The impossibility of love

Over the past few weeks, our newspapers have been full of horror stories from the Middle East about the plight of women – women punished for complaining they have been raped, stoned to death, pregnant, for having ‘illicit relationships’, dragged through the streets naked for stepping outside their homes with men to whom they are not related. Most right thinking people would regard these stories are barbaric, an extreme form of brutal servitude which should have no place in today’s world. These stories are indeed off the scale when it comes to brutality. However, as with most finger-pointing (however justified it may be) there are lessons to learn about our own back yard.

While women here who complain they have been raped do not face the same ordeal, the principle of ‘put the victim on trial’ – as if they were responsible -- is very much alive and well. We are routinely accused of ‘lying’ about such claims – having such a high acquittal rate for rape cases must ‘prove’ that to be the case, after all – as if law and reality were somehow aligned when it comes to women’s rights. Women’s sexuality continues to be commodified through the mass media, and the legal process does not bring anything like the justice to which we are entitled. All too often, women are simply revictimised.

This form of betrayal – which is what it ultimately is – makes the possibility of love for those of us who are hopelessly heterosexual but painfully aware of these issues all but impossible. How can love exist between men and women in a society that displays such profound injustice? How will we know that our relationships are not tainted by the inevitable influences of society’s attitudes? Is it possible to find love amongst those who support such as system either by their active support or acquiesce?

A number of the men that I know who have thought of me as potential partners have, I am sure, asked if I am ‘one of them’, meaning whether I side with ‘my man’ or whether I will reject that system. It is, of course, slightly complicated by the fact that an intimate relationship is meant to involve love and acceptance. However, and here is the bind, does loving and accepting you mean closing my eyes and ears to the injustices faced by women, myself included?

Some women, like me, make a choice not to have relationships with men for this very reason. It costs too much. These relationships are inevitably tainted by the socio-political forces that make up our interactions. By the presumption of inequality, however subtly manifest. My pain will always be secondary to your pain. My ambition will always come after yours. Enough.

A Percipient Irony

I have talked in previous posts about my current struggles and have posted a number of times on the struggles of other women in relation to issues of discrimination. I am meant to be writing a book on (to strip it to its bare essentials) what it means as a woman to be free. However, I have, for some months, been unable to write. I have sat down in front of my computer, trying to will and force myself into this task, but my brain has resisted every impulse. To say that it is because I have been too stressed and unwell is true but I need a bit more of an answer than that if I am going to be able to get through what appears to be this impenetrable writer’s block.

They say that women are inclined to be governed by their emotions, as if men either don’t have them, or if they do, are somehow better able to restrain such tendencies (lazy stereotypes abound). For me, the emotional and the intellectual have always gone hand in hand. I am not able to have one without the other. It should come then as no surprise to me that my current state of emotional stuntedness is having knock-on effects on this creative endeavour. Berating myself only seems to make things worse.

Today, I started to see this for what it was. How can I write a book on what it means to be free when I am being slapped about with all the reasons that women are not free, and being silenced to boot? Such a task cannot materialise whilst in the throws of oppressive manifestations, but can only start to be realised once one starts to move out of that place and feel again, freely; express oneself openly. To put it another way, the freedom and desire to create does not rest easily with the armour of war.

Where does this leave me? With, I suspect, an essentially private struggle influencing a public enterprise.

The only man I can stomach right now...

Sherlock Holmes. The side kick isn't bad either. Nice smile.

Where are the Revolutionaries?

There was an article in yesterday's Times written by David Aaronovitch entitled 'Woman-hating isn't just brutal, it's dangerous: The misogyny that leads to stonings and 'honour' killings also leads to poverty and, ultimately to terrorism'.

Whilst an unlikely convert to feminism, what he writes chimes with what I have thought for some considerable time. You would think that given the extent of female oppression and abuse, that there would have been an uprising, groups of feminist terrorists, freedom fighters. Maybe it is just a question of time before women in the Middle East revolt and start to organise themselves much in the way of other terrorist organisations before them, but here, the extent of the oppression is so severe and the anti-women views so deeply held, that any such thing can only result in a blood bath. Revolutions are sometimes the only way to overthrow a deeply oppressive and dysfunctional system, and that has implications not only for the part of the world that generates it, but worldwide.

When is it time to fight back...?

Always. You always fight back.

Battles and Wars

As someone who is braving our legal system (as a Claimant as opposed to as a lawyer, although one can't entirely separate the two), I have been pondering, following a discussion with a friend of mine, the human costs associated with going into battle. Some would have us believe that feminism is over, that the battles have been won, that all we have to do to get ahead is to work hard. Not a bit of it.

The problem with battle is that there is inevitably a human cost, a cost that may only become clear after the battle is over and the dust has settled and people are left only with their memories and trying to pick up the pieces. A victorious party will not escape the human cost simply because they don't have to deal with the humiliation of defeat. Battles inevitably have uncertain outcomes, but each battle is an important stage nevertheless. Whilst one cannot be certain that victory will come with any one battle, each is significant in the ultimate goal of winning the war overall. People will fall, as they do in any battle. It may be that what you do ends up being a clincher that turns the tide and makes the outcome, namely the eradication of discrimination, closer to realisation. Maybe you will only win it in a small way. Nevertheless all battles are important stages in a process.

What we are not told whilst we are working hard in order to get ahead is what happens after you get that high-flying job, that dream post, in the traditionally male bastions. Glass ceilings are only part of the problem. The unpalatable truth is that many of them resist the advancement of women sometimes in more overt ways (by harassment, say) and sometimes in more subtle ways which are no less devastating. As case after case attests, something is going wrong somewhere both within these bastions and in the way that the law deals with it. The legislation is actually not too bad, but the practice of trying to enforce it is very different. Courts have started to recognise the concept of 'stigma loss', namely that people suing their employers for discrimination are sometimes irrevocably compromised in their ability to find work afterwards, and the more controversial a claim, the more stigma is attached regardless of whether one wins or loses. The inevitable effect of this is that people think twice before going down this road - and understandably so. But the material point is that if we all did that then nothing will ever change.

"You have not dealt with this. You have to deal with risk that you will lose . I am not saying you will, just that it is possible, and how will you cope emotionally if you do?".

"I don't know how I would cope emotionally if I win!"

"You are right to be angry for what they have done to you, but you are hiding out in it"

Anger doesn't really begin to cover it.

The concept of justice is a fine ideal. Having your day in court and being able to say how wronged you have been. However, it is limited. It does not and cannot recompense for all the trauma you have been through in your battle. The satisfaction of winning is short lived. One is then left with having to try to heal the wounds of battle, however significant it may have been and deal with the human cost.

Diane Abbott for PM

As a life-long leftie, I was delighted to hear that Diane Abbott has decided to run for the Labour leadership. I had all but despaired of the Labour Party and none of the people that they have put up for the leadership have inspired in any way. But, if the Labour Party are savvy enough to put this woman at the helm, I think they may find that they acquire a new lease of life, appealing to ordinary voters and diverse groups. Gosh, I might even be inspired to join them again!