Why the Clinton/May Feminist Utopia isn’t good enough for me (#SorryNotSorry)

At least it’s better than Boris and Trump…

As obscene as this sounds, I chose to sit Brexit out. There was (still is) so much going on and enough think-pieces out there to make even the most die-hard of Guardian readers slump into a political coma. No one needed to hear my two pennies worth as well. I am of course, devastated, and once again disappointed that fear and ignorance have won over 52% of the country that I live in. From a gender perspective I am also devastated that we are turning back the clock and will be left without the much-needed human and women’s rights legislation the EU provides. I feel embarrassed and defeated but as the dust starts to settle I decided to write about something I do feel strongly about. As Wednesday evening Theresa May will be the next (unelected) Prime Minister of the United (the irony) Kingdom. She has reached this position mostly by sitting back and letting all of the ‘leave’ politicians and other candidates simultaneously self-combust in one way or another. Let’s get things straight, she has IN NO WAY reached this point because of her merit, gender or even less so a ‘feminist ticket.’ Conversely, across the pond, is Hillary Clinton, a woman who has arguably marketed herself on the feminist ticket and in some ways can be considered as such. She looks (god willing) likely to become POTUS in 2017. With the new all-female Ghostbusters film out this week some feminists could be led to believe that this is it, the turning point we have all been waiting for. There will be women in the oval office and number 10 and even the new Iron Man film will feature of 15 year old black girl. Surely we can all go back to the kitchen now?

At a surface level, these are, of course, achievements for the feminist movement. If only Clinton or particularly May had any intention of making other women’s lives easier. Much like Thatcher it looks like they will be breaking through the glass ceiling and taking the ladder up with them! Whilst Clinton has done some laudable work for inequalities and minorities in her own country it does not erase the fact that her campaign is and will continue to be propped up by questionable Middle Eastern financing including from Saudi Arabia where women are still yet to vote in their first elections. Meanwhile, her foreign policy record suggests she will continue the US tradition of reaping brutal havoc in the Middle East to the vast detriment of women and girls. Meanwhile Theresa May is no feminist. She is ultimately committed to the austerity model that has already torn apart rape crisis services in this country and most substantially disadvantaged women and girls. Furthermore her stint as Home Secretary has seen her show an incredible lack of compassion for refugees and asylum seekers whilst she reigns over questionable detention facilities such as Yarlswood where sexual assault and human rights violations rumours are rife. Don’t get me wrong, that women have reached these positions is progress but I don’t think we should be popping Champaign just yet. Perhaps I am wrong and should be more optimistic but that’s not really worked out so well for me in the last decade of British politics. Still, let’s see what happens. The image above is taken from a Torygraph piece entitled "The Women are Coming" which ha a certain euphoric yet apocalyptical feel to it that I kind of like...

Two important questions to ask this week

Why do the Panana papers matter?

Should (could) the new UN Secretary General be a woman?

I couldn’t decide which of these headlines to write about this morning. The former is currently dominating our media in the UK whilst the latter is something very close to my heart. It was as I weighed up these options that I realised the two aren’t so very far apart. Both reveal and challenge the lingering international male elite. As a cynical student, the Panama papers did not surprise me: the fact that Western neo-liberalism in the twenty-first century makes the rich richer and at the expense of everyone else is hardly a revelation. Unfortunately, what also did not surprise me was that every single prominent figure and head of state implicated in the Panama papers so far has been a man. The papers demonstrate that the global elite is still constituted overwhelmingly by middle class, middle aged, straight men. Whether it be men in charge of whole countries or men in charge of large global corporations the powerful global elite who make the decisions that affect everyone else remain completely unrepresentative of the rich diversity of the international population.

Many people in the UK have argued that the scandal with our own prime minister’s involvement in the tax evasion has distracted from the real debate that needs to be had. I do to some extend agree but I think it matters that Cameron lied about his tax affairs because it is emblematic of everything that is wrong with this government and our political system in the UK. How can Cameron say he hasn’t benefitted from his fathers tax evasion when it likely paid for his fees at Eaton without which he would not have got into Oxbridge or met the people he needed to meet to get into the upper echelons of the British conservative elite. More significantly, this government tenuously balances on a rhetoric of victimising ‘benefit scroungers’ and ‘benefit tourists’ who supposedly ‘steal’ from the British economy. It is that narrative that they have thrived off by creating fear and hatred in British society. It is this hypocrisy that really gets to me: this government line their pockets while they rip apart the pockets of our most vulnerable including women, disabled people and refugees.

We’ve come some way from the selection of a new United Nations Secretary General! The UN ostensibly exists at the other end of the moral spectrum from the likes of Vladamir Putin but in reality it is a deeply troubled, bureaucratic, corrupt and paralysed organisation in need of reform. That is not to say that UN does not do good work but, unfortunately, I’m sure one would not have to bust a gut to join the dots between those implicated in the Panana papers and the UN organisation. So what does this have to do with the SG? A woman SG would take step towards challenging this global male elite as well as having all other cited benefits of equal representation. That is not to say that a woman would absolve corruption and not be at risk of corruption herself but can we at least have equality in the corrupt global elite! (I joke.) I’d like to think that a woman SG would also heighten the work of UN Women on the UN’s agenda particularly in development and conflict arenas as well as tackling the hideous problem of sexual violence perpetrated by ‘peacekeepers.’ What these two prominent headlines have in common this week is that gender still matters, patriarchy still matters and feminism still matters in global politics. The power and money remain in the hand of one set of people who do not represent the rest of us.

Book Review: Headscarves and Hymens: Why the Middle East Needs a Sexual Revolution By Mona Eltahawy

Over the bank holiday weekend I finally finished Mona Eltahawy’s treatise of misogyny in the Arab world. The issues comprised in her chapters dominate headlines every week implicitly and explicitly. As a follow up to her immensely controversial Foreign Policy article, it is sobering, shocking yet insightful mixture of fact and fury that highlights several of the struggles faced by women in the Middle East and North Africa region in a ‘post-Arab Spring’ era. Being Egyptian herself, many of testimonies from women and girls throughout the region explain the extraordinary way the Egyptian Arab Spring actually managed to further oppress women. In the book she comprehensively outlines the statistics and implications of several key issues facing Arab women today including FGM, child marriage, domestic abuse, street harassment and sexual assault. In doing so she paints a picture of women’s rights in the Arab world as a fairly dismal affair but coupled with stories of progress and calls for revolution it makes a compelling and rousing read.

One of criticisms of Eltahawy’s book has been that it makes several vast generalisations about the ‘Arab region’ based on her experience of Egyptian politics and this is perhaps one of its few flaws. Having said that her comparisons between those at vastly different ends of the poverty (Yemen, Saudi Arabia for example) or religious extremist (Qatar and Lebanon) spectrum clearly demonstrate her point that the common denominator here is not wealth, poverty or interpretations of Islam but in fact what unites Arab states is patriarchy. Those who have ‘judged a book by its cover’ will also critique her presumed Western arrogance in assuming she is denouncing the region for its cultural barbarity. In reality, the book actually contains one of the best handlings of the cultural relativism argument I have read to date. Her claim that she maintains the right to criticise her culture in ways she would reject from others allows her to resist reinforcing Western racism and arrogance surrounding women’s rights whilst simultaneously ensuring women’s dissent is not silenced by the desire to resist this racism. This has been a problem throughout history where women are silenced by their societies because they do not wish to support enemy stereotypes. It is so important that these binaries are deconstructed to tell women’s true experiences. This approach is probably my favourite thing about the book. I also particularly like the way Eltahawy explains that she refuses to call girls who have been through FGM or sexual assault ‘victims’ and rather prefers the word ‘survivor’ because it implies bravery and strength not victimhood.

Eltahawy writes ardently as she calls upon the Middle East to personalise its insurgency and take the state/street revolution into its homes and bedrooms. With this she is reaching to the heart of the original feminist trope the - personal is political - and calling on the courage of young girls to challenge centuries of traditional, religion and culture around their dining room tables. My only worry is that this is easier said than done and whilst I resist asking Eltahawy to ‘check her privilege’ the only pitfall of this book is perhaps her lack of acknowledgement of her own wisdom, experience and opportunity. Overall though, this is a must read for anyone interested in the transnational feminist project and emancipating women and girls from outright misogyny that remains veiled in religion and liberal cultural relativism.

EU Referendum: Women Stronger In

http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21673810-vote-will-be-close-britain-begins-its-campaign-stay-europeand-leave-it

In the UK, the decision to stay or leave the European Union will continue to dominate the headlines until the referendum on the 23 June 2016. The debate itself will invariably continue to be dominated by men. Men like David Cameron who wants us to stay in a reformed Europe, men in the business community who understand the economic catastrophe of leaving and men like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage who in their love of the spotlight and misguided nostalgia for the empire want to isolate Britain from the economic, political and social innovation and progress we gain from the EU. I’m in favour of staying in. Can you tell?

My position aside, women are making strides to reclaim the debate about the EU: there is strong opposition to leaving the EU from many high profile women including the Women Stronger In campaign. From a glance at the women’s rights legislation the EU safeguards, it is obvious to see why. Women and men, throughout European history, have worked tirelessly to implement legislation across Europe that protects women in their daily lives. Some of the most significant examples include:

•       Equal pay for equal work: the EU has the policy of equal pay enshrined in EU law and EU law realises the problem of workplace harassment for women.
•       Maternity leave: without the EU women would not have the same rights to take time off both before and after the birth of their children. This would result in them having to quit their careers completely if they wanted to have children. Just in case women didn’t already face such a monumental choice between career and family.
•    Domestic violence protection: restraining orders taken out by victims of domestic violence now apply throughout Europe, protecting victims if they move around the continent.

-        

Beyond this European legislation, the EU as a political instrument allows us to sit at the table and work as one to confront international violations of women’s rights including child marriage, female genital mutilation and sexual violence in conflict. For example, the work of the European Women’s Lobby makes laudable progress in tackling gender inequality throughout Europe, we should be proud to sit alongside these women.

The economic consequences of leaving the EU would almost definitely affect the lives of women and girls disproportionately. If we think the government is currently burdening women with austerity, a break from Europe would result in an economic upheaval which no doubt would be increasingly burdened by society’s most vulnerable. Of course there are problems with the EU’s structure and ability to change things, but abandoning ship is not the answer, particularly for women. If we lose all these hard earned rights it seems unlikely that they will be replaced by the likes of Nigel Farage who has publically denounced working mothers in the past and who’s political history is riddled with prehistoric views on the status of women. The EU is, at it’s core a transnational feminist project; joining women, disseminating good practice, enshrining equality in law and creating the space for international feminist solidarity. Without it, I fear even more for the rights of women in the UK and those excluded from the privileges we receive.

De-Gendering Female Genital Mutilation

The real face of the problem: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/fgm-unicef-discover-an-additional-70-million-victims-a6857561.html

For those of you that read this blog regularly the title of this post may seem some distance from my normal ramblings about the importance of ‘gendering’ political issues. All will be revealed. Last Saturday (6 Feb) marked the fourteenth International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation (FGM.) This tradition began with the First Lady in Nigerian in 2003 before being adopted by the United Nations as a way to globalise the combined efforts of international organisations and charities alike to put an end to this violation of the rights and bodies of women and girls around the world. This year staggering new statistics marked the annual awareness raising day as it was revealed that the number of girls having their genitals altered for non-medical reasons around the world is significantly higher than previously thought. Approximately 70 million higher. It was also revealed that Egypt, Ethiopia and Indonesia make up over a half of the world’s reported cases of FGM, whilst in Somalia it is believed that 98% of girls are cut aged between 15-49.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/05/research-finds-200m-victims-female-genital-mutilation-alive-today

Equality Now also revealed that they believe up to 137,000 girls in the UK are being cut annually shedding light on this problem as a truly international problem. These disturbing statistics call for action on the part of the international community to stop these cycles of violence and poverty. Not only does FGM result in a myriad of health problems for women and girls but it perpetuates ideas about girls status in society as property of men and as deviant second class citizens. This is one of the few violations of human rights that exclusively affects women and girls and it is for this reason that, paradoxically, I think the conversation about FGM ought to be de-gendered. In 2014, FGM was brought into the spotlight here in the UK when the, then education minister, supposedly wrote to all schools in England warning teachers of the dangers of FGM and how to spot signs of potential cutting. Since, whilst Cameron insists on ‘othering’ women including specifically Muslim women in other bizarre and discriminatory ways, the issue of FGM is yet to be drawn out from its realm of privatised solutions. That is not to say that these private solutions are not making great strides to stop FGM, many of the laudable organisations including Daughters of Eve, Equality Now, the Women’s Equality Party and Refuge place FGM high on their agenda to stop the subordination of women and girls worldwide. However, given its truly international nature and the ever-present reliance on the state system, this problem is one that must be tackled on the international stage not confined to the realms of a ‘women’s problem.’ The data produced by Unicef this year cannot act alone in confronting this problem, work must be done to have the voices of these women and girls heard and to challenge the supposed ‘cultural tradition’ narrative that surrounds this violence. This ubiquitous idea the FGM is something that only happens to women in the ‘third world’ is a damaging rhetoric that misrepresents reality and does little to actually stop FGM.  The amazing thing about the International Day of Zero Tolerance for FGM was in the face of these statistics social media was full of mainstream media sources reporting on FGM and its detrimental affects to society. This kind of advocacy is exactly what we need to bring this issue to the forefront of the international agenda to end violence and support development of all kinds, not just against women and girls. Combined with the incredible grassroots activism and amazing women like these we could see real collective action to pressure a stamping out of FGM.

Read more here:

United Nations International Day of Zero Tolerance against FGM http://www.un.org/en/events/femalegenitalmutilationday/

Equality Now FGM http://www.equalitynow.org/fgm

Ending FGM Network http://www.fgmnetwork.org/index.php