Would women go to Hampstead Heath for sex?

Stephen Fry has claimed that straight women only go to bed with men "because sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship".

He is quoted in the Guardian today: "If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas.”

Of course this is rubbish, as Rosie Boycott (what a wonderful name for a feminist!), said:

“Women are just as capable as men are of enjoying sex. We don't go cruising or cottaging on Hampstead Heath because we don't need to. Cottaging on Hampstead Heath is presumably a hangover from the days when, sadly, [homosexuality] was illegal…”

However, I would add to – or rather amend – Rosie’s argument.

Women do not ‘need to’ any more or any less than men do. Women do not enjoy sex any less or more than men. We are all individuals. There is no scientific evidence to show that there is a gender difference in enjoyment or need.

This is not about enjoyment or need; it is about power and tradition.

Women do not go cottaging for men on Hampstead Heath because:

1. Women fear physical violence (a way that some men control women; it rarely happens the other way round).
2. There are few men willing put themselves in the vulnerable position of allowing women to completely dominate them sexually; in other words, the men just wouldn’t be there waiting on the heath.
3. Women’s enjoyment of sex has traditionally been a taboo; women have not been vocal about it and have been condemned (called a slut, for example) if they have. Women have also traditionally been kept strictly inside the home; so there is no history of their venturing out to the heath.

A gathering of a thousand feminists

Where do feminists go at weekends? We get together to share ideas, be inspired and plan what needs to be done. Read this guest post – by Lucy James, a member of Progressive Women, which is a co-organiser with Delilah for the Inspiring Leaders event next month – to find out more.

Last Saturday saw the Feminism in London annual conference. Held in Friends’ House, Euston, rather than the smaller Conway Hall down the road (last year’s venue), the organisers took the risk that the reported surge in the popularity of the feminist movement would translate into greater numbers on the day.

They weren’t wrong. Over a thousand women (and men) filled the main hall for the opening session, overflowing from the stalls into the balconies above. The age range was also encouraging – from seasoned second wave feminists to teenagers and everything in between.

The conference was addressed by leading contemporary feminist activists including Ceri Goddard (Fawcett Society), Helena Kennedy (leading barrister), Rahila Gupta (Southall Black Sisters), Natasha Walter (author of Living Dolls) and Finn Mackay (London Feminist Network).

The day itself covered a range of themes of concern to contemporary feminists including pornography, parenting, reproductive health, violence against women and, more widely, the global feminist movement. However, there were several recurring, more general themes of the day that dominated the overall agenda and are worth pointing out here.

The first theme to arise was the recession and the ensuing budget cuts that, having been announced by the coalition government several days earlier, were bound to dominate discussions. All too often, the audience was told, the impact of economic policy on gender equality is overlooked by feminists. The current cuts that the UK is facing will have a potentially disastrous impact, forcing the drive for women’s equality drastically backwards. It is generally recognised that the cuts in public sector jobs and benefits will impact upon women more heavily than men. In addition, as public services increasingly become private responsibility, the government seeks to rely on an army of volunteers. This burden will, more often than not, fall on women.

The second (and related) theme was the argument, made by several speakers, that located these budget cuts as part of an overall ‘ideological drive’ by the coalition government. According to this argument, Conservatives traditionally see a woman’s role to be in the domestic sphere. These speakers provided practical examples of the impact of this ideology on public policy. For example, whilst making drastic cuts to child benefits, the coalition is finding £550 million to provide tax breaks for married couples. Other examples included the dire representation of women in the current government (19 out of 23 cabinet ministers are men) and the coalition government’s failure to run a gender impact assessment before implementing the latest budget cuts (for which the Fawcett Society are now taking them to court). Whether or not this is truly part of an ‘ideological drive’, it is hard to negate the impact such factors will have on gender equality.

The final theme was perhaps the most urgent: where next? We were told how inequality was due to become further entrenched as cuts were made and the drive for social change was enforced. Despite the current surge in popularity of the feminist movement, there still seems to be relative inactivity. For example, the feminist movement has already been criticised internally for the lack of any coordinated response to the impact of the impending cuts. At the conference, Goddard said that rather than ‘think’ and ‘respond’ to the budget cuts, the feminist movement ‘retrenched’.

Whilst I left the conference with confidence in the popularity of contemporary feminism and that I was ‘not alone’, I felt an underlying sense of disunity and inaction. In part I feel, due to the wealth of inequalities still faced by women, there is no single glaring injustice to rally around that will unite us as a movement. As such, feminists are perhaps lacking consensus about the direction in which we need to move.

That said, there is much to be positive about. There were high numbers in attendance, and the movement has both the experience of seasoned members and the enthusiasm of younger members. But decisions desperately need to be made and a direction urgently needs to be decided in order that the feminist movement can proactively harness the current levels of popular support and translate them into positive action.

Breast cancer facebook campaign is tedious and sexist

A global campaign is making its way around facebook status updates. It’s designed to raise awareness of breast cancer – but does little more than reinforce the belief that women are sexually available objects.

With the intention of both excluding and…well…‘tit’-illating men, women are choosing to declare where they ‘like it’, such as “I like it on the couch…” or “I like it on the floor…”.

But the meaning is not what it seems. Women are apparently referring to where they keep their purses. According to the facebook message, this enigma is meant to keep men guessing and to show men how ‘powerful’ women really are.

Breast cancer is a serious disease. It is the most common cancer in the UK (in the UK in 2007 almost 45,700 women were diagnosed with breast cancer; that’s around 125 women a day) and, worldwide, it accounts for a quarter of all female cancer cases.

Raising awareness of breast cancer is of course a good thing – but this campaign – like the previous one which involved women posting the colour of their bras on facebook (as written about by Laurie Penny in the New Statesman) – is flawed because:

1) A campaign created to sexually excite men detracts from and trivialises the real issue.
2) Even if it did work – raising awareness of an issue should not be done at the expense of women as people. Women are not objects that exist to sexually arouse men.
3) It reinforces an inequality between men and women. Men would never advertise themselves as sexually available in such a widespread way because society does not see them in that way – men talking about their pants would just be humorous or ridiculous, for example.
4) Claiming this campaign is ‘powerful’ for women is a fallacy. Power is running the country, our businesses and other organisations, and men do that (78 percent of UK parliamentarians are male and, of 329 executive directors in UK business, only 20 are women.)
5) Excluding men won’t do any good – after all they have the power, which includes the power to do something about breast cancer research. Women represent less than a sixth of of science, engineering and technology professionals in the UK.

Gender pay gap widens

Here’s Kathryn Perera, who is speaking at the Inspiring Leaders event on Saturday 6 November, discussing the gender pay gap on Channel 4 news. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) found that moves toward achieving equal pay between men and women were ‘grinding to a halt’ due to long-standing inequalities.

According to the report, women on average earn 16 per cent less than men, widening to 27 per cent for women aged 40.



Today, I met a Swedish woman, Carolina Lindahl, who said she was surprised when she came to the UK to live.

In Sweden, she said, people take it for granted that Parliament is 50:50 men and women, and that both sexes share the housework and childcare.

Despite this, the pay gap per hour worked is large at 18 per cent, perhaps because many women work part time and this work is not valued as much as men's.

If women go to the toilet like men, can we achieve equality?

The ‘she wee’ is a device that allows a woman to pee like a man – standing up and via an plastic tube.

It has already been successful at festivals and it accompanied one of my female companions on my recent two-week trekking trip in the Moroccan mountains (see photo).

But is it a useless gimmick or the beginning of a feminist revolution?

A male trekker made an interesting comment about the she-wee. When women use them at festivals, he said, they line up at the urinals alongside men, but they ‘do not observe the etiquette’.

What etiquette is that? Apparently, it’s this: there is no looking down at any cost. If there’s any verbal exchange, it’s just a grunt; and much more macho than normal.

Ah! Perhaps the urinal is the tight-knit centre of male dominance. It’s the space for men to assert themselves in their superiority, to club together and reinforce the macho stereotype.

It’s been closed to women for centuries, but now they are forced to let us in!

A bit like Parliament, actually.

Apparently 22 per cent* of people who use urinals are women.

(Yes, I just made that up.)

*Women make up 22 per cent of UK Parliament, and one of the barriers to women, as admitted by politicians themselves, is the ‘macho’ culture.

Brazil update: Dilma likely to be first female president

Dilma Rousseff is well ahead in Brazil's presidential election.

But she is still 3.6 per cent short of the 50 per cent total which would give her an outright win.

She will have to contest a second round at the end of October against the second-placed candidate, Jose Serra.

If she wins, she will add a bit of colour to this map of elected or appointed female heads of government, which is currently looking very grey.

Yellow: countries (since independence) that have had female heads of government
Dark orange: countries that have had female heads of state, excluding monarchs
Light orange: countries that have had female heads of state and government, excluding monarchs

Women in politics, voices for change

As the Tory conference kicks off today, my mind is still on the events from last week. A new leader for Labour, and new hope. We must give Ed a chance; I think he may surprise us.

With regret, I missed the Labour conference and its Miliband drama. I missed the fall of one brother and the rise of another. I missed David's expressionless face as he sat and listened to the result he already knew, the betrayal of his anger, and his noble retreat from the front line (although I am the sure he will be back).

But I missed something else too. Beyond the Miliband contest, not so visible to the eye of the media, there was another battle rising. This year, women flocked to the conference and its events in numbers not seen before.

Kathryn Perera, Vice-Chair of Aylesbury Constituency Labour Party and founder of SheBlogs, writes about this buzz on the Labourlist.

She says: “My sense from Conference is that a quiet but important shift is taking place among women within the party. The coalition’s casual attitude to cuts that impact on women has demonstrated what many of us knew already: only through pushing for structural changes at a fundamental level can we hope for lasting benefits.”

A Guardian video feature captures it here, where Labour women speak up about the need for change, the WAG petition (women against George) and the Tories’ unfair budget that hits women three times as much as men.

Watch Ivette Cooper and Harriet Harman talk about their fight for equality – which is only going to get more passionate.

“I don’t know how to give up,” says Harriet. “I don’t like unfairness. I can’t bear prejudice and discrimination and I don’t like the Tories. I am condemned to carry on!”

Woman set to lead Brazil

Today, Brazil begins voting to choose a successor to President Inacio Lula da Silva, with polls suggesting his former chief minister – and a woman – Dilma Rousseff, will sweep the election. Dilma has vowed to maintain the social programmes and the economic growth that has lifted 21 million people out of poverty since 2003.

Meanwhile, female voters in the very poorest parts of the country have been uniting to campaign for change. They want Dilma to hear their voices. They want to see progress. They hope that, with Dilma, they may get it.