attitudes

You are currently browsing articles tagged attitudes.

So tonight after reading some stuff posted on a friends Facebook wall, I went and had a look at  a Poll on Breastfeeding. The questions asks ‘Do you think women should be forced to cover up when breastfeeding in public?’. I’m was somewhat pleased to see that of eveyone who had answered the poll, 56% said no.  However, what really troubled me was a) the fact that this is even a question that needs asking at all and b) the comments section which was full of glorious examples of mysogyny such as men telling women that breastfeeding in public without covering up was ‘indecent exposure’.

So let’s deal with point a) first- the fact this question even needed to be asked. I’m against the use of the word ‘forced’ in the question. No woman should be ‘forced’ to do anything, especially not when feeding her child. Let’s all just take a moment here to remember that breasts, contrary to popular myth, exist so that women can breastfeed. It is in fact, the primary function of the mammary gland to produce milk in order to nourish infants. I suspect that the reason this question gets asked is because in our modern, western, over sexualised culture we seem to have completely forgotten that  breasts are not sexual objects designed to titillate and pleasure men.

Moving onto point b)- the misogyny in a lot of the comments. There were of course several comments from people pointing out the sheer ridiculousness of expecting Mothers to feed their babies in toilets or  under blankets etc – when Michael Jackson stuck his kids heads under blankets in public we called it child abuse. How  is it suddenly okay when the parent is a Mother who is FEEDING her child? There were several comments from people asking what all the fuss was about, when breastfeeding is a perfectly natural thing. And then there were the comments where people argued that urination is natural, but that doesn’t mean they do it in the street. Here’s the thing- babies need feeding. Babies, when not fed become quite upset. I am fairly certain, the same people who call ‘disgusting’ upon seeing the tiniest hint of flesh in a breastfeeding mother, are the same people who ‘tut’ and mutter ‘ can’t they shut that child up? shocking’ under their breath when confronted with a Mother who is attempting to soothe her hungry child when she is too anxious to feed in public because of people’s reaction.

Also- how do these people think women breastfeed? Having breastfed one baby, bottlefed another (for long and complex reasons),  and in about 6 months time I’ll be breastfeeding a third, I’m desperately trying to work out how on earth anyone is ‘exposing’ themselves enough to warrant being stared at by people in public. It’s not as if one flops one’s breasts onto a table while the child uses a straw or something! Breastfeeding requires a baby to be latched on so closely to the breast in order to suck, that unless you’re feeding over a vest top or topless it’s nigh on impossible to see any flesh. Ifyour an inexperienced breastfeeder, who’s just getting into her routine, then yes you might ‘expose’ a bit of flesh whilst latching on, but seriously ‘indecent exposure’? That’s a bit much really.

It seems to me that there are many things tied up in this question and the attotudes the poll has revealed. Primarily there’s an issue about women and their use of public spaces- these people feel women should not feel comfortable or able to use public spaces to feed their children and that their behaviour and autonomy should be censured for ‘moral’ reasons. Those moral reasons rest on notions of womens bodies and body parts as sexual objects designed to bring pleasure to men, but not to carry out their primary function- that of feeding babies. Then their an issue about ‘forcing’ women to comply with a ‘rule’ which is based on fallacious arguments and a dominant male based oppressive power structure.

I’m not that fussed about how or where women choose to feed their babies. Breastfeeding from many points of view is prefferable to bottlefeeding,  but  for many women it isn’t a practical, medical or cultural option, and  either way it shouldn’t matter. We need to support women and their partners and families to be comfortable with their feeding choices- this means access to breastfeeding cafes, and clinics and lactation consultants. This means access to peer supporters, and proper, accurate information about both breast and bottle feeding.  This means being able to feed your baby in public in any way you damn please without fear of censure or disapproval or abuse.

And it means that as onlookers, as other humans using a public space, we do not judge. We do not comment, becuase whether supportive or not, we are intruding. We do not ‘tut’ or mutter ’shocking’. We recognize that what we see is not indecent exposure, or bad parenting or shamelessness or a woman flaunting herself. What we see is a child being given it’s meal by it’s caregiver, and that is a perfectly normal, perfectly natural thing.

Apologies to all for lack of posting on the site , Suzi and myself have been going through last term of  academic year hell and I’ve also made myself a glutton for punishment and been voted in as  Student Union President (again).

Pursuing my interest in the doctrine (or non doctrine) of anarchy, particularly the action, or non action of  forum use and the ‘feeling’ that being, in these anarchist forums is to them, a space of free thinking (or, to use Hakims Beys definition, a ‘ temporary autonomous zone‘)  I started a thread on an online anarchist community. So far so good. In a second year of degree act of stupidity I made too good an argument, leading to a situation where the forum users just blankly agreed with me.

Thing is, I used an androgynous handle (name) so I decided to stir things up a little and reveal explicitly that I was female-  can you guess what happened dear reader? Yep, the thread wasn’t pulled, but, my explicit reply was!  I  e-mailed the sites administrator to ask why my reply was pulled and  he replied that my mentioning radical womens squats ‘marginalised’  a lot of the forum users!  I’m sorry I forgot there are no female anarchists! My topic was valid and a useful talking point, oh, pat on the head for me then for being clever, erm WTF?

I’hm not immune to the notion that there is inerrant sexism in the world and on the net ,I just thought that there may be a little less sexism  on the net.  The net is a place of deception as well as a place of truth telling and yes you could argue that my handle gave no clue to my gender, but should it matter  on an anarchist website? In an anarchist utopia we are all equal and not subjected to the mindless actions of blokes in balaclavas smashing up shop windows and ‘us’ women keeping the collective home fires burning. We are elders as we always (and have been ignored for many a generation and governmental policy) have been within the collective, just as men pass on their wisdom, so do women.

I know I may sound naive but I really feel that this is 2009, I’m a working class, single parent woman and I am  free to be educated, select partners etc, however, I have to also acknowledge that  I’m blonde ,’skinny’, white with technological advantage.  I have to acknowledge this privileged in off-line life , but do I have to on-line? Why, if the Internet is a virtual space where everyone is supposedly equal am I bombarded with adverts for pink computers, dating sites and online bingo halls? Its time to campaign against on-line sexism as well as offline sexism.

I watched the last episode of Pulling. It was ok at times its quite sexist towards men. However,  hey how many times to you see a BBC programme where the women get the funny lines?

I`m reading ‘The Dispossessed’  by Ursula K.Le Guin. Anyone else read it? I’ll do a review in a few weeks time.

Oh the stupidity

So, somewhat predictable some idiot has gone and blamed the recession on women. Seeing as reading the article itself has caused my brain to actually explode due to a) The sheer, unadulterated misogyny of it, and b) The total lack of any grasp of economics the afore mentioned idiot has, I’m not going to try and deconstruct it.

I’m just going to reccomend you go and read Louise at The F Word quite thouroughly demolishing his argument. And then I reccomend you join me and the FemAcadem team at Million Women Rise on March 7th and help ensure idiots like the above don’t get to spread their hatred to far. Opinions like that, help a culture where violence against women is acceptable, and Million Women Rise gives women and their allies a chance to have their say in a public space.

If I wasn’t already cheering loudly for our cousins across the pond after Obama pledged to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, and immediately banned ‘trials’ there, I’m now positively HOWLING for joy.

Obama has lifted the Global Gag rule, that prevents organisations providing services in foreign countries from receiving US aid if they so much as mention abortion. And he yesterday said that:

“On the 36th anniversary of Roe v Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters,”

‘Nuff said really. Can we have an Obama now please??

So, according to the BBC our Internet service providers are being asked to retain and store our electronic traffic and, if needs be, inform the police if they find anything suspicious.The police then only need to get a warrant in order to look through your e-mails and text messages in order to gain evidence of any wrong doing.
Given that we live in the post 9/11 era we are ,apparently, all potential terrorists,I say this because every time the government trial these security ideas its because of the need to protect national security.

Let me ask you this- in the 1970’s & 80’s,were we all subjected to surveillance because of the terrorist threat posed by the I.R.A? Were all phones and paper mail bugged and tapped into? No. Why?  Well there wasn`t the technology then and a lot of people didn’t have telephones. So did terrorists communicate via carrier pigeon? No they met up ,the police then did police work (using human intelligence not using a programme to sift out the words bomb ,kill,maim etc). Human intelligence ,if I’m not mistaken, is what differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom and A.I.
Human intelligence and intuition is what guides us through life ,enabling us to make decisions (to what ever ends) and the police use it to catch criminals and to protect citizens.
Why does the government put more faith in monitoring systems than it does the actual human intelligence and the intuition skills of police officers? Could it be because its a cost cutting measure? Tell me,can monitoring someones electronic messages stop a knifing ,mugging,rape,domestic violence murder? Surely these crimes are more of a threat to national security than  the sensationalist statements of religious radicals.
We can`t rely on C.C.T.V . If you remember in the Mendez case the police used the C.C.T.V to back up their version of events, but in the end it was the human witnesses that convinced the jury of the truth. Yes the visual evidence of events were there, but it was manipulated so the police team could get a way with murdering an
innocent man and only with the honest testimony of human witnesses did the truth out.

There’s also the great moral panic about the electronic criminal,the electronic criminal who rips your credit card details of the net,the electronic criminal who clones your phone.
Listen carefully I shall only say this once…Hackers are not electronic criminals.
Why be afraid of the beast which is the electronic criminal, find the best firewall you can (you can download them free at Linux) ,change your passwords every couple of weeks, don`t use your birthday or name on your passwords and limit the amount of time you have blue-tooth switched on. If you knew someone had your debit card pin would you not change it? Would you walk down the street with your purse/wallet hanging out of your pocket so a pick pocket could easily lift it? Course not if you take the same precautions on-line as you do off-line then there’s a good chance you won`t be a victim of electronic crime.

So now here’s the bottom line: what a lot of people say is  “I don`t mind, I’ve got nothing to hide”. Well you know what, I’ve got nothing to hide either , I’m not a criminal , I’m just a citizen going about my business, but I do mind that I’m being monitored by my services providers,  whom I PAY for services, and likewise the Police (through taxes) .We are a nation that is paying for its own errosion of Liberty namely the right to privacy.

He who gives up liberty for security ends up with neither.
- Benjamin Franklin

Freely selling sex.

I have to say I’m a pro porn feminist- well by that I mean , I’m a pro porn-that-is-made-by-consenting-adults- who-are-appropriately-re-numerated-for-their-time-and-who-have-working-conditions-that-are-as-safe-as-possible feminist. I’m anti trafficking, and I’m against a society that forces women into sex work, because they feel they have no other options or skills with which to generate much needed income. I’m not against women (or men for that matter) going into sex work because they enjoy it, or because they truly and freely want too. Before you tell me no woman could ever possibly be like that and all sex workers are forced, are suffering from deprivation or have drug/alcohol/psychological problems I suggest you go and read the blog of Renegade Evolution (NSFW), who is quite frankly damned awesome and was one of the first people ever to comment on my blog,  and then read Diablo Cody’s book Candy Girl about her experiences of stripping and the reasons why she did it.

If you don’t want to go and do that, then do go and read this awesome post by Renee at Womanist Musings. I’m particularly fond of this section :

This is not a profession that I would choose for myself but because I ultimately believe in the right of a woman to have control over her body and her sexuality I cannot sit in judgement of the result of where that decision leads.  My concerns are for the ones that are being prostituted without their consent.  My concerns are for those that are addicted, abused and raped.

That’s sums it up pretty well I think!



This post is my response to a part of Suzi`s post  `The Mummy Myth`and also  expresses my thoughts on female competitiveness.

To begin with lets look at the two -sided coin which is the mainstream media…..

Can anyone remember any obviously pregnant women presenting the weather, reading the news or presenting breakfast T.V in the eighties? The only woman I can remember is Janet Ellis who presented Blue Peter and was subjected to complaints from outraged viewers because she was a)pregnant and b) shock horror, also unmarried.

Fast forward to the here and now, and pregnant TV presenters are  commonplace,a good thing wouldn`t you say? Pregnant women can be seen, heard and are generally considered capable  enough to carrying on working in their high profile jobs. Of course, the maternity leave ,pay and birthing plan are all held in the public eye, and  maybe the expectant mother will do an interview with various magazines saying how wonderful she feels and how she now, inexplicably  likes eating raw marrow with ice-cream.

After she’s had the baby, done the OK photo shoot and obligingly shown off said precious bundle it all goes downhill and becomes  a media free-for-all.Why hasn`t she lost that baby weight yet? Why’s she depressed when she`s got lots of money and round the clock nannies? Should she be going back to work so soon? Does she breast feed?

All these questions in some shape or another have been asked for millenia at the water well,over washing lines and in recent times, at the coffee shop. The only thing is, now these questions are amplified through the media, and so the stereotype of the Yummy Mummy in upper/middle class circles or MILF in working class circles has appeared, demonstrating that women’s only true commodity is to be fuckable. Crude but more to the point.
These stereotypes trickle down into society, and,  in my experience the ‘Yummy Mummies’ at my kid`s school (by the by, I live in social housing in a very desirable area and professional families frequently relocate from London to get into the schools catchment area)always look fantastic have the latest bicycle and trailer sets,talk play dates, eat organic food and about the marvelous kids boutique in town.There is one middle class mum there who talks to her child, doesn’t give a crap about her appearance and seems to do lots of volunteer work for the school ,but it doesn’t matter how marvelous she is, the nasty whispers are still there `Why doesn`t she lose some weight/Get some new clothes ? / Put some make-up on?’ (n.b I`m a semi goth skinny person who can look slightly scary to the untrained eye).
Of course this happens at school gates throughout the land and in also media land,  but why does it happen? Consider the facts -the media is controlled and bankrolled by men and what do men do when the empowerment of women is seeped into the national consciouness? Give us what we want thats, what,the gossip. How else do the media get away with giving meek reports about women sacked for being pregnant, or for asserting their right to extended maternity leave which in short costs money, money that most important commodity of all.  This all  shortly followed by hiring an attractive younger woman to read the news, in order to attract male viewers.
It seems now (sadly) that even after we`ve competed with each other in order to secure said Mr Wonderful (I realise this statement is heteronormative, but lesbian motherhood does tend to be ignored by the media at large unless it’s being reported in a negative way and I have no experience of being a lesbian mother and so am basing this on my  personal experience of motherhood and competition) that competition is  nothing compared to pursuing the crown of `perfect woman`- it’s the perfect housewife amplified with new and improved features .Marvel at her organizational skills! She`s still fuckable after four kids! She makes her own organic baby food and brings home the bacon too!

The point is is that the media amplified and commodified women’s competitiveness, packaged it,sold it back to us in glossy form and we’ve brought it in every sense

One of the constant bug bears of my feminist identity is how often I have received criticism for not only BEING a Feminist, but for being a YOUNG Feminist  and for how I ‘do’ my feminism. For years, I was afraid to identify myself as a feminist- I’d been told too many times I couldn’t be one- I was too young, too poor, too badly educated, too married (yes, married feminists in fact, do not exist /snark), I had children and horror of horrors, I had changed my name upon marriage.

It took a long time, reading The F Word and having a Feminist professor at college for me to ‘come out’ as a card carrying member of the sisterhood. So, it grates upon me even more now, when Second Wavers tell me I’m doing it all wrong and ‘that’s not what it’s about’ or my particular favourite- ” Speaking as the senior feminist” as if Feminism has some form of hierarchy and I’m a mere underling on the belly of the movement. Generally I get quite narked. And that is the polite version!

I’m all for recognizing and remembering the work of feminists who have gone before. I am all for celebrating the achievements of women who have been activists before myself and the generation of Third Wavers, to which I belong. I wouldn’t for a second want to undermine the hard work, and struggle that those women put in, or the things they achieved.

But in the same way that I wouldn’t be rude to Gloria Steinem for being older than me, or for having been part of the movement at a time that has a different political consciousness to the consciousness it has now, I don’t expect to have ‘Senior Feminists’ being rude to me because I’m only 25, or because I was married, or because I’m a mother, or because I like the idea of getting married again and taking his name. My feminism is not the same as anyone else’s feminism, but I do share with everyone from the most radical to the most liberal, a recognition that women are treated as second class citizens in this world, that this state of affairs is entirely wrong and I work alongside other women and pro feminist men, to put an end to that, just the same as every other feminist out there, regardless of hir age, gender, class, colour, orientation of religious beliefs.

Regardless, of the fact that I am a fellow feminist and activist, I am also a human being, as is every other young/third wave feminist and we don’t deserve to be patronised or spoken down to just because we aren’t second wavers, and we weren’t at Greenham Common/ Vietnam Peace Marches/ The Original Reclaim the Night Marches.

Bearing that in mind, I exhort, every Second Wave or ‘older’ feminist to think before she chastises a younger feminist for having a Pro Girlie attitude, or for being young, or getting married, or for choosing to change her name in an informed and thoughtful way. I ask Second Wavers to recognise that as technology and the world has moved forward and amalgamated new cultural expressions, so has the feminist movement. Women who are Third Wave activists will have a totally different cultural and political consciousness and experience to Second Wave activists. It doesn’t make us wrong, it makes us products of our time and experiences.

I would finally salute the women who have marched before us, who made zines, and boycotted goods, who held consciousness raising groups, who fought for a women’s right to choose, for us to not be raped or beaten by our husbands or partners and have it condoned in law. I recognise and celebrate your achievements. All I ask, is that you have the courtesy to do the same for us.

On general other blog reading..

Go read this piece about single teen parenting. It is very good and as someone who had her kids at 18 and 19 respectively – I agree with every damn thing Lauren said. I had to deal with the stigma against teenage mums. To my shame I got round it – I was married at 19, so those disapproving old ladies who made comments about ‘those girls getting themselves pregnant to get houses and money’ got a ‘Yes, my HUSBAND and I totally agree there’ from me.

Now at 25, and divorced I’m a little more secure in myself and couldn’t give a monkeys bum what anyone thinks of my state of motherhood or my marital state, but at 19 with two infants and painfully insecure, in a situation I wasn’t grown up enough to handle and with Internet message boards as pretty much my only support , I cared. For my part in agreeing with those people and their misogynistic, classist and just plain old mean statements, I feel a level of shame.

Teenagers, and here readers is a fact, will ALWAYS HAVE SEX!! It will always happen. Becuase of this, and becuase of the bizzare attitudes we as a society have towards sex, contraception, abortion, and teenagers having sex, there will also always be teenagers getting pregnant and having babies.

So rather than blaming teens for doing what their bodies are telling them, rather than blaming them for ending up in a situation, that could quite feasibly have an awful lot to do with how we as grown ups conduct ourselves, and teach them to be grown ups, shouldn’t we be supporting our teen parents, and helping them continue growing as people , helping them into futures of independence and helping them become the excellent parents they like everyone else have the potential to be?

The curse of the double barrell…..

I have been meaning to write this post for a long while now and what with one thing and another over the Summer I just haven’t got round to it at all. This all kicked off ages ago when this was posted over at The F Word and got me thinking about feminist reactions to the marital name change thing. It was further cemented when this appeared over at Feministe. There was another article somewhere where the writer proclaimed their HATE for women who change their names upon marriage to the point when friends of said author do it , she stops talking to them. Sadly, I’ve lost the damn link to it, as it was that particular post that started my boiling ire at the way in which those of us who change our names upon marriage are viewed by the feminist community at large.

Once upon a time I was married. I’m now divorced and cheerfully cohabiting with The Lovely Admin of FemAcadem, but when I got married I changed name from my birth name to my husbands name. I did consider keeping my name, we considered double barrelling our names (however C -K just DID NOT work) and after a lot of thought I took his surname. Do I regret it, seeing as we consequently divorced?? No, not one jot. If Lovely Admin and I get married will I take his surname?? You Betcha I will.

For me , my surname has little significance. At the last count through my life, it has changed 6 times. Of those 6, 4 were at the whim of my Biological Mother, once was when I changed it back to what my birth certificate says, and the final time was when I married my ex husband. Because of this, my surname is merely something to put down on bits of paper. It provides another identifier for people in officialdom to know who I am and marks me out as belonging to a particular family group of people. I have nothing to do with my Father’s family, or my Father, I am, no longer much to do with my ex husband or his family – and personally should I remarry I would want to celebrate that fact that Lovely Admin and I are married and have made such a commitment. To me changing my name seems a good way of indicating our new status, and quite frankly, he has a very nice surname and I’d be proud to carry it as my own.

I’m not much bothered by whether someone changes their name, doesn’t change it, creates a new surname, double barrles both surnames or whatever they do. I think the whole name change thing is something for each couple to decide. For some people surnames are important, for me, it merely marks differing stages of my life.

What is really bloody pissing me off though, is the fact that there are otherwise perfectly nice feminists out there who will instantly denounce any woman who changes her name on marriage as some form of brainless ninny, under the thumb of The Patriarchy who is incapable of having any agency of her own, so obviously is she swayed by teh ebil argumentx of teh menz into renouncing her own surname and taking that of her partner. Quite frankly I find it bloody insulting – there are plenty of women out there, like myself , who have for our own damn reasons chosen to take our new husbands surnames. There are also plenty who choose not too, and plenty who choose to double barrel, or create new surnames, or to take each others surnames and new middle names. The whole point about the Name thing is this : It’s a CHOICE!! If people are thinking about it and deciding that actually he has a nicer surname and they’d prefer it, or it makes getting mail easier or whatever fucking reason they choose, then the rest of us should just bloody well butt out.