Fashion Is No Joke (And Here’s Why)

“Why are people scandalized by spending money on clothes? Everybody is so passionate about this — there’s a resistance to fashion — an idea that to love fashion is to be stupid. Clothes are very intimate. When you get dressed, you are making public your idea about yourself, and I think that embarrasses people.”
-Miuccia Prada

Anyone in doubt over fashion’s economic worth should note that, according to a report published by the British Fashion Council, Britain’s fashion industry is worth £21bn to the country’s economy. In 2009, 815,000 people were employed in the UK fashion industry; fashion contributed approximately £98m to the tourism industry and the total annual revenue of Britain’s fashion magazine industry was £401m. Through good and bad times, the fashion industry has shown itself to be practically recession proof. Strip it away, though, and you’re left with something incredibly simple: the act of getting dressed. What is it that is so powerful about this act? How can it be such a potent form of individual, political and cultural expression? And how can it be reconciled with feminism?

“My passion for fashion can sometimes seem a shameful secret life,” wrote Princeton University English professor Elaine Showalter in a 1997 issue of Vogue, to much derision.  One colleague asked whether she had “better things to do”. It is no coincidence that fashion  – one of the few spheres primarily associated with and dominated by women – is often derided as trivial and shallow. Treating it as superficial is a subtle form of sexism in itself, as is the assumption that women primarily follow fashion to get male attention and approval. While men often enjoy shopping and dressing well too, it is mostly women who read fashion magazines, shop for enjoyment and compliment each other’s clothes.

The reality is that fashion is – and always has been – far from frivolous. Minh-Ha T. Pham succinctly summarises its wider significance: “That most ordinary and intimate of acts, getting dressed, can have very real political and economic consequences.” Globally and historically, fashion is closely wrapped up in political movements and cultural identities. It also has strong associations with feminism. Suffragists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries used fashion to express their political values, such as green, white and violet jewellery: the first letters of each colour – G, W, V – formed an acronym for ‘give women votes’. And Chanel’s ubiquitous trouser suits were a powerful statement of women’s growing sense of independence, particularly in the workplace. This year’s Vogue Festival included a discussion featuring fashion heavyweights and political campaigners Vivienne Westwood and Katherine Hamnett, titled ‘Can Fashion Change The World?’ My answer to that is a categorical yes.

This doesn’t mean that the fashion industry isn’t hugely problematic as it is. In the words of Winona Dimeo-Edgar: “As much as I love talking about fashion as an empowering space for self-expression, the industry itself is always the impeccably dressed elephant in the room.” Advertising which aims to make women feel ugly and insecure and designers who dismiss larger women and women of colour need to be questioned and confronted. Campaigns have been fought against designers who pressure models to be size zero, magazines which use models in blackface, and companies such as Abercrombie & Fitch which shamelessly perpetuate racist, sexist and sizeist beauty ideals. We live in an age of social media and as consumers we have the power to speak up. Enjoying fashion doesn’t mean that we cannot criticise problematic aspects of the industry or campaign to change. And surely it is better to attack from within.

Are the couture items we see on the catwalks insanely expensive and unwearable? Of course they are. Just as most people who gaze longingly at the walls of the National Portrait Gallery could never afford a painting from there, very few people today will ever feel the luxurious satin of a Dior couture gown against their skin. Neither are women realistically expected to change their entire wardrobe every season; style never goes out of fashion, and you don’t need money to have style. For those of you who are still wondering “How is this overpriced crap related to my Primark purchases?”, the catwalk collections directly influence the clothes sold on the high street for a fraction of the price. You only have to turn to Miranda Priestly for a succinct explanation of why that blue sweater you picked up from a jumble sale because you thought the colour was nice is still a part of the industry you look down upon so insistently.

I’ve decided fashion can be two things. It can be as simple as something you put on to make yourself feel beautiful, or as dynamic as something illustrative of culture, time and its transformations.
-Katherine LaGrave

Ultimately fashion is a means of communication and expression. It is a language and an art form. What we wear can speak volumes about our personality, our values, our culture and our tastes. But does it really matter if fashion contains an implicit social and political use? What is wrong with liking something because it is aesthetically pleasing? The answer is: absolutely nothing. So go out and work that Topshop dress – and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

“She’s deader than OJ’s wife”: what Steubenville and its coverage tells us about rape culture

Steubenville High School football players Trent Mays, 17, and Ma’lik Richmond, 16, were recently found guilty of raping an intoxicated 16-year-old girl at a number of parties in August. Disturbing video evidence includes a gleeful commentary from a drunken friend of the rapists, still available on Youtube. “She’s deader than OJ’s wife!” he giggles. A photo of the naked, unconscious victim being dragged away was quickly circulated around the internet; the boys urinated on her body afterwards. The case received a great deal of attention mainly because of the way in which social media provided crucial evidence.

Newscaster Candy Crowley, correspondent Poppy Harlow, and legal expert Paul Callan of CNN in America prompted global outrage by focusing solely on the consequences for the two rapists of being convicted and on their emotional anguish, rather than on the impact their actions had on the victim.

Harlow: I’ve never experienced anything like it, Candy. It was incredibly emotional, incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures – star football players, very good students – literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart…when that sentence came down, [Ma'lik] collapsed in the arms of his attorney…He said to him, “My life is over. No one is going to want me now”.

Crowley: You know, Paul, a sixteen-year-old now just sobbing in court, regardless of what big football players they are, the other one just seventeen, a sixteen year old victim, they still sound like sixteen-year-olds…The thing is, what’s the lasting effect, though, on two young men being found guilty in juvenile court of rape, essentially?

Callan: Well, you know, Candy, we’ve seen here a courtroom drenched in tears and tragedy….The most severe thing with these young men is being labeled as registered sex offenders. That label is now placed on them by Ohio law…That will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Employers, when looking up their background, will see that they’re registered sex offenders. When they move into a new neighbourhood and somebody goes on the Internet, where these things are posted, neighbours will know that they are registered sex offenders.

As if CNN couldn’t stoop any lower, they later named the victim, whose identity had been kept secret up until that point. The entire coverage was eerily similar to a 2011 parody video from spoof site ‘The Onion’ about college athlete rapists being portrayed as heroes, with no regards to the victim. It prompted an online petition on Change.org demanding an apology from CNN, which has garnered almost 300,000 signatures to date. But the channel was not the only one to blame: ABC News, NBC News, Yahoo News and others joined in lamenting the boys’ crushed hopes and damaged prospects.

The problem with CNN’s coverage is not that there was mention of the emotion in the courtroom. It’s not that the rapists weren’t treated as monsters. It’s that the focus was placed squarely on the tragic effects of the conviction on the rapists, despite the fact that this was a result of a crime which they chose to commit. There was no focus on the shortness of their sentences, a minimum of one or two years in a juvenile detention facility. Instead we heard of the personal implications of them being classed as registered sex offenders: “What’s the lasting effect, though, on two young men being found guilty in juvenile court of rape, essentially?” There was no real sympathy expressed for the victim. There was no discussion of the lasting effect of being raped and of having a photo of the lowest point of your life circulated across the globe, before being named on a national news network. This is rape culture. The media coverage of the verdict was just the tip of the iceberg.

I still feel sorry for these rapists. Not because their futures are destroyed but because they thought it was justifiable to rape someone while their friends encouraged them from the sidelines, circulating photos and recording video commentaries. Because they live in a culture where rape is normalised and even trivialised: as the case garnered more attention, defensive internet users argued that because both sexes were drinking at the party, the victim was to blame for her rape. Rape is laughed about on TV, on the internet and in everyday conversation. And a 2009 US study concluded that only about 2% of rapes reported to police in the US resulted in a prison sentence (the attrition rate is around 7% in the UK). It is estimated that the vast majority of victims do not report their rape in the first place.

An official investigation of a potential cover-up in the Steubenville case is ongoing. It wouldn’t be the first example of athletic clubs in America – and even entire towns – sweeping allegations of sexual violence under the carpet. In Michigan in 2010 two basketball players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in her dorm were found not guilty, despite one of the accused admitting that he had sex with her when he knew she didn’t want to. In 2007 a student-athlete at Iowa State University claimed that she was sexually assaulted by two football players; according to the victim’s mother the athletic director, head football coach, associate athletic director and a faculty member encouraged her to accept an on-campus investigation instead of reporting it to the authorities; for weeks she was harassed by the alleged perpetrators before any action was taken. And then there was the Texas student who was kicked off her school’s cheerleading squad for refusing to cheer for an athlete, whom she had accused of rape (he was not convicted; his lawyer suggested that she had been “asking for it”). These are just a few of the numerous disturbing manifestations of an insidious and infectious rape culture, which can thrive in high schools when athletes are put on a pedestal and realise that the adults surrounding their team will rally around them, even if they’ve committed a serious crime.

Rape culture is when universities actively discourage victims from reporting their rape to the police. It’s when the University of North Carolina threatens to expel a student for talking about her rape because it is “disruptive or intimidating” (she didn’t even identify her attacker). It’s when the Steubenville judge said during the sentencing that the case highlighted the need for caution in “how you record things on social media that are so prevalent today”; without the evidence circulated across social media, which pales into insignificance compared to the ghastly crime itself, it might never have ended in a conviction. It’s when Facebook censors photos of mastectomies and women breastfeeding but refuses to take down images promoting rape and domestic violence, such as the picture of a woman tied up and gagged next to the caption: “It’s not rape. If she really didn’t want to, she’d have said something.” And it’s when victims are told to bear partial or total responsibility for their rape because they’d been drinking or wearing a short skirt, or because they’re a “slut”. Because they were “asking for it”.

If anything I’m sorry that these rapists will become part of the American prison system, which only serves to reaffirm rape culture: sexual assault and rape are commonplace amongst inmates and prison staff, with a 2012 study revealing that 9.6% of former inmates at state prisons across the US reported at least one incident of sexual victimisation during their most recent period of incarceration. And I’m sorry that people can’t make the connection between the actions of the rapists and the culture they were brought up in. What will happen in the wake of the Steubenville conviction? What about the thousands of rape and sexual assault victims each year who continue to be silenced, their experiences erased? When will we finally accept that we are all complicit in this culture?

I wonder if coaches will start to discuss consent with their athletes. I wonder if American schools will stop attempting to cover up rape allegations. I wonder if internet users will think twice about laughing at rape jokes or participating in ‘casual’ victim blaming. Because collectively we could have prevented Steubenville. And, until we accept that, it will happen over and over again.

Blue for Boys, Pink for Girls

Christmas is approaching and, for toy stores, it’s the most important time of year. Approximately half of yearly toy sales happen between the months of October and December alone. It’s a time when successfully marketing the toys which will become the next craze is crucial.

Many of us will remember trips to Toys ‘R’ Us as small children. The gender-segregated aisles have hardly changed since my first visit about 15 years ago: the girls’ section is almost entirely pink and crammed with make-up kits, dressing up clothes, princesses, fairies, ‘baby’ dolls, ‘teen’ fashion dolls, play-kitchens and play-ironing boards with pictures of girls on the boxes. The section aimed at boys couldn’t be more different: most products are red, black and dark blue. Common sights include cars, wrestling figures, toolkits with only pictures of boys on the boxes, weapons, fireman/Power Rangers/pirate/cowboy costumes and even ‘Fantastic 4′ character outfits with padded biceps and 6-pack.

The ‘Baby X’ studies of the 1970s and 1980s were crucial in exploring the way in which children are gendered from the moment they are born. The research included an experiment in which the same baby (wearing a yellow jumper) was introduced at different times as male and female to adults with three toys: a football, a Raggedy Ann doll, and a teething ring. None of the men presented a ‘female’ baby with the football and 89% of them presented ‘her’ with the doll. 80% of the women presented a ‘boy’ baby with the football, and three-quarters of them presented a ‘girl’ with the doll. According to Principal Investigator Phyllis A. Katz, “it’s hard to disentangle the part [of the child's behaviour] that’s really there from the adult’s socialisation of the kids”. In another experiment, two female and two male babies appeared in both ‘gender-appropriate’ and gender-neutral clothes and they were given ‘gender-appropriate names’. Mothers then played with the babies, whom they had never seen before. When they believed that they were playing with a boy, they responded significantly more often to the baby’s movements. The researchers concluded that it’s not surprising that boys tend toward higher rates of activity and physical ability, because of stimulation during infancy. Further research has shown that parents will, without realising, verbalise to female infants more and play with them in a less boisterous way.

The extensive research on the ways in which children are brought up to embrace stereotypical gender roles clearly shows that girls’ preference for pink princesses and boys’ penchant for action figures and guns is not strictly biological, to say the least. But why does it matter? As someone who regularly played with dolls, pink Lego and princess outfits as a child (to my parents’ dismay) and who still loves pink, I am living proof that playing with a toy kitchen doesn’t necessarily mean that a little girl will grow up to be unambitious or limited in her outlook on gender roles. But there will always be those who buck the trends: research has shown that people tend to adhere to the expectations which are presented to them and that there is immense pressure on children to behave in stereotyped ways. These behaviour patterns are generally equated with social acceptance. The human brain responds more readily to things which it can recognise easily, so advertisers exaggerate perceived differences between genders to quickly communicate with their desired audience. In an experiment where children viewed 10 toy adverts, the children could identify the target audience every single time. This makes the products easier to sell, which in turn generates profits for companies. Not only can this kind of marketing impact children’s perceptions and aspirations, it can also alienate those who want to cross traditional gender divides and who don’t conform to stereotypes.

Leading stores have recently made attempts to end the ‘gender apartheid’ amongst children’s toys, including Harrods, whose makeover was revealed in July. The new six-zone Toy Kingdom is multi sensory and groups toys by theme rather than sex. While more effort could be made – female workers wear pink T-shirts, while men are in blue, a decision apparently made entirely because they were nice colours – it’s certainly a step in the right direction. Following a high-profile campaign last year, Hamleys stopped labelling floors in blue and pink for boys and girls. Debenhams, like Toys ‘R’ Us, has stuck firmly to separate sections for different genders, each containing toys which reinforce stereotypes about the roles of men and women.

Historically it has been much more socially acceptable for girls to cross the gender divide than it has been for boys: a trouser-wearing girl wanting to buy a gun or a set of toy soldiers wouldn’t be treated the same as a boy in a dress looking to play with a toy kitchen or a set of Barbies. Femininity is subconsciously seen as shameful and emasculating; but, in the words of Iggy Pop, “I’m not ashamed to dress ‘like a woman’ because I don’t think it’s shameful to be a woman”.

There isn’t anything inherently bad about buying a dolls’ house for your little girl or a set of toy cars for a boy. But equally there isn’t anything wrong with buying them gender-neutral toys, or encouraging them to play with toys which wouldn’t usually be associated with their gender. Why buy your daughter a Lego Friends Stephanie’s Bakery Set when your son gets a Lego space shuttle? And why limit the toy kitchen to girls? It can be difficult to fight against the consumerist tide of gender stereotyping in toys, but proactivity pays off. Here’s to a Christmas filled with presents which boys and girls can enjoy together.

On Julian Assange

Even by what Julian Assange’s own defence lawyers say, he’s a rapist.

He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to … continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

In the other incident, in which Assange is alleged to have held a woman down against her will during a sexual encounter, Emmerson offered this summary: “[The complainant] was lying on her back and Assange was on top of her … [she] felt that Assange wanted to insert his penis into her vagina directly, which she did not want since he was not wearing a condom … she therefore tried to turn her hips and squeeze her legs together in order to avoid a penetration … [she] tried several times to reach for a condom, which Assange had stopped her from doing by holding her arms and bending her legs open and trying to penetrate her with his penis without using a condom. [She] says that she felt about to cry since she was held down and could not reach a condom and felt this could end badly.”

So in both cases Emmerson doesn’t dispute the version of events. The first woman was asleep. This is rape. Legally and morally. She did not consent. The fact that she consented AFTER he had started still doesn’t mean that it isn’t rape (it is, in the eyes of the law). People in Sweden have been prosecuted before for doing the same thing (such as in 2011). The second woman didn’t want sex without a condom and he wasn’t wearing a condom, which means that he did not have consent and he tried to rape her. Again, btaining consent afterwards doesn’t make a difference in the eyes of the law in Sweden (and in the UK).

It doesn’t matter that the women had engaged in consensual sex with Assange before because consent can be given and withdrawn at any time. Having sex with someone doesn’t immediately make them available for your sexual use without the need for prior consent. As for the fact that the woman didn’t properly fight him off, that is completely ignoring the emotional trauma of sexual violence and places responsibility on the victims, which is completely fucked up. And you don’t have to use words to withdraw consent which you never gave…

 

And as for the argument that they didn’t go to the police immediately, it’s not unusual for sexual violence to go unreported (only approximately 5% of rapes are reported in the first place). We don’t know what kind of emotional trauma they were personally experiencing. It takes a lot to accuse anyone of rape, let alone a man with such a huge cult following. Judicial proceedings in sexual violence cases are notoriously traumatic, lengthy and extremely upsetting, and evidence (including physical evidence) is often dismissed. Would I have reported a rape like that? No, I probably wouldn’t have. For fear of the trauma, fear of being disbelieved and attacked, maybe even because of an emotional connection to the person (most rapists are people we know, after all). Were they encouraged to come forward because of who he is? Who knows? That doesn’t make their accusations any less legitimate or worth following through. Assange should face rape charges in Sweden. He shouldn’t be extradited to the USA and executed for his involvement with Wikileaks, which is currently hindering progress on the rape allegations front.

 

Assange admitted to having sex with a woman whilst she was asleep and pushing another woman’s legs apart when she said no. He doesn’t seem to have a problem with that. Assange said that he THINKS he had consent, and he didn’t. There’s a reason why so many rapists have no idea they are rapists. They don’t think putting their penis inside someone without consent is rape.

Under Swedish law, Assange committed rape.

Then there’s the fact that Assange’s lawyers also said that the prosecutor leading the rape and sexual assault case against Julian Assange is a “malicious” radical feminist who is “biased against men”. Many of the Assange apologists have something in common: a contempt for feminism and for women who dare to challenge their perfect vision of Assange. When someone accuses a person of rape, their accusations should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as hysterical and malicious. There’s a reason why only 5% of rapes are reported and why only 6% of rape cases result in a conviction. All the odds are stacked against women who report rape. And if 94% of women are deemed to be liars, it’s no wonder that Assange’s accusors are receiving the same treatment from numerous people on the internet, most of whom are male and some of whom come from the left.
It’s worrying that many people identify more quickly with a suspected rapist than with a victim. Assange’s legal representation basically admitted the rape and tried to downplay it. One would have thought that, by now, penetrating a woman who is unable to consent or using force to penetrate a woman would be classed by everyone as rape and therefore punishable.

I still support Wikileaks, which is run by many people and therefore not dependable on Assange to survive. I still don’t believe that Assange should be extradited to the USA. I still think that there are many who would like to see Assange’s downfall and view the rape allegations as a convenient way in which to facilitate it. The idea that this is a huge set-up on the part of the anti-Wikileaks lobby is highly unlikely. Wikileaks is a huge organisation which is fully-functioning without Assange. It is possible to simultaneously believe the rape allegations may well be true and that the US and its allies will milk them for their own ends, and to oppose the latter. Assange has done a lot of good. That doesn’t mean he can’t rape women. Rape is a frequent occurence. We must not ignore these women because they could may well be rape victims, ordinary women who are being exploited by all sides of the Wikileaks debate and who deserve justice. This sentiment is echoed by writers such as Laurie Penny in this excellent article.

The same people who throw about phrases like “lack of evidence” and “feminazis” are ignoring the fact that this is exactly why 94% of women who say they’ve been raped are not believed. The system is biased against rape victims. Defending Assange like this is buying into the culture of disbelief which produces the shocking rape conviction rate in the first place and which ensures that any powerful figure like Assange is considered unable to commit any real crime when the likelihood is that, by legal definition, he is a rapist. Rapists are everywhere amongst us. Anyone can be a rapist. Neither Assange’s name or his political history should make any difference when it comes to putting him on trial for rape. Sexual violence isn’t rare. The odds are stacked against these women and all we are doing is contributing to the fact that reports are actually becoming less frequent because of distrust of the police and for the fear of not being believed. Assange’s defence lawyers essentially admitted that he had non-consensual sex. Assange doesn’t seem to think that having sex with a woman without her consent is rape.

And this is why I think Julian Assange is probably a rapist.

My Big Fat Gypsy Stereotype

Of all the odious trash under the guise of ‘documentaries’ spurned out by Channel 4, Thelma’s Gypsy Girls has to be one of the worst offenders. Following the success of the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding series, dressmaker Thelma Madine, who claims to be the go-to designer for travellers (she’s not), embarks on a project in which she trains ten female travellers as seamstresses and eventually hires the best. Madine portrays herself as the saviour of travellers – “this is, like, the opportunity of a lifetime you’re getting here” – and constantly reminds us that she is on the brink of “losing everything” through this venture. Classic lines include “if this doesn’t work then I’m penniless basically” and “I’m putting my life, which is comfortable now, on the line, something that is not going to make me any more money, I’m just gonna put what I’ve made into helping these girls…I could lose everything I’ve got”. Aside from the fact that most of this money has been invested in new premises to expand her business rather than in the girls themselves, one can’t help wondering how much Madine is set to earn from Channel 4 for this series. If times get really tough for Madine as she predicts, there’s always the option of withdrawing her daughter from private school or selling the luxurious 5 bedroom house complete with swimming pool which she is so keen to show off to the viewers. She proudly shows off her gaudy furniture, pointing to a white leather chair and exclaiming “this is real gypsy. I like everything they like”. Gesturing to a guest bedroom, she remarks “that’s definitely a traveller room. There’s nothing subtle”. But as traveller and blogger Pipopotamus argues:

“Her garish furnishings seemed a world away from the reality of my trailer, let alone the homes of my family situated in Bulgaria’s Gypsy Ghettos.”

Despite claiming to understand and empathise with travellers, Madine seems to have no problem with perpetuating stereotypes and provoking hostility. Throughout the series she talks about them in terms which, if applied to any other ethnic or racial group, wouldn’t make it on the air. One of the most telling moments is when Madine informs her staff of the project: she delivers the good news that they are employing ten new girls, but “the bad news is that they are all travellers”. When one member of staff questions why this is bad news, she replies “you come back to me and say that in three months when they’ve been here”.  She later explains that, because some of the trainees were taken out of school at a young age, “they’re not like 16 year old girls…they’re like 11 year old girls” and must be treated like children accordingly, a statement chillingly reminiscent of the racist and paternalistic treatment of Native Americans in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. She accuses travellers of being uneducated and unreliable: “they’re never, ever gonna be offered a job by anybody, are they?” She ignores the fact that Bridget Deadman, who was featured regularly on the show, has 7 As at GCSE and won a place at college, and allows one of her employees to call her a “smart arse” behind her back. Deadman is also forced to sit through English and Maths lessons, apparently to make up numbers for the tutor. As she herself explains:

“Every stereotype there is about gypsies was pushed to the hilt and Thelma and the camera crew seemingly ignored anything that didn’t fit that image.”

Madine also accuses travellers of being racist – “they most definitely look down on the people who don’t talk English” – because her staff members born outside the UK have been asked by the children of traveller customers “why can’t you speak English?” As Pipopotamus points out:

“Forgive me if I’m wrong, but unless this is the comment of a child raised by skinhead neo Nazis, then surely this questioning is nothing more than the bluntly phrased questions of a child discovering the uniqueness of British society? While Thelma is quick to brand these children racist, she seems to ignore the fact that her own, eight year old, daughter Katrina is guilty of this exact behaviour. Indeed, whilst reminiscing of the day she was first asked to make a Gypsy dress, little Katrina tells her mother that she “should have just said no”. It appears to me that Katrina doesn’t rate the Romany and Irish Traveller communities highly, an attitude inherited from her mother.”

We see several clips of Madine’s 8 year old daughter which reveal her worrying prejudice towards travellers. In episode 4, the trainees are invited to Katrina’s birthday party and are each told to bring a young relative with them. Katrina sweetly explains to the camera crew that if the gypsies “…are naughty I’m going to put them on the naughty step”. The party itself is oddly extravagant for a woman who claims to be financially crippled by her latest venture, and it’s clear that the traveller children are simply there as ‘exotics’, like some sort of novelty circus act. They are gawped at by Katrina’s casually dressed friends; in stark contrast, the traveller children are wearing custom-made revealing and sparkly costumes on Madine’s orders. Madine herself is brimming with smugness and self-importance, proudly announcing “there hasn’t been any segregation at all”.

A theme which crops up regularly throughout the series is sexism. Madine claims that for traveller women “the idea of a day to day job is an alien concept” and that “women get a raw deal in the traveller community. They’re brought up to say, you’re gonna be homemakers, and that’s it”. This is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Seeing as most of the girls selected for the course are 16 or 17, it’s hardly surprising that they haven’t been in paid employment before. When interviewing travellers for the course, Madine asks questions which say more about her view of the traveller communities than it did about them: “some people say in the traveller community that it’s shameful for women to work” and “what would you say to people who might say it’s shameful that you’re working?” Anyone under 18 needed to bring a parent with them, so it seems that a large number of adults didn’t think it was shameful at all. Grace, one of the trainee dressmakers, explains that traveller women “like our independence” and many of them do more than cleaning. She has a choice to do housework and look after the children, and she enjoys it. Yes, some families are unwilling to let women go out to work. Sexism and patriarchy are engrained in every culture. Pigeonholing it as one culture or race’s problem and stereotyping all traveller women as voiceless and oppressed is patronising and ethnocentric:

“There are Romany and Irish Traveller woman who do chose to enter the world of education and employment, and in my experience it is something that is not so uncommon anymore. Within my own family I have an aunty who is a social worker, a sister, cousin and aunty who are hairdressers, a cousin who has ambitions to become a professional dancer, and a grandmother who is a business owner. Thelma Madine believes her scheme is a once in a lifetime opportunity, something that has never been offered before. She is of the opinion that ‘no one gives Travellers a chance’, yet this is misplaced arrogance. In fact, there are a number of academic scholarships, internships, and courses aimed at young Romany and Irish Traveller people, offered by much more prestigious organisations than a Scouser’s dress shop.”
-Pipopotamus

Bridget Deadman’s perspective on the role of women within travelling communities is also very insightful:

“…all of the women in my family have worked just as much as the men, not through need but through want, as we are driven women and we are not content with a life centred on looking after the home. Yes, we are very family-orientated but you can have two, and be extremely happy balancing them both.”

Thelma’s Gypsy Girls is yet another stereotyping and misleading show aired solely for entertainment purposes – or in Madine’s case, to enhance her glittering TV career and to increase her bank balance. There are countless incidences of ignorance and racism throughout the series which are treated as normal and acceptable. When Deadman doesn’t want to model a short lycra dress because she thinks it’s inappropriate, Madine attributes it to differences between English and Irish travellers and accuses her of “not doing herself any favours”. The stereotyping of entire cultures and communities is cringeworthy. So are the prejudices of the non-traveller staff members, who mock them behind their backs and refuse to eat lunch in the same room as them, something which Madine doesn’t seem too bothered about. Deadman, who quit the show early, feels that the programme is exploitative and misleading:

“Thelma wasn’t interested in teaching us anything. It was just a freak show which made us look violent, tarty and stupid. At times it was like being on Jeremy Kyle. The crew were determined to make us look wild. The whole thing was disgusting. We trusted Thelma to help us learn a skill.”

Deadman experienced racist bullying at school as a result of the Big Fat Gypsy Wedding series and had hoped that the dressmaking course would be different, but in reality it “has just made things a hundred times worse”. She would like to go back to college, which she dropped out of to take Madine’s course, and study events management.

The Oxford Student’s interview with Bridget Deadman and Pipopotamus’s blog offer a much more genuine insight into the experiences of travellers than faux-documentaries fronted by self-indulgent and ignorant people like Thelma Madine, and they don’t attempt to generalise entire cultures either. Pipopotamus eloquently summarises everything that is wrong with Thelma’s Gypsy Girls:

“I am willing to throw my hands up and apologise if I have misjudged fairy godmother Madine, yet I am positive that she most definitely is not on the side of the Romany and Irish Traveller communities. The project itself could have provided a new and exciting opportunity for the girls who were picked, but due to Thelma’s longing for money and fame, these girls have been paraded in front of the cameras as an excuse to induce humiliating, degrading and abusive comments over social networks and the media. If Thelma’s heart was truly in the right place, she would have had the decency to conduct her training away from the public eye. Instead all Thelma has proven is that she is the most dangerous ‘spokesperson’ for the Romany and Irish Traveller communities, and one of the biggest threats to our fight for equality.”

Variety is the spice of love: thoughts on polyamory

I recently came across a Facebook page with over a million fans, called “A relationship is only for two, but some bitches don’t know how to count”. While it presumably refers to the practice of cheating – specifically by women – I couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at the assumption that only two people can be involved in a happy, healthy relationship. What about polyamory, aka consensual non-monogamy, “the practice, desire, or acceptance of having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the knowledge and consent of everyone involved”? Does a relationship have to be “only for two” if all parties are happy with a different arrangement?

Polyamory gets a bad name because it is often confused with polygamy, which almost always takes the form of the marriage of one man to several women. In America, polygamy is associated with fundamentalist Mormon culture, and especially with its leader Warren Jeffs, who was imprisoned for sexually abusing young girls. But the history of polyamory is a radical one. Modern-day polyamory is intertwined with the rise of feminism and its roots go as far back as the 1840s. Flouting the repression and conservativeness of the Victorian era, the most radical women renounced monogamy as a tool of their oppression. The anarchist Emma Goldman lived with her boyfriend and another couple, and the four of them often made love together. The first books on the polyamory movement were written by women; a sizeable number of polyamorous households consist of more men than women. Associated with a kind of utopian New Age feminism, polyamory has historically been as much about carving out one’s own little corner of the world as it has been about sex.

Although I am someone who has only ever experimented with monogamy before, I believe that it’s possible to be just as happy in a polyamorous relationship. It’s true that polyamory is not inherently feminist: like monogamy, it has the potential to go wrong, and if a relationship is structured or negotiated on unequal terms it’s obviously not healthy. For some it can be difficult and overwhelming, as Zoe Whittall found out:

“I felt unconfined and open-minded and totally confused. Intellectually, non-monogamy made complete sense; emotionally, it felt like sandpaper across my eyelids.”

But when we enter into a monogamous relationship with another person, we enter into a series of unsaid expectations of how that relationship will function. Polyamory is different because it forces you to have open discussion about these expectations. Society does not yet have a preformed package of expectations for poly relationships. And talking on equal terms about how to structure your relationship rather than defaulting to the unspoken heteronormative is beneficial for all parties. There are fewer cracks through which insidious power dynamics can creep. As Red Chidgey quotes Tristan Taormino in a previous F-Word post:

 “Non-monogamous folks are constantly engaged in their relationships: they negotiate and establish boundaries, respect them, test them and, yes, even violate them. But the limits are not assumed or set by society; they are consciously chosen.”

Some would argue that polyamory is an unnatural state – but monogamy isn’t exactly natural either. During the Stone Age it was common for a man to impregnate a woman  and provide resources to protect her and her offspring, while impregnating as many other women as possible in order to replicate his genes. In the words of David Buss:

“The picture is not a very pretty one, but humans were not designed by natural selection to coexist in matrimonial bliss. They were designed for individual survival and genetic reproduction.”

Many people believe that a polyamorous person cannot truly give themselves to anyone, because their love is shared. This is based on the “starvation model” of love – the idea that you only have a limited amount of love, comparable to sharing a pizza or dividing up your wages, and it is completely false. Others don’t believe that it’s possible to love more than one person at a time, so if you’re in a position where you’re in a relationship with one person and you happen to fall for someone else, this shows that you don’t really love the person you’re with, right? After all, we are put here on this earth to love only one other person, our one true soulmate who is right for us in a world of seven billion people…This is the “scarcity model” of love, and it is deeply flawed.

I’m not suggesting that we should all reject monogamy. What needs to change is the widespread closed-mindedness regarding different relationship structures and the assumption that polyamory is somehow less valuable or viable than other relationship structures. We should question our monogamy because in most cases we didn’t freely choose it. We defaulted to it.

Leave My Hair Alone: The Politics of Depilation

Most women spend over a year of their lives removing body hair. That’s according to a recent episode of “Cherry Healey: How to Get a Life”, in which Healey took to the streets and interviewed random passers-by about their thoughts on body hair. The response was overwhelmingly negative; going au naturel was branded “scary”, “horrible”, and “dirty”. Several people said they would rather break their legs than have hairy armpits and a hairy vagina for the rest of their lives; one man chose breaking his leg over sleeping with a woman with a hairy vagina.

Healey herself admits to being obsessed with shaving, waxing and plucking; even the hair on her arms is stripped off regularly following a cruel remark from a boyfriend 15 years ago. Yet even she describes hair removal as “really painful, really time consuming, really annoying” and laments the “unrealistic idea of physical perfection” which drives so many women to the act.

The media bombards us with images of women sans body hair; the vast majority of mainstream porn depicts women with trimmed or waxed pubes; female celebrities who dare to not shave are lampooned and ridiculed by the press. Hair removal for women has become automatic and unquestioned. A ridiculous article on celebrities spotted out and about with hairy underarms declares that “there’s nothing more embarrassing for a woman than to get busted with hairy armpits, and when celebs are getting snapped 24 hours a day, there is no excuse for them to forget to shave”. Aside from the fact that these women may have actually wanted to go out like that, the overriding implication is that we should make an effort to not be caught out in our natural states. We should make society forget that our hair ever existed. And the Daily Mail’s description of Geri Halliwell’s hairy underarms as a “misstep” is a reflection of the way in which the female body in all its natural glory is still looked upon with disgust and contempt.

Why do we even have body hair? There must be a reason, right? Well, underarm hair wicks sweat away from the skin and helps maintain good ventilation. It’s true that sweat can cling to underarm hairs, but that’s what showering is for. Our underarm hair also harbours pheromones, scents produced by the body which are said to be sexually stimulating to others. There is much debate over humans’ sensitivity to pheromones, but papers such as this one list some compelling evidence.

Pubic hair keeps particles of sweat and bacteria from entering the vagina and causing infections. It forms an air pocket to keep the area cool, preventing sweat which will breed yeast and bacteria. Pubes also contain pheromones and even act as a dry lubricant. Body hair develops as a mark of puberty. It’s just one of the things which distinguish us from our prepubescent selves.

What many women aren’t aware of is that shaving the pubic area carries risks. It can get dirty and full of bacteria and, if there’s a cut, that cut could become infected. Ingrown hairs, which can be caused by shaving, are infections on their own and they’re very uncomfortable. The skin down there is very sensitive and prone to razor burn. Stubble is worse there than it is on the legs or armpits. Waxing is safer, but if not done properly can cause an infection. And, if you want to shave around your anus, remember that the lack of hair will make it practically impossible to pass gas silently.

A shaved pubic region may be sexually appealing to a man, but to a woman it means a number of health risks. Hair removal of any form should be an individual’s decision. It’s their body and their health, and that’s more important than their partner’s sexual pleasure. Everyone should know the risks involved. If you shave, think about why you actually do it.

There is a clear societal double standard when it comes to body hair. Yes, some men are pressured to shave by their partners – which I also disagree with – but body hair is frequently described as “masculine” and therefore the exclusive territory of the man. “Femininity” is equated with pre-pubescence. As Autumn Whitefield-Madrano explains:

“…body hair remains verboten for women because it breaks the ultimate taboo: gender…Body hair contains a threat, and in fact maybe it’s a combination of its embedded masculinity and its embedded female maturity that makes it such. Body hair is thriving proof that gender isn’t entirely binary (testosterone prompts its growth), and it’s also proof that women’s sexual characteristics aren’t limited to just the curves that make such nice statues.”

And I couldn’t ignore Laura Woodhouse’s excellent analysis of the politics of shaving:

“That’s exactly part of the reason I don’t shave – I think shaving, along with many other “beauty” practices, is part of the effort to create and accentuate difference between the sexes in order to allow and justify us being treated differently. It also causes us to see our natural female bodies as disgusting and as such can be another form of oppression (it doesn’t need to be, but the majority of defensive reactions to women who don’t shave their legs go along the lines of “well I just think it LOOKS better”. Of course you do, because you’ve grown up being told that female body hair is disgusting).”

And that’s partially why I don’t shave anymore. In this sense my decision is political as well as personal. I feel much more physically comfortable with body hair, but I am also acutely aware of societal beauty expectations and don’t intend to follow this one. If I don’t love my natural body, how can I be truly happy with myself as I am? Do I really want to be a slave to the razor for fear of being rejected by those around me?

My favourite part of “How to Get a Life” is when Healey pays a visit to Those Pesky Dames, a group of inspiring young women who produce YouTube videos “shouting about feminism, thwarting patriarchy, and generally annoying misogynists” (in their own words). They are brilliant advocates for challenging the beauty status quo – and they talk sense. “It’s really horrible that we have to feel so ashamed about natural body hair,” said one. All of them champion the principle of choice unhindered by societal expectations and pressure from partners. And that’s what it should come down to. It isn’t wrong to shave, wax or trim your body hair. But when it’s the only acceptable lifestyle choice being pushed upon us – when every mainstream media outlet recoils with horror at the sight of a woman going natural – there’s something wrong. It’s time for the body police to back off. And that includes you.

Welcome to the patriarchy. Please leave your privilege at the door

I recently came across something that made me wonder why I haven’t yet written anything about male privilege. It’s very topical amongst the Tumblr blogs I follow at the moment and I’m going to jump on the bandwagon and write a little post about my thoughts and experiences. If I fuck up because of my own privilege at any point, please don’t be afraid to call me out on it.

So what exactly is privilege? In an anti-oppression context, it can be summarised as advantages which people have based on their social status. As Betty eloquently explains here:

Privilege is not: About you. Privilege is not your fault. Privilege is not anything you’ve done, or thought, or said. It may have allowed you to do, or think, or say things, but it’s not those things, and it’s not because of those things. Privilege is not about taking advantage, or cheating, although privilege may make this easier. Privilege is not negated. I can’t balance my white privilege against my female disadvantage and come out neutral. Privilege is not something you can be exempt from by having had a difficult life. Privilege is not inherently bad. It really isn’t.
Privilege is: About how society accommodates you. It’s about advantages you have that you think are normal. It’s about you being normal, and others being the deviation from normal. It’s about fate dealing from the bottom of the deck on your behalf.

There are numerous types of privilege: white, male, heterosexual, monosexual, cissexual, thin. (Cissexual) male privilege is the advantages afforded to a male by society purely because of his gender. There is a basic checklist here for those who would like examples.

The reason why I’m blogging about this is because one of my male pro-feminist friends posted a Facebook status shortly after being called out on privilege during a discussion about a film with a friend. The status said that he was taking a break from politics, partially because of being “nagged and complained about for ‘sexist’ subtext more than pro-lifers and masculinists and people who call feminists man-hating lesbians”.

Ignoring the obvious exaggeration of the amount of time that was spent pointing out the offensiveness of his remark, his choice of language alone just screams privilege. It’s all too easy to paint feminists as whining bitches when they say something you don’t want to hear and to attempt to undermine their legitimate concerns about sexism. And as women we don’t have the luxury of taking a break from it all. Oppression is not something we can ignore. It is an everyday reality.

By his own admittance, feeling guilty and hypocritical isn’t pleasant. It usually provokes an instinctively defensive reaction, such as in the case of Laci Green, the feminist YouTube blogger who was called out on transphobia, Islamophobia and fat-shaming. Her defensive and patronising ‘apologies’ provoked outcry. It’s also not unusual for a person with privilege to feel sorry for themselves when they’re called out on something, especially when they consider themselves an ally of an oppressed group. But being an ally means questioning your own privilege and acknowledging the constructive criticism of people from that group. Who cares if you feel sore about the fact that you’ve been called out on it? Contributing to the feminist movement and holding feminist beliefs does not mean that you should be immune from criticism. Facing your privilege isn’t fun, either. It isn’t supposed to be. I’ve had to face my thin privilege and cissexual privilege and I’m not proud of it, but I accept that I need to educate myself on oppression which I have never faced and which I will never truly understand. If someone calls me out on it, I swallow my pride and learn from it. So if you forget your privilege in the future, don’t be hurt or offended. Apologise, take note, and learn. You can be a male pro-feminist with a burning desire to smash the patriarchy, but how is this going to happen if you don’t acknowledge and learn from your own mistakes, if you don’t question the set of privileges afforded to you as a man? All About Male Privilege hits the nail on the head:

“Male privilege is declaring that “you’re not like those other men!” while in the same breath shifting the focus of the conversation from women to how you’re such a good ally look at me and all I do for women. Sit down and shut the fuck up, let women speak for themselves and stop derailing.”

On a similar note, I recently talked to a pro-feminist man who was offended by someone on Twitter. She reportedly said it was disgusting that a man was hitting on her sister; that it was the reason her sister wore the hijab – because she felt safer; and that all men hit on women they find attractive. He felt it was unfair that all men were being tarred with the same brush.

It’s unsurprising that he reacted in this way. But when you’re part of an oppressed group which is constantly undermined, marginalised and ignored, you’re going to get angry. For example, when trans people use the phrase ‘die cis scum’, I know they aren’t talking to me; they’re talking about transphobes. I don’t feel the need to say to them “WE’RE NOT ALL BAD, OMG STOP GENERALISING, MY FEELINGS ARE SO HURT STOP OPPRESSING ME YOU’RE JUST AS BAD AS I AM”. Being an ally means recognising someone’s anger because they are sick of being treated as second class citizens. From a feminist’s perspective, as a man you owe nothing to them. You’re someone who will never truly understand what it’s like to be so scared of men that you wear a hijab. And sometimes, even if you feel personally offended, you have to let something go. In the words of Bikini Kill:

“I’m so sorry if I’m alienating some of you. Your whole fucking culture alienates me.”

Marxism 2012: lack of female representation proves that there’s still everything to fight for

**DISCLAIMER - This article was written in early 2012, before the SWP leadership exposed themselves as a group of rape apologist assholes**

I was excited to see the line-up of speakers at Marxism 2012, the annual London conference hosted by the SWP. Although I don’t class myself as a Marxist, an annual gathering of far lefties from across the world – be they Marxists or anarchists or anything else – packed full of interesting discussion and debate can only be positive for the anti-capitalist movement as a whole. And such a conference can also act as a great springboard for feminist discussion. I was therefore sorely disappointed to discover that out of the 51 confirmed speakers only 11 are women. That’s around 20%. It’s hardly surprising: women speakers are grossly underrepresented at all kinds of discussion forums on a national and global level. Professor Susannah Heschel has spoken of being the only woman invited to academic conferences in Israel; this year’s confoo.ca conference saw fewer than 5% of women speakers; at the CIH conference in Manchester and National Housing Federation conference in Birmingham, only a handful of speakers were female. But I am especially disheartened that the organisers have allowed such a gender imbalance to occur at Marxism 2012, given the nature of this particular conference. It isn’t difficult to see why certain facets of the left are still regarded as less accessible to women and other oppressed groups. I’m not going to deny that the 11 women speakers look interesting and inspirational, and I acknowledge the fact that there are women’s liberation talks and workshops over the course of the weekend. It’s unlikely that potential female speakers were turned down on the basis of gender. But patriarchy runs deeper than that.

Why are there so few women speakers at conferences?

There are several theories, all of which probably hold some truth in this instance and all of which inevitably involve some generalisation:

• The argument that women aren’t as good at self-promotion as men and are less likely to put themselves forward. They are also more likely to lack confidence in their speaking abilities. This is a symptom of patriarchy rather than a biological trait
• The usual suspects on speaker line-ups are well-known, mostly male, and easy for event organisers to contact
• The organisers are mostly male. Even when there is a gender balance amongst the organisers, discussions are dominated by men who give little thought to achieving a gender balance amongst speakers

Why does it all matter anyway?

It’s not about women being better speakers on the basis of their gender. It’s about a diversity of opinion being reflected in a demographically mixed environment, which creates more scope for interesting debate and discussion. And it’s about having sufficient representation to challenge cultural assumptions and privilege, which are often manifested unknowingly. 

What are the solutions?

• Think hard about the speaker panel and attendee list. Don’t just always go for the obvious option. No one ever said that achieving more equal and diverse representation was going to be easy. But it’s not as if women are less likely to be capable of delivering interesting speeches and workshops than men
• Quotas. They’re controversial – and I’m not usually a fan of them – but they’ve been implemented successfully in politics in the UK and abroad, notably in Scandinavia. Quotas are credited with breaking down prejudices which impede the selection of women and which discourage women from putting themselves forward
• Workshops on public speaking, geared at and run by women, which could be organised by the SWP

It won’t be a miracle cure. But it’s a start. The impression I’m getting at the moment is that gender imbalance at conferences like Marxism 2012 isn’t being highlighted or tackled with any sort of meaningful enthusiasm or effort. No one is advocating a completely even 50:50 split. But when there are four times more men than women on the line-up of speakers, it’s pretty obvious that there’s an issue with diversity and representation and no one should be afraid or ashamed to admit that. It’s not about accusing anyone of being sexist or blaming individuals; it’s about acknowledging the issue and taking steps to improve the situation and to create a better outcome for everyone. Even socialism isn’t free from privilege and patriarchy, and women’s liberation workshops alone are not going to solve that.

Lecturing stay-at-home mums does nothing for gender equality

One of the irritating things about highly successful women is that they are often quick to attempt to impose their lifestyle ideals onto the rest of their gender. At a recent Fortune Most Powerful Women summit which featured prominent women leaders in business, government, media, philanthropy, and the arts, Cherie Booth QC told the audience:

“One of the things that worries me now is you see young women who say, “I look at the sacrifices that women have made and I think why do I need to bother, why can’t I just marry a rich husband and retire?” and you think, how can they even imagine that is the way to fulfill yourself, how dangerous it is…you hear these yummy mummies talk about being the best possible mother and they put all their effort into their children. I also want to be the best possible mother, but I know that my job as a mother includes bringing my children up so actually they can live without me.”

Her comments came after Elizabeth Wurtzel delivered a scathing critique of stay-at-home mums “helping kill feminism”, because “real feminists earn a living, have money and means of their own”. Although Booth’s argument seems less outrageous when contextualised, I was left puzzled as to why women like her and Wurtzel are leading the discussion on women’s access to the workplace. They are both highly successful lawyers who have never had to fret over the cost of childcare, which rose by another 6% this year. Whilst it is true that some women are forced into work because of financial circumstances, changes to tax credits mean that 44,000 fewer families are getting help with paying for nurseries and child-minders, which now outstrip monthly housing costs. Britain is the most expensive country in Europe for childcare, which often exceeds £100 per week for a part-time nursery place, and stands in stark contrast to Iceland, where nurseries cost between £70 and £118 per month including breakfast and lunch. And a 2011 study found that rising childcare costs were a key factor in the decision of the 32,000 women who chose to become stay-at-home mums in the preceding year. In their rhetoric Wurtzel and Booth have failed to identify government’s role in limiting the prospects of women across the UK and US and essentially forcing them into domesticity, instead treating stay-at-home motherhood as little more than the choice of the lazy, selfish and unambitious. Coupled with disastrous paternity leave provision, it is clear that the insistence upon female responsibility for bringing up children is ingrained within the system.
 
But economic constraints only go so far in explaining why so many women prefer to stay at home. What happens when a woman is successful and financially independent but still chooses childrearing over the workplace? It is her free choice to leave work and raise the kids, right? Not necessarily. As Katie Gardner observes:

“What women do not have a choice in is the societal ‘norms’ and structures that can at times present enormous obstacles to their success, and can put pressure on them to stay at home not out of choice, but out of ‘what is good and right for the family’ –an entirely socially constructed notion.”

And it’s true. Working mothers often face social stigma and accusations of eschewing the best interests of their children in a desire to ‘have it all’; Gwyneth Paltrow recently championed stay-at-home mums, arguing that “this may not be feminist, but you have to compromise”, to murmurs of admiration from male and female reactionaries alike. The zeitgeist is still one of separate spheres. It would therefore be naïve to counteract Booth and Wurtzel with the argument that women are completely free to decide whether to stay at home or not, because social conditioning and existing patriarchal structures ensure that in many cases the decision is never really theirs. What Booth, Wurzel and Paltrow all have in common is that they are exclusively endorsing one kind of motherhood and dismissing all other choices as morally wrong. But in reality there is no definitive, foolproof way to raise your children and live your life. We need to work towards an environment in which women are able to make these decisions freely, unhindered by outside economic and social pressures, and in which childcare and housekeeping are no longer seen as ‘women’s work’. Cheap and flexible childcare and fully paid paternity leave, such as that provided in Denmark, would be a positive legislative step towards large scale societal change. Personally I favour a more  community-based approach to childcare, in which men and women take responsibility collectively. But I digress.

While reading criticisms of stay-at-home mums written by the likes of Wurtzel, I was especially struck by the implied assumption that work is useless unless there is some kind of salary involved. In a capitalist patriarchy, more money means more value. Those at the Fortune Most Powerful Women summit who’ve made it big in various careers are able to smugly celebrate their contributions to society, while women who aren’t in paid employment and are deemed to have added nothing to the socio-economic infrastructure are easy targets for high-flyers. Wurtzel thinks it is “feminist” to demonise women who don’t want to go down to the job centre – and it’s not like every stay-at-home mum has had the same educational and career opportunities as her – and chooses to trivialise whatever unpaid work they do at home.

I don’t think I could ever be a stay-at-home mum. I would find it boring, lonely, and claustrophobic. But there is nothing inherently wrong with a woman, or a man for that matter, leaving paid employment to look after his or her children. The real problem is that it is women who are still regarded primarily as caregivers and homemakers, an archaic attitude which is reflected in legislation and rooted at the core of our patriarchal society. When does a choice become a free choice? How do we distinguish between those who have chosen freely and those who have been pressured or conditioned to choose? The truth is that we can’t. All we can do is accept that there is no one model of motherhood; understand that we are dealing not just with government but also with the force of capitalism; and continue to beat against the current of patriarchy. Wurtzel in particular has done none of these things. So congratulations on undermining, devaluing and alienating these “yummy mummies”, for many of whom the prospect of a decent salary or an education is about as likely as you scrubbing floors for a living. And many simply couldn’t care less about what you think of their childcare arrangements.

Baring All: My First Naturist Experience

Less than a fortnight ago, a friend told me that he was a naturist. I’ll admit that I used to have misconceptions about naturism. I thought that it was a little weird and uncool and that it was only full of old men because they liked looking at young naked women. I thought that being a naturist had to mean eschewing clothes at every possible opportunity. I fell victim to the idea that wearing clothes was ‘the done thing’ and that it would feel odd to be nude around other people. How wrong I was. Within two weeks I have become a total convert to the idea that it’s okay to take your clothes off in public and feel good about it. The fact that naturist groups contain so many senior citizens actually stems from a surge of popularity which the movement enjoyed in the mid 20th century, which faded among later generations of youth. But age didn’t even bother me when I finally took the step of attending a nearby naturist swim session with a group of student friends.

The age demographic at the swim was mixed, with my friends and I being the youngest there bar a couple of children who came with their families. At no point did I feel uncomfortable or embarrassed. No one stares at each other’s bodies; no one walks around with an erection or makes inappropriate remarks. The sauna and steam room are great places to make friendly conversation and meet new people. Being naked whilst swimming, relaxing and chatting is treated as a fact of life, divorced from sexual arousal, and nothing to be self conscious about. From my experience, naturists are very accepting people; they see people for who they are rather than for what they look like. The swim also opened my eyes to the huge variety of shapes and sizes out there. Rather than feeling body conscious, I was comfortable in my own skin and judging from the reactions of numerous others who have tried naturism it is great for boosting confidence and positivity towards one’s own body. The thought of exposing a body which you’re not happy with among a group of strangers can be terrifying, because as women we have been brought up in a patriarchal, objectifying and shame-based culture. But naturism shows us that there is no one perfect body standard. Physical differences between humans of body type, size, gender, age and so on seem less important when viewed through the naturist lens. As Larry Darter observes in this excellent article:

“A lifetime of repressive taboos and censorship can be replaced with greater self-confidence and improved body image acceptance when a woman discovers that she experiences empowerment rather than intimidation, acceptance instead of rejection and humanization not objectification.”

Why, then, is nakedness so taboo in modern society when modern humans have been walking around naked for hundreds of thousands of years? The argument that clothes preserve “decency” and “morality” is merely a reflection of a fabricated social construct. Organised religion has inevitably played its part: think of Adam and Eve’s shame when they first notice their own nakedness, and of the requirements for women to dress “modestly” without exposing flesh. Clothing does serve a purpose, but being naked has nothing to do with lack of morality. We have lost touch with our natural state to the extent that even swimming pools – the most obvious places to be nude and comfortable with it – require us to cover our bodies with useless little bits of fabric. There is nothing innately unnatural and indecent about our bodies. For me, naturism is an embodiment of connection with nature and an indescribable feeling of freedom and liberation. I echo the words of CP Reece in Go naked; it’s good for everybody (but particularly for women):

“Bathe without a costume (they’ve only existed for about 150 years and they were invented by men to control what women wear and what women see) and you’ll never want to wear one again!”

Naturism is not about sex. A man who walks around with a huge erection or a woman who harasses other people would soon be asked to leave. What about those who are worried about getting uncontrollable erections at a naturist club? My male friend who accompanied me explained:

“If I’m attracted to someone it doesn’t matter if they’re naked, dressed, or in a potato sack, I’m still attracted…Well, boobs and such are fantastic. I am aroused by nakedness, when it is presented in an arousing context, much as I am aroused by someone in clothes, when presented as arousing.”

For many naturism is about freedom; relaxation; spirituality. For some it just feels good. There doesn’t have to be a deep and profound reason for going naked – it’s about what you’re comfortable with. Nor do you have to want to be naked all the time to get involved with naturist groups or take part in events. The sensation of floating naked in warm water, or treading barefoot through long grasses, or relaxing topless in a sauna, has to be felt to be believed. Shame, repression and lack of self esteem are damaging to our body image; the countries with the most liberal attitudes to the human body, such as Denmark and Sweden, are the best in terms of women’s self esteem and attitudes towards their bodies. In these countries, naturism is far less taboo and regarded as healthy and normal. It’s sad that so many people in the UK can only accept the naked body if it’s sexualised.
It’s normal to be nervous about trying new things and to be concerned about body image. Most people are before they experiment with naturism. But Stasha Boyd’s account of her first naturist experience speaks volumes about the way in which it can transform our self esteem and our attitudes towards nudity, the most natural thing of all:

“I’m a forty-two year old woman with your average, run-of-the-mill body issues. I was raised to believe that the flesh was something you mortify, not display; that social acceptance was more important than personal acceptance. And I just spent three glorious days at a nudist resort. Yep, three whole days in the sun, in the pool, in the spa, in the nude, in public and not only did I not die of embarrassment; I discovered a world of rejuvenation you can’t imagine until you’ve experienced it.”

I Like Porn

I feel that it’s time to broach the subject of the porn industry. This is going to be very controversial, because it addresses a divisive and sensitive issue amongst the feminist community and I know that many will disagree with me. I want to make it clear beforehand that it is not an endorsement of the practices of the traditional porn industry. I simply want to address stereotypes and misconceptions about the nature of porn itself – and its participants – and suggest alternatives to censorship.

Today I had the misfortune of coming across two clips (here and here) from Channel 4’s The Sex Education Show, in which young people were interviewed about the kinds of porn that they’d seen and their parents were invited to a special viewing of online ‘hardcore porn videos’. We didn’t get to see these videos, but moaning and screaming could be heard above the dramatic music which the producers helpfully decided to add in. The parents’ reactions were hilarious and a classic example of the moral panic which grips Daily Mail Britain whenever sex is televised. They groaned, squealed, and covered their faces. One parent started crying; another walked out. Words like “sickening” and “disgusting” were thrown about. “What sort of woman would do that?” muttered one mother. Another parent who could have been lifted straight out of a right wing evangelical Christian sect declared: “That is not just porn, that is bordering on evil”; such videos were deemed to have “decayed the moral fibre of our society”. Presenter Anna Richardson actually listened to these “brave” parents and made no attempt to explain that there is a variety of sexual preferences and fetishes and that enjoying something out of the ordinary is not “sick” or “revolting”. It was also implied during her chat with three teenage boys that “lesbian porn” is “shocking” – homophobia at its worst and a huge mistake on the part of Channel 4. Comedy value aside, the programme’s vehemently anti porn, pro censorship angle is worrying.

Historically, erotica and pornography have played a vital role in the way in which people understand themselves. To quote an excellent article by Jennifer Evans,  It Shouldn’t Be A Dirty Little Secret: A Feminist Makes A Case For Porn:

“If Michel Foucault is to be believed—the French philosopher whose writing helped birth the history of sexuality as a field—other cultures saw erotica as opening up much-needed discussion about mutuality—one’s likes and dislikes in the bedroom—and desire. Images provoked erotic play and negotiation, allowing, in an ideal sense, for an ethical and complimentary exploration of sexual wants and needs. Explicit images provided truths about our sexual selves.

Sometime in the 19th century this changed. Suddenly, explicit images became evidence of the contagion within. Instead of promoting healthy discussion and debate, pornography was evidence of a tortured soul, painfully out of step with the newly important place of the middle-class family and the masculinities and femininities that buttressed it. Science and medicine—newly professionalized—schooled men ways to channel and repress their desire as self-mastery became an emblem of responsible manhood. Women were alternatively regarded as frigid, uninterested, or over-sexed, requiring the discipline of marriage and motherhood to overcome their extreme emotions.”

Much of this archaic stigma still lingers on today. It’s unsurprising that the 2006 study into women who watch porn showed that many of them feel guilty about enjoying sex without the love and romance and worry that they’re ‘sluts’. They are inhibited by shame and repressive societal expectations. Sasha Grey, one of porn’s leading feminist figures who I will touch upon later, is right when she says that sex is “the last taboo” and that the campaign to keep it behind closed doors is “a very moralistic, Christian way of thinking”. Anti feminists tell women to be ashamed of their appetites and urges; pornography encourages them to embrace them. Pornography is an outlet for our natural desires and kinks, especially for those without sexual partners. To break this post up a little I’m going to do some myth busting and directly address the 5 major arguments against porn.

1. “Pornography is sexist in its depictions of women.”

Much of the modern day criticism of porn stems from the increasing popularity of violent and rough porn. Many of the more popular online videos depict women being choked, slapped, called sluts and whores, deep throated, spat on, and even urinated on. While there is a discussion to be had about the ways in which patriarchy manifests itself in pornography, what is often forgotten is that these are all fetishes which men and women genuinely enjoy. I’ve already addressed the stigma surrounding BDSM in another post, but I want to expand a little here. When critics point to rough sex in porn as evidence of its misogyny, they are subconsciously marginalising kink and, in turn, women in the kink community who are already made to feel ashamed of their sexual preferences by the rest of society. The problem with the argument that rough or kinky porn perpetuates imagery of women as sexual victims is that it shows absolutely no awareness of consensual kink and also ignores the abundance of rough and kinky gay porn, or porn which depicts men being abused. It overlooks the fact that these fantasies are enjoyed by men AND women. What the parents on The Sex Education Show fail to understand is that something isn’t automatically immoral just because you’re not into it. Grey feels that we need to be more open and comfortable with our sexualities, because “all sorts of people like all different things, and we just need to accept that as a society”. She likes being choked, slapped and doubly penetrated. And she isn’t afraid to assert that desire. In her first-ever porn scene, she told her partner to punch her in the stomach before his climax. Yes, she told him to do it. There is no problem with porn videos depicting rough sex, provided it is consensual, and in most cases it is. Dr Charlie Glickman has written a very good piece about sex positivity in which he argues:

“The very notion that a sex act can be good or bad in and of itself is simply the current iteration of sex-negativity because it locates the value of sex in the activity rather than in the experiences of the individuals who do it.That’s like saying that sandwiches are good or bad without reference to the personal tastes of the people who eat them. It’s much more productive to ask how a given individual feels about what they do and make room for a diversity of responses, instead of judging the acts themselves.”

And, as Greta Christina eloquently observes in Porn, Social Criticism, and the Marginalization of Kink, critiques of sexism in porn often miss the point and end up as kink-shaming. What needs to be emphasised is consent, and porn videos alone don’t always get that across. This is where sex education needs to step in.

2. “Pornography leads to violence against women.”

Feminists like Andrea Dworkin have linked pornography to sexual attacks and violence against women, but the evidence is debatable. Several studies, such as the one prepared by feminist Thelma McCormick in 1983 for the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women, have found no correlation between porn and sex crimes. The Task Force responded by suppressing the study and reassigning the project to a pro-censorship male, who returned the “correct” results. His study was published. Modern-day critics of pornography such as Gail Dines argue that men learn about sex from watching porn, citing a study from 2010 in which 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman’s face. Aside from the fact that Dines et al are straying into kink-shaming territory, they are ignoring the fact that fetishes are instinctive, not learned from porn. Porn simply provides an outlet for those fetishes. The fact that porn is the main way in which millions of young men learn about sex highlights a failure in our sex education system to provide students with comprehensive information to equip them for later life. Porn can work alongside proper sex education to create healthy outcomes.

3. “Porn can never be feminist.”

What exactly is feminist pornography? The annual Feminist Porn Awards in Toronto has three guiding criteria:

• A woman is involved in the production, writing, direction etc of the work
• It depicts genuine female pleasure
• It expands the boundaries of sexual representation on film and challenges stereotypes that are often found in mainstream porn

The emergence of pornography produced by feminist women such as Tristan Taormino, who lets actors choose their own partners; showcases women’s pleasure; and guarantees an equitable and safe work environment on set and on screen, is a significant step towards the transformation of the industry. It is also increasingly popular, which is hardly surprising given that young women today are more comfortable to discuss their sexual fantasies and there is a greater demand from them for visual stimulation.

One of the reasons why porn is considered anti feminist is because it ‘objectifies’ women. But are critics missing the point? Avedon Carol, spokesperson for Feminists Against Censorship, sums it up when she says:

“There is no reason to think that porn can’t be ‘woman-friendly’…The thing about porn is that it’s about what turns you on, not what your intellectual ideals are – sexual desire isn’t really very intellectual. So the question of ‘woman-friendliness’ may be rather corruptive to the discourse, if what you are looking for is an intellectual ideal rather than just material women enjoy using to get hot”.

Women are as much their bodies as they are their minds or souls. It isn’t degrading to focus on their sexuality. It’s also worth considering that in feminist porn both partners operate as equals. Anna Span makes porn from a ‘female perspective’ by shooting in a different way to traditional porn directors, thus avoiding the ‘male gaze’ trend, and by selecting good looking and experienced men that women WANT to watch. For those who want to learn more about feminist porn, I’d recommend this excellent 2003 documentary, which “takes a rare and empowering look into the pornography industry and feminist community to see how they intertwine within the politics and poetics of female sexuality. It shows women who are committed to making and supporting pornography that includes their feminist values and will go up against an entire industry, stereotypes, and sexism to get what they want”.  In the words of Ellen Willis, who famously coined the term ‘pro sex feminism’:

“As we saw it, the claim that ‘pornography is violence against women’ was code for the neo-Victorian idea that men want sex and women endure it.”

4. “Female porn actors are victims of false consciousness.”

A common argument wheeled out by anti porn campaigners is that women who pose for or act out porn are so traumatised by patriarchy that they cannot give real consent. In No porn is good porn?, Abby O’Reilly notes that

“pornography continues to be perceived as the last refuge of the male sexual pervert and ill-informed cock-slut who, in her pretensions to empowerment, is ironically consolidating archetypal male oppression at the same time as flashing her muff at anyone holding a camera”.

I am in full agreement that the porn industry currently has its fair share of problems, and one of them is that the women involved are often addicted to drugs, economically trapped, and sometimes pressured into doing things that they aren’t happy with. This needs addressing urgently and it requires a radical shake up of our society, not censorship of porn (which I will address later). But what of those women who are happy and healthy and who still choose to do porn? A common characteristic of the porn actors who have been interviewed about their work is a love of exhibitionism. They enjoy being naked and having sex on camera. To stop them from doing that is a denial of their right to choose anything outside the narrow range of choices offered by political/sexual correctness.
Some pornographic actresses such as Nina Hartley (who is active in the sex workers’ rights movement), Ovidie, and Madison Young are self-described sex-positive feminists who argue that much of what they do on camera is an expression of their sexuality. My personal favourite – who I mentioned at the beginning of this article – is Sasha Grey, an intelligent and eloquent philosophy graduate with a clear mission statement:

“Most of the XXX I see is boring, and does not arouse me physically or visually. I am determined and ready to be a commodity that fulfills everyone’s fantasies…I don’t need to see genitalia up close; I don’t need to see a dirty yellow couch against a white wall. I want to see something different, like this is not exciting to me…If you look at me and you think ‘Here’s a woman who’s intelligent, cognizant and making her own choices’, and you still tell me that what I’m doing is wrong, screw you, because that should end the debate.”

5. “Porn should be censored.”

Aside from being a violation of freedom, censorship of porn as advocated by many anti pornography feminists has serious flaws. In its mission statement, Feminists For Free Expression argues that censorship has never reduced violence, but has historically been used to silence women and stifle efforts for social change. They point to the birth control literature of Margaret Sanger, the feminist plays of Holly Hughes, and works like Our Bodies, Ourselves and The Well of Loneliness as examples of feminist sexual speech which has been the target of censorship. And one of the problems with censorship is that it simply drives the industry underground, offering “a cosmetic, dangerous ‘quick fix’”. As Anna Span came to realise, censorship is counterproductive; it does not eradicate the tendency to eroticise the female body, but simply forces these thoughts underground.
I am tired of others trying to control my sexuality by telling me what I should or shouldn’t like based on what someone else thinks is best for me. As it happens I share Grey’s opinion that most porn is boring, but I will always defend a person’s right to take part in or watch it. Enough of paternalism. We have rights over how we enjoy our sexuality and we don’t want to be labelled as sick or twisted. Porn isn’t for everyone. Some people just don’t get turned on by looking at others having sex. That’s fine.

Critiquing sexism in porn isn’t bad in itself. But most critiques either generalise all porn as bad or class the sex acts themselves as bad, which ignores the fact that it is possible to make porn which is ethical and consensual and which values the satisfaction and emotional well-being of all participants. Yes, there is a lot of abuse within the porn industry. But there is a way to combat that without criminalising porn, which in itself is not inherently sexist. Policing sexuality is the wrong way to combat patriarchy; it only leads to repression, shame, and greater opportunities for exploitation. And until we accept that it’s okay to be turned on by watching other people have sex, be it straight or gay or rough or sensual or just plain filthy, we will never truly be liberated.

Sex education is better for everyone: why we should go Dutch

One of the issues which I’ve always felt very strongly about is that of sex and relationships education (SRE). My own sex education began at the age of 10, in primary school. We were separated from the boys and taught the basics of the female anatomy; periods were briefly explained. Another ‘talk’ in Year 7 went into more detail about periods, after I’d already started mine; my first proper sex education lesson was at the age of 13 and comprised lessons in putting a condom on a wooden penis, an explanation of the different forms of contraception, and some information about STDs, complete with graphic pictures. We were also offered a C-card which enabled us to access free contraception. And that was it for the rest of my school career. I was never told that it’s possible to get an STD from giving fellatio or cunnilingus. In fact, oral sex wasn’t even mentioned, despite it forming a key part of many teenagers’ sex lives, including those who have yet to lose their virginity. I was never told anything about female orgasm or ejaculation. I was never told about anal sex, or cystitis, or fetishes, or the importance of not pressuring others into sex. I was never told about the pleasure of sex or about the emotional side of sexual relationships. My knowledge of sex education was patchy at best; Google became my friend for answering my questions, and even then I still made mistakes and had to learn the hard way. One girl I know very nearly didn’t ask for a morning-after pill because she thought that, as a 15 year old, she would get into trouble if she went to the sexual health clinic. She lied about her age and broke down in tears, only to be told by the nurses that it was absolutely fine and that they’d given the pill to much younger girls. There needs to be full and frank discussion about the options available to teenagers who need emergency contraception so that they aren’t deterred from seeking it.

The lack of knowledge and understanding displayed by so many young people when it comes to sex is hardly surprising. A 2011 study commissioned by Brook, the sexual advice service for young people, found that nearly half of secondary school pupils consider their sex and relationship education to be unsatisfactory, while just 6% said they got the information about relationships that they need from SRE lessons. The study of over 2,000 14 to 18-year-olds also revealed that 59% have heard that a woman can’t get pregnant if the man doesn’t ejaculate inside her; 33% have heard that you can’t get pregnant the first time you have sex; and 25% have heard you can only catch HIV if you’re gay. One in four pupils get no SRE in school. Described by young people as “too little, too late, too biological”, devoid of emotions and real life dilemmas, this half-hearted attempt at keeping young people safe and informed isn’t working. Britain has the highest teen pregnancy rates in Western Europe. A third of teenage girls lose their virginity to please a boyfriend, while more than half have experienced unprotected sex. Nor are children being educated at home by parents: only 5% of young people get their information from their mother and 1% from their father.

This stands in stark contrast to Holland, which has Europe’s lowest teen pregnancy rate – six times lower than Britain’s statistics. Its sex education programme is controversial: while schools are free to design their own programmes, some initiatives have included condom demonstrations for 10-year-olds, trips to sex shops for older teenagers, and cartoon videos on how to masturbate. But these practical demonstrations form just a small part of SRE in Holland, which also encourages young people to discuss the emotional implications of sex. Typical debates include reasons to have sex, what to say if a boy refuses to wear a condom, and how to maintain self-respect. On average teenagers in Holland lose their virginity a year after teenagers in Britain, living proof that being more aware of your own body and of aspects and consequences of sex doesn’t mean that you’re going to start having it at a younger age.

Proposals for a more Dutch style system over here have of course provoked outcry from conservative Daily Mail readers who talk in hushed whispers of protecting children’s ‘innocence’ and ‘modesty’. The idea that young children are too ‘innocent’ to learn about puberty is totally bizarre. What about the 8 year old who starts her periods and doesn’t know what’s going on? Why should early developers be made to feel ashamed of their bodies? And how would open discussion of the changes which their bodies undergo during adolescence be detrimental to their wellbeing? Children have a right to learn about sex in the most natural, gradual way possible. SRE for 5 year olds would be age appropriate, as it is in other European countries, and focused around explaining different body parts; relationships with friends and family; and sex and pregnancy.

And why teach children silly words for genitalia? It only tells them that they are taboo and shameful. Asking children to use the proper terms for their body parts also ensures that in cases of abuse they can adequately describe what has happened to them. ‘Penis’, ‘testicles’, ‘vulva’ and ‘ovaries’ are all words which we should not shy away from but instead encourage children to adopt. Young kids are usually curious about babies and where they come from; it is important for parents to be open with their children without overloading them with information. One mother writing for The F-Word was asked what sex was by her son; she told him it was something adults do for fun and sometimes to make babies. He hadn’t asked her about the mechanics of sex, so she didn’t go any further. When he asked how he got into her uterus, she told him that Daddy helped put him there, and when he asked how, she replied, “with his penis”. This is a perfectly adequate step towards the development of a child’s understanding of the way in which our bodies work.

The backlash against sensible teaching methods like this is fronted by the right wing, anti choice MP Nadine Dorries, who recently attempted to pass a bill requiring schools to teach girls (not boys) the benefits of sexual abstinence. Her assertion that it would be safer has been contradicted by a 2007 Ofsted report warning that it may actually increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy and STIs for teenagers:

 ”There is no evidence that abstinence-only programmes as the only education reduce teenage pregnancies or improve sexual health. Research suggests that education that promotes abstinence but withholds information about contraception can place young people at higher risk. There is also no evidence to support claims that teaching about contraception leads to increased sexual activity.”

Even if we give Dorries the benefit of the doubt and assume that she supports abstinence lessons alongside the distribution of information about contraception, it is bizarre that only girls would be included in them. It suggests that they are the ones with a problem. It would be useful if boys and girls alike were taught about positively choosing whether or not to have sex, what real consent looks like, and how sex fits into a relationship. Teenagers should be encouraged to make an informed choice when they feel that they’re ready rather than subjected to a talk on why avoiding sex is the right thing to do, which simply feeds an unhealthy obsession with virginity and purity. They should be given a framework which they can use when deciding whether to say yes to sex at any given point in their lives: how will it make them feel right now/later on? What impact will it have on their relationship with the other person? What are the risks/pitfalls of sex here, now, with this person? How well protected are they against pregnancy and STIs? An ‘empowerment and respect’ agenda, part of the Dutch approach to sex education, would be a far better doctrine than that of abstinence.

Teenage sex is a fact of life. Thousands of underage girls and boys have it each year. The best thing we can do for them is to make sure that they are armed with the information they need to keep themselves safe and happy. Sex isn’t shameful. A more enthusiastic approach to SRE at an earlier age with a bigger emphasis on the ‘relationships’ part would be a positive step towards combatting teenage pregnancy and producing a generation of adults who know how to assert themselves in the bedroom.

“You cannot have sex education without saying that sex is natural and that most people find it pleasurable.”
-Bruno Bettelheim, ‘Our Children Are Treated Like Idiots’, Psychology Today, Jul. 1981