Yes, All Women.

I'm writing this post in the light of the horrific events that unfurled in Santa Barbara over the weekend, where a damaged and ill, but also entitled, privileged and misogynistic young man, fueled by anger and humiliation at what he saw as his rejection by women killed seven people and injured several more before taking his own life. In the hours and days immediately after the tragedy You Tube videos and a chilling and angry manifesto came to light outlining his attitudes to women, people of colour and his plans for his 'Day of Retribution'

 This particular tragedy is almost the perfect storm of issues. Guns (all of Elliot Rodger's guns were legally obtained despite the fact he had a history or mental health issues and he lives in California which has some of the strictest gun laws in the US), the mental health issues (Rodger's had a number of ongoing mental health issues and had apparently been in therapy for many years, his family and parents were aware of the issue to the point where they had called the police on at least one occasion believing Rodger's to be a danger to others) and vicious and deep seated misogyny. And it is this which I want to talk about right now.

When the story first broke and news of his videos and manifesto came to light women across the world were, understandably, shocked, horrified, saddened and angry. Men, whilst many felt the same way were quick to point out that 'Its not all men', women were keen to point out that, yes, we know that, but when it comes to misogyny, whether it be casual occasions of everyday sexism or sexual violence or aggression, it is all women.

This spawned much debate online, particularly on Twitter, where the #yesallwomen hashtag began trending. The purpose of the hashtag was to allow women to share their experiences, to open a conversation and make our male feminist allies understand that whilst of course its not all men, almost every woman will on a reasonably regular basis be the victims of male aggression and  privilege. For some women this takes the form of serious abuse (whether it be sexual, physical or emotional) or sexual violence for others it is domestic abuse, discrimination in the workplace, being prey to the unwanted and overly enthusiastic man in a club, a wolf whistle in the street, and audible comment about body, attributes, age, weight, looks, intimidation by a man or group of men. The list could go on and the problem is with many of these is that with the exception of the most serious, they are seen as entirely acceptable. Male privilege and our culture of casual sexism is such that aggressively pursuing a woman who has made her lack of interest quite clear is ok. Shouting at a woman whilst she walks her dog or takes a run or runs her errands is fine. Casual touching of a woman without her explicit consent is fine. But its not fine, its not ok and its not acceptable. We have become so trained that we should see these behaviours as harmless that often even other women will indulge in the culture of 'victim blaming' we seem to have created. That a woman should be flattered by a stranger yelling from his car that she has a 'nice arse/tits/is doable' that she should not be offended when a stranger yells at her that she is fat/ugly/a bitch. Women who stand up for themselves in these circumstances are further often further abused. The fact that we have a sliding scale of sexual aggression and misogyny is part of the problem. The fact that we have to be relieved that we have 'only' been victims of the lesser kind of these acts is a problem because they shouldn't exist.

In addition to gender, race also plays its part and cannot be ignored in the discussion less, #yesallwomen becomes #yesall WHITEwomen (and there is a very interesting debate currently going on on twitter under that very hashtag which I do recommend you read as it gives some very interesting perspectives and statistic with regards to the experience of women of colour) in the US amongst women of colour rates of reported coercive sexual behaviour are most high, with almost 40% of black women being victim of this kind of behaviour. Whilst it is true to say that ALL women experience this, we cannot ignore the experiences of women of colour who are statistically more likely to be the victims of more serious sexual aggression and more likely to be ignored as victims. Issues of white privilege and intersectionality are part of the debate and I do believe if we are to move feminism forward and truly become 'all women' you cannot discount the part race plays and the differing experiences of women of colour.

Unfortunately our media also perpetuates the cycle of misogyny. Look around your house, pick up the first magazine you see. Even those aimed directly at women often seem to exist only as objects. Magazines tell us how we should look, what we should be doing to 'please our men', they shame us for being fat, for having agency and using it.

Lets look at some examples from the media. Now the women I talk about here might not be my favourite people in the world, they may not live the kind of life I would chose, but do they deserve to be talked about in the kind of language that people do? The answer must surely be no.

Female celebrities are objectified to the nth degree. Kim Kardashian (think what you will of her) lives her entire life being too fat, too thin, judged for relationships (cos like 'Oh My God, she's been married three times'), you can argue that she has made the choice to live in the public and eye and its true that she did but does that really mean we should be allowed to pass judgement on her every act? That we should fat shame her throughout her pregnancy for daring to do what many pregnant women do (myself included) which is gain a lot of weight? And then of course she was judged all over again when she lost the weight, but would have been just as harshly judged if she hadn't.

Kate Middleton has recently had her bum in several papers and on the internet because her skirt blew up when she got out of a helicopter. Everyone has an opinion on whether she should weight her hems, wear a slip, wear bigger pants (she appears to be wearing either a thong or none, I would be inclined to suspect the former) but how about we just don't take pictures of women's bums when the wind catches their skirt and blows it up. How about we look at what it says about how we view women that a picture of a woman's arse, taken without consent is deemed public interest (this was hold even if Kate's full time job was wearing a bikini, consent is all and just because you've seen someone's bum once doesn't mean you always get to see it).

Kim Novac attended the 2014 Academy Awards. At 81 years old she looks pretty good and she's definitely had some work, but if that's her choice I'm fine with that. Plenty however, had a LOT to say. Headlines appeared on her 'shocking' new look and mocked her attempts at maintaining her youth whilst ignoring the fact that society has made it so unacceptable for women, particularly those who work in the public eye to get old that its incredibly common for women to undergo surgery to attempt to fight it.

It is in this context, this culture of victim blaming, slut shaming, fat watching, ageist, god for bid you go out looking a bit rough or should stand up for yourself or exhibit any kind of agency or not think it totally HILARIOUS when a man grabs your boob in a club 'for a laugh' that we live.A place where, factoring in unreported rapes, its estimated that only 5% of rapists in the UK ever spend a single day behind bars, or where women's reputations, lifestyles associations, dress and sex life are dragged through the courts and laid open for all to even get that 5% to face the consequences of their crime. It is in this world that ALL women live. In the developing world sex is used as a weapon of war, in the developed world a culture of casual sexism is all pervading, and whilst I certainly prefer my reality that of women in the developing world again it lays out questions as to why either group should have to tolerate what they do.

So yes, we know, we understand that its not all men, but it is all women and until ALL men understand that we need to keep having this conversation.

Check your privilege.

'Check your privilege' a sentence oft heard around the internet and until now not one I was sure I subscribed to, not because we shouldn't be checking our privilege but more because it is often abused and used to censure and silence rather than encourage healthy debate. However, today the idea of checking ones privilege was never more appropriate. In Texas the primarily old, primarily white and primarily male state government are attempting to pass legislation (the controversial SB5 amendment) that would close down all but five of Texas' abortion providers and decrease current 20 week limit. When questioned on abortion in the case of rape the (sadly female) Texas lawmaker Jodie Laubenburg was on record as saying "In Emergency Rooms we have something called rape kits, where a woman can get cleaned out" Not only does this show a stunning arrogance and ignorance of both the purpose of a rape kit and the reality of how babies are actually made, but also a frightening attitude of some towards women's reproductive rights. One that seems to echoed throughout the GOP, which whilst having some well known anti abortion women members is proportionally speaking largely white and male. The people who hold these views will often describe themselves as 'Pro-life', but nothing could be further from the truth. Even ignoring the fact that in the case of Texas they still have and make use of the death penalty, anti -abortion campaigners are showing themselves to have little or no respect for the life of others. It is the same people who will campaign against universal health care, food stamps, social security. These are the very same people who demand that their 'rights' and 'freedoms' to own dangerous weapons and ammunition despite the fact that children die every day in America as a result of lose gun legislation,  but want greater regulation over what a private individual does with their body. They argue that life begins at the moment of conception but willfully ignore that it also doesn't end at the moment of birth.

This evening Texas democratic Senator Wendy Davis attempted a 13 hour filibuster in order to shut down or at least stall the bill. She was shut down by the house GOP on point of order, a technicality. These mainly old white men, who will never be affected by the issues which they are so arrogantly legislating on essentially made that lady shut up. Unlike so many times in the past the filibuster attempt was streamed live and was watched by millions around the world. The world knows what happened. We all saw. We all know those rich, white men who will never find themselves pregnant as a result of rape, will never find themselves facing the hideous choice of whether or not to bring a life into the world that they are not equipped, either financially, emotionally or mentally to raise. Like those of are against marriage equality, they are railing against an issue that will never make one iota of difference to their lives but can make a huge difference to someone elses. They do this not because they think it is for the best, but because they feel that it is their right to impose their will and beliefs on others. That rights and freedoms only extend to the rights and freedoms they feel are important but not those that are important to others. They make efforts to legislate on private individuals and their private lives in order to exert their own power and privilege.

People who support the right to abortion are not 'pro-abortion' they are 'pro-choice'. There are very few (if any) who would make the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly regardless of the circumstances. There are few if any who believe that abortion should not be carefully regulated, but in a way that ensures the safety of those who undertake it. There few if any who think that abortion is an alternative to contraception. Pro-choice means allowing people the rights to make their own choice. By lowering the amount of time a woman has to make a decision the anti-abortion faction  believe that they will lower abortion rates by essentially forcing those who are over 15 weeks to have their children regardless of the circumstances. I would argue that possibly the opposite might be true. Given less time to consider their options (particularly women who find out about their pregnancies later or who after screening might be considering their options due to the impact on their family) women might well be more likely to choose an abortion as they do not have enough time to fully consider their options, to look at the support available to them should they opt to keep their babies. Also the banning or limiting of abortions does not stop them happening. As in the case of Ireland, where abortion is banned, the problem is still there, its just been exported to the UK. The same will happen in the US, as people are forced (where possible) to travel to other states for the procedures or more worryingly have illegal procedures.

As Bill Clinton stated, abortions should be 'safe, legal and rare' and this should be the case. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and should a person be anti-abortion (or pro-life) then they have the right to exercise that belief, to choose to never consider it as an option regardless of the circumstances. But by the same token a woman should also have the right and choice to terminate a pregnancy if that is what is best for her. This is not an issue like guns, where there is a legitimate public safety concern, this should be an individual choice and freedom, one that a woman takes on her own counsel and that of those she chooses to talk to about it with. Not some group of law makers, made of of old men and women who don't even seem to be fully aware of the facts of the very issue they seek to legislate upon. So before you tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body, check your privilege.

Addendum: In the time since I wrote this post there were numerous protests in the public gallery over the bill, and what can only be described as an awesome act of public filibuster. However, the very same people who had Senator Davies shut down over a rule, it appears to have been quite happy to break the rules themselves holding the vote after the midnight deadline. There seems to be some dispute as whether or the vote actually happened, but at the moment it does seem that it did. And that those people who protested (you know, the people who vote and these people claim they speak for) were being removed and in some cases arrested. So yeah, check your privilege.

Meeting hate with hate

Those of you who live in or are from the UK (and many of those of you who are not given the nature of 24 hour world news) cannot have failed to have heard about the terrible, stomach churning crime which took place in Woolwich, London yesterday.

In broad daylight in the middle of what appears to be a busy street two men attacked a third and killed him. Details of what happened during the attack remain patchy with some reports stating he was run over by a car driven by the assailants who then proceeded to 'hack' at the victim with meat cleaver style weapons, others simply that he was attacked with weapons. The two then, covered in the blood of their victim (who reports have said is likely to have been a serving soldier, the attackers clearly believed this to be the case) requested passers by take photographs and pretty much gave an interview citing their own messed up version of Islamic Jihad and the need for revenge for the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan as the motive for the crime.

As a crime of this utter brutality and cold bloodiness should illicit,  there has been outrage and disbelief. It is an indefensible act of murder.  But there has also been those quick to point the finger. Those who have been quick to use this act of barbarism as an excuse to vent their own prejudices and intolerance. Those who would hijack another family's pain and grief and horror to push their own agenda.  There has been much talk of how they should 'go back to where they came from', despite the fact there is nothing at this moment in time (evidence is still thin on the ground at the time of writing nothing beyond the videos is known about the two assailants - their comments about 'our country' are more likely to be them talking about a wider Islamic community than an actual country, particularly when quite clearly neither of them were Afghan nor Iraqi), including the accent of one of the attackers in the widely circulated video, to suggest that these assailants are not in fact British. There are those who are quick to blame it all on the 'Muslims'  despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims, not just in Britain but across the world, are horrified at the fact that a tiny minority of those that claim to follow the religion of Islam would commit such brutal and heinous acts in its name.

Groups such as the EDL and BNP will use this tragedy to add an element of perceived self righteousness to their ignorant and bigoted words and deeds. Already Mosques have been attacked in retaliation and even benign (ish) Facebook groups are using words like 'vengeance' when they should be looking for justice. But what I do not understand is what this actually solves, who it helps.

Violence and hate is not the antidote for violence and hate. It just breeds more of it. Making a scapegoat of an entire group, whether it be religious or ethnic based on the actions of a few is not helpful. It solves nothing, it helps no one. It just perpetuates the cycle.


One of the attacker said he was taking 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' and there are many who think that in this case it should work both ways, but to paraphrase the great wisdom of Ghandi, that just leaves everyone blind.