when you march, stand up straight/when you fill the world with hate
First up: Apologies about the major hiatus this blog has taken (again). Family bereavement, relocating from London to Liverpool and a sudden upsurge in my freelance work have all combined to distract me from my duty to you, dear readers. Like Boxer in Animal Farm, I will work harder. Mini-rants can now be found on Twitter, and I have a guest-blog post up at The F Word, about the film (500) Days of Summer.
And now onto our feature presentation: The National Front are boycotting this autumn's Reading Pride. In preparation for the parade, taking place on the 5th September, police have banned offensive placards and no more than 20 people are allowed to congregate . The NF, who have already marched against the annual parade, are protesting at the 'flamboyance' of the gay community. A recent blog post by Swindon National Front argues that "the very nature and ideology behind White Nationalism condemns homosexuality and its promotion"
In a country that grows ever more tolerant of sexual identity, where even our Prime Minister makes grand statements like "you can't legislate love", is there really a need for annual celebrations of sexual identity?
Surely the fact that we can have these celebrations proves that we no longer need them - as Stonewall's advertising campaign reminds us, some people are gay, it's time to get over it. No big deal. In fact, it's so OK to be gay that the word has now been reclaimed to mean 'rubbish' - but that's not homophobic, it's just a sign that people are more tolerant these days. Right?
Not exactly.
Yes, we're lucky that it's safer to be queer in the UK than it is to be in, say, Russia or Croatia, whose gay pride parades were beset with homophobic violence. But the fact that homophobic hate crimes in Manchester, whose own Gay Pride festivities come to a glittering climax with this weekend's parade, rose by 63% in 2008 paints a less rosy picture. Remember, this is a city known for embracing the gay community, the city that spawned the original Queer as Folk.
The protestors at Reading won't be complaining about civil partnerships or the increasing number of gay bars, their problem isn't that the government encourages discussion of homosexuality in schools. Their problem - and the problem with all homophobes, no matter how much they may dissemble - is with gay people, period. They say 'flamboyance', when they mean 'existence.'
Gay Pride parades don't promote homosexuality. But if, as the National Front claim, homosexuality really is such a threat to their master race utopia, maybe we should start.
And if you're going to get riled up, it's always a good idea to do it with a soundtrack:
I just received this from Naz Jamal from Lambeth Women's Aid:
We need your help.
Lambeth Council have effectively said they are giving our women's project building on Stockwell Road over to the neighbouring school. The suggestion is that we may rent part of the building back off them but this would of course mean the end of LWP as it stands - in spite of 30 years of functioning as a women's service for local women.
As we have been focussing on recovering from the floods of the winter we are not in a strong position to prove what has been happening in the building as it has not be useable for many months. My plan at the moment is to make it clear what our plans are for each of the spaces in the building and this is where you come in.
The following groups currently can be said to run out of LWP - Girls Rock! UK, the Remembering Olive Morris Project, High Tea and part of the Feminist Library, plus women's self defense classes. Regular meetings used to happen with local groups but the damp has stopped these - we will contact them to see what support they can lend and if they will return. Other organisations were going to be invited once the building was up and running again but I would like to do that now. So, if you have a class you would like to run at LWP, an archive that needs storing and public access (Cinenova?? Zines?) or a group that needs somewhere to meet (FAF? Kiss?) please CALL me today and we can start putting together a plan and a point of contact. If the school get hold of the building this women's space will be gone forever. We need to give the council as may points of contact as possible to show that a diverse group of women actually do want and need to use the building.
Please use me as your main point of contact. Ego is swamped in paperwork because of this news and I am around to co-ordinate plans. My number is 07973718431.
Please pass this on to anyone you think might be able to help. We will call a meeting at LWP as soon as we have figured out the legality of the situation - and if anyone can help with that or surveying the building please please ring me.
Solidarity,
PLEASE re-post, tweet, forward on and generally do anything you can to stop this terrific resource from closing down!
Happy almost IWD, everyone! A proper blog post (with pictures from tomorrow's Million Women Rise march in London if I can find my camera cable to charge it) will appear on Sunday. For now, words of wisdom from the ever-lovely Lilit at Save the Assistants:
While a survey of managers indicated that they think women slack off more, the study found that men and women slack the same. In related news, your manager is probably sexist.
I am in the deeply uncomfortable position of agreeing with the Daily Mail. Yes, I've tried having a lie down, a cup of tea and a brisk whack over the head with a heavy object (my cat, Franklin, who could do with losing a few pounds so we don't have to build a new catflap). It didn't help. No matter what angle I read it from - and I've tried a few, as the blood rushing to my head will evidence - I can't help finding this article...well...rather pleasant. No mention of binge-drinking, of gold-digging, of sex or single-motherhood - they should have just headlined it Daily Mail In 'Not All Women Are Brainless Sluts' Shocker!
I don't know if there's an American equivalent of University Challenge, but for the tragically uninitiated, the programme does what it says on the tin. Two teams from different universities compete in a general knowledge quiz show for....the glory, I think. And to meet Jeremy Paxman, who is really quite ace when he's not writing to Marks & Spencers to complain about their Y-fronts. The current series finale is set to air soon, pitting Manchester University against Corpus Christ College, Oxford - a team helmed by Gail Trimble, described by one fellow contestant as an "intellectual blitzkrieg".
So a general knowledge quiz show finalist from Oxford is prodigiously intelligent. What's the big deal? Here's the thing - she may have A* and A's littering her school career, she may have gone to Oxford and then on to a doctorate in Latin literature but she's still...well...a girl. So obviously the majority of comments online have focussed on her looks: "I must admit, I found her sexy" one commenter confesses. "Very sexy, gorgeous smile," another sniggers. And, more bizarrely, "well brushable hair."
Unfortunately, girls with glasses and Jane Seymour-length hair don't appeal to everyone, so the rest of the internet has jumped on the 'let's beat up the smart kid' bandwagon. One commenter on the Guardian article derides her as having "a patronising, spoilt, only-child demeanour; one for whom affirmation can only be realized by the constantly raised arm in the classroom. What I wonder did her parents do to to make her like that." I'm not sure, but at least they taught her how to punctuate.
As usual, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If we dare exhibit our intelligence in public, we're smug and self-satisfied. If we don't we're bimbos. It's acceptable for a man to be brilliant, it's permissable to have a steel trap mind when you also have a penis to go along with it. And yet when a woman shows signs of intelligence, it's shocking - and even more shocking when she's considered attractive.
It's not often I find myself rooting for - or even watching - TV quiz shows, but in this case, I am firmly on Team Trimble. TV Scoop blogger 'Mofgimmers' might not want to go to the pub with you, Gail - but if you're ever in North London, the first round's on me.
"Isn't she good-looking?" her husband asked as he spun her around the dancefloor. And so it begins, the gradual erosion of Michelle Obama's identity as anything other than the wife of the most powerful man in the world, Presidential arm candy if you will.
No matter what the politics of their marriage itself may be, in the eyes of the world her personality has been completely subsumed into that of her husband, she has gone from equal partner to merely an accessory for his glittering political career. During the Democratic primaries, Michelle Obama pared back her professional schedule by 80% in order to support her husband throughout his campaign. He may be the leader of the free world but she, at least temporarily, has had to take a sabbatical from her role as Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. Whilst it is understandable that she should want her career to take a back seat at such a tumultuous moment in life – one spouse gets a promotion, the family have to move house – do we really need to see another woman feted for giving up her career? That's not change I can believe in.
The First Lady of the United States (usually abbreviated to FLOTUS) is a Fifties throwback, a woman with nothing to do but hold dinner parties for her husband's colleagues. In a way, she reflects exactly what society still believes a wife should be – an attractive silent helpmeet. Her duties are described as unofficial, and yet she is the acknowledged hostess of the White House. Her role falls under the Executive Office of the President – if this were a salaried job, she would essentially be employed by her husband, a glorified version of hiring the wife as secretary.
Susan Maushart, author of Wifework: What Marriage Really Means for Women, describes marriage itself as "unpaid labour", and in the case of the First Lady, this is especially true. Whilst there are no rules prohibiting her from continuing paid employment, her staff include the White House Social Secretary and the Chief Floral Designer – a not-so-subtle indication of where her priorities are expected to lie. In an article for the Washington Post, Lauren Stiller Rikleen argues that the role of First Lady should be a paid role with a clear job description. But that ignores the reality of Mrs Obama's new position, where a job description is deemed unnecessary because it is still assumed that women will do these things for their husbands as a matter of course – moreover, they want to do these things, and so monetary reimbursement is missing the point.
True, it is an unelected role. But then, neither President Obama's cabinet nor his Chief of Staff are elected. And Michelle Obama, as with all potential First Ladies, has probably received more scrutiny during the course of the Presidential campaign than any of these put together. She was slammed for being anti-American, she was the subject of a controversial cartoon in the New York Times. She's campaigned, gone on TV, been compared with then Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, and had every aspect of her life scrutinised. And for all the perks the position brings, she still has to work for them. It is an unspoken assumption that, as well as acting as an unofficial ambassador, the First Lady also devote herself and her considerable resource to humanitarian causes. Michelle Obama has already stated her desire to "work daily on the issues closest to [her] heart: helping working women and families". Whilst this is laudable, it is unclear how exactly this will be accomplished. Although we can assume that she has her husband's ear, any obvious influence on policy risks her being tarred with the same brush as her husband's rival-turned-colleague, the Wicked Witch of the West Wing, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Rodham Clinton had already worked on Arkansas education reform to considerable success when she was appointed head of the Task Face on National Health Care Reform, but saw her approval ratings plummet when it was viewed as nepotism rather than hiring an able strategist, regardless of her marital status. The message was clear – know your place. When Clinton tried to step outside her role as wife and mother and run for political office herself, she was accused of riding on her husband's coattails, never mind that she too had been to Yale Law School, had been a scholar, activist and lawyer. Later on, her critics railed against having another Clinton in the White House when only the outdated attitudes of Arkansas voters caused her to change her name in the first place, a patriarchal re-naming process that threatened to make a dynasty out of the marriage of two intelligent adults.
Following the November election, Slate magazine ran an open letter to the new First Lady in which they begged her "don't dress like Jackie Kennedy." When they warned her that "black with red is too jarring a colour combination for a first lady", the barely-concealed subtext was 'OK sweetie, you've already broken the mould. Just don't push it too far.' Reinforcing the image of the angry black woman that dogged her for a large art of her husband's campaign, she was deemed "too firey when we want you to soothe." Had Hillary won both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency, the press would be awash with speculation about her husband's role – there would, perhaps, have been the occasional article on Bill's choice of attire, but mostly the question of what expertise he could bring to the role would dominate. The message is clear – whilst America may be ready for a President who challenges the old order, the First Lady is still expected to be the calming figurehead, there only to stand still and look pretty whilst her husband is out saving the world.
Men guide, women nurture. The most we can expect is to be the power behind the scenes, the woman behind every great man. But as Michelle Obama steps into her role as First Lady, with a secretary who earns more than she does (in other words, something), we can only hope that she will be different - her Secret Service codename is, after all, "Renaissance".
i am not a pretty girl. that is not what i do. i am no damsel in distress, and i don't need to be rescued - ani difranco
About Me
Name: Kaite
Location: Liverpool, United Kingdom
Having been a former artists' model, failed spy and recovering academic, Kaite is now an author, blogger and freelance journalist.
In between trying to stave off writer's block with retail therapy and over-hyped, mass-produced media, she writes for The Guardian, Lesbilicious, Mookychick and herself.
Her weaknesses include lipgloss, flavoured vodka, TV shows where the sassy grrl sidekick saves the day, angsty girls with guitars and expensive notebooks.
She refuses to accept that she has too many books.
