Kiss Chase

It was with an expectation of anger that I opened Nick Cohen's article on the Ashley Madison debacle when it popped up today on my news feed. In the end I was simply saddened by the missed opportunity it presented.


The whole Ashley Madison affair (sorry) was, to be honest, not of massive interest to me initially. That so many people seek affairs is not news. Relationships are challenging and difficult, people of all and any background sometimes stray or seek solace and comfort outside of the couple for a multitude of reasons. Entrance into a dating site is not a crime and I was of the opinion that this was, at least to some degree, a trespass too far on people's personal information.


It was Annalee Newitz's piece in Gizmodo earlier this week though, revealing the extent to which this site was a one sided fantasy land made up of millions of real men and a tiny number of women, most not real; that awakened me to the far greater and more disturbing insight this story provides, into the relationship dynamics and gendered behaviour of our culture. A status quo sadly reinforced rather than challenged by Nick's piece in the Guardian today.


Cohen, concerned that we are laughing at these naïve men, tries to entice us to more sympathy with the news that "Unless you are a stupendously handsome or famous man, or preferably both, there is nothing casual about casual sex.". "It is grindingly hard work," he tells us, "with no prospect of a grind at the end. Men must hit on dozens of women. Ignore every rejection and bound back again." ; and just in case after this, we are still determined to have no sympathy, we are reminded of the other cruel tricks such hackers play, on vulnerable women. Romance fraud - conning the desperate out of their saving, or the sharing of naked images - unscrupulous types enticing them to share intimate photographs or video that later ends up on revenge porn sites.


Cohen's concern however for the humiliation of both the men and women in these cases, misses a far deeper and more overarching issue.






As a child of the 70's I was fortunate enough that many of the toys I grew up with were non-gendered - brightly coloured Lego bricks, hand-me-down bicycles without bows or glittered logos; I am not a product of Disney princess, and I thankfully predate the divide of pink and blue aisles in toy shops. My own children have not been so lucky, and it is only on reflection I can see that my daughter's complete rejection of toys altogether, may well have been down to the narrow choices on offer to her to play mummy, housekeeper or stylist. In tern my son's ability to turn even a baby doll into a gun (using the arm as the shaft and the legs as the barrels) may in no small part have come from the swashbuckling, sword wielding, gun toting fantasies he grew up surrounded by.




Throughout life, through small and large stimuli, we force males and females into narrow gender categories. Reinforcing and rewarding vulnerability and quiet acceptance in our girls, whilst excusing and encouraging violence and outspokenness in our boys.


Through the fantasies of princesses awaiting rescue by their soldiers, knights and pirates our children grow up, playing "kiss chase" a game where boys almost universally chase the girls. They are surrounded by thousands up on thousands of images of half naked females, posed in vulnerability, in magazines, on billboards and on screen, they become the wallpaper of life and alongside them at times, the lesser seen, ripped, strong torsos of young men, ready to take action.


Over parents shoulders, in print and online in the news, stand the active, achieving and powerful men of business, politics and sport, and disbursed amongst them  - the decoratively posed women, featured for their wardrobe choices or malfunctions, their bikini bodies "papped" on the beach.


By the time they reach the early stages of romantic entanglement girls are already being called "sluts" for little or no transgression, whilst school and 6th form dress codes reinforce a sense that female bodies are a dangerous temptation that must me kept in check. Boys experience sex through online porn, learning that women often start by saying no or crying, later moaning in enjoyment at a mere touch. Peer groups push boys to talk of girls as conquests whilst girls walk a tightrope of being attractive and sexy enough, without ever admitting to actually wanting or having any sexual needs of their own; and the saddest thing - is that this so often continues into adulthood.


A few years ago, as a newly single adult woman at the age of 36, keen to explore my sexuality and to gain experience and understanding of myself. I was disappointed to find that just as at age15 - I was under pressure to fulfil an expectation of chastity, to not "give myself away too cheaply" not set a bad example to my daughter. Restrictions seemed to be in place, I must be the gatekeeper of my vagina, only lowering the defences and yielding after the magic three dates and under the pressure of coercion. In contrast the men I encountered were often quick to become sexual and intimate in their language online. On dates there was an expectation that they would have to pay for dinner or drinks and a seeming need to present themselves as the financially stable rescuer that I didn't actually need.


Fresh faced and terrified in the world of singledom I had none of this insight at the time of course. It is only now, a few years into a warm and loving relationship that I am able to see the ridiculous dance I had last performed at age sixteen that I was once again engaging in, a pretence that we continue to perpetuate, that not only risks leading to our profound unhappiness but actually puts us at greater danger of real harm.


Nick Cohen was really concerned we might be laughing at "idiot men" signing up to Ashley Maddison, maybe some were. But Speaking personally as a feminist, I am not laughing at these men, I am sad for them and for their seeming need to be in constant pursuit, ready to win over and disarm any potential partner. Likewise my issue with romance fraud or with revenge porn committed largely towards women, goes far beyond my disgust at the criminals who commit these crimes and into the very background in which a woman feels a failure without a man, or must be shamed by her sexual behavior.


What was missed here and what needs far greater discussion, is the narrative of the culture we have created. One that would paint all men as macho, sex obsessed rescuers who must both romantically woo and break down the defenses of any vulnerable and needy woman, whilst simultaneously telling you that "nice" women don't actually want or like sex as much or as often as men "need" it and restricting the sexual identity of women to simple play things to whom things are done; rather than active participants seeking to receive as well as give pleasure.


Feminism, despite it's bad press, is fighting this on all fronts. Across my social media feeds I am surrounded by feminist projects seeking to redress the balance of gender stereotyping in toys, books and clothing aimed at children. I am aware of schemes in schools seeking to teach about consent and body awareness from a young age, followed later by sex and relationship education centred around mutual respect and consent. My thirteen year old daughter watches, with my blessing, the YouTube videos of Laci Green , learning about sexual pleasure and enthusiastic consent, and in the mean time campaigns have successfully lobbied to remove Page 3, continue to fight for greater representation of women in sport, and are seeking to redress the balance of power in Westminster.


Women and girls, men and boys are far more the same than they are different. With increasing awareness of sex and gender identity as a fluid concept for many, and far more complex than the anatomy with which we happen to be born, perhaps we will accept that we each have our own individual needs and should feel no shame in seeking to fulfill them. Girls are strong, resilient and independent, boys vulnerable, unsure and gentle. Ultimately what many of us seek, no matter what our gender identity, is a fulfillment of closeness, warmth and sexual need to varying degrees. We are all unique and yet we share so many common goals and emotions.


It is only by questioning the narrative at every age, in every part of our society, in the media in which we swim or increasingly drown, and through the education to which we are entitled, that we can begin to dismantle the damage that is being done and to put it right. The culture that leads to men's humiliation at the hands of an unscrupulous website in the search of the none-existent women they are conditioned to seek, is the same one that sees women regularly sexually harassed, assaulted and raped by men who see women's boundaries as something to be overcome. If we can celebrate our individuality as human beings from the outset and throughout our lives then we can escape the restrictions and boundaries allowing us to "hook up" and enjoy each others company with mutual understanding or to find truthful and fulfilling relationships in which we can all feel safe.

Halt the Labour leadership election for pities sake!!


No, not because of the concerns over "entryism" or the possible culling of members and supporters who might be too socialist for the party founded by....a socialist.
No, it's because they have bloody well chosen the wrong women!! At least this is the call of Charles Moore in 1950's throwback, The Spectator this week.


Well...you might ponder..... as a self-respecting feminist of the 20th century the man has a point. I for one would quite like to vote for a woman leader but am disappointed that the best of them seem to be in the running for deputy or waiting for a vacancy as London Mayor.


But ladies we are barking up the wrong postman's trouser leg here. We've missed the point completely with our silly lady brains.


You see the problem is nothing at all to do with lack of vision or Tory light policies, oh no. It is all because of the frankly appalling state of candidates Cooper and Kendal, neither of whom we are told, are likely to get as much as a semi-on out of any self respecting back bencher.


Good grief, you might be thinking, what sexist bilge is this. BUT, hold on to your panty liners there for a minute, because I'm afraid they have this whole thing backed up with hard evidence.


You see it seems Mrs Thatcher’s victory in 1975 was nothing to do with her terrifyingly strong leadership skills and suitably frighteningly cold, get the job done persona. Oh no! It was in fact entirely all down to the fact that "lots of older Tory backbenchers fancied her."


Now wait, if you can hold onto to your breakfast for just a minute there (you're a better woman than me) you need not worry. We can just start this whole leadership thingy all over again from scratch and put the whole debacle right because, thank goodness, Charles, bless his ironed socks, has enlightened the Labour party with all the information it needs to chose the right woman for the job.


So Labour women MPs, put down your clip board, forget about your achievements to date, about the need for charisma or any silly lady policies you might be dreaming up about social justice, equality or any such thing.
If you identify yourself of the female persuasion, before you even THINK about putting yourself forward for leader, you'd better just take a minute to check whether you meet these vital requirements for the job
(I have bullet pointed them in case you wanted to break them up in between all of your vital domestic chores, you can thank me later....when you've done the ironing) -

• Make the "best of it" BUT, and this is vital "without obvious strain"

I'm not completely certain "it" is or what this means but I think holding onto "it" might have something to do with a high fibre diet so buy in some All Bran

• Make sure you are not "disturbingly sexy"

I have been thinking hard about the interpretation of this one and the last time I disturbed somebody with my sexiness was I think in 1995, when whilst tending to a patient I got something in my eye and accidentally winked at one of the senior doctors whilst bending over to pick up a bed pan. I managed to counter this unfortunate faux par by spending the rest of the shift feigning a nervous twitch. Of course the was that referral to occupational health for psychological assessment but I think you'll agree it was worth it. A woman can't be too careful!!

• Appeal "to the chivalrous instincts of the knights of the shires."

I think this might be something to do with The Lord of the Rings, which none of us will of course have read because it's a man's book

• Have a long look in the mirror ladies before you consider stepping forward because there will be times when what you have to say is "so boring that one looks rather than listens". You know...when your talking about lady things like domestic violence, rape or domestic policy. It must be remembered that. "no leader — especially, despite the age of equality, a woman — can look grotesque on television and win a general election."

I'm so glad they reminded us that it was the age of equality because I was starting to worry up until this point of the article that we might still be living in some horrifically unequal society. You know, one that sees fit to judge female politicians on their fuckability as opposed to, well.... whether or not they could run the nobbing country.

• As a female candidate you will need "a touch of appealing vulnerability"

Ditch the usual head and shoulders shot and consider a candidate leaflet featuring you tied to a post on a cliff top in a long frock awaiting rescue, as per Jason and The Argonaut's circa 1963

• Be one of two physical types -

1. A "lower-middle-class version of Clare Balding" and "possibly lesbian" only possibly though, not an actual lesbian or the actual Claire Balding, that's tool posh AND too lesbian!

Alternatively be...


2."more provocative and sassy" like that woman off of "Hello Hello" who liked to insinuate an unexplained sexual act involving a whisk, or somebody on BBC breakfast that your old friend Charles here is so impressed with he can't even be bothered to Google her and find her ACTUAL NAME.

• Make sure that your feminism is of the "Show, don’t tell’ variety" No long boring debates please about tackling the unequal pay, but do feel free to pole up to PMQs in a spotted headscarf or suffragette sash

Well there we are. The vital information all our Labour women need to put themselves forward.


Where would we be without Mr Moore's words of wisdom?


Well probably sort of where we are now really, with a leadership election focused mostly on policies and leadership skills and what's the point in that? After all, we are told Labour leadership voters seem to  "prefer a man with a dull beard." so perhaps Liz and Yvette could work on one of those instead?

Austerity and Inequality

So we want to talk a little about Austerity, its a term that gets used a lot. We are told we need it in order to improve the economy but people have marched against it all over the country, so what are we actually talking about?


Well for a starters it is probably important to point out that Britain is not a poor country. In fact the UK is the sixth richest country in the world and, before the recession, between 1993 and 2008 it saw 15 years of sustained economic growth.

In 2008 there was a global financial crisis. The banks had lent too much money to too many of the wrong people and were in debt themselves. The UK government chose to bail out British banks in order to prevent a collapse of the British banking system that would cause an even deeper depression.

At the same time, the government also began trying to stimulate spending. They reduced VAT and spent more on schools and social housing to try and encourage people to spend and to keep the economy as strong as possible.



Austerity

Since 2010 the government led by the conservatives in coalition with the Liberal democrats and now the Conservatives alone, enforced austerity. This was mostly in the form of deep spending cuts with only small increases in tax.


The stated aim of austerity was to reduce the deficit in the UK by cutting spending, to give confidence to the markets and therefore deliver growth to the economy.

BUT....

Whilst austerity measures have had some impact on reducing the deficit, they have delivered very little growth, and public debt has risen.

Austerity policies have also had a huge impact on the poorest people in the UK. In 2010, the government announced the biggest cuts to state spending since the Second World War, including big cuts to social security and the planned loss of 900,000 public sector jobs between 2011 and 2018.




Since the financial crisis began the poorest and most vulnerable in our society have had their situation made far worse.


The cost of living has continued to rise, whilst cuts to social security and public services, falling incomes, and rising unemployment have created a damaging situation in which millions are struggling to make ends meet.


Tell us about it: How have you and your family been affected? Do you have less money to spend in the month now than you did 10 or more years ago? How have families around you been affected?
 



Inequality


The biggest impact of austerity is a huge rise in inequality.


Cuts to public services and changes to taxes and welfare have hit the poorest the hardest.
In fact the poorest tenth of our population have seen a 38% decrease in their net income since 2010.


By comparison, the richest tenth have lost the least with only a 5% fall.


There is also continuing evidence that the very richest are doing far better.
At the very top, Britain’s richest 1,000 individuals saw their wealth increase by £138bn in real terms between 2009 and 2013.
https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cs-true-cost-austerity-inequality-uk-120913-en.pdf


It is good for our economy if people can do well, make profit and invest but that investment needs to have a positive effect for all and not just the few.


Instead, measures designed to stimulate the economy have resulted in significant gains for the richest, while the poorest tenth are taking home even less.


Policies that were designed to increase the share of tax paid by the rich so that all of society can benefit from economic growth have been watered down. There has been a reduction in the top rate of income tax for those earning over £150,000, from 50 to 45% and a fall in Corporation tax on businesses at a time when the UK’s top companies are doing better than ever.
Meanwhile 1 million people used food banks in 2014-15 and with on-going cuts those figures are set to rise http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats 



For those in work, average hourly wages have fallen http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/elmr/an-examination-of-falling-real-wages/2010-to-2013/art-an-examination-of-falling-real-wages.html and there has also been a change in the type of jobs available - temporary work, part-time work, self-employment (with no employment rights) and zero hours contracts with no guaranteed minimum income, have all increased.


As the UK returns to growth and business owners begin to see good profits and a rise in income, there are rising levels of insecure work, high unemployment and the reduction of the benefits that reduce poverty and lower inequality. On top of this the latest budget announced cuts to tax credits for working families.


Housing


Currently about 14% of the national benefit bill goes to housing benefit, most of this going straight into the pocket of private landlords, many of whom own large amounts of property.


The recent budget announced an end to housing benefits for under 25s. This makes little difference to richer families who can afford to assist their children in buying or renting property but has a huge impact on poorer families who can't afford to help and to young people who for lots of reasons cannot stay at home with their parents.


Meanwhile councils now struggle to offer social housing, their stock reduced by decades of the right to buy policy.
There is now a housing shortage in many regions which has caused rents to increase massively.  The benefit caps that reduce overall payment have also meant many families can no longer afford these rents.


For all of these reasons many councils  are now unable to permanently rehouse families. The number of homeless families housed in B&Bs has increased by 300% in the last 5 years. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/24/homelessness-england-families-temporary-accommodation-bed-and-breakfast?CMP=share_btn_tw and homelessness overall has increased by more than 50% http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/homelessness-up-more-50-per-5235998


Meanwhile the recent budget reduced the tax paid by those who are inheriting expensive properties from family members - another measure that benefits families who already have wealth but of no benefit to low or middle income families who can't afford expensive property.




Support for Austerity


There is some popular support for austerity. For example, lots of people feel we need to balance the books and live within our means and that austerity is helping achieve this. Many also want to see welfare 'dealt with' believing that there is a culture of "something for nothing" and people choosing to live on benefits rather than working. So what about these issues?


It is easy to think that people on low incomes receiving tax credits and those on benefits are somehow choosing to remain poor or are not working hard enough and there are always plenty of stories in the newspapers (which are mostly owned by very rich individuals, some of whom pay no or very little tax in the UK) about "benefits scroungers" but in actual fact 50% of children living in poverty in the UK are from working families and as we have already pointed out it is the lowest earners who have lost the most overall due to austerity.


In the UK the welfare bill is divided like this -










Overall only 10% is paid out to those not working, the vast majority is to pensioners and a bigger chunk goes to private landlords. Perhaps if we invested more in social housing that bill would come down?


With public sector cuts, there is less support in place for adult learning and less help to find work. Perhaps with more investment there that 10% paid out to the unemployed may also reduce? 


At the moment the biggest drops in income and the largest percentage of that income paid in tax is by the poorest in the UK



In the long run  many would argue it is short sighted to continue to avoid taxing high earners whilst penalising low income earners, because in the end not having enough money stops people from spending.


The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. Continuing to ignore tax avoidance and reducing the tax paid by businesses and rich individuals whilst reducing benefits and income to the poorest will not fix this, it will make it worse.


It is only through increases in income for the working majority and through greater equality and security, that we will see spending and prosperity improve for everyone and not just the elite few.


As an economic program, austerity, under recession, makes no sense. It just makes the situation worse http://www.alternet.org/economy/noam-chomsky-austerity-just-class-war?sc=s&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

My name is Lisa, I am an NHS nurse and I'm angry. I am so angry in fact, that for the first time in my career I have felt the need to take action, to speak out - I have become an NHS activist.


Having been a nurse of 23 years, I am entirely comfortable in the world of drips, wounds, blood and medical horrors, explaining complex diagnoses and caring for my patients. Thanks to the investment of the NHS that our society has gifted me, I have developed not just clinical skills, but also skills in communication, negotiation, in the assertiveness required to advocate for my patient and to challenge poor practice or abuse. 


In recent years, outside my working life I have been involved in a high profile feminist campaign and in the last few months these two previously separate areas - the professional and the political, have merged, as I have been called to join the fight to save our precious and vital NHS. An NHS that I am watching slowly and quietly die, whilst everybody is being encouraged, by our greedy, millionaire lead media, to look the other way.


When I first was asked to speak at an NHS rally in August of last year, I wasn't sure what I was going to say, what I was allowed to say without risking my job. I wanted to talk about the damage I was seeing all around me, the piecemeal selling off of services and the impact this was having on the workload of colleagues and the experience of patients.


When we are ill or hurt the vast majority of us will turn to NHS services, at least in the first instance, for medical help, but many probably don't realise how much of that care and what supports it, is already no longer in the ownership of the NHS -

• if we need transport to hospital this is likely to be provided by a profit making private company

• The hospital we stay in cleaned and maintained by a private company
• the porters who transport us from department to department, ward to ward - now contracted by a private company

• The treatment centre where outpatient appointments and procedures are carried out - private

• The beds we lie on maintained and provided by private contract

• The food patients eat, that is so vital to their recovery - privately bought in and distributed by private company

• The home care company who bring equipment and medication to the home, so that patients can give their own treatment - private

In fact if you look at the health service UK wide, you will find many vital services now provided by private companies - Maternity, Abortion services, Mental health, Minor surgery, Bereavement, Palliative care, Sexual assault referral services and Paediatrics to name but a few. The list simply gets longer and longer.


It was with all of this in mind that in the end, when I stood up on a stage, on that August afternoon, next to local politicians and incredible campaigners, I found I actually had quite a lot to say. I was nervous, but motivated and energised by the experience. Spurred on by the organisation of this huge action by just a few people, who felt so strongly that they were walking across the nation gathering support and raising awareness.


Moved to action by the passion of others and fuelled by the emails I was receiving from 38 degrees amongst others, I might ordinarily at this stage thought about writing to my MP, but sadly it had already long since become apparent, that was entirely futile.


Anna Soubry has been my local MP since May 2010, she has just (against all logical odds) won a second term and I'm not a fan.


Now, I have been a socialist for pretty much my whole life, adult or otherwise, so I must acknowledge a bias here and when Anna replaced my really excellent and hard working Labour MP I was not at all happy. The loss of a local ally felt every bit as bitter to me as the prospect of handing a conservative government custodianship of public services, including the NHS and the education system my children were currently benefiting from.


However, I am a positive thinker and somewhat of a hippy in my middle age and so when I first became involved in No More Page 3, I did contact Anna by email to ask for her support. I wasn't expecting a response, having heard of a poor record on answering emails, but was pleasantly surprised when, within a day or two of sending I received an invitation to meet.


After an initial cold reception to the campaign, Anna offered the benefit of her wisdom and experience at recruiting MP support and I remain grateful that she shared the
petition with constituents in her newsletter. When I have tried to describe this meeting to anyone I find I am unable to explain or articulate quite what it was that rattled me and why I came away with a feeling that it was not an experience I wanted to repeat. I'm not sure exactly what made me uncomfortable, but it is notable that despite this being a formal meeting (a young man was taking notes) she used the word c**t twice in the first ten minutes, with a liberal smattering of expletives throughout. Now as a 41 year old mother of teenagers, who has been described as potty mouthed herself, I was hardly offended. But despite my own penchant for a well placed swear word and the acknowledged blue air of a nursing staff room, I was more than a little taken aback that this was considered accepted language when meeting a constituent for the first time. Perhaps this was Ms Soubry's way of "breaking the ice" but it didn't really help her feel like an approachable person. This was my voice in parliament after all.


Anna's initial impressive fast response to my first correspondence was never repeated. I have contacted her on at least four occasions since on various issues (I still have the emails) and in every case, despite our previous meeting and my being on her mailing list, I receive an automated and sometimes a personal reply asking to prove that I am a constituent.
My emailed pleas are often last minute, prompted by campaigns and regarding a pivotal vote happening in the next few days. I send it off hoping it is read and my view considered it in time, but replies take one to two months to come and on at least one or two occasions have not come at all. When I do receive a response it is to explain why she voted in the opposite direction and by this time of course the issue has long since become redundant and debate is futile.


As a consequence when appeals come through now asking to write to MPs to garner support and encourage debate in parliament, I know there is nothing I can add, that taking the time to write an email will be time wasted. I feel ignored, unimportant and unrepresented and that is not how our democracy should work.


Thankfully there is now some hope that this is soon to change. Ms Soubry is no longer my MP *celebratory klaxon* and whilst she is standing again, seems unlikely to win. It appears this seeming ignorance of the views of constituents has been noted by more than just me and our previous labour MP Nick Palmer is standing for Broxtowe again, back by popular demand.


Nick was the first MP I ever emailed back in the early 2000s. A concerned parent of two children with severe food allergy, I had questions and sought help regarding provision of allergy services. I sent off my heartfelt plea late at night and received an immediate reply that it would be looked into and later an offer to take up the issue in parliament and with the health secretary.


Whilst the nations allergy service provision may not have been magically fixed by that email exchange, by Nick's help or by the letter I later received from the health minister of the time, this personable approach impressed me. Nick wanted to listen, wanted to help and gave me a faith in the system and an understanding of what it can be like engaging with an MP who actually does work hard to represent and advocate for his constituents.


At the latest NHS rally I was pleased to see Nicks name next to others on a pledge to reinstate NHS services, going further than the promises of Labour party manifesto. The Bill proposes to fully restore the NHS as an accountable public service by reversing 25 years of marketization. It aims to abolish the purchaser-provider split, end contracting and re-establish public bodies and public services accountable to local communities. It is a bold plan and may go beyond what any major party currently offers but at least I know, no matter what happens nationally, if Nick gets back in I will have an ally here in Broxtowe in continuing my fight for our NHS.




It was in September of 1992 that the health service began investing in me, just as it had thousands of nurses, doctors, physiotherapists and other healthcare professionals before me. The NHS has devoted it's time and our money to science and research, it has learned how to give excellent care, has developed treatments and new drugs and has advanced and invested in hospitals and people.


These developments belong to us ALL and must continue to be available to us ALL.


The NHS is ours. WE have paid for this, WE have learned this, WE must never hand it over into a system that would only gift it to those who have and neglect those who have not and no matter what happens in this general election this fight must go on. In my area I know very well which way to vote if I want to vote to save the NHS as we know it and if I want to have the open access I should to our democratic, political system.




My voice counts and so does yours, you simply need to decide - who is going to listen.

An open letter to the free speech fighters

Freedom of speech is vital they cry!! Freedom of expression is an absolute they sing!!


These are vital and must never be challenged. But when you ask me to be silent because you don't like what I say how does that work? Does your right to speech trump mine or mine yours?


If the expression is an expression of hate, of motion to war, of lies and stereotyping of another group, of my group, does your right to uphold that expression stand unchallenged and without question?


If the feature about which you are shouting solidarity, the one you uphold and protect is not yours at all but that of an obscenely rich, unimaginably powerful, white man who owns half the world's media; if that feature is not a small publication pushing the boundaries and supporting the vulnerable but a best selling newspaper selling just under 2 million copies a day, called out on lies and misrepresentation; If  rather than standing up to established balances of power, it seeks to confirm them, to reinforce them, along with tired and narrow stereotypes that keep them in place, then what?


Where does this right of stereotypical and narrow and voiceless expression end and my right of speech, of protest begin?


Because when I speak up and say my truth and I stand in solidarity with those who feel this is not the truth about women you say NO!!! You want a ban, you want to end free speech, free expression you say and when I point out that I have not asked for a ban, for legislation but am instead seeking to discuss, to question, to educate you try to slap me down again with accusations that what I seek is still somehow wrong.


Does this capitalist status quo of sexism have more rights that I, than we who seek redress? Are you suggesting that in asking again and again and again for what I feel is right I have outstayed my welcome, spoken too much? How much free speech is too much free speech? Perhaps my two and a half years of protest or is it page 3's 44 years of publication?


Is this about the volume of speech? Are we too loud with our growing social media following and our petition signatures and our organisational support? Perhaps you fear we might drown out this rich, powerful publication with it's 6.5 million reach? Unlikely.


So to you who told me this week that chatting to some young people in school about media sexism and it's effects on us as individuals and on society was a heinous act of promoting censorship that would make the Charlie Hebdo murderers proud I will extend this.....


Thank you for your input, I have heard you, you have exercised your right to express your view on this subject and I have listened, but I do not agree.


Your right to stand up for the perpetuation of a sexist and tired tradition does not trump my right to stand against it. Your right to try and silence me does not quash my right to seek like minds, to raise and discuss the issues that this sexism and sexual objectification causes, to keep the conversation going and growing. Your right to defend the status quo does not mean I cannot protest it and so I will continue to fight.


I will fight because ALL women deserve free speech and freedom of expression - all shapes, colours, sexualities, sizes and backgrounds.


I will fight for the representation of ALL of these women; those who fulfil the current narrow prescription of beauty and who are willing to pose naked and those who chose to express themselves differently, who achieve in areas not recognised, not heard, not seen, not celebrated as they are so readily for men. I will exercise MY freedom of speech to ask that these women are represented in media so that others can see what can be achieved and can learn what they can aspire to and what as a society we value.


I will keep speaking out because at the moment these women are censored and in all honesty I am not a fan of censorship.

Anytime, Any place, Anywhere

I'm 40. I'm in a relationship and I'm a huge fan of sex. I mean a REALLY big fan. I think it's quite common so I'm not going to pretend I'm unique here, but there are sections of our society, heavily sanctioned and covered by the media, that would have you believe that we women are not supposed to like it that much, that we will make excuses and do what we can to avoid it. With an element of guilt I will say that I sort of believed that hype for a lot of my adult life, but it turns out my not wanting sex very much was more to do with being unhappy and in an unhappy relationship, rather than me not liking sex. Since leaving that relationship at 36 I have learned that I am in fact a very sexual person and that this is a very important part of who I am.


It is for this reason that I somewhat laugh at those opposing voices to the No More Page 3 campaign who like to assume those of us fronting it to be, in some way anti sex or asexual, that we don't "get it", whatever "it" is, this human need for sex, for sexual imagery or titillation. This frankly ridiculous and completely unfounded allegation, you might be surprised to hear, comes interestingly, from both ends of the opposition - sexist men and anti-NMP3 feminists alike.


I'm not going to make any attempt here to answer the ridiculous cries of the misogynists who presume any woman to be jealous or "not getting any" if they oppose page , frankly why would I waste my time, but I will take a little look at the other naysayers, those who suggest that No More Page 3 is a) anti sex b) anti-sex worker and/or c) slut shaming


A. Page 3 and images like it, in no way represent my sexuality. Actually, I would also go as far as to say that they don't represent much of female sexuality as a whole certainly not that of any of the women I know, love and have had those kinds of talks with. But having grown up with this image, initially in my home and later more peripherally, I now realise that at least in some ways, I felt it was supposed to.


For a chunk of my adult life, at least part of me felt that this posed, pouting, availability, this overt sexual readiness, was what I was supposed to present, supposed to enjoy, or more importantly provide. Don't get me wrong, my confused sexual identity, just like everyone else's is complex and cannot be blamed on page 3 alone, but I do feel that, at least to some degree, these pictures lie at the root of my sometime inability to not only ask for what I wanted sexually, but to even consider I might want something at all. In contrast, so ingrained was the idea that sexuality meant being sexy that when my relationship was struggling and my soul crying out for sexual connection, I took up pole dancing (in women only classes), I watched YouTube videos of lap dancing and perfected it, thinking this would make me the perfect sexual being.


It didn't.


It's a lie.


Page 3 and its ilk lied to me about sex. They taught me that my job was to provide sexual entertainment. Sex is so much more than that. For me it is a visceral connection with myself and eventually with others that required me to know myself so much better. Sexy was and still is something I could turn on and off like a tap and whilst I have enjoyed that feeling at times, it has little or nothing to do with sex itself, which is a much bigger adventure, a journey I am still enjoying exploring.


B. Sex workers. In all honesty the issue of prostitution and how it should be handled by the law and state is an area of feminism I have taken care to view from a distance. I have avoided engaging on it, not because I don't care but because I felt that it was so contentious and so polarising an issue, which my lack of any knowledge and experience on the subject could add nothing to. To some extent I still feel this way. I am not for one moment going to sit here, from my cross working/middle class hybrid social position, with the privilege of never having been truly, scarily poor or unemployed, with my background of a loving family home and try to tell women who have or are working in the sex trade how their area of work or their abuse (depending on how they view or feel it) should be managed.


Having read what I've read and heard what I've heard on panels and at conferences it seems to me that every story is individual to every person. If a woman feels she was abused, coerced and raped then she was abused coerced and raped, but if she is standing in front of you telling you, with a look of total conviction, that she has chosen to do this, has given her consent to a financial transaction for sex, then who am I and who are you to take that bodily autonomy away from her. If we do that aren't we violating her ourselves? As I say, I'm not sure there are easy answers and I'm not going to debate it any further here. I will continue however to read, to listen and to learn. Some of what I mention from here on however, considers a position where sex work might be legalised.


I don't know where the "sex worker" label begins and ends, but much like any other label, it would seem to me it should only be bestowed by the person themselves. If a woman working on a telephone chat line identifies as a sex worker then I'm happy to consider her as such, but another, self-employed as an escort, or indeed a survivor, is not happy with that label and I'm certainly not going to give it to her.


Do page 3 models consider themselves sex-workers? Has anybody asked them?


Whatever laws may or may not be in place regarding prostitution and whatever we decide is the best way to manage it, I would never suggest sex workers be prosecuted for their part and likewise I would not suggest that glamour modelling, whether it is or isn't sex work, should be made illegal in any sense. NMP3 have been very clear about not directing the campaign at the models or suggesting glamour modelling is in itself inherently wrong.


It seems to me the crux here though, in both cases, would be context. Be it glamour or sex work, surely there has to be some sensibility about where this exchange happens? Whether it is the consensual exchange of sex acts for money or the consensual display of sexy pictures I would suggest both should be private affairs. Whatever changes were implemented, if we were to legalise brothels then surely we would never tolerate their being advertised in news media or in the middle of the 10 O'clock news. The line would surely be drawn before leaflet dropping outside school playgrounds or advertising billboards on city high streets. Likewise it would seem fair to suggest that sexual images, soft porn or "glamour" shots not be featured in news media.


There are many trades with which we set limits for many reasons, limits about when and where they should take place (the selling of alcoholic drinks and gambling to name two examples) and it would seem a fairly distinct line that sexual images and services, like sex itself, remain largely private. The alternative exposes those not wishing to consume these services whether they liked it or not and makes it impossible to protect children from the overt sexualisation that we know to be damaging. Not being clear about this line perpetuates the notion that all women are open to sexual comment or are sexually available and puts other women at risk. Blurring this line in media risks trivialising serious and at times horrific news with titillating images that undermine the seriousness.


So all of this brings me to C - slut shaming. I am going to assume that this stems from the notion, backed up by research, which shows that exposure to sexualised images can change the attitude of men towards women, can lead to them viewing women as objects rather than people and that this can then in turn, lead to them treating women as less than human.


In terms of "objectification" Page 3 has special significance. Whilst sexualised images of women may, as we have acknowledged, have a place (such as adult, top shelf publications or specialist websites) having them in a newspaper changes the context and meaning completely. Instead of having to seek out an image for sexual titillation because that is what you want, it is placed in a news media as though the provision of a woman for sexual titillation is a given, akin to a crossword, it is a normal thing to expect to have with your news, your breakfast, in a café, on a bus etc. and a normal thing to expect those around you to accept and accommodate no matter where you chose to open that page.


As a consequence for many people our exposure to page 3 occurs often at work, as children or teens in our own homes and in other public places. It is such a potent image that it also gets used to bully women, as a tool for sexual harassment and can lead young girls to see the glamour industry as the easiest path to success and fame.


In terms of the connection between Page 3 and rape and sexual assault, this is not a direct connection and the campaign has never made any claims that it is. There is no suggestion that Page 3 models or Page 3 pictures cause the rape of other women. Page three does not cause rape; rapists cause rape, they and they alone. Sexual images of women in mainstream media however, are a contributing factor to a society which allows women to be yelled at and harassed on the street, assaulted in bars and clubs and raped and assaulted as often as they are.


One of the major stumbling blocks to understanding this connection is the misapprehension that rape is committed by men with twisted, dark minds who are psychopathic strangers lurking in alleyways. These select "others" are evil and have no connection to the people we know. Sadly the truth is that rape, in most cases, occurs within relationships. In 90% of rapes the rapist is known to the victim/survivor.


If we accept rape as exactly what it is - sexual acts committed without consent then it is easier to see that it is a crime which doesn't necessarily require a psychopathic mind, all it requires is the ability to dismiss the choice and voice of the woman (or indeed the man) and to exercise the control that some men may feel is their right. This right is reinforced daily by images of women in our environment that paint them as passive sex objects, voiceless, penetrable, and defenceless and ready for you to act upon. Unless there is a firm message elsewhere in a man's upbringing, peer group etc. this message may have a profound affect for some.


Very few men would name themselves as a rapist but ask the right question and you some will admit to rape accidentally.


I absolutely understand why so many take issue with any connection between Page 3 and rape and why so many cling to the concept of a daemon rapist. The reason we still see public campaigns directed at women, suggesting they change their behaviour, the reason we ask what she was wearing, is because it is somehow far easier to attribute some blame to the victim than to think so many men could commit such an unthinkable act. When so few of us know such a daemon how can this happen? Very few of us, men or women would admit to having a friend who could be a rapist but if you consider more pointed questions - "Have you ever witnessed a friend approach a woman for sex because he knew she was really drunk/under the influence of some substance", "have you ever had a friend tell you they got into bed with or had sexual relations with a woman who was sleeping or passed out", "Have you ever witnessed a friend deliberately try to get a woman drunk in order to have sex with her", "Have you ever seen a friend touch a woman in a sexual way after she has asked him not to or without invitation" how many would say yes?


I hope that for the majority the answer would still be no but I know some men and women, for whom, when thinking of friends they've had it would be yes.


Some time ago I wrote this blog about the response some men felt comfortable, not just verbalising but committing to type on the Star's page 3 page. The comments were all removed in the same week the blog came out and the ability to comment was disabled. I realise all that was written there was words, but these words illustrate very clearly a sense of ownership, of privilege over women's bodies that is being reinforced and supported for some, by the accessibility if these images in such a mainstream way.


The No More Page 3 campaign is about the way women are seen, the way they are portrayed, day-to-day, in the most prolific and mainstream media outlets, in the most mainstream shops and supermarkets. The campaign seeks to level the playing field of media coverage for women by starting with a tiny but significant bit. The ripples of the campaign reach into many areas of feminism and beyond. They have never sought to affect women identifying as sex workers or as models but no doubt they do to some degree as they seek to remove one of the most prolific and obvious springboards for glamour models. This particular springboard however, should never have been provided in the first place. This was never the right place to present women for consumption. There may well be a time and a place for everything but this isn't and never was it.

 

Grandad's last journey: When full time care provides so much more than care

My Granddad was a big tall, handsome man. He was opinionated and loved an argument, so much so that some avoided him in the pub, he would argue black was white and would never relent even when presented with factual evidence to the contrary. 

They say the bigger they are the harder they fall and this intelligent, infinitely caring and generous man was first diagnosed with dementia in 2008 and slowly but surely slipped away from us. "Bunt", as he was always known to friends, didn't have the more commonly talked about Alzheimer's, he instead had vascular dementia, caused by problems in the supply of blood to the brain. The condition often follows a 'stepped' progression, with symptoms remaining at a constant level for a time and then suddenly deteriorating and this was certainly our experience as a family. We would just grow used to a new set of circumstances, only to have that change suddenly and a whole new set of problems present themselves. You can read more about vascular dementia here.

As a daughter and granddaughter it was truly horrible watching this man being slowly lost and getting more and more frustrated and less aware of his limitations. Perhaps the only thing more difficult was watching my Mother, his main carer, endeavouring to cope with an increasingly unreasonable, depressed and at times aggressive man, who haunted her every waking and sleeping moment, occupying the body of her father. It would be impossible in a few short words here to fully describe the horror and weight of the situation as it ended up, in Granddad's last few weeks and months at home or the burden that this placed on Mum; but suffice to say there was not a moment in which she could rest, not an hour of sleep that wouldn't be disturbed by rumblings, shoutings, cleaning up of urine and excrement and the need to call out an emergency plumber to another blocked toilet filled with used incontinence pads. 

In the end so relentless and thankless was it that he would often break into verbal and sometimes physical abuse of her, particularly at night when "end of tether" had long been exceeded. My mother's mental health and that of my step-father were suffering irreparably and yet despite growing physical frailty Granddad was still essentially physically fit and able.

Care from community carers (private) and district nurses offered minimal assistance but nowhere near enough to ease the relentless 24/7 burden of care. Eventually, after an attempt at emergency respite ended after 4 hours - a care home with full staff being so unable to cope that they saw fit to send Bunt home once again to the care of my exhausted and distressed mother - I stepped in. A consultant and social worker visited the following day and arranged an urgent slot on Bestwood ward at City Hospital, so that Granddad could be properly assessed in a fully equipped psychiatric care environment. 

It was clear from very early on in his stay that Bunt's needs were such he could not be cared for in a home environment or even in an average care home or nursing home. He eventually received a "Section 3" meaning his full care should be provided for under continuing care and paid for by the state. A place was found at Landermeads care home in Chilwell.

Landermeads was originally a small nursing home like many others and I had worked there myself for a short period as a care assistant in the early 90's. It was my experience there that had led me to train as a nurse, but since this time Landermeads had become far more. It is now a series of homes, each offering unique care, and it was The Meads, the home's specialist dementia wing, which found a spot for Bunt. He had visited the home one or two afternoons per week for some time before his hospital stay and had "hit it off" immediately with owner Rob, developing an immediate respect for him. When the time came for Granddad to move there permanently many of the staff knew him already and he was given the warmest of welcomes. 

I think many families and those of advancing age are understandably fearful of placing a loved one "into a home" and often feel it is somehow a failure or a form of neglect in itself. This is wrong. Nobody can provide care on their own for 24 hours a day, relentlessly and indefinitely to anyone. When the subject of that care is often unreasonable, unwilling to help you or themselves, bigger than you, aggressive, violent and a stranger to you in every respect apart from their appearance, the task becomes all the more insurmountable. How will you care when you have not slept, how will you care when you cannot even meet your own basic needs without having to leave them alone for a short while, how will you cope with your resentment of this stranger in your relative’s body who has been evil to you almost incessantly for hours of days of months? What will you do when you are on your knees with emotional and physical exhaustion?

Landermeads didn't just "look after" Granddad, they gave him something that none of us could have come close to. 24 hour care. Care that allowed him to stay up all night if he was determined, care that indulged his mood there and then with activities and cheekiness and the relentless energy that only a full, shift-changing team of innovatively trained care home staff could provide. 

I often describe Landermeads as like a toddler group for people with dementia, perhaps that sounds insulting, but once you've seen it in action it is quite something. The rooms are individually decorated, they each contain chairs, dining tables and familiar items from various eras. One room has a kitchen area where residents, known as "the family", can assist in cleaning up, cooking, baking, making drinks. There is a beautiful colourful secure but accessible garden. There are laundry items, old and new books, telephones not wired up, dolls in highchairs and pushchairs. Old ladies carry teddies and bestow love like it were their child, old men carry toy tool kits and sit fiddling with bits of piping and spanners. Music from many eras plays loudly in one room and staff and patients sing or spontaneously break into dance. Craft activities or baking will be happening in one area, the TV showing an old comedy show in another. Staff don't wear uniform, they eat with the residents and at night some wear pyjamas. 

In this extraordinary environment I have rarely seen a patient distressed and if they are then instant comfort or distraction is provided. There is an overriding sense of ownership from staff and a true sense of family. When I went to make myself a coffee on one of my last visits, as visitors are encouraged to do from day one, I was struggling to find a mug; one of the staff helped saying "oh there's never any mugs in our house". It took me a moment to realise she was referring to this house, this home, this amazing place that had transformed a man distressed and sad and frightened to one who smiled, who laughed, who cheekily flirted with young carers - a home which allowed my Mum to once again be the daughter she had once been when she came to see her Dad. 

In his last days and hours we all provided a vigil at Granddad's bedside, my Mum, her brother, my step-father, myself, my brother, my children, we were all there. Barely an hour would pass without staff coming in to offer supplies to us or provide physical care but more commonly just to check on "Bunty", to say a few words, to give him a kiss and stroke his hand. When he died, we cried and they cried with us. The version of Bunt they lost was different to the one that we had known. That big, strong, intelligent and relentlessly generous man, they only saw a little of what he had been, but they loved and respected the man they knew to the very end and were all so sorry to lose him, just as we were. 

Dementia is cruel, it robs us of the very thing that makes us recognise and love our loved ones; it makes caring such a terrible burden that we are scared to admit. It can be truly awful and never ending, but, if we are really lucky, sometimes we may find a solution, a way to, not just cope with, but to cherish those last few weeks, months, years. That's what Landermeads gave to my family and I will always be hugely grateful for that.