feminist blogs

What a contrast. A few weeks ago, Clegg announced a very competent set of policies that address the inequalities that homosexuals still face. Whilst Cameron does support the law that would enable asylum seekers to settle here if they are fleeing prosecution because of their sexual orientation, he is less committed to removing the ban that stops homosexuals and bisexuals from giving blood due to the scare of AIDS. Instead, he says that he has to wait for a report to decide whether we can remove the ban. Why does he need a report to see how wrong the ban is? It is pretty obvious that there is no scientific basis to it – it is just pure homophobia. All the blood is screened anyway, heterosexuals have many AIDS’ sufferers too. It is pretty simple, as Clegg showed, the ban should be removed.

When it comes to the issue of homophobic violence, the old let some ‘magical’ cultural change dust do the work instead of the state was employed in his discourse. Cultural change is fundamental, however, it only works as long as there is a means of achieving it. I am always bemused when people use the ‘magical’ cultural change argument in response to those who desire state action to help bring about that cultural change. Yes, legislation is not the answer to all change, however, it is a big part in assisting cultural change. There has to be a method behind mobilising change, just simply talking about it does little.

The article by Johann Hari that this blog is based on has an interesting point around faith schools too, this is something that Nick Clegg should take into account before imposing homosexual teaching in faith schools. There is a lot of research that shows that if the Tories idea of giving money to those who want to run their own schools was implemented, mainly religious groups and fundamentalists would take up the offer, who are most likely to be homophobic. Thus, policies by the Tories, as well as their inability to state how they would achieve cultural change, would actually appear to run the risk of making homophobic violence worse.

As stated previously in my blog, it is important to remember the history of Cameron’s attitude and voting record towards homosexual rights, especially in terms of Section 28. No matter what apology he issues now, you always have to doubt his pro homosexual rights rhetoric when considering that he was an avid supporter of the Section and other anti homosexual laws, even as late as 2008. LabourList have a nice little piece on Cameron’s voting record on homosexual rights that further illustrates the doubts one must have when viewing the dramatic ‘change’ in position Cameron has made of late in terms of his stance towards homophobia.

His answers on Europe show how little he really cares about homosexual rights. He tries to claim that whilst they do not agree with their new European partners extreme views on homosexuals (which is debatable), it is the price to pay for:

“an open, flexible, trading Europe, rather than the endless progress towards a more federalised Europe”.

He, nor the Tories, will ever truly change…

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.

By this, I am referring to the BBC poll that asked whether homosexuals should face execution, commenting on the situation in Uganda – who are voting on whether homosexuality should be ‘punished’ by death. Of corse they shouldn’t, and opening the question up provides legitimacy to the idea that it is a right question to even be asking. Imagine asking if it is ok for jews to face execution? – I am sure that wouldn’t even cross the minds of the BBC to ask.

The editor of the BBC website, David Stead said:

“We agree it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake. If Uganda’s MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, they will bring legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.”

This misrepresents the need of debate however. Yes, debate is needed, but only debate around how to STOP this. Discussion even tending to support it should not be given the air to breath. It is simply disgusting to toy with the suggestion of whether homosexuals should be executed. On what premise do heterosexual people have to say that homosexuals should be killed? Absolutely none. Sexuality is a social construction, it is not some innate force – sexual acts and sexual identities are social constructed. What harm is homosexuality doing to the people of Uganda? Absolutely none, except from necessary blurring of the distinctions between ‘natural’ and ‘peversive’ sexaultiy. The BBC poll risks undermining the advances that people such as Peter Tatchell have actually put their life in danger to achieve (Tatchell has recently had to pull out of being a Green candidate due to brain injuries sustained campaigning on issues such as anti – homophobia in countries such as Zimbabwe and Russia).

The bill specifically proposes:

“the death penalty for those having gay sex with anyone under 18, or while infected with HIV/Aids, or with someone who is disabled, or for being “a serial offender”. Stating that “same sex attraction is not an innate and immutable characteristic” (taken from The Times.)

The discussions around sexuality being ‘innate’ relates to my comments above. Furthermore, there is further discrimination within the bill against those with AIDS and those who are disabled. The AIDS = homosexual rhetoric is clear, which is something our society has not successfully eradicated either (such as how gay men are unable to give blood, for example).

Trying to justify the bill, Uganda’s ‘Ethics and Intergrity’ (how ironic) minister claims that:

“I do understand in [the west's] case homosexuality is normal but here it is totally repugnant, it is repulsive, it’s not something you would want to do if you have your normal faculties functioning. But there you are, in other societies it is different.”

His ‘justification’ can be used clearly to highlight their flaws in their ‘innate’ argument. If heterosexuality was so ‘innate’, then why would homosexuality be a common practice amongst all societies? What would he do if his daughter or son (if he has any) was homosexual? Would he freely kill them?

And if that wasn’t enough, Rwanda are also set to hold a vote of whether to criminalise “”[a]ny person who practices, encourages or sensitises people of the same sex, to sexual relation or any sexual practice.” Where is the world going? I have several gay friends and to think of them being executed and criminalised for liking the same sex, makes me sick. The vote is supposedly occurring today, i have had a look around and have found nothing of yet, so i can only assume the debate is still taking place.

I would love there to be an easy way to produce an international law to protect people’s rights, not only homosexuals, but all minorities and majorities basic human rights. To hear talks of killing homosexuals is scary. I seriously hope that the bill will not pass, if not, I feel intervention by the UN for example, will need to be stronger then just saying they will stop building an AIDS research centre in Uganda. The international community would have to act tought to stop the inhumane killing of innocent people.

This is the second in a series of my own personal analyses of reports by the campaigning body, Object, into various lads mags and their implications in terms of the objectification of women (to see part 1, click here). The report looks into the comparisons between teen mags, that are magazines designed for girls, and lads’ mags, which are designed for men and boys over 16 years old (it is claimed). The teen mags they focused upon were those promoted towards girls who are younger than 15 years old, as they are regulated by Teenage Magazine Arbitration Panel (TMAP), which the Home Office set up to ensure that teenage magazines provide sensible sexual content. This clearly arises the question of why is it that girl magazines are tightly regulated, whereas boy magazines, which lad’s magazines such as Zoo and Nuts are, have no regulation of the kind. The response I have sometimes received when calling for lads mags to have tighter consideration of what they put on their magazines has been met by calls that I am not liberal enough. Well it simply isn’t liberal in my eyes to promote unrealistic expectations of women and expose them to the degradation, just in the name of predominantly men’s sexual pleasure.

This links to the predominant discourse often used to justify rape, which states that men’s sex drive is ‘naturally’ uncontrollable (see for example this). They have to satisfy their sex drive from having sex with women, even if this means against women’s will. Whilst I do not agree with radical Feminists assertion that all heterosexual sex is rape, the point regarding the sex drive discourse is very relevent today. Pornography of this nature also ridicules lesbian relationships. They are made to be seen as only purely acceptably in a heterosexual framework, only when they are hyper sexual are they acceptable. The minute lesbian relationships, and indeed homosexual relationships in general, appear as though they are caring and sensitive, they are seen as ’sick, ‘perverse’ and all the other names you can think of. Why is this the case? It seems a tad odd when comparing it to pornography where violence in a heterosexual context is seen as pleasurable and desirable. How can this not be furthering the degradation and subordination that women face in society? Thus, sexuality has to be considered here too, as these magazines clearly prop up an inherently heterosexuality dominated market. The only way lesbians seem to be portrayed to males are as sex objects that are up for any kind of sex and degradation.

As the report states, it is time that the lads mags are regulated like teen mags are. The TMAP should assess its own role and justify why it chooses to regulate teenage girl orientated magazines, but not obvious teenage boy orientated magazines. Why is it that teen mags are marketed with the pull of free gifts, whereas the lad’s mags are marketed by the pull of ‘cheap’ girls? As the report states, the male pin ups in teen mags are fully clothed, without any real sexual connotation. Instead, there is more female degradation and sexual connotations placed in teen mags, as women with the ‘wrong’ dress or who are not ‘thin’ enough or are too ‘fat’ are exposed. There is no such exposure of males.

The underlying message of the report and indeed of this blog is that the regulatory body, TMAP, need to start regulating lad’s magazines that teenage boys can easily pick up and buy, given that the TMAP’s guidelines are as follows:

“It is recognised that magazines have an important role to play in the field of sex education for, and emotional development of, teenagers. It is recognised that magazines have an important role to play in the field of sex education for, and emotional development of,teenagers.”