feminist blogs

nail hit head; it is ridiculous to suggest that people get married solely because it’s financially rewarded, and if this reward isn’t exclusively for married couples, the institution will crumble into the dust. And even if that was true, who cares? What really is the qualitative difference between a couple cohabiting and committed to each other, and a couple in the same position with a different legal status, a piece of paper, and the memory of a party? Answers on a postcard please.

I’ve been ambivalent about marriage, having something of the traditional fairytale princess story still lingering in the back of my brain from when I was little, I suspect. As a baby feminist I was utterly against it for me, but not militantly advocating its downfall. Then I went through a stage of thinking it’d be kinda nice-in-the-icky-way to marry Matt, what with the wedding/dress potential/romantic ideal of it all. Now, away from the fluffiness of New Relationships I’m thinking (no less committed to Matt by the way) that it’s all a bit of a scam, an something I can do without, and society can do without. As evidenced by this icky quoting of Ferdinand Mount in yesterday’s Times;

“All the research shows that being married, with all its ups and downs, is by far the most effective way of making young men law-abiding and giving them a sense of purpose and self-worth.”

Nothing like an admission of the supposed responsibility of young women to control young men to put you off marriage eh?! Funny how the mental and physical effects on women of unhappy marriages are never weighed up when assessing the costs and benefits of marriage for society.

As for gay marriage, I think it’s pretty much won regardless of the language. How many people will say they are “civilly partnered” and refer to “partners” as opposed to talking of being “married” and “husbands” or “wives”? It might take time, but the battle over semantics and status will be creepingly won, I think, on the basis of a rejection of the cold language in favour of the traditional language. I’d be interested to see research into the differences between the relationships of lesbian and gay couples who are married and those who aren’t, to see if this magical “marriage effect” that supposedly improves straight men’s lives translates out of the heterosexual sphere.

Excellent article by Nick Cohen on the CND’s betrayal of anti-fascist principles in inviting Dr Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, the then Iranian ambassador, to its conference, and throwing out Iranian protestors. Well worth reading.

One point, however, that caught my eye. Women’s Rights Activists not feminists, Nick?

go vote for OWFI here so they can win 20,000 euros please please please.

Ta.

I was going to write a full report, but I’m just too disillusioned. Tonight we learnt that not all women are oppressed (why do we have a women’s union then?), that it’s offensive to suggest the Economist is rabidly pro-free market, that this motion is basically Islamophobic (how many different ways can we suggest it attacks Muslims with saying the I word?), attacking the “Muslim way of life” and imposing Western ideals on Iraq. Apparently there are those who agree with it, who disagree with the “rabid” wording; anyone know how you can condemn Islamism without actually appearing to condemn it? Perhaps if more people knew what Islamism is and why opposing it doesn’t mean hating Muslims, we might get somewhere. It was generally agreed the motion was offensive and inaccurate.

More tomorrow night after the CUSU marathon. I’m off to bed.

ooh, 3 hours to go and I’ve already been accused of petty student political fighting for submitting a motion critical of RESPECT’s policy (or non-policy) on a women’s right to choose. Not to mention how my motion on supporting OWFI against Islamists in Iraq has been forwarded for approval to the Islamic society. I have a feeling tonight is going to be very interesting…

I’m tired.

I’m tired of men who’ve never picked up a feminist book, and probably never will, demanding that I justify to them the term “all men are potential rapists” before they’ll take rape seriously or contemplate it as a gender issue.

I’m tired of men who refuse to see the world along gendered lines because they can pretend that there’s no significant trend in anything that divides men and women.

I’m tired of men who think Equal Opportunities means treating everyone the same, and that as such, feminism has gone too far.

I’m tired of men who think that my presence at this University is all the evidence they need to claim the battle’s been won.

I’m tired of men who are more interested in statistics and studies than women’s voices and experiences.

Wake me up after the revolution.

Is this Amnesty report really that much of a surprise?

One in three people believes that women who behave flirtatiously are at least partially responsible if they are raped, a report published today reveals. A similar number think that women are partially or wholly responsible for being raped if they are drunk, and more than a quarter believe women are responsible if they wear sexy or revealing clothing.

I’ve been arguing for a long time now that society condones rape (there being a distinction between what people say, do and think) and that we live, accordingly, in a rape culture. Far too many people cannot compute this; they think rape is wrong, in the abstract, and that translates to thinking society also condemns rape. Depends what you think rape is. It’s all very well to think a women being attacked by a stranger at night is wrong, but what about when drunken women are raped by acquaintances? What about when boyfriends don’t take no for an answer? What about the withdrawl of consent after it has previously been given? These all seem to fall under “being taken advantage of”, but let’s call them out for what they are: rape.

Until we dispell these myths about consent and victim responsibility, the rape conviction rate will not improve. And, aside from the media scrutiny of clear-up rates, the rape rate itself will not be affected; men who do not think what they do is rape, or even wrong, are not likely to question their own actions. A society that sees rape as the product of men’s unrestrained and unrestrainable sexuality combined with women’s provocation, or as that of evil men preying on pure women, will never realise the link between sexism, the position of women socially, and rape.

Seeing as my Google page rank dictates I’m the 4th search for FEM ‘05, I suppose I’d better write what I think about it.

I was disappointed, though I should have known it wouldn’t be aimed at people like me, who want a radical and united socialist feminist movement. Everything seemed so top-down, with talks from various NGOs like Oxfam and Amnesty, and no space for debate; those asking questions were specifically told not to make statements, and time was limited. Much was said about how a fighting women’s movement is needed, and that individuals should go away and do various things, but where was the help from these organisations with all their resources and potential for coordination?

Secondly, there was too much focus on the individual from many of the speakers. Who cares if 50% of MPs are female if nothing improves for average women? We know that female politicians and business leaders have interests that are often diametrically opposed to those of working class women, so why all the concentration on glass ceilings and discrimination in selection of MP candidates whilst ignoring the fact this is not necessarily linked to liberation for the majorty of women?

It was, however, at least some consolation to see a range of women of all ages coming together to talk without being ashamed of the f-word. All is not lost, just give me a few years…

I’m off to the second meeting shortly, but this really annoys me, on sexist RAG events like strippers in college bars;

Sofie (NVM): Asks about protest history of WU on these issues.

Michelle (Women’s Sabb): Past sentiments have been along the lines of trying to appear inclusive rather than militant. Negotiations through peaceful means.

Laura (CUSU President): Opp to push campaigns from colleges and raise awareness of inequality and impact of WU. Making WU inclusive and relevant. Exciting prospects for the WU!

Sofie (NVM): Stresses benefits of protest and asks if WU ever protests itself.

MN: Stresses that the WU will protest at times, but that this has to be done in the right time and place.

Some people will never support a women’s union, or any feminist campaign. Why water ourselves in order to appeal to them? Apolitical feminism is pointless.

You know you want to go. I’ll be there, involved with this. Want an activist women’s campaign in NUS? Take a look at this.