rape culture part two: street harassment

I am a city girl. I have been raised to be wary of strangers, to avoid certain routes home, to sit next to non-threatening kindly old ladies on the tube. I have been harassed on the street before. But last week, I had an encounter that freaked me out so much that when I got into school, I just burst into tears because of it.

Every time I've brought it up in class, the girls around me join in with their experiences, like ‘oh yeah someone tried to follow me home last week’ or ‘someone stopped their car in a busy road to shout lewd comments at me’ - we understand the seriousness and the danger of it, but it occurs so often that it's making us desensitized to it as it's such a 'normal thing' to occur.

We're asked questions like: 'Why do you leave the house looking good then? Why did you wear that skirt?'

What's they're really asking is 'How dare you have the audacity to wear something you like and expect not to be harassed for it? Don't you know you're a sexual object? Jeez, get with the patriarchy already!'

I wear my leather mini-skirt because I fucking want to. I've been harassed wearing a leather mini-skirt, yes - but it's happened when I've been wearing a school uniform that makes me look like I work at a supermarket (not Marni, whatever the Telegraph says). It's happened when I've been wearing jeans and a jumper without wearing any make up or when I've left the house looking like the Primark version of Helena Bonham Carter (with lots of unruly hair and eyeliner everywhere).

'Don't you see, love? IT'S A COMPLIMENT WHEN I OBJECTIFY YOU IN THE STREET, AND THEN CONDEMN YOU FOR HAVING CONFIDENCE IN YOURSELF AS A SEXUAL BEING.'

It’s a ‘compliment’ if it feels good. The men that have leered at me on the street aren't complimenting me, they're not thinking to themselves 'ooh I wonder where her jumper's from' or 'gee her hair looks swell today', it's done to intimidate, making me a sexual object. Being harassed in the street by someone who refuses to take no for an answer makes you feel threatened and scared - and you've got to be nice to them too, no matter how uncomfortable they're making you, because who knows how it'll end? As much as you'd like to tell them to go fuck themselves, you've got to pretend that you're really flattered and all but you've got to leave now.

The whole idea that 'women love it really' takes up a chapter - probably a volume - of Rape Culture 101. Despite what the Daily Mail may want you to think, I do not want any man that says 'darling' to be thrown into prison - I just want to be able to walk the streets without feeling threatened.

#ididnotreport and rape culture

TRIGGER WARNING. Also, just to clarify, this isn't going to be a totally inclusive look at rape culture in our society as it's very much based around my own experience of it.

RAPE CULTURE -  a term which describes a culture in which rape and sexual violence (usually against women) are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media condone, normalize, excuse, or encourage sexualised violence. 

As I bought lunch in a coffee shop the other day, I heard a discussion on the radio about a campaign that Mumsnet have started called 'We Believe You' which aims to show how many lives have been blighted by sexual violence.  I thought I was going to throw up when I heard the someone on the radio ask women to come forward with why they didn't speak out, but somehow, I managed to muster up the courage to research it online at the same sort of time that two hashtags began trending on twitter #webelieveyou and #ididnotreport. The harshest tweet for me to read was #ididnotreport because I don't even know if it counts. 31% of children who are abused reach adulthood without having disclosed what happened to them. I am on the brink of adulthood and I do not want to be a part of that statistic.

Considering we live in a culture where those opinions are the norm - they are normal in our culture, our media, our teachers, our politicians, our doctors, our police officers - it's appalling that those same people criticise victims that don't speak up.From a young age, you're taught that if you obey those rules, you won't be raped. Don't go out late at night, don't wear a short skirt, don't talk to strangers, don't look like you're the 'wrong sort of girl'. There's a sinister implication sometimes in society that you were raped because you broke the rules that society has constructed for you.

I am sick to death of living in a world where rape culture prevails and shames people into silence with dangerous myths that make excuses for the attacker and blame the victim ('only strangers rape' 'it's not rape if it's within a relationship' 'she didn't fight back really' 'she's a slut, she was asking for it' 'if she's consented to one sexual act, that how can she say no to another' 'he couldn't stop himself, she was too tempting'). I am tired of hearing rape and sexual assault being used as 'banter' and that I am a 'wench' for being triggered by it. I am tired of being a part of the second generation of women in my family who have been sexually assaulted. I am tired of hearing about case where an abused woman was prosecuted for withdrawing her rape accusation despite suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. I am tired of this rape culture, which blames me for something that was beyond my control.

This is why if you make an ignorant, uninformed, sexist, misogynistic slut shaming, or a generally fucked up comment around me, I am going to confront you. This is your culture, my culture, our culture. It wasn't my fault, it wasn't anyone's fault except the perpetrator. I am not a victim anymore, I am a fucking survivor and I will not stay silent or apologise for calling you out on your bullshit.

FURTHER READING: another post about rape / myths and facts about rape / survivor solidarity / rape culture 101 / frequently asked questions on rape culture.

a small fight with the Nasty Party

When I woke up this morning, I was expecting to perhaps deal with some jokes about feminism, not argue with members of 'the Nasty party'.

At 3 o'clock in the morning, Lucy and I wrote a presentation on feminism in the middle of discussing our favourite wife of Henry VIII (Anne Boleyn forever) - Thursday is International Women's Day, so we've decided to run a week of grrrl themed activities, including a a feminism dedicated issue of the school newspaper, a bake sale to raise money for Oxfam (and smash stereotypes that say 'like, isn't that counter-productive to message of feminism'), run a craft workshop for the younger years to make their own glorious suffragette sashes, and have a 'dress up as an inspirational female role model' day. In speakers, the assembly for sixth formers, we introduced the idea that being a feminist does not mean you're a man-hating, fun loathing, bra burning, evil person, whilst covering things like Suffragettes in the UK and the attacks on women's rights by our current government, to advertise what we're doing for the week. We falsely assumed that this would be the most fascinating part of our day.

After we'd spoken, I rejoined the audience with Lucy, expecting one of the bland speakers that are usually in to speak to us. Actually, they were two women from a Conservative Party Forum, with one speaker and another that (mostly) just observed. They began by saying that they were going to build on our feminism presentation, before making a weak joke about being from 'the Nasty Party'. The speakers said that they'd come to ask us what we want for the 2015 and 2020 manifestos, by asking us what we want by those dates. I sincerely doubt that their real intention was to 'ask' us anything, as she spent more time defending the party from whatever point someone brought up than actually listening to our concerns.

For instance, several people brought up tuition fees - but instead of acknowledging their concerns, she responded with a condescending, simpering statement like 'it's for your own good' and twisted their words to make the students seem utterly unreasonable for wanting to attend university without having a huge debt for a significant part of their adult lives. I think that a universally acknowledged signal for A Very Serious Argument is probably Lucy's ominous hand raising. She brought up that she'd like to be able to graduate university but have a job where she's actually paid a living wage for it, instead of being used for unpaid labour (in response to Workfare) in a mock simpering manner like the woman's own. The speaker seemed shocked at the prospect of confrontation.

She then lied about the state of benefits in this country, when she responded to someone's point on it by declaring that it's 'fairer than ever' and that things like the Disability Living Allowance were cut because disabled people themselves 'don't want it'. I know from experience that this isn't remotely true. I raised my hand to point out that under the 'fairer laws' implemented by the government, my mother was told that she isn't 'disabled enough' to continue receiving the inadequate, limited care currently offered to her by the council. Furthermore, the centre that used to offer her rehabilitation and physical therapy was affected by the funding cuts so much that they had to close down. Instead of responding to me properly, she patronisingly asked me what I'd do to prevent that from happening, in a tone that seemed to imply I was being hysterical. I pointed out that I think it's appalling that wealthy people aren't being taxed properly and/or are able to evade taxes, while the programs that ordinary people in our country need are being cut by the government. She just looked at me as though I was being completely absurd.

Lucy raised her hand to say 'I want a Minister of Equalities who hasn't voted against gay rights' and the speaker looked utterly shocked, raising her arms up to declare that she was 'at a loss'. (What does that even bloody mean?) They weren't expecting us to know what the government are doing, or to care about the future of our country enough to passionately argue back at them. I regularly look up MPs I see in the media on They Work For You  and it's on May's voting record that she's voted against gay rights:

• In 1998 she voted against equalising the age of consent.
• In 2000, she voted against the repeal of Section 28, legislation that banned the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality by local government and schools.
• In 2001 and 2002 she voted against gay couples jointly adopting children.
• In 2008 she voted in favour of a defeated bill which said that IVF rights should require a male role model - effectively discriminating against lesbian fertility rights.

What was her response to this factual evidence?

She thought it was appropriate to casually drop May's name in with a breezy 'oh I was talking to Theresa the other day, who said that if it looks like a marriage, then it is a marriage' and blamed her previous voting record on pressure and influence by backbenchers. (Keep this point in mind, it's going to come up again.) Suddenly, she just flipped, attacking our feminism presentation from earlier on and saying that we hadn't mentioned that there are more female Tory MPs than all the other parties all together, and that their offices have women and gay people employed there - hurrah! Apparently that means that we can all conveniently forgive the Tories from implementing laws and bills that harm those groups of people.

Lucy pointed out that we didn't mention either that people in their party (such as Nadine Dorries) have been attempting to limit abortion rights and control sex education. Their reaction to this was probably the worst part of the entire situation. The speaker just shouted that 'nope, not going to answer that, it's not the party really' and the other woman just turned round to scream at us that 'LABOUR DID IT TOO, IT WAS A CROSS-PARTY BILL'. How mature.We're fully aware of that - how ignorant do they think we are? I may more inclined to support Labour, but it doesn't mean that I readily accept everything they do and that they're free from my criticism.

Furthermore, Lucy pointed out that a) that is not an acceptable excuse, b) she calls out Labour MPs too, and c) the anti-choice movement is stronger in the Conservative party. The speaker then declared that backbenchers are irrelevant and don't have any influence on the party (contradicting what she'd said earlier). Suddenly, she declared that she'd fight for abortion rights standing next to us, in an attempt to look reasonable after shouting at teenager -  Lucy just promptly replied to with a curt 'good', which made everyone, including our head of year, laugh. Her attempt of taking back the discussion failed pathetically, as when someone pointed that she'd like to see the Tories talking about women as actual human beings without always trying to attach them to children, the speaker just replied with a 'tell me about it!' - what point was she exactly trying to make?

I really don't understand them. My issue today wasn't a childish 'they're evil Tories!' I deeply disagree with them politically, but I was willing to listen to what they had to say. In fact, I forced myself to be civil whilst speaking to them - a courtesy they really did not extend to us. They couldn't even manage a basic consistency in their arguments and they resorted to shouting at schoolchildren once they realised that they couldn't just force propaganda into the country's youth by declaring that it's all for our own good, implying that we're too ignorant to know what's we believe. They tried to make out that we're hysterical left-wing infants that don't understand what we're saying, which wasn't a wise decision considering that all the teenagers in that room are going to be able to vote in the next election. It's not exactly a good sign if representatives of the government are so scared of confrontation that they resort to blatant lying and speaking to young people like they're infants in a failed attempt to manipulate the next generation.

It was a mix of standing up for what we believe in and feeling sickened at the world. After they left, our head of year told us that he's not supposed to have a political bias, but he was very glad that we'd given them a horrible time. After they'd gone, one of our teachers had to calm us down because we were just furious that it was such an obvious (failed) attempt at propaganda. Somehow, the presentations I do with Lucy always feature a ceremonious crossing out of a Tory's face - I'm glad that we crossed out David Cameron's face in front of them (unintentionally, but still). I hope they go and tell their darling Theresa about their horrible morning.

EDIT: According to UK Political Info, the Conservatives have 49 female MPs, while Labour have 81, the Liberal-Democrats have 7, and there are six classified as 'other. That really doesn't look like the Conservatives have more female MPs than all the other parties put together. Huh.

hey! stop defining people as 'real' according to their physical forms!

Just to clarify: this isn't against the wise campaigns that point out that the majority of women in the world do not look like those in fashion magazines, who are extraordinarily beautiful anyway - but also photoshopped to the extreme. Rather, this is a rant against the hypocrisy seen in magazines, which appear to be becoming even more ridiculous with each issue. (I know - it's absolutely shocking that the media isn't being truthful.) For example, it's this strange chant of 'real women have curves' that they've suddenly started playing out in fashion magazines and gossip magazines that is supposed to empower women to fight against societal pressures to lose weight. Theoretically, that ought to be a good thing but then it's completely contradicted with the messages they contain in their magazines.

Take an issue of high fashion magazine I bought last summer, which proclaimed itself to be 'THE BODY ISSUE' on the front cover, teaching women 'how to be happy' with their own figures. A little bit below that, it features an article called 'the fat whisperer' (about yet another fad diet). Ridiculously, they ran a campaign that's supposed to say 'LOVE YOUR BODY, YOU'RE BEAUTIFUL' but then they featured a harrowing article about someone's harsh experience with anorexia mere pages away from instructions of how to follow some crazy weight loss scheme championed by some A-lister. Also, they always seem to have one issue per year that features anyone of average size, proclaiming to take back fashion for the 'everywoman', but for the rest of the issues they publish, they only feature extremely thin models in the covers, adverts and photoshoots (assisted with photoshop) - meaning that all the campaigns that they put in to featuring women of all sizes tend to be purely for advertising and publicity instead of promoting a variety of body images.

It reminds me of an episode of Ugly Betty called 'Zero Worship' where Betty tries to ensure that Mode magazines features 'real sized women' on their runway at fashion week, but instead, they rig the scales to show the emaciated models of being average sized to gain media attention while still using size zero models. (By the way, it all works out in the end because Daniel rightfully feels guilty. He unveils an alternative fashion show that features a variety of women of different ages, races, sizes, and so on, that's applauded by the crowd and the press. Betty manages to influence a girl to confront issues of body image and she walks the runway at a fashion show with Bow Wow and Omarion. Hurrah! Take note Vogue and Elle.)

Then you get the gossip magazines, which aren't exactly the most honest and moral areas of the media anyway, but they reach astonishing new levels of hypocrisy on this issue. Cutting remarks like 'real women have curves, she's fake, she's anorexic, she's had a nose job, etc' run throughout their magazine as they hypothesise on how much celebrities weigh and forge false articles where some actress' relatives are 'concerned' about her weight just to sell more issues. Again, the same magazines that criticise women for being 'fake' also have sections dedicated to circling the images of someone's weight gain (usually with some weak attempt at wit that instructs celebrities to avoid the pies and get down to the gym).

It's a ridiculous notion that anyone is defined by the physical form. Instead of being against fat shaming, the whole 'real women have curves' idea has been hijacked by idiotic magazines to promote even more body shaming. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT WIN ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS. Whether you're a size six or a size sixteen doesn't define whether you're real or not. Our humanity isn't qualified by our physicality, but it's the deeply degrading insistence that your physical form is 'real' or 'fake' that diminishes someone's humanity.

'JUST SAY NO' to the sexist abstinence education bill

Anna, Dodo and myself pictured in Friday's Evening Standard (Lucy was there too, but isn't in this photograph!)

Last week, I had a dream (stay with me here). I had a dream that, despite it being one of my favourite subjects, my Religious Studies lesson on Friday 20th January would be cancelled so I could attend a protest against Nadine Dorries' Sex Education Bill for girls. After praying for the second time in my life (the first was to get premiere tickets to the fifth Harry Potter film, so I suppose it doesn't count), a miracle happened - my teacher happened to be attending a training course on that day, allowing my fellow angry teenage feminist friends to stand in Old Palace Yard looking gloomy and furious with picket signs until our fingers and toes began to numb from the cold weather.

The speeches presented on the day were from such a diverse range of groups and organisations, but what struck me was that they weren't just against Nadine Dorries' ridiculous anti-women policies that she claims 'empower' girls while she'd advocate for taking away their right to being educated about their bodies and sex (and if her abortion bill had passed, then she'd have limited the time in which they could actually get an abortion). The speakers were from organisations such as the Socialist Party, Youth Fight For Jobs and Education, Slut Means Speak Up, journalist and feminist Laurie Penny, Parents and Carers for SRE, and Education for Choice. Laura Hurley from Education for Choice demonstrated the sort of methods they use to teach sex education to primary school and secondary school age students - interestingly enough, she actually gave a talk at our school last year!

The bill was withdrawn, but not without some controversy about how it actually occurred. There was a slightly condescending comment in the Independent: 'a hardy band of demonstrators gathered outside the Commons yesterday to protest about a government Bill that did not exist, and cheered when told it had been withdrawn, which it had not.'

Of course we were there to demonstrate against it - because if people don't come out to say how ridiculously sexist, misogynistic, ineffective and stupid a bill proposed by an MP is, it's simply going to make it easier next time for them to pass something a little less extreme without anyone noticing. Furthermore, yesterday wasn't just about Nadine Dorries - it was also about the institutional misogyny in law, the victim blaming encouraged by our government, the cuts to sexual health services, the disproportionate cuts that affect women. I'm not sure what else we could expect from a Tory government - when a government values corporations more than citizens, it's clear that they have no respect for personal autonomy.

We also discussed this issue in Debating Society today, and for the most part, people were quite intelligent and rational about the issue. One person kept contradicting herself, saying she agreed but then completely disagreed with the points we'd previously made, and said that 'if you tell five year olds what sex is, they're going to want to experiment' - excuse me? I think most young children vaguely know what it is (I think I learnt from Eastenders to be perfectly honest) and the sort of sex education that primary school age children would receive wouldn't be porn or anything. I wonder if anyone who's ever claimed that sex education encourages sex has actually attended one of those lessons - sex education lessons are the most unerotic thing in the world. No one has been turned on by dodgy cartoon videos from the 1980s that use the words 'intercourse'. The same person said that it's a good idea to remain pure until marriage - virginity is a dumb notion that's usually used to oppress women by questioning whether their hymen is intact or not, and bases their moral worth upon it.

So, abstinence is not the way forward (obviously). What really should occur is that there should be a comprehensive, fact based sex education programme that teaches it's okay to have sex when you're comfortable enough with it, and it's okay not to as well - what's important is that, if and when you do decide to have sex, you have access to enough information about issues such as pregnancy and STDs in all schools. Furthermore, there really should be more of a focus on 'consent' - there's an appalling amount of people in this country that encourage a victim blaming culture, instead of teaching people that when someone says no, they mean no. A good example of this is the Men Can Stop Rape campaign.

I'm terrified that there's going to be a generation of brilliant, intelligent young girls in my school who'll get sucked into the misogynistic victim blaming culture of Dorries and her cronies.

The return of Wes Anderson

I'm strangely not furious about anything for the time being, but I am excited for Wes Anderon's new film Moonrise Kingdom. It's been a Wes Anderson appreciation day, I suppose it'll be a Wes Anderson appreciation year.

In the summer of 1965, two twelve year olds fall in love, forge a secret pact, and flee from their small New England town into the forests, causing a search party consisting of incompetent adults to search for them.

Watching anything Wes Anderson related is sometimes a little game of looking for all of his typical trademarks. In the trailer for Moonrise Kingdom, I found myself mentally ticking boxes next to Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman, absent fathers, warm toned images, dreamy French pop music, and so on. From what I've seen, this is slightly different to his other films; for instance, while many of his films have a strong sixties influence, especially with their soundtracks, I think this is his first film that's actually set during that time period. Also, I approve the (relative) variety in the cast, especially the inclusion of the always adorable Edward Norton in a camp uniform.

I love the notes that Sam and Suzy send each other - if I were to ever run away with someone, I'd like to at least romanticise it a little bit by plotting it through handwritten letters delivered in secret. I'd also like to do exactly what they do here - I'd dance to vinyls on the beach in my underwear and have picnics deep in the forest, away from all other civilization.

I know that Wes Anderson's films can be criticised for being too twee, too quirky, too distracting, too pretentious, but I am firmly in the 'I love Wes Anderson' camp. I love his characters, who despite being accused of being far too eccentric, actually possess very real flaws that reflect on ourselves. In an interview with the Guardian, Anderson says 'we're drawn to characters who have ambitions that are just completely out of proportion to anything they could ever hope to realise', which I think is a real reflection of our own humanity. Like Max Fischer, I am a fantasist. I truly wish I could live in the world of a Wes Anderson film, where even the dullest, most mundane aspects of my life like sitting on the bus to school or walking out of a building would be scored by dreamy 1960s French pop music. Or that I'd be fascinating enough to have a small montage of my achievements or my history to be narrated by Alec Baldwin in Future font with a punk rock band playing the background.

how we dress does not mean yes, nor does it mean you can shame us

(This was originally a post I made on my tumblr, which after a discussion on the subject with Lucy K. that I felt obligated to have to write about it. Lucy's also written about 'institutional misogyny' in her own excellent rant.)

I feel very frustrated and limited in that there’s little I can do to combat sexist encounters on a regular basis. It’s easy for me to rage at Nadine Dorries (note: here’s a new rant on her) but when it’s embedded in everyday life, I struggle with if and how I should respond to it.

I attend a nice school in London, and for the record, I like my school for the most part. There are a couple of teachers with the sort of attitudes that I'm about to outline, as well as students who are ridiculously narrow minded on issues of sexuality and religion - but they're in the minority, as there's also wonderful, more radical teachers that have inspired us to be free-thinking in class and fellow students who have helped me to refine my own political beliefs during impromptu debates in lessons.

There’s a worrying amount of double standards and contradictions that the educational system can embed in the minds of young girls. They claim that they want to educate modern, empowered, independent women of the twenty first century, and to certain extent, that’s true. One of the greatest headmistresses of my school was a pioneer of girls’ education during the late 1800s - at a time when girls were taught skills like sewing instead of the ‘real’ education that boys received at the time, she wanted girls to have access to the same academic subjects as boys. I suppose that the school's tried to keep this up over the last hundred or so years, as ironically, if it wasn't for the otherwise mainly intelligent education I've received there, I wouldn't be able to combat the issues I'm about to explore.

I don't understand why a school that's quite liberal in many other aspects can make comments that can be so derogatory towards girls, which shame girls over issues like their clothes. I understand that in a school environment, just like in any formal environment, there are certain styles of clothes which are acceptable, and other that aren't. It's natural for schools to have rules that cover this, but last year, they spent a ridiculous amount of time enforcing a new rule that meant that our school skirts had to cover our knee caps (when the official school skirts were cut in a manner so that they fell just above the knee). Even Rory Gilmore showed her knees! But I suppose they didn't want members of the public seeing schoolgirls with their knees out, lest they got the impression that we were the 'wrong sort of girl' - the 21st century equivalent to Victorian men fainting at the slight of a lady’s ankle. Kneecaps? How scandalous!

This year, they've begun to restrict normal ‘everyday’ sort of outfits like shorts and ‘bodycon’ style skirts for sixth formers - which are occasionally ‘inappropriately’ worn by one or two people, but the majority of students wear them just like women in professional environments like offices or whatever do. If you've got an issue with a minority of students who arrive at school with an item of clothing in an 'inappropriate' manner, then surely you'd create a logical length rule, so the entire female year group isn't punished for the deeds of a few. Alas! That is not the case! As you walk through the doors in the morning, you can see members of staff publicly shame students in a condescending manner. Even our headmistress wears those items of clothing (as do many other female teachers) - I don't seen anyone judging them for it.

The advice that many teachers in influential positions have given female students is awful - once, an old head of year told my friend Dodo that she shouldn't wear knee high socks as they’re too ‘sexy’ and ‘revealing’ and she might get raped.As a teacher, as an educated woman, as a human being - surely you shouldn't be encouraging a misogynistic rape culture that shames girls into believing that if they show a little skin, they’re not a ‘perfect victim’ and as they were ‘tempting’, they caused their own rape to occur. We're constantly encouraged to take an active interest in the world - we're 'modern, empowered, independent women of the 21st century' and we want to fight idiocy in the world. We also want to be able to share it with those who'd be affected by it in our school. It's deeply disturbing that an institution that's encouraged us to fight for what we believe in (and to protest against the dumb abstinence bill) could disgrace its students in this way.

Perhaps you'd argue that in the scheme of things that oppress women, schools shaming students on the basis of their appearance shouldn't be a major cause for concern. I think that you have to start somewhere, and you cannot fully tackle the largest issues when attitudes like this are casually held by those with power and influence over the education of young girls. Once, we even heard an extremely condescending sermon from a woman who said that as teenage girls, we spend too much time staring in the mirror and applying make-up instead of paying attention to the world around us. I am paying attention to the environment around me, and I can tell you that through my eyes (and mascara applied eyelashes) that I’m not happy about it. At all.