Christopher Hitchens RIP?

This week, Christopher Hitchens died. Author, journalist and celebrated atheist, Hitchens was brilliant at what he did. His work on religion, perhaps what he is most famous for, is, at times, both infuriating and exactly what I want to shout out. He was incredibly erudite, and had a way with words which is rare. Reading his own reflections on the cancer which would eventually kill him was a terribly moving experience. This Vanity Fair article is upsetting for the honesty and the vulnerability of humanity that Hitchens came to know: http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/09/hitchens-201009.

We disagreed on the afterlife, but I respect his opinion on this. It was the result of a surety based on his assessment of the evidence on show. For that reason I won't say 'RIP'. To do so would be to disrespect his belief that death is the end; instead, I praise his achievements in life. For all the reasons listed above, I am grateful that he was alive.

What on Earth?!

Question: what search term could produce the following list of results on the University of Edinburgh's "searcher" function?

"Violence: Recognition, management, and prevention: Assailant's' Sexual Dysfunction During Rape: Prevalence and Relationship to Genital Trauma in Female Victims"

"Feeling the Heat" (with subjects listed as sport clothes and merchandising)

"ARE YOU SURE you're still a VIRGIN?" (With the funny capitals as well)

"Serum biochemical reference intervals for wild dwarf ornate wobbegong sharks (Orectolobus ornatus)."

[All results from the first page of results]

Answers on a postcard, please...

16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women

This is something that I meant to post on Friday, but technical difficulties mean that it has been delayed.

Friday the 25th November was the International Day Against Violence Against Women, and the 10th December is International Human Rights Day. The sixteen days connecting these dates have been taken up across the world as the 16 Days of Action on Violence Against Women. By connecting these two days, it is hoped that the message that women's rights are human rights, and are an international issue, will get across.

Some of the issues that are being taken up are as follows: domestic violence, sexual violence, childhood sexual abuse, prostitution and exploitation and human trafficking.

I've been facilitating this campaign at work, which means I've had the opportunity to liaise with numerous fantastic organizations, including Women's Aid, Rape Crisis Scotland, Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre and Shakti Women's Aid. These guys have been kind enough to provide me with copious amounts of materials, from posters to leaflets to in-depth info.

What it has also made me realise is that this blog doesn't actually link to any support agencies, despite it's sometimes distressing content. To rectify that I have summarised the basic info for the 4 main agencies I worked with:

Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre: http://www.ewrasac.org.uk/

EWRASAC provides support for women aged 12 and over and members of the transgender community who have experienced rape and sexual abuse, from support and advocacy to specific problems like dealing with panic attacks and self-harm. They also have information for families of those who have been raped or sexually assaulted.

They can also be contacted by telephone on 0131 5569437

Edinburgh Women's Aid: http://edinwomensaid.co.uk/

They support women and children at risk of violence (of any kind, not just physical) by partners or ex-partners. Services include refuge accommodation, young people's services and resettlement.

Telephone: 0131 315 8110

Shakti Women's Aid: http://www.shaktiedinburgh.co.uk/

For women of black and ethnic minority communities, including Eastern Europe, South East Asia and the Middle East.

Telephone: 0131 475 2399

Rape Crisis Scotland: http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/

The national centre for rape crisis work in Scotland, they operate the out of hours telephone service and run fantastic campaigns.

The 'not ever' campaign: http://www.notever.co.uk/the-campaign/

This is not an invitation to rape me: http://www.thisisnotaninvitationtorapeme.co.uk/

Telephone: 08088 01 03 02

Information and help after rape and sexual assault, a Scottish Government Document - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/350957/0117632.pdf

Babies v Buses: Can Men Not Push Buggies?

I stumbled across this article earlier:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/mums_rev_up_for_new_fight_over_pram_ban_1_1965185

Pretty much a rehash of the ever-joyous baby v bus debate that pops up to annoy Lothian Buses annually.

However, it really, really upsets me that this is all about mums with buggies. I won't deny that when I do take the bus, the majority of those getting on with babies are women, but this has sparked an interesting chain of thought: can men push buggies? Are men so pumped up with testosterone that their masculinity makes them baulk at the very sight of those toothless wonders? Indeed, does the penis actually prevent one from pushing a buggy?

And then I remember that, actually, I frequently see men with babies on buses. Heaven forfend, even men with babies in buggies on buses.

It calls to mind the endless scenarios I've seen of parents telling off their little boys: "stop pushing that buggy; you're not a girl!" It saddens me that girls are socialized from a young age to care for children, whilst boys are warned off it - and for what purpose? For the preposterous notion that doing 'girly' things makes them gay? Do we want to see our sons as bad fathers?!

The perpetuation of male breadwinner/female caregiver stereotypes exemplify the everyday fights that we all need to partake in. This may seem like a 'small' issue in a supposedly equal society, but it is in the small things that we find the roots of inequality.

News So Appalling That I May Transform into the Hulk

This is one of the most horrific articles I've ever read: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/turkish-court-reduces-rape-sentences

A 13 year old girl was sold by two men for sex which subsequently resulted in her being raped by26 men. I may have to repeat that: TWENTY-SIX. These men included teachers and civil servants who have been sentenced for disturbingly short sentences (those who sold her for 9 years and the rapists for 1-6 years). Yet now, those sentences may be cut further because she "consented".

?!

How, in the name of all that is good can a 13 year old girl actually consent in this situation? I've mentioned before that I disagree with consent-focused rape laws, but I don't think I've ever given a full explanation of why. So, oh lucky ones, I shall. Gather round and listen to my words of wisdom kiddly-winks...

Consent is, by it's very definition, an agreement reached by two people in a position of equality. Now, I won't go so far as some have, and claim that due to the ongoing power of patriarchy all sex between men and women is not actually 'consensual' as they can never be equal. I think this is a very monolithic view of patriarchy, and if we do not understand the specific permutations at work then we can, in fact, credit it with too much power, whilst ignoring the real battlegrounds.

Instead, I argue that consent is essentially meaningless in the realm of sexual negotiation. The law does not really have the means to provide legislate for the minutae of power relations at work in the sexual realm, so it takes a 'single common denominator' approach. To give consent, in the eyes of the law, is to remain silent, to not fight back, to not kick and scream... This is based on two major misunderstandings: 1) the myth of 'real rape' where innocent young virgins are violently violated whilst their continued attempts to fight are overcome by the sheer strength of the vile offender - for a bit of a rant about this see my post on the Ken Clark controversy earlier this year; 2) a complete lack of forethought about the choices a person is framing during the course of their relationship with that person/the attack. It is all very well and good to say that you'd fight back, but what about if you suspected you would be subjected to further violence? What if the attacker had a weapon? What about if the attacker had threatened your family? What if silence is the easiest way for you to deal with the attack? The coercion and violence inherent in the act of rape as demonstrating power on the body of another takes place at a level the law cannot truly legislate, at least if it continues to rely on the overly broad and meaningless concept of 'consent'.

We don't know what sort of choices this child was framing when she was raped, but placing oneself in the shoes of a child being forced to have sex with adults who hold very real power over you is rape. For goodness' sake, she was SOLD - how can she have consented?!

There are two issues at stake in the more specific Turkish context here too - 1) these men may be released because this legal wrangling is stretching the case past the timeframe for prosecution and 2) killings of women increased 1,400% between 2002 and 2009. I can't even begin to comprehend such a figure.

Massive Killer Pacman Ghosts: Why Frape isn't Funny Part 2

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote Zombie Sheep and Beelzebub' Dinner: Why Frape isn't Funny, which has become the most read post I've written. In it I ranted about how it had become acceptable to use the term 'frape' a contraction of 'facebook rape' to describe someone hacking into your facebook account, and how this has spread into a wider acceptance of rape as something to be joked about. Thankfully, in the intervening months I have seen a much lower usage of 'frape' but it seems that the underlying current that made it acceptable is still strong.

You may have heard about petitions to facebook regarding the proliferation of pages which joke about rape. They include 'You know she's playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway', 'Raping your mates girlfriend to see if she can put up a fight', 'Kicking Sluts in the Vagina', 'I know a silly little bitch that needs a good slap', and 'Riding your Girlfriend softly, Cause you don't want to wake her up'.

Lovely.

Given that Facebook says in it's terms and conditions that "You will not post content that is: hateful, threatening or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence", one would think that it would be easy to have these pages shut down. Alas, Facebook thinks these are all just hilarious rude jokes and to shut the down would be a violation of free speech.

Because we all know that women who have been assaulted and/or raped have a total hold over their own rights. They have freedom of movement, right? They have freedom of speeh, yeah? This week I read an account by Andrea Brenton Rushing entitled 'Surviving Rape: A Morning/Mourning Ritual' in which she describes feeling unsafe in her own home, suffering severe Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder where she had to take extended leave from her job as a lecturer because she couldn't write, nor even remember things. But, y'know, the fact that she woke up in her own bed to being attacked is funny. Funny because he obviously didn't know to go 'softly' enough.

Now if Facebook is going to be so blasé about this, we can take this as an affirmation of what they're doing. An affirmation of making fun of rape, and rape victims.

Facebook, you are being damned to my own special level of hellfire, along with Catherine Hakim, Ken Clark, and Jane Austen. Oh, and because I feel there would be a splendid irony to it, in that hell I will set massive killer pacman ghosts on you - you may try to run (digitally, I suppose), but you can't hide...

Postgraduatedom in Numbers: Week One

After a year of waiting, 3 months of grappling with the Career Development Loan folk, and innumerable visits to the NLS, I began my Masters this week.

There have been 3 lectures.

One assignment sprung on us with very little notice.

45 hours of working at my job because I didn't know that either of the above were happening.

5 6am starts.

3 1am finishes.

1 expletive filled rant.

1 bout of sobbing.

Oh, and 2,323 words on an assignment on Dual Agency and the Evolution of Thought in the Work of Fatima Mernissi.

I'm pretty tired, but I'M BACK, baby.

Surely that's a Misprint? and Deals with the Funding Troll

This week I was invited to a panel discussion entitled God & Sex. Sounds interesting, and particularly relevant to my research. Alas, on further investigation this does not seem to be the case. Indeed, it would seem that God really doesn't have much to do with it at all:

Does the Church talk too much about sex? Are any of the Church’s traditional teachings on sex relevant today? Should Christians rethink their approach to sex? Or stay out of the discussion entirely?

This panel discussion on God and sex, held at the University of Edinburgh, features:

Richard Holloway, outspoken ‘after-religionist,’ former bishop of Edinburgh, and champion of LGBT causes
Dr. Sara Parvis, lecturer in Divinity at the University of Edinburgh, feminist, and devout Roman Catholic
Fr. Ian Paton, rector of Old St Paul’s

Chaired by the Rev. Harriet Harris, Chaplain to the University of Edinburgh.

Now I'm not saying that this isn't a very valid and necessary discussion to be having, far from it. The way the church treats sex and sexuality is pretty dire in my opinion. I also like the idea that Christians should rethink their approach to sex, it brings up all sorts of images of a Cosmopolitan-esque magazine imploring Christians to branch out from the missionary position, or even giving more 'holy' names to existing, erm, approaches. Anyhoo...

However, I get rather irate when 'God' and 'Christianity' are treated as synonymous. This may be a case of miscommunication, but there is certainly a very virulent vein of thought in which Christians either forget that other people have a claim on God as well, or in which they are so arrogant that of course their idea of God is the only true conception and they, and they only, have the right to use the term 'God'.

*Did you notice that I was keeping an eye out for how it would affect my research? That would be because I have finally come to an agreement with the funding troll - that he can follow me around for the next four years shouting in my ear that I owe him money - in order that I can do my Masters. Induction happened on Thursday and I start back proper tomorrow. Eek!

Erotic Capital: The Rationalisation of Rape

Catherine Hakim, an LSE sociologist has a new book out at the moment: Honey Money: The Power of Erotic Capital. Nice.

Her basic thesis seems to be that men want sex. More sex than women are prepared to give, and so this provides a bit of a vacuum in which any self-serving women will exploit to her benefit. Apparently women have now noticed that they can use their 'sex-appeal' to get ahead, a fact which the 'patriarchy' has attempted to cover up: "Patriarchal ideologies have systematically trivialised women's erotic capital to discourage women from capitalising on it – at men's expense." You can read a rather fantastic interview with Ms Hakim here.

This theme, that women don't have to go all the way and fulfil men's desires, but only to look pretty and make the guys think they might has been picked up in this jaw-dropping Daily Mail article. Ms Brick is a delightful young women, who is quite happy to spend a large proportion of her time flirting away in order to get exactly what she wants (which it seems is make-up and clothes - a touch of a vicious cycle going on there). Happy days for her. Interesting that last year she wrote this article entitled How TV is run by sexist pigs, where she wrote of how it was only through hard work she got on in her career despite sexual harassment. Anyhoo, it's the Daily Mail so I won't hold her up as an example.

However, Hakim's thesis doesn't just make my blood boil because she is boiling women down to sexual fantasies for men. I think she is pedalling a very dangerous ideology.

I came to this realisation when re-reading Catharine MacKinnon's section on Rape in "Toward a Feminist Theory of the State". She draws on the popular image of women as teases who control their sexuality in terms of consent. Men initiate sex, women consent . The terms of the initiation, consequences of refusal, and the situation a woman is placed in when deciding whether to consent or not are generally ignored. "Fundamentally, desirability to men is supposed a woman's form of power because she can both arouse it and deny its fulfilment". (MacKinnon, 1989:175) However, this notion of women as 'teases' rationalises force. She's stringing him along, thinking she will give in to his desires, but at the last second leaves him standing. Well of course she wants it, hasn't she just been giving all the signals? Perhaps she's trying to get him to work for it. Never do we consider that she actually doesn't want to have sex with him. "Consent in this model becomes more a metaphysical quality of a woman's being than a choice she makes and communicates." (MacKinnon, 1989:175)

Hakim is perpetuating this image of women as teases, even encouraging women to take ownership of her erotic capital and use it for her won ends. Unfortunately she hasn't thought it through. This isn't the dawning of a new feminine overcoming of the patriarchy, but it is lending academic credentials to a dangerous piece of misinformation.

For that reason, Hakim is being damned to my own personal hell, as detailed in previous postshere, here and here.

Arrogance and Ignorance: Religion vs Sprituality?

Facebook has been abuzz this week with debates about this wee article. Such buzz has even spread to the blogosphere, in the ever erudite thoughts of Chris, but I felt the need to put my own thoughts out there for anyone interested.

This whole article is symptomatic of the insidious arrogance and ignorance that we see in the Church every day. Ms Daniels has created a false dichotomy of 'religion' vs 'spirituality' where she makes up her own implicit definitions. Spirituality is something one creates for themselves because they are scared of the hard slog of working out one's religion in community, which is in vogue for those wishing to set themselves apart from traditional religion. Religion is about experiencing God "in the psalms, the creation stories and throughout our deep tradition", and is about community. Notice that she talks about experiencing God through intermediaries, rather than directly. And can someone please, for the love of all that is holy (as agreed by a council of appropriately appointed people over the course of thousands of very trying church council meetings), tell me what someone "who has been shaped by a mighty cloud of witnesses" is like?! Sounds like someone who has had one too many acid trips to be honest...

Ms Daniels has taken one of the most basic tenets of theology - the presence of God in the natural world - and has actually argued against someone experiencing God that way. How lovely, can you imagine meeting her for pastoral care?

"Parishioner: I totally felt God's presence the other day! I was walking along the beach at sunset...

Minister: Oh reaaaaallllyyyy? And was there a cloud of witnesses? A passing prayer group? No, ah, that wasn't God then. That was your own selfish interpretation of what God is like. Stop being so bland and become part of the all-encompassing community, that is original."

Delightful.

Not to mention that she seems to be advocating a theology in which God would only answer the prayers of the church-going. That would be an interesting conversations too:

"Plane dweller: So God...

God: Yes?

PD: Yeah, it's a bit choppy up here. Or is it down here for you? I get confused.

God: I'm all around. Although if you thought you saw me on that mountaintop, that was actually a selfish LIE made up by yourself.

PD: Well actually...

God: Oh ME, you're not one of THOSE are you?

PD: Those?

God: Yeah, those. Those folks who think they can rock up when the going gets a bit tough and expect me to answer their prayers?

PD: Um...

God: Honestly, I'm a busy deity, and I've got over a billion followers across the planet, why would I waste my time on you? You have to undertake at least an alpha course and three months worth of Sunday meetings before I'll be bothered with you..."

I know if I were on an 'airplane' (whatever that is) experiencing turbulence, I'd absolutely rather sit next to the person willing to share their innermost thoughts about how they relate to the world than by an eye-rolling minister, disinterested in my opinions because they don't take the exact form of their own. That, and sitting next to the heretic is surely a dangerous seat to be in...

Kill the Funding Troll for the Good of Obedient Wives?

Rape. Incest. Prostitution and Sex Trafficking. All terrible ills. Do you want to cure these, ladies?

You do?

Me too!

But how, I hear you ask?

Well ladies - too long have you neglected your husband's needs. Not wants, not desires but NEEDS.

Does your husband want you to share him happily with the woman next door? Let him.

Does your husband want you to dress up as a horse complete with all necessary regalia? Then gosh darn it woman find yourself an equestrian centre!

God is demanding you to become a sex goddess, whatever that may entail for you in fulfilling your husband's NEEDS.

From whence have I received this eminently sensible wisdom?

The Obedient Wives Club

Oh yes, it's God that wants you to do this. Indeed, you would not even be here if men did not have such needs:

"Eve was created because Adam had needs. Men have [sexual] needs which they can't control. And if the needs are not fulfilled, men will find another woman. God created them like that."

Now, at this point you may be feeling a little feminist rage bubbling within, but STOP. Feminism, in the guise of those sinister 'women's groups' has led you up the garden path. Talk of men being responsible for rape is just a ruse to detract from the plain and simple fact that it is his wife's fault he rapes. She has left him unsatisfied, so how could he be accountable for his actions?

It is all so self-evident, based even in the Qur'an!

Alas, alack it is almost a sadness to deny the logic available here.

You see, it is true that the Qur'an is peppered with references to sex and sexuality. The absence of Augustinian notions of Original Sin as transmitted through sex means that it can take on a divine notion. This is all very positive, and something I absolutely advocate.

The 'awra' or 'shame zone' - the areas which are to remain covered in public for all introduce a theology of the body which has, through successive commentators, become imbibed upon the bodies of women. Our bodies are vessels of honour, but that honour is perceived to be the arena of our male relatives and husbands. If that honour is damaged; however, for example in a rape, then it is our shame to live with. Or indeed die with.

This double standard forms the basis of much confused thinking about female Muslim sexuality. We have opulent Orientalist exoticised notions of Odalisques, harems and lesbianism which juxtapose with our image of the burqa-clad oppressed woman. Both images are disingenuous and it is for this reason that I propose to study the lived experience of sexuality for British Muslim women.

I have always argued that we must reconsider our current uncritical definitions of the homogeneity of sexuality, and to contextualise these within ethnic and religious lives, in order to truly get the best deal for women across the globe, and this proves the need to do this. Otherwise we end up with crackpot theories which force women to be subservient to their husbands every (and it would seem even deviant) desire and absolving rapists from the blame for their crimes.

In other words, someone kill the funding troll and let me get on with sorting this mess out.

Rape IS Rape: Giving Ken Clarke the Keys to a Special Level of Hell

It's been a while since I banished anyone to a special level of hell. However, Jane Austen and those who use the word 'frape' have a new hellmate* (see what I did there?) Ken Clarke, our esteemed Justice Secretary has today given the victims of date rape and any form of non-violent rape a kick in the teeth by declaring that these crimes are 'not as serious' as violent rapes.

Serious rape is violent rape. It plays upon the myriad of stereotypes that continue to plague the victims of rape; indeed, Craig Palmer would love it. We all know what rape is. It's that dodgy looking creep who stalks the city streets late at night, preying on vulnerable young women. Heaven forbid that it be a woman's partner, or that she is coerced by non-violent means. Who'll take her seriously unless there are hand marks around her neck?

It's not even just a question of evidence in a trial though, it is another way to blame the victim. If she isn't covered in marks and bruises then she must have assented - he wasn't being violent towards her so how could she not have stopped it? She must have wanted it.

Clarke is explicit in his belief that there is a hierarchy of rape - when faced with the statement "Rape is rape" he replies "No it's not". As for Date rape, well: "Date rape can be as serious as the worst rapes". Can be, not is, and when did the government introduce a Top 10 Worst Rapes countdown?!

To be fair to Clarke (an extraordinary difficult attitude to take when faced with such an idiot), the other issue he points out is that of underage sex. In Scotland, at least, there is a difference between statutory rape and underage sex, the former being the crime pursued regardless of issues of consent with a child aged 13 or under, and the latter referring to those between 14 and the age of consent. Underage sex is a less serious crime, as is reflected in Scottish law, and if there is no distinction in English law then perhaps Clarke should have thought about dealing with that before opening his trap and spouting a crock of dangerous idiocy.

Rape in the "ordinary, conventional sense" that Clarke talks about - violent rape by a stranger, is a terrible crime, but rape is rape. Even if you know that person. Even if you are coerced by non-violent means. Rape is Rape. To have the Justice Secretary disagree with such a statement is to perpetuate the myths that rape victims have to tackle daily. That is an injustice. That is a disgrace. That is why Ken Clarke should resign with immediate effect.

* Also, for anyone keeping count of those banished to hell, Nadine Dorries is there for her ridiculous opinion that child sex abuse victims brought it on themselves. A twisted misogynist who will fit right in.

48 Women an Hour Raped in Congo

It is now two years since I first began studying rape, and over those years I have inevitably come across some awful stories and statistics. Some of them I've published on the blog - from the fact that a South African woman is more likely to be raped than learn to read, to the Pakistani statistic of a woman raped every hour, every second attack is on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. I've raged about defence lawyers' tactics - women wearing skinny jeans couldn't possibly be raped (an Italian example only recently rejected by the courts), women pinned down by the weight of a man is engaged in the missionary position (Assange's lawyers) and the opening gambit of one trial in America a few decades ago where a lawyer span a Cola bottle around and attempted to insert a pencil into the neck. Obviously a woman who doesn't want to be raped can fight back(!) Academic studies which ask women how violent their attack was, delusional muppets claiming to be academics and a textbook which finished a section on sadistic rape with a paragraph on victim impact which began "if the victim survives...".

All terrible things that have led me to rant and rave, and in many cases cry.

But as I stumbled across a Guardian article this afternoon, I had to take a deep breath before reading the article:

Forty-eight women raped every hour in Congo

The systematic use of rape as a weapon of war is not a new discovery, particularly in Congo, but the assertions that rape is beginning to creep outwith the areas of the fiercest conflict and especially into the home are disturbing.

12% of the female population of Congo have been raped, whilst 3% of the female population were raped in a single year between 2006 and 2007, rising to 7% in one province. More than a fifth have been forced to perform sex acts on their partners.

These statistics are even thought by some researchers to even underestimate the problem.

:(

The Puffa Paradox: Victim Blaming and Fashion Dilemmas

It would seem that women just can't catch a break this week.

First we hear that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised", according to a Canadian policeman giving students a talk on personal safety. Well blow me down with a feather. Or not, because the long-johns, jeans, camisole, vest, t-shirt, long sleeved top, jumper, cardigan and ankle length puffa jacket with Doc Martens is quite a heavy ensemble, and as I don't want to be raped I thought I'd take extra precautions. However, such an outfit would cause me to faint with the weight and heat generated, so I've had to make do with a little less.

But, wearing less could get me raped. So what do I do? Is there a cut off as to how much clothing is not 'sluttish'? Could I wear jeans and a t-shirt and not get raped? What about skirts? Heaven forfend that I advertise my vulnerability in something that is associated with femininity. Is there an accepted length of skirt? Should all skirts fall below the knee, or is that too much leg on show? And what about how form-fitting my clothes are?

Or, is it less about how much of me is on show, but on how attractive the clothing is? Perhaps a knee-length wool skirt won't get me raped, but a knee-length leather one will? Scoop neck v V neck?

What about the elderly women attacked by Delroy Grant? Did they dress too sluttishly for him to resist?

Clearly women are all undergoing the dilemma posed in this excellent advert by Rape Crisis Scotland.

Of course, there is a deeper subtext to the use of the word 'slut'. Women across the Anglophone world have had the word flung at them because they are comfortable with their own sexuality, revealing the double standards applied to women and men. Sleep with too many men? Slut. Yet reverse the genders and the almost reverent 'stud' comes into play. Sanguinetti is making it clear that women should be subject to a moral code, for their own good of course. They shouldn't sleep with lots of men, and to advertise their 'services' in the way they dress means that they shouldn't be surprised when men take advantage of them.

So, women who like sex, or dress in a way which might possibly make someone think they do, are fair game for your neighbourhood rapist.

But nobody asks to be raped. Not ever. And if Michael Sanguinetti finds it difficult to resist victimizing and raping women who dress 'sluttishly' then he should bloody well seek help.

Women who like sex with men are fair game, but, so it seems, women who don't like sex with men (although lesbianism is obviously not equated with this) are also OK to rape too. I've blogged before about the horrifying cases of correctional rape in South Africa - where men try to 'cure' lesbians by raping them. But reading this article which gives an estimate of 10 rapes and gang rapes a week in Cape Town alone brings a shudder to my spine.

As a women, you can neither like sex with men, nor sex with women, lest you be raped. And then it would be your own fault. Dress in a way which might advertise either of these facts and you are asking to be raped. Oh, and if you have been raped, then you'll have done something to deserve it - your sexual history will be debated, your alcohol consumption questioned and your honesty doubted - but somewhere along the line you will have done something to deserve it.

Difficult being a woman, eh?

Feminism and Religion: Census and Sex Trafficking

I am a feminist. This may have come across on the numerous posts I've written on this topic, but for further clarification, check out the links at the side.

I am also a Christian, of sorts. When it came to that all-important question on the census I left it blank, an action that will no doubt have Religious Studies scholars for generations to come tearing their hair out. I have issues with quantitative analysis of religion. I also got a bit twitchy when the campaign to get the non-religious to say so took on a slightly unsavoury bent; if you are not religious, then say so, because then we can prove religion is loosing it's grip on society and we are trundling along to become a secularist society. Or indeed when some Christians get panicky about the increasing numbers of Muslims in the world. Numbers are irrelevant.

I also find it hard to put myself into a box - perhaps the easiest (some would say most true) response would be to tick the Christian box with the addition of Salvation Army - as the denomination in which I currently worship - underneath. But I can't be defined like that, my dislike of charges of heresy mean that I am quite well suited to denomination hopping and I can't claim that I am sure I will attend SA worship forever.

However, my fundamental issue is with declaring myself a Christian. The term holds so much baggage and requires a list of caveats at least ten foot long. The way I conceive of my own spiritual life owes much to other religions - for example I think that the doctrine of jihad offers a brilliant concept of how I perceive 'the devil', I have no issues with meditating etc - that it seems wrong to nail my colours to that mast.

But perhaps the biggest issue is that Christianity, in these surveys, is not what I make it. It is a distilled, intellectualized and academic exercise, determined by preconceived notions of what is Christian and forced to tick certain boxes. My opinions on religious pluralism, gender, religious leadership and sexuality (not simply orientation, but other issues like premarital sex) don't fit into the category of Christian that most people would use, and so, for these purposes, can I be called a Christian?

Anyway, that little tangent was borne of the real reason for this post - my sadness at the opinions on show in this situation. The government has awarded funding for the Poppy Project - a service for victims of sex trafficking to the Salvation Army, over the bid of previous provider Eaves Housing. However, Eaves Housing has accused the government of an 'ideological' decision which harms the vulnerable women they are trying to help.

The article fails to go into detail about whether the ideological issues arise from the government spending cuts, which they argue will give women a cut price service, or the religious issues at stake, as is hinted at in the reference to the Salvation Army's mission to reach people through evangelism. However, reading through the comments section (always an interesting activity if one has a spare afternoon and the need for a bit of therapeutic anger) it seems that there is a real concern that a Christian organisation has been given the contract for this work. Comments tend to focus around the fear of services being predicated on assent to evangelistic works and possible conflicts of interest in this work.

As someone who works in service provision for vulnerable people, I find it ridiculous that people would assume that the contemporary Salvation Army would refuse to provide a service unless some willingness to conversion was shown. For my part, I am working as someone with fuzzy-wuzzy Christian-ishy like belief kind of things within a Christian organisation, and I see my work as "evangelistic" (if one would wish to apply such a loaded term) in the sense that religious leaders have given religious weighting to serving the vulnerable/needy/poor/sick/dying. I do not demand that religion is even discussed, though I will talk about my beliefs when asked. The SA offers chaplaincy and counselling where it is desired, be that through formal prayer etc or through informal support and should be praised for that.

Possible conflicts of interest again brings me to my point way up at the top - people will judge by their own preconceived notions of what Christians believe (as a monolithic and static group singing off the same hymn sheet). But contrary to some comments, I know that I have no issues with supporting a victim of sex trafficking through an abortion, or providing a service to homosexual/bisexual service users. To suggest otherwise is utterly insulting.

Now if Eaves Housing are concerned because women will not receive the specialist treatment they require, then I wholeheartedly support their claim for these women should be at the centre of any debate. But, if the reactions I have responded to above are illustrative of the basis of their claim then I am appalled.

I am a feminist. I am 'religious'. But the wellbeing of these women comes before either of those concerns.

Spewing Wrath Upon the (Blog) Page: Guilt and Sexual Violence

It's been a wee while since I condemned anyone to hell (see the right hand side for more details) but in the past few months of my blogging hiatus I've gathered a wee list of new Satan-fodder.

I've dedicated a lot of my blog to arguing against the myths that persistently crop up whenever rape and sexual violence are discussed (again there's a wee category to the right for anyone wishing to read the wrath I have vomited upon these pages) but still the old favourites crop up with the alarming regularity of rent day.

From someone in a position of power last week I heard the words "she would be lucky to be raped", referring to a woman that person thought was ugly.

At first I stared in horror.

Then I silently seethed as all the implications of a statement I hoped I'd never hear came to mind - this woman had confided about her rape and not only did this man say that he didn't believe her, but that she would be lucky to be raped.

As if being raped is a badge of honour.

As if, as Hadley Freeman pointed out in the Guardian a couple of days later, rape is a compliment.

This sort of attitude not only grossly misunderstands the impact of rape upon victims, but makes all women complicit in the guilt of sexual violence. That woman was guilty of being too ugly even for a rapist to desire her, just as those who do fall prey to rapists are guilty in being pretty enough to be raped. Just as the old favourites - she was wearing a short skirt/her cleavage was visible/her ankles were showing/she had been drinking/she flirted/we dated/she married me - are wheeled out repeatedly as excuses, the guilt of rape never lies with the rapist - us women are eternally tempting and teasing and deserve it.

As for the Delroy Grant story which elicited the above story, I can add nothing to the condemnation which has already been given, other than to use this horrific example as another reason for which to condemn the dangerous drivel spouted by Mr Palmer as documented here.

I Would Spit on Him. Unless He was on Fire...

I know, I know. I'm mean and horrible. Unless you consider who I'm talking about, in which case you may be more amenable to my way of thinking...

That's right, it is the monster that is Clameron, or Camegg. I've not decided yet.

And why, oh why would these odious, duplicitous little goblins make me act in such a terribly impolite manner?

WELL.

We've got an issue that is close to my heart, even if it doesn't directly affect me - tuition fees. I will say here and now I can't imagine a time I'd ever vote Tory. Ever. Like, unless my local Tory candidate was standing against Nick Griffin, and I'd still be tempted to spoil my ballot. My feelings about the Lib Dems (or Labour if you want to accuse me of being partisan) were not quite as entrenched, but the sight of Clegg's smarmy (and worryingly indistinguishable from Cameron's) face and manner in the election debates, as well as my inability to shake off the feeling that he was the illegitimate love child of Pinkie and the Brain - all the world dominating ambition but with the ability to only say nyarf - meant the Lib Dems weren't getting my vote either.

(Side note: I'm not actually keen on the idea of party politics anyway, but the fact that my constituencies Tory and Lib Dem candidates spouted the same rubbish as their 'leaders' meant that they didn't get a vote.)

But it seems the rest of the country is STUPID and/or were mislead by greasy lies, and so we have a ConDem Nation.

It took a while, and I got over the sharp pain in my brain whenever I realised that those muppets were in power. So much so I didn't even get violent at those who admitted they voted these idiots in.

Then the cuts happened. Tripled tuition fees for many students came in, just to make sure that your universities are filled to the brim with clones of our power sharing team, who were privately educated at two of the best regarded schools in the country, and we can patronise all 'poor' students who need to be catered for with practical training, because heaven forbid they want to go to university too, or even, horror of horrors, wee Tarquin from Harrow wants to be a roof slater.

Iain Duncan Smith told people to 'get on their bikes' and look for work when no suitable jobs were available in the immediate area. Which is fine and grand. Unless the nearest suitable job requires public transport, which is going up in price. Or if you have a young family or sick relatives and need to take on caring responsibilities.

But what makes me truly incandescent with rage is the ways in which the government has targeted women in their cuts. The Fawcett Society brought an action against the government for sex discrimination, in which it was found that no gender impact assessment was carried out.

The most horrific example I have come across is the situation in Devon, where the cuts in council grants mean that three main charities working with victims of domestic/intimate partner violence have had their funding cut. By 100%. That is not a misprint, one hundred per cent. The Devon model has won awards for their success in working with some of the most vulnerable members of societies, but when the economic crisis (would it be churlish to point out the massive gender disparity in bankers here?) hits, women are disposable. As I've argued before, the myth that women are equal is damaging, and here it is being put into practice.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I'm keeping my saliva to myself.

Too Serious for a WikiLeaks Joke

As I've watched the saga of the rape allegations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange unfold, I've been horrified to see celebrity after celebrity demean the alleged victims, painting a picture of a team of for-hire honey traps sent by the CIA to trap Mr Assange any way they can. They 'know' that the allegations are rubbish, they 'know' that Assange is being set up and anyone who doesn't 'know' that is facilitating the big, bad governments in silencing democracy.

Well I want to 'know' why such knowledgeable folk haven't been snapped up as a super celebrity crime fighting team, because they seem to have an impressive record on investigating serious crime on an international level.

I do not pretend to know the truth behind these allegations; indeed, I've only just come across the full allegations myself. According to the Guardian, Miss A alleges that, despite consenting to sexual intercourse with a condom, Assange forced her to engage in unprotected sex, pinning her down throughout. He stayed in her flat for a number of days after the assault, during which she moved from her own bed and eventually into a friend's flat due to her discomfort at being in the same flat as her attacker. Miss W alleges that after having (protected) consensual sex, the woman awoke to Assange having unprotected sex with her. The basic fact is that both acts were not consensual*. Both women had consented on the basis that a condom was used; therefore permission was withdrawn when a condom was not used.

However, the way Assange's supporters have responded is worrying, to say the least. Ridiculing the accusations as 'not rape' - the disturbing term "sex by surprise" and making fun of the place of condoms in the act is completely unacceptable. I've written time and time again about how important I believe it is that society accepts a wider definition of rape than the stranger lurking down a dark alleyway motif that dominates the public imagination, but I repeat - these allegations detail rapes, not a sexual indiscretion, or impoliteness - RAPE. To make light of these accusations as numerous high-profile supporters have done makes light of the plights of many rape victims and as such is entirely unacceptable.

Also frankly frightening is the fact that the identities of these women have been revealed online. Women are already scared to report rapes because they fear retribution from their attackers, particularly high-profile cases, let alone millions who have made them political targets too.

It is also important to keep making the distinction between supporting WikiLeaks and supporting rape. Far too many Assange supporters have conflated the two, and this is leading to a situation where one must choose. The simple fact is that one can support the work of WikiLeaks whilst not supporting the potential criminal aspect of the founder.

Assange may be the victim of a conspiracy. However, two women have alleged that he has raped them and the treatment of those women is symptomatic of how society has come to deal with those who allege rape - they are inevitably liars, they are out to 'get' men, they are blowing it out of proportion, they can cry rape at the drop of a hat - and it needs to stop. Assange needs to pull his supporters into line.

*My own definition of rape does not revolve around the notion of 'consent', which I believe is too flawed to protect women, but this is the legal definition of rape in Sweden to the best of my knowledge.