Women: please stop calling each other ‘sluts’.

Dear women,

Please stop calling each other ‘sluts’. And ‘whores’, and ‘hos’, and all the other words like that. You know what I mean.

By all means, ask me why I’m addressing this to women and not men. Men undoubtedly use these words just as much if not more than women, and cause immeasurable damage when they do. I know. And I could. But for now, I want to address this. I want to address the fact that the women around me, and women everywhere, are hellbent on dragging each other down, describing the choices and outfits that they themselves and others make and wear as ‘slutty’ in order to cause offence. I want to address the fact that this grants men an unbelievable amount of power over us, as we destroy ourselves so that they don’t have to. I want to address the harm that this is causing all women, everywhere.

The word ‘slut’, in its most basic definition, is used to describe a sexually promiscuous woman. So, it could be applied to women who have lots of sex with lots of people. It could be applied to women who wear short skirts, tight dresses, low cut tops, push up bras, high heels. It could be applied to women who go out dancing, drinking, and partying. It could be applied to women who, say, kiss several men in the same night.

More recently, it is also being applied to women who simply have sex at all. Women who wear anything at all. Women who do anything at all. The reason for this is simple: it is a word that is used to control. It is a word used by men and society to tell women that they are doing something that they shouldn’t be, regardless of the fact that it is up to neither men nor society to determine what it is acceptable for women to do with their lives. It is up to women to decide what they are comfortable with. When men call women ‘sluts’, they are telling them to get back in line. They are telling them that they are acting in a manner in which that man does not find appealing, with the assumption that women should be required to act as men find appealing in the first place.

So, why would women want to use such a word? Because women have internalised patriarchy. They agree too that men have the right to tell women how to act, that there is a way that they should act as women, and that appealing to men is the most important component to that. So, they use the same shaming techniques. They perform the man’s job for him. In doing so, they also internalise hatred and misogyny. Who exactly wins here?

There’s more to it than that, too. As I said, women know that it is their purpose to appeal to men. This is instilled from an early age, primarily through the media. What exactly does being appealing mean? It means being sexually available. It means being sexy. So, women are taught that they should have lots of sex, dress sexy, be sexy – and then are chastised when they do. Not only by the men that they are striving to please, but also their fellow women, and, indeed, themselves. Again, who wins?

Men do. Men get to watch you look sexy, maybe even have sex with you, and then tear you down for the exact things that were designed for them to enjoy. Why do you want to give them that luxury? Believe that you can have sex with whoever and however many people you like, believe that you can wear what you want, believe that you can do what you want. And do it. And let your fellow women do it, and don’t let anyone feel bad. It’s not going to stop men from using the words, but nothing will whilst they still hold all the cards. You don’t have to let them. By using the same words in the same derogatory fashion, that’s what you’re doing.

I don’t blame you for this. I know why you’re doing it – because, like I said, society teaches you that it’s what you should do, and how you should feel. But nobody should be shamed for these choices. It might make you feel good about yourself briefly for telling your friend, or a stranger, or an entire group of women that they are being ‘slutty’, but trust me, you are hurting yourself at the exact same time you’re hurting them. Because you are reinforcing the male-created ideas about what women should be. By all means, you don’t have to have sex with many people or even one person, and you don’t have to wear skirts or heels and you don’t have to do anything that you don’t want to. But you also don’t need to harm others because it’s what they want to do.

And one final thing: maybe it’s worth thinking about the effect that derogatory terms for sex workers, like ‘whore’, have on sex workers themselves. They are women, and they are people, and being a sex worker is not a bad thing. By using a word with negative connotations about their profession as an insult, you are implying that it is, and you are hurting them. You are legitimising the hatred and discrimination that they face, as well as encouraging more. So, I don’t know, maybe we could just stop?

Yours hopefully,

Tilly xo

Rape is a Western problem, too.

Rape is a Western problem, too.

I’m in The Independent!

(well, sort of).

I entered the i paper’s (the concise version of the Indy) student writing competition, iWriters, and won! My article, “Rape is a Western problem too – and it will be as long as male power comes at the expense of women” was published on Tuesday. It was simultaneously posted on The Independent’s “Indy Voices” section of their website, as you can see here!

I’m chuffed to bits.

It feels like I haven’t blogged in an age, and I suppose I haven’t, considering the regularity I usually keep up. University assignments are taking over my life. I don’t know when I’ll be back, but I hope it’s soon!

Firing at the right target.

When the No More Page 3 campaign first emerged last year, I could not have been more behind it if I tried. I wrote a (very long) blog post all about it; I got the t-shirt.

It’s not that I don’t support it anymore. In a patriarchal society, the fact that women in the media are almost exclusively represented as highly sexualised, and, consequently, the overriding message is that being highly sexualised is where all a woman’s worth and importance lies, can be nothing but harmful. To use this image of a woman to sell products and ideas to the general population, whilst simultaneously selling that image as a beauty ideal, can only be the same. Page 3 Girls, and the vast majority of other women presented to the world, are white, cis, straight, able-bodied, passive objects. They are also treated with very little respect by both their employers and their audience; the ‘News in Brief’ feature openly mocks the model it accompanies, whilst “lad’s mags” completely dehumanise women altogether. In a society as sexist as ours, what else is there to expect?

But we must fire at the right targets.

On the 31st Janurary, 2013, this entry was submitted to the website Everyday Media Sexism:

I was in my local shop and overheard a little boy ask his mum “Is that what girls do when they grow up mummy?” while pointing at the front cover of the Sunday Sport ‘newspaper’ of a woman’s bum in the air. The mother went bright red (humiliation or anger or both I wonder) and left. That says it all really – normalisation of something that shouldn’t be normalised and we as a society have allowed it. I used to write on a regular basis to newspapers and magazines and political members to ask for their support in eradicating sexism, as I have 3 girls and despair at the world they are growing up in. I rarely had a reply and nothing has changed. Much as she was ridiculed, everything Mary Whitehouse said about sexualisation has come true. Not so prudish now eh. Let’s get some respect back for BOTH sexes before it’s too late….

This is not focused on the fact that the representation of women in the media offers very little alternative to this hyper-sexualised one. This is not focused on the racism, cissexism, homophobia, and ableism of that representation. This is focused directly on the woman in the photograph, and her job. Her choice to pose for this photograph. Of course, with a patriarchy so pervasive, all of the choices we make are influenced to some extent. But I truly believe that, when patriarchy is eradicated, there will be women who want to pose for sexy photographs, and have these distributed. Why wouldn’t they? More than that, though, the aim of feminism should never be to criticise individual women for the choices that they make as a result of operating in the society that we did not choose. They are not the enemy. This woman, her boobs, and her bum, are not the enemy.

Not all girls are sex workers when they grow up, but some of them are. What is so difficult about that? What is so humiliating, or anger-inducing, about that? Argue against the fact that these photographs make the front page of newspapers as a means to sell them, and are usually too sexualised to be appropriate for children, by all means. But the fact that there are women who wish to engage in this sort of work is not causing the sexism in society. That was already determined a long, long time ago. Of course, if all women decided to refuse to ever partake in any form of it again, patriarchy might well be deconstructed faster; but that would be asking women to limit their freedoms. Is that really what we want?

Of course I think Page 3 and media sexism like it (and all forms beside) are damaging, and need to stop. But in context. If Page 3 goes, The Sun will still be a vile, wretched and sexist rag (and that ain’t the half of it). Yes. The sexism in The Sun goes much, much deeper than just that one photograph. And getting rid of it will not change views on women, nor their representation in any way.

This is, in my opinion, where the No More Page 3 campaign is falling down. Its terminology is obsessed with the boobs. How they aren’t featured in the 6 o’clock news, or on This Morning, but they are in The Sun, which is, of course, where the problem is arising. Except, that’s far from the only problem arising in The Sun or society as a whole, and the boobs themselves are, just like the models to which they belong, not the problem. In fact, speaking of them in this way is just as objectifying as the practice is in the first instance. There is nothing wrong with boobs. In fact, it could be argued that there should be more boobs in the media, and in society generally. Boobs, and the women to which they belong, of all shapes, sizes, ethnic origins, ages, abilities, sexualities and identities. We need to see women that are fully representative. Pert, white, overtly-sexualised women are certainly not that.

But that’s still not their fault. It is the fault of those (men and, subsequently, complicit women) who have decided that this is what is beautiful, that this is what is sexy, and that beautiful and sexy are what women must be. They are our enemy. It’s not that you shouldn’t support No More Page 3, and other campaigns like it. It’s just doing it for the right reasons, with the best intentions, and with full respect for the women who are invariably caught up in the patriarchal system is of the utmost importance. From what I can see, we could be doing a lot better in that regard.

Sexist Song of the Day, #6: Cee-Lo Green – Fuck You

Poor old Cee-Lo. He’s broken up with his partner, and she’s found someone else! Of course, it’s no real surprise that he’s angry and bitter. He could just do it in a less sexist way.

 

[Chorus]

I see you driving ’round town with the girl I love,

And I’m like, ‘fuck you’.

I guess the change in my pocket wasn’t enough,

And I’m like, ‘fuck you, and fuck her too’.

 

If I was richer, I’d still be with ya.

Now ain’t that some shit?

And although there’s pain in my chest, I still wish you the best,

With a, ‘fuck you’.

 

Yeah I’m sorry I can’t afford a Ferrari,

But that don’t mean I can’t get you there.

I guess he’s an Xbox, and I’m more Atari,

But the way you play your game ain’t fair.

 

I pity the fool that falls in love with you, uh huh

(Oh shit, she’s a golddigger, just thought you should know, n***a)

Ooh, I’ve got some news for you.

Yeah, go run and tell your little boyfriend.

 

[Chorus]

 

Now I know that I had to borrow,

And beg and steal and lie and cheat.

Trying to keep ya, trying to please ya,

Because being in love with your ass ain’t cheap.

 

I pity the fool who falls in love with you, uh huh.

(Oh shit, she’s a golddigger, just thought you should know, n***a)

Ooh, I got some news for you.

I really hate your ass right now.

 

[Chorus]

 

Now baby, baby, baby, why you wanna wanna hurt me so bad?

I tried to tell my mama but she told me, ‘this is one for your dad’, yes she did.

And I was like, (uh) ‘why?’, (uh) ‘why?’, (uh) ‘why? Lady’.

I love you, I still love you, oh.

 

[Chorus]

 

As I said, it is understandable that Cee-Lo is upset. It hurts enough when you lose the one you love, but to see them with somebody new? To his testament, Cee-Lo does, for the most part, levy his hatred towards both parties, rather than just the woman, as is common in most narratives. However, the onslaught of the “golddigger” stereotype is where the cracks start to show. It is just too easy. Women should be allowed to date whoever they please, whenever they please, and whilst as human beings we are keen to think of some excuse (“she’s only after money!”) as to why they stop wanting us, so often there just isn’t one. Or at least, it isn’t as simple as that. People feel what they feel. So, whilst it is certainly true that this woman could be a golddigger, the chances are, that she isn’t. Because why did Cee-Lo love her so much, why is he bawling for her in the bridge, if she was so callous? He is upset, and he is using tired old tropes as attacks. This is unhelpful. Women need to be able to choose the men with which they are with. Nobody expects Cee-Lo to be happy with it, but he could do it without demonising her. The snarky “advice” to her new boyfriend – “oh shit, she’s a golddigger, just thought you should know, n***a” – is unfair and unkind. Nobody deserves to be spoken of like that, to somebody that they are trying to have a relationship with. Even if that person has a Ferrari.

Give her the benefit of the doubt. Women get enough shit, without being criticised for their life choices. Especially when that criticism is that they only want men for their money, as though they cannot earn their own. As though they cannot make informed choices.

Popstars can be feminists, if we let them.

Emma Barnett asked last week whether feminism is a dirty word for popstars. During her interview with X Factor’s Ella Henderson, a question as to whether Henderson considers herself a feminist was rebuffed by the singer’s male PR, because it’s “not to do with Safer Internet Day”. Unfortunately, neither were several other questions posed to Henderson, suggesting that the issue was actually with feminism.

The idea that it should be offensive for a star to state that they believe that men and women should be equal – the crux of feminism – seems ridiculous. Whilst, and certainly if Henderson’s target audience is young, it may encapsulate ideas that they are not familiar with, that’s all the more reason to have them talk about it. What better way for Henderson to be a role model than to educate boys and girls that society is unfair, and instilling in them the hope that they can fix it? The problem is that I just cannot agree with Lucy Jones of NME, or Ruth Drake of Toast Press PR, that feminism is no longer a “dirty word”. Women are rejecting it left, right and centre; at the end of last year, it’s death was heralded from every corner. For every celebrity happy to identify themselves with the cause – Alice Glass, Paloma Faith – there are a multitude of those ready to reject it, or refuse to comment. Not just that, though; reject it or refuse to comment on it in by reflecting the harmful, false visions of feminism that lead women to do so in the first place. “Man-hating”, “bra-burning”, “lesbianism” (?!)… women do not wish to associate with something that seems for all intents and purposes to make them unattractive, when society dictates that being attractive is where all their worth stems from.

This is not what feminism is, though. As I said, at its very crux is gender equality; women are currently oppressed by society, so the focus is on improving their standing. Not at the expense of men. Not because of a dislike of men. But because society is a patriarchy, with men proffered as the dominant agent, making women practically second-class citizens. That is not to say that men do not suffer, and it is not to undermine their experiences. However, it is a fact, evidenced in the pay gap, rape culture, and much more beside. There are various issues and theories within feminism, with a range of different opinions, but at the heart of it is always equality. Ultimately, that is all feminism is. Certainly, it does have an unpopular image, but as a movement aiming to defeat patriarchy in a patriarchal society, what surprise is that? Feminism does not need a rebrand; it needs people to understand what it actually is. If people believe that men and women should be equal, they should be very open in saying so.

But then, is it really a surprise that celebrities are shying away? When Beyoncé revealed her feminism – albeit without using the word, because, as she has said before, she believes that it needs a “catchy” new name – in an interview with GQ magazine last month, she was slated for it. On the one hand, she rightly states that:

“You know, equality is a myth, and for some reason, everyone accepts the fact that women don’t make as much money as men do … I truly believe that women should be financially independent from their men. And let’s face it, money gives men the power to run the show. It give them the power to define value. They define what’s sexy. And men define what’s feminine. It’s ridiculous.

But on the other, she is featured on the cover in just knickers and a t-shirt cropped so much that her breasts are visible. Which does not, according to Hadley Freeman, “help feminism“. Unfortunately for Hadley, telling Beyoncé that she isn’t helping feminism doesn’t help feminism, either. Her overriding point, that it would have been a massive boost to feminism had Beyoncé said what she did whilst on the cover in a suit, is not incorrect; however, it is unfair. The fact that it seems that the only women who are featured in GQ are in their pants or less is bullshit, and damaging to women, but it is also a symptom of society, where the message is that success is dependent on sexiness, and that sexiness is all that matters. Thus, for Beyoncé to be successful, she must operate within this framework. If she wants to be on the covers of magazines, and she does, then she must undress. This is not her fault. There is no doubt in my mind that she is a feminist; why else would she want to rebrand it? The fact is, though, that the chances of us hearing her views on inequality if she was not willing to operate within the patriarchy are slim.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with sexuality, Beyoncé is undoubtedly incredibly attractive, and actually, it seems perfectly plausible that she would enjoy being so sexualised. However, it is also most definitely an issue that the only way for women to get on magazine covers, get people to buy their music, and just generally get by is to spend a lot of time in their underwear. But whose fault is it? To criticise Beyoncé for having to take off her clothes, whether she agrees with doing so or not, to achieve her full potential, seems ridiculous. In fact, it seems to be about the antithesis of feminism. Ultimately, anybody can want gender equality, everybody should, and they can do it whilst wearing what they want and doing what they want. Telling them they can’t helps no one.

If we want popstars to identify as feminists, we need to understand exactly what that entails. It means speaking up against the construction that places all of women’s worth on their appearance, whilst acting within that construction. That’s no small feat.

Sexist Song(s) of the Day, #4 & #5: a Taylor Swift double-bill.

It’s been a while since my last Sexist Song of the Day, so it seems fitting that today is a special. A Taylor Swift special. Internalised sexism is so much fun, amirite? First up, we have…

Taylor Swift – Better Than Revenge

The basic narrative of the song is one that Swift is becoming notorious for: unrequited love and jealousy. Essentially, Taylor really likes this guy, and she thinks that they’re meant to be, but there’s another girl – either a new girl on the scene, as in this case, or his girlfriend, or someone - and he decides to be with her instead. Unfortunately, instead of accepting this and moving on, Taylor blames this entirely on the girl in question, vilifying and downright slut-shaming her. In other words, Taylor is doing the whole “Nice Guy” thing. Which really isn’t cool. Case in point:

She’s not a saint, and she’s not what you think,

She’s an actress, whoa.

She’s better known for the things that she does on the mattress, whoa.

The implications are clear here. The girl that the object of Swift’s attention has proffered is a slut. Not just that, though; she’s a slut in comparison to good girl Taylor, thus making Swift the better choice. Which just isn’t fair. Women need to be allowed to live their lives how they please, free from criticism, or at least free from criticism that would never be levied at men in the same way. Swift is well within her rights to choose to not act in the same way that this girl does, for whatever reason, but there is no reason to shame her for it. She can have sex with whoever she pleases, and however many of those whoevers. It doesn’t affect her integrity or dignity, and it shouldn’t affect the levels of respect she commands. If people choose to comment on the “things that she does on the mattress”, when it is patently none of their business, then that needs to reflect badly on them, not her. Besides, it is entirely irrelevant.

Soon she’s gonna find stealing other people’s toys,

On the playground won’t make you many friends.

She should keep in mind, she should keep in mind,

There is nothing I do better than revenge, ha.

Which is all very well and good, but what about the man in question here? Is he entirely faultless in this scenario? He may have chosen another girl over Swift, making her bitter, but the key factor is that he chose her. It is completely out of either girl’s hands. If Swift has any right to be angry – and really, she doesn’t, seeing as people’s authority to choose who they want to be with should be respected, and it isn’t really wise to try and change their mind – then this should be levied at the guy. He made the decision, and if the rival girl had any bearing on this, then it was because she was more what he wanted. To be so hateful and even seek revenge on her for being who she is, and for that being what Swift’s love interest wanted, is ridiculous.

Sophistication isn’t what you wear or who you know,

Or pushing people down to get you where you wanna go,

Oh, they didn’t teach you that in prep school, so it’s up to me,

But no amount of vintage dresses gives you dignity.

Really, Taylor? Swift’s holier-than-thou attitude reaches a crescendo here, when she thinks that she can “teach” this girl about sophistication. Ideas about sophistication are fairly bullshit anyway, relying on archaic stereotypes, but if it isn’t what you wear or who you know, it isn’t slut-shaming and victimising, either. Presumably, Swift believes that this girl isn’t sophisticated because of what is mentioned earlier. Which should, incidentally, have absolutely no bearing on how sophisticated she is, if sophisticated is what she wants to be. It should have no bearing on anything. Vintage dresses might not give her dignity, but having sex doesn’t take her dignity away from her. She can do what she likes, with who she likes, whenever she likes, in whatever style dresses she chooses.

Grow up, Taylor.

But wait, there’s more…

Taylor Swift – You Belong With Me

Same old story, really. Taylor really likes this boy, in fact she thinks he belongs with her, but he has a girlfriend, that for some infuriating reason he is not willing to leave for her; so, this song is about all the reasons why Taylor is the better option.

She wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts,

She’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers.

According to Swift, she gets his humour, listens to music that he likes but his girlfriend doesn’t, knows his “story” like she never will, and yet he doesn’t want to be with her, because she wears t-shirts and isn’t cheer captain. In other words, again, his girlfriend is a slut, but in this instance that makes her more desirable, so Swift is out of luck. Again, she is doing the whole “friend zone” thing. Come on, really?

People are in relationships for a whole host of reasons. People are also friends for a whole host of reasons. We don’t always have everything in common with the people that we date, and sometimes, we have everything in common with the people that we’re friends with. That’s how human relationships work – in a variety of ways. There are plenty of reasons why we might want to be with someone, and the clothes that they wear, music that they listen to, and things that they know about often have nothing to do with it. Yes, even if we fight with them, even if there are misunderstandings. Essentially, Swift wants more from this guy, he isn’t willing to put up, so she’s crestfallen. But implying that he should want her more because she wears t-shirts and sneakers, whilst his girlfriend wears short skirts and high heels – as if there is anything wrong with that – is the wrong way to go about it. Encouraging rivalries between girls is so, incredibly unhelpful. Especially over men. The list of things more important than relationships could go on for centuries.

So stop, Taylor. It might feel like a terrible injustice that the men you want always seem to choose someone else over you, but there is a reason for it, that it’s not for you to change, so get over it. That reason is because those men have made a choice. Not because these girls wear short skirts and high heels, or are cheerleaders, or anything. And implying that you are better than them because of all these things, and especially because they have lots of sex and you don’t, is really shitty. Those factors make them no different to you or anyone, and certainly no worse.

In defence of Rihanna.

Rihanna is such a bad role model. Not only has she rekindled her relationship with Chris Brown, the man who beat the living shit out of her in 2009, but she barely ever wears clothes!

Right?

Well.

Rihanna might be a massive star at the moment, but behind her celebrity, she is just like any woman. Not only that, but she is just like any woman who has survived domestic abuse. Yes. No matter how hard she’s tried to get through it and not let it affect her, and no matter if she has reconciled with the man who attacked her, she is still a victim of abuse. She feels the pain like any woman like her; she’s just been good at hiding it away. Out of necessity. If you’re wondering why it’s necessity, one only need observe the reception she is getting from people everywhere – being blamed, and shamed, for what has happened to her. There’s no sympathy for her in this society. There is always some way in which she deserved it. And now that she is back with Brown, that all starts again; we sincerely hope that he never lays another finger on her, but if he does, how many people are going to deem her responsible, for forgiving him? Every single one of them will be wrong, no matter how many there are. Victims going back to their abusers is a very common thing. Hell, the clue is in the title: domestic abuse. In the vast majority of cases, it is committed by somebody that you know and trust. You don’t want to believe that they want to hurt you. So when they tell you that they’re sorry, that it’ll never happen again, and that they love you – that’s exactly what you want to hear, and you snap it up in a second. Of course, it is often the case that these are just empty words. Domestic abuse is often about breaking a cycle. Whether Brown re-offends or not is something that remains to be seen, but don’t you think for a second that what Rihanna is going through is anything out of the ordinary. Far from it. And she deserves to be treated with the respect and sympathy of any woman like her.

So, by no means am I saying that getting back with Brown is in her best interests. Few people with any sense of compassion could believe that it was, especially when it is clear that there is nobody around her really concerned with what is best for her – her management have stated that they are only wary of the relationship because of the effect that it might have on her sales, not her health. But criticising her for making such a decision is way out of line. She is a vulnerable young woman, who thinks that she is in love. That she is famous, and that she has a tough persona, are irrelevant.

Rihanna herself has said that “Even if it’s a mistake, it’s my mistake”. And she’s right. It’s her life. She can choose to spend it with whoever she pleases, and it’s no one’s place to tell her otherwise. She believes that Brown has changed; she might even be right. So we have to trust her, and remember that if anyone is to be criticised, it is always Brown. He is the criminal, he is the aggressor, and if history does repeat itself, he is entirely to blame. It might have been more sensible for Rihanna to avoid him, but if she thinks that he is what’s best for her, then that is all she is expected to do.

Of course, it would have been a wonderful statement about domestic violence, had Rihanna completely severed ties with Brown. But it is not her job to bear society’s glaring problem with violence against women on her shoulders. She is a victim. If we don’t blame regular women for what happens to them – and we absolutely should not – then we don’t blame Rihanna. To do so is to infringe her autonomy, undermine her authority. She is not obliged to be anybody’s role model. Fame is something that happens; if it happened to you, would you be prepared to alter your whole life for some little girl you’re never going to meet? Rihanna is allowed to do whatever the fuck she wants to, and she does – she smokes weed, she writhes around in her pants, and so what? Sure, issues of patriarchy come into it, and questions may be asked as to whether being provocative and outrageous are choices that she has made, or choices that were made for her to make her more commodifiable, but ultimately the answer is irrelevant. Rihanna is doing what she has to do to be successful; any criticism of the way she dresses and acts, so obviously geared to please men, is to be levied at the industry and society, not her. No ifs or buts about how much easier it would be to smash the patriarchy if she wasn’t complicit. Though, as it goes, I think she’s damn happy with her image right now. She’s sexy and smart; she can handle it.

And that is why, ultimately, I think that she is actually a bloody brilliant role model. Not in the conventional sense, and she’s certainly not perfect. But she is Rihanna. She survived a horrific incident of abuse and came out of it all guns blazing, releasing an album in the same year, and continuing to rake in success. Everybody wants to talk about Rihanna. And whether you like her music or not, she must surely be commended for crafting her own image, subverting standards that constantly tell women, and especially women of colour, what they must be. If you don’t think she’s a good role model for your kids, exercise your parental authority. Stop expecting women to control their lives to please you. But as it is, I think we can learn a lot from Rihanna. So leave her alone.

Having privilege doesn’t make you the enemy, but the way you act because of it might.

I am white, straight, cis, middle-class and able-bodied. Whilst I am also a woman, which means that I experience oppression and discrimination in society, I am otherwise very much privileged. Meaning that, in comparison to others in different circumstances to myself – those from ethnic minorities, those who identify as LGBT*Q, those who are working-class, those who are disabled – I do not receive the same levels of oppression. It is not, however, a matter of hierarchy; it is not about playing a game of “Oppression Top Trumps”, or whatever term you prefer. It is not about placing focus on who is most oppressed and thus most important. No, the key point is instead in regards to the way that these different oppressions, or oppressors, interact with each other. Intersectionality. So, where feminism is concerned, we are not all just women; we have different ethnicities, different sexualities, different classes, different abilities, different identities, and we are affected by all of them, making everybody’s experience different. So, equality will mean very different things for different women, and we must take this into account if we wish to fight for it.

That you possess privilege is not an inherently bad thing. We don’t choose to be born with privilege anymore than somebody chooses to be born without it. It also doesn’t mean that you live a perfect, charmed life, and nor does it mean that anyone thinks you do. Being white, being male, being straight, being cis, being able, doesn’t guarantee you a trouble-free life – besides, it is possible to be privileged in some regards and not others, so you can be more oppressed than some people, and less oppressed than others, and so on. That’s why the point is not to make a hierarchy; it is a tool for understanding. The fact is, we all go through strife, whether we are privileged or not, and no one is trying to discredit your personal experience. The difference is that for some, their strife is caused directly because they are are certain thing, and regardless of whether it is or not, they are much less likely to receive support, and will probably be affected a whole lot worse, because they are that certain thing. That’s the problem. And it is a problem that lies within society. So, whilst we have no control over the privilege we are or are not born with, we can certainly choose to fight against the society and its ideas and institutions that make it so. Of course, those of us with privilege cannot and must not attempt to speak for others, because we simply have not had the experiences that they have. But it could be that our privilege means that society is more interested in hearing from us than those with less privilege. So, we listen, we learn, and we don’t silence. Right?

The natch is, though, that we must be genuine with it. It’s brilliant to mean well, but much more than good intentions are required. That’s why Suzanne Moore might be the best trans* ally in the world, but when she upset the trans* community (and many cis people) with her use of the word ‘transsexual’ and her specific imagery of ‘a Brazilian transsexual’ as the ideal female body form – and really upset them with her subsequent exchanges on Twitter - it’s still fair for them to expect her to listen, and maybe even apologise. Because it’s perfectly possible to say something transphobic or at least offend trans* people without being transphobic, or meaning it (Julie Burchill, on the other hand, published a response that was actually transphobic, and constitutes hate speech; about any other minority, it would never have made print). Of course, if she didn’t want to apologise, then that’s her prerogative; she can say what she likes, at the end of the day. But she must accept that people can say what they like back.

The thing is, though, that Moore has privilege (as does Burchill, and the vast majority of others who came to her defence). Like I said, no bad thing – until she starts talking about and to a group of people to which she does not belong, and whose experiences she does not understand, and they (understandably) take offence. Because it is not for her to decide what is and isn’t offensive to a minority of which she is not a member; it is not for her, or Caitlin Moran, or Frankie Boyle or any of the people who have either done the same thing or waded into the Twitter debate, to decide the terms that other people find it acceptable to be described as. Trans* people are some of the most victimised and marginalised people in society; a little compassion wouldn’t go amiss.

Apparently, to a lot of people, Moore included, trans* issues are not important. There are two types. Firstly, those who do not believe that the issue over the word should ever have come to a head in the first place; they are not completely wrong. It certainly should not have exploded in the way it did. However, the idea that the situation was simply Moore being savaged by a bunch of trans* people just because she used the word ‘transsexual’ is inaccurate. In fact, the people who first brought up the issue with her did so entirely rationally and politely, and it was Moore who reacted badly. And it stops being an issue about semantics at that point, because the things Moore said from there hinted at underlying misgivings and misunderstandings of trans* people. That’s why people were and are angry. It is not ‘only’ words. People die because of misgivings and misunderstandings. Whether or not you care, that’s why people made a noise.

The second type are those who urge anyone angry to “focus on the real issues”, and in the feminist community, those who criticised what they perceived as the “tearing apart” of other women, and the ignoring of other problems affecting women. Yeah, that’s right: implying that trans* issues don’t affect women, and thus, that trans*women are not ‘real’ women. And this is the problem with that thinking. The people suggesting that trans* issues are not important are not trans*. They do not know what it is like to be trans*, and they do not know what it is like to face that particular oppression. And we’re back at the crux of privilege again: it is not for anyone to dictate what is important for others, because we are all different, with different experiences. You might not view trans* issues as important, because they don’t affect you, but for trans* people, they are incredibly important. Unfortunately for you, they’re incredibly important for a lot of cis people, too. But that’s not all. It is perfectly possible to focus on more than one issue at a time; feminism wouldn’t really work without that ability. People can care about trans* issues and domestic violence and the economy and anything they like, all at once, and trans* people can care about government policy and rape and a multitude of other things whilst still being interested in furthering their cause. Humans are complex beings like that. And nowhere in feminism does it say that we cannot criticise other women if we take issue with what they say; we’ll never smash the patriarchy otherwise, because that shit is internalised.

Privilege doesn’t make you a bad guy; being a bad guy makes you a bad guy, and the reason that Moore and her contemporaries are being perceived as bad guys in this instance is undoubtedly affected by privilege. It’s not about shutting down debates, policing words, or shaming. It’s about understanding the lives of others. It comes in handy.

Harry Styles and male entitlement.

Harry Styles ‘dumped Taylor Swift for being asexual and not putting out’. Oh, where do I begin?

Obviously, this is not coming from particularly reputable sources, so I don’t know whether Harry Styles really did think or say these things, nor if there is any truth to it at all. But the fact is, people are still writing and saying and thinking these things, and that is what is wrong.

First, a note on asexuality, which is clearly not being understood here. Asexuality is a real, sexual orientation. It describes the state of not experiencing sexual attraction, at all. It is not a choice. Thus, if Swift is otherwise interested in sex, which we are to assume she is, then her choice to not have sex with Styles is not asexuality, it is celibacy. Misusing the term is incredibly unhelpful to people who really are asexual, because, as this evidences, people do not understand it enough to begin with. This, I imagine, makes life pretty fucking difficult, especially in a society which is obsessed with sex and sexuality. And, as this article shows, expects people to have sex at every given opportunity. It is, it would seem, an obligation. And if you genuinely have no interest in sex, where does that leave you?

That part is, of course, where real problems start to show. Because since when did sex become an obligation? Of course people want to have sex, and enjoy it – but if you’re in a relationship that’s meant to be about more than sex, how can you justify leaving someone because they don’t want it as much as you do? Sex is not a human right. It is also not the defining feature of a person’s worth. Plus, if there is any truth in this story, then there is a known reason why Swift did not want to have sex; if Styles viewed women as worth anything more than their vaginas, he would have sought to discuss this, and solve her issues. He certainly wouldn’t have had her shamed publicly in this way. But it’s also worth bearing in mind that some people might not have a reason why they don’t want to have sex. They might just not want to, at any given time. That’s their right. It’s their body, and their life. What kind of entitled prick wouldn’t respect that?

There are wider issues here, though. Like the fact that this article and its contributors are going out of their way to shame and humiliate Swift for being a “prude” – because, again, what good is a woman if she won’t have sex? – when the very reason that she is supposedly abstaining is said to be because of her fear of being viewed as a “whore” by the public. Which makes me so very angry. Styles has been rumoured to have had countless girlfriends and one-night stands since reaching fame, but instead of being shamed, he is basking in it. The media has some sort of respect for him. Swift gets quite the opposite treatment. The fact is, the amount of partners, sexual or otherwise, that someone has should never define them; why would it? It is entirely inconsequential, and entirely that person’s business. Thus, Swift can date several men in succession, or have dated none, and it has absolutely no bearing on her character whatsoever.

And that is exactly why this article sums up all that is wrong with society. Swift is a “prude” for asserting her right to not have sex with someone if she does not want to, but a “whore” for being in relationships. She is either having too much sex, or not enough. Heaven forbid she just be left alone to do as she pleases. Heaven forbid Harry Styles might want to be with her for more than sex, and heaven forbid he might respect her bodily autonomy. Women are not just objects designed for the sexual pleasure of men; we are are people. Who would very much like to control our vaginas, who enters them, and when.

Thank you.

An open letter to Norman Baker MP.

Dear Mr. Baker,

I am a 20 year old student, and I use the trains to commute 2 hours each way to my London university, 4 days a week. It is your assertion that the recently raised rail fares are “not nearly as expensive as is being presented“. Statistically, with ‘off-peak’ and ‘advance’ fares included, that might be true. But the reality?

Booking tickets off-peak and advance is just about the only way to get reasonably priced fares. For many, myself included, foresight and flexibility are simply not an option. Yes, there are season tickets, which generally reduce the price over specific periods of time, but the savings are far from revolutionary. A few pounds here and there, generally.

Of course, it was my choice to eschew the more traditional option of living in university accommodation, but it is a legitimate choice nonetheless. The route I travel on is a well-established, well-used commuter line. It has never been cheap, but it has always been acceptable, and comparable, if not cheaper, than the rent my peers have to pay (bear in mind: rent in London is ridiculously priced anyway).

Now, though? My weekly season ticket has risen from £106 to £114. Tell me, how do you account for a rise of that amount? Currently, I am not sure if my student loan will even cover it; and there is nothing I can do about that, because the Loans Company do not take it into account what the money is used for.

If you truly think that this is reasonable, Mr. Baker, I would question how often you use the trains, and how often you have to pay for it. Because even if you have to use the trains every day, being able to claim the entirety of the fare on your expenses, catered for by the taxpayer, might detach you from reality a bit, maybe. Of course, many commuters are able to claim their tickets on expenses; you’re not alone there. But the rest of us? We pay for it out of the income we have, which for too many is very limited in the current economic climate. And when our money runs out, we can’t afford to travel. When my money runs out, how will I finish my degree?

You say you want to make the railways “very attractive”. If you believe that this is what you are doing, then you really ought to come back to the real world, where people are struggling to make ends meet for even the most basic of needs. Train travel is an immensely valuable utility, but if people cannot afford it, then it is far from a priority on their list. They will attempt to dodge fairs. They will continue to use cars, which, supposedly, you don’t want them to do. Except they probably can’t afford to run cars, either, what with petrol prices the way they are. So they will stay at home. Unfortunately, those of us who use the trains for jobs and education do not even have that option. What do you propose we do?

I know why the fares must rise. Investment. I get it. So you better make damn sure that we start to feel it, because in my experience, the service has hardly changed, if at all. Since I became a commuter two years ago, I would actually go so far to say that punctuality and reliability have deteriorated. If we’re paying for improvement, let’s see it. Not just statistics.

So, with all due respect, Mr. Baker, I don’t think you or anyone in your government is even remotely qualified to talk about what is and isn’t expensive. Especially in regards to travel, when you can all claim it back, first class. Come and join us in the real world. Come and travel standard class, at least four days a week, every week, at a range of times from 6am to 6pm, paying for the tickets out of your own pocket. Then you can tell us all about it.

Now, excuse me while I continue to try and work out how I can afford to continue my degree. Much love xo