Rape, Parenthood and Loneliness...(or why everyone should be a feminist)

Last week I attended a local 'Reclaim the Night March' and made a poster detailing some of the claims made about who/what is to blame for rape (e.g. alcohol, clothing...women generally) with the point made that it's not any of these things, rapists are obviously to blame. I got into a conversation about this poster after the march and the point was made that rape was not a feminist issue, men were also raped and that, more broadly, feminism was basically pointless. I'm no idiot. I know that rape victims can be men as well as women. But concerning rape there's two issues which, for me, demonstrate why we need feminism:

1) the disproportionate amount of women being raped or sexually assaulted suggests that something about societal views towards women needs to change. For example, according to the ONS (2009/10, 2010/11 and 2011/12 average) the percentage of males who were a victim once or more of a sexual offence in the last 12 months stood at 0.4% and for females 2.5%. Statistics such as these lend weight to arguments which suggest that we increasingly live in a rape culture, a society in which the sexualisation of women dominates.

2) the under-reporting of rape when men are the victim (demonstrated by the difference when comparing police-reported statistics and victim surveys). Again, we might trace this issue to the issue more broadly of societal attitudes concerning women/men. It could be that men do not wish to come forward due to societal views concerning how men should be/be seen, therefore suggesting societal views need to change.

So, feminism, for me, is the fight against gender inequality, which men can also be disadvantaged by. I thought of this again when listening to Radio 4's Women's Hour yesterday when they were discussing motherhood and loneliness. Someone raised the point about fathers often being side-lined in such discussions because women are still predominantly the primary carer of children in the first year or so. Again, we have evidence of why feminism continues to be relevant. We live in a society where, despite some acceptance of alternatives, women are generally still socialised and stereotyped into the position of the primary care giver (regardless of whether they work or not). But this may in turn impact on the experiences of men who are the primary carer. What we need then is a move away from this gendering of roles which is where feminism becomes important.

Up, Up, Up and Away....

There's a few reasons why I look at The Daily Mail web-site from time to time. It is kind of a guilty pleasure and provides some easy reading whilst eating lunch at work. It also provides me with plenty of fuel for the fire. I like something I can moan about. That's just part of who I am (apologies to friends and family but then, in all honesty, remember...you're meant to love me for who I am). So today's edition of the online Mail featured the following headline which caught my eye...

The way the headline is expressed is asking for more criticism of the mother involved. Regardless of what happened before, if a woman wants to lift weights and train post-giving birth why is it the public's business? Clicking on the link, the article itself is actually not that negative - so why insist on presenting it as such in the headline and caption? A number of readers will pick up on that rather than reading the whole, more balanced, piece. Another example of media sensationalising. The media is forever condemning mothers for one thing or another and often it's for things that really are of little significance; whether this is done overtly or more subtly through presentation and style. But then what did I expect?

After my initial rage however, I stumbled across the following piece also linked from the Mail's online front page. Good to see they're not forgetting the important stuff after all.

The Guardian: The Feminist Year Ahead

Brace yourself girls...

The feminist year ahead - The Guardian

A run-down of the books, films, events, exhbitions and what-not that we'll be feasting our feminist eyes on during 2010.

30 Ideas for a Better Life - Women Take Note

The Observer Magazine last Sunday (03/01/10) ran a piece entitled '30 Ideas for a Better Life', a resolution inspired list of things to do this year. The suggestions ranged from 'Get Philosophical' to 'Take Control of Your Spending Habits' but what caught my eye was the stark juxtaposition of two aimed at women. Firstly is a entry from Sarah Pennells on 'Sound Financial Advice for Women' - Sarah runs Savvywoman, a web-site aimed at giving comprehensive and relevant financial advice to women. As Sarah notes in The Observer article:

I concentrate on the financial concerns and priorities of females in a way that resonates with them. I report and advise on issues such as how state pension changes affect women, how they have lower debts than men but become more anxious over them, and how to make immediate and long-term financial plans when child-rearing. I ask, are you and your partner even financially compatible?

A worthwhile cause and perhaps a justified resolution for this year perhaps then? But what is this then juxtaposed with? Read a little further on in the piece and you will find the idea from clinical psychologist and sex therapist Bettina Arndt of 'revitalising your sex life'. And though it is not suggested in the title itself, this again focuses on women. Because Bettina is suggesting that a focal problem in long-term relationships is 'mismatched desire', that this desire is usually lacked by the female and that these females need to basically get over it (my words not hers):

Arndt advocates a "just do it" approach for couples in a rut. Women should ignore their lack of desire and just get on it with.

So women of Britain, take note. Two ideas for a better life:

1. Get some sound financial advice
2. Lie back and think of England.

Happy New Year!

Call for Papers: Presenting Research on Women Differently

On behalf of Julia Carter and Rosemary Hill - Centre for Women’s Studies, University of York.

Call for Papers: Not PowerPoint Again! Presenting research on women in popular culture differently.

University of York, 23rd April 2010

Are you bored of the traditional conference paper? Tired of watching a presenter stand and read off a script while pointing to an ill thought-out PowerPoint display? Nervous of presenting in a way that feels alien or doesn’t support your research?

Then come along to our Day School where we are experimenting with different and alternative ways of presenting research.

Our aim for the day is to encourage participants from all disciplines to deliver research in inspiring ways. By thinking of different ways to present our research we can spark new perspectives, imagining different angles and approaches that we may never have considered before. We hope to attract presenters from a range of disciplines and thus intend to question the rigid lines of disciplinary thought that we so often become constrained by. The day school will facilitate this interdisciplinary integration by providing an atmosphere of experimentation and questioning.

We want to encompass presentations from as many disciplines as possible; the topics may include, but are not limited to:

* Music
* Sporting women
* Representations of weddings, marriage and divorce
* Women on film and TV
* Magazine culture
* Books
* Gardening
* Representations of religion
* The Internet

We hope to encourage discussions around how presenting differently may lead to thinking differently about research in academia; how presenting differently helps the researcher and the audience to engage with ‘papers’; and whether experimental presentations really can have a place in traditional academic circles.

As the day is geared to presenting in innovative and engaging ways you may wish to present your paper using, for example: performance art, workshops, short films, live experiments, music, dance or other interactive methods. The design is entirely up to you.

To take part in this Day School please submit a summary of your presentation or a Storyboard (both of which must outline your proposed topic, the mode of your presentation, how long it will take, and what equipment you will need) to: notpowerpointagain@yahoo.co.uk by 14th February 2010.

For more information see http://notpowerpointagain.blogspot.com/

In which I lose faith (which arguably never existed) in the GSA

Jill Berry, president of the Girls' School Association (GSA), has been popping up in the press recently with some quite alarming, and sometimes contradictory, notions.

Commenting on feminism and fashion and the recent story about Cambridge female undergrads' scantily clad photos, Berry commented that:

"Girls can be highly intelligent and interested in being seen to be attractive – the two aren't mutually exclusive"

For starters, not really a problem. Perhaps the idea of 'being seen to be attractive' is problematic (to me this suggest pampering to the rest of society's/men's version of what this means) but I do support the move away from the 'blonde-bimbo' vs 'ugly geek' dichotomy.

And then Berry claims:

"We must resist the impulse to judge women, to judge them harshly and judge them narrowly"

Lovely. Again, an idea I can get my head around.

But then when an article in The Guardian titled Girls should be 'realistic' about careers and motherhood – schools group head appears, the plot thickens...


Teenage girls need to be taught a heavy dose of realism – that it may not be possible to be a perfect mother and a career woman, the president of the Girls' Schools Association (GSA) will say next week.

Berry is now implying that girls need to be realistic about their futures. That there is 'nothing wrong' with mothers not working once they have children. Firstly, what kind of empowering message is that to young women? That they can be all they want to be but will have to re-think all that once they think about starting a family? Why are we telling girls to be 'realistic'? Why are we accepting that as the reality that women are often placed into positions in which they are pushed back into the private sphere once they give birth? Instead of telling the generation of tomorrow to wise-up about the way the world is, how about educating them on how to change that world?

And you know that what lies beneath this is a discourse of 'bad working mothers'. Considering we weren't meant to be judging women for their choices Berry...


Links to the two articles:

Fashion not a betrayal of feminist ideals
Girls should be realistic about motherhood and careers

The Observer's Woman Magazine: A sad goodbye or good riddance to bad rubbish?

Myself and Charlotte weigh up the two sides of the argument over at the Subtext Magazine blog.

Go read my tearful goodbye to the Woman's monthly supplement and Charlotte's rejoice that it's gone.

Fifites Women - The Daily Mail

The Daily Mail this week has been featuring extracts from a new book on fifties family life. This particular extract caught my eye. Though the piece is probably meant to draw attention to the changes in women's position and highlight how things have 'got better', the whole thing stinks of misplaced nostalgia. The scene is set in the opening paragaph when we are told about Britain in the fifties being a "country where doors were left unlocked, children played in the street and crime levels were low and falling - in fact, a Britain that has long since disappeared". The fact this is then followed by a look at women's position is perhaps now coincidence. Aren't the New Right guilty of looking back to a golden age which never existed, eager to claim a correlation between single/working mothers and juvenile deliquency?

Derek from Kent in the comments seems to have also picked up on the underlining messages promoted in this piece...

This article proves yet again that women should be AT HOME, not at work. It would solve the unemployment crisis instantly. Also a man will be happier at work knowing that there is a nice hot meal waiting for him when he gets home.

...and to think all we need to do to solve unemployment is to get women back into the home. Now why didn't we think of that?


Only in The Daily Mail.