The body and the bloody

After a few intense weeks working on my dissertation I decided to steer clear of my bibliography and have a nosey into the Guardian’s life and style section. After a brief imaginary argument with Mariella I stumbled across a mention of an amazing new American advert for Always sanitary towels, featuring a very small, but very definately red spot.

That’s right people, you read that correctly: some very brave and progressively minded American has made the bold decision to make metaphorical mention of blood in menstrual advertising.
STOP THE PRESSES!!

Ok, I may make light of this, and I know you may laugh, but this is actually pretty big news. I’m sure you’re all familiar with the “ubiquitous blue liquid”, as so many critics describe it, that represents blood as various menstrual products’ resilience is proven by women jumping out of aeroplanes or (even more shockingly) dancing.

Blood and the bleeding body is notoriously absent from not only menstrual advertising, but menstrual discourse in general: popular literature, film, television, and young girls’ and women’s lifestyle magazines. In all its forms, menstrual discourse is conflated with ideas of femininity and acceptable female sexuality, with constant references to hygienic menstrual management and the restrictions we experience in our daily lives as a result of our mischeivous reproductive systems. The process of menstruation is discussed at menarche and menopause as the woman-body enters new phases in life and is assigned a new social and sexual status. But the actual monthly experience of ‘having periods’ is normally absent from menstrual discourse. Instead we find discussion of menstrual management – odour control, avoiding leaks, hiding signs of PMS and other associated discomfort, how to engage in physical activity so that no-one could possibly guess that you were on the blob – all of which require women to publically deny one of the most natural occurances of their bodies. After all, menstruation is simultaneously the absense of pregnancy and the presense of sexual potentiality, and only a fallen woman could possibly find herself in this social void…

The ability to successfully control this particular aspect of the woman-body is synonamous with success as a social woman, one who acts respectively of social tradition and taboo. A failure to control the visibility of menstrual blood is very dangerous, as such a failure has the potential to traumatise our entire understanding of womanhood and disrupt the logic of femininity.

The long standing career of the ubiquitous blue liquid has therefore played a very important role in the sale and consumption of menstrual products. By reinforcing the myth of femininity it has caused generations of women to buy into products that claim to control all of the dreadful menstrual symtoms that may possibly let other people know that shhhhh… I’m on my period. I mean heaven forbid you be sexually mature and not up the duff. What kind of woman does that make you?? You shrew, you dyke, you frigid failure!

Now I’m not suggesting that we get rid of menstrual products and girls just bleed down their legs, ok? I’m not weird. I just think that we need to shake things up with a little bit of menstrual terrorism. No more calling them ‘sanitary products’ for starters – I’m very clean thank you, I just happen to be on my period. And a few less girls thinking that mooncups are gross – they’re the best things ever, and the’re totally environmentally awesome. Or perhaps just laughing about periods and making people acknowledge their bloody existance, like the ‘Adventures in Menstruating’ gals, Chella Quint and Sarah Thomasin.

Of course I don’t expect you to go taking Germaine Greer’s advice and tasting your own menstrual blood in order to assert yourself as a real feminist (after all, who’s she to talk? She’s a shit feminist these days.) Nor do I expect you to start joining in with Ingrid Berthon-Moine’s menstrual art. However, I would like a few less people to think that it’s weird and gross and unhygienic etc etc. What’s weird and gross is pretending that your period is blue, because guess what? My period isn’t blue. And tampon, towel, mooncup or nothing at all, if I want to go dancing I will damn well go dancing.

So, I went on Slutwalk.

Despite my reservations, my political panic and my determination to not be confused with any wannabe sluts, the London Slutwalk was nothing short of fantastic. The real message of the campaign shone through the torn fishnets as marchers waved banners that read ‘slut is a social construct’, ‘I am not a slut’ and ‘I was wearing jeans and a jumper’.

The event had 1500 ‘likes’ on Facebook, and so the organisers had sensibly assumed that only a portion would actually attend. If you have ever tried to organise an event on Facebook you will know that as a rule of thumb you should never expect more than half of your confirmed attendees to actually bother showing up, and so it is rumoured that the organisers expected only 500 on the day. The old adage there’s no such thing as bad publicity has now been proved true though, as over 3,000 people congregated near Hyde Park Corner ready to march.

The march itself was fun and shouty, and it was heartwarming to see youngsters chanting for the first time (I assume it was their first time because ‘stop slut shaming, start rapist blaming’ somehow morphed into ‘stop slut shaming, start racist haming (sic)’, which made me giggle, made the woman next to me guffaw and left her pal looking very confused…). It was also really awesome to see that at least 80% of the crowd were just wearing regular civvies, rather than ‘slut’ constumes, and that feminist groups were all taking the opportunity to circulate flyers and pamphlets, letting the younger protesters know that feminism didn’t start at Slutwalk and certainly won’t end there either.

There were news reporters and cameras moving through the crowd, which could well have glorified the ‘slut’ and ‘angry feminist’ element of the march – indeed, at one point a photographer complained that my friend and I had stopped chanting and so no longer looked angry – but if they didn’t realise the real motive from the march, the placards and the chanting, they sure must have realised it when they got to the rally.

With speakers from organisations such as Women Against Rape, Black Women’s Rape Action Project, and the English Collective of Prostitutes, WinVisible, Gender Action for Peace and Security, and an individual that spoke as a representative of the trans community, the rally covered a range of experiences and opinions that left many in the crowd comforted to know that they weren’t alone. It opened people’s eyes to the ways in which sexual violence has been masquerading in our societes for millenia as an uncontrollable male urge, and how the shame we are taught at a young age only acts to protect perpertraors of violence. We heard about female immigrants being offered papers in exchange for sex, and we heard of the frequent attacks upon sex workers, who are often too fearful of arrest themselves to report these crimes.

The Slutwalk organisers, both currently completing their A level exams, are now continuing their campaign under the name ‘Slut Means Speak Up’. Keep an eye on their blog for news on upcoming protests. It’s exciting to know that they didn’t want the march to be a one-off event and it will be interesting to see what they do with the publicity and support they achieved.

Conclusion: I had fun and will be following the campaign.

Slutwalk, part 2. I’m still confused.

The London Slutwalk is eeking closer…

I’m really excited about the Hijabs, Hoodies and Hotpants bloc that will be present at the London Slutwalk! This bloc is, to me, exactly what the Slutwalk is about: a real show of solidarity against rape myths. We will all have a different opinion on how each other chooses to dress (I personally hate floral leggings) and we will have different political stances around hijabs (or any female ‘covering’), hoodies and/or hotpants, but I’m pretty sure that we can all agree that there is no item of clothing, mode of behaviour or lifestyle choice that can justify being subjected to rape. It also highlights that the reasons for rape are vast and more often to do with control and violence than with an irrepressible sexual urge that arose at the sight of a fishnetted thigh.

BUT I STILL DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW OR WHY ANYONE IS TRYING TO RECLAIM ‘SLUT’!

I don’t want to be a slut.
I just don’t want my sex to be subjected to your judgment.

What are the slut-reclaimers planning on doing with the word once they’ve announced their reclaimance of it? Are they planning on changing its meaning, or do they just want to neutralise it? Because, while I am all in favour of this ‘wear what you want/shag who you like (consuensually, obvs)/don’t shag around/your sexaul activity doesn’t define you’ mentality, surely having a single word that describes a mode of dress and behaviour and pigeonholes a person based on their sexual expression completely negates any plight for sexual liberalism.

And what the fuck are you doing holding a fundraiser in a ‘gentlemen’s club’?? These establishments are profiting from the wholesale commodification of women. They only exist because our society is sexist enough to have conceived them and then permitted their continued existance. Jeez…

But I’ll still see y’all on the march, yeah? Solidarity and all that. But, just not as a slut-reclaimer.

Slutwalk

The London Feminist Network forum is filling my inbox with angry emails again. I subscribe to their mailing list in a bid to keep up to date with feminist happenings (causes, petitions, protests, events, lectures…etc) and every now and again an interesting discussion arises that brings into question the future of feminism.

A few weeks ago I stumbled across Slutwalk, a worldwide campaign that encourages women to march and protest against rape. The walks were started in Toronto after a group of women were told by a police officer that they should stop dressing like sluts if they want to avoid getting raped. Obviously this advice didn’t go down too well with the women in town and so they set up the first Slutwalk protest, more of which are set to begin in the UK this month and over 5,200 noted on Facebook to attend the Hyde Park walk. They encourage women and girls to demand the right to not get raped, whatever they are wearing, and to put an end to ‘slut-shaming’ and victim-blaming in rape cases. The name is an attempt to reclaim the word ‘slut’, as is the encouragement of ‘slutty’ outfits on the march.

A valient cause, right? And in essense it is the same cause that the Reclaim The Night marches have been fighting since the 1970s. But for some reason the London Feminist Network is very angry about the Slutwalks…

They are objecting to the name ‘Slutwalk’ and claim that there is no power to be gained from reclaiming mysoginist words.

Fair enough.

The march’s organisers hope that by reclaiming the word ‘slut’ women are also able to reclaim the power held over their bodies and female sexuality. It’s a very riot grrrl philosophy, and it’s one that is direct and effective if you want to cause a stir. But I’m afraid that I have to side with the angry feminists agree with them about this – I don’t think that there is anything posisitive to come of keeping such words alive in our language. Attempting to reclaim ‘slut’ only asserts women’s right to initiate sex and have it on their own terms. But the inequality of sexual politics runs much deeper than this, and only getting rid of the word completely will allow women to fully reclaim their sexuality.

But underneath the naivity of its exterior the Slutwalk is both a valient and popular show of cross-gender solidarity against sexism. Yes, they only scratch the surface of the problem, and no, the word ‘slut’ (reclaimed or otherwise) will not and should not have any longevity within progressive feminist activity, but that doesn’t mean that these marches aren’t positive. The participants are being proactive and should be praised for this. They should be encouraged to explore the feminist arguments that support their plight and engage with feminist discourse. But instead the feminist groups are moaning about Slutwalk, without offering an appealing alternative.

Well done LFN, you’ve just gone and isolated people EVEN FURTHER from feminism.

Being a feminist isn’t something many people admit to in public anymore. But Slutwalk contains thousands of women offering their support to one of the most fundamental demands of the feminist movement and a very basic demand of our human rights – to not be raped. Perhaps they just don’t see this as a feminist fight because, you know, feminism isn’t cool. Or perhaps they don’t see it as a feminist demand because it so bloody obvious that no-one ever deserves to get raped.

But whilst Slutwalk may not be a name that this campaign can run with in the long term, and even though we must place a (hopeful) expiry date on words like ‘slut’, Slutwalk has created a stir in the media about sexual consent and perceptions of sexual intention. The readers’ comments that follow articles about the campaign show just how big a problem we still face:

“Rape is an utterly dreadful crime, and perpertrators should get the death penalty. But women must take some responsibility for their own actions, and I’m sorry, but going out in your underwear with parts of your body that should remain covered up on show is only asking for trouble….FACT, like it or not!” (Daily Mail reader comment, funnily enough)

The Reclaim The Night marches, whilst popular, are very much feminist marches, and so the many young people who do not associate themselves with feminism are reluctant to get involved. Like many feminist events, some people find them intimidating, inaccessable and separatist. I have to say, I kind of agree. Because of its reputation it took a long time before I really identified with feminism, declared my political leanings or started to be activley involved.

But Slutwalk is a cause that people are getting behind regardless of their political affiliation. I think that that is AWESOME, and so while I will not be dressing as a slut, and I most certainly won’t be calling myself or anyone else a slut either, I will be in attendance at Slutwalk.

Tory MP claims: “Feminism has widened the poverty gap”

Have you read this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1372172/David-Willetts-Feminism-widened-poverty-gap-set-social-mobility-decades.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The Universities Minister, David Willetts made it into the papers today with his ridiculous claims that feminism has widened the poverty gap, that it has caused the halt in social mobility and that it has forced working men onto welfare and benefits. Apparently feminism is a hobby for middle class women who haven’t given a second thought for the consequences of their campaigning, because whilst the feminists have been fighting for jobs to be offered indiscriminate of gender, men have been facing the possibility of increased competition.

Mr. Willetts seems to think that the only significant benefits of feminism has been the increase in women’s access to education, specifically middle class women’s access to universities, and that whilst this is a great acheivement, this access needs to spread more evenly. According to the Daily Mail he said that, “he did not want to see the gains made by middle-class women reversed, but added that policymakers had a duty to ensure any gains in social mobility were spread more evenly in the future.” Is he/the Mail really trying to imply that feminism fights only for women’s equality, at the expense of other social groups that have been overshadowed by white, middle class men? Does he really think that access to education is the only thing that feminists have been campaigning and fighting for?

Because it’s not.

Feminism has fought for equal access to education for everyone regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, or race. It has fought for equal access to fairly paid work. It has fought for the right of every individual to live free from the intimidation of prejudice. It has reduced the stigma of single parenthood and worked to strengthen support networks for single mothers. It has campaigned for better help, support and access to facilities for survivors of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, and postnatal depression. It continues to work tirelessy to stop the sexualisation and objectification of women in the hope that in the future we really we will be on a level playing field. What’s really disappointing is that Willett seems to think that women have now acheived equality, when the UK actually only ranks 15th in the 2010 Global Gender Gap Report.

More shocking though is his claim that feminism has “trumped egalitarianism” in slowing social mobility. I’m sorry… Is egalitarianism a bad thing too? Well, maybe it is if you’re a tory…

Of course pursuing a truly egalitarian state will be a long-winded mission – there are thousands of years of patriarchal bullshit to wade through and remove from the public consciousness first – but any changes made to the surface of public policy without due attention being paid to any bias in social and cultural attitudes will fail to be sustainable. Does he not realise anything short of egalitarian is simply a condescending political band aid that we will not be fooled by? And of course it will seem that the country is getting poorer if we’re trying to pay for increasing and necessary public services services without the rich businessmen and bankers contributing fairly to it.

What a wanker.
Eat shit Willett.

Can porn be feminist?

I would like to start this post with: “The Guardian bravely published an article about feminist porn”, but unfortunately the article wasn’t particularly brave at all, so instead I will begin this post with the following sentence:

The Guardian published an article about feminist porn this week.

You can read it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/mar/22/porn-women

I am glad that the recent increase in women-made porn is being noticed by the media, as I think it could offer a really interesting contribution to the debates surrounding the ‘pro-sex movement’, women’s attempts to reclaim their sexuality, and also notions of sexual liberalism. I worry that too many feminists are quick to dismiss women-made porn as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and so the discourses that we have about pornography are liable to becoming stale and out of date. We all know that for feminism to acheive its ends we must maintain its relevence and this often means engaging with new narratives and ways of thinking that on the surface may seem very anti-feminism. Only by engaging with and understanding the barriers to gender equality can we continue to pursue it. And so, to any feminists out there who are tempted to brush this self-proclaimed feminist porn into the ‘bullshit’ category, I encourage you to read on and reconsider. We may not come to a different conclusion, but we can certainly give it a chance to defend itself. Can porn ever be feminist? And if so, can the women-made porn currently available be described as feminist?

Firtsly, I think that it is really important that we address women-made porn separately from mainstream porn, because it is so deliberately intending to be different. This intentionality is very important as it highlights two things about female pornographers. One, that there is something about mainstream porn that they vehemently don’t like and don’t want to reproduce, and two, that there is something about the concept of pornography that they do like, that they enjoy watching and that they want to share with their audience. What they don’t like is the artificiality of the porn experience – the fake climaxes, the hair and nail extensions, the tedious and often irrelevent script, the post production editing that does not reveal a convincing timeline of events – and these are the things that the female pornographers are changing. They want their actors to enjoy the film making process as much as possible so that the film has a more genuine quality. They want their actors to be as wholly representative of their audience as possible, which means that the girls who do not fit the proscribed porn ‘look’ can be in the main movie, not the accompanying fetish DVD (and you actually stand a chance of seeing pubic hair in these films). They want women to be able to watch other women enjoying sex, and so their films focus as much (if not more) on the female particpants as the male. These female pornographers really do seem to want women to enjoy their movies and really do seem to have good intentions.

But just because women make these movies for a female audience does not necessarily make them feminist.

The underlying issue with feminist porn is that it assumes an inherent need for women to enjoy watching it as much as men enjoy watching it. It also makes a massive assumption that it is totally normal for people – all people – to want to watch porn. This is where the discussion becomes problemtic.

There are definately voyeuristic elements to the consumption of porn, and voyeurism is a well accepted sexual fetish, but I don’t think that we can suggest that everyone who watches porn is watching it to indulge voyeuristic urges. Most people watch porn to indulge their sexuality as a whole or to affirm it. They watch it out of curiosity or they watch it because a loved one/friend/partner wants them to. The danger with watching porn for these reasons is that it is then pivotal in shaping our sexualities. It fuels the normalisation of particular sexual acts and, by their exclusion, stigmatises others (who does it missionary anymore?). It misguides the sexually curious and leaves them with their questions half answered (I think I might be gay, but I don’t want to be if that is how they do it). Whilst many people think that porn is sexually liberating, I just don’t agree. To indulge our own sexuality with no risk of stigma is liberating, but these reenactments merely allude to sexual liberation, imitating it for our entertainment. We cannot be liberated by watching an imitation of it, only be doing it and experiencing it firsthand. If what constitutes sexual liberation differs from person to person, surely porn, by offering pigeonholes and encouraging routinized sexual behaviour, is quite counterproductive. Even if the actors are loving every minute of their performance, their liberation cannot be mine.

As for the notion that women enjoy watching porn, well I’m sure that some do, and equally that some men don’t. If you like the idea of watching other people have sex, if you really believe that the actors in the film are having the time of their lives, if they’re doing things that you like and there is no behaviour in the film that makes you uncomfortable then yes, you may genuinely enjoy watching it, and these are the kinds of films that these female directors are trying to make. However, the changes that they have made does not solve one of the biggest problems with porn: its increasing normality.

The increased normality of porn often means that anyone who doesn’t watch it, doesn’t enjoy it, is left unfulfilled by it or quite simply doesn’t get what all the fuss is about with it is left feeling like they are the ones with the sexual problem: they are frigid, they are prudes, they’re suppressing their sexuality… Whilst porn fans proclaim that it is helping to diversify our sexual tastes and reduce sexual stigmas, I can’t help but worry that this is just not the case and that it is actually proscribing sexual tendancies and leaving many people to fall in the cracks in between.

However, in spite of the arguments against porn, we must remember that the female pornographers in question do genuinely think that what they are doing is positive and progressive. They are part of a growing movement of filmakers, sex performers and fans that are pursuing liberation by displaying sexual diversity in a vast number of ways. The increased demand for female control in porn production and marketing represents a group of women who are attempting to reclaim an industry that has done little to encourage gender equality. This is positive. Their attempts to encourage performances that are representative of their audience and their audience’s current practices, is also an improvement. However, I still feel that at its core, pornography manipulates the politics of our sexuality rather than empowering us. It has been such an effective weapon in the governing of sexual practice that I think we should be wary of fighting fire with fire. I really don’t think that the new influx of women-made porn is anti-women, but I certainly don’t think that it can call itself feminist.

Don’t Be That Guy – targetting the perpetrators of sexual violence

Check out this amazing new campaign in Vancouver. The ‘Don’t Be That Guy’ campaign is targetting the perpetrators of sexual violence, rather than asking potential victims to change their behaviour in order to avoid being attacked. Brilliant.

Page 3, Porn and Germaine Greer.

It was 40 years ago that the first ever Page 3 Girl graced the pages of The Sun and saw the newspaper’s circulation double. Whilst other newspapers have attempted to introduce similar ‘glamour’ content to their audiences, it is only The Sun that has managed to not only sustain the feature, but create an institution of soft porn nudity that sits alongside the The Guardian and the FT on our newsagents’ shelves.

For me the Page 3 girl is a reminder of the fracturing of ‘pop’ feminist thought from more traditional feminism, the divided opinion between the women over what liberation entails and what it will provide. There are women who believe that work within the sex industry is available to us as sexually liberal and liberated women. The increasing amount of porn that has found its way into mainstream pop culture is evidence enough of how relaxed our attitudes have become towards traditional sexual morals.

However there are feminists, amongst whom I count myself, who do not believe that the ‘sexually liberal woman’ truly exists yet. I do not believe that pornography, be it a picture, a movie or a scantily clad dancer in a ‘gentleman’s club’, is a symbol of sexual liberation. The so-called sexual liberation that we have been offered is merely another guise of patriarchal rule, an allowance given to us to be promiscuous and provocative as long as it is within the constraints of capitalism: financial and cultural economies that ultimately support the traditions that continue to suppress us.

Now, please do not get confused. I absolutely do not wish to return to the traditional sexual morals I mentioned above. What I want is for people to consider carefully what exactly they find to be so liberating about pornography in any or in all of its forms… Do we really need to wait for a porn production company to start making movies about whatever it is that you are into before it becomes acceptable? Surely if we were truly sexually liberal we would feel comfortable and open enough to indulge our whims without waiting for publication of such actions first?

Anyway, the point of this particular blog was to bring your attention to a certain Germaine Greer (former feminist spokesperson who now makes a living from being a first-class idiot), who wrote a two-page spread* for The Sun last Thursday 16th November in full support of Page 3. Claiming that the ‘glamour’ shots were harmless fun and are completely non-sexual (thus promoting the denial of women with any kind of autonomous sexuality…), Greer seems to have completely undermined her own career.

Unfortunately the article is not available online. However, I have a photocopy of it from my library which I would be happy to share around (in a copyright complicit way, of course) if you want to see it for yourself.

My favourite argument from Greer in favour of Page 3:
“…a high proportion of young women dream of a career as a glamour model. It takes very little to get young women to ‘get their tits out for the boys’, especially if a drink has been taken. Lads’ magazines show page after page of photos exposing theirs breasts at all kinds of events.”

Well if they’re doing it in the pub when they’re pissed, why shouldn’t we encouraged them to make a career out of it? After all, it’s not as if they are getting their tits out for the lads because they’ve seen guys oggling over Page 3 since they were old enough to feel the ache of their tits first growth spurt, is it? And it’s not at all likely that the only reason young girls think that the primary purpose of boobs is to assert sexual prowess is because that’s all they ever seen them used for, is it? Women’s autonomy continues to be suppressed by pornography of all kinds, proscribing oppressive behaviour that is being sold to us as the key to liberation.

I also particularly liked her comparison of Page 3 models to Charlie Dimmock for giving middle aged men harmless sexual thrills.

*Whilst the article did indeed occupy two pages of The Sun, it carried a very large photograph of fifteen busty models in very nice knickers, some of whom were posing on ladders for reasons unknown.

NiqaBitch – the hijab debate continues…

A female duo performing under the name NiqaBitch have taken to the streets of Paris for a video protest against France’s recent burqa ban wearing their very best coverings and hotpants. It’s all a bit cheeky, with passers-by turning to stare at their comedic wiggling, but as the guest starring policeman proves, it’s not entirely accurate in its mockery. Once the law comes into action the policeman would be forced to fine these women, remember?

The Guardian’s article is pretty spot on with its observations – read it here – that the video, whilst poignant, fails to highlight the real issues behind the new laws, issues of Islamaphobia and badly aimed attempts at liberalism. The burqa ban is intended to remove a religious symbol from public display, but when worn with a mini skirt the burqua fails to be a sign of any religious affiliation or belief. It is stripped of its symbolism and reduced to its original form. It is just another garment. It is just cloth.

I also take issue with their assumption that pairing their niqabs with hotpants and shimmying around Paris. Part of the sybolism of face and head coverings is that of modesty of the body, but is a sexualised display of limbs really an effective way to contrast this symbol?

If I saw these two women walking towards me in the street I would assume that their costume (because that is surely what it is in this instance) was intended to highlight the anonymity of the sexualised woman or perhaps the refusal to grant identity and autonomy to the sexualised woman… For me an effective visual protest would have been two women in hijabs and summer shorts, or jeans and jumpers – outfits that are casual, non-gendered and not intentionally sexual – an outfit that displays the hijab as a religious symbol, a symbol that can be worn comfortably. It is the religious symbol that is being taken away from them by this law. Every morning on my way to work I walk past a woman wearing her hijab with office trousers and shirts. To an observer like myself her head covering invokes a lot of power: her typically Western clothing make it quite clear that her hijab is chosen addition to her appearance. She has chosen to make her faith visible, but has not visibly separated herself from me on a cultural level as she appears to be a independent, working woman (I do appreciate that there is a difference between the hijab and the burqa though).

If fellow Muslims deem her outfit to be immodest, then that is a discussion of sexual politics that needs to be had within the context of Islam. But for non-Mulsims to deny her the right to cover her head is surely as much of a violation of her liberty as any law that would force the hijab upon her.

Kudos to the women of NiqaBitch for standing up for the right to wear their niqabs – they are certainly drawing some much needed attention to the intricacies of the debate – but I’m just waiting to see what the Daily Mail is going to make of it all…

Please read my previous blog about the burqa ban here:
Burqa ban – can we ever truly liberate the body

Body politics is my particular area of academic interest and is an area of ever growing importance and research. Your thoughts and comments on this particular debate would be greatfully received.

Some reasons why the Catholic church is a massive pile of shite.

I hate to say it so publicly – it is after all so very un-British to assert my opinon against any person/thing – but I’m going to say it anyway…

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS A MASSIVE PILE OF SHITE. AND THE POPE IS A TWAT.

As I have blogged about previously, the UN has been working towards a set of goals to significantly reduce extreme poverty, violence and the spread of disease since 2000. These goals are called the Millennium Development Goals. They are awesome because they are possible, practical and sustainable. They are based on the idea of educating people and improving healthcare.

If you haven’t/don’t want to read my previous blogs about these MDGs, please take a look at the following fast-track lessons in women’s rights. I’m going to call it Lady-Maths for short.

1.
Woman + education = chance of financial independence
Woman + chance of financial independence = reduction of patriarchal rule

Woman + education = emotional independance
Woman + emotional independence = reduction of patriarchal rule

Woman + reduction of patriarchal rule = significant move towards equal citizenship for women across the world!!

2.
Women + better reproductive healthcare = reduction of gender-based mythology that sustains the belief that women are victims of their own sex, prone to death by simply being a woman and giving birth, contracting sexual infections etc.

Women + better sexual education = reduction of gender-based mythology that sustains the belief that women are sexually passive, reduction of unwanted pregnancy, reduction of sexually transmitted infections and diseases and increased awareness and prosecution of sexual assaults.

3.
People + better healthcare = reduction in spread of diseases and, of course, reduction in general pain and suffering

Get it? Good.

So this is what the Holy See has to say about this amazing strategy:
“It is important to underline that the goals (MDGs) will not be attained without activating two great moral imperatives,” Secretary for Relations with States Dominique Mamberti told the General Assembly. “On the one hand it is necessary that rich and emerging countries fully realize their aid commitments for development and immediately set up a functioning financial and commercial network favourable to the weaker countries.

“On the other all, rich and poor, must ensure an ethical turn in politics and economy that guarantees good government and eliminates every form of corruption. Otherwise, there is the risk of arriving in 2015 with only insufficient results, except perhaps – and that would be sad and paradoxical – in the fields of population control and promotion of minority lifestyles, which have been introduced in some paragraphs in the recent summit’s document.

“In that case the MDGs will have become a veritable fraud for the integral human development of peoples.”

Apparently using condoms and not executing someone for being gay is a veritable fraud for the integral development of peoples.

And there I was thinking that the encouragement of public stoning was halting our development as people and that HIV should probably be discouraged seeing as, you know, it eventually kills you.

Seriously, read this article, but it will make you angry…
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=36290&Cr=mdg&Cr1=
And to think that our taxes paid for the bloody Pope to fly over to the UK and preach his shit…
If religion is your thing, that’s great – I’m all for supporting community and being nice – but I will never support this kind of institutionalised prejudice and the rationalised hate that the Catholic church promotes.