Category Archives: Feminism

Women will not be intimidated out of political discourse

On Saturday, I went to Netroots UK – a one-day conference for the online progressive left. Overall, it was a great day. I met some awesome people, I learned some new things, I had some great discussions.
Among other things I attended a session called “Digital Equality” on engaging women online. Now, Netroots as a whole wasn’t exactly a troll-free zone. If you look through the #netrootsuk hashtag on Twitter you’ll spot that a good 10% if not more of comments are from right-wing trolls. I’m not talking constructive discussion here; I’m talking personal attacks on individuals, and calling the conference a wankfest. The Digital Equality session, however, was singled out for particular troll attention. The most “creative” they got was telling us we should be doing the washing-up. And just as Jessica Asato was telling us about a particularly nasty tweet aimed at one of the contributors to the workshop, I got picked out for trolling simply for being in that room.
The sheer nastiness of the online political blogging environment for women was one of the key topics of the workshop. All of the speakers shared personal experiences of the kind of attacks they’ve been subject to. Laurie Penny gets five emails a week describing how she deserves to get raped; Lisa Ansell gets told she is worthless scum and should shut up and get back to the kitchen; I myself have had the dubious honour of being on the receiving end of the CiF comment thread. And yes, while CiF can get fairly nasty regardless of who the contributor is, female contributors, female bloggers, women who dare stand up and speak out are singled out for particularly vicious attacks all over the net. These comments range from the dismissive to the downright threatening. They are designed to undermine our confidence, make us doubt ourselves, to intimidate us and scare us. They are designed to exclude us from the political discourse online.
Lisa Ansell made a very good point – women are politically engaged and politically active online. Organisations like Mumsnet have not inconsiderable influence. And yet, the way these organisations engage is different: they create spaces where women talk to each other, focus on specific “women’s issues”. While this is necessary, in my mind it doesn’t go far enough. All political issues are women’s issues, and all women’s issues are political issues – the divide is artificial. It is vital for women to get involved in the mainstream discourse. And yet, every time we do, we are dismissed, intimidated, threatened. Can you imagine a male blogger getting told he deserves to get raped?
There are those of us who have grown a thick skin. A day on CiF is remarkably helpful in that respect. Yes, the comments still affect me – they hurt, they intimidate, they make me feel helpless sometimes, and very often very very angry. But I have learned to get through that and come out the other side. I have (mostly) learned not to feed the trolls, not to waste energy on anger, and to keep writing. One thing that helps are supportive comments from others. Just when that troll has managed to make you doubt yourself, and external sanity check, even just a simple reminder not to feed the troll, is fantastically useful.
Many women, though, are put off by the nastiness and viciousness of the environment. Younger women especially may decide it’s easier and safer to stay down and not to speak out. And that for me is not acceptable. We cannot let a small group of pathetic, immature individuals who are secretly terrified of women scare us – and those who come after us – into silence. We have a right to be part of the “mainstream” political debate, both to contribute and to lead. As Laurie Penny said on Saturday, feminism isn’t some kind of political ghetto, and we have a right to make ourselves heard.
And so I’m standing up for women bloggers. And when I see one of them attacked I will stand up and speak out. I will not let the trolls get away with it. I will not let women bloggers think they are alone, because they are not. Will you join me?

The flip side

Imagine you’re at a party with someone. They’re someone you admire, someone a lot of people around the world admire. You’ve been talking all night, flirting a little maybe. You both have had a drink or two. You’re having so much fun, you feel like telling the world about it. Thank fuck for Twitter!

You get this feeling that they might be, you know, interested. It might be quite fun to sleep with them actually, you think. Maybe you even hope for more than just sex.

They kiss you and you kiss them back. Things go a little further. You’re having fun. At some point you fish a condom out of your pocket and hand it to them. They agree to use it. It’s common sense, right? Right. You’re still having fun. It’s all good.

But at some point something changes. Maybe it hurts when they penetrate you. (You do not need a vagina to play along with this game. Go on, try to imagine.) Maybe they’re simply not that good in bed, and you’re not having fun anymore. Maybe they’re not using that condom you handed them and you’re worried about your health. It doesn’t matter what it is. You’re not having fun, you don’t want to do this anymore, you ask them to stop.

And they don’t. They keep, you know, fucking you. There is a foreign object inside your body, moving in and out. There is another person on top of you, clearly enjoying themselves, while you may be in physical pain, and even if not, by this point you’re alomst certainly emotionally traumatised. They finish, roll off you and go to sleep.

You, on the other hand, lie awake wondering what you did wrong. Were you not clear enough when you asked them to stop? Should you have struggled? Maybe it was a misunderstanding? You know, they’re from a long way away, you’re speaking to them in a language foreign to you. You feel violated; you feel ashamed. And they’re this incredibly cool person everybody likes, so it must have been you doing something wrong, right?

You wake up next to them the next morning. They’re staying at your house for a couple of days which makes things awkward. You don’t feel that same happiness and elation being around them anymore. You remember you told the world how awesome it all was? You’re not quite sure anymore, you’d like to take that back actually. So you delete your tweets.

A few days later you meet someone who’s also slept with your partner. You talk to them for a while and a picture begins to emerge. Their story is a little different, but there are enough similarities that suddenly you don’t feel quite so alone and isolated anymore. Maybe if there’s two of you it’s not you who did something wrong. Maybe this incredibly cool person whom all the cool kids like is actually at fault. An ugly word enters your brain. Were you raped?

It takes another couple of days for your mind to wrap itself around this. The sense of shame and self-blame don’t exactly subside. You’re this strong person, you’re a public figure, you’re well known for your work on gender equality. How did you let yourself be raped? What did you do wrong? But a few days later you eventually gather all your courage, hold you head high, repeat to yourself three times “It was not my fault”, and walk into the police station.
At which point the entire internet turns on you.

***

Point being this: I don’t care if you’re a left-wing feminist man who’s struggling with the idea of a freedom of information campaigner not being pure and perfect, or if you’re simply an Assange fanboy who’s never even considered how a woman might feel about sex. Please try to remember that there are two sides to every story. Oh yes, she might once have met someone who met someone who had a second cousin twice removed who worked for the CIA. She might be a public figure and an outspoken feminist. She might have been a groupie, she might have been drunk, she might have slept with all of Sweden before she slept with Assange, and she might have deleted those Tweets. And almost certainly, her case is being used by Assange’s enemies to discredit him and make his life difficult. None of that matters. What matters is what happened between Julian Assange and those two women, and none of us know any of it. Maybe one day it will all come out in court, maybe it won’t. But smearing an alleged rape victim because you can’t cope with the moral ambiguity of someone who does good work in one area also having committed a crime in another area is not the way to make either yourself or the person you’re trying to defend terribly popular.

Support WikiLieaks. Even donate to the Assange defence fund – he, like anyone else, has the right to a fair trial. Make your voice heard to ensure that any trial will be fair and transparent. But whatever you do, do not blame the alleged victim. Do not seek to smear the alleged victim. Even if it’s just for one minute, consider how she might feel, why she might have done the things you accuse her of having done, how this looks from her point of view and what impact it’s having on her life.

PS This is a direct response to this article, which someone on my Twitter feed called a brilliant piece of investigative internet journalism.

Sex, politics, espionage, and the internet – the tangled mess that is Julian Assange

A quip I made last night on Twitter seems to have struck a chord, and I wanted to examine it beyond the 140-character limit. What I said was something along the lines of “If all alleged rapists got the kind of police attention Mr. Assange is getting, maybe 200 women a day wouldn’t get raped in the UK.”
Sex, politics, espionage, and the internet: it’s the perfect storm really, and I find it quite difficult to figure our where to even start untangling this one. But let me try.
I don’t know if Julian Assange raped anybody, or if the accusations are fabricated by some sort of CIA conspiracy, or if they were fabricated by a crazy woman out for revenge – these are all theories I’ve heard, and I simply do not know enough of the facts (or Swedish law!) to make a judgement on this. In fact I suspect that no-one – not even Assange and the women involved – know all the facts anymore. Between potential third-party interventions and all the media spin we’ve been getting, I can see it being difficult to keep this one straight. Not to mention that the technicalities of Swedish law involved are… interesting to say the least.
Next. Rape is a damn serious issue. And rape comes in all sorts of varieties. The traditional public perception of a rape victim is someone who was beaten black and blue as well as being raped. One of the things I’m reasonably sure of is that this is not the kind of rape we’re talking about in the Assange case. But rape is any form of sex without consent – whether the woman was drunk, or changed her mind halfway through, or was too scared to protest, or it happened in a relationship, or a whole number of other situations, having sex with someone without their consent is rape (though sometimes the law distinguishes different kinds of non-consensual sex, and what Assange is accused of under Swedish law is not quite sraight forward). To say it is incredibly traumatic for the victim doesn’t even begin to cover it. So no matter how much I agree with Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks work, no amount of good work he does entitles him to rape, and if indeed he did so I would like to see him face justice. Just as no amount of good (or otherwise) work Roman Polanski has done in his job as a film director entitles him to rape children, and I would still like justice to be done in that case too.
Here’s the catch though: if good work doesn’t atone for bad deeds, those same bad deeds do not negate the good work done. If I liked Polanski’s movies, I could still enjoy them while he spends the rest of his life in prison. Equally, even if it does some day turn out that Julian Assange raped a woman, I am still going to broadly agree with his political aims and what he is doing with WikiLeaks. Because let’s face it, even if the rape allegations aren’t a government conspiracy, any government Assange has pissed off recently is absolutely delighted that every time you google his name the word “rape” appears next to it. Humans aren’t terribly good at making subtle distinctions between the different things another person does – we like things to be neat and fit in nice labelled boxes. So the label “rapist” (no, nothing as subtle as “alleged rapist”) hangs over Assange’s head, and in a lot of people’s minds that is enough to cast doubt over everything else the man has ever done.
Finally, it seems obvious to me that the level of police attention the rape allegations against Julian Assange are getting across Europe is politically motivated. The last rape case that got anywhere near the amount of international police attention was the aforementioned Mr. Polanski, and he got off on a technicality. I would absolutely love our police to put this kind of effort into every rape allegation. Maybe our conviction rate would make it into the double digits then. Maybe a small fraction of the 200 women who get raped in the UK every single day would be spared the ordeal. Maybe it would finally send out the message that we as a society do not tolerate rape. The Assange case, on the other hand, has none of those effects and sends no such message. The only message I’m getting from it, loud and clear, is that if you piss off the state, no stone will be left unturned in the effort to make your life a living hell.

On sex education and the romantic comedy

I came across this interesting article via @DrPetra a while ago. It talks about our socially prevalent definition of sex.

Foreplay is defined by Webster’s dictionary consistent with the heterosexual, male-focused way most people in our culture describe it. Webster’s online dictionary states that foreplay is: “erotic stimulation preceding intercourse” and the “action or behaviour that precedes an event.” In this definition, foreplay is all that comes before the main event–with the main event being heterosexual intercourse.

In most people’s minds, the article argues, sex is defined as intercourse, and it doesn’t even “count” as sex unless the man has an orgasm. To underline the point, apparently when President Clinton was facing impeachment for having or not having “sexual relations with that woman”, a poll in the US found that most Americans thought that oral sex wasn’t really sex. And rumour had it that the ongoing joke in Israel at the time was that the Americans weren’t doing it right. There is a more serious point to this though.
There is a lot of concern and moral outrage in our society about pornography, and particularly about teenagers using pornography as a substitute for sex education. Most mainstream porn, after all, hardly treats women with respect, tends to be fairly formulaic (to the point of being funny), and does tend to leave young and impressionable minds with the wrong idea of sex.
And yet, here I would argue that the fragile minds of our children have a far greater enemy when it comes to healthy sexuality and sexual equality than porn: the romantic comedy. Let’s have a look at some of the messages romantic comedies send to young women (and men) about what is expected of them in a relationship.

  • As a woman, your only value is as the love interest. Your life should revolve around getting the guy. Nothing else is worth talking about. (How many romantic comedies can you think of that pass the Bechdel Test?
  • If you’re lucky, you might be allowed to be brainy and beautiful. But really, just being pretty is enough. Don’t worry your little head about anything else.
  • You may be an independent woman. You may even have a hugely successful career. But all of that is temporary and you won’t care about it anymore when you meet the guy. He will become the centre of your universe.

So far, so good, and damaging enough. But here’s where the romantic comedy (and more generally the Hollywood view of sex) really does its worst. Imagine it: The hero finally gets the girl/the girl finally finds the meaning of her life in the form of the guy; they run towards each other, they embrace, they kiss. Next thing you know they’re in bed together, and you’re invited to imagine that they’re having intercourse. I bet I know what you see in your mind’s eye right now: soft lighting, he’s on top, the covers are strategically draped over them and she, for all the world, looks like she’s in absolute ecstasy from having his hands… stroke her face. Yeah. Can you remember the last time you saw a man hand between a woman’s legs in a Hollywood sex scene?
There are two things profoundly wrong with this picture. The first, and arguably more obvious one, is what I’ve already alluded to above. Let’s face it, the vast, overwhelming majority of women do not orgasm from intercourse alone. (Even those who do, generally only do so when they’re on top.) And if you’re a man and this is news to you, one romantic comedy I can recommend is “When Harry Met Sally”. So what your typical Hollywood sex scene does is basically perpetuate the myth that sex is vaginal intercourse in which the male partner has an orgasm, thus completely devaluing women’s sexuality and their sexual experience.
But the next bit is even worse. Replay that movie again in your head: guy meets girl, predictable plot happens, guy gets girl, they snog, next they’re having sex with a stirring piano soundtrack in the background. What’s missing? At no point do they actually talk about having sex. No mention of who’s got the condom, let alone any communication of what either of them actually likes to do in bed. And so generation after generation of kids grow up, unable to talk to their partners about sex – not just unable, unaware that this is something one should possibly consider doing. Because let’s face it, parents aren’t terribly good at talking to kids about sex and rely on schools to do it, and schools… well, unless you’ve got an exceptionally good teacher all you get is the condom/banana talk – if you’re lucky.
So next time you hear anyone spluttering moral outrage about how easily kids can access porn these days, maybe you could ask them how much damage porn does to the healthy sexuality of teenagers compared to romantic comedies. Porn is far from harmless, but it is the social acceptance of the Hollywood model of sexuality that makes it so insidious and at least as damaging as porn.

An open letter to Theresa May

Dear Mrs. May,
It was with horror that I head yesterday that you a looking to scrap a power which would allow police to remove and ban perpetrators of domestic violence from their homes for two weeks, giving their victims a chance to seek help and escape their abusers.
The quote from your spokeswoman in the Independent was particularly chilling: while tackling violence against women was a priority for this government, she said, “in tough economic times, we are now considering our options for delivering improved protection and value for money.”
Yet this is a false economy. Let me take you on a tour of the cost of violence against women. Let’s get one thing straight right from the start: Violence against women is absolutely endemic in our society. I’m talking about rape (over 200 women get raped every day in the UK), domestic violence (1 in 4 women will suffer this in the course of their lives), sexual abuse (32% of children are abused – mostly girls). 45% of women in the UK have at some point in their lives been victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse or stalking. A quarter of girls aged 13 to 17 have experienced physical violence from a boyfriend and a third have been pressured into sexual acts. It is difficult to get a precise picture of the numbers – violence against women is under-reported, consistent statistics not available; but just looking at the above data, a conservative estimate would have well over half the women in this country as victims of major violent incidents just because they are women. We should not forget to add to that the endless list of small insidious incidents that violate women’s minds or bodies – verbal harassment, threats, and a range of physical incidents from groping to flashing.
Just like it is difficult to get precise numbers for the extent of the issue, it is difficult to estimate the overall cost of it to our society. It is not a lump sum, easily visible and identified. Instead, it is spread over a variety of areas it impacts. Some of this cost, for instance, is born by the NHS – in the form of anything from immediate aftercare of rape victims to long-term therapy. A portion – not nearly enough – is born by the criminal justice system in the form of investigations, (often failed) prosecutions, and prison costs. A less obvious part of the cost hits social services when families break down either as a direct result of domestic abuse or as victims find it hard to sustain subsequent relationships. Employers, too, have to bear some of the cost: in the form of employees not performing to their full potential as their self-confidence is damaged by their experience of violence, as well as long-term absence and disability for those victims who suffer from debilitating depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic and anxiety attacks.
Ultimately, however, the vast majority of the cost of violence against women is born by women ourselves. Instead of confronting our attackers, seeking help, or seeking justice, the vast majority of us still walk away. We hide what happened to us, we don’t talk about it, we learn to live with it. There is a physical, emotional and financial cost of violence against women which is completely hidden from society because most women choose to bear it themselves. Why do we choose to do so?
There are many factors which influence women’s decisions on how to handle the violent incidents we experience: personal and family relationships, fear of future violence, social attitudes. (Did you know that over 1 in 4 people believe a woman is responsible for being raped if she is wearing revealing clothing; over 1 in 5 believe she is responsible for being raped if she has had many sexual partners? Nick Clegg has had 30 sexual partners. Is he asking for it?) One of the key factors, however, is the message we receive from the government – and especially from this government – loud and clear: An issue which affects at the very least a quarter of all people in the UK is not something this government is prepared to tackle; the suffering of millions of women is not important enough to make a priority and spend money on “in tough economic times”; and lest we forget, the minority of men falsely accused of rape are of greater concern to this government than the 200 women who get raped every single day. This government, in a very short time, has sent a very clear message that violence against women is something it is prepared to tolerate. And thus we remain silent, and bear the vast majority of the cost ourselves.
I conducted a little thought experiment a while ago. I started by asking myself what the socially acceptable and correct response to a minor incident of sexual assault (let’s say being groped) would be. Returning violence with violence is more than likely to end with me being charged with assault – at least in my particular circumstances as I am a trained kickboxer. Drawing the attention of others to the incident could be helpful in that it is likely to discourage the perpetrator from going further on this occasion but hardly stops them from attacking other women. I did consider the option of reporting the incident to the police, at which point the realisation dawned on me that our criminal justice system is simply not equipped to handle the sheer volume of incidents of violence against women: If every rape, every incident of child abuse, stalking or domestic violence, and every single minor incident were reported, the justice system would grind to a halt. Not only that – our society would grind to a halt too: With up to one in 16 men being a rapist, the prison population would soar to nearly two million. This is the scale of the problem that we are talking about, and it’s a problem which is hidden by victims because we have no confidence that our suffering will in any way be taken seriously, that anything will be done about it.
Perhaps if women stopped bearing all of this ourselves, if we stopped hiding the cost, if we really and truly made an effort to expose this as the huge festering social problem that it is, this government would notice. If every single one of us stood her ground, stood up and spoke out, and instead of internalising her experience made it society’s problem, demanded of government and society to address the issues, made the cost obvious, maybe then this government would re-asses its “options for delivering improved protection and value for money”.
Dear Mrs. May, if you truly believe that tackling violence against women is a priority for you and for this government, I strongly urge you to put your money where your mouth is. Start by re-instating the “go-orders” scheme, but don’t stop there. Send a loud and clear message that violence against women is not something this government is prepared to tolerate, that it should not be something we as a society are prepared to tolerate. Start working with your ministerial colleagues across departments to build a programme which will make violence against women history. This is not an issue which can be tackled solely by the Home Office: You will need to get – at the very least – Health, Education, the MoJ, the DWP, Communities and Local Government, the Treasury, as well as the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on board to truly make a difference. It is not an easy task, there are no easy answers, and few quick wins. You were, however, not elected as an MP and not put in charge of the Home Office to solve small and easy problems. The least I expect of my government is to tackle the really tough issues, and they rarely come tougher, or with a wider-ranging impact, than violence against women. Make this your legacy.
Sincerely yours,
Milena Popova
ETA: I had a request in the comments to share the postal address for contacting Theresa May to make it easier for other people to contact her. Her website lists the following contact details:
Home Office:
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
House of Commons:
Rt Hon Theresa May MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 5206
Fax: 020 7219 1145
mayt@parliament.uk
Constituency Office:
Maidenhead Conservative Association
2 Castle End Farm
Ruscombe
Berkshire
RG10 9XQ
Tel: 0118 934 5433 or 01628 604 961
Fax: 0118 934 5288

Reframing the Narrative

(This was written a couple of weeks ago and has been sitting on my hard drive waiting for me to be back in the UK before it hit the Internet.)
If anyone had told me three weeks ago that I’d be sitting here writing this, and considering publishing it, I’d probably have had a nervous breakdown at them. As it happens, I pretty much did have a nervous breakdown in the meantime, and now it’s time to write this. This post may contain triggers. It is also not intended to speak for anyone else who may have had similar experiences to mine – it’s my own personal take on getting past a history of sexual abuse. I am writing this for a number of reasons:

  1. Writing helps me process things, and stops random thoughts popping up in my head at 3 o’clock in the morning. It helps structure and codify the reframed narrative I will be talking about below.
  2. I hope that in some small way I can help people out there on an individual level. I know that one of the most helpful things for me has been to understand that I am not the only one who has gone through this and that my own reactions to it are far from abnormal. If this helps you, then it would be great if you could let me know – either in the comments or via email. But you don’t have to – we all deal with these things in our own way, and it may not be the right thing to do for you at this time. Either way, you are not alone.
  3. Finally, this post is part of what is rapidly becoming a personal mission to raise awareness of violence against women in our society. When I first started talking about this in public not that long ago, it struck me how many people simply didn’t know not only the extent of the issue but even that violence against women was happening. By making it personal, I am hoping to move this beyond the realm of abstract statistics. The personal is political. I also owe a huge debt of gratitude on this front to RoadkillGerbil for speaking out about her own experience. The more of us do it, the more powerful the message becomes.

And this is as much preamble as this needs…
About seven years ago I wrote about being the victim of sexual abuse when I was in my teens. That post, at the time aimed mostly at my friends in an effort to break the silence and hopefully help me move on a little further, was full of justifications. It was written to answer the question which I expected from everyone: “Why did you let it happen?” As it happens, my friends are a lot less harsh than I have been with myself over the last 15 years, and that question never came. But at the back of my mind it has always been there.
Here’s what the world looked like in my head for 15 years, the narrative that I had created for myself: I was abused by an uncle when I was, as best I can tell now, 14 or 15 years old. In my head, I was grown-up enough at that point that it was reasonable to expect of me not to let this happen to myself. In my head, the responsibility was all mine, the pain was all mine, the guilt and the shame were all mine. And out of those, the worst were the guilt and the shame. I closed off a part of myself, and I didn’t speak about it for 5 years.
That narrative was incredibly damaging. It kept the guilt and the shame well fed, to the extent that even when I did eventually talk and write about my experience, it was in the framework of that narrative, expecting the challenge: “Why did you let it happen?” Whenever I considered telling my family, what stopped me was the fear of that challenge – the fear that they would blame me. And yet, very slowly and unconsciously to start with, and very rapidly and deliberately over the last few weeks, I have been reframing that narrative. Because there is more than one side to every story, and because sometimes what you always thought was your side isn’t quite right.
The first realisation which contributed to this reframing, ten years ago, was the monumental extent of the breach of trust which that person had committed. This was the person I had been closest to for my entire childhood. He lived in the flat below us. When I was upset or had fought with my parents, he was the person I ran to. When the abuse happened, I was too shell-shocked by that breach of trust to do anything about it.
Here’s another one: When a woman – or a child – says no, that means no. It should only need to be said once. There should be no conditions attached. This sounds obvious – it should be obvious; and if someone else came to me told me of a similar experience, that is exactly what I would say. And yet, in my head it somehow didn’t apply to me. Because saying no was clearly not enough to stop the abuse, clearly I should have done something else, something different. 15 years is a long time to carry that burden before you realise that no, you did everything right; it was the other party involved who was wrong.
And finally, there was the realisation that no matter how much I saw my 15-year-old self as an adult, I was a child. That was a blinding flash of insight I had while curled up in a ball on the floor in the corner of my bedroom, trying to talk to Paul about all this last weekend. The thing that finally helped me see it was that my cousin is now the same age I was when I was abused – and I see my cousin as a kid, and everyone else in my family does too; not a pre-teen sort of kid, and well on his way towards being an adult, but a kid who needs guidance and care and protection nonetheless. No one in my family – not even I – would expect my cousin to be able to protect himself from the kind of abuse I suffered entirely by himself. I have no words to describe the liberating power of this insight. Suddenly I felt free. I knew that whatever I chose to do from that point on was not going to be easy, but I also for the first time really, genuinely believed that, actually, this was not my fault. They weren’t just words I kept repeating to myself anymore.
All of the recent developments in my thinking have been prompted by some family drama we’ve been having. We’ve had a couple of deaths in the family recently, and my mother had expressed a desire to catch up with some more removed family members she’s not seen in a while – including the man who abused me. That was the first time I got an inkling that something had changed inside me. It was the first time I had a genuinely physical reaction to the thought of my experiences. My heart started pounding. I felt sick. I collapsed on the kitchen floor and sat there in a ball for a bit. I made it clear to my mother that I was not going to be part of this family reunion, told her not to ask why, changed the subject, finished the phone call and then just sat there feeling sick. And I decided this was progress. I wasn’t burying things inside anymore. It hurt like hell, but it felt good to actually feel something.
A couple of other family incidents, iterated with the thought precesses above, and eventually I told my mother. I am incredibly sorry for what it’s done to her, but it’s actually been incredibly helpful to me. Before that, my brain was trying to push me down one of two routes, neither very productive: keep suppressing things and live on like it never happened, or go see my abuser by myself for some sort of … fuck knows what, frankly. The thought of telling my mother, the thought of ever seeing him while she was in the same room, produced in my head a mental image of me as a very small child hiding behind my mother’s skirt. That of course played nicely into the whole “but you were grown up, you should have been able to stop it” narrative. Way to go, brain.
My first reaction to telling my mother was physical and violent. I hung up the phone, and I started not so much crying as howling. I couldn’t stop shaking. My teeth were chattering. I curled up in a ball on the sofa, Paul put a blanket around me and eventually, when I let him, held my hand, and I just sat there for a good 15 minutes. Even though my mother had believed me instantly, had not questioned a thing, had confirmed some of my new narrative in her reaction (“You were a child!”), the profound sense of shame that washed over me was soul-shattering. I thought, for those 15 minutes, that I would never be able to look my mother in the eye again. Eventually, it passed. Though the memory of the moment when I told her, of the words, made me physically whince and twitch for a few days afterwards – I’m slowly getting over that. I talked to Paul again later that evening and the entire time he held me and every so often I would just shake.
One of the many worst things about all this is having to deal with everyone else’s helplessness. There is no right way of reacting to someone you love telling you they’ve been hurt like this, but the most common reaction I have encountered is helplessness. That then translates into all sorts of things – deflection, denial, anger, self-blame; all those things that I’ve been going through myself, but from a slightly different, twisted angle. And because I have been through all of these myself, I have to help. When I tell people, I have to plan ahead for their reactions. One of the reasons I haven’t told my father is that I don’t think I can physically restrain him for long enough to reason him out of doing something monumentally stupid. With my mother, I suspect it will take me years to convince her that there is only one guilty party in all of this and it’s not her. So at a time when I’m feeling fragile and in need of support, I have to carry everyone else.
Another worst thing is that – while I’m beginning to accept that the guilt and the shame are not mine to carry – the power to hurt a lot of innocent people lies entirely with me. The choice of who to tell – and thus whose world to destroy utterly – is with me. Telling my mother has, miraculously, turned out to be the best thing for myself that I could ever have done. Whether she can cope with it in the long run remains to be seen. Do I tell my father? My abuser’s sister whose son is the age I was when I was abused? His mother, who has recently been widowed? Where is the balance between preventing him from doing further harm, getting the closure I need, and dragging more innocent people into this? That decision, that responsibility, lies with me. But it has been important for me to realise that the guilt is not mine, that regardless of what I do and who I tell now, I did not cause this.
I have had a number of friendly offers of violence on my behalf from friends since I started talking about this. I’m not going to deny that I’ve thought about it. There are ways and means. I have always shied away from it, and only realised recently why. Physical pain doesn’t even get close to what I’ve been through, and thus retribution in terms of physical pain is inadequate. The thing, I think, that would help me get closure is to know that my abuser feels the same shame and guilt I have been feeling for the last fifteen years – to get some sort of acknowledgement of guilt from him, to have him admit that he knows, and knew, that what he did was wrong. In my mind, there’s almost a zero-sum game of feelings here, and if he takes on the guilt, I don’t have to carry it anymore. And no, it’s not in any way rational, but that’s how I feel about it.
What telling my mother appears to have done for me is to short-circuit at least some of this zero-sum game. Maybe one day I will confront my abuser; maybe I will get that admission of guilt. But actually just knowing that my mother knows and she’s on my side – she’s got my back, she does not blame me – is enough for the moment. Not only have I reframed my own narrative to the point where I genuinely believe it wasn’t my fault, but I now have external validation from someone in the family. I had not realised until a couple of days ago how much that mattered, how liberating it is.
Suddenly the image in my head of encountering my abuser with my mother at my side is of me as I am now – truly grown-up, strong, a survivor, proud and with my head held high. The guilt is not mine. The shame is not mine.

Violence against women is endemic – and ConLib isn’t helping

There is, sadly, a fair chance that I may get more flack for this than I did for my BigotGate post. But it needs saying.
This trigger for this post was the ConLib government’s announcement yesterday as part of the full coalition agreement that they are looking to restore rape defendants’ right to anonymity, and a subsequent conversation I had with my partner about violence against women. It turns out men, even wonderful men, are not terribly aware of the facts surrounding this issue.
Let’s get one thing straight right from the start: violence against women is absolutely endemic in our society. I’m talking about rape (at least 80,000 women suffer rape in the UK every year), domestic violence (1 in 4 women will suffer this in the course of their lives), sexual abuse (32% of children are abused – mostly girls). 45% of women in the UK have at some point in their lives been victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse or stalking. (White Ribbon Campaign) A quarter of girls aged 13 to 17 have experienced physical violence from a boyfriend and a third have been pressured into sexual acts. (NSPCC survey quoted by BBC)
Those are the high-level national statistics. Let’s take it down a notch – let’s take it down to a personal level. Do you personally know any women who’ve been victims of violence? Well yes, you do. About seven years ago I wrote about being a victim of sexual abuse. So that’s one woman you know. When I wrote about my experiences, a shocking number of women among my personal friends and acquaintances came forward in private to share similar stories. Among the women I know, I know of 3 rapes, 3 women other than me who were abused as children, 3 victims of domestic violence. And those are just the ones I know about, just the major incidents. As far as I know none of these women have made an attempt to take legal action against their abusers. We all just walked away.
Add this to the picture: the endless list of small insidious incidents that violate women’s minds or bodies – the things that, given all the big stuff that’s going on, just aren’t worth making a fuss about. They include verbal harassment and a range of physical incidents from groping to flashing. I can already hear half of you shouting that that’s not violence. But it is. It violates women’s bodily or mental integrity, it objectifies them, it negatively impacts the way women feel about themselves.
Let’s take that down to the personal level again. I have been on the receiving end of sexual harassment in the workplace once (not in my current job, I hasten to add), and of small incidents of physical violence four times. While I have talked in public about being an abuse victim, I have never before told anyone about those smaller incidents because compared to my and other women’s more harrowing experiences, they pale into insignificance. But here’s how those incidents made me feel: angry, ashamed, blaming myself, and yes – violated. I said earlier that we – women – don’t make a fuss about this type of low-level violence. Only three other women have ever talked to me about similar experiences. I really don’t believe we are unique. But we just let this kind of thing go. For an insight into the psychological impact of this ubiquitousness of violence on women you could do worse than reading Schroedinger’s Rapist over on Kate Harding’s blog.
Are you convinced yet that violence against women is endemic in our society? Here are some more stats (Amnesty UK): Over 1 in 4 people believe a woman is responsible for being raped if she is wearing revealing clothing; over 1 in 5 believe she is responsible for being raped if she has had many sexual partners. (Nick Clegg has had 30 sexual partners. Is he asking for it?) Again, the impact of constantly being told – subtly or not so subtly – by society around you that being a victim of violence is your own fault is that sooner or later you start believing it. The first reaction most women will have after a violent incident is to ask themselves what it was they did to deserve it, or what they could have done to stop or prevent it.
So not only is violence against women endemic (You know many women who have been victims of it.); not only is it socially acceptable (How many of you thought my experiences of being harassed just weren’t a big deal? I did.); but now the first action our new government has announced which will have a direct impact in this area will make it worse.
It’s taken me 24 hours to pull this post together because I wanted to go away and do some fact checking. I wanted to know how people charged with other crimes are treated in terms of identification. I honestly didn’t know, so I asked Twitter for some help and @gwenhwyfaer found the official document on reporting restrictions in the criminal courts for me. Here’s what it says:

In recognition of the open justice principle, the general rule is that justice should be administered in public. To this end:

  • Proceedings must be held in public.
  • Evidence must be communicated publicly.
  • Fair, accurate and contemporaneous media reporting of proceedings should not be prevented by any action of the court unless strictly necessary.

Therefore, unless there are exceptional circumstances laid down by statute law and/or common law the court must not:

  • Order or allow the exclusion of the press or public from court for any part of the proceedings.
  • Permit the withholding of information from the open court proceedings.
  • Impose permanent or temporary bans on reporting of the proceedings or any part of them including anything that prevents the proper identification, by name and address, of those appearing or mentioned in the course of proceedings.

There are exceptions: Children’s identities are generally protected; the identities of victims of sexual offences are protected (though the defendant can request for the identity of the victim to be made public if there is reason to believe that witnesses for the defence will come forward as a result); hearings can happen in camera (in secret) “where the hearing of the case in public would frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice.” The document, however, explicitly states that “The fact (…) that hearing evidence in open court will cause embarrassment to witnesses does not meet the test for necessity.”
Given how clearly the principles of open justice are stated, one does have to wonder why the ConLib government is looking to extend anonymity rights to defendants in rape cases – a proposal that was in neither party’s election manifesto. What is it they’re trying to achieve? There have been some high-profile cases where men have been falsely accused of rape. And of course this has had a negative impact on those defendants. However, the current system offers sufficient safeguards for this already: a woman who is is found to have made a false claim will generally be prosecuted (and publicly identified). What this move is likely to achieve instead is to decrease both the reporting and the conviction rate for rapes even further (and let’s face it, those rates are already abysmally low). It sends the message that women and their safety aren’t valued. And it will prevent other victims of the same rapist from coming forward.
If you don’t want your life to be negatively impacted by being falsely accused of rape, the answer is not to give anonymity to defendants. The answer is to work towards making rape – and any other violence against women – history. We have a long way to go. Women need to feel safe to speak out about their experiences; we need to make it clear to everyone that violence against women (or anyone for that matter) is not acceptable; we need to raise awareness of all types of violence against women – from rapes and murders right down to groping and flashing; we need a fundamental cultural shift, not cosmetic legal changes.
And right now, I as a woman do not feel safe in the hands of the current government. So when this legislation comes before Parliament, I will be writing to my MP (useless though he is), and I will be asking all of you to do the same, to make sure that it does not pass.
Here are some additional references/materials on the subject:
The White Ribbon Campaign aims to get men involved in the fight against violence against women. Go and sign up.
Women’s Aid is a national charity working to end domestic violence against women and children.
Unfortunately, instances of domestic violence against men are also rising.
Hidden Hurt has a page specifically for male victims of domestic violence.

Ada Lovelace Day 2010 – Part 2

I’ve just remembered the other person I had filed away at the back of my mind with an Ada Lovelace Day 2010 tag.
Lise Meitner in 1900
Lise Meitner was born in Vienna in 1878 to a Jewish family. She studied physics and became the second women to obtain a doctoral degree from the University of Vienna. She moved to Berlin where she became Max Planck’s assistant (the Max Planck of the Planck Constant but also the Max Planck who wouldn’t, before Meitner, even allow women into his lectures).
Most of Meitner’s research was in collaboration with the chemist Otto Hahn. In the early 1930s they worked on attempts to create elements heavier that uranium by bombarding heavy nuclei with neutrons. With the rise of Hitler in Germany and the Anschluss of Austria, it became unsafe for Meitner to remain in Germany and she fled to Stockholm. From Stockholm, she continued her correspondence with Otto Hahn, who by that point was getting some really interesting experimental results from his attempts to create heavy elements – what he found was that as he bombarded heavy nuclei with neutrons, the output was actually lighter elements.
It was Meitner, with her physics background, who provided the theoretical explanation for what Hahn was seeing in the lab. She suggested that, instead of sticking to the nucleus and making it heavier, the neutrons were actually splitting it into two smaller nuclei – the process we now know as neutron-induced fission.
As the practical implications of her work were recognised, Meitner was invited to join the Manhattan Project, which she declined. Otto Hahn received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work on nuclear fission, while Meitner was not recognised. In later life, she even refused to appear in a documentary about the atomic bomb as she did not want her name associated with it, though she is believed to have been bitter about not receiving any official credit and recognition for her work on fission.
Personally, I think she was an amazing woman and pioneer not just as female physicist but of physics in general.

Ada Lovelace Day 2010 – Part 1

As @FindingAda just pointed out on Twitter, it’s not midnight in the middle of the Pacific yet, and thus it’s still Ada Lovelace Day 2010. So here’s my 2 Eurocents.
I was originally going to interview my mother for this (she is a chemist by education and worked as a research chemist for many years before other developments in her life made her change career). But when I phoned her last night she was in no mood to be interviewed and I was stuck without a subject. (My Mum’s now been given a year’s notice to prepare herself for she shall be blogged about next Ada Lovelace Day.)
And then someone posted something on a discussion forum in a completely unrelated topic that made me thing. And thus I present to you my ALD10 heroine: Eve. Yes, that’s as in Adam and…
(Caveat: I’m an atheist, I speak of Eve purely as a metaphor.)
Quick recap: God creates Adam, and from his rib he makes Eve (#include legends_and_apocrypha_about_previous_incarnations_such_as_Lilith.h). Adam and Eve are given the run of the Garden of Eden provided they don’t eat the fruit of two trees: the tree of knowledge, and the tree of life – because should they eat both they would know good from evil and live forever, thus becoming like god.
Eve meets the snake and the snake starts asking some questions. And instead of doing what good, god-fearing people tend to do which is say “Oh, god told me not to, I’d better not question this”, Eve goes along with the questioning and ends up doing the first scientific experiment: “What happens if I eat this apple?”
What happens are a number of things: Adam and Eve get kicked out of the garden of Eden (bad), but they now know good from evil, and they – and their children, and their children’s children – will never stop asking questions. They will try to build the Tower of Babel looking for god (an ancient equivalent of the LHC perhaps, looking for the “god particle”?), and much, much later, they will create a scientific method based on observation, experimentation and questioning of accepted wisdom. “I was told not to eat this apple. I wonder what happens if I do eat it. Oh look, there’s an entire world beyond this walled garden!” turns into “I was told everything’s made out of earth, water, fire and air. I wonder why there seem to be different kinds of air. Oh look, I’ve made the first step towards discovering modern chemistry!”
For me the story of Adam and Eve never really made sense. It always reflected rather poorly on god for wanting to keep us in the dark and on Adam for just accepting received wisdom. And thus I claim that – metaphorically at least – Eve was the first scientist, and all those others follow in her footsteps.)