#notblinkered: rebranding pro-life

The past few weeks have seen a resurgence in discussions about whether or not we need to rebrand feminism - this time, thanks to Elle magazine and some competition in the USA. No-one loves a rebranding discussion. I imagine memoirs of the feminist movement in decades to come:

It is generally accepted that the downfall of patriarchy began with one key turning point in 2013: a corporate advertising campaign. The men saw that gender equality was unthreatening and compatible with body hair removal. And so began the end of misogyny.

Feminism, however, isn't the only movement that's currently toying with a rebrand. The pro-life organisation Life has launched a social media campaign, #notblinkered.

“Do you have a stereotype of someone who's 'prolife'? White? Middle aged? Middle class? Right wing? Religious? Anti-women's rights? Blinkered?”

Life have correctly identified that this is exactly the stereotype that people have of those who are anti-abortion. It's one that isn't exactly challenged by the sort of people who picket clinics and the sort of politicians who support them. The campaign's aim is to “challenge the stereotypes associated with prolifers” and prove that they're 'not blinkered' about the issues surrounding abortion, while acknowledging “the damage abortion has done to women, children, families and society as a whole”. So far, it features interviews with a feminist, an atheist and a socialist.

Despite writing about abortion rights on numerous occasions in the past and strongly identifying as pro-choice, I've grown weary of the way the debates on the subject nearly always pan out. I believe that both 'sides' can be incredibly blinkered and that the abortion debate consistently lacks nuance and consideration of surrounding issues. I don't find it helpful that anyone claiming the label 'pro-life' is liable to be branded a 'woman hater' by pro-choice activists. I don't find it helpful that pro-life activists harass women outside clinics and feel it's acceptable to give out misleading information about pregnancy and abortion. And I feel the label 'pro-life' has ceased to be helpful at all because people use it to mean so many different things.

Very often, at the merest mention of someone being 'pro-life', people will jump to the conclusion that they believe abortion should be illegal, or at least that they believe in various pieces of restrictive legislation that will slowly make abortion illegal except in exceptional circumstances. I know this is not always the case.

What's interesting is that none of the 'stories' featured on the #notblinkered blog discuss legislation. What these pro-lifers believe about whether or not abortion should be legal, what their opinions are about an upper time limit, what they believe about medical abortions or social abortions or extreme circumstances isn't apparent. And I get that this isn't the point of the campaign. The point of the campaign is to get us to consider the whole picture, the grey areas. What of the women who feel pressured into having an abortion by their partner or family? What is 'choice' when you're so constrained by your financial situation that you can't continue with a pregnancy?

But many pro-choice advocates have been left unimpressed by #notblinkered. They see this 'challenging of stereotypes' as a gimmick to try to make us believe pro-lifers are harmless. That their beliefs don't see thousands of women die each year from unsafe abortions and endanger many lives. And this is why the pro-life movement might lead a few more people to look favourably upon them by launching #notblinkered, but why it could also do much, much more by suggesting - and becoming known for working on - ethical and effective solutions that are pro-minimisation of abortion:

1. Challenging the government on measures that have plunged more people into poverty and desperate situations – especially women.

2. Supporting comprehensive sex education that makes sure young people are well-educated about the mechanics of sex and conception but also about healthy and unhealthy relationships, and avoiding risky sexual behaviour. It's well known that the anti-abortion organisation SPUC are extremely opposed to sex education and view it as "damaging". Life doesn't hold an enormously positive view of current sex and relationships education (who does?), but I do feel there needs to be more of a consensus on what good SRE actually looks like. I'm not so sure that both camps could ever achieve this, but why not explore it?

3. Providing ethical, unbiased, and accurate counselling (we know Life have been challenged about this following a 2011 investigation – I truly hope that they have reviewed their training, materials and procedures since). There is no excuse for promoting untruths about pregnancy and abortion, whatever your stance on the issue.

4. Providing support to women in crisis situations who may need financial help or somewhere to live. I am aware that Life already does this. Pro-choice campaigners see this as being of key importance too - there is common ground. The real crisis here is the state of women's services due to cuts.

5. Challenging the negative and derogatory stereotypes that persist whenever conversations about abortion in Britain today take place - 'using abortion as contraception'; 'social abortions' (as if these are carried out for exclusively 'trivial' and 'frivolous' reasons); 'abortion as a lifestyle choice'. A common accusation thrown at the pro-life movement is that it cares more about policing women's sexual activity than it does about the lives of babies and children. It has to move away from judgemental attitudes.

6. If there is really no compulsion to 'turn back the clock' on women's rights, finding common ground with the pro-choice movement and working together on pro-minimisation initiatives rather than seeking reactionary changes in legislation without having looked into other measures first, and without considering the whole picture.

I'm not making these suggestions simply because I think the pro-life movement needs to make itself more palatable to its detractors. I'm making them because I believe that if you truly value life you must address the factors that contribute towards women having abortions, and see what can be changed. Many of these issues are important to pro-choicers too, and it is in this overlap that we should be able to understand each other a bit more and see what might emerge.

Three concerns about Cameron's porn plans

The announcement today that the government is to take action on a number of issues surrounding pornography have, predictably, caused an enormous backlash. The news that internet providers will block UK households from accessing pornography (introducing an "opt-in" system), that possessing pornography that depicts rape will become a criminal offence in England and Wales (as is currently the case for that depicting bestiality, necrophilia, and life-threatening injury), and that search engines will return no results for certain terms associated with pornography depicting the abuse of children, has prompted more discussion about censorship, free speech, and morality.

I started my life as a feminist speaking out against porn. Very quickly, I found out that people don't like it when you do that. I know a lot more now than I did then, and those debates might pan out differently. It's actually something I don't write about much now, because it often prompts so much anger from both sides of the debate and that's more than I can be bothered to get involved in. What I've seen today, however, is a lot of really great discussion and engagement between people holding a variety of opinions - and that's quite heartening. That's not to say that I haven't found some of the backlash against the government's plans unpleasant and some opinions from both sides dismissive of the concerns of all involved. But considering that my last blog post was actually quite down on the state of internet feminism, it could have been worse.

Many people have highlighted many valid concerns about today's announcement. I want to write about three of mine.

Forgive the corporate-speak, but I'm not convinced that today's announcement constitutes "joined-up thinking". Cameron wants a Britain "where children are allowed to be children" and I'm not going to disagree with him (let that be noted) that children don't need to be seeing pornographic depictions of rape. Unfortunately, "children being allowed to be children" is all very well until you consider the wealth of ways in which they can also receive potentially harmful and also deeply misogynist messages about sex, relationships, and women in general. The Prime Minister has already received criticism for his refusal to support a ban on topless women appearing on Page 3 of the Sun. The screenshot below shows the story as reported by the Daily Mail today - a sight, as was noted by plenty of people, that is "beyond parody". Note three women in bikinis (one "barely-there", one "skimpy"), one mention of a sex tape, a story about one young woman's midriff, one about a "topless Instagram snap", and one Daily Mail Special - a story about a 16-year-old girl looking "Older than her years".

                   

Some criticisms of the No More Page 3 campaign have focused on the fact that the sort of media and messages it's speaking out against also appear in abundance in women's magazines and in the fashion industry. Why focus on Page 3 when it's just one page in a newspaper? Why not cast the net wider and take issue with it all? This is an important question and in the same way, you have to consider the fact that today's announcements focus only on one aspect of a range of unpleasant aspects of culture, media, and material that's available. Our culture may condemn content depicting child abuse, but the abuse of women, along with unhealthy attitudes about sex and relationships, are practically mainstream. And all this contributes to childhood being "corroded", as Cameron put it earlier today.

This brings me onto my second concern about today's announcements: if the government wants to take action to stop children seeing unhealthy and abusive depictions of sex and relationships, is it going to ensure that they receive more helpful messages through comprehensive sex and relationships education? Last month, MPs voted against an amendment to the Children and Families Bill proposing that SRE be made a compulsory part of the National Curriculum.

There is a need for young people to learn more about what constitutes a healthy relationship and how they can recognise - and deal with - an unhealthy one. There is a need for them to learn more about what constitutes sexual exploitation. Consent is such a huge issue and it is clearly one that, for many people, needs clarifying. But without fail, such proposals are usually met with noises about "protecting innocence" - or as I like to think of it, keeping young people in the dark and doing nothing to remedy the widespread problem of abuse in teenage relationships. In the same way, blocking people from accessing problematic material doesn't solve anything. It's not going to "get rid" of such content - it's going to brush it under the carpet. It's up to the consumer to decide whether they "opt in" to seeing it - which was incidentally Cameron's comment about why he does not support action against Page 3. There is also concern that educational material and sites completely unrelated to pornography could end up becoming inaccessible, stopping children and teenagers from finding important information.

Thirdly, although I do, in theory, support what Cameron's plans are hoping to achieve, I don't believe that his government truly have the interests of children, of women, and of the most vulnerable people in society at heart. This year, a report from the End Violence Against Women coalition gave the government "2.5 out of 10" for its preventative work against domestic violence and called current efforts to combat VAWG "virtually meaningless". To talk about all the ways in which the cuts and changes to benefits have affected women and children is another blog post (or perhaps a series of posts). Talking about "tackling the sexualisation of children" sounds good, and these plans to stop young people accessing explicit material may be helpful in some ways, but there's a long way to go before we make any headway with the issues that "sexualisation" is so intertwined with.

Further reading:

Salt and Caramel - Porn and posturing politicians

Sian and Crooked Rib - Sex education, young people and talking about, erm, porn

Close the Loophole - Why I support criminalising pornographic depictions of rape

Cartoon by Jacky Fleming, link here

Debating the existence of a "British Religious Right"

A report published on Friday by Christian think-tank Theos discusses whether or not what can accurately be described as a "Religious Right" is emerging in Britain. Focusing on the publicity given to various conservative Christian groups and individuals, and their concern about issues such as equal marriage and abortion, it compares them with the well-established and powerful US Religious Right and comes to the conclusion that while there certainly are right-wing Christian organisations and politicians in Britain, the country cannot be described as having a politically influential Religious Right.

The report details a number of reasons why this is the case, including the tendency of British Christians to support progressive economic policies and favour welfare, redistribution of wealth, and social justice; the lack of overlap with the concerns of the US Religious Right (namely gun control, taxation, Israel, evolution, the military); the number of Christians in Britain; and the apolitical stances of Christian groups and leading evangelical figureheads. It calls for a more reasonable approach from both secularists and Christians towards the issue.

"[The report's conclusion] counsels those who have made such accusations [of an emerging British Religious Right] to pay closer attention to the evidence, if they seek to prevent the kind of culture war they claim to wish to avoid; while at the same time counselling those Christians inclined towards a narrowly socially-conservative agenda and defensive narrative of ‘persecution’ to expand both their theological focus and their perspective on what persecution entails."

Since the last election, numerous journalists and bloggers have written about what they see as the growing influence of right-wing Christian individuals and organisations in British politics and society. While many of these articles have been justified and written in response to concerning developments (such as the increase in anti-choice campaigning), what we've also seen is a tone that can tend towards scaremongering and exaggeration of the extent to which these groups represent British Christians, and a lack of understanding of certain Christian beliefs (hence my repeated reminders that "evangelical" is not synonymous with "fundamentalist"). I've written about right-wing Christian organisations on occasion but am hesitant to ascribe too much influence to them, although I do have some concerns.

I think, therefore, that Theos have done a good job of laying out the agendas of some Christian groups that frequently receive publicity - Christian Concern, the Christian Institute, the Christian Legal Centre - and proving that while they may make the news and incur the wrath of left-wing and secular activists, they're not as powerful as people may think - due to lack of support from the established church and lack of significant political influence.

While the report details some really useful information and makes important reading, it would be unwise to completely dismiss the influence and agendas of right-wing groups (the report did point out that the emergence of a British Christian Right would not be impossible, only that it would look very different to its US counterpart). The established church is, on the whole, fairly moderate, but I worry that the influence of right-wing organisations could grow if they are repeatedly seen to be driving debate on issues such as persecution and "family values".

One issue uniting conservative and progressive activists at present is the concern regarding porn, lad's mags, and what has become known as the "sexualisation of childhood". There are subtle differences in the approaches taken by conservative and more feminist campaigns (morals/decency/protecting children vs patriarchy/objectification/inequality). It's concerning when the loudest voices campaigning on an issue often appear to be coming from a paternalistic viewpoint that doesn't analyse all the factors involved.

The Religious Right in Britain may have less power, support, and money than similar groups in the US, but it is still receiving plenty of publicity and positioning itself as the "true Biblical response" to issues, which should be a worry for the rest of us. As the report points out I think it is highly unlikely that too much will be imported from the US (I still find it slightly mystifying that Wayne Grudem promoted his book aligning the Bible with Republican positions on the military, guns, and the environment over here) but that doesn't mean we won't see hardline voices making themselves heard on other issues.

While some organisations are more moderate than the media would have us believe, certain others are more aggressive, and much more belligerent about the groups of people they are "against" or see as a threat to so-called Christian values. It is these groups that claim to represent the faith and can easily influence public perception of what it means to be a Christian.

I believe this presents us with some challenges for the future.

1. A challenge to journalists: right-wing groups must not dominate media narrative on Christian issues

Recent focus on issues such as equal marriage, euthanasia, and "persecution" of Christians in the workplace have meant that newspapers such as the Daily Express, Daily Mail, and Telegraph invariably go to right-wing organisations for comment. These papers would be the first to point out what they might see as the negative influence of supposedly "wacky" churches or individuals (see most coverage of the Alpha Course over the years) but when it comes to "moral" issues, they've been known to give disproportionate column inches to Stephen Green of the fundamentalist Christian Voice group, which holds views so far outside the mainstream and so extreme that it has a minimal number of supporters. I would challenge the media to recognise and value the contributions and more measured approach of moderate and progressive Christian voices. Obviously this makes for less sensational headlines, but in light of the report it would be helpful, as well as more representative of British Christianity.

2. A challenge to Christians: moderate and progressive believers need to make themselves heard

We know that they exist! Thanks to their possession of more "reasonable" viewpoints, they're less likely to cause heated debate, Twitterstorms, and controversy. But they have a great deal to offer. The report showed that British Christians tend towards a progressive stance on social justice and that there is concern for issues that the US Religious Right doesn't touch on, such as poverty alleviation, the environment, and trafficking. Christianity is all too often defined by what - and who - it is against. By growing in confidence and conviction, politically progressive Christians can change this (as long as the media plays ball as per my first point). 

3. A second challenge to Christians: be discerning about the organisations we support

When right-wing groups spearhead seemingly innocuous campaigns (see Not Ashamed) it's important that as Christians, we examine their true agenda in the light of a tendency towards extremism on certain issues and the reality of persecution for Christians worldwide. It's vital that we don't get sucked in to a persecution complex where we view various groups of people and organisations as being "out to get us", when that's just exaggeration. It's vital that we call for Christian organisations to work with integrity (see the controversy surrounding crisis pregnancy centres) and that we don't promote one political party over others as the "correct" choice for a Christian to choose on polling day. When groups and their supporters display bigoted attitudes, we again need to think about what we put out names to.

Discussion elsewhere:

Danny Webster - Is there a Religious Right emerging in Britain?

Nelson Jones - Britain's Religious Right: myth or reality?

Towards a more wide-ranging "pro-life"

"Being a pro-choice evangelical is a bit niche, isn't it?" I said to someone in the midst of the latest blowup over abortion rights. First it was Maria Miller and 20 weeks. Now Jeremy Hunt and his support for a 12 week upper limit, which has had all my fellow pitchfork-wielding leftie Twittermobbers raging for the past couple of days.

Hunt stated in an interview that his view on the 12 week limit is down to his personal belief "about the moment we should deem life to start", not, he added, "for religious reasons". David Cameron has responded by saying that the government "has no plans to bring forward any legislation in this area". Still, it's unsettling, isn't it? Both the minister for women and the health secretary. Whether Cameron's got plans to that effect or not, it's got people worried yet again, that little by little we're going to see that limit chipped away.

Being pro-choice means that people ask me things like why, as a Christian, I'm not "valuing life above all else". If babies born before 24 weeks have survived, why shouldn't the cut-off point be 20 weeks? Meanwhile, people talk about those who want a 20 week limit as "hating women". Both sides of the debate, at their extremes fuelled by comments like Hunt's, are completely unhelpful.

My issue is this: on the side of the debate that values life above all else, there is plenty of commitment to slashing the legal limit for women to have abortions (based on the survival of a handful of babies), but precious little noise made about addressing many of the issues surrounding why women are having abortions in the first place. Take, for example, these case studies from BPAS showing the reasons for requests for abortion over 22 weeks gestation in 2008. Poverty, abuse, homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, stalling on the part of the NHS meaning women had had to wait weeks to access services. And several women who had no reason to believe they were pregnant in the first place.

It's my belief that a commitment to lowering the number of abortions should go hand in hand with a commitment to lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies and supporting women at all stages of their lives. Unfortunately you don't often hear those who are anti-abortion talking about better sex and relationships education for young people, easier access to contraception, addressing issues such as domestic violence, poverty, rape, and support for women who are unsure about what choice to make that doesn't just involve telling them how much they'll regret having an abortion. More talk like that might mean more people would believe Maria Miller when she calls herself a "very modern feminist". We haven't quite reached the same state of affairs as the USA yet, but who knows what could happen - as Tanya Gold said in a piece for The Guardian on Friday:

"The abortion wars in America, funded by Republicans who want miracle babies but not a functioning welfare state..."

There are two further issues with 20 weeks - one being the anomaly scan carried out around this point in a pregnancy, and the other being the fact that some women end up waiting weeks to access the services they need when considering whether or not to have an abortion. It goes without saying that even when the procedure is restricted or made illegal, women will still find ways to do it. We don't demonstrate holding banners with pictures of coathangers for nothing.

To my mind, when I'm supporting a pro-choice point of view, I am "valuing life". Access to abortion should be combined with action on all the issues mentioned above - the sex education and the domestic abuse and the waiting times. It's not enough to talk about abstinence education yet send more families into poverty and cut funding to women's shelters. As @DillyTante said in an excellent post yesterday:

"Lowering the legal limits for abortion will not reduce the number of abortions. It will reduce the number of legal and safe abortions. Someone desperate enough to terminate a baby in the middle of pregnancy is likely to go to any lengths to do so. Reducing the legal limit for abortion will not result in more happy smiley chubby babies; it will increase the number of desperately unhappy women and children brought into this world in devastating circumstances. With a government reducing welfare and community support for families and people with disabilities this can only be a path to unhappiness for many."

As a Christian I'd like to see more of a "pro-life" commitment to this side of the story. Maybe then I'd be convinced that there is a real concern for women and their welfare. The desire to "value life" when "life" refers to a foetus is all well and good, but what of the lives and wellbeing of women? What of the life of the child once it's actually exited the womb? I don't see any of that in the demonstrations outside clinics, or in the desire to lower the legal limit on dubious medical grounds. And that's why I occupy my "niche" position: because I hope for something different. People are entitled to an anti-abortion view, but all too often they let themselves down.

Image via howardlake's Flickr

Pregnancy, me, and the GOP

I haven't really felt compelled to blog about my pregnancy. I did wonder, when I wrote that post at the end of my first trimester, whether it would be something I'd start writing about a lot more. And next week, I enter my third trimester. The home strait. To tell you the truth, I've just been getting on with things. My second trimester bought with it a new job and a good deal more energy. Not, mind you, to the extent that I'd say I felt "full of energy", as some women say. I've had to make sure that I get enough rest. But I have been very well. The past three months have been full of projects, planning, and writing again. And of course, I've been spending a lot of time thinking about my impending motherhood situation.

Thinking about it - but not writing about it. Being pregnant has taught me a few things. Firstly, I now know that I truly have no interest in writing about anything that's going to make me an unwilling participant in the "Mommy/Mummy Wars" of sniping about differing parenting choices. Secondly, I know that I'm not going to get stressed, via my blog, over things that have the potential to change completely through no fault of my own and have no bearing on me as a person. My birth plan. My symptoms. Thirdly, it's taught me that I really am so grateful for the circumstances of this pregnancy and the choices I have been able to make about it.

Some time ago I had some commenters on a blog post insinuate to me that my opinions about reproductive rights, feminism and gender equality were somehow naïve and uninformed because I was young and had yet to have children of my own. As if having a child would make me see the error of my ways and suddenly start telling other women that having "only" two children is "selfish" and that I didn't know how they could call themselves Christians yet be pro-choice.

The child is still inside me, but as yet, this change hasn't happened. I was concerned about the issues surrounding motherhood and reproduction before I became pregnant, but creating this baby has only made me feel more strongly about the positions I've always held. Part of that's down to the frankly terrifying situation in the US that began unfolding in 2011, dubbed the year of "The War On Contraception" by Amanda Marcotte. As my pregnancy has progressed, the situation for women in the US has regressed.

Everyone was so excited when the news broke that women were finally going to be able to access birth control without copays through their health insurance. Unfortunately it was all of five minutes before conservatives started kicking up a fuss. Fast forward to this week and today I tweeted that I'm just going to start referring to the US as the "Republic of Gilead" because goodness knows there's a bunch of politicians and people of influence over there who seem to be all geared up to go down that route. On Thursday we sat  dumbfounded as a panel comprised entirely of men decided that the input of a woman in favour of contraception coverage wasn't relevant to their discussion on birth control and health insurance. Democratic women walked out of Rep. Darrell Issa's hearing in protest.

The woman the Republicans had refused to allow to speak had planned to talk about the experiences of women she knew who had been denied birth control coverage, including:

"...a woman who has lost an ovary because she was even denied coverage for pill not even needed for contraceptive, but for medical purposes. As a result of not having the proper medical care, the woman, now 32 years old, lost an ovary and is experiencing an early menopause, threatening her ability to have children."

The panel felt that this woman did not have the "credentials" to speak. A woman. Not having the "credentials" to speak with any authority to men about women's reproductive health. This is the reality of what happens when women are blocked from easily accessing contraception because of ridiculous notions about who should be using it and why - coming, incidentally, from the same people who no qualms about making medication for men who are affected by erectile dysfunction easily accessible as a necessity.

Because of course men aren't the problem here for the GOP. That's abundantly clear. No matter that their desire to see the number of abortions being carried out in the US decrease might actually become reality should they make contraception available to all. No, despite the fact that 99% of all sexually active women have used or are using birth control (and 98% of sexually active Catholic women are doing the same, for those making the fuss about Catholic employers being required to cover contraception), the powers that be would like to make it so that they can't. And just in case you weren't sure exactly why they hold this opinion, billionaire Santorum supporter Foster Friess was happy to give us all a good idea.

“Back in my day, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly,” he said on Thursday.

You'd better be keeping your legs closed, gals. Keeping your legs closed or popping out kids. That's what it comes down to.

And you know what? I haven't even mentioned the mess that is the proposed Virginia ultrasound law. You need to read about it, but what you need to know is this: forced transvaginal probing. David Englin, opposing the bill, has apparently recalled a conversation with a GOP lawmaker who:

"...told him that women had already made the decision to be vaginally penetrated when they got pregnant."

But wait - there's more! Yes, there's also the small matter of a bill passed by the Oklahoma State Senate on Wednesday, defining "personhood" as beginning at conception and therefore granting rights to fertilised eggs. Says the Ms. Magazine newswire:

"If the personhood initiative appears on the ballot, emergency contraception, birth control pills, IUDs, and abortions - even in cases of rape and incest or to save the life of the woman or girl - would be threatened. The initiative would even go so far as to eliminate medical choices for women, including some cancer treatments, in vitro fertilization, and could allow the state to investigate and even prosecute a woman for a miscarriage."

Put simply, it makes me want to tear my hair out. I don't expect anything approaching a measured position on reproductive rights from the GOP any more and I know that as a woman living in the UK, these decisions don't affect me, do why does it bother me so much? It just makes me so disappointed and angry that the lives of millions of women are being played with like this thanks to the ideological position of a sadly powerful minority, who would prevent women from accessing vital and possibly life-saving medical treatment, rob them of the right to use contraception and when challenged, tell them they just need to keep their legs closed.

Being pregnant has made me so grateful for the way I've been able to exercise choice in the matter, grateful that Luke and I have been able to make decisions about having a child together, aided by easy access to contraception, free healthcare, and the knowledge that the law is not working against me to discount my own life should anything go wrong. If I'd had a miscarriage, I would not have had to worry about the potential of being arrested. If I'd had to have a termination out of medical necessity, I know there would not have been people waiting outside the hospital to shout abuse at me and my husband.

And it makes me so angry for the millions of women who don't have those privileges, in "the land of the free". The "land of opportunity". Where a party that wants "small government" thinks all this is somehow an example of that, not to mention an example of the "separation of church and state". All thanks to the unbelievable crusades of a bunch of politicians who will never, ever become pregnant or know what it is like to have a womb, or ovaries.

Phrase du jour: "the new Tory feminism"

It started with the build-up to the release of The Iron Lady. In the past week, it's gained momentum with newspaper articles and magazine features about Tory women. And yesterday, Cristina Odone blogged on the "superior form" of "blue feminism". That's right - here in Britain we finally have our own version of the neverending debate that began across the pond when Sarah Palin claimed feminism for herself and heralded the emergence of a band of supposedly equality-minded conservative women.

Sure, our version doesn't carry the requirement to be in favour of limiting reproductive choice, the expectation that they'll be vocal Christians and that they'll champion those who choose to have many children. But in many other ways it's very similar - from the emphasis on personal achievement and success, the talk of the "potential" of women to the calls to "reclaim" gender equality from the left. And of course it's generating debate - for the simple reason that while the spokespeople for "blue feminism" are all about what a good thing it is, it doesn't actually have much to say about most aspects of most women's lives.

My disclaimer here is that as a left-wing woman, I often find it impossible to concede that the policies dreamt up and supported by the right can truly lead to any sort of equality. I think we need to be careful about being precious about left and right and whether a woman from the latter can truly be an advocate for gender equality - but at the same time there are some important points to make on the subject. I'm also really aware that in newspaper coverage of a subject like this, opinions and quotes are going to be cherrypicked to fit an agenda. So I'm not saying that these women have absolutely no interest in certain important issues. They're just not talking about them.

What we have are some glaringly obvious issues surrounding "the new Tory feminism", and while I may seem biased because I'd never vote for these women, this is my take on them.

1) You can talk about "merit" all you like but that doesn't mean you're good for women.

One of the main points to come out of all this is that apparently, your average Tory gender equality warrior has got her head screwed on properly because she doesn't believe in tokenism and quotas. Instead she believes in women getting to the top through hard work and merit and ambition. What that often translates as, of course, is celebrating the achievements of women "at the top" as empowering and inspirational. And much of the time, such women can be considered "inspirational". But at the same time, is there concern for tackling the entire spectrum of inequality so that women who aren't white and middle or upper class get to "rise to the top"?

Louise Mensch sees self-made women as the "essence of feminism" but I don't believe that an emphasis on personal success is the right way to go. It is, of course, very typically Tory - don't think I don't see that; don't say "well what do you expect?". Mensch told Gaby Hinsliff for the Guardian that she believes women should be encouraged to "chase money rather than career satisfaction at work". She speaks of "getting on" and "breaking the glass ceiling" as if it's the be all and end all of being a woman. People keep talking about "bootstraps" with reference to the way Margaret Thatcher saw everything. How realistic a focus is this for many women today? What hope for the disadvantaged and those who are discriminated against and those who actually, simply don't want to strive for buckets of cash and a seat in a boardroom? Making your interest in equality about profit and "getting ahead" doesn't exactly sit right with the current economic and societal situation, even if it does sit right with Tory thinking.

If, as Mensch believes, such success makes it easier for other women to achieve the same, why the complete refusal to admit that the cuts might be doing women a bit too much harm? Why the sneering from women on the right at feminists like Harriet Harman, or the refusal from women like Charlotte Vere to be lumped in with all those "extreme" man-haters on the left along with much talk about not wanting to upset or alienate men? I agree that this works both ways (we can probably be too quick to criticise those who are not on the left and assume that we can't work with them), but they're not exactly helping themselves. If we're talking about the "true blue sisterhood", I'm not feeling the "sisterhood" part all that much. It's not just about party politics and getting one over on the opposition.

2) Let's not pretend Margaret Thatcher was something she wasn't.

Namely, a feminist icon. Yes, she can be considered inspirational for the fact she was Britain's first (and so far, only) woman Prime Minister. It would be nice to think that in the near future, someone might follow in her footsteps. She showed that a woman can lead a country. But she had no time for "women's issues". She wasn't interested in solidarity and she certainly had no interest in equality of any kind. Michele Hanson summed it up last week when she said:

"The grocer's daughter who fought her way up to the top job. But what did she do to help other less fortunate women when she got up there? Even on the way up she'd taken their kiddies' milk away. Then she took away much of their affordable housing by egging everyone on to buy council houses. She privatised the utilities, and up went the household bills, and she crushed the unions. The miners' wives didn't have much to thank her for. And just to show that women can do anything men can do, she started a war, rode around on a tank in her headscarf, created loads more widows, thought herself terrifically grand and used the royal plural for her very own. What a wasted opportunity. From the great heights she looked down and thought not 'How can I raise up other women?' but only 'How can I poop on the poorer ones?' ".

Following this post on the Women's Blog, a woman wrote to the Guardian to tell of the time they'd written to Thatcher - in 1979 - to ask what she could do for victims of domestic violence. She had been running a refuge at the time. She received a response explaining that the Prime Minister was "not interested in women's issues". What would the Tory sisterhood have to say about such a letter today? We know they have concern about some of the same issues as left-wing feminists - porn, Page 3 and objectification are all mentioned in the Hinsliff interview. But what about areas where - unlike sex - feminists and the right might traditionally not overlap? And in the areas where we do overlap, how can we stop everything boiling down to a discussion about morality and actually achieve something?

3) A successful woman and a feminist are not the same thing.

Being a woman in a position of influence doesn't make you a friend to other women. It doesn't mean you have any interest in tackling misogyny, making things better for all women and changing attitudes in society. It might just mean that you're personally successful in your career. And if people think that's an indication of a gender equality heroine, they're confusing feminism with individualism. It's all very nice for the person in question, but for the most part, it has no bearing on the lives of other women or the global equality situation in general. To talk about getting more women from your own party in government, to crow about the fact you've set up a group for conservative women MPs - that's great. But what about the rest of us? Do we only matter when the government is worried that women voters are angry at them? Last year, when a leaked memo revealed the coalitions's plans to "win back" women voters, it came across as being about approval ratings and polls, about coming up with some plan to make us trust David Cameron again.

Fair enough, a successful and wealthy woman might be an inspiration to others who see themselves choosing the same path in life, but I'm not sure it goes much further. Hopefully, she can show men in her field that she's their equal. But we know that doesn't always happen. Cristina Odone's bizarre blog about the superiority of Tory feminism ticked all the boxes in assuming that power and feminism are the same thing - Thatcher as icon purely for being PM, an anti-quotas and tokenism stance meaning that Tory MPs know they're "the best for the job". And then there was the bit about "feminine wiles" being an asset to your average "blue feminist". Odone cited Louise Mensch's "gloss" as a prime example. This brings us on to the fact that...

4) Everyone is really confused about femininity. And it needs to stop.

The Guardian asked Louise Mensch about cosmetic surgery (and whether she has had any) in a recent interview. Certain newspapers gave her a telling-off (referring to her as "the twice-married mother of three") for posing for a photoshoot (for GQ magazine), to accompany a feature in which she talked about women in the public eye being trivialised over their appearance. Janet Street-Porter has gone for her this week too, attacking her for supposedly being interested in clothes and calling herself a feminist at the same time. I agree with JSP's concern about this new right-wing support for gender equality but really, Janet? Picking her up on her appearance?

Let's just stop talking about what women in politics wear. And what they look like. And their "feminine wiles". And what reflection it has on "the sisterhood" if they dye their hair. Because it has no bearing on their job. I often struggle with this apparent need from some quarters to wrangle over "femininity" so much - in relation to any women's issue, or whether or not people identify as feminists. If it's finding its way into a discussion about politics, it's just not relevant. Yes, I know that the media is compelled to talk about women's clothes and appearance as if it's all we should be thinking about, but I expect better, especially when the politicians themselves are criticising this approach.

2011 in feminist rage

After enjoying recapping 2010 in humourless feminism at the end of last year, I thought it would be great to make it an annual thing. 2011 has had more than its fair share of outrage, drama, facepalm moments and frustration. Here's a rundown of some of the issues that have made the most headlines - and why they've been causing so much trouble.

1) The Dominique Strauss-Kahn case

In May, when former IMF head Strauss-Kahn was accused of sexually assaulting a maid at a New York hotel, politicians and commentators in his native France rushed to defend him, painting the alleged incident as mere "philandering" by a "great seducer", insulting his accuser and even claiming that the disgraced politician was the victim of a conspiracy. In time, the maid - Nafissatou Diallo, had other aspects of her life picked over by the media (including one accusation of operating as a "hooker") and in August, the charges against Strauss-Kahn were dropped thanks to a "concerns about the victim's credibility", and a supposed lack of conclusive physical evidence - despite earlier reports that proof against him was "substantial".

In the meantime, another woman had come forward to say that he had assaulted her some years ago. And since, Strauss-Kahn has admitted his behaviour with Diallo was "inappropriate" - although he maintains no force was involved. Whether an attempted rape happened or not, the whole affair raised significant concerns about the treatment of domestic workers and women of colour by privileged white men, and the stigmas associated with being the "wrong" race or class, especially when reporting a crime committed by someone more powerful and influential.

2) Conservative assaults on women's health and reproductive choice continue

Earlier this week Amanda Marcotte dubbed 2011 the year of "The War on Contraception". She goes into more detail about each individual attack on a woman's choice to use birth control in this article for RH Reality Check and it's when you say it laid out like this that you realise just how extreme things have become. Earlier in the year we saw Planned Parenthood and thousands of its supporters fighting back against proposed legislation which would have prevented its centres from providing services to women through federal health programs. With the drama level ramped up to 'verge of government shutdown', the Republicans finally gave up on their plans. But as the Department of Health and Human services announced plans to give women birth control without copays, anti-choice activists went on the attack again. 

2011 has also introduced the nightmare of what constitutes 'personhood', with Mississippi trying and failing to define fertilised eggs as 'persons' and Ohio attempting to ban abortions once an embryo's heart has started beating.

3) Misogynist abuse online hits mainstream media

Bloggers and those who frequent the comment sections of websites have been complaining about it for years, but it's only recently that the global media seems to have woken up to the fact that women actually get treated pretty appallingly online, simply for being women, in a way that men will never experience. Several high profile women, from politicians to journalists, "came out" in the press to talk about the abuse they've received, ranging from being patronised and silenced to being threatened with rape and stalked. In the following days, the issue received coverage like never before in a variety of countries. It was interesting to see so many people - male and female - shocked to see what women are put through all for having opinions, and I know it changed the way a lot of people see online interaction.

Some newspapers asked what could be done to combat the problem, and although I'm not sure how much of an effect any efforts will have (especially with increasingly stalkerish behaviour from men's rights groups happening), it feels like many have woken up to the reality of what women put up with from the internet.

4) Sports Personality of the Year forgets about women At the end of November, the BBC unveiled its shortlist of nominations for Sports Personality of the Year - and we were all dismayed to see that it featured no women. A supposedly "expert" panel of sports editors chose the shortlist, but while men who have had less than spectacular records this year made the grade, women who have been crowned European and world champions missed out.

While no-one wants women to be nominated purely for being women, the incident has highlighted the ridiculous lack of coverage, lack of recognition and dismissive attitudes that women in sport have to put up with. The only "exposure" they seem to get is when they pose in lingerie for men's magazines or "saucy" calendars, which I can guarantee is the only reason some of the GB Olympic team's women have been making headlines this week. The plus side of all this? Various sites and newspapers have been running features on the sportswomen they feel deserve more coverage. Will it force a change in the way the media treats women in sport?

5) What next for the women of the 'Arab Spring'?

The wave of revolutionary demonstrations and actions across the Arab world has provided some of 2011's most explosive news stories. The fight for human rights has been a central feature of the protests but in many countries, the women who took part have struggled for recognition and equal treatment - and there's concern that things will get worse as political systems are rebuilt, despite this year being hailed as the "Year of the Arab Woman". Today's women of the revolution want representation in government and a say in decision-making but worry that anti-Western feeling might create a backlash against women's rights and make things worse for them.

Take Egypt - thousands of women played a part in the revolution there, yet the country's new cabinet has been criticised for including just one woman. And in recent weeks, the news has been full of shocking reports of violence and sexual assault against women by police attempting to clamp down on protesters. This week, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Bachelet of UN Women have spoken out about such incidents and although the Egyptian military has made an apology, Clinton has also been accused of "interfering" in their business. It looks as if 2012 will be a crucial year for the women continuing to fight for their rights.

Honourable mentions:

- The ongoing coverage surrounding the rape charges against Julian Assange
- The global media interest and engaging of a new generation of feminists (with mixed results) achieved by the Slutwalk movement
- Everyone's least favourite MP, Nadine Dorries, (somewhat poorly) attempting to make "pro-life" and "abstinence" the newest buzzwords in UK politics

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via The Opinioness of the World.

Where are all the women? In Life & Style, apparently.

"In a typical month,78% of newspaper articles are written by men, 72% of Question Time contributors are men and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4's Today show are men. Where are all the women?"

Kira Cochrane's article on the under-representation of women in public life, published online yesterday and in G2 today, gives us the statistics that prove what women have been discussing for some time. Indeed, I remember the topic generating much discussion and strong feeling when she mentioned it as part of a panel discussion at UK Feminista's 2010 Summer School.

In June, Cochrane tells us, she began counting bylines, analysing presenters and guests on news programmes, on current affairs shows such as Question Time and news-based comedy shows like Have I Got News For You. She details the results in her article - and as you'd expect, they're depressing and predictable. She also mentions the number of women MPs - 22% - and notes that when the results of her analysis of women's representation in television and newspapers are averaged, at 22.6% the figure is almost the same.

It's really great that someone has finally laid out the facts and challenged people to improve the situation in the national press. But there's just one problem - a problem that perhaps sums up the entire issue. Cochrane's article appears not in the main news section of the Guardian, not in Media or Politics as would also be appropriate, but in Life & Style.

I know I've mentioned this in my posts a number of times and that many other women have too - the consistent sidelining of news involving anything deemed to be a "woman's issue" to the section of the newspaper with the features about clothes, about food, about children. That's not to say that there is anything wrong with writing about these particular subjects; it's more the insinuation that certain topics are a woman's domain - and that even if these news stories have something to do with politics, or international development, or law, they're to be filed under "women's interest".

Take a look at the headings in the Life & Style section (all other newspapers are just as guilty; I'm only picking on the Guardian because of Cochrane's article). You'll see that Life & Style encompasses the Christmas gift guide, fashion, food, health, homes, gardens, craft, family, relationships, women and dating. As someone said to me this morning: "One of these things is not like the others". You'll see this even more clearly if you click on "Women" and discover the subheadings within - feminism, gender issues, equality and women in politics. Today, under "Women", you can find stories on maternal health, women in the Congo and Afghanistan, the controversy over women in sport and the Sportsperson of the Year award, "honour" crimes, and birth control in sub-Saharan Africa.

Something is going badly wrong when it comes to the representation of women in the media and in politics. You want a television show with more than a token woman on a panel? You're limited to Loose Women and the fact that it represents everything truly awful about stereotypes of women. On the radio? You've got Women's Hour, which I have no problem with, but it is only an hour. You write about peacemaking in Afghanistan or maternal health for a national newspaper? It gets filed under "Life & Style" with the Christmas gift guide.

Newspapers like the Guardian should be doing better than this and according more visibility to issues that affect over half the world's population. Maybe it's time for the women on their staff to demand change not just for the women they don't see on television or in parliament, but also to put more pressure on those in charge in the media to practice what they preach about equality. In fact, I know this already happens, so maybe it's time for those in charge to listen.

I blame the media: equality, consumerism and sensationalism

For the past two or three years, most newspaper coverage of the feminist movement has heralded its return, its new-found popularity and the renewed fervour of 21st century women to see gender equality realised. In the past I've written about how this has become tedious. How many times can you talk about the "return of feminism" - especially when you've done so on a regular basis since 2008 - before it gets old? And yet it seems that not all Guardian journalists feel the same way.

On Friday, a piece by Tanya Gold, entitled "I blame the media for ignoring feminism in favour of makeup", appeared. It's in the third paragraph that she says:

"I pondered why the feminist movement seems so comprehensively to have stalled. Feminism seems so tiny today, so niche, of such little interest to the outside world and even to women."

Stalled. Despite new groups of activists and campaigns and conferences and demonstrations and petitions and documentaries and blogs and tireless work by many people I know: stalled. I don't think the movement has stalled. It's just hard to be heard when the problems of the world are so numerous and women's voices are the most marginalized.

As we read on we see that Gold is referring to the depressing statistics we learn of on a regular basis. The pay gap, the workplace, the treatment of women in politics, the beauty industry, celebrity. It's not an attack on what the activists are doing, it's an attack on a society that refuses to listen and media organizations that won't give issues any coverage unless they're explosive and sensationalized. I don't always agree with everything Gold writes, but I really identified with what she's saying here, from the rage at government cuts to her recollection of how many people she knows react to the concept of gender equality.

"That was their comment on modern feminism – an indistinct, half-imagined dislike for Harriet Harman, although they cannot remember why."

It's all too familiar, isn't it? And it's a miserable thing to think about, the thought that as far as some people can see, our efforts as activists aren't changing anything because as far as the rest of the world can see, talking about "Millie's Fillies" is funny. We have "career women" and "working mums" but not "career men" and "working dads" and when you point that out to some people, they fall about laughing because you're just so ridiculous and then roll their eyes because "no-one cares". The media's favourite statistics are the ones that reinforce traditional gender roles, victim-blaming and negative stereotypes of women. The stats and reports that show men in a vaguely negative light don't get the same attention, because then men get upset, which just won't do.

The examples Gold uses of this lack of progress, of impact, from the movement, are numerous. The glorification of less equal times through television shows like Pan Am. The media's role as a vehicle for the fashion and beauty industries and the oft-promoted lie that consumption, spending power and rampant materialism equal "empowerment". This is one of my all-time favourite bugbears: the co-option of "choice" so that it becomes less about gender equality and more about the choice to buy a dress or a handbag, to feel "sexy" by using a certain product, empowerment by "doing what feels good" and spending your money on whatever you want, or choosing a certain brand of chocolate or tampon. "It's my choice, I want to do it, therefore it's empowering to me and how it affects other people doesn't matter". Nina Power calls it "Feminism TM", and Sian Norris has written more about it here.

Gold argues that feminism is now seen as so insignificant that it is not having an impact on these things that matter - objectifying and sexist imagery, or the idea of consumerism as empowerment. I would argue that these are not the only things we work for and that while it is critical, there are other things that we're focusing on that matter just as much. Consumerism and objectification are often criticized, when relentlessly focused on, as the concerns of privileged, middle-class women who prioritize such concerns over issues like poverty, the economy, race and VAWG, refusing to step outside the bubble and acknowledge the experiences of others. You've all seen the call-outs and the discussions. This is important and I think we all agree that the focus can't be so exclusive. But as Gold - and the rest of us - are sadly very much aware, these are the issues that get the media coverage.

Slutwalk and protests against Playboy get the attention because they're "titillating". It means the media can talk about sex and print pictures of young women. It means the trolls can castigate the protesters for being "ugly" and everyone can have a good smirk at the shrill, bitter harridans who clearly just need a good shag. Equality legislation, issues surrounding race, pregnancy discrimination and anti-victim blaming perspectives on the justice system aren't titillating or explosive enough - and so coverage is limited to the feminist blogs and the couple of daily newspapers that are more sympathetic to the cause. And it's not in the interests of the media to denounce capitalism and criticize the things they're so invested in - beauty, materialism, celebrity. It happens up to a point, but at the end of the day money has to be made. When you start to discuss these things with people outside your own little bubble, you remember that not everyone thinks consumerism is a problem. For many, it's an absolute joy.

A friend said on Twitter yesterday:

"To me, it always feels as though women are being encouraged to consume to please some huge 'other'. It's as though you're always being told to strive for perfection, and the only way to achieve perfection is by buying more shit."

Even for many who set themselves apart from the unbearable side of mainstream consumerism, it's still about defining themselves by the things they've acquired and cultivating an image carefully based around said things. And this, no matter what, will always trump "boring" reports on various aspects of equality from the women's sector. So do we change tactics to get the media coverage and hope it brings about more change? And does this inevitably involve "dumbing down" and sidelining the issues that "no-one cares about", the issues that invariably involve women of colour and working class women?

When Caitlin Moran criticized the obsession with beauty and handbags in her autobiography, discussing sex and body issues and relationships and clothes, thousands of women read the book and many said it made them think about things, for the first time, that they'd never really considered before. But many others were perturbed that it focused on, "yet again", the concerns of the privileged and ignored the wider concerns of the women's movement. It got a lot of media attention and a lot of hype.

Next month, the Fawcett Society will hold a day of action in London. Women are being encouraged to come to march dressed in "50s get-up" (pinnies, rubber gloves, dresses, headscarves, chains) to symbolize the way the government wants to "turn back time" on women's rights. We are also being encouraged to hold "Don't turn back time tea parties" to raise awareness locally. It's a nifty gimmick. Remember the approach to freedom and equality in the 50s? That's what we could return to! So let's make like it's the 50s and make sure people sit up and take notice, right? Some people are unhappy with the gimmick. Tea parties? 50s housewives? Hardly representative of the experience of all women! Is it a great way to protest what the government's doing - or is it dumbing down and excluding voices in the name of hoped-for media coverage?

The concerns of today are just as important as the fights for equality legislation and involvement of women in public life four or five decades ago. The spectre of consumerism today, however, is larger and it's seen as laughable to challenge it, despite what has happened in recent years with the economy and everything else that should have sounded warning bells. The media is driven by sensationalism and sex, and while feminism may be "back", gender equality is still a big joke to many, including those in positions of great power.

It's difficult to know which track to choose in the quest to see change happen. Go for the marketing and focus on popular culture, like the industries we criticize, or watch as yet another successful protest, another victory, happens largely without coverage? How can we make sure that the media cares about the issues that affect those other than the privileged? As we feminists like to say, it's problematic.

Image: Barbara Kruger

Women in Afghanistan, 10 years on

Will Afghanistan's women see more positive changes in their lives in the decade to come? Many fear the future.

This Friday will mark the 10th anniversary of the US and British military intervention in Afghanistan. Its goal? To dismantle the al-Qaeda organization, remove the Taliban from power and create a more democratic state. In the last decade, billions have been spent, thousands have died - but the war has ensured that progress has been made.

As this anniversary approaches, organizations are assessing the effect the last decade has had on the people of Afghanistan, and plans are being made for the country's future. We can expect much discussion and assessment from world leaders, ahead of a conference in Bonn in December, where representatives from 90 countries will come together to talk about the country's future and plans for withdrawal of troops, currently planned from 2014 onwards.

Several organizations have this week released documents focusing on the situation for Afghanistan's women and among them is A Just Peace? - a report from ActionAid, which has obtained a rare insight into the lives of Afghan women by polling them about the issues that matter to them.

One of the major promises made by politicians ten years ago was that life for women would improve as a result of the war. The situation for women under the Taliban is now notorious, characterized by violence, forced marriage, a ban on having a job, no going to school beyond the age of eight, restricted access to healthcare, and restrictions on appearing in public.

After the fall of the Taliban, equal rights were enshrined in the country's new constitution and women are now, in theory, free to do the things they could not before. But it's not that simple. Women still continue to suffer discrimination such as forced marriage and domestic violence. Women who take an active role in public life are the targets of attacks and threats. Many women vote only on the direction of their husband or father. There is concern that they are also being "frozen out" of the peace process, which could have dire consequences should the country see a return to Taliban control. Just recently, Afghanistan was named as the second-worst place in the world to be a woman.

Without the participation of women in political decisions, the clock could be turned back on the gains made. And as ActionAid's report shows, Afghan women are deeply concerned about this. Almost three quarters of those ActionAid talked to said they felt their lives today are better than they were 10 years ago.

Unsurprisingly, 86% of those surveyed said they were worried about a return to Taliban-style government, rising to 92% in urban areas. One in five of these cited their daughters' education as their main concern here, while another major concern across women of all ages was sexual assault. In fact, more women singled it out as their biggest fear above abduction, being kidnapped, and being caught in an explosion combined.

So going forward, what do Afghan women want? They want to see an end to conflict in their country, but they also want their rights respected and are clear that they do not want a government that does not give them equality. This is why ActionAid and other organizations are calling on the international community to ensure that they support this vital part of the peace process, consider funding struggling women's rights groups in Afghanistan and fully include women in decision-making.

How can you get involved this week? For a start, take a look at this video giving a glimpse into women's lives, 10 years on.

Check out the #10yearson hashtag on Twitter to join in the discussion, share links and raise awareness of the importance of this Friday. Urge your MP to acknowledge how crucial women's rights in Afghanistan are. 

Earlier this week, Afghan MP Fawzia Koofi spoke at a session at the Conservative Party's conference in Manchester. She has already urged David Cameron to make sure Afghan women's lives are at the top of the international agenda. The UK government can make a difference and you could help.

On Friday, the No Women No Peace network, which includes ActionAid, will be launching actions, including a petition to the government, to mark the anniversary of military intervention. Follow @nowomennopeace for more information.

This post originally appeared on BitchBuzz. Image via DVIDSHUB's Flickr.

Coalition plans to win back women voters

The coalition has finally wised up to the fact it's done nothing but annoy the fairer sex since the last election. It must be time for a patronizing strategy!

It emerged yesterday that the government is planning to win back female voters by implementing policies such as changing the way child benefit is distributed and developing a strategy to encourage more women into politics.

A leaked memo, circulated to government departments in the past few days, outlines possible actions and details the need to "assemble a first-rate team" to develop the most effective strategy possible, with the aim of bringing "good news for the next generation", recognising "what women do" and underlining that "women are key to British growth and success".

Sounds good, right? In the months leading up to the 2010 General Election, we heard over and over that women's votes were key and that the parties were going to do all they could to get us on board. Unfortunately, this seemed to play out as little more than a few soundbites on issues related to children - as if that's all we care about. The press responded in the same way, speaking to women voters about issues they were interested in, but making it all about nurseries and child benefit, keeping all other issues - the supposedly "big" issues, firmly as "men's issues".

Obviously childcare in the UK is a major issue, as the recent news stories about the fact it's the most expensive in Europe and extent to which it is forcing families into debt show. But plenty of women I know felt sidelined and patronized back in 2010 - and they feel much more strongly about it now, with the government cuts having disproportionately impacted women.

Cameron and co. seem to have finally worked this out - and it's no surprise, seeing as recent polls show that just 18% of 18-24 year-old women support the Tories, compared to 30% in 2010, with support for the Lib Dems having fallen from 34% to just 8%. And so they're concocting a plan to encourage us to put our faith in them again.

Says the memo: "We know from a range of polls that women are significantly more negative about the government than men". It goes on to say that there are many coalition policies that "are seen as having affected women, or their interests, disproportionately". It goes on to say that they've recognised they haven't really lived up to their promise to be the "most family-friendly government ever".

I have to say, it's nice that those in charge finally seem to be catching on, 18 months after women's groups and some politicians started saying that the cuts would hit women the hardest - because at the time there was precious little concern from Dave et al. And so a list of ideas - from banning advertising aimed at children to promoting women in business and reconsidering the decision not to criminalize forced marriage - has been drawn up.

There's just one little thing. Does the memo point to a genuine concern for the issues women care about and the damage the coalition is currently doing with its cuts and its dismissal of gender issues? Or is it simply a cynical ploy to turn around falling approval ratings and claw back the support that women have withdrawn over the last 18 months?

I'd say it's the latter. Why? For a start, Cameron needs to look at the way he and his colleagues are treating the women they work with, not just the electorate. There was Cameron's "calm down, dear" riposte to Angela Eagle back in April. Last week, we watched aghast as he quipped that Nadine Dorries was "frustrated" during Prime Minister's Question Time, then sat back as his cronies sniggered like 15-year-old boys. I have no love for the thoroughly unpleasant Dorries, but she didn't deserve to be treated like that.

Secondly, the fact the content of the memo clearly comes as a response to lack of support and the fact the coalition has gained a terrible reputation among most women speaks for itself. It's all about approval ratings, gaining power and preserving their reputation. It's a bit insulting, to be honest. So the women are revolting? Throw them a bone! Big up women in business and chuck in a few platitudes about women being "the future". That'll make 'em vote for us come the next polling day!

I'd like to see lots of the ideas in the memo become reality. It's just sad that they have to be dreamt up as a "tactic" by politicians who have realised just how angry women are with them, rather than politicians who thought this stuff up in the first place because they really do see women as "the future".

I didn't vote Conservative in 2010, and I'm pretty sure the plan to "up the game" on communications, using these ideas as a "hook" to draw us in, isn't going to change who I give my vote to next time. And I know I'm not the only one. Sadly for the coalition, I don't think the majority of women will be as easily placated as they think.

  

This post originally appeared at BitchBuzz. Image via The Prime Minister's Office on Flickr.

This is a round-up

The Independent - Caring costs - but so do riots

"It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped."

Barbara Ehrenreich for CiF - How America criminalised poverty 
  
"In defiance of all reason and compassion, the criminalisation of poverty has actually intensified as the weakened economy generates ever more poverty. So concludes a recent study from the National Law Centre on Poverty and Homelessness, which finds that the number of ordinances against the publicly poor has been rising since 2006, along with the harassment of the poor for more "neutral" infractions like jaywalking, littering, or carrying an open container."

Ekklesia - Rich thugs, poor thugs  

"I oppose the corporations who have looted the treasury through their tax avoidance, the bankers who assaulted society through the financial crash and the arms dealers who profit from selling weapons to tyrants. I oppose Cameron, Clegg and their gang of thugs who are launching a daily assault on the poorest members of society with their vicious cuts to public services and the welfare state."

Rachel Held Evans - My story is more interesting than that  

"I am not a supporting character in a story that a man is writing. 
My story is more interesting than that. 

I am not defined by my sexuality, my past, my marital status, or my body. 
My story is more interesting than that. 

I have not cried into my pillow waiting for someone else to give me purpose and direction in life. 
My story is more interesting than that." 

Elizabeth Esther - How to live a good love story: a top-eleven list for my daughters 

"1. Avoid advice from middle-aged, unmarried men who have yet to live one successful love story. 
2. Be wary of the man who always refers to women as “girls.”..."

Another Angry Woman - When not reporting a rape seems like a sensible option  

"Layla Ibrahim was attacked and raped by two men. She was courageous enough to report this to the police, even though the police had a track record of repeatedly arresting her twelve year old brother and failing her sister after a beating, due to being a mixed-race family in a predominately white area. Despite overwhelming forensic evidence, the police chose not to believe Layla. She was sent to prison for three years."

The F Word - When we are very wrong  

"We must always respect the lived experience of those we have privilege over, and take note when they take the time to tell us about it. So if a black woman challenges something racist said by a white woman, or a disabled woman challenges a disablist attitude, or a working class woman challenges middle class privilege, it is time to listen."

Thought Catalog - Surviving an 80s childhood  

"If you survived a childhood in the 80s, you’re probably starting to feel a bit long in the tooth, even though you’re not really. You just can’t help feeling old when you’re at a bar and you meet someone who was born in 1993. If you survived a childhood in the 80s, you may, from time to time, wonder what growing up with an iPhone, Katy Perry and the Internet must be like, and how you survived without all the things that seem so intrinsic to your survival now." 

Thought Catalog - Surviving a 90s puberty

"You wish could still throw your phone against a wall and it wouldn’t break. You miss how everything was riddled with layers of meaning, and you probably have a secret yearning for the earnestness of the decade that defined your coming of age. You revel in having grown up through the 90s, because it’s sort of like being part of a secret, special club that no one understands except the ones that were there with you, and even still they don’t really understand you; because despite your cynicism, you still hold onto a scrap of that poor, tortured, isolated, misunderstood soul a puberty in the 90s gave you."

Cosmopolitics - Fundamentally fearful fashion


"What’s ‘fun’ or ‘fearless’ (hah!) about feeling unable to wear even a loose, opaque, drapy garment without an expensive, uncomfortable underdress to control your unacceptable (and entirely natural) curves? Curves which you’re elsewhere instructed to ‘flaunt’: wearing nothing but a bra (‘be sure to flaunt the cutest of bras!’ Let’s infantilise feminine sexuality!) and an unbuttoned cardi, apparently, is a good idea."