Why I say no to Nadine Dorries

This article was published first in the June issue of Labour Briefing magazine.
In May, Nadine Dorries stood up in the House of Commons and asserted that young girls should take responsibility for what young men try to do to them. Since then, she has appeared on The Vanessa Show, proposing that, if young girls were taught abstinence, there would be less sexual abuse, and has – not surprisingly – had to deal with a flurry of ‘Nadine bashing’ in response, which she catalogues in her blog.

The trouble with Dorries’s view is not only that it is outdated and worryingly small-minded, but also that there's a widespread acceptance on the right that she is talking sense.

When she said that teenage girls should be taught to ‘just say no’ instead of learning about safe sex along with their male peers, 67 to 61 MPs voted to agree with her. (The bill will receive its second reading in January, though it is unlikely to become law without government support.) Whether it was from outright misogyny, disinterest in the issue or just plain embarrassment (a few older men visibly squirmed during her speech), we will never know. But we do know is that there's a common assumption out there that girls hold responsibility during sex while boys don’t, as boys can’t control themselves. And worse, girls and women are to blame when the situation gets nasty.

To be fair, Dorries acknowledged in her blog that ‘boys should …be made aware of their responsibilities,’ but she quickly added that ‘the emphasis is on the girls because they need and deserve it.’

And here is the error. But it’s not an original one. Remember George Bush and Sarah Palin and their abstinence for girls programme. Think of some cultures in the middle east and the convention that obliges women to cover up their bodies to prevent the temptation of men (God only knows what would happen if a man saw a piece of female flesh – he would surely be compelled to have sex with her!)

These ideas are not only women-hating and women-blaming. It’s lazy to lay the onus on women. It’s simply a licence that allows men to do what they bloody well want to, and women to not get a say and to be kept in their place.

It’s also very dangerous. It underpins the traditional rape myth – that women bring it on themselves. That if a woman goes out late at night, wears provocative clothing, is under the influence of alcohol or has had previous sexual partners, she is ‘asking for it’.

We have a serious rape crime problem, and only 6 per cent of tried rapists are convicted in the UK. If we want to tackle this appalling situation, as David Cameron claimed during his Prime Minister’s Questions and the discussion about Ken Clark’s rape comments, then we need a change in our thinking.

But it’s hard work to be progressive. To accept that it’s both boys and girls who need to know about sex and loving relationships; that both boys and girls need to develop the confidence to say what they want and don’t want, and that boys and girls should respect one another as individuals and human beings.

Dorries’s remarks undermine all this. Along with her anti-abortion tactics, which further dictate to women what they should do with their bodies and their lives, Dorries’s attitude serves only to make women feel more inferior than ever – that they don’t have a voice – and men to continue to feel they have the upper hand. And so the pressure on young people to have sex when they don’t want to, the sexual assaults and the rapes on women continue. Thanks Dorries, but…no.

New author: Caroline Green

Photo by Christian Colussi, Caroline's launch event, May 2011

Here's a big-up for first-time author and one of my good friends Caroline Green, who has written a sophisticated and edge-of-your-seat page-turner for teenagers called Dark Ride.

I'm not an expert on children's fiction – adult fiction being my genre – but this book kept me hooked until the end, and I related to the characters (even though they were half my age).

The book is well-crafted and tackles several strong themes, including broken marriages and modern slavery, which are woven expertly and flawlessly into the plot. The story is poignant, powerful and funny and has a sprinkling of romance – in short, it is a teenage love story with elements of the supernatural and putting the unjust world to right.

Caroline and I met on a writing course about five years ago and together we have endured some of the struggles of being a writer and shared many an experience of the pain and euphoria which occur in equal measure. I was privileged to read an early draft of the first few chapters of Dark Ride and am now thrilled to see the whole thing in print. Check out the trailer and buy it here and read Caroline's writer's blog here.

Delilah covers up her face in Paris

I have been on my travels in Paris. I took the opportunity to follow on from my blog post last month 'The burqa isn't right but it shouldn't be banned' – which questions how a law that claims to protect against the oppression of women can treat women with such contempt – to stage a protest of my own. 

sur le pont

dans le metro

visite au Notredame

faire le shopping

Letter in the Guardian: poets and sexism

The Big Spring Clean of my flat continues. Following the finding of feminist-item-from-the-past-number-one, and the ensuing discussion on this blog about it, here's feminist-item-from-the-past-number-two. In May 2009, I wrote a letter to the Guardian, following the resignation of the first female Oxford Professor of Poetry.

Here's the letter (and text below) and link to the other letters here. A contentious subject.

"The Ruth Padel scenario is not petty bickering ("pulling at pigtails") as Zoe Williams would like us to believe (Could the behaviour of poets be any less poetic?, 27 May). It is much more sinister and fundamental, and - far from what Zoe proposes - drenched in sexism. Ruth's behaviour was naive, but I doubt she was the first to make a mistake like this throughout the (all-male) history of the chair. She was, however, immediately pounced upon by the media, her actions disproportionately criticised, and now she is forced to step down from a position that was well-deserved on the basis of her outstanding contribution to poetry.

This is unfair - and it's no coincidence that she's a woman. Women are judged far more harshly than men by society (both sexes), as exemplified by Zoe's regard for Derek Walcott's sex pest behaviour as "not necessarily inconsonant with creative genius" - implying that it's somehow acceptable - and Ruth's conduct, by contrast, as less "poetic" and "scholarly".

Ruth acted exactly as she was able in the circumstances - she apologised with dignity. For the rest of us women, it's a harsh reminder that the battle for equality has only just begun. If we are to achieve success we must be meticulously, consistently careful that our behaviour can't ever be faulted."

Why men are more likely to go on muddy bike rides

In response to my last blog post, I got this comment:

"The thing is that in the 9 hours I spent walking in the south downs on Saturday I was passed by a lot of people on mountain bikes and the vast majority were men. OK, this is not a scientific sample, but doesn't that suggest that there might be a correlation between sex and choice of pastime?"

This is my answer: You're right, that's not a statistically valid sample. Plus, bear in mind that people are more likely to register conforming stereotypes rather than non-conforming ones (for example, parents are much more likely to comment that their daughter is a quiet, caring sweet little girl and their son a boisterous little boy). In your example, you may have seen some women on bikes and not registered them, or assumed that some women were men.

But I don't want to assume you did anything because I wasn't there, and you may well be right. So now we have to think a little deeper. Boys and girls are conditioned from birth to behave in certain ways (one example is how the parents describe them - see above) and their activities reflect that. Hence boys and men are more likely to engage in adventurous and dangerous pursuits and women are more likely to spend time in passive pursuits, especially ones that involve their appearance. To date there is much more scientific evidence favouring the social conditioning explanation of these differences rather than any fundamental difference in genetics between the sexes (for which there is little, and highly contested, evidence).

Social conditioning is everywhere: it's what people say and expect, and hence expect of themselves. It's reinforced by friends, peers, parents and the media. Stereotypic behaviour is what is rewarded; for example, a girl or woman who has spent time on her appearance is praised, so she does more of it. It’s a constant drip drip that continues relentlessly. As Vanilla points out in her comment, isolated examples may seem innocuous but it is this cumulative effect that is so influential and worrying. This is why the advert is wrong - because it is adding to this reinforcement.

What’s interesting is the advert from South West Tourism that came next. The roles were reversed – good news! The woman was water skiing and the man was in the pub. But there were two points of note about this advert. The first that the man’s passive activity did not involve working on his appearance (not likely to be a coincidence) and the second that he was ridiculed (albeit in a jokey, friendly way) for not engaging in the active option while his girlfriend ‘upstaged’ him. In the previous advert, there was no ridicule of the woman’s passive choice – this was seen as perfectly ‘normal’. So it seems that women and men can swap gender stereotypes. But if a woman takes on a male role, this is considered a step up in society’s hierarchy, and if a man takes on a female role this is considered a step down, hence the ridicule. This reflects how the genders are positioned in society, which is patriarchy.

Gender stereotypes... on holidays

I am doing a Big Spring Clean of my flat. It's amazing what I've found! Here's feminist-item-from-the-past-number-one:

A letter I received in April 2007 from the Advertising Standards Agency in response to a complaint I sent them about an advert for South west tourism. The advert, which I mentioned in this blog post, depicted a couple. The man was on his bike being active and adventurous and getting muddy, while the woman was being pampered in a spa.

A very friendly letter as you can see!

"I note from your complaint that you object to the South West Tourism advertisement that depicts a man having enjoyed a muddy bike ride whilst the woman has enjoyed being pampered in a spa. I understand you feel this is a stereotypical depiction of women that insinuates that women are less likely to enjoy physical activities…
We have reviewed the advertisement and considered your objections… We do not consider that negative stereotypes are used..."

Vote tomorrow, and vote for change

I don’t often agree with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP. In fact, I don’t often hear him say anything that’s not a disguised whinge about the burden of Europe on the UK.

But I was refreshingly impressed with his answer on last week’s Any Questions to the question about AV (13 minutes into the programme).

The AV system will better represent the views of all voters and is progressive. First past the post (FPTP) preserves the status quo; it prefers the incumbent MP - who is, statistically, more likely to be male, white and middle-class. Under AV, all votes count and change is more likely; this therefore gives politicians the motivation to engage all voters and for voters to have less apathy. AV is already used widely and successfully: political party leaders are voted in this way – even David Cameron himself.

The no camp appears to me to be against change for the sake of being against change. Indeed, the Conservative party, which is essentially the no campaign, has opposed every voting reform in history, including votes for women (listen to Chris Huhne, who was not contradicted by Francis Maude here, 17 minutes into the programme). The no camp has a point that AV isn’t perfect – but that isn’t a reason not to employ it. As Baroness Oona King said in a debate that I attended, organised by Progressive Women: ‘The best should not be the enemy of the good’. (Watch our responses, as attendees, to the debate on YouTube here.)

The no camp have grown increasingly tiresome. Many of their arguments are bogus. They seem to be obsessed with costs, and are reportedly quoting inaccurate costs. (Incidently, what do you think the cost is for democracy? Personally, I’d rather fork out for a good democratic system rather than fritter away millions on a Royal Wedding.)

Their unwavering claim is the cry of ‘one person one vote’. Hang on, this is certainly not the case in a safe seat constituency, if you are voting for a party that doesn’t get a look-in. AV solves this problem – every single voter’s vote counts. FPTP worked well in the old days when we had a two-party system and candidates were getting more than 50 percent. Now, there are more parties, and a candidate can win with very low percentage of the votes, and this isn’t fair.

As Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham, argues in this excellent article, the anti-AV camp points out that AV would lead inevitably to an endless series of hung parliaments and unaccountable coalition governments, which is a concern worth considering – except those who make it appear to have missed the fact that the current coalition, like previous ones in British history, was the product of the old FPTP system.

A switch to AV would reflect changes in our society, and be more conducive to change in the future. It is one step closer to a better democracy. Neal Lawson, who heads up Compass, writes about our divided Labour party and warns: “The least the no camp will do is delay the birth of a new socialism based on democracy, dialogue and pluralism. The worst will be to strangle it at birth.”

Putting aside the melodrama of this statement, I do think he has a point. If we want a progressive society; if we want to see change; tomorrow is our chance. Vote yes.