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!

Defendants in rape cases to be given anonymity

Ladies, I fear we are seeing a further retreat away form the ideals that we hold dear. Bad enough that we are deemed so irrelevant that there are only a couple of token women in the Cabinet, (and ones whose ability is I think not beyond question), but now the Powers that Be are planning to introduce legislation to grant anonymity to those who are accused of rape. As if that was the problem with rape cases.

THE PROBLEM WITH RAPE CASES IS THAT PERPETRATORS ROUTINELY ESCAPE CONVICTION.

Let's be clear. In order to do this, the Powers that Be will have to argue that rape is someone more serious a crime than say murder and manslaughter. That there is something more serious about that offence that warrants anonymity with neither murder or manslaughter do. The difference is of course that the conviction rate for murder and manslaughter is higher. For no other serious offence is the conviction rate as low as it is for rape cases. Men are, as it stands, able to rape with relative impunity. If we go down this route, that impunity will only increase.

Let's not bother with the argument that victims get anonymity whereas defendants do not. If you have been raped, the odds of seeing the person that did this go to prison are not only slim, but close to non-existent. The process is stacked against you from the start. Following such an appalling and life changing trauma, not only will you be accused of being a liar and a fantasist, you will have to suffer the additional humiliation of seeing the person who ruined you lift walk free, or worse, not prosecuted at all. These are the bare facts of the matter. No, when it comes to rape cases, there is no such thing as a level playing field. All the odds are stacked in favour of the defendant and this will simply add to it.

There is another point as well. In criminal cases, it is now possible to adduce evidence of bad character if someone has been accused of committing similar comparable offences. If your rapist is a serial one, and has previously been acquitted, it is possible to introduce this evidence to test their credibility. However, if defendants are anonymous, how will those who have been victims previously know to come forward? How can those who commit this crime routinely be scrutinised when they are being kept from the public gaze.?

This proposal is simply another way for those who rape to subvert justice and make a mockery of our laws.

Rape Crisis

I have been checking out what the Tory Party and Teresa May are/is saying they will do for women.

One of the things that the Tory Party has committed itself to is an increase in the number of Rape Crisis Centres. Rape Crisis has come under significant financial pressures with many struggling to stay open. The Tories have committed themselves to giving Rape Crisis secure funding in order to open 15 new centres. In the climate of cuts, one wonders if the Tories will deliver on this promise.

Pet hate for today...

Baroness Warsi...

The Minister without Portfolio.

Am I the only person who thinks that she has been invited to join the Cabinet solely because she is a) female and b) Muslim and not because she will be particularly good at her job? I heard her once on Question Time some time ago, and she didn't exactly set the world on fire.

People, this is not good. It is not quite Sarah Palin, but I wouldn't mind betting that she ends up being not far off. Conservativism that promotes women's interests must be an oxymoron.

P.S. There is a petition going around requesting the resignation of Teresa May as Minister for Women. See here.

Sexism in the City II

Yet another tale to depress us all. This is the case of Sarah Sweeney a former partner at DLA Piper (the firm where Nick Clegg's wife works) who had brought a claim against her former employer. She had been made redundant and argued that the fact that she was a woman of child-bearing age was a factor in the decision to dismiss her. She also claimed that she had had her bottom slapped by a senior managing partner at a work function and that another managing partner had told her that women who had children could not and should not work. She was made redundant after announcing that she was pregnant. The firm was able to produce evidence that her card had been marked before she told them she was pregnant. The Tribunal appeared to accept that 'something had happened' in relation to the bottom-smacking incident but that the Claimant had appeared to laugh it off at the time and the individual concerned didn't have anything to do with whether she had been made redundant.

Again, this highlights the importance of complaining about incidents at the time they occur.

The difficulty with all these cases if the women concerned 'know' that they are being discriminated against, but are unable to prove it. Such knowledge may well be accurate, but that is a far cry from being able to prove it. It some ways things are harder than they were - a lot of discriminatory treatment is less overt and employers can simply get cleverer at covering up their behaviour and establishing lawful grounds for a dismissal. Only a very small number of sex discrimination claims are successful in court, but it is highly unlikely that this reflects in any way the actual incidents of sex discrimination in employment.

Am contemplating running courses for women in how to protect themselves at work and in law...

Where are the women?

I have noticed, with some irritation, that there are only two women in the new Cabinet, and none of them are known for their path breaking views on equality.

I am inclined to feel faintly patronised by the fact that we need a Minister for Women -it appears to me to be an acknowledgement and reinforcement of the marginalisation of women. I am, of course, all in favour of recognising the extent to which women have been marginalised in public life. A quick look at the gender make-up of Parliament, the judiciary etc proves the point. However, I sometimes think that having a Minister for Women almost enables the ruling male classes to pigeon-hole our concerns more readily instead of focussing on mainstreaming. This all has a wiff of tokenism to me.

Sexism in the City

As a feminist, I get depressed reading about tale after tale of women pursuing sexism cases against their former employers and not getting anywhere.

See cases in point:

1. Jordan Wimmers found not to be a 'persuasive witness' and that the sexist jokes that were sent her were simply 'in poor taste' and 'not unwanted'. I suspect that her case was not helped by the claim that her boss tried to run her over, and she was not able to prove (and the burden would have been on her to prove) that the women being brought in to meetings were prostitutes.

2. Anna Francis and Maureen Murphy lost their cases against Nomura Bank. They had brought a claim saying that they had been made redundant and claiming, amongst other things, that a male colleague had said to a female colleague 'Oh, you don't have your honkers out today I see'.

Reading newspaper cases is always difficult because journalists tend to focus on the more salacious aspects of the claim. It appears that the 'honkers' comment was made before the Ms Murphy had arrived at the firm and so one expects that she is not going to be able to rely on that comment as having adversely affected her. If this is ruled out, then what we are left with in terms of evidence is the comment that women should be at home cleaning floors. Of this, the Tribunal said:

“Dignity is not necessarily violated by things said or done which are trivial or transitory, particularly where it is clear that no offence was intended. The comment made by a trader that women should be at home cleaning floors does not in isolation amount to an act of sex discrimination.”

The thing that Tribunals are heavily influenced by is whether the women concerned complain. This is because in the first instance, it is for the Claimant to show, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which a Tribunal could conclude that discrimination has occurred. This includes proving that the conduct in question was unwanted. If one does not complain about the conduct at the time it takes place, the Tribunal appears to infer that the conduct was not unwanted.

This point is important because many women going through something like this, do not complain about the conduct to their employers until they believe that they are being pushed out of their jobs or the situation has become intolerable. If there isn't a contemporaneous indication of lack of consent, there appears to be a hint that the claims are retaliation for i.e. being made redundant or something else that the employer has done to irk or annoy. Of course, many women do not complain at the time because they believe that it will adversely affect their jobs, especially when the person engaging in the conduct is their manager or someone in a position of authority over them and this fear is not unjustified. However, as the definition of sexual harassment includes the criteria that the conduct is unwanted the Claimant has to prove that that is the case and the best indicator of this is that the Claimant complains either to the alleged harasser or to her employer at the time the incidents occur.

One might think that keeping a record of events is going to be the clincher. It helps, but it will not be determinative of the case. Another problem is that Tribunals have to decide, if there is a stark contradition between two accounts of what happened, who is telling the truth.

3. Rosemary Corscadden also didn't complain at the time that she claims her boss was making advances. She did keep a record of events, but did not complain to her bosses until some years later. She had claimed that her boss had descibed running her team like a running a brothel with a team of prositutes. The Tribunal held that he had not made the comment and again appeared to infer that because she had not complained at the time, the comments were not unwanted.

There is something else going on here which may or may not be influencing Tribunals. Most of these newspaper cases involve, it is said, claims for millions of pounds. As Tribunals do not make injury to feelings awards of that order, the claims stem from any loss of earnings flowing from the alleged discriminatory act. As they will be earning a considerable sum of money it is possible to come up with figures like that, but it is a bit of a stretch. Most women don't earn anything like that and the incidents of the type described here, w0uld have, if successful, achieved four figure award, as opposed to a seven figure one for any injury to feelings caused by the comments. It may well be that the figures claimed create a lack of sympathy in the Tribunal in light of the type of case and the earnings of employees that they ordinary deal with.

Nevertheless, I take the view that these cases are starting to indicate something of an alarming 'green light'. Furthermore, if every woman who ever experienced harassment complained, the system would collapse and a radical overhaul would be required. Perhaps this is what we need to be encouraging more and more women to do.

"Women have very little idea of how much men hate them"

This comment caused controversy in the 1970s when Germane Greer postulated her thesis in The Female Eunuch. Most people think that when you are talking about harassment at work that you are talking about some bloke cornering you in a badly lit corridor and trying to cop a feel; that if you are talking about being discriminated against, you are talking about being sacked because you got pregnant. It does sometimes mean that. Often though these things are far more subtle. It as though men still don't like us very much, but have just got a bit cleverer at disguising it.

"In the 1970s when feminism was at its height, I never really understood what it was about" said one old boy over coffee. Stunned by the mind-numbing stupidity of that comment, it was as much as I could do to think to myself erm...equal pay, harassment in the work place, maternity leave...? Little things like that.

Some months later, the same old boy remarked causally "we don't want feminists here".