Radfem 2013 – a women-only conference that aims to “rebuild a radical feminist movement” – appears to have been barred from the organisers’ preferred venue. Those who planned to attend the event are quite understandably unimpressed.

However, others are celebrating this turn of events, arguing that Radfem 2013 is effectively a platform for hate speech. Amongst them are a group known as “Men’s Rights Activists”, who argue that men and boys are systematically marginalised and disadvantaged in modern society.

As claims and counter-claims are furiously exchanged across social media, what is really at stake?

Who are the ‘radfems’?

Radical feminism is a term typically associated with certain ideas and approaches that emerged during the “second wave” of feminism. Radical feminists tend to share the view that gender inequality occurs primarily because of patriarchy, a system of power that prioritises both men and masculinity.

There are many approaches to radical feminism. However, the term “radical feminism” has often come to be associated with a particularly dogmatic, moralistic approach. This is perhaps unfair, but certainly seems to be appropriate in the case of Radfem 2013.

One of the key speakers on both days of the conference is lesbian feminist academic and activist Sheila Jeffreys, a woman known for her scathing critiques of women’s fashion, kinky sex and trans people.

Jeffreys is right to highlight the damage caused by sexist expectations of what women should wear and how we should behave. However, her response – as exemplified in books such as The Lesbian Heresy – is to set out her own strict rules about how we dress and who we fuck. In the 1980s her philosophy inspired a violent turn amongst followers. Roz Kaveney writes:

“I was not present, by a margin of about twenty minutes, when a group of women, disguised with ski masks, smashed up Chain Reaction, the lesbian SM London night club with crowbars and injured the women who got in their way – in the name of opposing violence against women; I was present a few weeks later at the Hackney Empire for an International Women’s Day cabaret when a group of lesbian feminists were jeered by the queue, among whom were almost no SM women, with a cry of ‘Where’s your crowbars?’ I saw women from Sheila Jeffreys’ circle at the picket outside Chain Reaction a few weeks earlier and, if she did not know the women who attacked the club with physical violence, one may assume that she knows a woman who does.”

But that’s in the past, right? And there’s no proof that Jeffreys was directly involved.

No such excuses for Cathy Brennan (a.k.a. “bugbrennan”), who has been booked by Radfem 2013 to run a session on “identity politics, queer theory and the appropriation of radical feminism“.  Brennan is known for outing minors and writing to the United Nations opposing civil rights legislation for trans people. She is also the “public face” of Pretendbians, a hate site based largely around screenshots of trans people from dating websites.

Interestingly, a number of other individuals known for transphobic views – including Julie Bindel – were prominently included in the Radfem 2013 programme, but have since been removed.

A number of speakers are also known for their support for the “abolition” or “prohibition” of prostitution – a position that wrongly presumes to speak for the interests of all sex workers.

Opposition

It’s no surprise then that Radfem 2013 has its fair share of critics, including a wide range of feminists. The conference has been positioned as anti-sex, anti-sexworker, anti-kink and anti-trans.

Some of these criticisms are more fair than others. For instance, many critics assume that Radfem 2013 has followed last year’s event in explicitly excluding trans women. No announcement has been made to this affect. However, many trans people are deeply unimpressed that a platform is being given to known transphobes.

The conference has also been criticised by anti-feminist groups, including a number of Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) organisations. Amongst them are international network A Voice For Men, and local branch MRA London.

The so-called MRAs appear to be living on a different planet: a planet in which women have so successfully seized control that men and boys are now a downtrodden, marginalised group. It isn’t really within the scope of this article to criticise their position, but a beautiful piece that does so can be found here.

The particular kind of radical feminism represented by Radfem 2013 gives MRAs a perfect excuse to feel victimised. Speakers such as Sheila Jeffreys tend to blur the distinction between regarding the patriarchial structures that advantage men as the problem, and treating men (all men, all the time, regardless of context) as the problem. In advocating “political lesbianism” she implies that any form of sexual contact with a man is tantamount to heresy; a lesbian heresy, you could say.

Of course, Radfem 2013 doesn’t represent all radical feminists, let alone all feminists or all women. It’s not the job of women to disavow Radfem 2013 in order to appease the MRAs either. However, the situation allows for an almighty conflict to emerge between these two extremist groups, and woe betide those caught between them.

Cancellation?

Radfem 2013 was due to take place in the London Irish Centre. This was cast into doubt a few days ago when MRA London posted a slightly bizarre piece in which they claimed to have ousted the conference after making complaints and holding a protest outside the venue.

A response from Radfem 2013 denounced MRA groups for “terror tactics”, and stated that the event would be going ahead in the Irish Centre. Meanwhile, a number of Radfem supporters began to conflate MRA actions with trans opposition to the conference.

Since then, the situation has only become less clear. An article in The Times implied that the event was cancelled after the venue learned more about it:

“While our commercial bookings subcontractor [an events firm called Off to Work] has a certain amount of freedom to use the centre when we are not using it for cultural events, if it comes to the charity’s attention that an event goes against our policy, then we will point it out to them.

We did some research into RadFem and discovered certain language was used and some statements were made about transgender people that would go against our equalities and diversity policy.

We have discussed with our subcontractor Off to Work how to avoid such confusion in future and have strengthened our internal communications as a result.”

The article also states that the Irish Centre received 29 complaints about Radfem 2013: hardly the work of a well-organised campaign on the part of some trans cabal.

However, a Facebook post by booking agent Off To Work suggests that the decision to cancel Radfem 2013 wasn’t necessarily taken because of concerns regarding equality.

“Our cancellation of the booking was a very difficult decision, but one that we have made to protect the safety of our venue staff [...] We have made this difficult decision based entirely on our available infrastructure and the wellbeing of our staff, without pressure from any group concerned with the subject matter of the conference.”

Why is it that Off To Work feel that the safety of their staff might be in question? It’s unlikely that the conference attendees will find themselves facing off against a baying mob of trans activists; whilst a war of words is being waged on the Internet, there seems little appetite for a full-blown demonstration. Meanwhile, the last major demonstration against transphobia from radical feminists was a relatively relaxed affair. The culprit would therefore seem to be either the paranoia of Radfem organisers, or a genuine threat of intimidation from MRA London.

The real danger

We should care that Radfem 2013 is likely to take place. Its organisers espouse a regressive philosophy that is likely to cause harm to many. If we fail to actively oppose this approach to feminism, it is likely that a new generation of women will also subscribe to their hateful views.

We should also care that MRAs are claiming “victory” in its apparent cancellation. This is partly because a number of radical feminists make a habit of conflating trans activism with “men’s rights” activism. But perhaps more concerning is the idea that MRAs might feel empowered to close down feminist events.

Did MRA London use intimidation tactics against Radfem 2013? There is certainly no excuse for theft and threats under such circumstances. With the evidence available though, it’s difficult to say whether or not this actually happened. The organisers of Radfem 2013 aren’t exactly the most trustworthy source of information.

In a sense, this doesn’t matter. Members of MRA London and other MRA groups think that it is right to shut down feminist events, and now they have reason to believe that they can shut down feminist events. At a time when women are still likely to be paid less than men, are disproportionately affected by the cuts, and are still likely to face gendered abuse and violence, this is a worrying development.

Jane Siberry’s website is headed-up with the strapline “singer, songwriter, poet, trollop | hello!”. The Canadian musician and writer has her own unique voice and style and has always walked to the beat of her own drum.

I’ve loved her work for a long time: she’s intelligent and collaborative and she’s in the UK right now for a small tour of intimate gigs and salon-style events.

If Siberry is playing anywhere near you then go and see her – you’ll not regret it. Better still, why not take advantage of the great free giveaway we’ve sorted. There are two sets of tickets up for grabs for two of her live shows in Birmingham and Nottingham (see the end of the article for details on how to apply).

If you’re unfamiliar with Siberry’s music, here’s my take. The first reason I like it is because it’s pretty difficult to categorise. Over a long and respected career she has mixed a whole host of styles to constantly produce albums that engage and surprise. Latin rhythms, jazz and samba, dark and broody soundscapes, spoken word pieces, pop and love songs, concept and song sequences – Siberry can do it all.

And her voice – no exaggeration – is to die for. Returning to her back catalogue to write this reminded me how much her voice puts me in mind of Elizabeth Fraser of the Cocteau Twins. Her vocals are sometimes sweet and light, sometimes metallic-edged and dark, but always compelling. That she often blends vocals and spoken word is of particular interest to me as a poet and creative writing researcher, and Siberry manages to make imaginative and witty music that is also accessible.

A sampling of her song titles: “Goodbye sweet pumpkinhead”, “Half angel, half eagle”, “Mimi on the beach”, “Barkis is willing” and “Miss Punta Blanca”, conveys her wide-ranging subject matter and clear love of language. Some of her rhymes “I coulda been Miss Punta Blanca / but I didn’t wanta” are funny and kind of throw-away but then, in a heartbeat, you listen to a song like The Valley (covered wonderfully by KD Lang) and it takes your breath away it’s so beautiful.

The musicianship on her albums is amazing and where she really excels is in live performance, which she spices with a dose of theatre. I’ve seen a Siberry show once, a few years ago, at The Sage Gateshead and met her briefly afterwards – although, in truth it was my partner who spoke to her, as I tend to go mute on encountering artists I really respect. Siberry admired my partner’s coat and we found her to be personable, open and very funny. Her set of songs that night had the whole audience transfixed. In the course of the evening she played a variety of instruments, told affecting stories and had me laughing out loud and in floods of tears. Not many artists can do that in one fell swoop.

It’s hard to pull out one stand-out track from Siberry’s catalogue: on different days I’ll listen to different things and in the canon of women artists Siberry – for me – is up there with the best of them.

Check out her website (www.janesiberry.com) for more info on her music and other creative outputs. You can download files and listen to some of her work. And while you can download files for free I’d urge you to make a donation and help support an innovative artist happy to put her work out there for us.

Win Jane Siberry gig tickets

To win one of two pairs of tickets to see Jane Siberry live, send an email to: [email protected] and make sure to write “Jane Siberry – Lesbilicious competition” in the subject line of your message. Please state which show you’d like tickets for – Birmingham (Wednesday 15 May 2013) OR Nottingham (Sunday 17 May 2013) and leave your full name and a telephone contact. Winners will be picked at random. Good luck.

A couple of weeks ago I took the Metro light railway. A man saw me get on, and he offered me his seat. I am not pregnant, or disabled, or unsteady on my feet. I didn’t need to sit down any more than he did, so I thanked him, and declined.

He looked embarrassed, stood up and strongly insisted that I take the seat. I could see he was trying to be noble and chivalrous, and on another day I might have accepted his offer, to make him feel better about himself.

But on that day I didn’t back down. I knew he wouldn’t have offered if I’d been a man, and I didn’t want to be treated differently because of my gender. So I declined again, and remained standing. So did he. We both felt awkward.

Everyday feminism

That man probably thought I was being rude. Maybe other people on the train thought so too. I think I was being feminist, in a mundane, everyday way.

For me, feminism means trying to treat people the same regardless of their gender, and so I try to reject and challenge positive sexism as much as negative sexism. It was a tiny, forgettable act, hardly on a par with dying for women’s suffrage, but it’s the sort of thing that you might see appear on 100 Deeds, a collaborative art project which aims to encourage feminist deeds.

“Feminism means something different to everyone,” says Sarah Evans, co-founder of 100 Deeds. “This project started because Jennifer [Gaskell, 100 Deeds co-founder] and I were talking about the word ‘feminist’ and how different people took such different meanings from it. I’ve always been comfortable with it, but other people see it as an aggressive, angry, radical word.

“We wondered if we needed another word to describe the equality that we mean, but we decided that any other word would probably get misconstrued too. So then we thought, why not invite everyone to explain what feminism means to them, and how they define it.”

Deeds not words

June 4th, 2013 will be the 100th anniversary of one of history’s most famous feminist deeds, when suffragette Emily Wilding Davison stepped in front of the king’s horse at the Epsom Derby while campaigning for women’s right to vote.

100 Deeds marks that anniversary, and, inspired by the Suffragette slogan ‘Deeds not words’, it invites ordinary people to contribute their examples of feminist deeds to their website. The deeds will then be featured in Manchester’s People’s History Museum, and at London’s Wilding Festival in June, a festival set up to commemorate Emily Wilding Davison.

“I learned about Emily Wilding Davison when I was 12, she was my hero when I was growing up,” says Sarah. “I thought it was incredible that someone would put their life on the line for something they believed in.

“Emily is our inspiration for this project, but the feminist deed you submit to 100 Deeds can be anything, it doesn’t have to be something really massive or life-changing.

“You probably already do something amazing every day that you’re not even conscious of. But if you add it to 100 Deeds, someone else might see that action you took and think ‘I could do that too’.”

Click here to submit your deeds to 100 Deeds.

All deeds will be shared on the 100 Deeds website and featured in People’s History Museum, 4th – 14th June 2013 as part of Wonder Women: Radical Manchester, alongside the memorial of Emily Wilding Davison & Wilding Festival, with ‘Soundcastle’ London.

History was made on Wednesday 17^th April 2013 in the New Zealand Parliament as MPs voted 77 to 44 in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.  Joining Belgium, Argentina, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Norway, South Africa, Sweden and Uruguay, they are now the 13^th nation in the world to legally recognise same-sex marriage.

But that’s not even the best bit.  Oh no.  Such is the passion felt by those who campaigned so hard for this change, that when the result of the parliamentary vote was announced, MPs and spectators in the public gallery spontaneously broke into song.

That’s right.  They started singing.

The tune of choice was a Maori love song, entitled ‘Pokarekare Ana’.  And, in more ways than one, they couldn’t have chosen a more fitting melody: the lyrics of the song (part of which I have ‘borrowed’ for the title of this article) speak of a lover who has been kept away from his / her beau by both distance and, it is suggested, a tribal difference  or law which does not allow them to be together. Nevertheless the love between them is as strong as ever and will remain that way forever.

In my own sentimental, romantic way, I like to think of that as being reflective of the feelings of the campaigners for this change; they kept their strong feelings and principles, even when the law was against them, and they have finally achieved their aim.  And seeing their reaction to that achievement is, quite simply, beautiful.  If I were a New Zealander, I would be proud to be so today.  I have never before in my life seen such an overwhelming reaction to the passing of parliamentary legislation, and I don’t know if I ever will again.

Of course, I hope I will.  I hope that Whitehall will soon follow suit and make me proud to be British.  When they do, I personally will be singing from the rooftops, and I cordially invite all of you to join me…

Watch New Zealand’s magical moment, from the House of Representatives in Wellington, here:

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Last weekend a constitutional convention debated and voted over gay marriage in Ireland.

Made up of a third of politicians and two thirds ordinary citizens, the convention voted overwhelmingly with 79% recommending the constitution be amended to allow for same sex marriage. 19% of participants voted against, and the remainder voted no opinion.

Asked what form this constitutional change should take –  78% of the convention voted for a directive amendment i.e. ”the State shall enact laws providing for same-sex marriage”, while 17% voted for the permissive form i.e. ”the State may enact laws providing for same-sex marriage”.

The convention also voted in favour of recommending that the State pass laws “incorporating changed arrangements in regard to the parentage, guardianship and the upbringing of children”.

The Irish Government has reacted to this result by pledging to hold a debate in the Oireachtas (Parliament) and deliver a response within the next four months.

Constitutional definition

This constitutional change is essential in the fight for gay marriage in Ireland. While the Constitution doesn’t explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, the Courts and further legislation has interpreted it as such.

The Constitution is considered a living document, open to interpretation by the judges and the Supreme Court. It is this legal system that has interpreted the constitutional definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman.

When the Civil Registration Act was introduced in 2004, it too defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. Given the nature of the legislation, this definition could be amended to make it gender neutral at any time.

Spot the difference

What’s the difference between civil partnership and marriage in Ireland? According to Marriage Equality, an organisation based in Dublin, there are 160 differences.

These missing pieces range from issues of the family home, finance, legal procedures, administration, immigration, parent and child, to equality.

It’s things like only one parent having legal rights to the children, lack of inheritance rights  for children and unequal immigration procedures. More on these differences can be read in the Marriage Equality report.

Gay marriage globally

 Information via Department of Justice and Equality, 2013.

The people speak

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

Video by Karl Hayden.

I have gone through a rainbow of emotions in response to homophobic speech reported in the media: anger, self-righteousness, desire to vilify homophobic individuals, amusement, and finally boredom. I’m talking here about the airing of homophobic views which may be offensive but do not break the law. For example, the Archbishop of Paris has said this week that legalising same-sex marriage could lead to a more violent society. It is precisely because there is no legislation to appeal to in these cases, that our reactions become the most significant tool in combating these opinions.

Our reactions have the power to both inflame and extinguish the fire of homophobic speech. Unfortunately, in recent months, the fire has been inflamed by calls for censorship, petitions for sacking journalists, and the cyber-lynching of individuals like Julie Burchill, Suzanne Moore, and Richard Littlejohn. We need another approach. Here are some of my own, employed with varying degrees of success.

 Cure 1: laugh

As I read about New York’s Cardinal Dolan saying that gay people are “entitled to friendship” only, it aroused in me nothing more than mild amusement. Jeremy Irons’ claim that same-sex marriage could lead to a father marrying his son to avoid paying inheritance tax is such an astonishingly illogical leap that, yes Jeremy, I am laughing at you too. Further, the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries argued that, because the Marriage Act of 1973 does not offer a definition of adultery for same-sex couples, there was no requirement for married same-sex couples to be faithful.

More surprising than the content of these arguments is that both Dorries and Irons made their points as if they were genuinely persuasive grounds for not allowing same-sex marriage. Why is it that opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage put forward such bizarre arguments? At this moment, many of you will rightly point out that no one can provide a convincing argument against same-sex marriage or homosexuality because none actually exists.

There is a danger of dismissing the possibility of discussion with someone because his or her arguments are too ridiculous to even consider. In this instance, however, I am confident that laughing at these arguments reduces their power. We have to pick our battles and save anger for those occasions on which it can be channeled to a productive end.

 Cure 2: be outraged and complain to an official body

 Laughter is a useful weapon in our arsenal against homophobia, but it is difficult to employ when misguided views turn into vitriolic attacks. When Julie Burchill’s article ‘Transsexuals should cut it out’ was published in The Observer, many of us reached for the censorship hammer. I was outraged and shocked when I received an email from the Press complaints commission stating that the article had not breached the Editor’s code of practice. The explanation given is as follows:

“…the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 [discrimination] because the article had not made reference to any specific individual…The clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people.”

“Clause 4 [harassment], which states that ‘journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit’. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4.”

In the exceptionally politically correct country that we live in, I was surprised to find out that anyone can say whatever he or she likes about a particular sub-section of society as long as it is:

1)    Not directed towards an individual

2)    Not inciting others to hatred or violence on the grounds of sexuality, race, etc.

In other words, you can’t yell “dyke” at someone in the street, but you can say that homosexuality is unnatural.

Julie Burchill would have considered the backlash to her article as some sort of victory. Firstly, because writers want to evoke strong reactions from their readership; the worst reaction is indifference. As with satirical novels, the more outrage there is, the more successful the writers will consider themselves.

Secondly, there is an irony in the fact that Burchill wrote her piece in response to the abuse that her friend and writer Suzanne Moore had received on Twitter from the trans community. By complaining to the Press complaints commission, pressurising the editor to unpublish the article, and hounding Burchill on Twitter, we proved her point: mob justice is a danger to free speech. Censorship does not change minds for the better.

 Cure 3: hope that people change their minds

 We tend to divide people into homophobes and nice people, ignoring the fact that individuals can and do change their minds.

Rob Portman last month became the first incumbent Republican Senator to publicly support same-sex marriage, citing his gay son as the driving force behind his change of heart. Since Portman’s announcement, several high-profile Republican senators have followed suit. In 2010, only sixteen members of the Senate supported same-sex marriage, now the number is fifty-four.

Minds are changing all over the world, and they are changing at breakneck speed; there is room for optimism.

I happen to be a mother of two fantastic children and I can definitely, 100% guarantee that I did not have sex with any men in order to have either child, not even for the baby that I carried and gave birth to! So why is it that when you are pregnant and decide to tell people your wonderful news, they want to make the baby’s conception about men or sex?

The role of ‘the man’

My wife and I recently had a baby and yes we are very aware of the fact that without a man our baby could not have been conceived (at least not at the moment but apparently science is working on that for us) and we will be eternally grateful to the selfless man who gave up his little (but very effective) swimmers so that people like us could have a baby together.

However, this selfless act does not make it all about him. Or even about him just a little bit. The fact of the matter is that our baby is nothing to do with him or any other man. I know that people enter into different types of relationships or arrangements and some may include the man in the child’s life. I respect anyone’s choice to raise their child how they see fit. For us this was to use donor sperm and for the donor to have no parental rights or responsibilities.

This baby is came into the world because my wife and I are in a loving and committed relationship and wanted to add to our family by having and raising a baby together, not because a man donated some sperm. It would be fantastic if we could have conceived without needing outside help but that’s not reality. The fact that people seem to have this innate desire to want to focus on the role of the man in the conception of our child I find a bit insensitive and disrespectful.

Unfortunately I lost count of the amount of times people referred to the donor as the child’s father. It may seem like a petty distinction but when you have chosen to have a baby with a woman you don’t really want to focus on the fact that you couldn’t conceive the child together.

The role of sex

With regards to sex – I love sex, it’s one of my most favourite pastimes but it has absolutely nothing to do with the conception of our baby. It may come as a shock but we did not conceive by having sex. In fact, if I am honest I have to say that lying on a bed with my feet in stirrups while a middle aged nurse shoved a tube through my cervix while my wife sat holding a tube of pink coloured sperm is not high in my list of most erotic experiences. Straight couples (I’m assuming) get to have fun while they conceive, for lesbians it’s hard work!

The far too common reaction of men to suggest that they would have ‘helped us out’ or we ‘just had to ask’ demonstrates that people find it difficult to differentiate between the conception of our baby and sex. It would have been great if any one of them had ‘helped us out’ as it would have saved us about a grand on donor sperm but after mentioning that their only contribution would be with a plastic cup, their jokes about helping seem to lose their appeal.

Separating the role of men and sex from having a baby does not seem to be something that is going to happen any time soon. My only advice to people in my situation is to practice your fake smile and polite laugh. Alternatively, scream, shout and tell everyone exactly what you think of them (then blame it on the hormones – it’s amazing what you can get away with!

Street harassment can be frightening, intimidating, embarrassing and frustrating. If you see someone getting harassed, whether it’s out-and-out gaybashing or unwanted ‘compliments’ on their appearance, help them out. Here’s how.

(Thanks to Hollaback for this infographic.)

Some memories, no matter how insignificant they might sound to others, never leave you.  I like to affectionately call these ‘elephant events’, in honour of those gorgeous creatures which, apparently, never forget.  I’m going to share one of my ‘elephant events’ with you now. 

Last year I was sitting in the staff work room at my previous school, marking some essays and generally minding my own business.  Suddenly, from over my shoulder, came the dulcet tones of a colleague from my department:

“Sue, do you think I can show this video to my Year 7 class?”

I turned around, half interested now, to see said colleague in front of a computer; playing on the monitor was Katy Perry’s ‘Fireworks’ video.  The rest of the conversation went something like this:

Colleague: I’m using the song to teach my class about similes and metaphors, and I wanted to use the video to get the kids interested.

Me: That sounds wicked (I might have said ‘awesome’ instead of ‘wicked’; knowing me it would definitely have been one of those two.  Anyway, I digress); what’s the problem?

Colleague: Well, there’s a scene in it with two women kissing.

Me: (a bit bemused) What, are they, like, stark naked and shagging?

Colleague: No.  They’re fully clothed.  Just kissing.  But I’m worried that parents will complain.

Me: These kids are 11 or 12 years old.  They will have seen people kissing before.

Colleague:  But…(in a voice that is desperately trying to think of a diplomatic way to put the next bit) they’re both women.  It’s a lesbian kiss (she didn’t say ‘lesbian’, she mouthed it).

Me:  [insert name here], if it was a heterosexual kiss, would you worry? (Without even pausing for colleague to respond) Because if it wouldn’t bother you in that situation, it shouldn’t bother you in this one.  And if a parent does complain, please direct them to me, because I think that would be a perfect opportunity to educate that parent as well as their child.

“Promotion” of homosexuality

Needless to say, the conversation ground to a halt there.  Just in case you were wondering, my colleague did show the video and no-one complained.  However, rewind this event back to the late 80s or indeed the whole of the 90s, and that teacher would have been in direct violation of Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.  Her ‘violation’, as declared by Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government of the time, would have been “the promotion of homosexuality”.

Now, to me, that sounds ridiculous.  For a start, the colleague in question is by far the straightest woman I’ve ever come across; if I were to pick someone to proclaim the beauty and wonder of being a lesbian, it certainly wouldn’t be her.  Secondly, I take serious issue with the word “promotion”.  As you’ve probably guessed, I am a lesbian.  I have embraced the ‘lifestyle’ of fancying and going out with women whole-heartedly and, since coming out as a teenager, I haven’t looked back.  It’s fair to say that I am loving being a lady-lover.

However, that’s my life.  It’s fine for me, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be for anyone else.  Not once, in the whole time I have been out, have I ever considered “promoting” the ‘lesbian lifestyle’ (if indeed that concept even exists, which it doesn’t).  “Come on kids, get yourselves gay!  It’s brilliant!  It’s much better than heterosexuality, and if you sign up for at least 12 weeks, and recommend a friend, you’ll get a free toaster!”  What a ridiculous notion.

David Wilshire - 'founder' of Section 28

But, the fact still remains that section 28 legislation had a massive impact on thousands of lives and changed both the educational landscape and that of local government as a whole.  In local authority run establishments across the land, gay support groups were shut down, funding totally removed, in case the support of a minority group were to be viewed as a “promotion” of ‘their lifestyle’.  And, of course, this lack of support couldn’t have come at a better time for the LGBT community, because this destruction of all auxiliary networks coincided beautifully with the demonisation of gay men due to the AIDS/HIV epidemic that was splashed all over the news at the time.

I was only 6 when this happened.

I was unaware of David Wilshire MP’s disdainful statement that the book he had found in his local library, Jenny Lives With Eric and Martin, “portrays a child living with two men … [and] clearly shows that as an acceptable family relationship”.

I was unaware of the 1987 speech made by Margaret Thatcher at the Conservative Party conference when she declared that, “children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay”.

I was unaware of the despair and anguish that must have been caused to the entire LGBT community and the resulting formation of Stonewall (possibly the one positive thing to come out of Section 28).

LGBT rights group Stonewall formed as a result of Section 28 being passed

School days under Section 28

But I did start school in 1987 and finished my GCSEs in 1999.  In other words, the entirety of my education was completed under Section 28 legislation.  And, as a teacher now, I can still see the echoes of that legislation in schools today.

My overriding memory of being in school is that being gay didn’t exist.  It wasn’t frowned upon, it wasn’t derided, it just… wasn’t.  Nobody ever spoke about it.  The main outcome of this for me was that, when I started having sexual feelings towards women, probably at about the age of 10 or 11, I had no idea what the hell was going on.  I didn’t know anyone who was gay, or bisexual, and certainly not transgender, and I wasn’t really aware of any gay role models on television (my joy, by the way, when a couple of years later I discovered kd lang was unadulterated; I fell in love instantly).  In short, I didn’t have anywhere to go for information or advice and so I just kept quiet, hoped the feelings would go away, a bit like my liking for shell suits, and then all would be well again.

Needless to say, this didn’t happen.  I continued to experience life at school, including sex education as I went through my secondary years, none of which even went near touching upon being gay.  I knew how to avoid getting pregnant and how to avoid STDs (as long as I was straight) but as a teenage lesbian the latter information, most importantly, was completely unavailable to me.

What’s changed?

Comparing this to my experience as a teacher, the difference is clearly evident.  I have taught sex education every year of my 8 year career so far, and each time every kind of sex, gay sex included, has been discussed.  It is true that some of these discussions have incited homophobic comments from students, possibly because they have heard these views from family or other friends, but the point is that every time that happens, the opportunity to give them all the necessary information presents itself.  That way, whether the students decide to ‘agree’ with the idea that some people are gay or not, they at least have their facts straight (excuse the pun) before they make that choice.

And it’s not just sex education where these discussions come up.  Let me give you an example: I’m in a lesson giving my Year 11 class an introduction to their Shakespeare set text, Much Ado About Nothing.  As I’m sure you can guess, we’re all having unimaginable fun.  A hand goes up at the back:

Student: Miss, this play has got a lot of blokes and girls getting it on.  Wasn’t Shakespeare gay?

Me: Well, no-one’s really sure but we think he might have been bisexual.

Student:  So, gay then?

Me:  No.  Bisexual.  It’s different.  If he was gay he’d only fancy men.  If he was bisexual he’d fancy men and women.  And even if he was gay, it wouldn’t mean he couldn’t accurately write about a man and a woman falling in love.

And so the conversation sort of went on for a bit, fizzled out, and then we carried on as we were.  But I can’t imagine a scenario where I couldn’t have those discussions with kids.  No topic should ever be closed for discussion in a school, ever.  Young people need information.  The more accurate information they have on a subject, the better equipped they are to do what we really want them to do – form their own, independent ideas.

Community values

Most of all, though, young people need support.  We all do, really.  The notion of community is something that we, as human beings, are inherently drawn to.  And that, in essence, is where Maggie Thatcher fell down in her policy-making.  From Section 28 to the miner’s strikes, the idea that we can all exist independently from one another, being responsible only for ourselves and no-one else, goes against all our natural instincts.  Perhaps her theory was ‘divide and rule’?  Well, it worked for 3 elections…but thankfully no longer than that.

Thatcher - a 'divided' legacy

I’m not going to ‘Thatcher bash’ and I’m certainly not going to rejoice that an old lady, a mother and a grandmother, has died.  But I am going to be happy that Section 28, a policy that caused devastation to thousands of lives by marginalising the LGBT community and declaring that they were ‘abnormal’, has been repealed.  But then, I was happy in 2003, when that actually happened.

It’s important that we learn from Thatcher’s Premiership.  She was indeed a strong and independent leader who clearly knew her own mind.  She still remains our only female PM.  I can only presume that she wasn’t completely homophobic, because in 1967 she voted in favour of decriminalizing homosexuality.  Having said that, I can’t imagine what changed between then and the late 1980s.  Whatever it was, it wasn’t good.  I will never believe that Margaret Thatcher’s political ideology was a positive one and I can totally understand the anger of all those affected by her policies and their families.  But I also believe in affording dignity and respect to all human beings.  If you don’t want to listen to me, listen to the man who epitomises these values:

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.  Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.” - Martin Luther King Jr.

Thatcher’s legacy?  Teaching all of us the importance of community, of support, and of mutual respect.  As far as the LGBT community goes, she didn’t want these things; let’s mark her death by making sure they are present in all of our lives.

Last month my friends and I saw the musician Tristan Prettyman perform at the Bowery Music Hall. I will confess this was my first time seeing her, and in reality I had only just heard of her a few months before when my girlfriend told me she bought us concert tickets for a fun date night. Within ten minutes of Tristan Prettyman bouncing onto the stage with her band, my friends and I agreed we had a full blown crush. It appeared we were not the only ones with crushes, because the (primarily female) audience went wild for Tristan as well. I leaned over to my girlfriend and yelled, “Seriously, Tristan Prettyman is one hot lesbian! Those legs are unreal! Who was she engaged to before?” And lo and behold, she had been engaged to a man (popular singer Jason Mraz) and is totally not a lesbian. I surveyed the audience members (short hair-check, flannel shirts-check, slouchy beanies-check, tongue down another girl’s throat-check) and turned to my GF with a puzzled expression. “What do you mean she’s not a Judith? Why the eff are all these lesbos yelling out their phone numbers then?”

She didn’t have a concrete answer, and it inspired a discussion about female singers and bands that have a large lesbian following. I’m not talking about kd Lang, Indigo Girls, Uh Huh Her, Melissa Etheridge, or other lesbian musicians who are rocking the scene. Of course lesbian music fans will want to band together and support talented and popular lesbians. But what is it about some musicians that draw in the Judith fans? The answer is obvious when it comes to singers like Ani DiFranco. I was fortunate enough to see Ani for the second time last December (she was amazing, btw) and it was no surprise that it was a total taco party. But Ani is vocally bi, and has had female lovers and girlfriends, and she sings about girls in love, so of course she has a large lesbian following. But Tori Amos? She isn’t gay, and she sings about love and love lost with men. And yet she has a huge lesbian fan database.

The alternative band Garbage has all male band members, save for one, singer Shirley Manson. At their Terminal Five show in March the crowd was a wild mix of genders, ages, and cultures, but wouldn’t you know, my girlfriend and I were sandwiched between two lesbian couples. I imagine, like me, a lot of the bouncing lesbians were there to sing their hearts out alongside fiery Shirley Manson (also bi) who knows how to touch our souls with her dark and gritty music. “Cherry Lips” is a pop anthem about a beautiful transgendered individual, and not only does the song rock the house, it is a sweet tribute and inspiring to LGBT fans and non-LGBT fans alike. But tiny and adorable folk singer Jewel? A beautiful scribe of love and heat between boys and girls? Lesbians love that silky voiced pixie (and so do Funny or Die fans).

You know who else lesbians love? Fiona Apple. And after the letter she penned (in 2000) in response to a high schooler’s request to write to his school’s gay-straight-alliance went viral in 2012, I am sure her LGBT fan base grew even more. Alanis Morrissette? Her anthems make me belt my pain out the car window, and I am sure many women have blared her song “You Oughtta Know” on repeat after a break up. Women, and lesbians, love Alanis. (And apparently some gay men in Florida HATE Alanis.) Robyn embraces her gay fan base, and even rocks a “lesbian haircut”, so it’s no wonder the Judiths set their playlists to Robyn when running along the Westside Highway. Ah yes, lesbian haircuts could be used as a filter, for hasn’t La Roux singer Elly Jackson often defended her sexuality? Surely I am not the only girl out there drooling over Pink’s cute hair and smokin’ abs while she rocks a full house.

Madonna owns the gay fan base, boys and girls alike, but that’s a no-brainer. Kelly Clarkson. My Judith friends worship Kelly Clarkson. (The lesbian rumors have been mostly quashed after her recent engagement to a boy, though she is an outspoken LGBT ally.) And perhaps there lies the answer. With songs like “Stronger” and her new single “People Like Us”, she is offering women everywhere some amazing and empowering ballads. Perhaps lesbians are drawn to musicians who sing about more than clothes, Hollywood, and the next boy toy. Maybe we like singing along to songs that not only rock, but actually have lyrics that mean something to us. Tori, Fiona, Alanis, Jewel, Ani . . . all poets that know how to layer their lyrics with truth. They are women who know how to rock, who deserve our fanbase, and who inspire me to belt their anthems in my shower.

Strip clubs? I’ll be honest with you. I haven’t been so torn on an issue since I was asked who I fancied more – Tegan or Sara. The truth is I can’t tell the difference, but that’s another story for another day.

Things I think, part one: women should be able to earn a living however they want, free from judgement. Showing off your body and expressing your sexuality, in the right circumstances, can be an extremely empowering experience and it isn’t right for me to moralise about how someone else pays their bills.

Who am I to tell anyone how to earn a living, especially from a position of privilege? So what if it’s not something I‘d choose for myself? My worst nightmare is standing in my pants in a crowded room of strangers, but I think that says more about me (or my pants) than anything else. Whether stripping is a choice of desire, need or circumstance, it’s still a choice, and it’s still valid.

Things I think, part two: objectification of women’s bodies makes me feel uncomfortable. Sure, I’ve been known to steal a glance or two at Jessie J‘s cleavage, but I question the motive and rationale of a person whose idea of a great night out is cheering on strangers taking off their clothes. I struggle to understand, that as a society, as women, we are really comfortable being reduced to nothing more than how we look, and how we look naked.

So, there’s a conflict there. I believe people in the sex industry should have personal autonomy,  but I dislike strip clubs.

While I believe that women can and should be agents of their own change, I think that strip clubs are just another socially acceptable part of the casual misogyny we are constantly exposed to. So casual, in fact, you probably didn’t even notice it sneaking in and sitting down at the dinner table with you and your family while The One Show was on. Matt Baker might introduce ‘the beautiful and witty’ Alex Jones because, it seems, the most interesting thing about a woman is always, always, ALWAYS the way we look. It’s not offensive, per se, but it’s still reductive, and my heart is telling me to rage against it. Until everyday sexism is a thing of the past, how can I reconcile strip clubs with feminism?

Whether it’s gratuitous nudity or an exercise in empowerment, it’s still a strip club. Right? Well, maybe not, actually.

Michelle De Souza is one of the women behind Chica Bonita, an exclusive club created for the purpose of les/bi women to express themselves freely in an safe, supportive environment.

So how did it begin? Michelle explains: “We wanted to start a revolution and shake up the LGBT community in Britain. Our aim was to provide a sense of exclusivity in women’s society. Over the next couple of months we started researching and exploring various avenues to achieve this.”

Chica Bonita is an exclusive club by women, for women. Photograph: Chica Bonita

Please forgive my skepticism, but the only experiences I’ve had of strip clubs have been the time I got a face full of boob from a stripper at a lesbian club night and felt so awkward I had to leave, or in Edinburgh’s notoriously seedy and aptly-named pubic triangle, (I kid you not) where the stench of heteronormativity is enough to make you want to hurl your cookies. How is Chica Bonita different from these kinds of strip clubs?

“We actually want Britain’s lesbian community to understand that Chica Bonita isn’t a strip club. We incorporate women who are professional exotic dancers within our venues, which will help develop and celebrate our sexuality.

“Heteronormative gentleman’s clubs focus on the male’s perception of sexual desires where Chica Bonita will allow women to develop their own concept. Often you find ‘gentleman’s clubs’ as a predominantly male domain where women are subjected to ridicule and criticism from clients. This is why we strongly believe that Chica Bonita will always remain as ‘women only’ with no male presence.”

No male presence? I can feel myself warming to the idea. By shifting the dichotomy, the experience undoubtedly changes for everyone. But there’s still a nagging in my head. Does feminism hold the answer? Well, much like me, it’s torn on this one. Some of my best friends are feminists (ha) and they fiercely disagree about the issue of strip clubs.

Siouxsie Q recently launched into a stinging, articulate attack on the portrayal of sex workers in an episode of Glee, explaining why there’s more to the issue than stereotypes, and why we need to be aware of intersectionality and our own privilege when engaging in debate.

She said: “You seem to miss a really important piece about the role sex workers play in artistic communities. Myself, and so many others like me who are artists, free thinkers, the kids who didn’t fit in when we were in high school. Well, some of us grew up to be whores. Sometimes if we happen to be queer, fat, trans or many other types of ‘othered’ identities, sex work may present some of the best and only options for us to make money while we conquer our dreams.”

This isn’t a new debate, and Chica Bonita isn’t the first woman-owned strip club. In San Francisco, The Lusty Lady has been around since the 1970s and since then has touted itself as a feminist strip club. Heart says: “The dancers there have always believed themselves to be feminists. For this reason, it has been unique among strip clubs in its practice of rejecting traditional beauty standards and and opposing all discrimination, especially size discrimination.

Dancers from The Lusty Lady in San Francisco, taken from the film Live Nude Girls Unite. Photograph: Phyllis Christopher

“The problem is that strip clubs are about men buying the opportunity to objectify and fetishise the kind of female bodies men have decided are worthy of being objectified and fetishised. On a deeper level, they are about regulating and and selling the bodies of women in the interests of perpetuating a system in which women’s bodies are viewed as the property of men and hence, saleable. That being so, the term ‘feminist strip club’ can only, in the end, prove to be an oxymoron.”

The difference between Chica Bonita and The Lusty Lady, though, is the audience. Remove that power imbalance, and surely you’re removing most of what makes strip clubs problematic.

Sheila Hageman, author and mother, says: “It’s taken me a while to own that not only am I a feminist now, but I always have been, even when I was a stripper. And for me, being a feminist is about not apologising for the decisions I make or made about the ways I choose to use my body and see myself as a woman in this world.

“Feminism is about something more and is open to interpretation. Feminism is about women having real identities of their own, rather than living as man-made beings.”

She continues: “Historically, women have for the most part resigned themselves to their predetermined destinies. Today, a woman can be her own agent of change. Strippers shatter the traditional mould even as they objectify themselves because they are making conscious choices.

“But does that make strippers empowered? On good days I had respect for what I was doing and treated my work as an art form. Of course, there were also those days where I became just body parts, overwhelmed by men who seemed intent on belittling me as an object merely existing for their pleasure.

Can stripping, then, ever be an act of feminism? Hageman thinks so.

“That woman is making a choice for herself. No matter how confused or misguided she may be, if she has made that choice for herself, then it should be honoured and seen as a feminist act – a conscious choice of her destiny in the world.”

But there are still people who disagree with Siouxsie Q, Hageman, and De Souza, and cannot remove stripping from the seedy, degrading place it has been relegated to.

Navprit Rai, former Lib Dem advisor says: “Stripping is not some grand feminist statement.

“It perpetuates the idea that women should primarily be judged on their looks and sexual attractiveness. As much as I would like to say that being a stripper is challenging the dominant sexual norms and acting outside of the confines of acceptable behaviour for a woman – in a culture where a man is ‘a bit of a player’ and a woman is ‘a slut’, I can’t.

Feminism then, like my friends, are never going to agree. Much as we’d like things to be black and white, they very rarely are, so we have no choice but to live in the grey. I think there’s only one thing for it…

Chica Bonita launches 26^th May at Legs 11 in Birmingham. Will I see you there?

We’d like to hear your views on strip clubs. Let us know what you think in the comments.

In a week when yet another absurd comment has been made about the possible outcome of the gay marriage bill, Lesbilicious looks into the crystal ball of those who oppose this legislation, to try to imagine the future they see taking shape if it is passed…

5^th April 2020

Marriage Mayhem!

The world has hit crisis point.  Very few people saw this coming, but our lives as we know them are teetering on the brink of destruction.  A humanity which has survived wars, famines and diseases, has been brought to its knees by a homosexual scourge.

We should have heeded the warnings; now it’s too late.

Since the legalisation of same sex marriage in England, Wales and the US some years ago, the planet has been awash with misery and deprivation.  But how has it come to this? Here we catalogue a timeline of, perhaps at the time seemingly meaningless events, showing how they have combined to form a recipe for disaster:

Men holding hands: clearly a sign of malicious intent

October 2012: The Daily Mail reported 2 cases of good, Christian folk who had been “entrapped” by gays and had suffered as a result; one man had been demoted and fined for making a homophobic comment on Twitter, whilst the other was a B&B owner who had been fined for refusing to allow two men to share a double bed in her establishment.  At the time this was written off by many as justice for those displaying homophobic behaviour…but not for long.  In the same month, 3 years later, the situation had got so bad that it was ruled illegal for anyone heterosexual to have a job, just in case they used their position to behave in a homophobic manner.  Bisexuals could only work part-time.  Relying on their LGBT friends for handouts as the ‘nanny state’ benefits system was stripped back, the vast majority of straight people fell into extreme poverty.

Legal document or lethal weapon?

 Christmas 2012: In his Christmas message, Pope Benedict XVI denounced gay marriage, stating that the idea was an “attack” on the ‘traditional’ family.  At the time, many left-wing fanatics rubbished his claims.  However, little did we realise that, less than 2 years later, after legislation had been passed in England and Wales to allow ‘marriage’ to occur between gays, these newly married ‘couples’ actually did begin to attack traditional families.  No mother, father or 2.4 child was safe walking down the street, as rampaging homosexuals randomly attacked them, beating them sometimes half to death with their newly acquired marriage certificates.  Some victims suffered head wounds caused by the heavier, better quality certificates, whereas others had to endure painful paper cuts.  Legal document turned weapon, the government ordered an immediate amnesty on all marriage certificates, deeming them too unsafe to be left in public hands.

April 2013: Actor Jeremy Irons stated that same sex marriage would lead to wealthy fathers marrying their sons in order to avoid paying inheritance tax.  Naturally, most passed this concern off as the ramblings of a mad-man.  However, the year the bill was passed, Whitehall announced a £100 billion loss in revenue due to fathers scrambling to marry their male offspring in a desperate bid to avoid losing cash.  As peer of the realm Lord Winalot told us, “Of course there has been a great deal of emotional damage caused to my son by being married to his father.  Not to mention the damage caused to his reputation amongst the local girls in the village.  But that pales into insignificance when you think of all the money we’ve saved.”

So, there you have it.  The gays have taken over.  The ‘pink disease’, as it has come to be known, has spread like a plague throughout our towns and cities, leaving the heterosexual community an ignored and undervalued minority.  The curse of a liberal, democratic society.

 A fiction…

Naturally, this is a fiction.  But it’s a fiction born of some very real, very concerning comments from influential figures from all walks of life.  Of course, most of the time the media blow them up to be more than they are, but that in itself is a problem as opinions are formed and minds are made up on the basis of over-inflated, hate-filled rubbish.  When writing this article, there were so many ridiculous comments that had been made about gay marriage and lifestyles that it was impossible to include all of them and hard to know which ones to pick; I guess I’m just sick of hearing them.  It’s hurtful and it’s unnecessary.  By all means, have your own opinion, but at least make it an informed opinion.

 The majority of people understand that gay people don’t want to be treated any better than anyone else (and nor, for that matter, do we want to take over the world).  All we want is equality.  The equality to live and love and work alongside every other human being, with the shared similarity of living on earth together and enough understanding that any differences between us don’t make a difference to how we treat one another.  A utopian idea, isn’t it?