Women's Views on News |
- It’s not what you say
- Red carpet green dress, no poison
- What Shakespeare can teach us about rape culture
- Don’t forget Fukushima
| Posted: 14 Mar 2014 08:30 AM PDT
Mary Beard is as famous for her strong feminist views as she is for being disgustingly abused on social media for her feminist views. She recently held a lecture entitled 'The Public Voice of Women' which could also have been called 'the battered voice of women'. There was a sentence in her lecture that I have always found of interest, in terms of the abuse received for having an opinion. She said 'it is not what you say that prompts reaction, it's the fact you're saying it'. It sometimes seems we are so used to receiving abuse that when Mary Beard reported she had received bomb threats, death threats and threats to rape her we just hopped on to the next tweet, shaking our heads. It's normal to get threats when you're a woman standing up for yourself, isn't it? This got me thinking about my writing. It is not a vast career yet, the odd rant here and there and now most recently for WVoN. When I approached WVoN about writing for them I was warned early on that I could receive negative and nasty remarks. I responded by saying that that wasn’t unexpected – and that in itself gave me a jolt. I expected to receive abuse for my writing. I've experienced it before. Apparently I appear on the 'Men's Rights Activism' page on Facebook. I can't bring myself to 'like' the page to see their full comments, but I can see that I am accused of 'bashing the celebration of single father parenthood'. Yes, because that is what I said. Not. It is easier now than ever to get our message across, about feminism. Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, WordPress. To me, feminism is literally all about one thing: equality. I'm not asking for more, just to be treated equally, to be paid equally, to get equal parental rights, to have an equal chance of being an MP, to have an equal chance of walking down the road with the same reassurance as a man that my breasts won't be commented on. That's all. Why should I get abused for that? Mary Beard spoke of what many of us know: that it is all down to history and the effects of that male-dominated society which still stifles and surrounds us today. The female voice is unexpected and unwanted. We still have to fight to be heard, to have a voice. That is a lot easier said than done. Being a feminist isn't popular. It certainly isn't popular with many men. And unfortunately it also isn't very popular with many women. I often feel that people who know me view me as a moaner, whinger, complainer and can almost hear their 'here she goes again' mutterings. I even set up a separate Facebook group because I thought I was getting on my friends’ nerves on my personal page with my posts about immigrants, benefits, sexism and domestic abuse. Not popular subjects. I enjoy running my separate group, but sadly I'm now mainly talking to the converted. I can't help myself having a voice. I spent most of my childhood living with domestic abuse and ended up with a rather strong, determined mum from it all. It was out of my control to not be passionate about equality for women. One voice might stop one women being controlled and abused in that way. So I can't stop. However, I also acknowledge reluctantly that my voice isn't popular. But why not? The other day someone put up a 'joke' on Facebook – find the word in the puzzle and that describes the person you are. 'Gay' was the only word in the puzzle. There were many comments from various people and 'jokes'. I commented about the word gay being used to make fun of people and how dull it was. The person took the post down, to be fair. But I just knew that people who saw my complaint would be thinking – can't she take a joke? Yes, actually, I can. I love a joke, a laugh, a giggle, but not at the expense of an individual. My main issue really, that I keep having with myself, is why aren't other women, or all women, doing the same, having a good whinge about stuff? I don't mean just whinging in life or being a bitch or hateful or slagging off men, I just mean standing up for themselves, shouting out – or even whispering assertively – when things are wrong. Unfairness. It's wrong. So say so. When I was in school many moons ago when leg warmers were fashionable and my frizzy curly hair was the look everyone wanted along with the wide yellow belt and oversized turquoise shirt (yes, honestly), I couldn’t take metal work, woodwork or play football and rugby as a sport. I had no choice but to wear my Marks and Sparks navy A-line skirt to school with white knee-high socks. I was too scared to accept my sexuality. And my careers advisor told me I'd make a good secretary. Thankfully, now it's different. My daughter may have wished the sports part had not changed, but she was able to play football (reluctantly) and it was just accepted that she'd go to university, and she got to make weird shaped key rings out of metal and once an ever-so-handy badly-shaped bottle opener. The point is, now, everywhere, girls are playing rugby if they want and schools no longer decide that sewing is for girls and woodwork is for boys. Girls can say confidently they want to be engineers and a boy can be a hairdresser without question. How did this change? Did it change because women didn’t say anything? Are all my friend's daughters playing football down the park because women kept quiet? No. People may not always like it, but we're not hurting anyone, I'm not hurting men by having a voice, my son, brothers and step-dad know I'm not a 'man hater' (see how I have to justify myself!) – I hate inequality, not men. Should I expect abuse because of this? The very short answer is. No.  |
| Red carpet green dress, no poison Posted: 14 Mar 2014 07:40 AM PDT
Never mind the catwalks of New York, Paris, Milan and London, the red carpet at the Oscar's is the place to check out the latest high fashion trends, and this year’s ‘runway’ was sprinkled with Armanis and Diors. But former Bond girl Olga Kurylenko and Twilight star Kellan Lutz made fashion statements of a different kind – turning the red carpet green with unique, sustainable designs created by Red Carpet Green Dress. Now in its fifth year, the Red Carpet Green Dress (RCGD) challenge is a contest for innovative designers to showcase stunning fashion made to the highest environmental standards possible. This year’s winning designs, by French fashion design student Alice Elia and Jomnarn Dul from H Brothers, were shown at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony. Olga's dress and Lutz’'s tuxedo married green design with intricate couture worthy of the Hollywood glamour. Kurylenko's gown was made from 100 per cent Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) certified organic peace silk and 100 per cent GOTS certified organic silk. It was first hand-dyed with Sappanwood – a legume which produces a reddish-coloured dye and is sustainable due to its fast growth rate – then overdyed with madder root to give it a deeper shade of red. Her shoes were a first time collaboration between PETA and Beyond Skin, a UK-based ethical footware and fashion label, for Red Carpet Green Dress. The vegan, faux suede, metallic-trimmed shoes were made from Dinamica, a durable material made in Italy from 100 per cent recycled bottle tops. These designs give us a glimpse into the fashion industry's potential to make clothing that doesn't pollute our planet. But environmentally friendly fashion like this should not be the exception, it should be the norm. RCGD might have been turning the carpet green but, unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many of the other fashion labels that filled the Oscar's ceremony. Greenpeace International’s latest investigation showed the presence of hazardous chemicals in children’s clothing made by eight luxury fashion brands including Dior, Versace, Louis Vuitton and Dolce&Gabbana. Sixteen of the 27 tested products (59 per cent) were found to contain one or more of the following hazardous chemicals: nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), phthalates, per- or polyfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), and antimony. These chemicals are being released into our rivers, streams and lakes not only from textile manufacturing sites in production centres like China, but also from pieces of clothing bought and sold around the world. Once released into waterways, many of these substances can be hazardous, hormone-disrupting and persist in the environment, posing risks to the health of all children and adults everywhere. Brands like Versace, Louis Vuitton, Dior and Dolce&Gabbana should detox our clothes and our future now: click here to send them a letter demanding toxic-free fashion. People-power in the form of signatures from and letters sent by campaign supporters has already helped convince 20 companies, including Burberry and Valentino, to commit to making beautiful fashion that doesn't cost the earth. The Detox campaign has shown that the fashion industry can lead the way to a toxic-free future. 19 global brands, from budget giant Primark to luxury labels like Valentino, have already made lasting commitments to Detox. Greenpeace is calling on clothing brands to rid their clothes and production processes of hazardous chemicals. Sign the Detox Fashion Manifesto. Environmentally friendly fashion should not be the exception, it should be the norm.  |
| What Shakespeare can teach us about rape culture Posted: 14 Mar 2014 05:10 AM PDT
However, his messages about patriarchy and rape aren't familiar enough. By Leigh Kolb. Our regular cross-post from Bitchflicks. Content warning for discussion of rape. ‘Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee When a story about a girl who was raped and subsequently shunned and blamed breaks, I'm no longer surprised. It's familiar. Townspeople gathering behind the rapists–just like in Steubenville–seems like the natural course of things in our toxic rape culture. She shouldn't have been so drunk. She couldn't say no. These boys are promising young athletes. When Shakespeare wrote Titus Andronicus and The Rape of Lucrece in the late 1500s, women were quite literally the property of men (their fathers, then their husbands). The rape culture that plagues us in 2013 was essentially the same, although laws of coverture have dissolved and women are no longer legally property. And Shakespeare understood the horror of rape. Shakespeare–more than 400 years ago–seemed to understand that patriarchy hurts women. Patriarchy kills women. Patriarchy is rape culture. Last week, I read about the Maryville case with the familiar dread that accompanies these too-frequent stories. When it happens in my state in a town that looks like mine, it's even closer. But I'm never surprised. As I was watching Titus with my Shakespeare class, I readied myself for the rape scene (which Julie Taymor handles brilliantly). When Lavinia's uncle, Marcus, finds her brutalized, he delivers a long monologue, mourning the sexual violence that she has gone through. At the end of the monologue, he says, as she turns away, “Do not draw back, for we will mourn with thee It took my breath away like it hadn't before, and I checked the text to read the exact quote. I paused the film and asked my students if they'd heard of the Maryville case (in which the victim and her family were basically chased out of town after the case against the perpetrators was dropped). They hadn't. I explained, and re-read the final couplet of Marcus's monologue. Is this how we respond to women who are raped in our culture? What if we did? What if we rallied behind not the rapists, but the one who was raped? What if we never said, “I am not saying she deserved to be raped, but…” What if all of this happened immediately and swiftly in our own communities, and not after a case gets national attention? In Shakespeare's texts, it's clear that the rapists are sub-human and villainous. Even when rape isn't part of the plot, he shows the figurative and literal violence of patriarchy. Hermia's father is willing to kill her if she doesn't marry who he wants her to marry in A Midsummer Night's Dream. ("I would my father look'd but with my eyes," she says.) Hamlet's Ophelia commits suicide when she descends into madness being pushed and pulled by patriarchal pressures. (She says to her brother after he advises her to be chaste and virtuous, "Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, / Show me the steep and thorny way to heaven; / Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, / Himself the primrose path of dalliance treads, / And recks not his own rede.") Emilia's views on the patriarchal constraints of marriage and sexuality in Othello seem radical today. Shakespeare understood. Why can't we? In Titus Andronicus, Lavinia is brutally raped and disfigured (including having her tongue cut out so she couldn't speak). This nod to Philomela in Ovid's Metamorphoses echoes the themes of the brutality of rape and the need for revenge. The women needed to name their rapists and share their stories (Lavinia writes in the sand; Philomela weaves a tapestry that tells her story). The women have as much power as they can in the confines of their society, and we the audience are meant to want justice and revenge. Lavinia writes the rapists' names in the sand. The men surrounding her are not unlike Anonymous in the Maryville case. Shakespeare's epic poem The Rape of Lucrece also follows a young woman who is raped and seeks revenge (although her speech is left intact). While the death of the women at the end of the plays seems problematic to 21st-century feminists, we must remember that in Shakespeare's Roman fictions, self-sacrifice or honor killing was honorable and dignified, thus leaving the women with as satisfying an end as they could hope for. There are cultural differences, of course, but the anti-rape and anti-misogyny messages in these centuries-old texts are gripping. In these texts, the following messages are clear: Rapists are depraved misogynists who want some kind of power. Silencing of women is evil. Women aren't always allies (see: Tamora, who mothers and encourages Rape and Murder) . Retribution is necessary for justice. Four-hundred years later, we still can't seem to grasp these realities. We look to media for social norms and values. If we see objectification of women on screen, we can clearly see the if this objectification has deeper feminist implications if we are supposed to villainize the objectifiers. (This is, incidentally, why the sexism in The Big Bang Theory makes my skin crawl and Sons of Anarchy–in all of its vengeful Shakespearian glory–is one of my favorite shows.) Shakespeare's women–who are victims of violent patriarchies–are the ones the audience is supposed to sympathize with. The tragedy of these tragedies is that this patriarchal social order creates hell on earth for many women. At the beginning of Titus, Lavinia pours a vial of her tears in her father's honor as he returns home from war. She mourns and rejoices with him and is able to express her emotions surrounding his losses and his victories. Mourning with him comes naturally. It's what we expect when men encounter battles. And just as Marcus says that they must mourn with Lavinia, she must not withdraw, we need to learn to mourn with those who rape culture affects so deeply. In 2013: Rapists are still misogynists who do not want sex, but want power. Women are still silenced. (And when they speak out, it is not without consequences.) Women still aren't always allies. Retribution is still necessary, although we must fight to see it happen (and rely on online hackers and internet outrage to open up cases). Far too often we must wait for justice, if it ever comes. When we can look to fiction from centuries ago and see common and familiar–almost radical–representations of the violent outcomes of restrictive patriarchies, we are doing something wrong. Because the masses still don't seem to understand that patriarchy hurts women. Patriarchy kills women. Patriarchy is rape culture.  |
| Posted: 14 Mar 2014 02:09 AM PDT
On 11 March 2011, one of the most powerful earthquakes on record hit north-east Japan. The resulting tsunami killed almost 20,000 people, and caused a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. Kaori Saito watched the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster unfold on TV from her living room in Fukushima City, roughly 60 kilometres away. When the government instructed her to keep her two young children indoors to avoid radiation, she asked her husband if they could move away. He said no and refused to discuss it further. Mrs Saito argued with her children when they wanted to play outside, and washed their clothes constantly. The constant worry inflicted a psychological toll, and in August 2011 she moved away, divorcing her husband a year later. Today she lives with her children in a government-subsidised apartment in the mountains of Nagano, almost 400km southwest of Fukushima City. "I felt I had no choice if I was going to protect them," she says. "It's been very hard," she admits. "All our relatives are in Fukushima. The children get to see their grandparents twice a year, if they're lucky." Genpatsu rikon (nuclear divorce) is one of the less-documented problems to have emerged since the triple meltdown at the Daiichi plant. Nobody knows how many couples have been pulled apart by the disaster, but anecdotes suggest dozens, perhaps hundreds of families permanently separated. In most cases, mothers have moved away from Fukushima Prefecture, leaving behind husbands who are tethered to work or simply don't believe the radiation is harmful. Government estimates say that 270,000 people from the Tohoku (northeast) region remain scattered throughout Japan since the tsunami/earthquake/nuclear disaster began. Of these, 146,520 were forced to abandon their homes in or near the government's mandatory 20km evacuation zone. Tens of thousands more have fled voluntarily. About a third of the refugees are in their sixties or older, and about 100,000 of the refugees live in temporary accommodation. For many, this means hastily built, two-roomed homes closely packed into available land in towns and cities around Fukushima Prefecture. Many of the homes are starting to decay. Thousands more share houses with relatives. For Yuki Segawa and her three young children life now is a government-built apartment in the northern suburbs of Tokyo, a three-hour drive from her home in Koriyama, Fukushima Prefecture. She has held her family together – just. Her husband Yoshinobu drives from Koriyama to be with the family on weekends. Like many refugees, she says the hardest part of life away from home is being separated from the network of family and friends that once cushioned life. In November 2013, a top government official acknowledged what evacuees have known since 2011: Many will never return home. Shigeru Ishiba, secretary general of the ruling Liberal Democrats (LDP) said the "time will come" when the government will have to reverse its policy of allowing everyone back. For now, however, families like the Segawas live in limbo. The most contaminated areas, with annual radiation doses of at least 50 millisieverts (home to about 25,000 people) are still designated "difficult-to-return-to areas", a government-coined euphemism for permanent homelessness. Minako Sugano, a mother of three from Yanagawa Town, Date City, in Fukushima Prefecture, and a former kindergarten teacher, is constantly worried about the health of her children. They moved from an area recommended for evacuation to another, less contaminated area in Date City. “Although the children are evacuated, they still commute to schools in high-dose radiation areas, and as of last year one of my children started elementary school,” she explains. “I tried to organise a transfer to another school and then to buy land and a house, but due to being in the fourth year of my mortgage there were restrictions and conditions on how much I could borrow, so I am going nowhere fast with this. “Just as I was proceeding with applying for national aid available in the form of a disaster restoration housing loan, I discovered that the evacuation order had been lifted, meaning I no longer qualified for this aid. “It never occurred to me that I would be forced to return to a high radiation-dose area on the back of just one case of decontamination and measurement. “I am trying to improve my situation now, but am not making the slightest progress. “I want to protect my children. What kind of parents knowingly take their kids into a place that they know is dangerous?” Organic farmer Tatsuko Okawara is married, has five children, and has farmed for 30 years. She thought of giving up farming but instead now runs a farmers' shop that sells local produce to help the farming community. The radiation level is noted on the foods. The family evacuated to Koriyama right after the disaster. But her husband said: "I cannot leave the chicken and the cows." The three children who live with them said: "We don't want to leave our friends and the house." They returned. She and her husband turned over ten to twenty centimetres of the topsoil and then chose to grow vegetables that don't go too deep, like the short carrots they grow now. Vegetables less prone to absorbing radiation. They decided to continue being farmers. Tatsuko Okawara is also a puppeteer. She plays a puppet show at her shop. The story is about a couple affected by a nuclear disaster. She created the tale, which is based on her friends' true experiences, so that their story is not forgotten. So people do not forget what happened at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants almost three years ago; do not forget that the disaster continues. “Forgetting things means there is a chance that it can be repeated. That is my message,” she says. “That is the theory of history. People who forget what the war is like always trigger the war. She is calm: "Forgetting things is very scary. "Forgetting Fukushima makes it more likely that such a nuclear disaster could happen elsewhere," she said.  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Women's Views on News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |