Thursday, October 25, 2012

Women's Views on News

Women's Views on News

Police tackle rape culture, badly.

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 10:00 AM PDT

From Another Angry Woman.

The Met make a rudimentary effort to tackle rape culture. Poorly. 

The Met have finally noticed they have a terrible problem with rape, spotting it as figures for people reporting rape to the police have taken a dive recently. So they appointed a shiny new head of their Sapphire unit, and in an interview with the Guardian he has announced the changes he will make.

He has plans for environmental interventions to tackle rape, notably using licencing laws to get pubs and bars where rape and sexual assault are prevalent shut down, and increase surveillance of men who have never been charged with rape, but intelligence suggests they are perpetrators.

Neither of these measures strike me as particularly effective in dealing with rape culture. Are there pubs and clubs which are "rape-hotspots", or is it more that the heterosexual "pulling" scene enables rape and sexual assault rather easily. Meanwhile, the covert policing tactics are creepy, immoral, and will increase a perception of perpetrators as "the real victims" of rape. Furthermore, how exactly will they be getting this information? What makes some men pre-predators in the Met's book?

Basically, these are rather authoritarian and punitive measures for dealing with a problem which is societal.

The good news is, this probably won't really be the focus of the Met's new approach to rape, because the new chief is also going to focus on women, raising awareness about how they can "reduce vulnerability". Yeah, so they've not changed at all in their stance towards victim blaming.

To sum up his approach, then, women should be a bit more careful, alcohol is definitely to blame, so maybe avoid going to pubs the Met don't close down. Also, there's some men who are predators, but the rest of them are probably all right.

Ineffectual, and fairly offensive.

What the Met should be doing (if they don't go and live in the sewers and bother us no more) is looking at the shit in their own backyard. They contribute wholesale to rape culture. They've been implicated in huge failures to investigating rape, in ways which are criminally negligent. They have been implicated in rapes. When they actually bother investigating, it is half-arsed or downright invasive for the women.

And they just don't understand rape and rape culture.

They have a lot of work to do themselves, but rather than focus on their own failings, they're pointing to the nearest ghastly nightclub with a sticky floor and screaming "SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING."

Society as a whole is fairly weak on its understanding of rape culture, and the police don't help at all.

From Another Angry Woman.

‘Right to know’ needs back-up, says mother

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 09:00 AM PDT

Nottinghamshire mother questions ’right to ask’ scheme, as county pushes Man Enough campaign.

The mother of a 21-year-old woman from Nottinghamshire who was killed by her ex-partner, has spoken out about her ordeal on national TV.

Victoria Blower, who lost her daughter Casey Brittle in 2010, appeared on Channel 4′s Dispatches programme Do You Know Your Partner’s Past? on October 22.

She was one of a number of people affected by domestic violence who were interviewed by Tina Nash, a domestic violence survivor whose eyes were gouged out by her violent boyfriend last year.

The programme also discussed a new law that gives people the right to ask police if their partner has a violent history. People can also ask the question of somebody else’s partner if they’re worried about a friend or relative being at risk of domestic violence.

Nottinghamshire is one of four areas to pilot this scheme, officially called The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme but known more widely as Clare’s Law, after 36-year-old Clare Wood, who was killed by her violent ex-partner in 2009.

Blower raised concerns that, as many perpetrators exert powerful mental control over their partners, simply knowing their past won’t necessarily give victims the courage to leave.

Speaking on the programme, she said: “Even if she had known, you still have to have safety measures put in place.

“It’s all about safety and protecting the person on the receiving end of the abuse.”

Earlier this month Blower backed the Nottingham Post newspaper’s domestic violence campaign 'Man Enough'.

'Man Enough' is urging men in Nottinghamshire to sign the White Ribbon campaign pledge to end violence against women. It is being run in conjunction with Women’s Aid Integrated Services (WAIS), the Nottinghamshire Domestic Violence Forum (NDVF) and Nottinghamshire Police.

The White Ribbon Campaign (WRC) is the UK branch of the global campaign to ensure men take more responsibility for reducing the level of violence against women – and reckons it is the first male-oriented organisation to oppose violence against women.

Woman’s Hour and the invisible perpetrator

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 08:00 AM PDT

How the media talks about domestic violence matters.

I listened with a howling sense of pain-wracked frustration to the otherwise fabulous Jane Garvey interviewing domestic abuse survivor Tina Nash on BBC Radio 4′s Woman’s Hour yesterday morning (interview begins 1 minute in).

I’m used to victim-blaming and its ugly companion, the invisible perpetrator, in mainstream media coverage of domestic abuse.

But I’ve noticed it more and more since I became a Writer in Residence for Aurora New Dawn, an organisation working with victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

Mainstream news media often just replicate dominant social attitudes and reflect them back to us with authority. It’s not right, or actually ok, but it’s the reason WVoN exists so I’ve made a sort of angry, activist peace with it. For now.

Listening this morning, though, I felt like Jane Garvey’s feminist teacher, standing on the sidelines and calling, “Come on Garvey, pull your socks up! You can do better than this!”

Here’s why.

I recommend that you listen to the interview before or after reading this. For me the questions are actually worse in context not better, but make up your own mind.

JG: It would be easy to think of you I suppose as a victim, but you’re more than that, aren’t you?

TN: I’m a survivor now.

This would have been a great opportunity to talk about the issue of victimhood, the journey to feeling like a survivor and the difference between the two. Nash herself brings this up several times in the interview after she raises it here.

She talks about how she did not perceive herself as a victim during the abuse even though it was so severe, and about how on many occasions Jenkin, her abuser, would convince her that he was actually the victim in the relationship.

Garvey follows up on none of these.

If you’re learning about domestic abuse for the first time, understanding the dynamic  of victimhood is central. But if you’re a broadcaster doing an interview about an abusive relationship, I would hope – with a little preparation and research – it would be Interviewing 101.

After asking how they met, Garvey begins to sound a little like a barrister building a case that the victim should have ‘known better’:

JG: …he was a man with a bit of a reputation.

Nash obligingly clarifies that she had heard of his reputation, yes, but 10 years before they began dating, at which point Jenkin portrayed himself very much as a changed man.

Four months into the relationship, Jenkin pushed Nash over after his violence to strangers in a nightclub caused him to be thrown out. She banged her head on the pavement. Nash packed her things and left.

JG: See, at this point Tina, people will be thinking, ‘Well, that would be enough’. He may not actually have hit you on that occasion but there were indications that this was a man you wouldn’t be close to for any length of time. Why did you keep in touch with him?

Later, Nash talks about Jenkin laughing at the panic room installed for her by the police.

JG: He was laughing at the authorities and…but…in a way Tina I’ve got to put it to you, you allowed him to do that because you kept buying his lost little boy routine, didn’t you?

Finally, Garvey asks a question that is made more offensive to me as a listener by the calm, dignified and eloquent answer given by Tina Nash following it.

JG: For the people listening who think ‘Why did she allow this to happen to her?’ how would you try to explain that?

TN: It was a steady progress, it didn’t happen overnight. It wasn’t like I met him on the first night and he hit me and I stayed with him. It didn’t happen like that. I fell in love with him. He made me see a side of him that I didn’t think other people got to see so I thought he must love me. I thought it was completely different with me than he was with everybody else. Silly me, I fell for it.

At this point, I genuinely don’t know how, as one human to another, Garvey felt no inclination to challenge Tina Nash on that last statement. Possibly because almost every question that led up to it has implicitly pointed to how Nash failed to identify, challenge and escape a man who is now serving an indeterminate sentence in a mental hospital. I assume a jury put him there because they had fewer problems than Jane Garvey in identifying that he was the one to blame for his own behaviour.

Instead, Garvey asks:

JG: How many chances did you give him, in fact?

At which point I face-palmed myself so hard I swept my own feet out from under me and fell on my ass.

Given everything we know about domestic abuse, about patterns of coercion and control and about the reality of living – and surviving – an abusive relationship, it’s disappointing that broadcasters still feel comfortable asking variations of: Why doesn’t she just leave?

Chats overheard in the pub? Yes.

Woman’s Hour? No.

Interviews like this not only remove the focus from Jenkin’s actions but also – and if I were a man, this would be far more offensive to me – position the extreme violence of men like Jenkin as inevitable, or somehow to be expected, from all men.

What would I like to have heard? More about what it’s like to make the journey from victim to survivor, for a start, and an acknowledgement of the difficulty of the transition between the two.

Shame, isolation and self-blame are reasons that the Aurora team hear every day from victims and survivors to describe why they feel powerless to leave their perpetrator.

Of course, they also work with victims and survivors who have left and are now in more danger than they have ever been in before as a result – another reason why so many victims stay.

Media coverage of domestic abuse must start to reveal the reality (linked video carries Trigger warning) – and complexity – of abusive relationships, including painting a picture of how commonly it happens. As writers and journalists, we must shift the focus away from victims and move toward asking questions about perpetrators, who might find themselves with fewer places to hide as a result.

Taking this approach in the media would help to build a society where victims feel less isolated and less ashamed of behaviour that, ultimately, isn’t theirs. That alone would go an incredible length of the way to making the journey out of an abusive relationship easier and quicker.

A feminist? Not me!

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 03:00 AM PDT

The news that just 1 in 7 women describe themselves as feminist, comes as a bit of a shock.

A recent survey found that a large majority of women don’t consider themselves feminists.

The survey in question was carried out by Netmums, which is apparently Britain’s largest women’s website.

The results were a bit perturbing.

To sum up, only one in seven women described herself as a feminist, and one in five said feminism was old fashioned and 'not relevant' to today's generation.

Almost a third thought that feminism (of the 'traditional radical' variety), was ‘too aggressive’ towards men and 24 per cent thought that 'feminist' was no longer a positive label for women.

I'm sorry, did the last 100 years only happen to other people?

Maybe there is a lack of clarity as to what feminism actually means.  Feminism, to many, is a fluid concept, one which addresses any imbalance in equality between men and women.

It doesn't have to be about burning bras and hating men ('ie 'too aggressive').  It doesn't have to be militant or in any way 'negative'.

And not relevant to this generation?  If only.

Women of Netmums, don't you know that feminism is about gender parity, about equality?  Equality of opportunity is something that we should be taking for granted by now, not still fighting tooth and nail for.

If you are one of those surveyed who thinks feminism is no longer relevant to this generation, then perhaps you should stop reading now.  If, instead, you have an interest in reality, read on.

The statistics about women's place in society are still, frankly, shocking.

Let's start with the workplace where thousands upon thousands of women are still 'missing in action’.

In a report published last year by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, figures showed that the progress of women to positions of authority in Britain has been tortuously slow and that there were more than 5,000 women missing from the most senior posts in the public and private sectors.

The report, 'Sex and Power', showed that, in 2011, women represented only 12.5 per cent of directors of FTSE 100 companies, 9.1 per cent of national newspaper editors (which is now even less), and 12.9 per cent of senior members of the judiciary to name but a few.

It’s not for lack of talent, believe me – women are now graduating from university in increasing numbers and achieve better degree results than men.  But despite level pegging with men in their twenties, they are not entering management ranks at the same rate, and many remain trapped in the layer below senior management.

The results of this report indicated that it will take another 70 years to achieve an equal number of women directors in the FTSE 100 and another 45 years to achieve an equal number of women in the senior judiciary.

It will take another 14 general elections – that is, up to 70 years ‑ to achieve an equal number of women MPs in the UK Parliament, in a society where 51 percent of the population are women.

And let's face it, it's probably not going to the male members of the species who fix this.

I hate to labour the point (no, I don't) but there is inequality everywhere.

It's 2012, and there is still a persistent pay gap. The 2011 survey of hours and earnings from the Office of National Statistics found that median gross weekly earnings for full-time male workers was £539. For women? £445. So last year, British women were paid 83p for every pound their male counterparts earned.

This is commonly known as the 'gender pay gap'.  That's women being paid less than men.  Still.  Today.

And according to research carried out by the Association of Accounting Technicians, mothers who leave their jobs to have children earn nearly £10,000 less when they return to work.  Because of inflexibility of conditions, six in ten ended up doing jobs unrelated to their previous positions, and three quarters felt that they have more potential than their job allows.

Remember, we still live in a society where topless women being used for titivation is totally acceptable.  We can't have nudity on television before the watershed, but a 12 year old can go and buy The Sun any day of the week.  It stinks of hypocrisy, and make no mistake, the decision to allow page three to continue is not one that is being made by women.

Let's be perfectly clear.  Feminism is not about hating men.  Feminism, as British suffragist and journalist Rebecca West said, is the radical notion that women are people.

It's also about what we are willing to put up with and what we allow to happen in our (your!) society.

As a small example, David Cameron is looking for new would-be police and crime commissioners (PCCs) in 41 police forces in England and Wales.

One such person who is feted as a strong candidate for such a position, is Godfrey Bloom, the outspoken UKIP MEP for Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire.

His views have outraged women (and yes, feminists).  He once claimed to have visited brothels while working in Hong Kong and suggested that he represents Yorkshire women who “always have dinner on the table when you get home”.

Hands up if you don't find that offensive Netmums?  Remember, this is a guy who could end up in charge of a police force.

Most importantly, however,  is how this can possibly be irrelevant to today's generation?

Why, in objecting to this continued disaggregation of women from economic equality, from positions of responsibility and from society, is it bad to call yourself a feminist?

I subscribe to the Gloria Steinem school of thought that says "A feminist is anyone who recognizes the equality and full humanity of women and men."

In my more 'radical' moments, when I think of things like page three, I'm more of the Timothy Leary bent – 'Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition'

But let's not go too far . . . we wouldn't want to upset anyone, would we?

Women lawyers to be allowed in Saudi courts

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 01:30 AM PDT

Women lawyers in Saudi Arabia will be allowed to argue cases in court from November.

A directive has been sent from the experts committee of the Council of Ministers to the Justice Ministry, setting out the conditions that will govern the inclusion of women.

Until now, only men have been allowed to represent clients in court.

The new directive states that women who have obtained a law degree and have three years experience working in a lawyers office can apply for a license to practice in court.

The Justice Ministry expects the new policy to take effect in early November, following the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, and experts estimate that around three hundred women will apply to the ministry for a license in the first instance.

Currently, female lawyers function in the capacity of civilian representatives for their clients, and not as attorneys-at-law.

They are not allowed to appear as official representatives in court.

As they are not allowed to hold law licenses, they also cannot open their own law firms.

According to reports, initial discussions mooted the idea of restricting women to dealing with limited cases such as divorce and family matters and working in closed offices.

However, the experts committee have apparently made no distinction on the basis of gender and will allow women to represent both male and female clients.

It is an issue which has been debated for many years in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and  just last year female law graduates started a campaign on social networking sites called 'I am a female lawyer'.

The campaign focused on the issue of female law graduates spending years studying and gaining top degrees, only to be prevented from practising in their own country.

An outcome of the campaign was to highlight the issue of women feeling uncomfortable dealing with male lawyers in personal matters or where patriarchy may prevent a sympathetic representation.

Hatoun Al Fassi, women's rights activist and assistant professor at a Saudi University, expressed frustration at the endless delays that have surrounded the issue.

She said: “Every day, I see it closer than the day earlier.  At every stage, the ceiling of expectations becomes higher.  I believe the delay [of the issue] like many other things is not justified.”

Perhaps this is an astute observation considering the Saudi Government have yet to make an official statement on the approval of the expert committee's recommendations.

She also believes that courts, which serve both men and women, can't be composed of men only and that the presence of qualified women in the courtrooms will benefit both female lawyers and female clients.

Nevertheless, she does have reservations about the scope of clients and cases for women lawyers within the new policy, believing that the Justice Ministry will be expect female lawyers to defend only female clients.

However the statutes are borne out, the announcement is being hailed as a radical step forward for women in a kingdom which is highly conservative when it comes to gender segregation, particularly in public places and in relation to the provision of goods and services.

Women are still not allowed to drive and they as yet have no vote.

So, what is happening here is not gender parity.  Far from it.

But as Hatoun Al Fassi says, it is a 'major step' for women in Saudi Arabia.

Let’s hope it’s one of many.