The Victim Narrative

As a result of the New York Times bringing to light the allegations of sexual harassment in the case of Harvey Weinstein, the general public has been given a chance to see into the dark side of Hollywood. Sadly these stories caused a domino effect that rippled across the Western world, in which modern day rape culture rears its ugly head and we are surrounded by hostility towards victims of sexual assault.

Victim blaming comes in a variety of different forms and is not limited to sexual assault but also cases of murder, kidnapping, theft and other crimes. Convincing ourselves that the only way something tragic has happened to someone else, is because of something they have done wrong helps us to feel safe in the illusion that the same thing would not happen to us. This can be attributed to a person’s actions, class, gender, dress sense and career choice. There is a certain narrative that many people feel an individual should follow in order to be treated as a victim and it seems that someone who has fame, wealth and strength within their career does not fall into this narrative.

Just as high profile figures such as Emma Thompson, Ryan Gosling and Julia Roberts spoke out to condemn Weinstein’s behaviour, a vast amount of the general public also spoke out, this time questioning why the actresses did not come forward sooner, as well as pointing out certain privileges in the women’s lives that they feel eliminates their status as a victim.

Victims should be vulnerable in almost every aspect of their life, they should not be wealthy as we tend to associate money with power and if someone has power they can’t possibly be a victim. At the same time, they should also not be poverty stricken as we saw with the kidnapping of Shannon Matthews and the stark comparison between her and Madeline McCann’s case – Shannon being from a council house in a deprived working class area, while the McCann family had their "respectable" careers in medicine. The socioeconomic differences between the two are widely acknowledged as the reason for the vast difference in funds raised for each case - within two weeks of Madeleine's disappearance the rewards totalled £2.6m while those for Shannon amounted to £25,500 (including £20,000 from The Sun).

The way that a victim should present themselves is a huge issue that is often discussed in the media. Big Bang Theory actress Mayim Bialik recently wrote in an op-ed: “In a perfect world, women should be free to act however they want. But our world isn’t perfect…Nothing — absolutely nothing — excuses men for assaulting or abusing women. But we can’t be naïve about the culture we live in.” She wrote that she still makes choices that she considers to be “self-protecting and wise” and that her “sexual self is best reserved for private situations with those I am most intimate with. I dress modestly. I don’t act flirtatiously with men as a policy.” Although Bialik is a self-professed feminist, the opinion that the way that a women presents herself can tip the odds of her being sexually assaulted is not only extremely damaging but also just wrong. It suggests that sexual assault is a product of sexual desire when actually it is usually linked to feelings of power belonging to the abuser.

In the case of the late Hugh Hefner, we can see how a woman’s career choice can have a huge impact on whether people will see them as a victim. Former Playboy Bunny, Holly Madison, wrote a tell-all book sharing her experiences of her time at the Playboy Mansion. Madison spoke about her “disconnected” sexual encounters with Hefner that were expected from all of the girls. She said: “I felt stuck in my life, trying to make ends meet…I lost the lease on my apartment. I felt like I'd already thrown myself to the wolves, so I might as well reap the rewards and not just be one more slut who walked through those doors.”

Madison suffered with depression during her time at the mansion, however, Hefner would not let her see a psychiatrist, fearing the doctor would just tell her to leave. When these stories resurfaced after Hefner’s death on 27 September 2017, we saw comments from the public who believed that because the girls were given £1,000 “allowance” per week, they could only be considered as victims “of their own greed”, with people firing the question; “if it was that terrible then why did they not leave?” Bear in mind that the number one reason that domestic violence survivors stay or return to the abusive relationship is because the abuser controls their money supply, leaving them with no financial resources to break free.

Central to victim blaming for sexual assault is the assumption that as soon as a person is assaulted they automatically hold the responsibility of bringing down their abuser. Throughout the Weinstein case we have seen people condemning Angelina Jolie and the other women that have come forward for not speaking out sooner. First of all, this not true – Former New York Times reporter, Sharon Waxman recalled trying to file a story in 2004 about Weinstein’s sexual misdeeds, only to see it killed by editors. It is also a completely backwards way of placing blame. The idea that an abusers future assaults are the direct responsibility of a previous victim is absurd. We have to consider the fact that in cases like Weinstein’s, abusers are often people in positions of power and victims run the risk of being shut down as soon as they speak out. Just take a look at what happened to Rose McGowen - after using Twitter to speak about the scandal the actress has now been banned from the social media platform. Compare this to the multitude of misogynistic and racist abuse given to MP, Dianne Abbot, via Twitter earlier this year which was left public for the world to see. 

To put our current rape culture into perspective, we only need to think as far back as Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in which he was literally recorded speaking about “grabbing a woman by the p***y” and just months later was elected POTUS. What message does this send to victims who are suffering in silence?

When Hefner died, stars such as Kim Kardashian praised him as “legendary” and we were flooded with articles about how he played a vital part in the movement of feminism. This is a man who once said: “It's the attraction between the sexes that makes the world go 'round. That's why women wear lipstick and short skirts" and "Several girlfriends are easier to handle than one wife." He also wrote: “These chicks [feminists] are our natural enemy. It is time to do battle with them,” in a secret memo leaked to feminists by secretaries at Playboy. “It is time we do battle with them... What I want is a devastating piece that takes the militant feminists apart.”

It would perhaps be a wise idea to spend less time condemning victims for not coming forward and more time exploring why they don’t feel safe to in the first place. How can we take the moral high ground of demanding they should have come forward sooner when we carry the exact attitudes that stopped them from doing it in the first place? The sad truth is that no one is immune to assault, crime or murder and while blaming victims for their tragedy may help us to deny this, all it is really doing is making it easier for the abusers to get away with their actions and remain in their positions of power.

We have to fight this epidemic of abuse and to do so we need to hold the abuser to account, not their victims.

 

The Austerity Illusion

 

There are now just hours to go until the public will be taking to the polling stations and casting their votes for the general election. Tensions are running high and I swear to God if I hear Theresa May come out with a pathetic sound bite one more time I’m going to lose my shit and run through a field of wheat with a covfefe on my head.

The reason that these sound bites are so frustrating is because they hold about as much irony as when she said that the UK hasn’t done enough to tackle terrorism, when that has literally been her job for seven years.

Coalition of Chaos

We have heard countless times, members of the conservative party referring to a Coalition of Chaos, supposedly headed up by Jeremy Corbyn. How unthinkable – parties with opposing views joining together to run the country as an unelected Government! The fact is that we have already seen a coalition of chaos. 2010 brought us the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition, providing with us with David Cameron, our very own unelected Prime minister (they seem to have a habit of doing this). During their five years in power, the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition embarked crippling austerity, causing the start of unimaginable chaos to our public services. The parties introduced the following austerity measures;

The bedroom tax; aimed at low income/unemployed families - according to the TUC, this affected a total of 31% of all working age families in the social rented sector. They also slashed Legal Aid, the top rate of tax was cut from 50p to 45p, we saw Sure Start centres from across the country being shut down (612 in just four years) [site 4children], the Sure Start Maternity grant was also abolished - costing low income mothers £500 and hitting the poorest the hardest, education maintenance allowance for 16-18 year olds was snatched from the hands of the poorest students attending further education, the armed forces were cut - creating a loss of thousands of soldiers, as well as the RAF losing hundreds of helicopters and planes, Child Trust Funds were totally abolished, we have also seen huge numbers of changes to benefits. Child benefit was frozen for a total of three years, inciting a cumulative loss of £1,000 to families with two children, families receiving working tax credits saw a rise in the number of hours they had to work from 16 to 24…the list goes on, including cuts to GP surgeries, Remploy, Youth Centres, local council funding, local parks, police, buses, education, income support, youth employment and support allowance, prisons, public sector pay, mental health.

Basically the coalition government slashed everything they could get their paws on, if I were to list it all in detail it would take up the full blog post, however you can find all the information here.

Strong Economy

Two years on, now with a Conservative government in power and we are still seeing violent austerity across the country. We are being told that we must live within our means and that these measures will create a ‘strong economy’ (you know, that thing they have been promising us for seven years but we are yet to see).

Wrong.

The conservative government displays public spending in the same way as managing a household income. When you are tight on money you make savings through cutting out luxuries; you stop shopping at Sainsbury’s and go to somewhere like Aldi, you decide not to take that holiday that you’ve been planning, you cancel your gym membership – because who are you kidding? You never go anyway.

Cutting back on luxuries works well as a way to survive when you are low on money. The fact is that this logic is not transferrable to government spending and austerity is not about cutting down on luxuries – it is about cutting vital public services that help the majority of people living in this country to thrive.

By cutting funding to education, the poorest children are unable to gain the knowledge and skills that they so desperately need for the future. By cutting spending on mental health services we see individual’s health deteriorate, often resulting in a loss of employment, then housing and sometimes a loss of their own lives. By cutting benefits we see more people pushed into poverty and therefore further from the jobs market, more reliant on our underfunded NHS, more reliant on our underfunded social care services and more reliant on underfunded local authorities.

Do you see a pattern here yet? Circa 100,000 children fell into relative poverty in 2015-16, showing a year on year increase of one percentage point. Not only that but people with disabilities have had to withstand the worst of our government cuts, many of whom have literally had their human rights violated as a result of austerity. Between 1st April 2016 and 31st March 2017, The Trussell Trust’s Foodbank Network provided 1,182,954 three day emergency food supplies to people who literally could not afford to eat. Of this number, 436,938 went to children.

The Tories boast that they have created record numbers of jobs, yet fail to mention the record rise of in work poverty under their leadership; the Nuffield Foundation found that the risk of poverty for adults living in working households rose by more than a quarter (26.5%), from 12.4% to 15.7%, during the ten year period 2004/5 to 2014/15.

The fact is that there is nothing strong about one of the richest countries in the world having literally hundreds of thousands of citizens who can’t afford to feed themselves.

Magic Money Tree, Magic Money Tree, Magic Money Tree

On the BBC Election Debate, the night that our Prime Minister Theresa May went missing, we heard Amber Rudd squealing about Labours ‘magic money tree’. Throughout the campaign we have seen this phrase banded about – probably a tactic used to avoid the fact that the Labour manifesto is fully costed and has the backing of 120 economists from across the globe, while the only figures that appear to be in the Conservative manifesto (in the words of John MacDonnell) are the page numbers.

“There is no magic money tree!” we hear them scream, “We can’t just find this money from nowhere! We have to build a strong economy to afford such luxuries as money that allows people with disabilities to live independently and…you know…eat.”

Funny that, because it seems that there is quite a large sum of money floating around.

In March, the conservatives managed to implement their inheritance tax cut, meaning that couples who pass on homes worth up to £750,000 pay no inheritance duty. Not only this, but by 2020 even homes up to £1million will be exempt from the tax. According to figures from the House of Commons library, this measure will cost the taxpayers £1billion over the next three years, while only benefitting 26,000 of the country’s richest households – and I can guarantee those are not the ‘just about managing’ that Theresa May loves to speak about.

We have also seen a huge tax cut for high earners by pushing up the threshold for paying the 40p rate of income tax, we have seen a reduction in corporation tax and cuts to capital gains. They implemented the new ‘lifetime ISA’ which means that wealthy parents are now able to open tax free savings accounts for their children, deposit up to £4,000 a year and gain £1,000 of tax payer money as a bonus. On top of this they have allowed people with spare rooms, houses or flats to get a tax break on the first £1,000 a year they make renting them out online, not only benefitting people with extra properties but encouraging them to let them out on a short term basis rather than long term.

The fact is that austerity does not work. The method has been widely discredited by economists. Back in 2012, the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, said that although his organisation never bought into the notion that austerity would actually boost economic growth, the IMF now believes that it massively understated the damage that spending cuts inflict on a weak economy.

But why would our Conservative government continue down the path of austerity if it is doing nothing but pushing thousands of people into poverty and taking away any hopes for decent employment? It’s not like they are too stupid to realise what is happening. They aren’t doing it just because they hate poor people, people with disabilities, mental health needs, single mothers and everyone else who is losing out. Nor is this an accident. This is a very well planned out dismantling of our welfare state and it is happening because it widens the gap between the rich and the poor, it strips the pockets of the most vulnerable and in return, lines the pockets of the most wealthy.

I was going to go into a more detailed answer to this question but I think from today’s events and the headlines printed across our right wing mainstream media, it is very clear. The priority of the Conservative party is to enhance the interests of the ruling classes. The majority of our main stream media which happens to be owned by billionaires will continue to push austerian messages to keep this government in power, meaning that they can keep getting those juicy tax breaks.

Austerity is not just about cutting spending, it is also very much about privatisation of publically owned services. Conservative values mean that they are ideologically opposed to having a public sector. By privatising and selling off our public services, capitalism prospers, shifting the priorities of these services from serving the public to generating profits. Cue: zero hours contracts, low pay and restricted worker’s rights.

Is it any surprise that in 2015, the Conservatives signed their biggest private deal on our NHS - £780million to be exact – to private firms, half of which have ties to the party.

For the Many

Whatever the result tomorrow, we can take a glimmer of hope from this election. Not only has Theresa May’s car-crash of a campaign been highly entertaining to follow; starting by basing all promotional materials around May herself, rather than the Conservatives as a whole, presenting herself as a ‘strong and stable’ leader, followed by her refusing TV debates, avoiding the general public at all costs and basically imploding during questions given by TV audiences.

The real hope that we can take from this campaign is the excessive support that Jeremy Corbyn has harnessed from previously disillusioned voters. People from all walks of life coming out and backing him. The most vulnerable in society finally finding a voice in politics. The anti-austerity message that has finally been brought to the table.

Even if we lose tomorrow, this campaign has touched so many people and it won’t be forgotten by them. They will continue to vote and they will continue to hold our government to account. During Corbyn’s time as leader he has forced the Conservatives to make huge U-turns on policies that would have had a detrimental effect to the poorest in our country, with the backing of new voters, he or whoever takes his place, can and must continue to do this.

Social mobility on this level has never been easy and if Corbyn were to win it would be the most monumental change in political history dating back to the war. We must take his campaign as a victory and we must make a promise to ourselves and each other that we will continue to fight, for the many, not the few.

 

The Myth of the Myth of the Gender Pay Gap

This blog post is written in response to a Milo Yiannopoulos video that was shown to me. I was going to write my response in the comments underneath but it became too long so I decided to write a blog post instead.

I’m in two minds about sharing the video because I don’t want to increase the views of an alt right, sexist, homophobe, however, I think its fair to provide people with a balanced view. So here it is.

This video seems to make out that it is women (and perhaps biology slightly) that bring any sort of pay gap upon themselves through having different priorities or generally not working as hard. This is an extremely lazy point to make. I can see how its very attractive as it puts the onus on women to fix these issues and takes the focus away from government policy and the negative effects of capitalism – therefore women can look at it and believe that they can take it upon themselves to change for the better on an individual basis - problem solved! Government can promote it and get away with implementing oppressive policies towards women and big business can continue their focus on their key priority, which is profit, at the expense of their workers.

I think the use of the word ‘choices’ in this video is quite powerful and has dangerous implications. Much of what holds women back in their careers are not personal choices but decisions made for them, either by society or nature. Our personal aspirations and priorities are defined intensely by our social class, race, sexuality and gender. We can aspire as much as we want but the reality is that our society sets boundaries for what is and isn’t possible for each person. The fact that the majority of high paid jobs are taken up by men is not a coincidence, nor is it that they simply work harder and therefore deserve the role more. There is much more depth to this subject than that.

Reproduction does come into this – weather or not women choose to have babies. According to research, women are still judged largely upon their potential or actual reproductive capacity when applying for jobs/promotions. Notice that this is not a CHOICE of the woman – whether she choses to have a child or not is irrelevant in this instance.

Yes women have children and therefore require different support to men. This comes into what Milo says about women “taking more from the system than paying in”. It is a fact that women claim more in benefits than men, however, this is not to be confused as a luxury. Duty of care – whether it be caring for children or other family members – disproportionally falls upon women, prompting them to have to claim more in child benefit, carer’s allowance etc. Do we honestly believe that women should therefore be labeled as scroungers and lazy? That they bring this pay gap upon themselves? That their lifestyle is a choice solely made upon their own personal preferences?

When it comes to women claiming more benefits than men it is a fact that women make up the majority of public sector jobs and have therefore been hit the hardest by austerity. It has been proven that when recession hits, it impacts women at a much grater rate than men and when recovery sets in, men benefit over women. Did women alone cause the financial crash of 2008? These are all factors that are not decided by the women themselves but by others. 

It is also important to consider the fact that social care is being slashed by our government, not only causing women in this sector to lose their jobs but also causing a reduction in services specifically designed to support vulnerable women. Single mothers on low incomes and women in violent relationships are not receiving the support that they require due to actions largely caused by men; lack of involvement from fathers with their children and abusive partners/relatives. How is a woman in this situation supposed to prosper at the same rate as a man within her career?

As I said, yes women to have children and surprise, surprise, yes this means that they require maternity leave – a fact that is not going to change any time soon. Implying that this is some sort of indulgence that therefore justifies men progressing with their careers over women is absurd. Carrying, birthing and caring for a baby requires far more physical and emotional strain than showing up in an office each day. Women should be accommodated in these situations – not resented, not pushed to the back of the queue. We should be tackling the workplace bullying and resentment towards women who go on maternity leave (and yes, this does happen) by exploring ways to keep options open for them when they decide to return to work. Also remember that reproduction benefits both men and women but that women bare the brunt of it.

There is far more depth to this issue than this 3 minute 20 second video explores. It does seem to be a trend with the alt right to gloss things over as being very black and white and not exploring root causes of issues, to find an easy scapegoat to blame and relentlessly persist that there is nothing more to the issue. Reeling off facts such as “women take longer holidays” is completely useless when you are not looking at the bigger picture. 

Can we also take into account the outrageously sexist tone of the video itself – “feminists don’t like numbers” “economics are too complex for them” – generalisations such as these are what has created and continue to fuel the oppressive culture that we have, the culture that stops women from progressing in the first place and therefore makes it - as Milo would like to put it - “a lot more expensive being a man”.

*credit to Dawn Foster's book - 'Lean out' 

The Meaning of Feminism

As with the names of many political and social movements – the meaning of the word feminism has been twisted, distorted and misinterpreted. A word built on a movement of bringing hope and prosperity to women across the globe, has become a one weighed down with baggage and shame.

Before I begin this post, it is important for me to be clear on the true definition of feminism when discussing it. Gender is such a complex issue alone that changing the definition of a whole movement can cause misunderstanding, which can result in misled anger or offence.

Feminism - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

When we hear people criticising feminists – often women themselves – it is extremely hard to believe that they really do disagree with the simple ideology of women being equal to men. Some might. However, there must be something missing from the debate. Such people often use words and phrases like ‘irrational’ and ‘angry’ when describing feminists. The first of these words must be wrong – it is not irrational to strive to be seen as equal if you are in the same job as a man, participating at the same level and with the same skillset, yet getting paid less, just because you are female. It is not irrational to feel it is wrong have to work harder, worry about what you wear and the way in which you present yourself, just to be taken seriously – whether at an interview, a social event or in the public eye – just because you are female. It certainly is not irrational to want to change the fact that if you are touched, sexually assaulted or raped, the blame could be put on you because alcohol was in your system or you were wearing revealing clothing, just because you are female. (Some people may remember the controversial ad campaign put out by the NHS in 2005-2007 stating the words ‘One in three reported rapes happen when the victim has been drinking’).

The second word regularly used by people who argue against feminism – angry – is correct. At least when put into context. I’m sure most feminists are generally happy in their day-to-day lives but how could you not be angry that just because you are female, you face oppression, judgement and shame throughout your life. These are issues that we should feel angry about. Not just women but men as well. We must realise that a vital aspect of the journey towards equal rights for women is how it directly affects men. This is not a fight for dominance; it is not a movement for women to be regarded at a higher status to men. Yes, we have fought to get to where we are and we still fight every day, but we fight beside men as well.

Masculine

‘Masculine’ is a word that sticks out when exploring these issues. What is masculine and what does it actually stand for?

Masculine  - having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with men, especially strength and aggressiveness: "he is outstandingly handsome and robust, very masculine"

Synonyms: virile, macho, manly, muscular, muscly, strong, strapping, well built,rugged, robust, brawny, heavily built, powerful, red-blooded, vigorous…

When we consider the history of the concept of masculinity, it can date back as far as 3000 BC, where expectations for men for were fierce and gods and heroes defined the strengths and characteristics of those expectations.

It is clear that throughout history, as much as cultural guidelines, restrictions and expectations have been laid out for women, men have had to face them as well.  Just as women have been taught to be seen but not heard, to be domesticated and to aspire ultimately to become a mother and a wife, men have been taught to shy away from ‘feminine’ emotion – never to show fear - to be the pack leader, the hunter, the protector and the provider. To show violence over kindness and to show anger over empathy.

The suicide rate for men is over three times more than women.

Expressing emotions that could be perceived as weak and therefore confiding in someone and seeking professional help for depression has become a huge challenge for many men.

Suicide is the biggest killer of men under the age of 45.

None of these issues are a reason to reject the concept of feminism. They are in fact a direct reason to embrace it - the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes – as soon as we have equal footing for women and as soon as women’s strengths and attributes are put on a level playing field to men’s strengths and attributes, society has to become more accepting of the traditionally feminine qualities so often hidden by men.

It already exists

Gender equality is a vast and complex subject and there is far more that I feel should be covered in this post so I may have to revisit the issue at a later date, however, there is a key element that I feel must be highlighted. This element stems from a phrase often used when critiquing feminist views – “We live in modern western communities, women have the right to vote, they can go out and get the same jobs as men, they can make their own decisions, we are already equal by law, therefore feminism in the UK is pointless – it already exists.”

The truth is that it does not exist. There are many examples that can be used to demonstrate how gender inequality is still prominent in our society; I could go down the route of body image, social inclusion and how women are constantly defined through their sexuality. How we teach women that they must be built on a framework shaped by the desires of men, how they should be sexually attractive, yet at the same time be ashamed of showing too much sexuality. How there is a one in four chance of a woman facing issues of domestic violence in their lifetime. How over two women a week are killed by their current or former partner. I am, however, going to go down a different route and speak about how women are being oppressed by the very leaders of this country.

Austerity

The UK has been facing crippling austerity over the past six years. Our government claims to be fair, however, it is a fact that austerity hits women the hardest. Women make up around 65% of public service workers, meaning that cuts to the public sector – resulting in pay freezes and job losses – have affected women the most and will continue to primarily hit women the hardest as hundreds of thousands of more jobs are set to be lost in the near future.

Benefit cuts also hit women harder than men as benefits make up, on average, one fifth of women’s income, whilst only making up one 10th of men’s. With plans for billions of pounds worth of cuts still to be made, women will be feeling the negative impacts of the governments ‘long term economic plan’ the most.

In fact, according to UNISON, of the £14.9bn welfare savings already being implemented, around three-quarters (73%) are coming straight from women’s pockets.

Unite

All of these factors demonstrate why the movement of feminism is so vital to our society today. By misinterpreting the message of feminism we are doing an injustice to not only women, but to men as well. The word itself is not important, but the meaning behind it is.

Whether man or women, feminist or humanist, conservative or communist, we must speak together, for if we place ourselves into separate pockets our messages become fragmented and we may all be burned by the effects of inequality. If we stand united and speak our message together, we can turn weakness into strength, minorities into majorities and words into meaning.