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.

The Truly Offensive 'F' Word

Over the past couple of months I've had numerous discussions about issues relating to my embryonic thesis - rape, sexual violence, inequality, patriarchy etc - with a number of very good friends, each of whom has seemed shocked at the fact I used the 'f' word to describe myself.

I am a feminist.

I understand that the term 'feminist' means very different things to many people. A postcard I picked up in Oxfam today read:

"Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practise witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." Pat Robertson, US Politician, 1992.

Yeah, ninety-two.

For me, Feminism is the acceptance of an ideology which promotes the equal political, social, economic, religious, legal and sexual rights of women and men. It does not mean that I hate men; instead, I argue that men themselves suffer from the effects of patriarchy. Patriarchy entrenches a gender binary which is portrayed as 'natural' by it's derivation from the notion of sex. Because I fit the 'natural', 'medical' definition of a woman, I am expected to embrace that identity and work within it. For men, they must adhere to the societal norm of the 'macho' - they will wear 'men's' clothes, they will engage in 'men's' activities. A man in a boob tube and hotpants, cross-stitching is something to ridicule and thus bring into line. For those who do not fit into the narrow binary of male-female, there is the pressing concern of choice. Someone must make a choice as to which gender they will be, because society cannot deal with anyone who accepts their identity as intersex. Every citizen will adhere to the gender chosen for them, and although this has some flexibility in modern Britain - I was able to walk into a shop and buy men's shoes without too big an issue, for example - there is certainly a bias towards women in that respect. A man who walks into a woman's shoe department is judged, often severely, and labelled for that. As a feminist, I believe that working against the patriarchy which perpetuates this binary is beneficial for men and women alike.

Another issue that crops up is the fact that Feminists were A-OK during the Suffragette movement, and back in the '60s but in the year 2010 women enjoy equal rights with men. This myth is one of my biggest bug-bears because it lulls the modern woman into a false sense of security. The law may say that women and men will be paid equally for the same work, but the law does not take into account the disproportionate number of women engaged in part-time employment because they have caring responsibilities. The law also perpetuates the image of the woman as primary care-giver for children, with inequality in maternity/paternity leave. Heaven forbid a couple who wish to co-parent. I have read about female academics in the US taking off their wedding ring to attend a job interview because married women are less likely to be employed as they might want to start a family in the near future, causing the male powers that be to find maternity cover and then she'll probably want to go part-time and we'll just have to go through the hiring process all over again. Married male academics are encouraged to wear a ring because they might want to start a family soon and that means that he's settled and committed. 2 women a week are killed by their partner and there is a call made to the police regarding domestic abuse every minute. I've written extensively about the issue of rape and legal inequalities so have a look at Why Frape isn't Funny and Repressed Ranting for further details on that.

Aside from that is the issue of women in other countries who suffer the most horrific forms of injustice and abuse. I've written before about the statistic that a Pakistani woman is raped every hour, every second rape is an attack on a minor and every fourth a gang rape. The situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo has also been mentioned in some of my posts. This week, a series of articles in the Guardian made me weep. The first contained one of the most appalling statistics I've ever come across. A South African woman is more likely to be raped than to learn to read. I cannot even comprehend what that statement means, let alone get my head around the case it mentions of a 7 year old girl gang raped at school by a 9 year old and two 11 year old boys. The second cites that 37.4% of men surveyed admitted to rape. Over a third.

I am a feminist because I refuse to stand back and convince myself that the world has become enlightened about women's issues and become equal. I am a feminist because I believe in a fair and equal society where everyone can express themselves as they wish without fear of ridicule or reprisals. I am a feminist because I believe that no-one should be fearful of their safety in their homes and on the streets.

I am a feminist because if I am not, I am refusing my own voice and the voices of women across the world unable to speak.

I am a feminist, and I am proud.

I Heart Baher Ibrahim

Linked for being absolutely right: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/nov/23/muslim-girls-wearing-hijab (This trend of young Muslim girls wearing the hijab is disturbing).

I can say no more than well done Baher Ibrahim and again resign myself to the fact that those who comment on the Guardian may cultivate an intellectual liberal image but in reality tend to be bigoted muppets.

The Law is an Ass - Where is my Shotgun?

I was astounded and pretty upset to read this article yesterday: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/08/rape-case-woman-appeal.

A woman in Wales has been sentenced to 8 months in prison for perverting the course of justice by retracting a rape allegation against her husband. Reporting her husband had raped her 6 times, the woman withdrew the allegations a few months later, before again contacting the police to assert that the attacks had actually taken place. She claimed that her husband had been emotionally blackmailing her during the breakdown of their marriage, causing her to retract her initial allegations.

The police did not respond with any attempt to ensure the woman's safety and stability in the aftermath of a pretty hellish period. No. They arrested her instead.

What. The. Hell?

I obviously know only the details of the case which have been made public, and one cannot discount the possibility that the woman was making the claims up all along. However, that is besides the point - by imprisoning this woman, the police force have further kicked a boot into any woman that has been raped. I've blogged about the appalling statistics regarding rape conviction before, but it is important to remind ourselves that there are wider issues. Definitions of rape as commonly held by society are shockingly narrow: rape is the pretty young girl walking home alone at night and attacked by a barbaric stranger. But we forget that rape is:

- the woman who has been drugged, or plied with alcohol until paralytic and taken advantage of

- the elderly woman in a care home who suffers at the hands of her carer

- the wife forced to comply with her husband's wishes

- the girlfriend coerced into sex with the threat of damaging rumours

- the woman who has been consistently demoralized by her partner until she "consents"

- the prostitute who hasn't been paid

- the porn star who has been belittled and objectified until she has no control over her own sexuality

(Rape is obviously not just a male on female phenomenon, male on male and female on male rape do occur, and I take my hat off to those who study them, but my work is primarily male on female so forgive the one-sided bias.)

Society often ignores these victims - in some cases she meets the legal definition of licit sexual intercourse - she has "consented". But how can a woman consent if she is not in a position where she can give it, where she has no ownership of her own sexuality, when she is threatened by unspoken violence, when she has consented to marry this person, when she cannot withdraw that consent? Juries come to their verdicts on the basis of their own poorly-understood definitions of rape, and the law gives weight to this. A woman in fear of her life may 'consent' to save her life, but that is still rape.

Rape law across the country (and as I will argue, the world) needs to be overhauled. Consent is a flawed notion which holds no water. Rape is sexual activity forced upon a woman, where force may include but is not limited to violence, coercion and threats.

If we are to give this ridiculous situation the backing of the law then of course women won't report that they have been raped to the police. Already minuscule conviction rates will fall and those who do report will be wary of the possible outcomes. In the emotionally fragile time after being attacked, a woman should not have to weigh up whether it is worthwhile to report it to the police.

We are only a step away from the appalling situation in countries like Pakistan, where the infamous Safia Bibi case gained worldwide attention from human rights advocates. A 13 year old blind servant, Safia Bibi was gang raped by her master and his son, an attack which resulted in pregnancy. Upon reporting the rape, her pregnancy was accepted as evidence of her partaking in illicit extra-marital sexual relations whilst her attackers were released on the basis of lack of evidence. How can we be outraged by cases like this when we are committing the same offence against women?! The Pakistan Human Rights Commission released figures displaying the appalling truth - a woman in Pakistan is raped every 3 hours, every second is a minor and every fourth is gang-raped. I repeat, rape law must be overhauled.

In better news, I was very pleased to read that the government have dropped plans to introduce anonymity for those accused of rape. Anonymity is fine if it is applied to all those accused in criminal proceedings, but to single out rape cases, where the majority of victims are female is to display institutional distrust in the word of women. Unacceptable.

Every one of these stories betrays the ugly truth - women are not protected by the law and are distrusted by wider society. The law is an ass which needs to be put out of it's misery for all of our sakes. Now find me my shotgun and I'll get us started.