This report of Saturday's 'Newcastle Slutwalk' protest is by Lizi Gray. Via Counterfire:
'Newcastle’s first SlutWalk saw around 200 women and men gathered at the city's Grey's Monument on Saturday. The phenomenon started in Toronto, Canada, after police officer Michael Sanguinetti made the careless comment he had been advised against making: “girls, if you don’t want to get attacked, don’t dress like sluts”.
Although it was stressed that people should dress however they like - and despite fairly grim weather - many turned up in mini-skirts and stockings, to make their stance that women should have the right to dress however they like and feel safe wherever they go. The march set off, led by the banner reading “Feminism: back by popular demand” to the sound of the chant “whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!” and the slightly more tongue-twisting “a dress is not a yes, men of quality respect women’s’ equality”.
We marched to the Bigg Market, known for the typical Friday night in Newcastle, where women often find themselves harassed for how they dress. The march preceded along Mosley Street and up Grey Street, then we headed along the main shopping street in Newcastle, Northumberland Street, where all eyes were on our marchers. “Slag, slut, stupid whore; we won’t take it anymore!”
Contrary to some accounts - like the Guardian's article about Newcastle SlutWalk - the aim of SlutWalk is not wholly about reclaiming the word ‘slut'. It’s unfair that men who sleep around get the name ‘stud’ and ‘player’, praised by their mates, where women get the more derogatory term ‘slut’ and are made to feel ashamed for expressing their sexuality. Women are encouraged to use such terms against each other, giving men even more of a reason to put them down in the same way.
But the message we wanted to stress is simple: no means no! Rape and sexual assault are unacceptable by anybody, no matter what the situation: women who dress 'provocatively', women who have been drinking or flirting, or those who work in the sex industry.
One study with university students in London, from their student union newspaper, said one third of students still believe the woman is partly or fully to blame for her assault if she is dressed ‘provocatively’ or if she has been drinking. With attitudes like this still existing it is clear action is needed to combat such views. Victims already have it difficult enough without society blaming them for being attacked.'
Yesterday's remarks by Justice Secretary Ken Clarke (pictured), suggesting many cases of rape are not "serious", indicate why it's necessary for the Slutwalk phenomenon to take off in the UK. The new movement, primarily but not exclusively driven by young women, demands an end to blaming and shaming of the victims of sexual violence and harrassment. It takes a collective stand against institutional sexism.
Elly Badcock's article for Counterfire explains why - regardless of misgivings about those who see "slut" as a word worthy of reclaiming - everyone should support the protests. I'll be at the Cairo Conference on 4 June, but if you're around on the day then get along to the protest in Newcastle - or join the one nearest to you.
'Inspired by our sisters in Toronto, 4th of June will be Newcastle's first SlutWalk!
After comments made by Officer Sanguinetti of the Toronto police force, his audience decided enough was enough and it was time to make a stand against the culture of blaming the victim in sexual assault cases.
We are not necessarily asking our attendees that they “dress like sluts” as this idea is subjective, so please come dressed however you like... and show your support. We welcome men, women, both and neither to march alongside us.
We intend to assemble at Grey's Monument at 12 o'clock and finish at/near Leazes Park, since June 4th is also the Green Festival. We will be marching in solidarity with those in London, Cardiff and Glasgow who are also holding events. See you on the streets!'
'Even Strauss-Kahn’s allies told the Guardian that he was ‘a well-known seducer’ but that the rape charges were ‘far-fetched and unlikely’. However it seems that what is rather more ‘far-fetched and unlikely’ is that Strauss-Kahn has been caught and charged at all. That the word of a chambermaid has been taken against his.
It remains to be seen whether he will be convicted. But it is clear that the great and the good of French society were content to allow a man who behaved like this to remain at large. Far from his sexual behaviour coming under scrutiny, it was deemed acceptable enough in his circles.'
Quite. It's not Strauss-Khan's own behaviour that should be the greatest concern. The real scandal is that someone who evidently has this kind of 'sex pest' reputation - who has 'form' - is tolerated.
The story reveals something corrosive and repellent about the culture in these elite circles: the casual acceptance of unacceptable behaviour, the reluctance to challenge a respected leader, the maintenance of a respectful silence. These, remember, are mainly politicians who regard themselves as belonging to the left. In 2011 you might expect less tolerance of such individuals - and more regard for women's dignity and rights.
I'm a little late with this one, but here are three perspectives on the contentious single 'Love the Way You Lie', all of them interesting and thought-provoking. (By featuring just excerpts I don't do any of the writers proper justice, so I recommend clicking the links and reading more).
The first two views, from Jenny McCartney and Laurie Penny, both suggest the latest Eminem song, featuring Rihanna, glamorises violence against women. Their articles aren't principally focused on reviewing the song: the former is writing (in last Sunday's Observer) about the issue of 'sexualisation' of girls through the influence of pop culture, and the latter is critiquing (in the Telegraph) the new 'brutality chic'.
Reviewing the song and video, Elly Badcock and Jo Gough are far more sympathetic to the controversial track, arguing it is more complex than it might first seem.
Eminem's voice describes how he has hit his girlfriend, and feels ashamed: he woos her back with promises of change, but remarks to himself that "if she ever tries to f---ing leave again, I'm gonna tie her to the bed and set this house on fire."
At which point, the lip-glossed Rihanna (who has herself been the victim of domestic violence) sings the languorous chorus: "Just gonna stand there and watch me burn / But that's all right because I like the way it hurts." Given the specificity of the Eminem persona's plans, the burning doesn't sound too metaphorical to me.
The reception has been split between those who have criticised Eminem for romanticising domestic violence, and those who applaud him for raising the "difficult issue" at all. I don't get the latter argument. Of course he's raising it: the problem is what he does with it. The rather brutal love glamorised here is intensely passionate and fated to end in destruction: specifically, that of the woman.
'Suggesting that women are sexual beings is not problematic, particularly in pop, which has always commodified desire, but suggesting that women are submissive sexual objects who invite abuse and violence is deeply problematic. That narrative is central to the language of pop music today.
Last week, Eminem and Rihanna's video for their latest single, "Love the Way You Lie", was seen by millions of young people; the song appears to glamorise abusive relationships, with Rihanna, who is well-known as a victim of domestic violence and has been celebrated for dumping the boyfriend who assaulted her, singing about a lover who likes to "stand there and watch me burn/But that's alright because I like the way it hurts".
Yes, we can see almost all of Rihanna's legs in the video, but the type of passive, meekly brutalised sexuality being represented here is infinitely more troubling than its extent.'
Eminem and Rihanna’s recent chart-topper, Love the Way You Lie, tackles the painful and prominent issue of domestic violence without resorting to shallow stereotypes. The song follows the story of a violent relationship, narrated by the abuser. We are privy to the twists and turns in logic that run through the abuser's mind as he attempts to justify his behaviour – “but your temper’s just as bad as mine is”, he pleads.
Interestingly though, we also glimpse the moments of clarity – the shame and the galling realisation of what it means to be a woman-beater. And it is this that makes Love the Way You Lie both fascinating and instinctively repulsive – this is not the ramblings of a deluded maniac but of a troubled man struggling to draw lines between love, fear, hate and anger.
Rihanna is noticeably absent for the majority of this track, coming in only for the chorus: “Just gonna stand there and watch me burn; well that’s alright, because I love the way it hurts. Just gonna stand there and hear me cry, well that's all right because I love the way you lie."
This is, to say the least, uncomfortable – a song about domestic violence in which the only female voice is reduced to painfully affirming, over and over, how much she loves the beatings...
The idea of the loving relationship is why so many victims return, and through the chorus repeating that she loves the hurt and lies it highlights the psychological hold within violent relationships. Love is used as a reason for both the violence and for staying together.
There is a quiet strength to Rihanna's singing, and coupled with the ironic undertone of the lyrics, the chorus could also be reaching out to perpetrators. Of course the woman doesn't love it, and no matter how much he excuses or gets her to excuse the violence, it is not justified...
The song and video leaves you with a haunting insight into the cycle of domestic violence and where it can end up- and gives the message to leave the situation before it is too late. The song's message is for both the victim and perpetrator, sung by a victim and perpetrator who are no longer in abusive relationships. It sends out the message that there is a way out.'
And my own view?
Although I admire the subtlety of Elly and Jo's review, and think they make interesting points, I'm ultimately not convinced. I think the video is deeply problematic - it makes a violent relationship appear sexy, blurring distinctions between erotic role-play and domestic abuse - but even if you ignore that and focus only on the song, there are serious problems.
The male voice is dominant - and it's not a terribly self-questioning one. Rihanna's voice does indeed have a certain strength - and her sections are musically seductive - but there's no avoiding the problems with her lyrics.
Crucially, the whole thing is framed in terms of love: this is a love duet (a twisted and unusual one, yes, but that's still what it is). And that's a problem, because domestic violence is ultimately about power rather than love.
It's correct, admittedly, that 'love' is a major psychological factor in why many women in such situations will cling on to the relationship. This track gives eloquent expression to that, I agree, and artistically that gives it a lift.
The difficulty is that it's framed in a way that is far too uncritical - the lyrics are reinforcing that impulse ('stay because I'm in love') rather than challenging it. It also obscures the other, less sentimental, factors involved in women remaining in abusive relationships - a point well made by McCartney elsewhere in her article.
Finally, I'm unconvinced there is any kind of journey to enlightenment in the lyrics. I can't detect some new self-knowledge on the abuser's part by the end - just more self-justification, which leaves any 'message' at best ambiguous.
Counterfire has just published a classic work by Alexandra Kollontai: a remarkably ahead-of-its-time analysis (from 1909) of class, women's oppression and strategies for women's liberation. This version has a bracing introduction by Tansy Hoskins:
'When will someone make a film about the incredible life of Alexandra Kollontai? Born into a rich family, she rebelled with an 'unsuitable' marriage, was radicalised by visits to textile factories, became a political campaigner in the late 1890's and then left her husband and child to study Marxism in Europe.
Returning to Russia she became a leader in the movement of women workers, a role that put a price on her head and forced her into exile in 1908. Whilst in exile, Kollontai continued her political work in England, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, America and spent 1914 in Germany and Austria fighting against the impending world war.
Returning to Russia in 1917 Kollontai was elected to the executive committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Whilst in prison she became the only woman elected to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks and, with the Revolution of October 1917, was appointed by Lenin as People's Commissar for Social Welfare.
Working with other leading female Bolsheviks, like Inessa Amand, Kollontai founded the Zhenotdel (or "Women's Department") in 1919. They introduced contraception, abortion and divorce on demand, and equal rights for both partners in a marriage. They turned into communal duties all the chores that had bound women to the home. Suddenly Russia was decades ahead of every other nation in terms of social welfare...'
Read more HERE. Is it still relevant today? In my view most definitely yes, but judge for yourself.
What connects these three things? The answer is Stieg Larsson's novel 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo', which I read a little while back. The film version opens in UK cinemas this Friday, so it feels like an opportune time to post a few brief comments on the original novel.
The opening volume in Larsson's Millennium trilogy (Millennium is the name of the business magazine of which co-protagonist Mikael Blomkvist is a publisher) covers a huge amount of ground, thematically and in sheer plot detail, across more than 500 pages. The quote on the cover is from Philip Pullman - an outstanding writer whose judgement I am inclined to trust - who describes it as 'intelligent, complex, with a gripping plot and deeply intriguing characters'.
A gripping plot is the essential feature of any crime novel, with everything else being of secondary importance. I've read a lot of crime fiction - my genre of choice, as a reader rather than as English teacher - and the plot is a cracker by any standards. But its the complexity and intelligence that give it a distinctive edge, and make it worthy of comment on a political blog.
Larsson died in 2004 and his trilogy is being published posthumously. This opening installment came out in English in 2008. Larsson was an activist in a Trotskyist organisation for many years and wrote for the socialist press in Sweden. He became a leading expert on European fascist organisations, past and present, and sought to expose neo-Nazi groups through a magazine, Expo, he edited. This political journalist and editor turned his hand to fiction relatively late: born in 1954, it was just before his death that he submitted his final manuscripts for the trilogy.
Larsson's deep knowledge of the history of Swedish fascism is part of this novel's backdrop. It emerges that a number of people in the extended Vanger family (the wealthy clan at the centre of events) had a Nazi past. It is also noteworthy that the family is devoted to the world of industry, as corporate and financial corruption is a thread running through the novel. One of the two central characters, Mikael Blomkvist, is a financial journalist who bucks the trend of his profession by investigating financial misdeeds, instead of parroting PR guff.
But it's the themes of sex and sexuality that have drawn the most political attention. Sadistic murders of women emerge as the focus of criminal investigation, with Larsson clearly emphasising that sexual violence is an embedded part of our society, even if the specific examples in the novel are extreme and abnormal. Sexuality is also significant because of the highly unconventional heroine, Lisbeth Salander, who is the main protagonist alongside Blomkvist.
Salander is a victim of male violence, but also a seeker (and perpetrator) of revenge against abusive men. She is vulnerable and screwed up while also strong and very distinctive; brutally real but also, in a strange way, not quite entirely plausible. There's a fantasy superhero element to her, though I felt this was forgivable because she was such a complex and engaging character.
The film looks very promising. I can only guess, for now, at how anyone managed to compress such a long and intricate novel into a single feature film. One of the pleasures, for me, was precisely the ambitious scope of the book, which aspired to reveal something about society as well as the individual characters devised by the author. Approached on its own terms, however, I'm sure the film will be worth watching.
Ady Cousins has posted videos of Saturday's talks by Lindsey German and Nina Power about twenty first century feminism: 'Around 100 people packed into every space in Housmans bookshop London to hear Nina Power and Lindsey German launch the Manifesto for 21st Century Feminism. Speeches and analysis from Nina and Lindsey were followed by an intelligent and informed discussion. Future meetings around the manifesto are planned.'
One of the speakers at Wednesday's Love on Trial was Nina Power - it's her book, One Dimensional Woman, being read in the picture of a protest in Zagreb, which I nicked from her blog. I like the picture because it amusingly evokes, in a rather literal sense, the notion of 'uniting theory and practice'. Desire for that unity is behind the Mutiny events, of which Wednesday's was the second (following last September's Money on Trial). It is political discussion linked to the needs of activists and geared towards changing, not just talking about, the world. Clare Solomon, one of the organisers, reports on her blog:
'The evening began with Tansy Hoskins facilitating our super speed debating session with questions such as 'Is sex a political subject?', 'Is there anything more important than love?' (one answer was 'solidarity') and 'where do we get morality from?'. Our early arrivers were easily persuaded to get their teeth into these questions right from the beginning, to get to know each other and to set the tone for the night putting people at ease straight away.
The three main sessions gathered momentum as they went along. We have learnt that the first session is always going to be the hardest because people need a bit of encouragement before feeling confident enough to speak. This is significantly different from other public meetings at which you often find the same people making the same speeches, which often discourages those who are shy or nervous.. At Love on Trial we had about 30 different people make some form of contribution which is testament to the relaxed atmosphere of the event.'
There's a very thoughtful and interesting review of Love on Trial HERE. You can also read more at The Sauce and Liam Macuaid's blog. And there's a plug for the next Mutiny event HERE.
The second Mutiny event, titled 'Love on Trial', takes place in east London next Wednesday. Last September's launch event, 'Money on Trial', was an anti-capitalist forum that brought revolutionary socialists together with other activists and leftwingers; creative and experimental in format, radical in content, it drew a mainly young audience including some who were attending their first political meeting.
Solomons Mindfield has the following message today: 'After a terrific response from our first time Mutiny goers, tickets are now on sale for everyone else. I hope you're looking forward to our second event. You may buy as many tickets as you like. Students/Concession £3 Standard £5. Make sure you type your name into the correct bit for the guestlist.'
It's a strange one, this. By 'strange' I suppose I mean misjudged, offensive, even repellent. I'm amazed by quite how much dumb imagery this promo manages to pack into so few minutes. It combines military chic, gung-ho celebrations of war, crude sexism and dubious racial overtones.
Through a range of images, the video glamorises the experience of frontline troops. Not only that but it sexualises that experience in a way that is disturbing: the incessant repetition of 'hard' combining sex and the image of being a 'tough guy', which is directly linked here to the celebration of being a soldier at war. It's macho 'blowing stuff up for thrills' imagery, but especially unsettling because of its specific locating of that imagery in the context of war - and also because it is the video for a female artist, thus encouraging the idea that such infantile nonsense is acceptable to (even promoted by) women.
But it's even worse than that: Rhianna's own role is dreadful. I can imagine a case being made for this video as an assertion of strong female sexuality, playing subversively with traditional macho imagery. But it's nothing of the sort. Instead we get a shallow caricature of a particular sort of sexuality, designed to add a sense of sexiness and glamour to all the violent imagery.
What's more, the sex and violence are so explicity and repetitively linked. When you consider the numerous horrific examples, through history (and still happening now), of rape being used as a weapon of war, this is dangerous imagery to play with. Some of the comments posted below the vid are not exactly encouraging.
Then there's the uneasy feeling that, due to the artist and style of music, race is a significant factor too. While much American black music has deployed iconography of violence, that rarely extends to celebrating the US military! Indeed there's a tradition of black music which takes a stand against US militarism.
Also see a more detailed critique of the video HERE.
The 'at least our brownie won't eat your dog' advert from New Zealand plays on racist prejudices about the alleged uncivilised habits of Maoris and Pacific peoples. It is shocking to see such backward, old-fashioned nonsense like this in the 21st century. The advertisers - for a pizza outlet - attempt to get away with it, however, by presenting it as mischievously 'ironic', a knowing reference to stereotypes.
Read about the campaign against this racist advertising HERE.
Something similar is true with the extraordinary new plans for a posh Japanese restaurant in London, offering diners the chance to eat off the body of a naked woman. This is part of a supposed post-modern cool, with those objecting branded as 'humourless' or retrograde. In reality it is utterly degrading in how it treats and represents women, while reinforcing the most reactionary ideas about gender and power. Old bigotries are repackaged so they're more palatable, but they are no less obnoxious.
Read Tansy Hoskins' critique of this 'new sexism' HERE.
