Community hubs

This is the global Feminist Blogs aggregator. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Feminist Blogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Posts tagged Europe

G20 and World Cup: Latin America and USA prevail over Europe

Maybe Europe should listen more to Latin America- especially if this World Cup is anything to go by. Argentina and Brazil have both voiced their concerns over the savage cutting that is taking place in the Europe, as have USA. Whilst the sceptics have agreed to cut their deficit in half by 2013, Obama still looked uneasy at the prospect of misguided cutting. It is rather ironic that a country based on free market principles is more adverse to pulling out fiscal stimulus before economic growth is obtained, than countries who arguably have more social democratic principles undermining their traditional political outlook.

Whilst claims that other issues such as the environment and banking reform were ignored at the priority of ‘sorting out’ the budget deficit – campaigners and opponents are right to point out that these are just as important and are also intertwined with respective relevance to the economic situation. The missed opportunities of the coalition are an international phenomena, as the economic crisis has provided us a real chance to radically reform our economies to enhance future sustainability. Green growth and environmental reform should be central to the economic strategy, as should measures such as a Robin Hood Tax – which the G20 ruled out; the capitalist ethos of the G20 is largely to blame.

An important aspect however, of the G20 – is as in other meetings between these countries, the discussions aren’t exactly binding. There is still scope for countries to go their own way – and this might be exactly what USA, Brazil and Argentina do, hopefully. However, the bulk of the countries look set on eradicating their deficit as quickly as possible. However, as a liberal economist in the USA, Paul Krugman, says – we should be focusing on the dangers of unemployment and pulling away valuable fiscal measures.

Whilst many have been talking about the threat of inflation, which I have commented on in previous posts, there is also the threat of deflation. There is going to be a rather contradictory possible situation, where interest rates may be increased – especially when the central bank of the central banks, Bank for International Settlements, is arguing for interest rates to go up. As this is used to combat inflation and any increase in inflation is set to be mainly artificial (e.g VAT increase), the increased cutting of jobs resulting in high levels of unemployment will see people becoming less able to afford the increasing prices and therefore, deflation will be on the cards.

The national and international situation looks rather bleak. Hopefully we may see rationality prevail, but the capitalist ethos of the ‘need’ to cut now to scribble away digits from the deficit looks too strong, and dangerous.


London Calling

I may have mentioned that last month I was in England. Being a political junkie, I was paying attention to the situation there before I left–the British election was a bit of a bigger deal than usual in my particular NYC lefty media circle because Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, was a former intern at The Nation magazine, where I interned recently. The running jokes about Nation interns taking over a country still haven’t really subsided.

Since I spend a significant amount of time complaining about our two-party system, it’s always interesting to watch the workings of a multiparty system–and to notice the problems with that as well. Minority governments, coalitions that could collapse, etc. (Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems joined David Cameron and the Conservatives to form a government, and Labour is out, with former Prime Minister Gordon Brown stepping down as leader of Labour, in case anyone wasn’t following.)

I’m back in the U.S. but am still paying attention to the situation there, partly because I’ve got a bit of a politician-crush on Ed Miliband, the other former Nation intern prominent in UK politics. (Seriously, there are two! At one point the joke was that there was a 1 in 11 chance of a two-Nation-intern coalition running the country! What’s wrong with us over here?) Miliband, along with his brother David and several others, are trying to become Labour leader. Of course, my first question was “Where are the women?”

I asked that question when in England and my friend told me that Yvette Cooper, who is married to another prospective leader, Ed Balls (yes, Balls. It makes me giggle. Shut up, I’m secretly 12.) might try for leadership. But according to the latest piece I turned up from the Guardian, the only woman in the fight (and the only person of color) is Diane Abbott, and she wouldn’t have had enough support to even enter the fray had David Miliband not given her his vote. Seriously?

Barbara Ellen wrote:

Indeed, while no one expects female Labour MPs to vote for Abbott merely because she is a woman, it is pretty shocking that so few did that she ended up having to accept Miliband’s “spare” votes. A good 35 years after Margaret Thatcher became leader of the Conservative party, why is there such scant support for the lone female candidate? For that matter, the lone black one? What does this say about the true “diversity” of Labour and where does it leave Diane Abbott?

It’s always been interesting to me that Thatcher was able to lead as a Conservative but supposedly progressive (:cough: neoliberal) parties have had a hard time finding non-whitedude leadership. I’ve never been a Hillary Clinton fan, but here in the US we certainly have the same problem. The UK is just coming off how many years of Labour’s dominance and yet they only have one woman willing to fight to lead the party back to power? Um, what? And let’s not even TALK about what the current setup looks like.

So I follow Miliband on Twitter, because that’s how I keep up with things. And the other day I caught him having a chat with his followers about a proposal to have 50% women in the Shadow Cabinet (the opposition party has a Shadow Minister for every official minister. I love it because it sounds like something out of Harry Potter. /fetishizingtheBritish). Harriet Harman, who is acting Labour Leader at the moment (but decided not to stand for leader) proposed that it was “time for Labour women to step out of the shadows”.

Miliband backed her proposal, which may well be political posturing, but had some good answers for people who questioned him: “Does that mean that the Tory cabinet which has four women out of 23 reflects merit in your view? If not,how would u change it?”

There are cracks here in the U.S. that this is going to be the “Year of the Woman” in politics; that Tea Party candidates, a lot of them women, are some sort of “new feminism.” Obama’s two Supreme Court nominations have been women, and a good chunk of his Cabinet is female as well, so maybe we’re slowly getting better. But what about an actual promise to make the percentages equal? What do you think?

And British Feministe readers, I’d love your take on the situation. I don’t know much about it other than Twitter-stalking Miliband and the occasional conversation.

But he’s an artist! She’s a “drunk cow”! What do you MEAN he can’t rape her?

Image of two Star Trek guys with their hands on their foreheads, seeminly out of frustration.

Sexual assault trigger warning. You know the drill.

Last month, I was graciously allowed to write a guest post here on Feministe – about Russian artist Ilya Trushevsky, and how people are defending him much like the fools who defend Roman Polanski.

Gee, I had no idea how right I was. I mean, I knew I was right. But to paraphrase Whoopi Goldberg, I wasn’t just “right,” I was “right-right.”

You see, Ilya Trushevsky, who is accused of an attempted rape of a 17-year-old, just got a special Hey He Still Presents a Commercial Interest, So Screw It, You Know? Moral Support Prize from Winzavod Contemporary Art Center – a venue that’s kind of a big deal here in Moscow. You can read about the details in my article for The Moscow News.

I’m not really sure if I have anything clever to say about any of this, because I’m tired and deflated and stories like this one make me want to go camp out in some birch grove in Vladimirskaya Oblast and not encounter any human beings for at least a week or so.

In a way, this is so much worse than a stupid petition for Polanski. The award was presented publicly. By a dude who had previously referred to the 17-year-old girl who was beaten and sexually assaulted as a “drunk cow.” And I’m not going to use the phrase “alleged victim” here, because Trushevsky was pretty open about what happened on his Facebook & LJ. He made fun of her bruises. The media reported that he admitted what happened to the cops.

The stated point of the Moral Support Prize (I feel dumber every time I type it out, truth be told), apparently, is to show solidarity with artists who are in trouble. “REMEMBER, HE’S AN ARTIST! We should still totally hang out with him and do coke, or whatever” – that sort of thing. It always strikes me as really interesting, how someone inevitably thinks that these gestures are very important to make when a Guy Who Glues Rhinestones to Turtles Great Artist is involved. Please won’t somebody think of the Goddamn Rhinestone-Covered Turtles ART?!

What bothers me about that – aside from priorities that are just as messed up as the “but we can’t let the parish know that there’s a predator priest in our midst, it’s bad PR, gaiz” thing – is that a particular artistic community indicts itself when it engages in such apologist hand-wringing. The art should be able to stand on its own. Always. And in many cases, it does. “Rosemary’s Baby” is still a good movie. The fact that I’m somehow “supposed” to defend Polanski because I think it’s a good movie is, on the other hand, idiotic. I’ll defend him to people who think he’s a crappy director – because he’s not. But those pesky laws that dictate that it’s illegal to rape people weren’t created as a springboard for a referendum on some Great Man’s Great Work.

Everyone on this planet does, to some extent to another, live in an unequal society. Rich folks can, as F. Scott Fitzgerald taught us, retreat into their money. People like Polanski and Trushevsky, on the other hand, can retreat into their art – or at least attempt to use it as a fig leaf. This is a social justice issue as much as anything else, I believe. Is talent special? Yes it is, I am certain of it. But if I write a play you happen to like, the most I expect to get away with is a spilled drink at your house party – or maybe the possibility of nagging you into buying me a drink (I like Ukrainian vodka, champagne, Trappist beer – I hope you are taking notes). Not, uh, rape.

I’m just a silly woman, of course, what do I know? It’s not as if I possess a penis – that great tool of rationalization for violence, both sexual and otherwise – when other tools of rationalization fail. And hey, perhaps we’re all misunderstanding poor Ilya Trushevsky anyway. Perhaps my addled lady-brain just doesn’t get that that whole rape thing was an elaborate bit of performance art. Us women couldn’t possibly understand the artistic impulse anyway – the best things we can hope to create are babies (I’m not just joking grimly – though of course I’m doing that too – these are all arguments for Trushevsky that I have recently heard and read).

It’s good to know that a bunch of people who have since signed that anti-Winzavod petition are artists as well. It may be a small comfort, but I’ll take whatever I can get.

Categories: 116

LibDem/Tory Coalition, aka. The iron hand in the velvet glove

So, it looks like its finally resolved. Brown’s gone. Cameron’s in. And LibDem’s have jumped into bed with the Tories. Oh dear. Yes, I can see why it may have happened. But as part of the more left-wing part of the party, I can never support a LibDem/Tory coalition. I genuinely think this is the start of a serious destruction of the LibDems. We are going to be seriously squeezed in the next election. Labour will replace us in the north – we have already lost control of councils such as Sheffield – and the Tories will replace us in the south.

We are going to be the soft face of a nasty government. But there again, how soft are we in practice? There have been reports that Labour, rightly, did not do a deal with us because we want more wide-ranging, deeper public services cuts – starting this year (whatever happened to Cable’s rejection of the Tories’ economic polices?). You can tell Clegg went into the Labour talks not wanting a deal, instead, they happened just to purely satisfy the members. Well, Clegg has made his choice. He will get his power, as rumour is it he will be deputy leader. But, he will lose a lot of the core. The core who have been so vigorously opposed to most of what the Tories stand for.

The LibDem MPs have been well whipped so far, but there will be defections. It will be interesting to see who does defect. You can tell that many of the more centre left MPs are grimmicing when they throw their ‘support’ behind the coalition proposals. Whilst it sounds promising that Tory policies such as inheritance tax and marriage tax have been put on ‘hold’, and they will look at implementing a compromised version of our tax reforms (“look at” and “compromised” is key here), I think that the fixed parliament reform, which was much-needed, will secure us into a long and painful death.

One thing we have to remember however, is that this was a real opportunity for PR wasted. We didn’t really push Labour far enough to try to get PR on a referendum – as I said, it was clear the leadership never really wanted to go with Labour. Instead, we will have to settle for AV, well a referendum on AV.

Regardless, I sense things to come for the LibDems may not be as rosy as the leadership may think and hope. When we come to important issues such as Europe, immigration, environment and higher education funding (will Clegg uncap the tuition fees and push his core membership even further away?), it is going to be very interesting to see how well the Tory whip is sustained across the LibDem MPs.

I hope I am wrong. I hope this coalition is good for the country, and the LibDems. But personally, I feel this will be nothing short of a disaster. Suffice to say, I don’t agree with Nick.


The Roman Polanski Humanitarian Award: Ilya Trushevsky & other recipients

This is a guest post by Natalia Antonova.

Sexual assault trigger warning.

So. Seems that something evil happened in Moscow over the May Day weekend. Ilya Trushevsky, a young artist famous for installations that involved turtles covered in rhinestones (I know, I know), was arrested and charged with attempted rape of a 17-year-old student. You can get the gist of the story from the article by Vladimir Kozlov, who works with me at The Moscow News (I ended up assigning Vladimir the story when I heard about it over the weekend).

Just as our headline states, the fall-out from the Trushevsky case has been epic. This is because Nikolai Nikifirov, a poet who was staying over at Ilya’s place, claims to have heard Ilya and an as-of-yet-unnamed friend of his assaulting the girl in the next room, and posted an account of what he says went down on LiveJournal. Most of it is so graphic that we couldn’t print the details.

Ilya initially retaliated with an LJ post that was more graphic – and more horrifying – because he laughed about the entire thing, made fun of the victim’s injuries (which, RIA Novosti reported, were extensive), gloated about how everyone down at the prosecutor’s office just thought the entire thing was hilarious, and that he will get off scot-free. He has since changed his tune somewhat – now he has tender concern for this girl, who was clearly “influenced” to press charges – though there are screencaps of his supporters threatening people who have written about the situation.

I have slogged through hundreds and hundreds of comments and commentaries, reading everything from “but they picked that slut up at a nightclub!” (as opposed to a convent – though it’s not as if we can’t find creative ways to blame nuns for getting raped as well – I mean, what are they DOING in those convents? You can’t blame the fellas for being curious, right?) to “haha, you better keep looking over your shoulder, Ilya, ’cause we’re coming for your ass!” (vigilante justice is not in the best interests of the victim in this case, but I can understand where that sentiment originated, especially when newspapers hadn’t yet reported on the case and everyone was wondering if it would simply go away) to people who came out of the woodwork to claim that Ilya is pretty famous for bad treatment of women. The comments sections on various LJ’s have turned into utter zoos as the result, and discussing all of the issues that were brought up as the result of this ase would probably require writing a dissertation or two.

I would, however, like to focus on one thing in particular, and that is the “Polanskification” of Ilya Trushevsky. Because it’s happening.

I was first reminded of Ropo, as some of us affectionately refer to him these days, when I stumbled into a clusterfuck on the a prominent Russian LJ. Lena Korsarova, who identified as a rape survivor, a member of the overall “bohemia” that includes people like Trushevsky, and an affiliate of Russia’s legendary Mosfilm movie studio, decided to comment on the case. Here’s a rough translation of a few of the things she said:

“Yeah, let’s all sigh and moan for the poor little broad. Did Trushevsky force her to go home with him?”

“I am more or less on the equal footing with guys like this, and often, I find it interesting to spend time with them, as they do with me, and as for what they do with little girls – everyone makes their own kind of fun, it’s not the most dangerous way to amuse yourself.”

“Because of her stupidity, she could ruin the life of a talented person.”

“DANG,” said the internet.

Korsarova’s position is not that shocking, if you think about. Like many rape survivors, she never quite got the “it’s not your fault” memo. It’s obvious that no one was around to comfort her. And as an individual who is nevertheless clever and talented, she’s obviously had some success in life, which then allowed her to look down on “poor little broads” – the ones whom people like Trushevsky can apparently rape with impunity.

The “poor little broads” are really a class onto themselves. We must always differentiate them from people who deserve respect – and bodily integrity. When Anne Applebaum referred to parts of the testimony of Polanski’s teenage victim as “salacious,” the same principles were at work. Because we are encouraged to view what happens to these girls as no big deal. Maybe it’s kinda dirty, sure. And a little rough. But that’s the price they must pay for thinking themselves worthy of the attention of talented men, right?

Here’s a caveat – When I’m not busy being a journalist, I am busy trying to be a writer. I sometimes hang out with people who tend to have creative professions. I have found myself embroiled in debacles that have confused me and made me question my choices and just how much or how little power I have over a given situation. I have found myself saying this someone I know and care about: “He’s talented. That’s what matters most to me.” Granted, the dude in question wasn’t writing charming blog posts and Facebook updates about how he’d just beat up and raped a “drunk idiot,” but I still wonder, just how far am I willing to go in excusing an individual based on his talent.

A conversation I recently had with a director about the Trushevsky case veered into familiar territory. It went something like this:

“She should have known better. People like Trushevsky are dangerous, because they are unhinged. They’re artists. ‘Unhinged’ is practically a requirement.”

“So let me get this straight: beating up and raping a woman helps him do a better job of gluing rhinestones to a turtle?”

“You’re being willfully obtuse. You know what I mean!”

“Right. Now tell me that part about how Polanski is a poor victim of the bourgeois establishment that has no use for his great films.”

“He’s a scapegoat. He’s no danger to anyone at this point. They should drop it.”

“He’s a DANGER to all of those women who are going to be RAPED for as long as people look at someone like Polanski and go, ‘well, if he can get away with it’…”

“Oh, so you’re saying that we should make an example out of Polanski?”

“I’m saying that Polanski made an example out of himself. When he drugged and raped that girl, to be precise.”

“That’s cheap melodrama.”

“I’ll take it over the idea that it’s OK for ‘great artists’ to pull this crap.”

“Good luck with that.”

Dang indeed.

Plenty of people are more than willing to believe that Trushevsky is debauched and evil simply by virtue of his chosen profession. I’m not going to lie and say that innocent people haven’t been accused of shit on account of them being automatically understood as “deviants.” In this case though, I don’t feel any particular sympathy for the person in question. He uses the “deviance” excuse himself. Trushevsky sees himself as misunderstood – a free spirit shackled by the puritans. When he attacked his friend Nikolai Nikifirov for calling the cops on him, he retaliated with such colourful lines as “when was the last time you had a woman?” Clearly, Nikifirov was just jealous of Trushevsky’s awesomely shocking bohemian existence and therefore had to go and kill the vibe with all of this tedious “rape” stuff. Clearly.

The “puritans,” of course, are after Polanski. They don’t get it – the 70’s were a wild and crazy time! When boys were boys, and drugged children were nervous! Can’t we all just lighten up about it already? So many people think we ought to. I don’t even want to list them here. It depresses me.

And then there’s the simple fact of social standing. When those stupid Polanski petitions started making their rounds, one of the phrases that really stuck out at me at the time was the outrage over the fact that Roman Polanski had been apprehended “like a common terrorist.” The outrage! In a similar vein, Trushevsky’s victim has been described in terms that are meant to underline the fact that she is most likely below his station – “provincial” is one of the more charitable descriptions of her out there.

Does anyone even deny that a rape has take place? Not really. They don’t need to. Much like Polanski himself doesn’t feel the need to mention the victim in that pissy statement he released the other day from the confines of his slimy dungeon infested with a particularly aggressive species of centipede luxurious ski chalet.

You know, I was in a situation recently when I found out that a woman close to me had been physically and sexually assaulted by a fairly famous playwright. It happened at rehearsal. In front of other people. The famous playwright grabbed the woman, an actor, between the legs and screamed, “you need to sing like a cock is going in you!” She said that it hurt so much, she started to cry. Everyone just stared. The same playwright also threw the same actror against the wall, smacking her head pretty hard in the process. She burst into tears. Once again, everyone just stared.

It happened a while ago, and I’ve been trying to deal with my feelings about this ever since. This playwright is someone I know. I haven’t crossed paths with him lately, but it’s bound to happen. I think plenty of people know about the way he treats women – he’d never pull the same shit with a man, of course – but people still work with him. They invite him to events. They listen to what he has to say. His victims are made invisible. It’s impolite to mention them.

“Drop it, just drop it,” the same director told me when I confessed my feelings of rage on the matter, how I wanted to do something, anything, to hurt and humiliate the man who had hurt and humiliated someone I love. “You’re not in a position to change anything. Everyone loves him. He’s powerful. He’s talented.”

Of course he is.

I don’t know what I should do. I don’t know what I can do. The actor in question isn’t exactly keen to re-visit these incidents. She has moved on. Hell, she talk to this playwright guy all the time. She works with him. She debates him. And I’m reduced to thinking inexcusable thoughts such as “just when are you going to actually DO it?” whenever the playwright in question strikes a tragic pose and begins yammering on about how he considers suicide every morning. In my own helpless bitterness, I stop recognizing myself.

I wonder if any of the people who knew Ilya Trushevsky from way back when have felt the same way.

Categories: 116
Tagged with: , ,

The day the right showed their true colours on gay equality…

Yesterday’s comments by Nick Griffin and David Cameron in regards to gay equality:

Nick Griffin:

“It’s unfamiliar, it’s odd and I’m afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don’t often see it but if you do see it, it’s not a matter of homophobia, it’s odd and you have to explain it to little kids and so on – that’s strange. We’re not anti-gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We’ve got gay members now and people know who they are, but it’s don’t ask don’t tell.”

David Cameron:

“I try to have free votes where possible on these sorts (in this instance, gay rights) of issues. Sorry it’s not a very good answer. I’ll have to go and look at this particular vote in the European parliament.”

Both comments are striking and revealing in their different ways. Nick Griffin’s are simply unbelievable, how a man who calls homosexuals ‘creepy’ can then assert that he is not homophobic, or can claim that a party whose gay members are put in a “don’t ask don’t tell” situation is not homophobic, really shows how out of touch the BNP are. To claim the BNP are not homophobic as they now allow gay people to become members is absurd, it is the same as saying that the BNP would cease to be racist if they changed their constitution – it wont.

Furthermore, stopping homophobia is more than just providing gay people access to membership; a party’s policies, attitudes and values towards homosexuals is vital to challenging homophobia within society. However, an examination of the BNP’s policies around homosexuality illustrates how engrained homophobia is within their party. For example, they want to re-install section 28, by banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools. Furthermore, they want to ban civil partnerships, which incidentally Griffin attrubutes as a left-wing conspiracy:

“…it’s part of the left’s war against marriage and the family. I find it hard to grasp people who are essential conservative with a small c who can’t get the point that most of what’s been done to our society been deliberately done by a hard core Marxist left who have infiltrated their ideas into all aspects of our society.”

Well here is a left attack on the right. This is nothing to do with some sort of conspiracy to erode some ‘ideal’, instead it is about furthering people’s liberty to choose for themselves what type of relationship they want to be in, and to respect that we are living in an increasingly fragmented and individualised society. It is ”the cause of the left” , as Griffin puts it, to further equality in society and through this there has to be recognition of all forms of commitment, and that includes civil partnership (which rightly, as Clegg has said, should be marriage).

Now onto Cameron. What was the most striking about Cameron’s slip up was his remarks around free votes.  I have to agree with Ben Bradshaw’s analysis of Cameron: whilst Cameron has a memorised homosexual rights ’script’, when it is scrutinised, Cameron does not have the core beliefs needed to maintain it. Channel 4’s short documentary on Cameron’s interview with Gay Times illustrated the hypocrisy of Cameron’s remarks. After the interview, Cameron tried to justify the free votes that he said MEPs have, arguing that they wanted to remain outside other countries’ internal affairs, but Channel 4 highlighted how the Tories tabled an amendment on press freedom in Italy a month after the Lithuania vote. In the interview he also slipped up as he remarked on MPs access to free votes on “these sorts of issues”, but then he conceded he had no valid justification for this remark.

Both Cameron and Griffin are different obviously. However, what both demonstrated yesterday is how both parties still need to improve their views around homosexual equality. It is not unfair to say that the Tories’ MEPs show very close similarities to Griffin’s BNP. Nor is it unfair to say that many Tory MPs, MEPs and peers would not find themselves out-of-place within the BNP in terms of their homosexual beliefs.


Women and politics – Part 2: Women and Europe

To see part 1, press here.

It is pleasing to see the EU taking women’s representation more seriously, especially when considering:

“in the 2009 European elections women made up 35% of candidates, 34% in the top 3rd of party lists (Greece and Denmark being the exception), 34% of MEPs elected, but got 19% of media coverage, falling to single figures in some countries” (figures provided by University of Exeter).

I think it is important to consider different countries’ attitudes towards women and politics when looking at what evidence the EU have cited in support of their view that women’s under representation results in women becoming less interested in politics and thus in turn reinforces their under representation. Due to this, they naturally support the need for quota systems, which I have argued before are based on paternalistic and passive notions of providing women ’special’ care. Instead, there is a need for structural and cultural changes so that women’s rights and opportunities improve and consequently their participation in politics.

For example, you can have as many quota systems as you like, however, without structural changes such as improving childcare policies then you are only going to get the same types of women applying. Improvements to women’s representation requires a consideration of different countries’ social, economic and political conditions. Redistribution is key to improving women’s rights, as well as men’s. More redistributive polices would help reduce the high levels of poverty women often suffer from, and through this provide them greater financial stability to pursue a career in politcs.

The need to consider the varying position of women within different European countries to help provide a more specific strategy to improve women’s representation within the EU is highlighted when considering the position of women within Italian politics. An article only last year, reports that the Council of Europe found:

“The most worrying figure was the level of female representation in local municipal councils, where women made up just 2.2% of councillors compared to a European average of 24.5%. The only country with a worse record in this sector was Azerbaijan.

Italy fared better at a regional government level, where female representation climbed to 17.2%, although still below Europe’s average of 21.4% and less than half of Spain’s 39.7%.”

Therefore different countries have more problems around women’s representation in politics, and instead of just saying, as the EU seem to be suggesting, this under representation is due to women’s lack of visibility in politics, there needs to be a closer systematic consideration of why women are differently represented in different countries. For example, the article referred to how:

“Italy has also has a dismal record in terms of female employment, ranking second to bottom of all European Union countries, according to a report by EU statistics bureau Eurostat.”

This highlights how there are wider systematic issues within the country and these will help us account for the varying levels of under representation of women within European politics and politics more generally. It is simple for EU to attribute the lack of representation in Europe as a problem of visibility, but with more careful analysis it is clear the problem requires a more in-depth solution.


Wherein your blogger destroys France.



Jill in a mosque, originally uploaded by JillNic83.

I’ve written before about attempts to outlaw the burqa in France. Summary: I think it’s silly, an affront to basic freedoms, and ultimately more damaging to the women it claims to protect. Now France is at it again, trying to ban the wearing in public of any item of clothing that covers your face. The law is clearly targeted at French Muslims and Muslim immigrants.

I understand that many people perceive the burqa, or any full-body covering, as a symbol of female submission. Heck, I perceive the stereotypical conservative Christian floor-length denim or flowery dress the same way, so I get it. I don’t have much love lost for any religious tradition that insists the female body is inherently sinful and must be covered.

But my personal opinions on fashion and the female form, and which religious (or irreligious) path I choose to follow? Not great foundations for legally limiting the rights of others. Especially when the outcome of this legislation won’t be the stripping off of burqas everywhere, but rather a larger number of women staying inside. That’s not exactly a great gain for women’s rights.

The Conservative’s as ‘the party of change’? Don’t make me laugh!


Talking about a weak leader, David Cameron only has to look at a blog by Derek Wyatt’s on Cameron’s inability to hold a consistent view to see that he himself is a perfect example of weak leadership. Section 28 is a clear example of how Cameron’s “year of change” should be greeted with a great deal of scepticism. Liberal Democrats have rightly pointed to how the Conservatives in Europe (and I would argue in the UK) are still the ‘nasty’ party, as for example:

“The Tory group refused to condemn Lithuania’s “section 28″ law, which criminalised material that “agitates for homosexual or bisexual relations” or “defies family values”.

Cameron can say all he wants, but his record on section 28 of the local government act 1987/8 cannot just be forgotten, regardless of whether he says a convenient vote grabbing sorry. How can he suddenly change his views on homophobia in the space of a few years without it being conveniently altered by the slight chance he might become the prime minister? Moving back to Wyatt’s blog, more specifically, how can Cameron claim the Conservatives are the party of change when he can be quoted as saying that Blair had moved heaven and earth to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools” when Labour repealed section 28 in 2003 after several attempts (and blocking by mainly Conservative opposition)?

It is interesting to re-quote Wyatt’s blog, as what Cameron says around section 28 and homosexuality should be seen as a reminder to anyone who has been tricked by the Conservatives’ façade and Cameron’s recent apology around homosexuality. For example he says:

‘The Blair government continues to be obsessed with their ‘fringe’ agenda, including deeply unpopular moves like repealing Section 28 and allowing the promotion of homosexuality in schools.’ Oxford Journal, 5 May 2000

Another quote of Cameron’s, Wyatt mentions, I find particularly interesting and relevant:

‘Labour has ripped the last recognition of marriage from the tax system by abolishing the married couples’ allowance and spend an inordinate amount[sic] of time trying to allow the promotion of homosexuality in schools by repealing Section 28. Blair apparently thinks that because he is lucky enough to have a loving wife, three kids and a new baby, he is automatically ‘pro-family’.’ Oxford Journal, 28 July 2000

Doesn’t that rhetoric around the ‘traditional’ marriage and the inability of the tax system to support marriage, sound familiar? Funny that, it sounds exactly like the discourse Cameron is applying recently to support his tax breaks for married couples to encourage them to stay together, you see, you just can’t trust the Conservatives.

But, wait, it wouldn’t be Cameron without a famous u-turn to grasp any voter he possibly can. You would find it hard to believe that the Cameron above is the same Cameron that can be quoted as saying:

‘One section of our community did feel discriminated against by Section 28, and so I’m glad on that basis that it’s gone.’ BBC Politics Show, 13 November 2005

It is also hard to believe it is the same man who recently (obviously he had to say it before Gay Pride in order to get maximum voting impact) apologised for section 28 saying “It does give me great pride to be standing here to celebrate Gay Pride”. However, rhetoric aside, this is the same man who a year before this apology voted to restrict lesbians access to IVF, hardly promoting homosexuals.

The fact is, Cameron is a liar. He says what he knows he has to say in order to get the voters. However, what happens to him is that he eventually becomes struck, as he has with Europe, he did what his party wanted him to do, which is to take them out of mainstream European politics, but this has come at a compromise to the party’s façade of being a party of change. Hopefully, with reminders such as Cameron’s shocking record on homosexual rights, people will remember that the Conservatives cannot be trusted to help the majority if they are in power, and that they really are not the party of change.

Newsy reads for today

The Times: BBC bows to age rage and brings back mature women. Three women over fifty, Fiona Armstrong, 53, Julia Somerville, 62 and Zeinab Badawi, 50, have been hired as presenters on the BBC News Channel. This is a pleasant change in a world in which older women mysteriously disappear from news programs, when women are allowed to report/present “hard news” at all. Related: here’s a good article from a few years back on women in the news by BBC news presenter and feminist Fiona Bruce. She’s commonly asked ‘What do you wear under the desk?’ and ‘What is your favourite recipe?’ Also check out the Global Media Monitoring Project, which follows trends in gender in the media around the world.

AP: Serena Williams is 2009 AP Female Athlete of Year. Would you like to know the runner up? It was a horse.

Times of India: Bangalore police want ban on women bartenders. This follows the abduction (and rescue, don’t worry!) of twelve bartenders on their way home on Saturday. As interviewee K.S. Vimala says, ‘Sexual harassment of women is happening in other work places. That does not mean, we’ll stop them from working altogether. What is needed is proper safety and security for women at their work places’. The Bar and Restaurant Owners’ Association is stepping up security.

LA Times: In Iran, a blind musician leads the way for a women’s orchestra.

DailyCamera.com: Healing Nepal: All-female guide company empowering women one trek at a time. ‘After hearing from several disgruntled female tourists, complaining of male guides disrespecting them, the sisters — armed with basic mountaineering skills — opened the country’s first female-owned trekking company, run by and for women.’ The three Chhetri sisters have also opened a children’s home for girls age 7 to 16 who have been rescued from child labor. And 3 Sisters Adventure Trekking has a non-profit arm called Empowering Women of Nepal, which has a number of programs that sound amazing.