Guardian podcast about Sex and Relationships

I apologise for not blogging in some time but life has been rather hectic of late. I shall resume writing very soon but in the meantime, here is a Guardian news podcast including an interview with me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/audio/2010/oct/15/focus-podcast-sexually-transmitted-infections-audio

I'm not sexist but..........

At the airport recently, I decided to stock up on magazines. As well as the usual Grazia, Empire and Heat, I grabbed Tatler which I have never bought before but it had January Jones, my girl-crush, on the cover so I was swayed by the idea of Mad Men gossip. I guess I had always assumed Tatler was a silly Sloaney magazine that talked about posh people and posh clubs and had photos of them at the polo. What I found was a little more sinister. It is one article in particular that had me fuming on the plane so much that Paul had to calm me down and suggested I just stop reading and blog about it when I got home instead. The article was written by a chap called James Dellingpole who I now know to be a Torygraph journalist and climate change denier…. as well as an ignorant sexist arse. The article argues that there is nothing sexist or in any way wrong about buying a private education for your son and letting your daughter ''make do'' with a state one but that, in fact, this makes perfect sense. Dellingpole says that his son (or Boy as he refers to him in the article) had difficulties at his C of E state school and that even though it was rated outstanding ‘’it really wasn’t much cop at handling bright middle class boys’’ so Boy was moved to a private school and ‘’Girl drew the short straw’’ and was condemned to a state school education. How ghastly! He goes on to say that he thinks this is perfectly acceptable and that despite the fact that this confession ‘’is the kind of thing that gets your head bitten off by feminists’’ he thinks there are very good reasons why it is more important to give your son a ''better education'' than your daughter. This is his list of reasons:

1. Boys are much more likely to end up earning their family’s crust, while girls – especially if they’re pretty – can always marry someone rich regardless of their education.

2. Girls, being more sophisticated, socially adept, manipulative and devious, are much more capable of negotiating the complexities of the state school system than boys.

3. Boys are lazier and less mature than girls and are therefore in much greater need of private school discipline.

4. Boys are more physical and are in greater need of regular sport that state schools rarely provide.

Dellingpole reckons that most of the parents in his social circle agree with him and there is now a growing trend in the recession for parents of multiple children to send the boys to private school and the girls to state school. It is NOT sexist he says, simply logical and practical.

He ends his article thus: I’m hoping that Boy goes to a tailcoat wearing school full of boys desperate to meet attractive sisters with urban state educated street-cred and that Girl therefore meets future Duke/hedgefunder through her brother and never has to work again. I don’t call that sexist. I call that common sense.

And I call you a twat James Dellingpole.

OH DO SHUT UP GISELLE

Don't you just love it when supermodels take it upon themselves to dole out advice to mere mortals? This week it is the turn of Giselle, 5'11 Brazillian supermodel who tells us that not only was she back modelling g-string bikinis 6 weeks after giving birth but also that she thinks a worldwide law should be passed forcing all new mothers to breastfeed for 6 months. ''Some people'' she tells us ''think they don't have to breastfeed and I think are you really going to give chemical food to your child?''. While I am very happy that the 9 stone model so enjoys breastfeeding, and that she meditated throughout her home birth and 'felt no pain', I am getting sick of celebrities daily claims about the right and wrong way to give birth, lose the baby weight and bring up children. I have often moaned and raged about what I see as a distinct lack of sisterhood in our society and this kind of comment goes straight to the heart of what I believe to be such a huge problem. Women are not a homogeneous group. Every single woman is different. Yes I know this sounds obvious to you and I but I really do think some people need reminding. No two pregnancies are the same, no two births are the same and no two mothers are the same. This is due to a mix of personality, biology, hormones, status, education, health and a wealth of other factors. While Giselle may be lucky enough to be able to breastfeed for 6 months, not all women have such a privilege. Some can not afford to take 6 months off work so need to move on to formula much quicker. Others decide with their partners that it would be nice for dad to be able to do his share of feeding and bonding with baby. More still, simply can not physically breastfeed whether this is from finding it rather painful, or having a baby who simply will not feed to suffering from postpartum depression or chronic mastitis or a plethora of other health issues. Motherhood is surely a deeply personal experience where every new mother must find her own way. Breastfeeding is not some kind of moral imperative but a personal choice. So thanks Giselle, but do shut up now... don't you have some more bikinis to model?

Legend???

Whatever your opinion about the police handling of the Raoul Moat fiasco, I imagine you feel as uncomfortable as I do about the strange outpouring of hero worship that has appeared on blogs, forums and Facebook in recent days. Despite shooting his ex girlfriend, killing her boyfriend and shooting a police officer in the face at close range, almost 23,000 people have joined a Facebook group called ‘RIP RAOUL MOAT YOU LEGEND!’ I can think of many words to describe Moat: dangerously misguided, mentally unstable, addict, abusive, aggressive and clearly in need of psychiatric help but ‘legend’ he is not.

More worryingly, many of the people holding Moat up as some kind of anti establishment hero are claiming that the real monsters in all this are women. Yes really. There are some gems on the Facebook page including ‘’wata guy! Dats wa apenz wen women melt ya so much tha push ya da insanity’’. Eloquently put. Another priceless contribution was from Anthony who offered ‘’HOPE OTHER WOMEN LEARN FROM HIS WOMAN MISTAKE. KEEP YOUR FUCKING LEGS SHUT WHILE YOUR MAN IS AWAY’’. And it’s not just men spewing this bile. Tina Reid added ‘’your ex is shambles fucking devious lying cow – should be her in a coffin’’.

I then came across a blog from Benjamin Barton who is apparently hoping to become an MP – god help us all – which I wont go into in too much detail as I currently have flames coming out of my ears, but do please follow the link and have a look yourself. If you don’t have time, a choice excerpt is: ‘’if she hadn’t cheated on him, lied to him, deceived him, badmouthed him and demeaned his morale, all of this would never have happened. Naturally she didn’t expect the reaction that she got but she had to expect a reaction’’. You get the picture?

http://benjaminbartonformp.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/why-i-apportion-a-lot-of-the-blame-from-the-raoul-moat-shooting-on-samantha-stobbart/

Rather than, yet again, blaming the victims of abuse for whatever violence is meted out to them perhaps we should be asking some very serious questions like why, despite receiving information from prison guards that Samantha Stobbart was in danger from Moat, did police not offer her protection? And more importantly, what can we do about the depressing reality that so many people seem to think that women can be held partly responsible for the violence inflicted upon them by partners?

When Samatha Stobbart began dating Moat she was a naïve, uneducated 16 year old girl charmed by a 32 year old man who flattered her and showered her with gifts. According to Stobbart and her friends and family, the 6 year relationship was soon riddled with domestic violence and she had tried to leave several times but Moat had promised to hurt her and their daughter if she left. When Samantha escaped to her grandmother’s house, Moat turned up with a gun and threatened the entire family. Even in Moats rambling letter to police he admitted he wanted not to kill Samantha but to maim her and leave ugly scars so that she would always be reminded ‘never to treat a man like that again’. (Very reminiscent of a certain Zoo advice column).

We know that Samantha was terrified of Moat coming out of prison and that out of fear, she pretended to be dating a police officer hoping that would scare him away. Sadly it didn’t work and now Samantha finds herself accused of ‘taunting’ Moat by making up these lies.

What I find most shocking about this whole case is the idea that this was a totally unexpected incident. Seeing Moat’s previous convictions including the prison term for assaulting a nine year old child, and hearing of the years of abuse he rained on his partner including allegedly splitting her head open and stamping on her stomach, how can anybody say that this was a shock? Domestic violence is VIOLENCE. It’s not a special little semi-violence that is partly the fault of an annoying woman provoking/disrespecting/nagging a man. If a man is capable of years of assault on a woman he purports to love, is an addict, is known to use and own guns and has a criminal record as long as his arm, he is clearly a danger.

For now, I would like to see Samantha Stobbart left alone. I would also like to see Facebook remove Moat’s sick ‘fan’ page due to thousands of comments left inciting hatred and violence to women. I would like to see the IPCC properly investigate why Stobbart was not offered protection when Moat left prison. And for the future, I would like so much more…. I want to live in a society where women stop getting blamed for being stuck in violent relationships but I am beginning to worry that things are only getting worse.

Apologies.....

This is just an apology for not having blogged for a few weeks. What with revising for exams and getting my dissertation finished, I have had a fair amount going on.... though the last week I have had no excuse, other than the glorious weather.

Anyway, this is just to let you know that normal blogging will resume next week and in the meantime, here are a few links to keep you busy!

Education For Choice have started a blog and I urge you to become followers. Anyone that knows me will know who they are from when I worked for them - an incredible charity working with young people and professionals around unplanned pregnancy decision making and abortion. Their Talk About Choice workshops (which I used to deliver when working there) recently won an FPA award and it's about time too!
http://educationforchoice.blogspot.com/

I have just finished reading Kat Banyard's fantastic book The Equality Illusion and highly recommend it to any like minded feminists out there. Lots of reasonably priced copies available on Amazon. Also, take a look at her website UK Feminista for great ideas about how to get active and contribute to, attend or set up your own feminist group.

An excellent article in today's G2 interviewing Gail Dines, the world's most prominent anti porn campaigner. Definitely worth a read (and her book Pornland: How Porn has Hijacked Our Sexuality is available online from today).

Until next week!

Cx

Why do women STILL get blamed for domestic violence?

Another day, another domestic violence story….. I have just read about the arrest of a man in Seattle Washington by the name of Graydon Smith. Apparently the 31 year old forced his pregnant 19 year old girlfriend to sign an ‘abuse contract’ allowing him to beat her whenever he wanted, so long as he didn’t punch or kick her belly. As if this case isn’t sad enough, a quick look at online forums and comments pages in the US press, while littered with very occasional comments such as ‘this man should get life in prison’’ mostly from women, the vast majority of posters – male and female - are pouring scorn on the woman. It makes me so desperately sad that so many people still seem to blame a woman for ‘taking’ violence rather than blaming the perpetrators. A selection of comments from Seattle Weekly’s readers confirm my worst fears:

sally sue says:
Sorry but no one can force you to sign anything or stay in a relationship you don't want to be in. People stay in abusive relationships because they are getting something out of them.

Anonymous says:
What is wrong with that woman, accepts such treatment and signs a contract!!!! Told the police, yet stayed in that sickening relationship?

Will says:
If your boyfriend beats you up why why why do you keep going back to him. I will never understand this

Javert says:
The first time you take a beating from your Bf/spouse your a victim, after that you are a volunteer.

Bubba Bafferson says:
I'm so sick and tired of stories like this one. Not the abuse - I am so sick and tired of the idiot "awww, I know he loves me" women who put up with this crap. THEY'RE the truly disgraceful parties in these stories. Hey, scum exist, and sometimes you hook up with one. Beat me once, shame on you. Beat me twice, shame on me. In this day and age, with the resources that exist to help women get the hell out of these relationships, there is absolutley postitively no reason for them to stay. If they do (and this idiot woman obviously did), them well, it's a harsh truth, but natural selection is alive and well. Weak willed "but I know he's sorry" women make me sick. Get the hell out, and move on!!

Christoph says:
I blame him.
And I blame her.
What the hell is she doing in this situation?
You know, ladies, if your boyfriend is a psychopathic violent abuser, you can leave him and find a man who isn't. You can even screw that man instead of the brute unless he's just so darn nice he just doesn't get your juices flowing -- in which case, take care of your needs yourself -- or, if you insist on being with Grade A world class wife-beater, then you know what?

At some point you're going to lose any right to sympathy if you don't walk away.

Paul A'Barge says:
40 yrs ago when I was pregnant, my husband at the time used to beat me. This is just about as low as you can go.
No, there is one step lower.
The woman who marries this kind of mutt.




What bothers me the most is when women themselves buy into this sick argument. I am one of the lucky ones: I have never been in a physically abusive relationship and yes, it is easy for someone like me to say ‘why would a woman stay with a partner that beat her?’ but there are myriad reasons why women do, fear being the main one. Also, with such a dearth of support services available and such a low conviction rate (like all crimes against women depressingly) it can often seem that there is no choice but to stay. In this instance, the woman contacted the police in April to say she had been beaten by Graydon who had threatened to kill her. She also told the police about the contract that she had clearly had to sign under duress (sign this to say I can beat you or… I will beat you). The police called Graydon on the telephone, they didn’t even bother to visit the house. When questioned on the phone Graydon denied hitting her but admitted making her sign the contract. The police did nothing. They only turned up to arrest him 5 weeks later when the girl’s stepfather arrived at the house to see his daughter being choked, her face covered in blood. Perhaps if the police took domestic violence more seriously and women were educated about abuse then we wouldn’t live in a world with such alarming and depressing statistics of women being beaten daily, some to death, by abusive men.

Pole Dancing and Pageants – Spot the Difference?

I don’t quite know where to begin with this one…. Rima Fakih of Michigan was crowned Miss USA this week to much fanfare and controversy. Initially the controversy centred on the fact that she was *gasp* a Muslim! And an immigrant! The US conservative press went into overdrive with several reporters branding her a ‘’terrorist’’, an ‘’extremist’’ and, my personal favourite ‘’Miss Hezbollah’’. Conspiracy theories ensued that claimed her foray into the contest was financed by ‘Islamic terrorists’. Well yes, of course. Muslim extremists are all for young women strutting down a stage in a bikini watched by millions advocating that birth control should be free. US bloggers are already claiming that she was not the true winner but it was all political. Ah, that old ‘PC gone mad’ chestnut.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, there was more controversy coming Rima’s way. Today it was ‘uncovered’ that not only is she a Muslim but that she is also a ‘sleazy stripper’. I say ‘uncovered’ when in fact rather than this discovery being the breakthrough of an investigative journalist, the pictures were quite openly on a Michigan radio station’s website and have been for three years. However, it appears that this may now put her crown in jeopardy.

Right, let’s unpick this one:

1. She was not a ‘sleazy stripper’. In fact she didn’t even strip. She won a radio show where the prize was pole dancing lessons. The lesson took place in a women only club and Rima wore shorts and a vest.

2. Does nobody else find this hypocrisy utterly laughable? Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t Miss USA all about thin, attractive, heavily made up women wearing bikinis, lingerie and evening dresses and parading up and down a catwalk before ‘judges’ – including the delightful Donald Trump – who pick their appearance apart and award them points like show ponies? Yes I thought so. So errrrr I am confused. What is the problem with the fact she has, on other occasions, bared her flesh and appeared to be sexy and sexual? The photos on the Miss USA website show her lounging on a bed pouting seductively in bra, knickers, stockings and heels. She looked a lot less sleazy dressed for her pole dancing lesson.

3. Finally and most importantly. Its 2010 people. Seriously, why do these contests still even exist? Supporters claim that these contests are ‘’not just about beauty on the outside but beauty on the inside too’’. So why the mandatory bikinis? Those that claim that Miss USA, Miss World etc are archaic and exploitative are branded mad feminists. In this case the critics are correct. I am a feminist and it makes me bloody mad.

A Sad Loss

Of all the MPs who lost their seats in the election, none struck such as a blow as that of Dr Evan Harris, Liberal Democrat MP for Oxford West.

To the liberal minded among us and to those working in the area of women’s rights he was something of a hero. To The Daily Mail and The Torygraph he was dubbed ‘Dr Death’. In fact the Torygraph published an article this weekend gleefully reveling in his loss of seat – the article basically reads as ‘ding dong the witch is dead’.

Harris is not only a tireless campaigner for women’s rights and LGBT rights (he is President of DELGA) but he also opposed ID cards, student top up fees and was vociferous in his opposition to the Iraq War.

A thorn in the side of Tory favourite Nadine Dorries, he battled to keep the abortion limit at 24 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill went before parliament last year.


During the campaign, Harris received the support of, among others, Stephen Fry who said of Harris: ‘’he is by far and away the most persuasive and impressive parliamentarian in the cause of good and open science and enquiry that we have had in the past decade. He has been central to mould-breaking and inspirational multiparty cooperation in issues of scientific concern’’.

How sad that while Evan has lost his seat, the likes of Nadine Dorries are still powering on. Dorries wants to see the abortion limit lowered, wants parents to be able to opt their children out of sex education and generally wants to get her face on the television at every opportunity to spout right-wing bile. (Tower Block of Commons anyone?)

I was surprised recently to see her writing about the sexual objectification of women and the amount of billboards and bus ads using semi naked women. ‘Wow’ I thought, ‘is Nadine finally speaking out on behalf of women rather than holding them back in the dark ages??’ The answer was no. At the end of her article she ended with this: ‘’And no, I haven’t turned into a feminist overnight - heaven forbid! This is not about wearing a feminist hair shirt. It’s about knowing the difference between what is right and wrong.’’ And then she mentioned God. Sigh…

Take a look at Nadine's blog, see below:

http://blog.dorries.org/id-1011-2008_6_G2.aspx

Where have all the women gone?

So, the TV ads for Channel 4's alternative election night didnt feature Lauren Laverne and the preview write ups didnt mention her either. Then the publicity shots appearing in guides a few days before the election suddenly featured a photoshopped-in Laverne. Hmmmmm last minute C4 exec meeting: ''Shit. We have three white men fronting the coverage of the big election race between.... three white men. Better get a woman in quick. A Black or Asian one if possible.... June Sarpong's not availble? Damnit... Well find me a woman quick!''

Poor Lauren didnt get to make any jokes or political comment til right at the end but was left doing the links to the adverts. The woman's five months pregant as well... bet she wonders why she bothered standing around for 3 hours in a hot studio when she could have been watching curled up on the sofa like the rest of us.

A flick through the other channels revealed more shows fronted by lots and lots of white men.

It's such a shame presenters like Laverne - witty, sharp, funny and outspoken - arent better utilised on our screens. Instead we have 17 shows presented by either Fearne Cotton or Holly Willoughby. Or Fearne Cotton. In fact now we even have 'Kate off The Apprentice' fronting a national TV show. Dire.

Anyone watching the recent episode of Have I got News For You with Victoria Coren surely couldn't help but notice the look of utter fear on her usually confident face at the start of the show and I am embarassed to admit even I thought 'poor girl, she is going to get ripped apart' but she warmed up and ended up stealing the show, even managing to throw a few savage put downs Paul Merton's way. Nicely done Coren.

So come on. More funny, clever women on tele please. Then maybe we can work our way up to more women in Parliament too? I always knew women were poorly represented in the House of Commons but I didnt realise until recently that we actually have less female MPs than Rwanda or Afghanistan.

Oh well, at least we have Fearne Cotton. And Holly Willoughby.

Danny Dyer ruined my day

I had such a fantastic today. Really lovely. I thought I was going to watch a bit of tele, eat dinner and go to bed relaxed and happy. Then I heard about Danny Dyer’s advice column (to a recently single bloke - ''cut your ex's face then nobody will want her'') and now that I have finished spitting nails, I am going to rant instead.


The first thing I thought about when I heard about Dyer’s advice (or ‘Zoogate’ as I am sure it will be branded by the tabloids.) was Katie Piper. Katie was the woman who had sulphuric acid thrown in her face by someone paid by her ex boyfriend Daniel Lynch in 2008. The story of what happened to Katie is completely horrifying. 2 weeks into their relationship, Lynch took her to a hotel where he locked her in a room, beat and raped her repeatedly over a period of 8 hours and threatened to cut her with a razor before finally taking her home.

2 days later, after having none of his calls returned, he left a message begging her to read an email he had sent her on facebook apologising. Lynch knew Katie had no internet and on her way to her local internet café she was approached by a stranger who threw the acid in her face. After 12 days in an induced coma and 34 operations, she was left disfigured and blind in one eye. She now has to wear a plastic face mask 20 hours a day.

What made Katie’s story even more shocking to me was the way in which some of the press reported it. All made reference to her ‘beauty’ and many only used the descriptions ‘’model Katie’ or ‘blonde Katie’ throughout the articles. They talked of her ‘stunning’ face and ‘petite’ figure and the fact that she was ‘popular with men’. The Daily Mail even spoke of her decision not to go to the police after the rape as ‘open to question’. Oh and they mention her parents seeing their daughter’s ‘once beautiful face’ for the first time after the attack. Readers comments to the online article included such gems as ‘’well that’s what happens if you date people off the internet’’ – she met Lynch online – and ‘’oh another chance for all the women readers to post comments implying all men are bastards. I am getting really angry with this constant discrimination’’. Poor chap.

Katie’s experience, and her campaigning after the attack, helped wake the government up a little and the following year, the issue of violence against women was finally pushed ever so slightly further up the political agenda. And I do stress ever so slightly.

In my work I am inundated with statistics about violence against women and girls that become ever more bleak and depressing. According to myriad of studies and surveys, 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence and 2 women a week die as a result of it. 1 in 8 men think its ok to hit a partner if they are nagging or if they flirt with other men.

In the focus groups and surveys I have been conducting over the last three months, my data from under 21s in Islington backs up all these claims. Last week in a focus group on a Holloway estate, we started talking about Rhianna getting beaten up by Chris Brown. One young man said he was stupid to have done it ‘’so badly and in the street when people could see’’ but said that Rhianna had given Brown an STI and that if a girl gave him one ‘’yeh I would give her a slap but not bash in her face that badly’’. A 14 year old girl then added ‘’yeh and I am sure they doctored those pictures to make it look worse’’.

How did we get here?

I have digressed, but when I read Danny Dyer’s advice to a reader of putrid Zoo magazine the worst part was that I wasn’t entirely shocked. It seems to me that for a long time, these types of magazine have completely perpetuated the myth of all women being available and gagging for it or being prudes or prick teases if they aren’t. Zoo is read by over half a million people a week and 50% of its readers are under 24. 13% are under 16 and this helps shape their view of women and the world. This magazine that offers boob jobs for readers girlfriends and has described women on its pages as ‘fat hairy lesbians’ clearly doesn’t think twice about ‘joking’ about violence against women. And would we really expect Danny Dyer to be sensitive and compassionate? No. But how did this get past the editors?

I take huge offence at the pathetic excuse for an apology that Zoo’s editor Tom Etherington gave today:

‘’I apologise unreservedly for any offence the response may have caused’’ he said blaming a ‘production error’ and promising to donate a few quid to Women’s Aid. Dyer claims to have been misquoted. Ahhh that old chestnut. Offence this MAY have caused? Are we suggesting there is a possibility people won’t be offended? Surely everyone will be offended…. I thought… though by looking at the comments section of The Sun online, it turns out I am wrong.


SuperAmanda..you're a knob. Dont slag someone off who you've never met and know nothing about, It was a genuine mistake he's a lovely guy I've met him several times. ****
9:19PM, May 05, 2010Kt88

Anyone read zoo? It's not a magazine for 'The independent' brigade! The so-called problem page is more of a P**S-take than anything.Dyer didn't mean bad by this.On paper it seems an outrageous comment,but keep it in context and understand that it's not serious.Very much doubt there's gonna be a spate of attacks on ex's due to dyer's comment.
8:27PM, May 05, 2010Redeye69


Im suprised someone is making a big story out of this. He made a silly joke, quite original i admit, and thats that. He hasnt been misquoted or anything, he said that for a laugh, its quite clear throughout his comment. Does anyone actually expect a serious answer in a magazine full of sick jokes and weird stuff? GET A LIFE PEOPLE!
7:25PM, May 05, 2010RafRedDevil

Danny Dyer's advice column is very much tongue-in-cheek - like The Sun's own Betty Brisk's "advice" column which, I should point out, is full of advice for women to physically attack their husbands and boyfriends.

You can't be outraged by one and not the other - unless you're a hypocrite, of course! 7:28PM, May 05, 2010

Basically, it seems that us liberals should just take a joke and stop moaning.

Help with human rights project

Some of you have kindly said that you will comment on my discussion paper around lap dancing and human rights for the purpose of my project. Thank you so much for your help - it is hugely appreciated! I have posted the discussion paper below and invite you to leave your comments as 'comment posts' here. If for any reason you do not want your views to be public, please email me your comments instead. Please also tell anyone else that may be interested in the subject to join the blog and share comments too. I need to begin writing up an analysis of views on Sunday so it would be great to have as much input as possible before then. Thanks again!

Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their oppressors. ~Evelyn Cunningham


Are Lap Dancing Clubs an Infringement of Basic Human Rights?

Due to recent licensing laws, lap dancing clubs – who until now have only required the same license as a pub – must now secure a license as a ‘sexual encounter establishment’. Many are overjoyed by this piece of legislation with residents and local authorities claiming that it will benefit them, giving them greater say – and in the case of Local Authorities – greater power to intervene and stop new clubs opening in residential area, near schools etc. Dancers too welcome the change, claiming it will improve their working conditions and rights which have largely been ignored.

Managers of these clubs however are claiming that the new laws infringe upon their human rights and want to fight in the European courts. Chris Knight, President of the Lap Dancing Association (LDA) stated recently ‘’Local authorities are effectively taking away our right to property and to do business, as outlined in the Human Rights Act article 8, and we will consider taking it as far as we have to in the courts’’. Many other club operators have echoed his feelings.

(It is worth pointing out that contrary to what you may suppose, the LDA only represents club owners and operators, not dancers.)

Richard Kemp of the Local Government Association argues that ‘’this argument is rubbish because there are lots of other articles in the act which don’t support the clubs’’. Which poses a very pertinent question:

Are the very existence of these clubs an infringement of human rights?

To unpick this question, it is vital that we hear what those working in these clubs have to say. While I am not conducting field research for this assignment myself, I am referring to studies and interviews carried out with dancers over the last 10 years. Below is information gained by, among others, Julie Bindel’s study into lap dancing clubs for the Abuse of Women and Children Unit for London Metropolitan University:

The first lap dancing club opened in the UK in 1995 and there are now near to 300

Police forces in the UK have conducted a number of investigations into misconduct and criminal activity with clubs.

In some boroughs, reported cases of sexual assault rose by up to 33% after the opening of lap dancing clubs.

In Bindel’s study, none of the clubs visited in London and Glasgow adhered to the terms of their licenses.

All four clubs visited in Glasgow allowed the ‘no touching’ rule to be broken.

Dancers are self employed and as such, have no employment rights. They also have to pay ‘rent’ to club owners to dance. At Spearmint Rhino for example this can be up to £100 a night. On a quiet night there is no guarantee a dancer can even make enough to cover this cost so dancers can end up leaving worse off after a night at work.

None of the dancers interviewed were happy with working conditions. No club had a dedicated dressing room – dancers were expected to change in stairwells etc – and none offered dancers water or refreshments outside the public areas. Many dancers complained of bullying and harassment by owners, housemothers and bouncers. Some quotes from dancers include: ‘’I started to go to the gym recently to get fit. This is such an unhealthy lifestyle in many ways. We’re drinking every night, breathing in smoke, and eating takeaways. I was told by the housemother that I wasn’t allowed to continue the gym, because I was starting to develop muscles, and the men don’t like that apparently’’ (GD1)

“ The housemother told me my boobs were too small, and that I should get them seen to. I never did anything about it, but it still hangs in the air. Sometimes the bouncers make rude comments about ‘fried eggs’” (GD1)

“If anyone has a tiny bit of cellulite, or is slightly overweight, she is pulled by management and told to do something about it. That can make you feel like shit. It’s as if they own our bodies. We’re even told when to shave our public hair” (GD11).

Problems raised by dancers include threats of violence, harassment, demands for sex and basic health and safety issues.

Despite assurances from club owners that prostitution does not take place, private lap dance rooms and cubicles were found to contain bowls of condoms and many had no CCTV.

Interviews with club owners revealed some interesting views held about the women that dance in their clubs, mostly they were described as property or objects. One such example: ‘’What you’ve got to understand is that running girls [the dancers] is not as easy as people think. They’re like cats – more intelligent than you think, but sly with it. (Interview, May 2004).

If dancers are found to be engaging in sexual services, they are culpable to police and not club owners, even though a large number of women interviewed claimed being encouraged, pressured or coerced into offering such services.
Customers interviewed at lapdancing clubs were asked ‘why do you think girls work here?’ and answers ranged from ‘’because they earn loads of money’’ and ‘’they are probably prostitutes’’ to ‘’I don’t know and I don’t care’’.

For the purpose of this discussion paper, I would be grateful if you could leave comments with your opinions on the lap dancing industry and your feelings about the conditions women work under. The human rights act articles which I would suggest could be used as a basis for this discussions are paraphrased below:

Article 1 – All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
Article 4 – No one shall be held in servitude
Article 5 – No one shall be subjected to degrading treatment
Article 16 – Men and women are entitled to equal rights
Article 23 – Everyone has the right to a free choice of employment, just and favourable conditions of work, without discrimination, the right to equal pay

I believe that the sexual exploitation of women is in direct contravention of human rights but I am interested to see if this view is shared by others. There is a definite quarter of people, including women who refer to themselves as feminists who believe that lap dancing is empowering to women but I would argue that given a real choice, very few women would choose lap dancing as a profession and find little empowering about what they do.

In responding to this discussion paper, please could you mention if you have visited a lap dancing club yourself? And please also share your views as to the issue of the new licensing. The main question to come back to at the end of your comments is: Could it be argued that lap dancing is an infringement of human rights?

Thank you so much for taking the time to read and comment.




"…there is no tool for development more effective than the empowerment of women." -- Kofi Annan

Lapdancing clubs finally require new licenses

The Policing and Crime Act finally came into law this month effectively forcing existing lap dancing clubs to reapply for new licenses as ‘sex encounter venues’ - the same licenses that apply to sex shops, ‘peep shows’ and sex cinemas. Currently, they are licensed in exactly the same way as pubs.

For many, this has been a long time coming and is partly due to the incredible advocacy work of The Fawcett Society and OBJECT and their supporters who have been tirelessly putting pressure on local and National government for some time. This new law also means that communities will have much more control over whether new lap dancing venues are allowed to open in their local area, near schools and places of worship.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean to sound pious - I have been to lap dancing clubs myself in the past but let’s not pretend that a lap dancing or pole dancing venue is in any way the same as a bog standard pub or cafe. As a lap dancer recently told the Guardian in response to OBJECT’s proposals: ‘’If you're masturbating someone through his trousers with your arse, then that's definitely a sexual service.... No matter what the owners tell you, these places are 100% sex industry’’.

And to those who say its all just ‘a bit of fun’ I would point you to the statistics in Camden - a borough that currently has 7 lap dancing and strip clubs - that shows incidents of rape rose by 33% after the opening of the last 4 establishments. Having a no touching rule in the clubs is all well and good but when sexually aroused and frustrated men full of alcohol leave the premises, women become fair game. As someone who spent over a decade living on a road famous for prostitution, I was kerb crawled and propositioned constantly and was once mugged by a pimp so I can attest to that.

However, just as we celebrate the passing of the new law, strip club managers are up in arms. ‘It’s not fair!’ they claim, probably branding supporters of the campaign a bunch of prudes and lesbians. So incensed are they in fact that they are now claiming the law is in an infringement of their human rights and are threatening to take the matter to the EU courts. ‘’Why should we pay an extra £30,000 for a new license?’ they whinge? With one chain of lap dancing clubs turning over profits of over a million a year I would argue ‘because you can afford it!’.

Let’s not forget that it is not the dancers themselves who see the money, in fact many girls report ending up further in debt after having to pay for the privilege of dancing at such an establishment. Dancers also consistently state that the no touching rules are never adhered to and that they are generally expected to do whatever the punters want.

Claiming that new licensing laws are infringement of human rights is so ridiculous it’s laughable. I can only hope any claims get laughed straight out of court. As Anna van Heeswijk of OBEJECT stated ‘’human rights legislation exists to safeguard against discrimination, not to protect the rights of club owners to make a profit’’.

Good point well made

At the recent national sexual health conference, the topic of rape came up. After many long winded questions to the panel from academics and professionals, a teenage girl stood up and made the most memorable point of the day.

Why she asked, are we as women always made to feel responsible for rape and sexual assault? ‘’Look at all these ads - its like ‘girls, watch your drink at all times to avoid getting spiked’ and ‘girls, don’t get in any taxi cab unless you know for sure it is licensed’. ‘Girls, don’t walk home in unlit areas late at night and don’t listen to your ipod when walking alone’’. ‘‘When’’ she demanded, voice rising ‘’are they going to bring out an ad campaign that says ‘men - stop raping women!’’

Good point well made I think.

On the same topic, I was so confused and frustrated reading the reporting of Jack Tweed’s rape case yesterday. Tweed is being tried for ‘rape’ while his friend Anthony Davis is being tried for ‘oral rape’ (and we dont know yet whether they are guilty or not). The story is that Tweed raped her and Anthony forced her to perform oral sex. I am confused. Is this somehow not as bad as penetrative rape? Does so called ‘oral rape’ carry a lesser sentence? Is someone actually saying that it’s not quite as bad if they get raped in the mouth?

To the same degree, the media’s insistence on using the term ‘date rape’ shows no sign of abating. There is somehow this belief that being raped by a known man is not as traumatic as being raped by a stranger. In fact rape by your husband was only criminalised as recently as 1991! Considering over 80% of rape victims know their assailant, I think we can safely say that ‘date rape’ is simply ‘rape’.

I think it’s high time we started calling a spade a spade.

Wheeling out the WAGS but no mention of women’s issues….

With over 20 million women eligible to vote in May, I was appalled that none of the political leaders mentioned women’s issues in the first TV debate last week. This despite the fact the party leaders are clearly aware of the need to court women voters – why else are Sarah and SamCam being wheeled out at every opportunity? And I love the fact that Clegg has so far mostly resisted, even though his wife is clearly both the most intelligent and the fittest of the lot ;)

Having spent a day trawling through the manifestos last week, women barely get a look in there either. Labour’s ‘A Fair Future For All’ mentions the word ‘women’ only 8 times in 60 pages, mostly in general terms in a wider context making only one paltry concession to the female of the species with the paragraph:

‘’Domestic violence has fallen
by over 50 per cent since
1997, reporting of rape has
doubled, and rape convictions
have increased by more
than 50 per cent. But we are
committed to zero tolerance
of violence against women, so
we will continue to drive up
prosecution rates, tackle causes,
and raise awareness – as well
as maintaining women-only
services including a Sexual
Assault Referral Centre in every
area.’’

This sounds lovely but as far as I am aware, most rape crisis centres receive no government funding. Despite many pledges over the years, we have seen a decline, not a rise in support services for victims of rape and sexual assault. Labour have at least begun to tackle the issue of Domestic Violence this year but there is still a hell of a long way to go.

The Tory manifesto – a deeply unreadable 138 page document that manages to say not very much about anything at all despite it’s glossy photos and random graphs and tabular data – mentions women only five times (four of which are in sentences that say ‘men and women’) and have absolutely nothing anywhere in the document about women’s rights in any way shape or form.

The Liberal Democrats sadly only mention women four times, all in general terms.

How is this possible? Frankly it’s insulting.

I am leaning more and more towards the Lib Dems, based on things such as their opposition to the war, their pledge to scrap ID cards and refusal to replace Trident (saving billions that could be better spent on health and education) and more specifically for their ideas around the criminal justice system – scrapping short term sentences and channelling more money into education, prevention and rehabilitation rather than spending millions on expanding prisons for example.

But they by no means have my vote yet and frankly a nod to women’s health, women’s rights or women’s support services from Clegg or Brown in the coming days could have massive implications on which way I vote on 6th May. I am sure I am not alone

A random idea....

I never thought I would become a 'blogger' to be honest. I am not very technologically advanced for a start. I recently deleted my Myspace page after realising I hadn't checked it for over a year, and I have never been on Twitter, not even to look at someone else's feed. (Do you call it a 'feed'?) I am even growing bored of Facebook and only seem to update my status by blackberry when stuck on a night bus these days.



Recently however, partly through my job, partly through my studies but mostly through growing up and suddenly finding myself a fully-grown-up-adult-woman, I have discovered two things:



1. I love writing. I always did love it and long before I took pleasure in songwriting, I even wrote 'a book' on a two week summer holiday. I was 11. Yes I really was that precocious. Being at university has made me realise that while I am certainly not a great academic writer, I do love the writing process. A tutor was also kind enough recently to tell me after giving me a so-so 65% for an essay that while I should have 'delved deeper into theory', my writing style 'was fantastically readable'. I was quite surprised by how much this comment pleased me.



2. I get angry. Again, I always did have a bit of a temper but these days I have mellowed dramatically and don't seem to get angry in my personal life the way I did when I was younger. I get angry about other things now. Mainly things to do with the treatment of young people and of women; to do with the ridiculous pressures put upon women; to do with the tedious marketing ploys of companies advertising to young girls; to do with the overtly sexualised society we live in; the constant bombardment of messages to girls that they must be thin and tanned and hairless; the sale of NUTS and other such poor excuses for magazines sold next to Beano in newsagents; the fact that we are still fighting for legal abortion in Ireland as well as many countries further from home; the fact that two women a week die as a result of domestic violence; the disturbing views and derogatory terms about women that I hear daily from the young people I work with and mainly the fact that girls and women often hold these views just as much as the boys and men. And what really makes me angry and so terribly sad is the complete lack of sisterhood. Why are we letting this happen? Why aren't we showing the young girls of our society that it doesn't have to be this way? Why do we as adults buy into this sick culture when young people learn from us? How can we tell young girls not to buy into the beauty myth when we ourselves are such slaves to it?



Yesterday I decided that during my travels to and from work I would count all the posters, ads and billboards that used naked or near naked women to sell their products. Arriving at work having already noted seven (including ads for such sexy things as computers, coffee, beer, vitamins and errrr.... cancer) I went online and was faced with the SWAGS calendar and was so incensed I decided to start a blog. (And if you haven't seen the SWAGS diary - I have posted one of the many tasteful pictures here.)



So here I am. I am giving blogging a try.



I certainly don't claim to have any answers and I am actually embarrassed that it has taken me this long to realise that I am in fact a feminist. I have called this blog The Ramblings of an Amateur Feminist because I feel I have so much to learn. I was brought up to believe that women were equal and I have been lucky enough to have never been in an abusive relationship and to have done well at work. Perhaps that is the problem - I didn't think I had experienced overt sexism firsthand so it has taken me a while to get here. I say 'amateur' because though I do read a fair amount of feminist literature and closely follow policy relating to women, and though I work with young women and have always been passionate about women's rights, I don't fully understand the differences between 'new feminism' and 'reconstructed feminism' and I can't quote Mary Wollstonecraft or Germaine Greer but what I can do, is talk about what I see all around me, what I hear from all the young women I work with and what I learn day to day.



So this blog may be more of a rant and a stream of consciousness than anything else. And I will also post links to opinions of those far wiser than me. Please forgive me my self indulgence. I am really writing this for myself but I invite you to visit, read, comment, share, discuss, rant and ramble with me if you so wish.



Charli x