(Trigger warning for discussion of violence against women)
Million Women Rise is a march and rally which takes place anually in London (not to be confused with Billion Women Rise, which is a completely different thing). MWR was founded in 2007 by Sabrina Qureshi, a campaigner and former womens’ sector advocacy worker. The event’s organisers are grassroots campaigners, without corporate endorsements or ties to large charities or NGOs.
This year we have already seen the rape of millions of women throughout the world and we are only in February. We have heard the German authorities apologies to a teenage girl for sending her to a brothel to get work… The Gang Rape and murder of a 17 year old girl in South Africa and the protest from our sisters in South Africa… Many of you have been at the ongoing protests supporting the voices of women of India after the gang rape in India of a young woman who is now dead… We have witnessed the Irish government commit murder of a woman who was denied her human rights to an abortion…Women in Egypt have spoken out against state sponsored Violence Against Women…
And we will not ignore the ongoing rape and genocide of our sisters and children across the world from Easten Congo to Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Palestine, Ivory Coast, Mali, Pakistan, Bangladesh, London, Bradford, Bolivia, Brazil, fromTamil women to Wales, East Europe, western Europe to the Americas to name a few.
Male violence against women is pandemic, it is organised and systematic, ENOUGH is ENOUGH!
This year’s event will take place on Saturday 9th March, meeting at 12pm Oxford Street (Outside Selfridges). Oxford Street and Regent Street will be closed as women march through the West End, ending with a rally at Trafalgar Square.
The one concern I have about this event is that the website makes no mention of whether trans women are welcome to take part, and the slogan “One Woman, One Body, One Song, One Love” sounds like it could exclude trans women. I hope that in future years the organisers will make it clear that all self-defining women are invited to come together for this important event, to rally against the misogynistic violence which hurts us all.
It’s shameless plug time: I wrote an article on creative resistance to harmful messages about body image in adverts for the Brandalism website. This was a fun one to write because it’s not much text and lots of pictures of amazing feminist art.
We’re going to send a mythbusting tweet on abortion every day for the next few weeks, and we’ll keep updating this page with the new tweets, along with references and links to additional information.
Abortion Fact #1
Roughly one in three UK women will have an abortion during her lifetime.
The 1 in 3 figure actually comes from a US study by the Guttmacher Institute. Here in the UK, according to Department of Health statistics (PDF), the age-adjusted rate of abortions per year (not per lifetime) for women aged 15-44 in 2011 was 1.75%.
Abortion Fact #2
Legal abortion is one of the safest surgical procedures there is, and carries less risk than childbirth.
It’s important to note that this is only true in the case of legal abortions performed by medical professionals. Globally it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries. Unsafe abortion is believed to result in approximately 68,000 deaths and millions of injuries annually.
Grimes, D. A.; Benson, J.; Singh, S.; Romero, M.; Ganatra, B.; Okonofua, F. E.; Shah, I. H. (2006). “Unsafe abortion: The preventable pandemic” (PDF). The Lancet 368 (9550): 1908–1919. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69481-6. PMID 17126724.
Abortion Fact #3
Women can need an abortion at any point in their reproductive lives. In 2010 9% of abortion were for girls under 18; 41% ages 18-24; 36% ages 25-34, and 14% age 35 and up.
Found via Education for Choice’s abortion facts.
Abortion Fact #4
Abortion is extremely unlikely to cause infertility, and women who have abortions can go on to have children later in life.
The exception to this would be in the case that a woman had an infection after receiving an abortion, and did not get the infection treated: in this scenario it would be possible for the infection to have an effect on future fertility. However this would be an extremely rare situation, and abortion normally does not cause infertility.
There are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility. Women with a previous induced abortion appear to be at an increased risk of infertility in countries where abortion is illegal but not in those where abortion is legal. Published studies strongly suggest that infertility is not a consequence of uncomplicated induced abortion.
A week or two ago a Slutwalk London member angered many feminists by using the group’s Twitter account, @SlutwalkLondon, to say that Julian Assange should not be sent to Sweden to face trial for rape and sexual assault. (The message has since been deleted, but it can be read at the F-word).
After a storm of outrage, she apologised:
Slutwalk London (@SlutwalkLondon)
Posted Sunday 30th September 2012 from Twitlonger
The recent views expressed regarding the extradition of Julian Assange were my own rather than those of SlutWalk London. I apologise for using this platform to express these views and hope they do not deter from the purpose of SlutWalk, which is to send the message that there is never any excuse for rape and to demand protection and justice for all rape survivors. – Anastasia Richardson http://tl.gd/jfvatv
I’d like to use this incident to look at the difficulties that can arise in non-hierarchical groups (like Feminist Action Cambridge) which don’t have clear roles and responsibilities for members. Our activism lines up with our beliefs and passions, and our activist groups often grow out of our friend groups, or we become friends with the people we do activism with. As a result there may be no clear boundary between who I am as a person, and my identity as a member of the group.
In a traditional, structured organisation, like say a charity or a political party, the person in charge of the Twitter feed would be a Media / Outreach / Public Relations officer, and would have a remit from the group to guide them in deciding what sort of messages to send. By contrast, in non-hierarchical groups like FAC, the decision process often goes something like this:
With so much overlap between our personal selves and our activist selves, it’s unsurprising that we sometimes get the two mixed up. I think the person who sent the tweet probably lost track of which of her beliefs and opinions belonged to Slutwalk London, and which belonged just to her. After all, the reason the tweet was so hurtful was that it came from the official Slutwalk London account. Many people have given time, trust, and passion to the SlutWalk movement, which is why the tweet could have felt like a betrayal. If the same tweet had been sent from an individual’s personal account it would not have generated the same amount of outrage.
I’ve been asked a couple of times to join in tweeting from the FAC Twitter account, and I’ve refused, basically because I don’t trust myself not to get carried away and tweet something inappropriate. I sympathise with the person from Slutwalk London who sent the offending tweet, even though I disagree with her opinion about Assange, because I think it’s very easy to get carried away and forget that what’s appropriate to do as an individual might not be appropriate to do on behalf of the group.
For me at least, the solution is to have a clear separation between when I am being a group member, and when I am just being me. Even though I care passionately about the groups that I’m in, no group could ever be 100% aligned with all of my views and beliefs. Sometimes I’m going to need to say something that don’t fit with the group, perhaps even something that other members of the group would strongly disagree with. That’s OK, as long as I make it clear that I’m just speaking on behalf of me and no-one else.
Things like using the appropriate Twitter account or email address can seem trivial and annoying when you’re continually logging out of one Facebook or Twitter account and in to another, but these online personas can let people know which one of your hats you were wearing when you send the message. And that can make a huge difference to how people will react.
Given that 1 in 4 women experience sexual violence at some point in their life, and that 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 10 boys experience sexual abuse at some point in their childhood, there are clearly a lot of rapists and child rapists out there. Not as many rapists as rape survivors, because one rapists will almost always abuse multiple women and children during his lifetime, but still quite a lot – somewhere between 6-13%.
Now there’s a couple of ways to respond to that statistic. The feminist way – set up rape crisis centres, campaign for legal changes, raise awareness. And then there’s the patriarchy way – how can we make some money out of this and encourage it to flourish?
6-13% of men is a significant target market, after all. 5% of the population are lesbian, gay, bisexual or trans, and that’s enough to have ‘the pink pound’. Because being LGBT isn’t disgusting (whatever some people say), corporations can speak openly about ‘the pink pound’. But they have to keep quiet about another, much bigger group of consumers who they nevertheless knowingly target – rapists. A significant amount of products and advertisements are covertly targeting ‘the rape pound’.
It has been made very clear that the topless photos of Kate Middleton published in the French magazine Closer* today were taken without her knowledge or consent. She is said to be ‘saddened’, to consider the photos ‘grotesque and unjustifiable’. She and her husband are suing the magazine. And yet, Closer are expecting, and will no doubt see, “a big increase in sales”. Think about it. They know that large numbers of people will buy a magazine they don’t usually buy, for the pleasure of participating in the sexual humiliation of a young woman. That their readers will be fully aware that the photos were taken without her knowledge or consent, and that she does not wish for them to be published, and that this will only add to the titillation and fleeting sense of power they will gain from looking at them. This is the power of the rape pound.
Closer couldn’t resist also throwing in a dose of mansplaining. Their spokesman mansplained that the photos “are by no means degrading” and “show a beautiful, in love, modern holidaying young couple, in their normal life.” “I would love a photo of my bollocks to be taken in secret, printed in a magazine and viewed by thousands of women across the country,” he did not add. Women, let us not forget, do not get to define their own reality or have the last say on their own feelings or experiences. Kate making clear that she considers the photos degrading is not relevant if a man has decided that they are not. Closer’s female editor has also described the photos as “not in the least shocking”, using that classic tactic of wheeling out a woman to defend misogyny, a gay person to defend homophobia or a black person to defend racism, which is so unimaginative even the BNP are at it.
The same misogyny has carried over into the British press, who have been at pains to quote ‘royal officials’ that “the couple could not have chosen a more secluded spot in France for their private holiday.” Again, the fact that Kate does not want the photos published is not enough. There must be proof that she made sufficient effort to avoid being photographed, as women out in public are fair game for the male sexual gaze and it’s our responsibility to try to protect ourselves from it, not theirs to view us as people not prey. Of course the British media need to propagate this view in order to justify their own shitty treatment and regular sexual humiliation of countless other women.
The outrage over this incident is not feminist but nationalistic. We do not like to see foreigners humiliating and degrading our women. That is the job of British men. The French have their own women to use.
This is a privacy issue and a press ethics issue, but it is also a feminist issue. Kate Middleton is a royal and a celebrity, but whatever your opinion of the royal family and the system of class and race privilege it represents, she is also a woman, living in a patriarchy, being humiliated and controlled by that patriarchy. And no-one hurts our sister and gets away with it.
*And the owner of Closer magazine in France? None other than notorious misogynist Silvio Berlusconi.
No More Page 3 is a campaign against the inclusion of topless photos of young women of page 3 of daily newspaper ‘the Sun’. I’ll admit that I’d never heard of this campaign until their Twitter account, @nomorepage3, was shut down. What did @nomorepage3 tweet that led to the suspension? Was it really bad enough for this act of censorship to be warranted? There’s no way to find out, and those tweets have hidden and thus removed from our collective memory.
I have the greatest respect for people who take the time to contact Twitter’s @support about this, but I’m not going to join in. I find myself wondering, why do we have to ask Twitter nicely if we can please communicate online? Why do we have to plead with them to recognise that a feminist campaign against a newspaper’s day-to-day portrayal of women as objects is not offensive – why does Twitter INC get to decide that?
We can’t know for certain why @nomorepage3’s account was suspended, but I think I can make an educated guess: News Corporation solicitors contacted Twitter’s legal department, complaining that @nomorepage3 had infringed on their rights in some way (perhaps copyright infringement or libel) and threatened a lawsuit. When a large company makes a threat like this it doesn’t actually matter to Twitter whether the complaint is real or not – just going to court in a case like this would be hugely expensive. In order to avoid such a lawsuit, Twitter suspends the account first, and investigates second. This is how we end up in a situation where threats of violence against feminist bloggers on Twitter are so common that it’s seen almost as a rite of passage, and are ignored by Twitter’s moderators, yet even very mild criticisms of corporations often result in account suspensions.
This post is a review of two free ebooks: “Occupy Theory” by Michael Albert and Mandisi Majavu (PDF), and “Occupy Vision” by Michael Albert and Mark Evans (PDF). As the names suggest, these books are being put forward as a potential unifying ideology for the Occupy movement, and for the anti-capitalist movement more generally. The ideas in these books also form an ideological basis for the International Organisation for a Participatory Society (IOPS).
A key figure in all this is Michael Albert, an academic and lifelong activist who co-authored both books. In the dedication to “Occupy Theory”, it’s made clear that the ideas in this book are being put forward as a potential unifying ideology for both the IOPS, and for the Occupy movement itself.