Nigeria Decides in the Spectre of Boko Haram

As the results from the Nigerian national election trickle in it looks likely that the incumbent Goodluck Jonathan has been ousted by the ex-military, Muslim APC candidate and anti-corruption advocate: Muhammadu Buhari. He has received the majority in over a third of the states regions including the capital, Abuja. In the wake of the Boko Haram insurgency, security is rightly top of the election agenda. Women’s rights are intrinsically entwined here but rarely mentioned. Boko Haram translates as ‘Western education is sinful’ and as this denotes the group exists to halt the westernisation of the newly secular Nigerian education system and thus create an Islamic Caliphate in Northern Nigeria. They have been active since 2002 but many consider their tactics, particularly the instrumental use of women and women’s oppression to be a modern phenomenon for the group. The Sunni fundamentals recent pledge of allegiance to the Islamic Caliphate in Iraq and Syria is worrying to foreign defence ministers in both the local region and the world around. Furthermore, surrounding countries are currently facing huge refugee influxes as a result of Boko Haram’s progress. It goes without saying that these refugees are predominantly women and children. Buhari has a fight on his hands. Because of and in spite of the rise of Boko Haram, feminism and women’s rights must also top the newly elected ministers priorities. Unfortunately, it has not been at the top of the election agenda and many Nigerian women understand formal political arenas to be patriarchal institutions therefore have no intentions of voting. For instance, it took Jonathan almost 3 weeks to acknowledge the missing Chibok girls and they are nowhere to be seen in election rhetoric.

It is impossible to see this crisis without considering gender, gender stereotypes and gender-based violence. (GBV) Boko Haram’s very modus operandi is the instrumental oppression and violation of women and girls. Once again, women serve as a currency to Boko Haram, a very valuable one. However, with the highest rates of female circumcision in the region and the constant struggle for girls right to education, Boko Haram are not alone in their patriarchal treatment of women. Nevertheless, counter to popular western ideas of the ‘monolithically oppressed African women’ feminism in Nigeria is thriving and although there is only a 8% proportional share of women in the national assembly this does not mean women are keeping quiet about their oppression. What the mainstream news didn’t tell us about this hitch in the election is that as well as problems with anti-corruption election cards, last Sunday a group of some 2000 female anti-corruption APC campaigners protested in the River State. Women’s political agency is alive and well. For the nation often considered the ‘Capital of Africa’ as the largest oil producer and biggest economy in the region it is extremely significant that Nigeria lead the way for women’s rights and the fight against Islamic extremism that targets them. Development should occur only alongside progressive moves in the fight against women’s subordination; particularly the fight against epidemics of FGM and forced marriage in the region.

Not if Boko Haram have anything to do with it. Similar to the Islamic State, the oppression of women and girls is sewn explicitly into the fabric of Boko Haram. Indeed, their initial presence in western media was as a result of the international outrage at the kidnaping of over 200 schoolgirls in 2013. Since then, although the western bandwagon seems to have trailed off the road, hundreds more women and girls have been kidnapped, raped and forced to marry members of the group. Paradoxically, in recent months, Boko Haram have exploited gender stereotypes by dressing themselves as women to commit attacks. Furthermore several of the recent suicide bombers have been women. This poses questions of whether Boko Haram are now recruiting women or whether this is simply another forced violation of women’s lives. The ascendance of Boko Haram can fundamentally be interpreted as an backlash to the rise of feminism and other ‘western ideals’ in Nigeria. The African region becomes increasingly integrated into the rampage of liberal globalisation, despite plighting resource curses and corruption. Alongside this follows a imperialist spread of western ideals. Personally I would not consider equality between men and women to be a ‘western ideal’ and I am sure that the majority of Nigerian women would not either.

Boko Haram absolutely threaten this progress and the election of a new leader in Nigeria could be a turning point in either direction. Whilst Jonathan has in place a Civilian Joint Task Force in Northern Nigeria this does not seem to be quashing the group like he had hoped. The news that the Arab League is developing a military force in the Middle East to counter their threats without Western intervention should serve as an exemplar to the African Union. The outlook for women is dismal given election rhetoric but in the fight against Boko Haram the Nigerian state can only ignore the fight for women’s rights for so long. The future of all Nigerian women and men hangs in the balance. Men are at risk of being killed on suspicion of allegiance to Boko Haram or being forced to have such allegiance and women risk further violation of their bodies and minds.

Is House of Cards Season 3 Feminist? SPOILER ALERTS

This is a long one sorry in advance! Being the International Relations/Politics geek that I am House of Cards is probably my favourite TV show. With the possible exception of Orange in the New Black. Obviously. Feminist geek me triumphs politics geek me any day. Upon watching series 3 I begun to think that the heavens were shining on me: international politics AND strong sassy feminist women. AMAZING. So excuse me for one post whilst I digress into popular culture to ask the questions on every Claire-Underwood-Obsessed-Woman’s lips: Is House of Cards Season 3 deliberately feminist? Whilst I acknowledge that this isn’t exactly current affairs I think popular culture and media outlets have a great deal to do in shaping the way we see the world. Equally they are often reflections of changes in the political landscape or popular attitudes. For both these reasons I think it’s vital to engage with sources of popular entertainment as well as real life politics.

7 Reasons why House of Cards might be written with Feminist Intentions

1. It’s no longer about the men – certainly not Frank.

 This season would definitely pass the bechdel test. Whilst Frank may still continuously feel the need to bless us with his brief soliloquys it seems clear that in season 3 his reign is over. Yeah he’s president and all but he’s doing a crap job and it’s all falling to pieces around him. This series focused a lot more on larger themes of power, marriage, recovery, anger and I think feminism than the action or drama of Frank’s storyline. Mostly because the whole story centred around him being president which he now is so it’s all a bit odd that they even made a third season. Even so I’m glad they did, here’s why: 

2. Clare Underwood

Where do I even begin? Let’s face it this series is all about Clare. Besides the not very feminist analysis that she looks absolutely breathtakingly stunning all the bloody time and I want all of her clothes, here are just some of the times Clare taught us that being a women made you in absolutely no way subordinate to a man be it your husband or the President of Russia:

THAT Toilet Scene: The position of ‘First Lady’ is possibly the single most patriarchal construction in the history of US politics. It literally dictates that a woman follow around a man in his shadow, preform her lady-like duties and basically keep her mouth shut. Not Clare. She demands that she will no longer live in Francis’s shadow and therefore will not rest until she get the position of US ambassador to the United Nations. Once she finally succeeds in this mission she exercises diplomacy, determination and ambition despite the patriarchal hurdles put up at every turn. Both the Russian President and the Russian ambassador symbolise misogyny and patriarchy in this season as they continuously try to conflate her to her femininity. After the Russian ambassador tells Clare she is not fit for the job but that he ‘likes that dress on her’ she sets out with her patriarchal hammer and takes it to a rather unusual setting: the ladies toilets. In the ultimate revenge of awkward, uncomfortable, emasculation Clare mocks the Russian ambassador and gets him to agree to her demands whilst she applies her make up and then goes to the toilet with the door open. Whilst she says ‘It’s always good to have a man’s opinion’ this is obviously tongue in cheek.  

THAT Little Pickle Joke – After Petrov publically insults Clare at the state dinner by telling her outright that he thinks she is basically there for decoration to ‘seduce’ Frank’s targets and that she does a much better job at this than she does at being an ambassador she fights back with a simple emasculating joke about Petrov’s ‘little pickle.’ It’s a bit low for her but even so she knows he needs taking down a peg. He seems to represent an embodiment of patriarchy throughout the season, objectifying her and insisting she no longer be ambassador later in the season. She stands up to him in Moscow and it is fabulous – see below.

THAT egg symbolism – Clare and Frank make it very clear throughout the three seasons that the oval office is their only child. There is definite emphasis on this in this season and I think for a long time we all thought she was pregnant, she might still be. However the symbolism of giving Francis the black egg and then cracking 2 eggs for a late night snack suggest otherwise. Perhaps Clare is feeling the pressure to have a family given her role as First Lady yet she does not seem to give into this pressure. The awareness of this for the audience makes for an interesting inner-monologue and emphasises the problem most women face in choosing between a career and a family.

THAT speech in Russia – When Clare defies both her husband and the embodiment of patriarchy: Petrov, in Moscow by denouncing his treatment of Michael Corrigan it was a heroic moment for both LGBTQ and women’s rights. She refused to be silenced on something that she felt was absolutely abhorrent and we loved her for it.

THAT line on the plane – Then when she boarded the plane home with Francis he was fuming with her for standing up for what she believed in and he reveals his inner-patriarch by saying ‘I should have never made you ambassador.’ This insinuates that Clare did nothing for herself and that Frank, along with all the other men in the show, believe that she is only ambassador because she is First Lady and that it has nothing to do with her skill or ambition! She retorts with the brilliant one-liner ‘I should have never made you president.’ Whilst Frank has always advocated equal partnership, Clare is beginning to realise what this actually means and what it so often means in real life. And she ain’t having it. 

THAT Finale Moment – Then after a verbally and physically abusive scene the evening before (trigger warning needed) where Frank exposes himself as a repugnant and selfish man we all knew he was Clare takes the higher ground and simply leaves him. Despite the difficult circumstances she shows that it is never acceptable to sit back and allow abuse.

3. Two Women Presidential Candidates

Not just one token women but TWO women candidates, the majority women in a television debate – can you imagine!? Although to begin with the relationship between Heather and Jackie is relatively strained when Jackie finally backstabs Frank in revenge and comes out in support of Heather the sisterhood is real ladies.

4. Jackie’s Marriage & Heather’s Family

These two storylines seem are deliberately patriarchal. Perhaps this is a result of patriarchal screen writing or perhaps it is deliberate in order to emphasise to the viewer that these are struggles women face in their careers. Jackie is essentially forced into a marriage she isn’t sure about because God forbid a woman stand for election if she is an unmarried harlot! Whilst Heather’s children become embroiled in political scraps in the television debate. These scenes stand to make it very clear that none of the male candidates or politicians have ever had their private and family lives dragged into the limelight like this. It emphasises the patriarchal nature of public politics and the challenges that women face if they enter the male dominated realm.

5. Kate Baldwin & The Israeli Ambassador to the UN

Two whole more strong, ambitious and brilliant women who ain’t afraid of no man.

6. Pussy Riot Feature

At Petrov’s dinner Pussy Riot the FEMINIST pressure group stand up to denounce president Petrov’s patriarchal and heteronormative regime. If that’s not a feminist reference – I don’t know what is.

7. Rachel Posner 

Although I personally think the whole Doug/Rachel/Gavin storyline is a bit dead and irrelevant in this season Rachel could be seen to be there to symbolise what the patriarchy does to women like her. Let’s not forget she got embroiled in this whole plot line because she was a sex worker, without protection from the state. And she wouldn’t be with Doug properly because she was gay. When Rachel pleads to Doug not to kill her because she is already dead it is a saddening tale of how patriarchy can kill a person’s spirit.

It’s no OITNB but with a focus on the female characters, explicit references to patriarchy and the challenges real women face in their everyday lives could all of the above suggest that possibly maybe this mainstream show is feminist? I think it would be fairly difficult to watch season 3 without thinking in anyway about women and the struggles we face. Don’t get me wrong there’s still a lot wrong with it and let’s not forget that every single one of those women are white. But it’s a start. If feminism is finally shoved into the limelight of entertainment people can ignore it less and less. Plus think of all the new and exciting storylines we’d have if plots centred around other people instead of just straight, white, middle class, American men!

@GendertheNews

I did attempt to ask the the screen writer Beau Willimon on twitter about his intentions with the female characters but with no response. However there are various interview on the internet which might provide insight. 

Images from: http://www.bustle.com/articles/67367-9-feminist-moments-from-house-of-cards-season-3-to-savor-all-year-long 

UK Headlines Round Up

Osborne’s Election (and Hopefully Last) National Budget

Last Wednesday George Osborne (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced his sixth and last budget of this term of parliament. In the spectre of austerity, Osborne had the audacity to stand up and declare ‘Britain walking tall again.’ Read: white, middle class men in the private sector are walking tall on the backs of everyone else! Including women. This was of course, the election budget, so it was full of ‘gimmicks and giveaways’ such as yet another penny off the average pint. There was absolutely no mention of the 200,000 signatures strong petition delivered to parliament last week to lobby the government to stop taxing tampons as ‘luxury goods.’ As far as I’m concerned there is nothing ‘luxury’ a tampon – sign said petition here. In fact, there was not a single mention of women in the entire speech, despite the fact that many journalists have attributed his so-called growth to women’s labour whilst austerity has been proven to have disproportionately disadvantaged women. For instance whilst unemployment for men increased by only 0.32% from 2009-2013, it increased by 20% for women – this is largely a result of women being in disposable positions or that the public sector (where most of these cuts have targeted) is two thirds women. For more on this see this great article. Remember these are the budgets that closed down pretty much all shelters, legal aid and support for rape victims in the UK. Need I say more?

As is evident for the statistics in this fantastic piece, women have literally been excluded from any kind of economic growth. Whilst Osborne stands tall and talks of employment being at an all time high since the crisis, what he really means is men’s employment. The women’s rate still remains 10% beneath said figure. The hypocrisy here leaves me dumbfounded, Osborne has cut local authority budgets by up to 60% and still requires a rigorous Equally Impact Assessment on all local authority budgets. Yet when it comes to his own NATIONAL budget where he is dismantling public services piece by piece, it is believed, he has not run a single EIA on all 5 of his previous budgets. That has been left to academics and journalists once measures have been put in place! For instance, this time around the fiscal dimension of Osborne’s budget is being heralded by some as a success because of the personal allowance increase: women will pay less income tax because they tend to be in lower paying jobs. HURRAH! That is not a win for me. That is not Osborne standing up a denouncing the very idea of women being paid 19.7% less than a man. That is justifying the pay gap by saying OOH but they’ll pay a penny or two less tax! The Women’s Budget Group will post their analysis of this years budget soon and we will see the full extent of the damage for women. This budget was once again targeted at the ‘male, pale and stale’ private sector worker who is the only unit of analysis in the Conservatives ‘long term economic plan.’ It keeps the rich rich and the poor poor and even increases this gap alongside the gap between men and women. One must appeal to one’s electorate I guess.

General Election 2015 Television Debates

Along a similar tangent, the dates for this years general election campaign television debates have finally been announced after all the antics. The British political system has changed drastically over the last 5 years and we are absolutely no longer a 3-party state. Indeed, one of the election debates will include all 7 of the biggest political party leaders. Including 3 women! Nicola Sturgeon (SNP), Natalie Bennett (the Green Party) and Leanne Wood (Plaid Cymru) will appear alongside Cameron, Milliband, Clegg and Farage on 2 April. Personally, I am not sure of the relevance of Plaid Cymru or the SNP’s presence because as an English constituent I cannot vote for either of them. Nevertheless, the almost gender balance is refreshing and I really hope the debate for the women will be more than what they’re wearing? It will be very interesting to see what questions are targeted at these women. All three of these leaders are continuously sexualised or demonised by the media, simply because they are women and I am sure there is more of that to come. For example, last week the BBC 3 talk show often described as ‘young persons question time’ featured a Q&A with Surgeon, Wood and Bennett. I understand why Sturgeon and Wood were grouped together but why Bennett? It seems to me because she is also a woman? This bizarre sexism suggests a kind of ‘loose women’ chat show appeal whilst all 4 of the other leaders will be scrutinised separately and seriously on this show. I’ll leave you with a delightful cartoon the repugnant Daily Mail released last week upon the announcement of a possible Labour/SNP coalition. Just in case you thought the General Election could be exempt from sexism:

Jeremy Clarkson

I really think I might have missed something here. I cannot understand why and how this is a national news story and not simply a tabloid feature. This man has been sexist, racist, homophobic and every other offensive under the sun and yet it takes him to physically assault another man and/or threaten BBC profits for it to become a news headline. I have very little else to say on this matter. I cannot understand why it is even a story and I don’t wish to give it anymore wasted airtime than it has already received! Get rid of him. Replace him with someone who isn’t famous for being a bigot. Job done.

ISIS Propaganda takes more Foreign Lives: British Women killed in Tunis Attack

23 people were gunned down by an attack on the Bardo museum in Tunis, Tunisia last week. ISIS is claiming responsibility for this attack and therefore furthering their demonization in the press. Why change an extremely effective recruitment strategy? Attacking a museum in a tourism hub is a strategic move to send shockwaves throughout the world. 20 of those who lost their lives were foreign tourists. All of those countries will now be running stories on this attack when they might not otherwise have. In the UK, it was a woman who was killed: a wife and a mother. This is exactly what ISIS would’ve wanted because it serves to further demonise them. After all, white female lives are worth more to the West than the hundreds of others dying in the Middle East everyday. The protection myth will once again be trotted out here as further justification for air strikes to protect ‘women and children’. Air strikes are clearly not working! Something different needs to be done. This is upon the background of fears that 9 medics from London have recently travelled to Syria to work for ISIS. Unbelievably the gender of said medics has not been analysed by the press: IF they arrive in ISIS territory the likelihood of different and disastrous treatment for the 5 women seems inevitable. The threat of expansion into Yemen and Tunisia will scare foreign policy departments worldwide. As it should: Tunisia is a mere 1800km from Paris, geographically this is way too close to comfort. A different tact seems necessary, but what? I am no advocate for further military intervention – the narrative on extremism needs to change. With this change will hopefully bring a solution. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of all lives being lost in this catastrophe.

@GendertheNews

Four Headlines from 2014 that weren't Gendered and should've been. Number 4:

The Ukraine Crisis on a Backdrop of Nationalism in Europe

Photo Source: http://hybridtechcar.com/covers-popular-magazines-russian-president-28-photos/

@GendertheNew

The spotlight turned to Europe again in 2014 for its continuing economic woes but it was also there for a more unusual reason: there was a major international conflict on our doorstep. Victor Yanukovych was ousted from office in early 2014 by a revolution in the countries capital. This violent revolution came about because Ukraine finally ‘chose a side’ in its on going tug of war between west and east. Yankkovych (aside from being blatantly corrupt) chose short-term economic glory from Russia instead of long-term stability in the European Union. A decision his people were not happy with. Under the guise of controlling the situation and in the absence of any real governance Putin saw this as an opportunity (or perhaps orchestrated the whole thing depending on how truly megalomaniac you believe he is) to waltz into Crimea and claim it back as his own, with only pseudo-democratic legitimacy.  Then there was a sensationalist uproar about the new Cold War on Europe’s doorstep but analysis of the response to the situation was fundamentally gendered in the press: throughout the crisis in Crimea, Russia was dichotomised as hyper-masculine in opposition to the European Union, with Angela Merkel at its helm which, was largely feminised and seen to be too passive or weak in its dealings.

Look Southwards to the rest of Europe where nationalism is rife in many of key players in Europe: New Dawn in Germany, The National Front in France and UKIP in Britain to name but a few political uprisings. All of these euro-sceptic parties have shook the foundations of European politics and they all rose out of the ashes of the economic catastrophe of 2008-2012. Scapegoating differences in times of crisis proves to be an extremely successful political tactic. Whilst the role of testosterone in both the European and global financial crisis has been speculated about by many feminists, what absolutely links these nationalistic tendencies in Europe, Ukraine, Crimea and Russia is masculinity. Not masculinity as we know it in our dads, brothers, partners but masculinity on the world stage of international politics which only valorises hyper-masculinised ideals of stoicism, rationality and aggression. The language of sovereignty, statesmanship (the clue’s in the name), invasion, war and nationalism all orbits around this fictitious and performed hyper-masculinity. We can see this in nationalist discourse analysis the world around, we can see it in militaries and we can see it in Putin’s posturing around the big red nuclear button. I am no advocate of the ‘feminine relationship to peace’ but it seems clear to me that both the theory and practice of international politics are centred on certain, unattainable ideals of masculinity that leave very little room for women in the international sphere.

The second gendered element that links the Ukraine Crisis to nationalistic tendencies in Europe is the problem drawing of borders and straight line through the homes of everyday families. As Enloe (2014) points out cartographers around the world are being kept very busy in the twenty-first century. (Perhaps this provides an explanation for why they haven’t rectified the blatantly western-centric Peterson Projection map but that remains to be seen!) Whenever boarders are redrawn and communities are divided on ethnic grounds there are real lives involved. High Politick often disregards the this and it has been speculated that this is often a very gendered process. Often as the ‘breadwinner,’ ‘patriarch’ or ‘master of the family’ (excuse my largely heternormative assumption here for the purpose of point) men choose which side of the line families will go. Women must often simply follow suit without regard for their preference. Especially if there are offspring involved. For instance a Pro-Russian man might have married a Ukrainian women in Crimea yet she will be forced to separate herself from her Ukrainian friends, family or employment. Real lives are involved in headlines and those real lives are gendered – this is something we often forget.

That brings me to the end of this introductory 4-post-series of reflection on 2014, I hope reader thought they provided some insight into what I'm about. Stay tuned for more current headlines and follow me on twitter for regular updates! Next week I will be doing a round up of recent UK headlines and digressing into popular culture to ask: Is House of Cards Season 3 Feminist? 

Sources: 

Ukraine crisis: an essential guide to everything that's happened so far, The Guardian (2014) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/ukraine-russia-crimea-sanctions-us-eu-guide-explainer

Enloe (2014) Nationalism & Masculinity: The nationalist story is not over and it is not a simple story.

Four Headlines from 2014 that weren’t Gendered and should’ve been

@GendertheNews

 3. Modi’s Election in India

Photo Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20907755

Many would not consider the election of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party’s leader Narendra Modi in May 2014 in the top 4 headlines of 2014. However, India’s booming economy makes it a key player in the changing world order. More importantly, after the deeply misogynistic nature of Indian culture was epitomised to the world after the New Delhi bus gang rape in late 2012, women’s rights and anti-sexual violence movements in India would be front page news at any feminist newspaper and should be top of any election agenda. The empowering and inspiring feminist protests and movements coming out of India in 2013 and 2014, brought issues of women’s rights to the very forefront the national agenda. These women would not longer let their voices be stifled. And politicians could no longer ignore them. We hoped.

A brief reflection on the Hindu Nationalists reputation of governing women in Gujarat from 2001-2014 speaks volumes about his attitudes towards these atrocities. During the anti-Muslim riots in 2002, it is believed the Sangh Parivar orchestrated the systematic rape of hundred of women, girls, men and boys. According to many Human Rights groups, Modi effectively stood by and allowed these atrocities. Strangely enough the investigation into Modi’s involvement in these riots has since been silenced. Yet again, when these attacks hit the headlines they were rarely gendered. This is staggering considering that the exclusively female branches of the Sangh Parivar undertook many of the attacks - internalised patriarchy looks to be rife here. Additionally, under his governance in Gujarat, which he hinged his election campaign upon, female education rates and rape conviction rates slumped whilst the minority of women in the community has suggested rates of female infanticide. (Wilson, 2014: The Guardian.) Should economic growth really be prioritised at the hands of patriarchy and misogyny?

Today, these attitudes continue, Modi has spoken a handful of times about the problem and his speeches seem to be just that: words. The laws have been tightened and some photos have been taken but real action to secure the safety of almost half of his country has not been seen. Recently he also banned the British-made India’s Daughter documentary about the 2012 bus rape and the reaction to it. Although some say this is a result of its inaccuracy and western bias, it is also interpreted as an outright attempt to silence the anti-rape movement in India that was reignited in the wake of said documentary. The response to these claims is that the laws in place for gender equality in India are there, but these are not problems that can be solved with the wielding of a truncheon (especially given the well-known corruption salient in the Indian police force): they are cultural. That is not to say that judicial reform is not important but these problems are deeply entrenched into the minds and institutions and this is a revolution that cannot be solved by signatories on a piece of paper. When there is a leader of a popular political party denouncing the upmost penalty for gang rape because ‘boys will be boys’ you know something needs to be done.

Nevertheless, Modi’s election was heralded as a triumph for liberal democracy (unfortunately I could not find gender disaggregated voting figures but the likelihood of male dominance in voting rates goes without saying) and both Obama and Cameron publicly invited him to Washington and London respectively. All in the name of economic and business interests: the mainstream press in both the lead up to and the aftermath of Modi’s election orbited around his economic plans to further liberalise the country and reach out for foreign direct investment and jobs for the disproportionately young (male) demographic. There were, at best, sparse mentions of his plans for India’s (bigger) social problems of gender inequality, corruption and wealth polarisation. Such is the nature of neoliberalism in its ability to blindly deny or ignore the real problems of society, as long as the people at the top have money in their pockets and women at their disposal. But the feminist movement in India threatens to take both of these away from their elites: as Enloe (2014) points out that tourism is central to the Indian economy (6% of GDP, 20 million central and 70 million supply chain jobs) and as they continue to ignore the fact that 1 woman is raped every 20 minutes in India, their tourism revenues slump. Indeed in the 3 months after the Delhi rape hit the headlines, the number of foreign tourists fell 25% on the same statistics from the previous year. The number of female foreign tourists fell by 35%. (Enloe, 2014: 59.) If they will not fight this problem for a lack of morality, then perhaps they will if the queues outside the Taj Mahal suffer. I have told people about my desire to travel to India only to get the repeated response ‘it’s not a place for women.’ There are 600 million real women who live in India; it should go without saying that if it is not a place for me, it is not a place for them and no state should be deemed ‘no place for women.’ When South Africa was publicly mistreating people of colour, the west stood up and listened, and used capitalism to stop it. Why will we not boycott India’s misogyny? Why is it consistently pushed under the rug? Beatrix Campbell coined the term neoliberal, neopatriarchy which resonates here. Thankfully, these amazing Indian women and men have not and will not stop until they see justice but this is just another example of the headlines not calling out blatant sexism. In the last of this series of posts on 2014 I will address the Ukraine Crisis in the veil of the rise of nationalism in Europe. Thank you for reading and please follow the twitter for regular updates! 

Sources:

Enloe, C (2014) Lady Travelers, Beauty Queens, Stewardesses and Chamber Maids: The International Gendered Politics of Tourism. (See recommended reading)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27452924

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/04/narendra-modi-as-prime-minister-womens-rights-india

http://www.firstpost.com/politics/modi-indeed-will-be-bad-for-women-but-was-cong-any-better-1484151.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/05/india-women-activists-remind-modi-promises-201452674827263709.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31635902