Why I'm Voting Yes

I've deliberately steered clear of making my views heard on the Independence referendum tomorrow. There are lots of people who are much better qualified than I am who have been making lots of salient points about the issues which they think matter. But I had a realisation today - there are very few people engaging in the debates about the things that I think matter. Whether I can add any light to this, or simply give a random collection of the issues that I find most important is debateable, but in the interests of joining an unprecedented debate, here goes...

It's probably best to talk about what I want from the referendum. I want a fairer and more just society. I want to see Scotland flourish and make the best of the resources we have. I want to see a Scotland that is more democratic.

In short, I will be voting yes.

Currently we live in a society that is willing to spend at least £15 billion replacing Trident but left over 71,000 people (including more than 22,000 children) in need of emergency food parcels from the Trussel Trust last year. I want a society where we try to ease the suffering of humanity, rather than contemplate the use of devastating weapons necessitated by a foreign policy built on desperately seeking the top table. That's why I'm voting yes.

Of those folk in need of food parcels, nearly 50% were the direct result of benefit problems. We have a government which has chosen to demonise the poor as benefit scroungers rather than dealing with the tax avoidance of big companies. Scotland has taken the lead in standing up for the vulnerable by neutralising the 'bedroom tax' as it affects our citizens. That Scotland should have to step in to prevent the poor, vulnerable and disabled in the first place is an appalling indictment of our place in the Union. That's why I'm voting yes.

All of this comes down to what I feel is the crux of the debate - Scotland needs democracy. The policies of the Coalition do not reflect the views of Scotland. We recognise that we need to invest in our public services, that we need to take care of the most vulnerable in society, and that we need to steward our resources better. We recognised all this in 2010, yet we have endured the governance of a party over 83% of Scots never voted for. That's why I'm voting yes.

What I've found disheartening over the past few months is that the focus of this debate, at least in the media, has not been on these issues. Instead, we have seen interminable arguments about the future of the pound, the stability of oil stocks and threats from banks and big businesses.

I understand that we need to have the means to fund what may seem like a bit of a utopic vision, but let me say this: there is no certainty in remaining as part of the status quo. The pound may go up or down whether Scotland uses it or not. Nobody knows for certain how much oil we have, but even the most conservative estimates in a volatile oil climate could provide Scotland with a huge amount of resources, to supplement the rest of what our industries have to offer. And finally, I'm not happy to put my vision of social justice on the back burner because of the worries of profit margins for big businesses.

I find it greatly amusing that two years after denying Scots the option of Devo Max, David Cameron has demonstrated his great love for the Scots as part of the Union by offering greater powers days before the vote. The blatant self-preservation of the man is hilarious; as if we wouldn't notice that his intention in forcing an Independence/Status Quo referendum was to rely on the feeling that the Scots wouldn't risk going it alone. What poor, misguided Dave didn't expect was the unprecedented political engagement of such vast swathes of Scotland that 97% of us are now on the electoral roll. People who've never voted in their lives have become well-versed in economic arguments and are excited to have a voice. The democratic spirit is alive and well in Scotland - I want it to live on; that's why I'm voting yes.

On the eve of what may be the most important day of my life thus far, I'm filled with hope - we might have the chance to bring about a fairer, democratic society. If we succeed, it's unlikely I will always agree with the political leaders, but at least I'll know the majority of my countryfolk voted them in.

Of course, the vote is likely to be decided by a hair's breadth. Nearly half the country is likely to be disappointed come Friday morning. I just hope that regardless of the vote we can harness the spirit of the past few months.

This is a genuinely exciting time for us - I just hope that we can capitalise on it.

Mourning Maggie?

In the few short hours since the death of Margaret Thatcher a number of posts have appeared on my Facebook newsfeed along the lines of "Show some respect, she was still a person". It got me thinking about how we mourn, and how the deceased informs that process. I've touched on it here a little after the death of Christopher Hitchens, where I argued that it was inappropriate to say RIP for him.

As a public figure, I believe that it is not only appropriate, but necessary to point out that Thatcher has been a hugely divisive figure. Indeed, for many, Thatcher will be remembered as the woman who destroyed their industries and savaged communities, creating divisions that are still painful today.

There is a temptation at times like these to almost deify the dead. To make it clear, Thatcher was no angel, and we need to be able to say that. To ignore the bad political decisions she made is disingenuous to those who have been, and are still being, affected by those same decisions. We may weep for Thatcher, but what about the generation of youngsters who've grown up in old industrial communities where jobs are in low supply? Personally, that is a much sorrier case, and more deserving of my laments.

I respect Thatcher for reaching the top - I don't think I can remember any other women who has seemed at all likely to make PM ever since. Fair play to her for that.

I don't recall an outpouring of sadness at the deaths of more unpopular leaders - Kim Jong Il, Hugo Chavez etc, even if there has been a solid base of support amongst their own subjects, like Chavez did.

As I said at the start, how we mourn (or not) is affected by who the person who has died. Just as importantly, the context in which we speak of the dead. It would be inappropriate to rock up to the front doors of her children and tell them that she was a terrible political leader who has ruined lives. They would be entirely delusional if they believed that everybody agreed with everything she did and said, but I really doubt that reading about other people's disagreements with her political conduct will increase their sadness at her passing.

I didn't agree with her as a political leader and I can't say that I am particularly sad to see that she has died. I wish comfort on her family, and good judgement on those who will appraise her time in government.

Gender-Based Violence Bingo and How Not to Get Raped: A Checklist

So my dissertation came and went, and with it went my motivation to write, or even think, for a few months. Thankfully I've been kicked into gear by this amazing commitment to feminism both older and new:

This beauty was done by Cesar at Body Garden Tattoo in Birmingham, credit to them for the photo and the tattoo!

This beauty belongs to my good friend and chief inspiration Camilla, who can be found giving terrifically erudite and passionate thoughts on feminism and Catholicism, especially women and priesthood, in her blog which can be found here.

In the time I've been away, I've been heartened to find that a number of feminist issues have been debated more widely in the public domain. From the seriously disturbing to the hang on a cotton pickin' minute, I've been keeping a whole heap of rage to myself, so apologies for the mega-post, but there is a reward at the end!

India's Sexual Violence Problem and GBV Bingo

Perhaps the biggest issue has been the case of an Indian student who was gang raped and eventually died of the catastrophic injuries she was left with. The case has brought the raw tensions of those fighting for women's safety to the surface in India and beyond, but I am wary of the tendency of many in the UK to consider violence against women to be a third world problem. Perhaps I should create a form of Gender-Based Violence Bingo, where we can mark off the old cliche's that crawl from the woodwork at times like this:

• It's because they don't have the respect for women that we do (HA!)
• It's because they are Muslim/Hindu/Sikh/Asian/Poor/Insert any other group that otherises both victim and perpetrator
• It's because the men are so sexually repressed
• I'm glad that never happens here

Keep an eye out as the accused have their day in court - bearing in mind that this is something that Assange has not yet seen.

Absolute Madness with Joanna Lumley - How Not to Get Raped and Other Tales of Ridiculousness from Showbiz

In pull-your-hair-out-WTF-were-you-thinking-please-stop-talking-I'll-do-anything-to-shut-you-up-including-gouging-out-my-own-eyes-with-rusty-spoons-and-using-them-as-earplugs?! news, we have the startling case of Joanna Lumley, who dons her best Lion King suit to inform young women that they should avoid the following to avoid being raped:

• Being laddish - I don't know how one is 'laddish', perhaps donning a rugby shirt and being a jolly-good fly-half (which I believe to be some form of rugby lad terminology?!)
• Don't look like trash - hopefully not literally, as I would caution all that dressing as trash, perhaps in a pedal-bin dress with banana moccasins that this is just not a good idea. Think of the germs. Ew.
• Don't get drunk - how drunk I don't know, maybe a touch tipsy and you emit a signal which tells all potential rapists that you would in fact like to engage in sex that you don't consent to?
• Don't be sick down your front - but sick down your back is a repellent.
• Don't break your heels - I have strange visions of women deliberately breaking their heels at the end of an evening. Maybe it's to use as a potential weapon against men who've seen their vomit-strewn front and can't help themselves? Eh Joanna, EH? Never thought about that, did ya?
• Don't stagger about in the wrong clothes at midnight - I *think* that she may have got this mixed up with another misogynist myth that led to the murders of innocent women, given that 12 is indeed the witching hour. Maybe time to set her straight?
• Don't behave badly - I'm not even going to attempt a definition of bad behaviour here, she's definitely lost me.

But Ms Lumley is not simply there to point out our faults, she has solutions - handy if, like me, you don't relish the thought of rape!

• Look after yourself properly
• Behave properly
• Be polite
• Be punctual (Seriously, WTF?!)
• Dress properly, but NOT dully - just not in a "silly dress"

And with that, you are immune from the predatory advances of all would-be rapists. Simples!

Also in celebville, there is the mind-boggling choice of the American programme Special Victims Unit, which dramatises the policing aspect of sexual violence, to cast the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. You do wonder sometimes, eh?

Ach, Stop Your Yammering, it Doesn't Matter - Or Does It?

This week saw the decision of the Advertising Standards Agency to dismiss 600 complaints about the sexism of an ASDA Christmas advert. I'm not going to link the ad in question, as most will have imbibed it over the length of December, but for anyone else, hark your mind back to ye olde adverts for cleaning products to scrub your house top to bottom each day before you greet your husband with a pair of warm slippers and you'll be on the right lines. 

I find it interesting that ASDA justified the campaign by market research which found that 8 out of 10 cats mothers found this to be their experience of Christmas rather than an outdated stereotype. HA! Meanwhile, the ASA found that it did not condone any negative stereotypes of gender or harmful discriminatory behaviour. I question how the ASA can not find the placing of the entire burden of Christmas (including present-buying, cleaning, preparing for guests, cooking and looking after children) as a negative or harmful stereotype.

All of this is fascinating when seen in the context of the debate that has been ongoing in the Guardian this week on women trying to attain Professorships. Less women are being promoted to Professorships than men, and those who do tend to take longer to make it there. I wonder how much of this is down to the expectation that they undertake the second shift at the expense of their career?

Anyway, as a reward for reaching the end of my ramblings, a wee song:

Nick Griffin and Rape Scaremongering

So... long time, no post. Unfortunately life got in the way a bit (moving flat, job searching and the wee matter of a 15,000 word Masters dissertation), but I've been biding my time waiting for something to make me seethe.

That time is now.

Over the past few months there have been repeated protests in Midlothian about the housing of convicted violent rapist Robert Greens, otherwise known as the Da Vinci rapist because he attacked a Dutch student near Rosslyn Chapel, one of the locations for the book.

After his release from prison, no other local authority in the UK would take him, so Midlothian has been forced to house him. Local people have been up in arms about the matter and have undertaken a number of protests, including marching outside the house and staging a go-slow in the centre of Dalkeith to slow traffic.

Now since this furore began, my main reaction has been one of discomfort. I'm uncomfortable with the fact that the protesters have placed so much media attention on this man, because it distorts the perception of rape. This man is dangerous because he perfectly fits the stereotype of 'real rape'. He attacked a young victim, who was a stranger to him, and used considerable violence. I'm not denigrating the victim's experience - witnesses who found her walking startled along a road thought she had been in a car crash. The crime was repellent. However, by warning about the dangers of this man - who we know is capable of rape and assault - is likely to underplay the dangers of the majority of rapists who are much more subtle in their methods. I respect the locals' right to protest, but I worry about the message they are sending.

Then the BNP heard about the protests and decided to get in on the act. Nick Griffin made the journey North to join in but there was, as it were, a stooshie and the BNP were forced to leave. Commenting on the 'ugly scenes', Griffin said:

I hope the people who are protesting us feel ashamed and if their daughter or granddaughter is raped next - maybe they would change their minds.

Wow. There is so much wrong with this statement that my head feels as if it will implode. This is probably a good time for numbers.

1) This sounds pretty threatening. If Griffin isn't suggesting the BNP might rape these women then he is certainly suggesting that he wouldn't mind if someone else did. 'Cos then obviously we'd all turn to those bastions of morality for protection (even though there have been a number of BNP members and representatives charged with sex offences recently).

2) As my good friend Camilla has pointed out, Griffin is simply using this as a way to positively publicise the BNP rather than show solidarity with those protesting. He knows that his presence is controversial and liable to draw attention away from the matter at hand, but chose to rock up anyway. Given his response, he certainly doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the victim or the locals protesting.

3) Perhaps this sounds pedantic, but rape myths get my back up like nothing else. Only women are raped, and young women at that - and we all need to be protected by big, bad Nick and his BNP cronies. Urgh.

I'm sure there's more that will enrage me about this statement, but for now I have that dissertation to be getting on with...

But for now, needless to say - Nick Griffin has been banished to my own personal hellfire.

The Furies of Hell... As Usual

This week, I came across this intriguing article on Women's Views on News, which references this jaw-dropping article in the Daily Mail. As some may be boycotting the DM, I will quote pertinent paragraphs to save you the trouble (always happy to help!)

The context is as follows: the actor Dennis Waterman has admitted hitting his ex-wife Rula Lenska during his marriage. Carol Sarler thinks he's an idiot, which is grand. I also think he's an idiot.

However, he is "a double idiot for admitting it so may years after their divorce". After all, "Waterman should have known, then, that the Furies of Hell would be unleashed". Wow, surely the inversion of that is to say that if Waterman was to keep this a secret - despite the fact that it would make Lenska's repeated assertions of violence seem like a lie - then that would be preferable, because heaven forfend the Furies of Hell (which, according to the article, include the domestic violence charity Refuge(!))

Sarler's snarky reference to the fact that a high profile domestic violence charity was quick ("First out of the traps, as usual") and 'appalled' is utterly derogatory, regardless of her claim that she agrees with them.

Yet, she only agrees that "[t]here can never be any reasoned excuse for brute force". Evidently there are numerous reasoned excuses for sexual and mental violence in a relationship.

She then claims that, not only is there a difference between 'beaten' and 'hit', but that many couples work this into the framework of their relationships. Wow, you may say, but our good friend Sarler has an anecdotal story to back her up.

Her friend Jean provoked (yep, provoked...) three men to slap her. But it's OK, because Jean told her she wouldn't have put up with "a proper beating", but "with a bit of a slap, at least you know who wears the trousers, don't you?"

Well, quite.

Here she invokes the insight of Waterman once more when he claims that:

"The problem with strong, intelligent women, is they can argue, well. If you're not bright enough to do it with words... I lashed out... It can happen."

Evidently he isn't bright enough to do much, but that's beside the point. Sarler gives us some dodgy sounding wisdom from a psychiatrist who has done research in refuges, where most women had an IQ at least 10 points higher than their partner, ad can therefore win verbal arguments. But (for there must always be a but):

"The trouble is, said the psychiatrist (while admitting that it's not exactly a popular thing to point out), some of them, as with Jean, would prefer not to win." Because winning is unfeminine, and (brace yourself, seriously I winced so hard I was hoping that the wind wouldn't change...) "However much goading it takes, they'd rather be slapped than victorious. When push - quite literally - comes to shove, these women prefer to have a dominant man to whom they might refer as an authority figure."

So, women are manipulating men to beat them, but why? In her best pseudo-intellectual dangerous theorising tone, Sarler informs us that, for these women "the moral high ground is instantly theirs", and further, there are men who seek out these 'aggressive' women because they "love a bit of a tussle". Think of "the highly-charged sex involved in 'making up' afterwards". Well that must be some highly charged sex, or, y'know, frequently rape...

So there you have it, intelligent women feel unfeminine when they win arguments, so deliberately goad their partners into hitting them (but not beating, because we can indulge in a touch of victim blaming, after all "at the first sign of the first raised fist, sensible women do what sensible women have always done: they walk away"). Oh, and once the beating, sorry, hitting, has occurred, women get the moral high ground and some "highly-charged" make-up sex.

Domestic violence: a win-win.

Rape Culture: A Definition

This week, my good friend Camilla (who incidentally has a fantastic blog over here) pointed me towards this article, which got me thinking.

I appreciate the writer's thoughts on the topic, and I absolutely agree that we do need to question our attitude towards rape when it focuses on the victims rather than the perpetrators. However, her argument doesn't quite hit the mark for me - to replace the term 'rape culture' with 'rapist's culture', as she seems to be suggesting, is actually a step in the wrong direction.

To be raped can sometimes seem almost ephemeral, and it is often important to reify the relationship by making the connection that one was raped by x. One doesn't simply become the victim of rape, someone needs to make the decision to rape. This isn't reiterated often enough, and it needs to be. It needs to be, because until we do, society makes the attitude that a victim should feel shame more than a perpetrator, acceptable.

But that brings me to the crux of the definition I propound of 'rape culture': it is about society. Rape culture is the state of society which engages in slut shaming, victim blaming, and propagating rape myths. Rape culture is telling victims that they have to forget that they have been raped. Rape culture is the belittling of rape in jokes. Rape culture is the use of the word 'frape'.

Rape culture is where we let rape happen. We LET rape happen.

The majority of people don't rape, but many of them perpetuate a culture where rape is allowed to happen.

Rape culture is a society which is complicit in the perpetuation of rape.

Why Having a Vagina is a Dangerous Job

I've blogged before about the 'f-word' (which can be found here). A word which sends chills down the spine of young women across Britain, setting teeth on edge and eliciting vehement denials of ever using it themselves. The f word is, of course, feminism.

Tomorrow is International Women's Day, a time where we look back at the successes won for women, and when we look ahead to the long struggles which we face to win others.

There are so, so many areas where we need to focus attention: politics, health inequalities, distribution of resources, lack of education and unfair divisions of labour are just the start. And it all comes down to vaginas.

Having a vagina makes you irrational, incapable of leadership, incompetent in dealing with your own financial affairs and futile to teach. A pretty big ask of any formation of skin, I say.

Having a vagina is dangerous. Having a clitoris may be the basis for the breakdown of society. Seriously. In some countries, the clitoris, as an organ designed purely for pleasure, has to be removed - cut, sliced, torn - and sometimes even more to curb rampant female sexuality. Without these measures, women will indulge in the sex they want to have and endanger patriarchal lineages.

Having a vagina is dangerous. It makes you the bearer of life, often whether you want to be or not. Did you know that 100% of those who had abortions last year had a vagina? If all those baby murderers had vaginas then, y'know, it's OK to stop their access to the contraception which prevents women from putting their lives in danger by going through pregnancy. (Although aspirin between the knees is a win-win situation!)

Talking of endangered lives - having a vagina is dangerous. Every minute a woman dies in childbirth. Women across the globe have little or no access to contraception, which means that births are not spaced out. The complications which can arise from your body having gone through numerous pregnancies and births in a very short space of time can be fatal. Add to this the fact that obstetrics and gynaecology are often ignored medical specialisms, after all, women are MADE FOR CHILDBIRTH, and it is unsurprising that women are dying.

Having a vagina is dangerous. The vast majority of rape victims are women, subjected to intimate violence in an attempt to desecrate their bodies. As a demonstration of power over a woman's body, vaginal rape takes on a particular character when considered in the context of war: the possibility that women will be forced to carry a child borne of violence has led to women being urged to commit suicide rather than bring further dishonour on her (male) relatives.

Having a vagina is dangerous. Violence against women causes more deaths and disabilities for women aged 15-44 across the world than cancer, malaria, car crashes and war. Whilst some of the aspects I've talked about have particular significance in (usually) foreign lands, this is one of the most consistent areas of danger for women. Developed or developing, women in all countries are subject to this.

Having a vagina is a dangerous job, and that is why I continue to call myself a feminist and will continue to do so until there is no need to fight for our rights anymore.