Dispelling myths about feminism

OK, so I'm feeling a little lazy about blogging today!

This is what a feminist looks like!

How to be a feminist boyfriend

Feministe feedback had a really interesting thread the other day, answering the following question:

Your most recent entry - on what a feminist relationship looks like - is primarily pitched at female feminists. I, as a well-intentioned but nonetheless male participant in relationships, would really like to know the answer to that question. i don’t commit the obvious sort of mistakes that non-feminist guys do, or at least i hope i don’t. Nonetheless there are certainly crimes of ignorance, so to speak.

In fact, you should write a book answering this question - “how to be a feminist boyfriend.”

There were loads of really great responses, and you should go and read them for yourself, but it reminded me of a conversation I had the other night about privilege with The Boy. He is definitely the most non-confrontational man I have ever met, and certainly strives to be fair and egalitarian, not just in our relationship, but in other aspects of his life too.

However, I sometimes feel that he doesn't examine what male privilege does for him on a daily basis. He generally doesn't analyse himself too closely anyway - thats not the person that he is - but I tried to impress on him that we all have a duty to be aware of our privileges (for example, in my case, being a well-educated, white, middle-class, straight, cis, woman), how they have smoothed our paths, and how the experiences of other people differ based solely on factors which they have no control over, including gender, race, sexuality, gender dysphoria, and a million other different things which can affect out experiences, and our treatment by others.

So, in order to be a feminist boyfriend, or indeed, a person who cares about others, here are some things which I think that The Boy should think about when he goes about his daily life:

1. I am lucky that my genitals look how I want and expect them to look.
2. I am lucky that when I do something badly, people don't put it down to my race, gender or sexuality.
3. I am lucky that when I get turned down for jobs, I don't have to wonder whether it is because of my race, gender, or sexuality.
4. I am lucky that people take it for granted that I can do things well, and competently.
5. I am lucky that when I turn on the TV/look in a newspaper or magazine/watch a film, I find many people or characters represented who I feel I can relate to because they are the same race, gender and sexuality as me.
6. I am lucky that my combination of race, gender and sexuality is so well-represented in the Houses of Parliament, the judiciary and other instruments of the state

This is obviously a far from exhaustive list, and if you want a far more exciting and complete list, Ampersand at Alas, A Blog has more. My point is not to write a full list of the privileges that white, straight, cis, males enjoy, it is to point out that thinking about these things, and incorporating this awareness into the way that you think about the world, can make you a better feminist ally, and of course, a better feminist boyfriend!

Don't punish men for the evils of sex slavery?

This article is an interesting one. It starts well, with Henry Porter acknowledging that the current laws in this country, which criminalise the woman selling sex, but not the man buying it, are unfair and wrong. He then goes on to outline some of the ways in which countries like New Zealand and Canada have tried to change this, as a response to changing attitudes. So far, so good.

However, this is unfortunately where things start to unravel. Denis MacShane MP plans to takcle the serious problem of sex trafficking in this country by trying to introduce new amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which would allow Police to prosecute men found paying for sex in certain designated areas. Porter outlines this in his article. However, he goes on to say that we should be very sceptical of MacShane's motives, because he may well be anti-prostitution! Therefore, we can't believe anything he tells us about the problem of sex-trafficking, and we should disregard any changes which he tries to make to reduce the number of trafficked women suffering in this country, because basically, he is just trying to stop prostitution! (Or something like that).

MacShane and his supporters may have a strong moral revulsion for the sale of sex, but they insist that their approach is a strictly practical one to deal with trafficking. What they cannot say is that this amendment contains a tacit admission of the government's failure. There are already laws to deal with trafficking and enslavement and it may be that MacShane's figure of 25,000 trafficked women is hugely inflated. In a letter to the Guardian last week, Professor Julia O' Connell Davidson of the University of Nottingham called it preposterous. She pointed out that in the police Operation Pentameter last year 515 establishments were raided and 84 victims of trafficking were found. At this rate, there would need to be 150,000 establishments for MacShane's figure of 25,000 to reached.

Now, I don't have any exact figures regarding the numbers of people who are trafficked in this country, so whilst I can't comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the figures discussed, I would like to call Henry Porter out on some shocking journalistic sloppiness. In the same paragraph, whilst he points out that the government is failing to tackle trafficking effectively (which actually, I agree with), he also then quotes Police statistics to demonstrate why it is that we should not believe MacShane's statistics. I thought you just said that the government is failing? Therefore, why are you using Police statistics to advance your argument against MacShane, when you yourself acknowledge that these are unlikely to reflect the scale of the problem in this country?

So we must conclude that the government does not view the act of buying sex is wrong in principle. This is a shaky position to start from if we are about to introduce yet another criminal offence, because it will be clear to everyone that the exchange that takes place between a man and a woman and a man and a man is exactly the same. The same levels of revulsion, pleasure, release, exploitation, abuse, regret and despair may exist in both transactions, yet only in one will an offence be committed.

I don't view the act of buying sex as being wrong in principle. However, this is a ridiculously simplistic way of looking at things. It is naive, and frankly stupid, to claim that selling sex is simply a choice which someone has chosen to make, and so the person buying sex has no culpability. You must look at the reasons behind why people buy and sell sex. Do men need sex? Of course not. Sex is a positive and enjoyable part of life, but men do not have an entitlement to sex, simply because they want it. However, if one is impoverished, trafficked, a drug addict, or otherwise disadvantaged, then money is a necessity. Therefore, the exchange of money for sex is not a fair transaction, made without any kind of duress. The prostitute is in a position where to refuse sex would result in great hardship and suffering. The man is in a position where to not buy sex would result in walking around feeling a bit sexually frustrated for a while. Not the same thing.

Actually, I agree with Porter's final point here, although I don't agree with his reasoning, because I think that either it should be illegal to buy any kind of sex, or it shouldn't be. This part of the law would add unnecessary confusion and complication to the law.

There is clearly a feminist drive to this measure. Nothing wrong in that perhaps, but it does account for the singular bias of the MacShane proposal. Columnist Joan Smith has suggested that critics responded hysterically to it because they have a vested interest in a man's right to buy sex from a woman. That is hardly fair. The objection is not that it deprives men of the ability to exploit women, but that it is ill thought out.

The same feminist voice would no doubt argue that every woman has a right to dominion over her body in matters such as abortion. It follows that a woman has the right to sell sexual services and, if that is true, someone has the right to buy those services. You cannot allow the principle of sale without at the same time consenting to purchase.

So Mr Porter, we start to see your true colours! This is an article ostensibly about legal reforms intended to reduce the number of people who are trafficked in Britain each year. Yet, you rebut any suggestions that one of your concerns about making buying sex illegal is that it would no longer allow you to exploit vulnerable women with impunity. In order to support this point, you use the example of abortion as a way in which feminists argue that women should have bodily autonomy. Of course, I agree with you, and I agree with the fact that in an ideal, egalitarian world women should be free to decide to sell sex for money. But we are not discussing those women Mr Porter. We are looking at these legal reforms through the lens of a country which has increasing numbers of women trafficked into it each year. At this stage, I don't think anyone is able to advocate for a 'perfect' law. We need to introduce reforms which will allow prostitutes the protections which they need, and punish the people responsible for perpetuating the cycle.

Your final point "You cannot allow the principle of sale without at the same time consenting to purchase", is particularly interesting. Again, I agree with you. Are you then arguing that men who have sex with women who are unable to consent are guilty of rape? After all, if women are in a position whereby the are not able to agree to any sort of transaction freely, and you have sex with them, then you are not buying something which they have offered of their own free will. You are raping them.

And what is payment? Most often, it is cash or a credit card, but payment comes in other forms - holidays, goods, jewellery, advancement, property. Many shy from an openly acknowledged transaction; some are candid about a business arrangement in which the parties hope to emerge with profit or satisfaction. We would like it to be otherwise perhaps, but that is the way of the world.

What are you saying here Henry Porter? Are all women who rely on men for financial support prostitutes? Does that make going off to buy a fuck from a trafficked woman ok because you believe that you indirectly pay your wife for sex? Maybe you feel resentful about the leeching bitches who steal mens money, but if you grew a brain and looked around you, you might understand why women become financially dependent on men. Women get paid 17% less than men for the same work. If they are married, or (shock-horror) have a family, then they are less likely to be hired in the first place, because they are perceived to not be committed enough to the job. In most relationships, women do the majority of the child-care and other domestic duties, which allows men more time to focus on their careers. Furthermore, supporting your wife does not mean that you are entitled to fuck her whenever you want. Since 1991, getting married does not mean that you can rape your wife with impunity.

Tougher penalties might be an answer but let's not forget that the police already have powers to deal with every aspect of prostitution, from kerb crawling to enslavement. Instead we need to tackle what drives so much prostitution - poverty and drug addiction. It is right that newspapers are beginning to refuse adverts for escort and massage services but as the cabinet ministers who recently admitted to drug use know full well, making the demand for drugs illegal does little to stop supply.

Denis MacShane may be well-intentioned but his amendment is bad and confusing law because it seeks to remedy a failure by police and immigration officials - which may not even exist - by attacking the choice made by two consenting adults.

So, despite earlier claiming that the government's current policies are failing, you now support your argument that buying sex should remain legal with the the point that the police have all the powers they need in order to be able to deal with prostitution, "from kerb crawling to enslavement". Coherent, consistent, and well thought-out I must say!

To go back to my earlier point, if women are deeply impoverished or addicted to drugs, then they are not able to make a free choice about whether or not to engage in prostitution. In a choice between having sex with a man and being able to eat/shoot up, or not having sex with him, but starving/suffering horrendous withdrawal symptoms, I think I know which option I would choose. However, that does not mean that I am making a free choice to be a prostitute or to have sex. Actually, there are a million other things I would like to do far more. Therefore, it is not a "choice between two consenting adults" that we are discussing here.

I find that I am often very conflicted about my feelings about prostitution. On one hand, I do think that it should be up to women to decide what to do with their bodies, and of course this extends to selling sex. However, this argument is frequently used as a get-out clause by people like Henry Porter who want to bury their heads in the sand and ignore the realities of life for the majority of prostitutes in this country. There are a small minority of women who do freely make the choice to be prostitutes, but as Henry Porter himself acknowledges, the vast majority of prostitutes in this country are there because of poverty or drugs. As I have already argued, this is not a free choice, and these women need to be protected rather than criminalised. Men (and indeed women) do not have an entitlement to sex. Therefore, if one of the things which we have to do in order to protect vulnerable prostitutes from exploitation is to make the buying of sex illegal, which means that punters will no longer be able to exploit people with impunity, then we should take that step. After all, we all have the right to live lives free from exploitation.

Marriage

Courtesy of www.chicago-smile-makeovers.com

Marriage has probably been once of the most difficult areas for me to come to terms with as a feminist. Although to a certain extent, I have always felt that women are underrepresented in Parliament, in business and in academia, to give a few examples, and I was aware of other inequalities, I only started to actively identify as 'feminist' a few years ago. Until I did that, I had always imagined that I wanted a white wedding, not necessarily large, but definitely with a big white dress, and in a church.

Then I became a feminist, and I started to think about the traditions which surround weddings. I read interesting articles like this, this, and this. I began to wonder about the overtones of ownership, transfer of property, virginity, as well as more modern traditions, for example, the way that the press refers to 'bridezillas'. I don't know how I fit into this. My partner had a very traditional upbringing, and, although he is sympathetic to feminist values, would like to get married one day. Deep down, I would too. I went to a wedding at the weekend, and it was an interesting experience for me. I haven't been to a wedding since I started to identify as a feminist. It was in a church, and I was even more convinced that that sort of wedding was not for me. I hate the idea of being given away by my father; I am not a piece of property to be handed over! I don't believe in God, and so all of the references to God within the service would be meaningless to me. I don't want a significant part of my wedding ceremony to be either meaningless or offensive to me. I want every word to have significance. I want it to be personal. I want it to reflect me, my partner, and our relationship. So I guess a church wedding is out then!

But there were things which I felt that I do want to have one day. I would like to be legally and emotionally unified with my partner by going through a ceremony which is meaningful to both of us. I would like to show my family and friends the commitment which I have to him, and which he has to me. I would like to have the same last name (more to come on that later!).

Will I wear a white dress? I don't know. I have very mixed feelings about it. I don't like the overtones of purity and virginity, which it is intended to imply. However, I don't want to remove all tradition from my day, so that it is not recognisable as a wedding. Also, I love dresses, and I like the idea of wearing a beautiful white dress - I'll only get the opportunity once after all!

I expect that I will make a speech at the reception. The day is about me and my partner - I should be able to have a say! I will not throw my bouquet. If women attending my wedding want to get married, then they should ask their partners themselves, rather than relying on antiquated traditions to try to get their partners to propose to them!

I imagine that we will double-barrel our names. My name is quite unusual, and it is so much a part of me, and how I define myself, that I cannot imagine being without it. My partner's is very common, and will go well with mine. I think this is a wonderful way for us to show our commitment to one another. It is symbolic of how we intend to keep our own identities, but also how our lives will become unified, by keeping our own names, but also gaining the name of the other. I am a 'Ms' now, and I expect that that will not change.

As for the proposal, engagement rings etc, I guess I'll wait and see how it pans out. I would certainly not rule out proposing to him, but I won't say definitely whether or not I will because he reads this blog! If he proposed with an engagement ring, I would be happy. I love all jewelry, and I am a complete magpie when it comes to shiny things like diamonds. He knows this, and I suppose as long as he understands the terms on which I would wear such a ring, then I would be able to wear it happily.

This was a bit of a stream of consciousness post, but it is helpful to get these things written down. I often find that writing things down helps me to clarify my stance on various issues. I suppose what I want most is a day that my partner and I can look back on happily, and which fits in with our worldview and values system.

This is the reality of churches in middle England today.

My partner's parents are devout Christians. This has caused problems on occasion in the past. However, things have got easier, and these days, the relationship between my (athiest) partner and his parents is generally good. We agreed to go to a carol service with them at their local church on the 23rd. The church itself was lovely, very simple inside, but lit by Christmas lights and candles, which made for a good atmosphere. The service was well-attended, and the carols were good.

Now on to the negatives. I had never realised that there were so many pro-life paternalistic, and patriarchal overtones in the Christmas story. During the readings, I became very uncomfortable with the messages which were being conveyed. Mary, for example, is given no choice in whether or not to carry God's child. Furthermore, when Joseph finds out that she is pregnant, he no longer wants to marry her, but is persuaded by an angel sent by God who assures him that Mary is 'unsullied' and therefore is fit for marriage. There were many other examples, and at some point I intend to read these Bible passages in detail, and then write a critique of the ideologies expressed.

The worst thing was however yet to come. The vicar at this church felt that it was appropriate to start his sermon by making jokes about the name "Mohammed", and encouraging the congregation to laugh (which they did). My partner and I were so paralysed by horror that all we were able to do was to stare at each other in disgust. If this is the sort of 'tolerance' of other religions which the Church of England practices today, then it makes me want to run as fast as possible in the opposite direction. I cannot believe that he is able to get away with that sort of reprehensible behaviour. The Church of England should be deeply ashamed of itself. I am certainly ashamed for it.

Rape victim, aged 10, "probably agreed to have sex"

Oh. My. God. I don't know a great deal about the Australian legal system, but I know that the reason that there are laws in place which state that children under a certain age do not have the capacity to consent. Therefore any sexual intercourse with them is rape. These laws are there in order to protect young people from being preyed upon by adults and (in some cases) older children.

Even if this 10-yr-old had consented to sex, her consent should mean nothing in the eyes of the law. Otherwise why do we have these laws in place?

This just makes me so sad, and simultaneously confirms why it is that I am a feminist. I can only hope that the victim manages to access the support she needs in order to rebuild her life, and that the judges and prosecutors involved are sacked.

Congratulations to Feministing!

Feministing recently announced a big upgrade to become a community site. I think this will be awesome, and as a regular reader, I am very excited to see the changes. They managed to raise over $7000 in a few days, so they can go ahead with the upgrades now.

Welcome to my blog!

Hi and welcome to my blog! I'm going to try to put something on this blog every few days at least. Mainly I guess I'll focus on feminism and gender issues, but I'll probably spill over into other left-wing issues from time to time too.

So...check back soon!