The Answer is No

Readers of this blog will know that I tend not to engage with the “issues of the day” unless my hide gets seriously chipped.

Well… there’s a chip in my hide.

Sometime this week, Conservative MP Louise Mensch wrote a poorly articulated piece on how you can totes be a Tory and a feminist.

Cue in the media frenzy that has everyone clicking and ignoring the issues that matter.

I ignored this media frenzy because, honestly, I have a life to live and a huge pile of irons to sock.

But today I read the last straw.

So I’m going to engage with this argument that “you can totes be a feminist and a conservative because omg Emmeline Pankhurst joined the Conservative party”.

British people do this all the time. They suffer from “me-centre-of-Universe” syndrome.

Teenagers believe they are the first generation to discover sex. And white middle class people from Rich Industrialised Countries believe they are the first to invent Feminism. Or Pacifism. Or Atheism. Or a whole host of other things.

I’m sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but none of this is true.

And just because Mensch says that “feminism starts with Emmeline Pankhurst” it doesn’t make it so.

I am shocked, but not surprised, that all feminists up and down the country are willing to accept this: a Conservative woman suddenly gets to decide WHEN feminism started, and (Quelle Surprise!) it turns out that feminism started with a Conservative woman.

I’m sorry, but WHAT???

Fast forward a good decade; Mary’s knowledge of Emmeline Pankhurst extends to one mention in Mary Poppins.

But Mary attends high school, and eventually the curriculum stumbles onto a small oasis of feminism: Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz born in 1651. Mexican scholar and poet, and one of the first great writers of Latin America.

Her positions on women’s rights were so radical they would make most contemporary feminists blush scarlet.

Then again, why travel so far? Mary Wollstonecraft, who needs no introduction, was born in 1759. She is regarded as one of the founding feminist philosophers.

So precisely why are we heralding Emmeline Pankhurst as the “founding mother of feminism”, born a good century after Wollstonecraft? Because Mensch says so? Because she was a conservative?

Why not choose EmmaGoldman? Is it because she was an anarchist?

Or Rosa Luxemburg, for that matter? Is it because she was a Marxist?

Feminism has been around as long as patriarchy, because every time a man has said “you can’t because you are a woman”, there has been a woman who replied “unfair!”.

Yet Feminism is probably the only political ideology to lose itself in the name of “inclusivity”. And the inclusivity agenda has gone absolutely bonkers: a conservative calls herself a feminist, and that makes her so.

H*gh H*ffner calls himself a feminist and that makes him so.

And those of us who want “Feminism” to mean SOMETHING are seen as arrogant. We have no right to exclude anyone from the Feminist label…

Well, I’m sorry, but no. And to argue otherwise is to put the ideas of Louise Mensch and H*gh H*ffner above this feminist; and countless others.

No, you can’t be a Tory and a feminist. Because to be a feminist means fighting to end the oppression of women as women. All women.

Feminism does not mean “I am a wealthy woman and I want to end the oppression of wealthy women as women”.

But the real reason why Tories can’t be feminists is this: because Conservative ideology is so extremely patriarchal it would be 100% impossible to even end the oppression of wealthy women as women.

To be a Feminist Tory is to fight a lost battle. Which is why I’m suspicious of any Tory who calls themselves a feminist: because most of the time what their goals amount to is “I want to end the oppression of myself”.

And that’s not even a political movement, much less “Feminism”.

One last thing. Remember that when those in power want to appropriate your ideas and your language, that’s a sure sign that you are winning.

For a most excellent, well reasoned and original take on why these Tory powered “austerity measures” (ie: cuts) constitute an attack on women, you can read my post forThe F Word.

On Women Having to be More Like "Men" to be Seen

By now you have probably run across Kira Cochrane’s most excellent article on CiF about her months-long research on the absence of women in British public life. I wrote a summary for Women’s Views on News if you don’t have time for the 3400-odd word long original piece (yes, it was a tough summary and I’m bragging about it).

The response from the Feminist World has been positive; Cochrane’s statistics have left us asking “how come???”. The answer is “deregulation of the economy”, of course, but I’ve covered that many times already.

Bidisha has written about Cochrane’s piece and about BBC’s Todayprogramme in particular. The “excuse” given by the editor Ceri Thomas for the huge disparity between male and female voices (2:1 at the best of times) is that:

“They are difficult jobs but the skillset that you need to work on the Today programme and the hide that you need, the thickness of that, is something else. It's an incredibly difficult place to work”.

Thomas’ argument picked my interest, because it’s given way too often to explain away “why there aren’t more women”. And it's nonsense.

Thomas is missing the forest for the trees. Because things work precisely backwards from the way he’s thinking them.

If an environment does not have an equal proportion of men and women, then it’s the environment’s fault. Not women’s.

If an environment is too “tough”, too “demanding”, too “difficult”, too “sensitive to female cooties”, then that environment should change. The onus for change is on the sexist environment, not on women to become “tougher”, to wash off their “female cooties”, in short, to be more like men. 

But the problem is not that women are not like men, but rather that society is built under the template “men”. That is not the fault of women.

Women have been told since day one of patriarchy, that the problem is that they are not enough “like men”. (At this point, you are encouraged to remember the song “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”, and keep it playing in the background of your mind). “Oh, if only you women were more like men, then you would fit perfectly in this society we have designed for men”, quoteth Patriarchus.

Well, no. This has never worked and it will never work. And its only purpose is to divide women into “those who can pull off being like men” and those who can’t. And because only a few women will be able to at any given time*, those women rise and are used to shame the rest of us for not succeeding at being more like “men”.   

In short: if the “Today” programme is “too difficult” for women, then they should make it easier. And if that doesn’t work in bringing more women on board, they should try something else. Until there’s equal representation.

Alternatively they could just use quotas, but Thomas doesn’t appear keen on that.

Oh, and I won’t leave without saying this: working for the BBC, for the “Today” programme DIFFICULT??? HA! This is one of the clearest examples of the overblown sense of importance of the “managerial class” I’ve seen in a while. Your job is “too difficult”??? Where do you work? In the ER wing of a hospital? In a war zone? A rape crisis centre?

Always be wary of upper middle class people trying to make their work appear “difficult”. It’s nothing but an attempt to justify their position in the social hierarchy. You and I know that the most difficult jobs in this world are the worst paid. 

 * In order to understand this you have to remember that for patriarchy to work, men and women must be clearly differentiated. So if a lot of women became "more like men" and, for example, grew a thicker skin, then the characteristic "having a tick skin" will stop being exclusively male. And Patriarchus would define its opposite, "having a thin skin" as the male and desirable characteristic and shame women for, you guessed it, "being different to men".

Fem 11 – The Personal - Coming clean with our feelings

This is an account of my own personal feelings at the Fem 11 conference last Saturday. My feelings aren’t “wrong” or “right”, they just are. I’m not holding Fem 11 accountable in any way for what I felt. I just want to share my experience.

I went to Fem 11 with three feminist friends. Me-from-two-years-ago couldn’t be more surprised if she heard this.

This helped with feelings of loneliness, social anxiety and general awkwardness which, I’m happy to report, remained at minimum levels.

I was excited to see so many feminists when we got together for the first session of the day at the Friends Meeting House. And I was even more excited when I saw Sandi Toksvig standing up to speak. *OMG, SANDI TOKSVIG!!!*

Sandi spoke about the differences between the “Right” brain and the “Left” brain, and how this correlates to men thinking with the “right” and women thinking with the “left”. In essence, men and women think differently, and the “male” style of thinking is linear, based on a logical succession of things. Or something like that.

This made me think along the lines I had already been thinking in for the past few weeks. I had been wondering lately whether the “scientific” mode of thinking is somewhat based on the type of thinking that corresponds to the more “autistic” part of the spectrum.

And this was followed by a conversation with a woman who was slightly autistic herself. She told me how she needs to know exactly what is required, in a detailed, logical sequential order.

As the day went on and I heard from other women, a thought began to form in my head. A slightly upsetting thought.

Other women kept talking about how “inspiring” someone’s words have been. And all I kept thinking was… “where are the arguments, the ideas, the facts, the theory, the economy”.

Sandi had said that men are the “thinkers” and women are the “doers”. And the penny dropped.

OH F*CK. I think like a man.

This explains why I am getting nowhere within the feminist movement. While other women want to discuss how they feel empowered by doing this or that, or how someone has “privilege” of some kind or other, I want to discuss the very real fact that THE ECONOMY DETERMINS EVERYTHING.

And nobody listens.

While other feminists want to organise campaigns and conferences, I stop and think “yes, but what exactly do you want to talk about? What are the ideas behind it? How radical is it when we are working for a solution within patriarchal capitalism…”

I want to discuss philosophy… feminists want to talk about how we organise and “do”.

This brought me, understandably, down. It triggered the old and well known feeling of being an “outsider”, ie: “I’m too feminist for the left and to lefty for feminism”. Great.

Oh No, I'm Ugly!

Then there was the fact that I was, after all, in a room with one thousand women. Most of whom were young. And pretty. And white, and blond. And dressed in pretty, feminine dresses and wearing pretty, feminine shoes.

Oh, look at that, the girl sat next to me is about ten, she’s wearing a skirt and eating a salad.

Yes, something had to give. It wasn’t long before a small but loud monster inside me started wailing…

“ALL THE OTHER GIRLS ARE PRETTIER THAN MEEEEEEE!!!!!”

I tried to remind myself that this was a feminist conference and that focusing on prettiness was totally missing the point. Which was a huge mistake, because monsters don’t understand logic or reason.

So off my monster went, quietly wailing inside me “I bet it’s easier to be a feminist when you are white, blond, pretty and feminine and normal and you all probably have boyfriends and I hate you”.

Luckily I was with friends, so I had other people to interact with, which stops you from even hearing your monsters. And that helps a lot.

Oh, Man! When Me?

Last but not least was the now familiar feeling of “omg, I could totally ran a workshop, why am I not giving a workshop, I know so much, I want to give a workshop, I’m ready, why am I not giving a workshop…” Which, in its loudest, angriest form, says “I AM SO MUCH BETTER THAN *HER*, I KNOW SO MUCH MORE, WHY AM I NOT GIVING A WORKSHOP, EVERYONE SUCKS”.

I know this feeling, I am good at spotting it when it shows up. And I’m getting better at dealing with it. Soon I’ll feel confident enough to give workshops and talks. Watch out world!

 

Feelings within the Feminist Community

Ok, if you have made it to this point (thank you!), I want to say a few words on why the hell I’m bothering talking about my feelings and stuff.

I believe there is a lot of pain in the feminist community. This is entirely understandable! We live in a woman-hating world; we are women. We are bound to feel hurt.

But here’s the thing: we never talk about it. And the thing about pain is, when it goes unacknowledged, it finds another way through.

So at Fem 11, I noticed a lot of anger from the participants. A few of them actually shouted from the audience during the talks. And a few of the questions were dripping in anger and maybe even hate.

And I know this is not “common” because during Marxism it practically never happened. Keep in mind that Marxism brings together the same number of people, and for 5 days at that. And yet I never saw anyone shout at the chair person, or at a member of the audience who can’t stop rumbling (and believe me, there’s an awful lot of rumbling during Marxism).

And I understand anger and hate; really I do. I have just talked about my own!

Instead, it would be far more productive if we started by talking about it.

For example: “I am angry when I see a sexualised ad. It makes me really angry. I feel silenced and insulted; my personal boundaries have been violated. And I’m so pissed off.”

I know we do this, but we tend to shift the focus on to why it’s wrong. We go from “I feel angry” to “advertising makes money off titillating men, and men want to see women being objectified…”.

And that’s good too, and it has its place. But it may be worth spending a few moments on how something makes us feel as women.

Then, we have to stop and spend a few moments thinking on how something makes us feel as “us”.

For example: “I know that for me, Mary Tracy, seeing pretty feminine blond women makes me upset because it triggers my insecurities and feelings of being too ugly, too brown and unfeminine, and all in all unworthy of being loved”.

See? Coming clean with our feelings might not be easy, but it always helps.

The Answer to Online Abuse - Compassion

As you have probably heard by now, this past week has seen an outpour of writing by women who are sick and tired of experiencing online abuse. I wrote a small summary for WVoN, and Cath has gathered all the links on her blog.

I have given this matter a lot of thought these past days, trying to find a way to either share my experience or ignore the issue altogether.

I had to fight a few “demons” on the way. “Outsider Syndrome” came out in full gear, and I was left feeling, once again, like the “odd feminist out”.

Because, you see… Well… there really is no other way to say this, but…

I have never experienced online abuse.

So when I read Ray’s words, saying

“the internet is a society where being (perceived as) female and writing about feminism invariably leads to responses on the theme of *nasty abuse*”

I was left feeling… well… “different”.

For I am on the internet, and have been blogging for 3-4 years now. I am universally perceived as female and I write about feminism. But…

I have never experienced online abuse.

Faced with this reality, my demons (aka “Outsider Syndrome”) began screaming with rage, and expressing irrational, incorrect, and downright silly ideas:
“OMG, how can they say that all feminists experience abuse? I haven’t! What is she trying to say? That I’m not a feminist? Or perhaps it’s because, oh, I don’t know, NOBODY HAS EVER HEARD OF ME! NOBODY READS WHAT I WRITE. And so nobody even bothers sending me abuse.”

And when I say silly, I mean it. For a split second my demon went on:
“You know what? They should be downright grateful they are getting abuse! At least it shows someone is reading what they write. How would they like it if nobody took any notice of them? HUH? ‘Cuz that’s what happens to me! You know what, I wish I was getting…”

Yeah, my demons are silly. They are made up of an emotional response to a painful situation. It’s complicated, but you can read about how they work in Havi’s blog.

So I had to calm them down before I could think clearly about what is going on. And I have a couple of theories.

• Is it possible that I haven’t experienced any abuse online because I’m just not that popular? After all, if nobody reads what you write, then nobody can get angry at you.

• Or is it possible that what I write about is not all that “feminist”? Or controversial? I have been keeping a low profile on the feminist front, mainly because I’ve been bored of it. But then again, I have written a post titled “Feminism: it’s all been co-opted”. And “The meaning of sexualisation”. So yes, I do write feminist-y things.

• This is the most interesting and exciting one of all. Is it possible that the language I’m using to write is somehow not “triggering” to those people who are most likely to spout abuse at women/feminist writers?

Oh, if only this last one was true. If you’ve been following this blog, you’ll know that I’ve been trying to come up with a different language to use when discussing politics for a while now. A language that is less confrontational, which seeks to explain things rather than “force” one’s argument onto someone else. Based in dialogue rather than fight.

The answer is likely to include all of the above, along with things like “sheer luck”. But it’s the last one that provides the gate to “the alternative”.

I believe that the people sending abuse to women are in a lot of pain. It has been said before, I’m not breaking any new ground here. But it’s important to remember.

Perhaps it’s because I’ve been in a lot of pain myself. Perhaps it’s because the Universe decided I should be extra sensitive to it. But the fact is that I can see the suffering that many men are under. For it appears to be mostly men who are “triggered” by feminist words.

Sometimes this knowledge scares me, for I have no idea where on Earth it comes from. Compassion, I suppose. It is a difficult thing to have compassion for the oppressed and for the oppressor. But fortunately, compassion is unlimited.

So if this is true, and a different “language” helps to not trigger abuse, then my suggestion to women/feminist writers would be… compassion.
Yes, I know it’s difficult. It’s only taken me 4 years to get here, and I’ve only just started. But it seems to be the only thing that works, judging by the success of other writers.

Not to mention that Buddhists would not have it as one of their core practices if it didn’t work in some way.

Notice that I use the word “trigger” to mean “what makes abusers angry”. I do this for a reason. When we are in pain, a few words can trigger an emotional response much like the one I had when I read Ray’s post.

In my case, her reference to “all feminists getting abuse” triggered by Outsider Syndrome, along with my “Popularity Deficiency Affliction”. My emotional response (or demon) said “Omg I’m different to all of them! And I’m unpopular as Hell!”.

And it drove me so angry and sad that I was within meters of saying not-so-nice things at Ray (in my head). Things like “Oh, you should be grateful you get abuse, you popular feminist; I bet you sleep in a bed of roses and bath in Champagne”.

Because the demons responsible for this kind of response are very silly. (And in my case, also funny).

These demons only come out when we are in pain. So when you see abuse, this is in all likelihood the words of someone’s demon raging in their heads and driving them to type horrible things.

I hope this makes some sense. What I’m trying to say is this: “people say horrible things when they are in pain”. And it helps if we remind ourselves that the horrible things are an expression of someone’s pain, and have nothing to do with us.

Just like in my case, the reactions from my demons had absolutely nothing to do with Ray, who is an amazing feminist doing a fantastic job. My rational, not-in-pain self has nothing but positive things to say about her.

I give my own experience as example because I think it will help. Because it shows how the “hurling abuse at someone on the internet” gene is present in all of us. Because we are all human, we all have pain, and we can all be triggered at any point by anyone.

And that’s why the answer to abuse is likely to be compassion.


Note 1: I want to make it extra clear that I do not have a single negative feeling towards Ray. I really think she's great. And I don't hold her responsible in any way for how I felt, because that would be stoopid. I believe she said the right thing, and my own personal demons have nothing to do her.
Note 2: For more about compassion and Buddhism, Pema Chodron's cds are a good place to start.
Note 3: I want to make it absolutely clear that having compassion for online abusers does not, in any way, condone their violent behaviour. Nor does it mean we should stop talking about what we need to talk about, ie: feminism. It just means that we can both a) put a stop to escalating abuse and b) we can use less triggering language. Though as my example shows, it will be pretty impossible to eliminate all triggering language, for anything at all can provide a trigger. Just think of it as sanding off some rough edges so that our words are not unncessesarily spiky.

Added bonus: "The Problem with Favouring Women"

Continuing on the fine tradition of writing after getting angry at something someone said on Newsnight… I ended up writing a guest postfor The F Word.

That’s right! I have published something on The F Word. I have only been trying to do it for 5 years… YAY ME!

Now, about the actual post… It’s on the attack on publicsector jobs as an attack on women.

The point I was trying to make was that since women are socialised to be the carers in society, any attack on the jobs that provide the “care” will constitute an attack on women. And an attack on what we could even call “women’s values”. Not because women are intrinsically more caring than men, but because patriarchy has decided that they are, and socialised them accordingly. Throughout the world, “caring” is seen as something women do, more often than not, for free. So any attack on the “caring” jobs will be an attack on women’s labour and women’s values.

And that is how you explain the Tories’ cuts as “ideologically motivated”. They are driven by the assumption that caring is expendable, certain in the belief that if caring is needed, women will step up to do it, for free. Women’s work is therefore devalued and made invisible.

This is just a template to understand the cuts; it is not enough to explain them. For instance, police services are being cut as well, and these are not “caring” jobs, and neither are they more popular with women than men. So this “template” has its limitations; but I believe it’s useful anyway.

My Review of UK Feminista Summer School

I said that I would try to write something a bit more positive about UK Feminista Summer School. So here it is.

I want to start with the best outcome of the School for me. And that was the opportunity to meet a very special feminist from my home country. Her name is Inti, and she’s committed to the daunting task of bringing some badly needed feminism to a deeply sexist and misogynist culture. I admire her bravery; I didn’t stay to fight sexism, I just left the country.

A small part of me started to heal from my talk with Inti. It’s a part I never acknowledge, full of pain, shame and confusion. For once in my life someone understood what I felt when I was a teenager. I could never make people understand it, and nobody was keen to do so anyway. But for a split second, in between our conversation, a single shred of understanding shone through, imperceptible to anyone but me. And it was enough. For now, it will be enough.

And had it not been for UK Feminista, this encounter would not have taken place. I am immensely grateful to the organizers, just for this opportunity. So thank you, UK Feminista organizers, for creating a space where feminists can come together and meet each other.  

Now I got this off my chest, on to the actual school.

"How to run an effective campaign"

From Eve Sadler, I learned about campaigning. I find it very difficult to be “practical” and get things done; I am a natural thinker, not a doer. So Sadler’s focus on strategy and her “what to do when” approach, helped me actually picture “how to get stuff done rather than read and dream”. It’s a strange feeling, to suddenly imagine yourself actually “achieving change”, even if it is small, rather than passively waiting for a Revolution. To top it all, Sadler gave us all a nice handout with detailed instructions on how to run an effective campaign.

What could have worked better? Perhaps focusing the campaigns a bit more on “feminist” goals. And a passing comment about the “Revolution” would have been nice.

I don’t want to be a party poop, but we have to acknowledge that we won’t be able to change the world just by writing to our MPs. Yes, I realise that this may be the easiest way to achieve “some” change, but what are our chances to bring in Real Feminism to our lives when most of our MPs are men, and (roughly) all of them support the current economic system?

"The attack on women’s reproductive rights"

Darinka Aleksic and Helen Collins opened my eyes to the reality of women’s reproductive rights. Or rather, the current attack on women’s reproductive rights.

I’ll be honest with you, the subject bores me slightly. The reason is quite… silly. I am a theory junkie: I like political arguments. And the “arguments” used to undermine abortion rights are more or less of the “nonsense ranting by people gone bananas” kind. That presents no challenge to my grey matter. So, I have more or less kept aside from the Grand Abortion Debate. Also, up to now, I believed the attack on Abortion was merely an example of Crazy American 'Sugar'.

Turns out, I was wrong. And the Crazy American Sugar has already made it to the British Isles. There are anti-abortion groups in this country spouting the same ranting nonsense as they do in the US.

This eye opening session taught me a lesson about how my mind works. I subconsciously seem to believe that once I “understand” a subject, the battle has been won, justice has been made and I can move on to other stuff. That may be a great strategy for “learning” things, but it’s a non-strategy for fighting for social justice. It will take a little bit more than me understanding how something works for that something to stop taking place in the real world. (Yes, I do live inside my mind, it’s a much happier place. I’m working on it.)

What could have worked better? I would have really liked some political “context”. I wanted to ask if anyone knew what motivates these people gone bananas into ranting nonsense. What is to them if a woman has an abortion or ten? Does anyone know why they care so much? Don’t they have cakes to bake, dogs to walk, children to read stories to, teacups to paint?

But there’s a bigger question that I don’t think anyone has tackled yet. Why do these groups get so much money? Yes, they are funded by the religious right, but why. Why is it in the interest of the Right to undermine abortion rights? WHY? Doesn’t make sense to me.

“How the cuts are hitting women hardest” 

Another eye opening talk. I already knew the basics of this, but its sheer scale made me, and probably everyone else in the room, jump a mile high. I really appreciated Anna Bird's summary of the cuts as “ideological threats” (yay! Back to theory).

The talks by Sandhya Sharma (Southall Black Sisters) and Aisha Mirza were really inspiring. They reminded me once again (and I do need a lot of reminding) that even the smallest actions can lead to change, and that all it takes is one small step in the right direction.

What could have worked better? A bit more focus on Trade Union movement. Bird described these cuts as a “threat to employment protection, maternity rights and equality law”. Excellent. It would have been grate if she had kept on that track and framed these cuts around “class”. The best tool at women’s disposal for fighting the cuts is to join unions and strike; and strike good.

Summary 

UK Feminista Summer School is not, and it should not be, about what “I want to hear”. The School helped me realise how easy it is, when doing feminism online, to just drift towards our favourite topics and forget the rest. Similarly, it’s easy to just fall back on a single mind groove (“I’ll wait for a Revolution”) and stay there. However, during a feminist conference, one has relatively little say over what others will talk about, or how they will frame the issues. This can backfire, of course, if it gets too “top down”. However, it can be a good thing if it opens our eyes to a reality we hadn’t seen before. It’s easy, in the internet world, to hover around a few “niche” issues, because we are most comfortable around them. Yet, every now and then, we have to come out of our comfort zone.

What could have worked better? 

*A more “bottom up” approach. Having a few sessions were activists just got together and talked to each other.

*More “political context”. The word “neoliberalism” was only articulated once in the whole day and I’m sad to report it was done by a man. There was a general lack of awareness of “how the world works”. Listening to all those amazing activists working hard to make things a bit better, I got this image in my head: “Feminist activists work on putting out the fires set off by men”. For instance, it is men who crash the world economy and it’s women who go out and care for the vulnerable and needy. I don’t like this set up. Putting out fires is all well and good but some of us should be sparing the occasional glance to those who are setting them off.

*More focus on “herstory”. 

*Also, class and race.

*An opportunity to “get to know one another” that is a bit more structured, so that we all participate. As opposed to “go out and talk to strangers whenever you can find the time”.

 *Also, I think UK Feminista could be clear on what their goals are. Is it supposed to be an “umbrella type organization”? If that’s the case, then it should work towards highlighting all kinds of feminism. There isn't a direct acknowledgement that UK Feminista's feminism is one of a multitude of feminisms. 

*I leave my bitchiest comment for the end. It would have been great if the “talks” had been overseen by the organizers beforehand. Just because the speaker has letters after her name and works within academia does not mean that their talk will be up to scratch. Or remotely related to “feminism” for that matter.

For a critique of the talk about "the men", don't miss MadamJ-Mo's post.

My Experience at UK Feminista Summer School

Today I want to try something different. I want to write about my experience at UK Feminista Summer School on Sunday. But I don’t want to bring in politics, or pass judgement; at least not yet.

I only attended the School on Sunday. I went with a friend from Cardiff Feminist Network.

From the very beginning of the event, specifically during the “Welcome & Introduction” session, I felt disconnected from everyone else in the room. I am not entirely sure why. I was experiencing the familiar feeling that “everyone else is much better than me”. This meant that I was feeling quite low. And things only got worse.

Throughout the day I had to struggle with this feeling of “lowness” or depression. Everyone was smarter, prettier, more successful and more sociable. Everyone wanted to be with everyone else. Except me.

Lunchtime was Hell. The meal I had lovingly made for myself sucked. And all the other women were happily chatting away with all the other women. I was confronted, once again, with the cold, harsh reality that I am quite shy, and struggle to interact with strangers. I was unhappy. I felt as if all the other women had learnt something I never did: how to be happy and chat to complete strangers. So I remained on my own. I paced around the room on my own. And eventually ended up where most loners like me end up: behind books. It was high school, all over again.

After lunch I attended a talk titled “Activism in Theory and Practice: from research to the ‘real’ world”.

The word I used to describe the talk when taking notes was “crap”. Yes, it’s harsh, but that’s how I felt then. The talk made me feel unbelievably lonely because I could tell I was the most radical person in the room. This made me feel like a “black sheep”. It was as if I was standing on the other side of a pane of glass: I was next to everybody, but I just wasn’t “there”. Feelings of hopelessness and despair followed through. The experience left me wondering “why bother trying to be a political writer? It’s all a waste of time because I can’t get on with people”.

The talk was “crap” because the women who gave it belonged to the “fine” tradition of postmodernist thought, and were therefore quite careful not to think or, heaven forbid, give their opinion on anything. Yes, even though they were in a room full of feminists. Even though they were not “lecturing” us on anything, because we were not their students. They still tried to appear “objective”. Which meant, inevitably, that they spoke of nothing. That’s the essence of postmodernism right there. It appeared that nobody else but me could see that, however.

The non-lecturers asked us to form groups and discuss what they had brought up. Once again, just like high school. We went around saying our names and what we “did”. One woman from a “public sector/voluntary sector/good job helping people”, and three young women with glamorous student careers. When it got to me, I lost it. What was I supposed to say? “I am unemployed, have depression and dream of becoming a writer”? I was feeling too low even for that. So this is what I said “I sit at home and suffer”. Which is pretty accurate anyway. And I am nothing if not a drama queen.

Then, two more talks followed. “How the cuts are hitting women hardest” and “The global struggle: international feminist resistance”. The feelings brought up by the first talk only grew stronger with the second one. I felt decidedly unimportant compared with the women giving the talks. Their presence brought up feelings of resentment: they had nice jobs going around changing the world. And then they got to give talks to fellow feminists. I felt there was a hierarchical set up, and I was at the bottomest bottom. And I grew resentful because of it. The hierarchy seemed to say “these women have done worthy things, they spend their lives doing worthy things, that is why you should listen to what they have to say; and no, you have nothing worthy to say because you don’t spend your life doing worthy things”. In order to “defend” myself from this hierarchy, I had to remind myself that, worthy as these women’s deeds may be, they get paid to do them. That’s right: their feminist work is a full time job. Meanwhile, my feminism is done for free. So why should they have something worthy to say and not me?

These feelings are not pretty. These thoughts are less so. But that’s what I felt and that’s what I thought. My feelings and thoughts are what they are. I am not “blaming” anyone over them. My feelings are not “right” nor are they “wrong”. The thoughts I had were an attempt to counter very painful feelings.

If you wonder why the blazes I am writing about painful feelings of depression, social exclusion and inadequacy, I give you Brene Brown on courage: 

The root of the word courage is cor—the Latin word for heart. In one of its earliest forms, the word courage had a very different definition than it does today. Courage originally meant “To speak one’s mind by telling all one’s heart.”

(...)  I think we’ve lost touch with the idea that speaking honestly and openly about who we are, about what we’re feeling, and about our experiences (good and bad) is the definition of courage

(...) Ordinary courage is about putting our vulnerability on the line. In today’s world, that’s pretty extraordinary.

(I'll try to write something a bit more positive on UK Feminista Summer School soon.)

Feminism: It's All Been Co-opted

Isn’t it great when you read somebody who makes thepoint you have been trying to make for ages?

“If women's leaders seemed to ignore some of the murkier questions raised by the Clinton scandal--for example, what does consensual sex mean between two people so unequal in power?--it is in part because feminism at the very end of the century seems to be an intellectual undertaking in which the complicated, often mundane issues of modern life get little attention and the narcissistic ramblings of a few new media-anointed spokeswomen get far too much. You'll have better luck becoming a darling of feminist circles if you chronicle your adventures in cybersex than if you churn out a tome on the glass ceiling.”

Oh, boy, don’t we feminists know who becomes a darling of the feminist circles and who doesn’t. Incidentally, rambling on about class struggle and exploitation doesn’t seem to make the cut.

“But if feminism of the '60s and '70s was steeped in research and obsessed with social change, feminism today is wed to the culture of celebrity and self-obsession.”

This article got me thinking. So I want to talk about two things:

* The cooptation of the feminist movement by the forces of the status quo

* What the current “feminism” looks like

The Cooptation of Feminism

Ok, yes, the feminism of the 60s and 70s has been co-opted by the ideas of the status quo, but it's far from being the only one. The civil rights’ movement, the hippie movement, the anti-war movement, and, most recently, the environmental movement have all been rewritten, repackaged and resold in a more “harmless” shape.

Naomi Klein writes about this phenomenon in her book “No Logo”, specifically in the chapter “Patriarchy GetsFunky”. She argues that in the early 90s the political agendas of the civil right’s movement and the women’s movement were used to make brand-content and marketing niche strategies. In other words, the brands took a small part of what people were fighting for, the increased visibility in the media of women and minorities, and sold it back to us. 

While I agree with Klein, I would argue that this cooptation has been going on for much longer. I have heard of Coke using hippie-type ideas and images to sell its brand sometime during the 60s. And other people have argued that it was precisely the selling of commodities that undermined the very political movements of the 60s and 70s – people were “sold” what they wanted, and so they didn’t have to fight for it anymore.

Except, of course, that they weren’t. Because what people were sold was not, in fact, political change. What they were sold is something that appeared to embody political change.

We can see this another way: as people began consuming (well) above their basic needs, around the 50s and 60s in the rich West, marketers have had to imbue their products with “meaning”.  And the best way to do that is to leech off things that people already care about.

Most political movements of the 60s and 70s suffered this fate, not just the women’s movement. And this cooptation of political messages by brands and media moguls carries on to this day. You don’t need me to tell you that the environmental movement has been co-opted by industry promising to sell “green products” in exchange for extra cash.

We also have to look at the historical context in which all this happened. The political movements of the 60s and 70s were firmly rooted in the worker’s movement. In fact, that’s where they sprung from, if you believe the myth. So that when feminists talked about “women’s oppression”, they were trying to get a mostly male and pale worker’s movement to recognise that women experience a particular kind of oppression.

Now, the worker’s movement, not being easy to co-opt by “media” or “brands”, was dismantled the old fashioned way. And with it, the ideas that people’s oppression comes from the economic system, was gone as well. Without this base, feminism, like the civil right’s movement, becomes a hollow talk of “media visibility” and “empowerment through products”.

What I’ve tried to do is put “feminism” in context. It’s not just that the women’s movement was co-opted by “girl power”. There’s a whole process taking place here, aimed at hollowing out any political movement that may pose a threat to the status quo. This is powered by an economy desperate to sell more and more each year despite actually running out of things to sell.

So, what does feminism look like today? (I’ll be referring to that feminism described by Ginia Bellafante). 

Deprived of its core, base ideas of class struggle, economic exploitation, reproductive rights, power hierarchies, etc. feminism is reduced to a “feel good” pep talk. Without questioning the pillars of “how the world works” feminism has nothing to work with other than images, culture and stories. And so feminism becomes limited to little more than “changing your frame of mind”. In essence, this is how it works: if you re-frame your oppression as “liberation” or “choice” or “empowerment” it will become much more palatable. (Incidentally, this is exactly how self-help books operate). This is relatively easy to do because the system has always given people “arguments” to justify their oppression, and because, unless you are gang raped, or sold to slavery, your “oppression” looks… palatable, or you can, at the very least, dream of it being more palatable in the future. “If only I could re-think of my oppression as liberation, I will no longer be oppressed but liberated”. This is how the core idea goes. And it works wonders for feminist writers, who get some fame and cash out of the deal, and who can usually tolerate their oppression better than most.

This is what powers so much of the feminist blogosphere. “How I learned to wear high heels” is bound to get lotsa hits. Since the actions of one individual hardly amount to significant social change one way or another, this kind of thing spreads like wildfire. I have seen feminists post on how “empowering” X is and on how “oppressive” X is. Both cannot be true at the same time. Unless we define “True” as “what is true for you”.

A movement with no leadership, with no clear set of goals, and with a flaky understanding of what forces shape the world, can be easily co-opted by market forces and be reduced to what a few individuals think about their individual experience.

The solution, of course, is for feminism to go back to its roots. It's an oppressive system, and that means we can't "choose" to opt out. I do understand the desire to believe that we are not all that oppressed. But while we can be forgiven for "tuning down" oppression in our personal lives, we won't get anywhere if we don't recognize the forces keeping all human beings oppressed.

Marxism 2011 - Kate Smurthwaite

I am back from Marxism 2011 and, more importantly, I am now more or less restored from the stress of it all.

I have lots to say about it, but whether I’ll be able to say it is another story.

But first, let’s focus on what’s really important.

OMG!!! I SAW KATE SMURTHWAITE!!! And I have proof! She gave me her autograph afterwards!!! Look!

*grins* I have been looking forward to seeing Kate on stage for ages.

As part of the Marxism festival, there was a comedy show titled “Hysterical Materialism” which, for those who aren’t “in the know”, is a play on words of Marx’s theory of “historical materialism”. I believe the whole theme of the show is “lefty” politics, and comedians are explicitly lefty. I can’t tell you how amazing and strange it is to hear people on stage cracking jokes about Tories and how much we hate them. For once you feel like you are part of the majority.

We tend to think that comedy and politics do not mix. We are wrong, of course; comedy dwells into politics all the fricking time. We don’t notice because it’s the “default” kind of politics; meaning, it is mainstream and pro status quo. Now when you’re in a room full of socialists, all listening to a lefty-leaning comedian, you notice that the jokes themselves are not all that different. Instead of laughing at fart jokes, they laugh at Osbourne and Cameron.

I’m going to be brutally honest here: most comedians do not have the balls gonads to bring up politics.

Kate has the biggest balls gonads of them all.  The “field” of comedy is hard enough as it is for women, what with having an approximate ratio of 100:1. Not only is she a female comedian, which is hard enough, but she is not afraid of bringing up politics. Now, that in itself takes more courage than any comedian you see anywhere. But not content with that, Kate takes it up a notch and is not shy of spicing up her act with feminist ideas. That, my friends, is absolutely unheard of.

*

I have never, not once, heard a comedian, male or female, use feminist ideas on their act. Though I have heard supposedly “progressive” comedians make decidedly anti-feminist jokes. I’m sure many feminists will agree with me on that.

Why Feminist Comedy Matters

You know how we oppose rape jokes because they make rapists feel validated and reinforce their belief that all men are like them? Well, it’s a similar thing. When Kate makes a feminist joke, she is axiomatically assuming that her audience is on board with feminist ideals. The audience is somewhat “forced” or “coerced” into sharing her values if they want to laugh at the joke. This happens all the time, by the way, with all comedians. People can only laugh with each other and make jokes around sentiments and ideas they have in common. But when Kate brings up feminism, she is giving the impression that the whole audience is feminist and on board with her. So that when everyone laughs, those who are not yet feminists feel that everyone else is. It’s a sneaky but effective way to bring people on board.

If feminists were truly committed to the feminist cause, they would be worshipping Kate. Just because. We should have a Kate fan club with thousands of members.

It doesn’t matter if I disagree with her on something, or if one of her jokes doesn’t make me laugh. The fact that she’s there, when all the cards are stacked against her, should be enough for us to stand right behind her.

It's hard to say anything about Kate other than she rocks. She's funny, insightful and daring. She's also one of a kind. There is literally no one else doing what she does on stage. 

If I could send anything Kate's way it would be a huge bag of support and encouragement, with "keep up the good work" on the label. I have known of Kate for years and in all this time she's kept at it with a determination that should leave us all in awe. She is the living proof that the seemingly impossible, immortalised in the infamous cliche that "feminists have no sense of humour", can be made possible through the refusal to be silenced or go anywhere. 

Like I said, that takes balls gonads. And Kate has the largest ones of all comedians everywhere.

* I spent 5 days surrounded by socialists and let me tell you, for all the “lefty” sentiment, the atmosphere was far from being a feminist paradise. You get the same male-pushiness as everywhere else, not to mention the diminishing of anything female related. During the Q&A of one of the lectures a young woman had the audacity of bringing up the mooncup as an example of a more environmentally friendly approach to consumption. Cue in the males squirming on their seats. You would think they have never heard of menstruation before. I was so angry I felt like shouting and asking them to grow the F up.

The Problem With "Live And Let Live" - More on Moran

During the Newsnight debate, Caitlin Moran revealed to Paxman and the audience her life motto of "live and let live" (adding after that "when my head hits the table, please order me a taxi". Presumably because it sounds transgressive and "edgy".)

Moran’s bubbly, perky and boisterous cry of “live and let live” fits the neoliberal agenda to a T. By doing nothing on a social level, by “allowing anything to happen” we are literally leaving the doors wide open for corporations to do what they want. It’s not a far cry from “deregulation”. And we know how well that went with the banks.

Think about the actual meaning of “live and let live”. What it doesn’t say, but is implied, is this:

A) we will allow everyone to do what they want, we won’t stop anyone from doing what they want. Translation: we will allow businesses to sell whatever they want, and if people want to buy, that’s their choice. (And if the product is bad for them, it's their own fault for buying)

B) we assume that “doing” stuff is good. Translation: buying trumps not buying. We will allow the selling of everything.

C) we can’t say that anything is “bad”, and therefore we can’t stop people from doing what they want. Translation: we can’t judge anything as morally "wrong", but we can nevertheless say that stopping a business is not allowed, while allowing a business to exist is.

What this type of ideology never addresses is this: why is it that “live and let live” always translates into more businesses opening rather than less? Wait, that’s not a good way of putting it. Here’s another: why is it that “live and let live” comes to mean “stuff will be produced and sold” and it never means “stuff will not be produced or sold”?

For a clear-cut example, why is it that nobody ever, like, EVER, brings up this argument to use it against the arms trade? Nobody ever says “look, I believe in live and let live, so stop making weapons”. AHA! How about “I believe in live and let live, and since cars kill tens of thousands of people every year, it would be a great improvement on letting other people live if we all gave up cars”. Instead, the argument, which is never applied to this case by the way, takes the form “look, let people have cars, live and let live”.

Do you see it now? Even when the “letting people do whatever they want” actually gets in the way of people living, the argument “live and let live” is still applicable. Why? Because it’s not the innocent request for “everyone to get along” or "respect other people's choices" . It’s actually the nasty propagandistic shtick used to silence dissidents by painting them as “intolerant”. What they really mean is “let people do whatever they want” and under they breath they add “because there is no such thing as society”. Your actions should never get in the way of another person’s actions. Because, it is assumed, that the actions of another will never affect you or anyone else. 

And that, my friends, is at the very core of every exploitative economic system. So long as the actions of another never affect you, the ruling classes can get away with doing anything to anyone. And that’s important to remember: while we argue over whether something is “good” or “bad”, whether it has “negative” or “no” consequences, while we get into discussions and end up, out of sheer frustration, “agreeing to disagree” and stating that “there is no way to know”, corporations get busy with ruling the planet, opening new shops and malls, and before you know it you can’t get together outside of the city library because it belongs to John Lewis. Yes, you read that right. We, the public, argue over which member of the public should decide for all of us. And while we argue, what is left of the public space gets appropriated by corporations. We can stop arguing then, surely. There’s no point anymore: we no longer control our lives.

WHOOPS! It seems like somebody decided what was “good” while we were busy arguing over whether it should be done or not.

I leave you with a really cool post I found accidentally while searching for Moran and "live and let live" titled "When the personal becomes apolitical", by Frances Grahl at shareorshelve. Sometimes the internet works. 

Sexualisation and Feminism in Newsnight

There are probably worse things than Newsnight featuring a discussion on Feminism. Nevertheless, that is exactly what happened on Monday.

The program is worth very little, though I’d strongly recommend it to any feminist with low blood pressure. Those with high blood pressure and/or any cardiac condition may want to stay away.

The programme asked “if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem”. And in traditional journalistic fashion, it failed spectacularly to answer that or anything else. 

For some reason that escapes my non-publicly-educated brain, the “discussion” was preceded by an exploration of Brazilians and vajazzling. Then, the programme moved on to Jeremy Paxman introducing the guests: Caitlin Moran, Brooke Magnanti and Kat Banyard.

The “debate”, if you can call it that, turned out looking rather pathetic. Especially because it was aired precisely after a report on the Syrian revolution. Anything any feminist could have said would have looked pale by comparison, and the fact that the programme switched from “Syrian revolution” to “vajazzling” didn’t help either. By the time the “debate” ended, with Moran clapping and asking for “clown pr0n” and Magnanti claiming that there is “clown pr0n” already, I bet every person watching the programme must have thought “and THAT is why nobody cares about feminism any more”.

As for what was actually debated…

Like I said, the political positions of each woman can be summarized thus:

**Magnanti comes from a pro-sex industry framework. She argued against most of what Banyard was saying. Her ideas about the subject at hand were, “everything is so peachy”. I’m paraphrasing, but not by much.

**Moran comes from the individualistic “whatever rocks your vote” framework, with a touch of cleverly disguised “enlightenment”. Her idea seems to be to let people do whatever they want to do, but gently tap on their shoulders as they are about to do it and ask “are you sure you want to do this? Because pr0n is very boring sex, you know”.That said, she doesn't seem to believe in feminism much. When Paxman asked her "where does this leave feminism in a sexualised society?" she shrugged.

**It was left to Banyard to make any case against anything. She is clearly departing from the old school line of thinking that says that social problems must be solved at social level, because there is such a thing as society and the actions of some have consequences on the lives of others.

This line of thinking is not very popular nowadays. Banyard brought up words like “objectification” and described pr0n as a relentless and hurtful. At one point, Magnanti asked her to produce “evidence”. Typical.

What I want to highlight is how unfair it is to present Magnanti’s position alongside Branyard. Here’s why: Magnanti is where she is, arguing for what she argues, because it translates into personal gain. Her popularity comes straight from her advocacy of the sex industry, from presenting prostitution as a wonderful career choice. The better public perception of the sex industry gets, the more money will make its way to her pocket.

Now compare that to Branyard’s position. Pr0n could be banned tomorrow, the whole of the sex industry going in a puff of smoke… and she would not gain anything from it. Perhaps the odd interview here and there. But that’s it.

Do you smell a fault? To put it crudely, Magnanti is in it for the money, Branyard is in it for… the social justice. The first is working to improve her lot, the second is fighting to improve the lot for all of us.

THESE TWO POSITIONS ARE NOT EQUAL. Especially when you take into account the downside of being a feminist activist: the loss of opportunities with publishers and editors, the constant onslaught of threats and venom, little things like that.

To put it even more crudely, Magnanti is ok with throwing some women under the bus if it translates into personal gain. Banyard is trying to improve circumstances for all women even if it translates into a personal cost.

Jeremy Paxman may not see the difference, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t. I am tired of seeing Magnanti’s words within feminist discourse. Yes, her personal experience matters. But it only matters as “a” personal experience. And her personal experience cannot outweigh the personal experience of another woman. The only reason why it does, is because Magnanti is saying exactly what everyone wants to hear. And there is money to be made out of that. 

As for the program's main questions... "if we are living in an over sexualised society, and if so whether that is necessarily a problem". The answers are:

YES, we are undoubtedly living in a over sexualised society. And it is a problem, because of:

a) the relentless presentation of women as sexual objects. That affects all women, mind, not just those who "choose" to take their clothes off.

b) the commodification of human sexuality, which carries all the problems of commodification of anything human. In short, individual corporations profit from something that belongs to humans, and they get to redefine it as well, which is wrong.

c) the disintegration of the "real" thing called sex, which is accompanied with the increase in sexual violence, promiscuity, decrease in empathy and human connection.

d) the grooming of children to embrace the sex industry, so that they'll be more receptive to it when they grow up.

And that's just off the top of my head. See? It's not that difficult when you believe in social justice and your interest lies in making society better.

Anger, SlutWalk and the "Feminist Brand"

I haven’t written anything lately. And I think I know why: I have been feeling gut wrenchingly angry.

It took me a while to realize this, but here it is: anger is not good for writing. At least not for me. I have heard many women claim that they are “angry” and that this made them feminists. That’s all well and good, but when you have to write and express yourself? I find anger just tightens my stomach into a pretty neat knot and doesn’t allow anything to flow, including writing. It’s effectively paralysing.

And yet, can we imagine politics without anger? 

The source of my anger was the tsunami of SlutWalk talk within feminism, and the consequent push to the margins of people who raised issues with it.

I felt dismissed, I felt as if young popular feminists were calling me a fuddy-daddy for daring to believe that after the media frenzy, the feminist cause will not have achieved much.

I felt that all my work, most of which hasn’t seen the light of day yet, was deemed irrelevant because, as one writer put it:

“The SlutWalk is the expression of a new marketing-savvy style of feminism, rather than a civil rights movement. The issue of rape may be grave, but the approach is Facebook friendly.”

The implied message being “if you’re not marketing-savvy and facebook friendly, please kindly go and remove yourself from this movement”.

And if you happen to believe that a political movement shouldn’t have anything to do with “marketing” or “facebook”, both developments brought to you by imperialist American late capitalism, the source of modern evil and the root of human suffering?

Neolibleralism has infiltrated every last niche and cranny of our lives, to the extent that if we want to have a political movement, we have to brand it, advertise it and sell it. Excuse me, but WTF?

Is it even possible to imagine anything, any idea, any collection of values that do not constitute a brand? Are we that far “gone”?

This really shows the effects of corporate ideology,

FACT: Feminists in the 70s achieved far more without any “marketing-savvy style” or “facebook friendly approach”. While us modern day, third wave feminists discuss whether it is empowering to wear high heels and what feminist pr0n would look like, the actual living standards for women are being cut back with a vengeance. Women’s shelters, rape crisis centres, child care facilities, you name it, we are losing it. Public sector jobs and social sciences, the last jobs women could do with a clear conscience and the very ideas that could promote equality, all of it is being taken away.

But yeah, let’s go back to how empowerment is empowerment and Feminist pr0n is a reality in every bedroom. That’s where it’s at.

This onslaught of “media focus” brings to feminism exactly the same thing that it has brought mainstream society: shallowness, the concern for the immediate, the absence of a historical context, shocking words that bring money for the writers but aren’t good for Feminism, (ie: “Why I find pole dancing empowering”), a hyper individualism that renders all political movements irrelevant.

Create controversy, laugh all the way to the bank. It poisons the well, but who cares. You can always buy bottled water.

And this is what’s being relentlessly pushed to us all, whether we embrace it like eager teenagers who have never known anything else, or whether we are part of a dissident movement. In the age of 140-characters “wisdom” there is no room for ideas, or theory, or anything that cannot be reduced to a sound bite. Thinking is passé and old fashioned.

This “journalist”, for lack of a better word, compares Germaine Greer with the 17 year old organizer of London SlutWalk. Greer wrote a book that helped countless women and has never been out of print. The 17 year old has a “don’t mess with me” attitude and wears a floral dress. Presumably, she is also “marketing  savvy and facebook friendly”.

THAT’s where I feel dismissed. Because my lifelong dream is to become a writer and speaker.

And what SlutWalk showed me is the extent to which people do not want to engage with ideas, because what’s cool is far more important. Goodness knows “sluts” have been cool for a few decades now. For references, see Madonna.

It has showed me how if I want to be heard, I’ll have to be controversial. Or take my clothes off. Or promote the taking off of the clothes.

There doesn’t seem to be any more room in mainstream society for questioning the status quo. Even those in political movements bow to mainstream ideas in the name of improving the Feminist brand.

Feminism is not a brand. We are not in it for the fame and fortune. We do not gain public support by increasing our visibility at all costs. This is not viral advertising. We don’t even need public support: a small but deeply committed group of women can achieve far more than a disperse group who get together once a year to march and wave banners.

A radical political movement doesn’t create change by bringing the majority on board. Rather, we get on with the work, and watch how the majority, eventually, joins in. That’s the way it has always worked. But by sacrificing our goals in the name of visibility, we are getting neither a group large enough to force change through Parliament nor a deeply committed small group of women.

Enough with the Feminist Brand already. It may work wonders for individuals, who suddenly gain visibility through creating “controversy”, and go on to give interviews and write books. But it is never going to make the movement stronger.

And just because I can, I leave you with Germaine Greer’s opinion of a “Feminist Brand”. When a report found that “feminism had a poor "brand image" among young women today”, Germaine rejected it and said:

“Somebody should explain that we're not selling anything”

 As for my anger... It's always good to remember that the transition into more "radical" feminism can take time. That I'm not entirely alone in disliking this SlutWalk wave. And that, in the long run, only meaningful things remain because they are the only things that matter.