Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Feminism and patriarchy – who gets to define them?

Posted: 30 Jul 2012 10:44 AM PDT

Caroline Criado-Perez
Guest blogger 

Feminism recently enjoyed a huge victory.

Marissa Mayer was appointed as CEO for Yahoo. Not only was she a woman, but she was pregnant. Bravo Yahoo.

But wait, maybe feminism had nothing to do with it, because here was Mayer saying, 'I don't think that I would consider myself a feminist.'

Oh. Maybe I released the party poppers too soon then.

But hang on, after her jaw-dropping opening statement, Mayer goes on to say that she 'believe[s] in equal rights' and that 'women are just as capable [as men, one assumes].'

Confused about how these statements could exist in opposition to each other, I decided to see what my beloved Oxford English dictionary (OED) had to say on the matter.

My confusion was not alleviated: the first definition of feminist reads: 'Of, relating to, or advocating the rights and equality of women.' So that's Mayer's 'rights' and 'equal' right there in black and white.

So what could Mayer mean?

I am, of course, being slightly disingenuous here. We all know what Mayer means. She means that 'feminism' and 'feminist' have become dirty words. The F-words of the modern era. And of course this is true to a certain extent.

This is the era that coined the charming, and in no way offensive to holocaust victims, term 'Feminazi'.

This is the era where women who call themselves feminists online can be expect to be bombarded with hate-filled misogyny.

It is an era where the term 'men's rights activist' has evolved, seemingly existing to directly contradict any assertion that women still have not achieved those 'equal rights' that Mayer advocates.

Mayer says that 'feminism has become in many ways a more negative word'. And she's right – sort of. It's become 'a more negative word' according to those who feel threatened by its message.

The members of this vocal minority have almost succeeded in aligning 'feminist' with 'sort of the militant drive and sort of the chip on the shoulder' that Mayer talks about.

But the reality is that feminist doesn't mean that at all. It means what the OED says it means: 'Of, relating to, or advocating the rights and equality of women.'

What Mayer is doing here is accepting a definition of 'feminist' that has been foisted on it by groups who are actively opposed to its central tenets.

And what's most sad about this modern phenomenon is that it has succeeded in convincing women like Mayer, and, yes, many men who would in fact benefit from feminism, that this kind of feminism exists.

That it's not just some anti-fantasy (or maybe actual fantasy, who knows?) dreamt up by people who either don't understand what feminism is really about or who, rightly, see that it threatens their privilege.

And it's at this point, this point of saying that hot-potato p-word that I perhaps start to look like Rush Limbaugh's worst/best vision of a 'feminazi'. But let me explain.

The only people who are actually threatened by feminism are those who benefit from the current system of patriarchy, another p-word that currently dominates politically, economically and socially.

In a recent brilliant blog post on The Independent, Laurie Penny and Martin Robbins debate the point of how to talk to men about sexism.

And one of the points they touch on is the term 'patriarchy'. Robbins sees it as 'the biggest problem I have persuading men' that feminism is not anti-men.

Penny quite rightly points out that the problem with the term is that it has been misrepresented (by the patriarchy itself), pointing out that it doesn't attack individual men, but 'a system of privilege' that supports the status quo where 'only a small group of mostly men – patriarchs – actually have power'.

So the term 'patriarchy' should in no way be considered as referring explicitly to all men, and feminism's opposition to patriarchy should in no way be considered as an attack on men. It's an attack on a system, not on individuals – and it's not the word that needs changing. It's people's perceptions of that word.

This debate is crucial; like 'feminist', 'patriarch' has been powerfully derailed as a useful term, and paraded around the internet to function as the straw-man counterpart to feminism's straw-woman.

The fact is that the current patriarchal system works for only a very small number of men and an even smaller number of women. Nearly all men would be feminism's natural allies, if only the shouting on the internet would let them hear the real message of feminism.

This shouting matters – you only need to take a look at the first definition of 'feminazi' on urban dictionary for an illustration of how pervasive and damaging this kind of appropriation and redefinition can be.

Let's be clear about this: the author of this entry will never have met a woman who tells her she can't shave her legs or wear a bra, because this woman does not exist.

She is a figure dreamt up by the anti-feminist movement, specifically designed to discredit it. And what's sad about this entry is that, like Mayer, its author seems to be a woman – I'm assuming this based on the fact that she wears a bra.

More than this, this woman self-identifies as a feminist, and feels that these mythical 'feminazis' are letting her down. When the reality is that it is anti-feminists who are letting her down.

As feminists we need to stand up to the misappropriation of these terms. We need to 'Take Back The Words'. Because it is shocking that men who suffer under the patriarchal system, men who, for example, don't fit into the quasi-mythical 'alpha male' stereotype, should not be vocal supporters of a movement that attacks that system.

It is shocking that someone who calls herself a 'feminist' believes in the existence of 'feminazis'.

And, most of all, it is shocking that a woman who believes in 'equal rights' and that 'women are just as capable' as men, does not consider herself a feminist.

Push for funding to get Speed Sisters film on the road

Posted: 30 Jul 2012 06:15 AM PDT

Julie Tomlin
WVoN co-editor

It’s a story that has already caught the attention of the media but filmmakers working on a documentary about an all-woman team of racing drivers in Palestine need funding to complete the project.

Director Amber Fares has been working on the Speed Sisters film with Rachel Wexler and Rebecca Day from Bungalow Town Productions for the past two years, following the progress of a remarkable group of women who have formed the first all-female racing team in the Middle East.

Aged between 20 and 35, Marah Zahalka, Noor Daoud, Mona Ennab and Betty Saadeh, and their manager Maysoon Jayyousi, have been making their mark in the male-dominated streetcar-racing scene in the occupied West Bank, Palestine (see WVoN stories).

“People often have this idea of the Middle East that it’s like Saudi Arabia where women aren’t allowed to drive,” says Fares. “In Palestine, women have been very active in civil society, so it’s not so unusual  - people don’t see it as so out of the realm of possibility that they are racing.

“If we look at our own society, we look at women who take up motor sports and say ‘wow’ and in the same way, when I tell young Palestinian women about it they are really inspired and feel proud that women are racing.”

To help them to continue to follow the women as they pursue their ambitions Fares and her colleagues have launched a fundraising campaign. The cash will also help get a story of a little-seen aspect of Palestinian life onto the big screen.

“They are extremely independent, colourful, strong-willed, loving and funny as hell. Racing is really the hook to get into their lives and show a different view of the Middle East.”

The film chronicles how the women navigate the pressures of social expectations and family dynamics and also how Israel’s military occupation and politics impact their daily lives. But it’s not a film where the occupation is “the main character” insists Fares.

“This group of women are remarkable, irrespective of being in Palestine,” says Fares. “They are adrenaline junkies, they like the thrill of it, they like the freedom and being in control and that’s something Palestinians have very little of.”

Zardari appeals for more female judges in Pakistan’s courts

Posted: 30 Jul 2012 04:45 AM PDT

Aisha Farooq
WVoN co-editor

On Friday, Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari announced his decision to appoint more women judges in the nation’s judiciary courts.

He made the announcement at a ceremony in Islamabad for the ‘One Million Signature Campaign‘, which pledges to educate and consequently eradicate violence against women.

Speaking in front of female parliamentarians, NGO representatives and foreign diplomats at the event, Zardari claimed the current government had done much over the last four years to promote women’s issues by passing a number of women’s rights bills.

These include the Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010, the amended Criminal Law Act 2010 (amended a further two times in 2011), Acid Control and Acid Crime Prevention Act 2011, and the Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Act 2011.

He believes that the government is following the dreams of former Pakistan People's Party (PPP) leader, Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in 2007.

Zardari said that Bhutto, his former wife, had long advocated the empowerment of women across Pakistan and he desired to continue her legacy.

He said that the 2011 Women in Distress and Detention Fund Act was a highly successful way of offering financial and legal resources for women in difficulty.

In addition, the 26 Shahid Benazir Bhutto Centres open across the country were an immediate relief for those women who were helpless victims of violence.

“The Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), as the poverty alleviation programme, has been designed to empower women,” Zardari said. “And millions of women have been receiving assistance under this programme.”

He said that true female empowerment was only possible if women were given equal social, economic and legal opportunities as men, to prevent their exploitation.

“There is a need to bring positive change in the attitudes of men towards women,” he added.

Zardari believes exploitation and harm against women is fundamentally against basic human rights. He said his government had made this a high priority.

“The 2012 National Commission for Human Rights Act has also been enacted to monitor the overall human rights situation. However, a lot still needs to be done," he admitted.

It is thought that by appointing more female judges in court, a fairer and more sympathetic attitude towards female victims can be maintained.

Zardari became the millionth signatory at the campaign event concreting his stance as an advocator against violence towards women.

Olympic ‘Romney shambles’: UK broadsheets overlook women

Posted: 30 Jul 2012 03:15 AM PDT

Jane Osmond
WVoN co-editor

Among the plethora of news stories generated by the Olympics this week (and wasn't the opening ceremony fantastic? Kudos to Danny Boyle!) have been several stories about the remarks made by Mitt Romney, the US Republican presidential candidate.

Visiting the UK this week, Romney, in a massive miscalculation of his audience, commented on the G4S shortage of security staff and the possibility of an immigration and custom officials strike during the Games.

‘Romneyshambles’ as these gaffes have become known, did not go down well with the British. Prime Minister David Cameron is intending to address them with Romney later on this week, and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, addressed a crowd in Hyde Park with the comment:

“There’s a guy called Mitt Romney who wants to know whether we’re ready. Are we ready?”

Meanwhile, Carl Lewis, the winner of nine Olympic gold medals for the US, said “seriously, some Americans just shouldn’t leave the country”.

But what is striking for me is the subsequent coverage of the ‘Romneyshambles’ in the UK broadsheets – in particular three stories in The Guardian, The Observer and The Telegraph – none of which mentioned the current war on women that Romney and his party are waging over in the US.

For Jonathan Freedland in The Guardian, his take down of Romney is all about how he is not really a politician at all, but rather a former CEO of a private equity business: “Perhaps he is no more than an accomplished corporate leader who aspires to the biggest CEO job on the planet – and knows that to get it he has to pretend to be a politician.”

Henry Porter of The Observer writes that the former CEO appears to have traded in any sense of personality and conviction in order to turn himself into the Republican’s ideal presidential material.

Meanwhile, The Telegraph's Chris Irvine focuses on Romney's scramble to minimise the damage over his remarks about his wife’s Welsh ancestry and his great grandfather coming from Preston.

So, Freedland, Porter and Irvine – can I ask you why, in all three articles (which make some very good points about Romney's unsuitability to be US president) – did you not mention EVEN ONCE the concentrated attack on women’s reproductive rights that is being carried out by the Republican party in general and Romney in particular?

There is a good overview of both the economic consequences for women and the impact on women’s reproductive rights of proposed Republican policies by Nancy Cohen in Rolling Stone Politics.

In essence, the Republicans are against the Democrat’s proposed Paycheck Fairness Act, which is intended to directly address male-female pay disparity.  And they will fight to repeal Obamacare - an Act that will provide heathcare coverage for an extra 30 million of the poorest Americans (17 million of whom are women).

Romney recently lauded a budget that would see cuts in childcare, food provision and healthcare, which would affect nearly 20 million children.

He endorsed the failed Blunt-Rubio Amendment, which would have allowed employers to morally object to providing birth control to women under their insurance coverage, telling the National Rifle Association that “As president, I will abolish [the contraception mandate]“.

Finally, he is intending to overturn Roe vs Wade – an Act that made abortion legal in the United States in 1973.  And not only this, he has also backed a bill to outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

The war on women that is raging over in the US is, quite frankly, scary.  The impact of a Republican president, and subsequent Republican policies on women living in the US, would be devastating.

Not only denied free contraception, but also access to free abortion, women who could not pay for either would be forced to bear children that they could not afford to raise.

Further, by keeping women constantly pregnant they would be unable to either enter or stay in the workforce due to the poor US provision of childcare – in 2011 only 5% of US children under three, and only 54% of children aged three to six were in publicly-supported childcare.

This could mean that financially-strapped women, desperate not to have yet another baby, may resort to the kind of backstreet abortions that Roe vs Wade was set up to stop.

And this brings me to the importance of the existence of Women’s Views on News. Elsewhere and every day women read news written by men and too often the news they report does not consider a woman's point of view on current issues.  Nowhere is this more evident than in these three pieces by these three men writing in three of the UK's most popular broadsheets.

For me and, I would argue, most women, this attack on US women's reproductive choices is an attack on women’s independence and ability to make informed choices about their lives.  The underlying premise of this attack is that women are not capable of making their own life choices – but more than this – it signals that women are unimportant in the general scheme of things.  We should, perhaps, get back into the kitchen where we belong and let the men get on with business.

Sadly, by not including the war on women as part of their articles against Romney becoming the next US president, the three writers named above are colluding in this attitude.  Otherwise, they would have privileged the war on women as the most important aspect of Romney’s complete unsuitability as future US president. Or, if this is too much to ask, they would have AT THE VERY LEAST mentioned it.

This is why the existence of Women’s Views on News – with our our ethos of building a world where all women's voices are heard by all - is important.

Male writers – please take note. 

Pussy Riot members face up to seven years in prison

Posted: 29 Jul 2012 01:45 AM PDT

Holly Peacock
WVoN co-editor

Earlier this year Russian feminist punk-collective, Pussy Riot, performed a song in a Moscow cathedral in protest against president Vladimir Putin and the Church’s part in supporting his regime.

The performance, labelled a ‘pussy prayer’, led to the arrest and incarceration of three members of Pussy Riot on charges of hoolaganism. Their trial begins today.

On 21st February Maria Alekhina, Ekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, along with two other members of the band, stormed Moscow’s Christ the Saviour Cathedral and set up stage on the altar to perform ‘Holy Shit’.

The video (now available to view on YouTube) shows the women, dressed in their typical uniform of brightly coloured dresses and matching balaclavas, struggling through the performance as Cathedral security frantically attempt to stop and detain them.

The members of Pussy Riot have spoke out against Putin stating “Putin is scared of us” and is “afraid of people”.

This relatively small group has gained support from the likes of Sting and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers who have famously spoken out against the Russian authorities. Sting said:

“It’s appalling that the musicians from Pussy Riot could face prison sentences of up to seven years in jail. Dissent is a legitimate and essential right in any democracy and modern politicians must accept this fact with tolerance.

“A sense of proportion – and a sense of humour – is a sign of strength, not a sign of weakness. Surely the Russian authorities will completely drop these spurious charges and allow the women, these artists, to get back to their lives and to their children.”

In the lead up to their trial the three members have been imprisoned and refused bail. Controversy and dispute now ripple across Russia and the rest of the world as the trial begins.

Amnesty International has created a website collating coverage of Pussy Riot’s plight and is asking supporters to sign a petition in request of their release.