?" she asked, as though maybe it was because she'd allowed us to eat too many e-numbers as children. Then: "Why did it pass me by?"

This is an interesting question. I've always felt a bit left out, because other feminists seem to talk a lot about how they were inspired by the feminism of their own mothers. This was certainly not the case with me. And it's not that she's particularly anti-feminist, more that she just never thought feminism was an issue that concerned her. I don't think she'll ever really "get" why feminism is important to me, but I guess my sister and I have the chance to do things the other way round - perhaps, after a while, we might inspire feminism in my mother. And that would be just as good.

Dancing Queen

Thoughtful article on lap dancing and lap dancing clubs here.

One more thing

I just watched that completely freaky Justin Timberlake video where he's dating ScarJo and then she cheats on him, then he chases her in his car and then her car blows up and he's standing over her dead body. Whilst smugly singing about "what goes around comes around". What? You can *kill* the person who cheated on you through dangerous driving/obsessive stalking and then say that they had it coming. Because they're a cheating woman. Or they *were* a cheating woman until you turned them into a lifeless corpse. This is a really unhealthy view of women.

I mean, really.

Mr. Timberlake - you are kind of fucked up.

Girls on Film

Here is a good discussion on female characters in chick flicks. I've been thinking about this for a while, not just because of the obvious woman-bashing film that is He's Just Not That Into You. No, I think ever since I saw the train-wreck of a film that was My Super Ex-Girlfriend - possibly one of the WORST films I have ever seen. I almost felt violated.

No, seriously though. It was completely shite and I can't believe Uma actually signed up to it. What was she thinking?? It could have been called "How I hate women and can you believe that at some point I've probably gotten laid?". And I'd be all like, no, really - I can't. Because you repluse me.

Helpful

Just in case having a vagina has made *you* unable to figure out what is appropriate to wear to work. Lucky, because I was planning to wear my bondage suit and gimp mask.

Right and Wrong

RIGHT: I've spent the last few days waiting for this and how glad am I that it's finally arrived? Very. In fact, the last few days have been a wondrous magical ride of actual competent policy decisions. Maybe McCain did get elected and I threw myself under a bus after all...

WRONG: This. I am appalled by the actions of the BBC and think it is completely disgusting. We have now donated to the DEC and I suggest you all do the same. Not only as a huge "Fuck you" to the BBC, but because these people really need our help.

Business as usual

A sure contender for most pointless, pseudo-scientific, shitty research report of 2009.

Festive Cheer

Almost Christmas now and I am hugely excited. Ill, but excited. Still, feverish is probably the best state to be in. Feverish and swollen.

Still, just a couple of days to go. Although I will gripe about the endless round of family and motorways, Christmas is my favourite time of year and I will enjoy it immensely. Hurrah! If with less good health and a diminished appetite.

It would be remiss of me to enter the festive season without a small amount of bile and contempt. So I leave you this article to remind everyone that feminism still has a long way to go... As does the war against ignorant morons.

Merry Christmas!

All the rage

Things that have annoyed me this week:


1) The Miss London-University-my-breasts-are-empowered contests. Gah – how much more self-justification do we need to hear from the contestants/organiser before I’d have a credible case for throttling them with my thermal leggings? My favourite quote comes from the contestant who believes we “are in post-feminism”, as though feminism was a foreign country you could occasionally visit but, to be honest, you wouldn’t really want to live there. Good God, do I really have to explain this – when you’re striding around in underwear thinking “my goodness, having my waist and breasts measured is a jolly good laugh and look how empowered I am” men are *not* thinking “gosh, what a strong woman. I admire and respect her. How empowered she must be!”. They are thinking: “Look at her tits. Quite like to give her a good banging”. So either you’re deluded, or if you think the latter thought *is* empowering, you need therapy. Take your pick. (And I should mention that I have absolutely no problem with telling these women that they’re deluded because – for god’s sake – They Just Are. And they’ve given us sodding empirical evidence that this is the case)

2) David Cameron whinnying about the economy. Does he have any sensible suggestions to make? No? Then Shut Up.

3) Plane Stupid. There is nothing I hate more than obnoxious, middle class teenagers with a huge sense of their own entitlement whining about things and making life more difficult for people who are actually trying to do things, to make themselves feel better. Stop being so immature and actually do something constructive if you’re so worried. I also don’t like this movement as it always seems to be about the middle-classes feeling outraged that poor people actually get to go on holiday. All those people stuck at the airport for days? On easy jet flights. If it was only, you know, *business class* and people going skiing, there wouldn’t be so much pollution, would there? And who else but the trust-funded could afford to take 3 months out to cycle down to Italy for a wedding (which is an actual example from a colleague of guests at her wedding who refuse to fly)?

4) The Times article claiming that parents need to be pushy to make sure that their children do well at University. No, they don’t. They need to get a life. As, presumably, should their poor, over-protected children. No wonder they chain themselves to airport fences.


The general theme here seems to be that *posh* people have this week really pissed me off. One day I will have children that will fall into this category, but I can only promise that I will raise them in such a way that they will never enter beauty contests, become leader of the Conservative party or chain themselves to parts of airports.

Thanks for the memories

So, we are finally saying goodbye to Ruth Kelly. I cannot say that I am disappointed about this (dancing gleefully on the remains of her political career is more accurate) given that she has had an atrocious record in terms of advancing gender equality and was a shoddy minister for women.

I was a little surprised by the articles springing up around the time of the announcement, darkly proclaiming that her resignation *conclusively proves* that women cannot have a career and a family at the same time. It seems a bit bizarre to draw this conclusion given that:

(1) she's certainly been doing it (and being promoted whilst doing it) for the last ten years or so. I'm sure it is hard to balance having-a-lot-of-children and a high profile career, but she seems to have been managing admirably so far.

(2) Reading between the lines, it looks likely that she jumped before she was pushed - e.g. she and Brown don't get on, she'd have been bumped from the cabinet in the reshuffle anyway so thought about it and decided to pack it in first.

Thinking about the phrase "to spend more time with her family" is a little weird - when men spout it, it is usually a sign that they've fucked something up and/or about to get fired. When women say it, it's seen as a worthy and admirable thing to do. Odd that the same phrase can be interpreted so differently depending on the gender of the individual using it.

One step forward

for women in the Church of England. It'll be interesting to see what happens next.

Denial, denial, denial

Article in the Guardian today by Julie Bindel - quite good (don't always agree word-for-word with Julie but I think she has a point) and worth reading.

I think it is true that more men than one would automatically think are perpetuating violence against women. I don't mean that they are waking up each morning with this aim in the forefront of their minds, but they are certainly doing it. I don't think the man who raped me considered himself as a man who would commit violence against women, but the fact is that he *did*. He didn't think of himself as a rapist but he did commit rape.

Whenever these articles get written, there is a backlash from indignant men who resent the assertion that more men than admit to it commit violence against women. I think one commenter on this article stated that he didn't like that fact that *all* men had to feel guilty about it - he pointed out that there aren't articles which expect all women to feel guilty about being gold-digging "whores" (nice choice of phrase there). Except that there are, almost weekly, in most mainstream newspapers - often written by women by the way, which makes them true. Of course.

What is it that they can't stomach? That human beings can behave badly? That we should all check our behaviour for things that sanction (either directly or indirectly) this kind of behaviour? Because, you know, if we actually focus on the fact that violence against women is a bad thing (rather than whether X in particular would do it) then we really lose sight of the point...

I think they're scared. I think they're scared to look back and think - well, that was a situation I could have handled differently. Or to look at a court case and think - my God, the fact I think she is to blame for her own rape is irrational. Because if they do that, then that makes them part of that "very small" group of people who perpetuate violence against women. And then they might have to change something about the way they think, behave or respond.

We can all behave badly - women, men - but what we need to do is get beyond the "but I don't do that so I don't need to hear it" mentality and actually think about ways to solve it. Refusing to engage in the process harms everybody - something which the overly defensive ought to think about.

In name only

Recently, it seems like a lot of people that I know are taking the plunge and deciding to get married (which is not surprising I guess, given that I am getting older) and the conversation inevitably turns towards the changing-of-the-name.

Having got engaged myself a few months ago, I've always made it clear that I would not be changing my name. I am myself - that's the way it's going to stay. What's odd though, is how unusual I seem to be in that respect. I'd thought that actually, I'd be in the majority - that most women nowadays wouldn't change their name. Obviously, I was wrong. The reasons for changing their name go like this:

(1) So our whole family has the same name
(2) I'm proud to be Mrs-so-and-so
(3) He was upset when I said I wouldn't change my name
(4) I haven't really thought about it, it's just what people do

I can see that (1) might have held more sway in the past - people I know who have older children with different names have told stories of trying to go to the doctors/school with different names and the fight they had to be recognised. (2) just seems bizarre - marrying someone is hardly an achievement but you know, whatever. Similarly (3) - my response would be "don't marry him then" but it's not as though I'm the most tolerant person around, nor would I marry someone likely to make that argument. (4) is lazy, but doesn't seem any worse than the others for all that. At least it's honest.

Still, there you go. My own mother suspects that I will cave in and change my name, but quite frankly, she's so glad my feminism hasn't turned me into a lesbian that she's not going to complain either way. She also pointed out that it would be quite rude to send post to friends who have changed their name in their maiden name, but given the amount of times I already get called by my partner's name (and we're not anywhere near married), I don't buy this argument. Sod it - as an act of rebellion it's quite lame, but I'm all for fighting false consciousness anyway I can.

So: congratulations guys, but be prepared...

I don't like Mondays...

But before I take my hot, sorry self onto a train to the capital for my disastrous Monday meeting:

(1)Good article about Clinton (probably more to write about this later, but I've probably been writing too much about US politics recently...)

(2)Mmm... bilberries. Ate quite a lot last summer whilst out walking, without really knowing whether they were edible. So tasty. Sell them in the south!

(3)Am I the only one who is quite impressed that the death toll in Afganistan is only 100? Yes, every death is a tragedy, but as this has been going on since 2001 it is a lot less than I was expecting. Go to war - people die. It's just the way it is (which sounds very cavalier, but it's not quite what I'm intending).

(4)I love my new Asus Eee PC 900. It's so lovely. I may even write a review of it on the train - who knows? Admittedly, my intention of working on it this morning was scuppered by the fact that I fell asleep as soon as I sat down - but I will be using it to work. I will.

Moving Forward

Now that Hillary has conceded and pulled out of the race (very graciously and with a commendable strong endorsement of Obama) you'd think it would finally put a stop to all those Clinton supporters who claimed that they would rather vote for McCain than Obama in the general election. A brief moment of insanity, you might think, to illustrate how upset they are that their chosen candidate didn't make it through.

Yeah. You'd think.

Instead, it seems that the insanity is here to stay. There are still plenty of Clinton supporters (I won't say Clintonites because I'd actually question their commitment to Clinton the actual person, given that they are still prepared to disregard her very-clearly-stated wishes) who are even more determined than ever to vote JM rather than BO at the general election. For a full explanation of why (not that much substantive explanation is ever given) – the crazy can be located here. Otherwise, I shall explain “why” given the evidence available.

(1)It seems that a lot of women are upset that their next president will not also be a woman. This seems fairly understandable, given that there has been a tendency amongst american feminists to attack women who decided against voting for Clinton – one could extend that (without too much difficulty) and claim that it was purely misogyny that stopped Clinton from being nominated, thus the other democratic candidate should not be voted for. It's still insane though. The whole idea that Clinton should be voted for because she is a woman and that-is-what-a-feminist would do was completely insane (I articulated this in an earlier post). It wouldn't happen in the UK because (a) we've already had a woman PM and (b) this leads us to think that just having A.Woman in post is not preferable to having the right woman in post. Thus (I hypothesise) feminists in the UK would be more likely to make the claim (as I did) that treating Clinton's policies with the same scrutiny you would for any other candidate and deciding on that basis is actually more respectful and feminist than anything else. As I said before, I'd guess that this is down to differing experiences, so the insanity is relative.

So, we're at the point where a lot of women will not vote for Obama because of perceived misogyny from that campaign (I won't even explore that claim here as this post is already too long). So instead they'll vote for a crazy republican – republican party being the one that wants to erode women's rights. Yeah – makes sense. Get your shit together, ladies.

(2)There are a lot of comments on these pro-clinton vote mccain websites that are along the lines of “Obama will be the worst President ever and is doing horrendous things to the Democratic party” without ever explaining what these horrendous things are or how he would be the worst President. The fact that no-one can articulate what these terrible things actually are leads me to what is really an horrible conclusion: a lot of these people are racist. Not openly, perhaps not even consciously, but I can't see that there's any other conclusion to come to. How else does one explain that voting republican is SO MUCH BETTER than voting for someone your chosen candidate endorses? Is it 'coz he is black? Erm... yes, I suspect it is.

I know that I am/would be biased – I cannot imagine voting Conservative in an UK election because of what the Conservatives stand for, even if the candidate for Labour is not to my own personal taste. If I was in the US, I can imagine that emotions run high during primaries – it was tough (wonderfully so – there was real choice) and there was history to be made every step of the way. But in the end, it was only a primary. The real fight, the important fight, is yet to be had. Whatever differentiated Clinton and Obama, what unites them is a belief in change and that four years of a democrat president would be better than four more years of a republican. Most supporters of Clinton know this and embrace this. To those who don't – really, I think you totally deserve whatever shit you get and you certainly deserve the shit you've received in the last eight years.

Know thyself...

I've been thinking quite a bit about why private sector companies should care (or at least think) about diversity when recruiting. Mostly because this is an argument that I'm having to make a lot recently and I'm not sure I've yet come up with an answer that is completely convincing.

The line that people in the private sector take is that they are, effectively, blind to diversity. They don't care who the candidate is, as long as they are the best candidate for the job. This strikes me as old-fashioned and naive for two reasons.

1)It assumes (rather like basic economic principles) that we live in a completely rational world. Thus, if one could guarantee that the short list of candidates that they have to choose from are indeed the best 3 or 4 candidates for the job (selected without bias from the HR universe, or whatever function is being recruited from) then yes, their attitude would be positive and sensible. I don't think we can safely assume that market forces are completely objective and free from societal prejudice. To pretend that they are, or to act as if they are, is therefore irresponsible.

2)A recruiter to the private sector can repeat this belief, based on the idea that if they themselves are without prejudice, then the list of candidates they present will be The Ideal list of candidates. However, as above, I don't think that anyone can trust themselves to that degree. Although we may try and act as if we are not discriminatory on any grounds, the truth is that most (and I would go further and say *all* of us) do hold some beliefs either subconsciously or consciously, that would bias the selection we make. This doesn't make us bad people - we are bad people if we accept these beliefs without question or if we pretend that we don't hold these beliefs because we do not want to feel uncomfortable.

Given both (1) and (2) I think the private sector would do better to admit that there could be some bias to what is supposedly an objective process and to make sure that this is redressed to some degree by having a system of checks in place. Thus, if a short list of Finance Directors is presented that consists only of white men, I don't think it's at all wrong to question why that is - in fact, I think that's the responsible option. The sooner that this sort of response is made part of the typical recruitment process in the private sector, the sooner they will be approaching the stage where they really are selecting the best candidate. To deny that the private sector has an interest in diversity is completely counter-productive.