Dear Supporter,

I’m delighted to tell you that on Friday the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced that she would extend the current No Recourse pilot project until March 2011. This enables women trapped in violent relationships by the ‘no recourse’ rule to access protection from which they would otherwise have been turned away.

Even better, she said that she would then be working on a permanent solution. The Home Secretary made this pledge despite the cuts climate, saying “some things are too important”. This is great news.

We will, of course, continue to try to work with the government to ensure that the project addresses some of the weaknesses in the current pilot, but this announcement is a major step forward that will give hundreds of women safety over the coming months, and beyond. Definitely something to celebrate.

Thank you to everyone who supported this campaign – especially those who came to the mass lobby of Parliament back in November, or wrote to their MPs on this issue.

Sincerely,

Heather Harvey
Stop Violence Against Women Campaign Manager

Background on this campaign
Many women come to the UK, often legally, in the hope of improving their lives. They may come on temporary work permits, student visas or spousal visas. Some women come to the UK to marry. The ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule says that a woman in this position – even if she’s married to a British citizen – is not entitled to certain state benefits, including housing benefit and income support. But these are the benefits a woman must be able to claim to get a place in a refuge if she needs to escape violence. In December, the last government launched a pilot project to help these women. Active campaigning led to the pilot being extended until August 2010 and we’ve been keeping up the pressure ever since for a permanent solution. Read more

Anyone else who watched this with comments, please share.

Men cleared as rape woman’s group sex fantasy revealed where a young woman’s accusation of gang rape has been undermined by her online fantasies about group sex.

But the trial at Preston Crown Court collapsed when computer evidence was produced showing her entertaining the prospect of group sex.

Judge Robert Brown ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts

This is a very old trick of discrediting the witness, something you may know as “she was asking for it” The prosecutor was so convinced dirtying her virtue would make it acceptable for a woman to be raped that he presented no formal evidence, he simply read out msn transcripts.

He said: “It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers, where to use her words ‘her morals go out of the window’.

Neither is the fact that she agreed to meet one man for sex an opener to be raped by his friends. I’m devastated, but not surprised, that the judge fell hook line and sinker for this line, after all we all know how ridiculously low the conviction rate for rape is in this country. But it sets a really dangerous precedent to rifle through a victims internet usage, much like her knicker drawer, and use her own sexuality and independent thought against her. It takes he said, she said to a whole new he thought, she thought level.

They’ve made resources available to boost your knowledge, and provided you a step into writing to your MP to ask for change, hot on the No Recourse For Public funds mass lobby I expect you all to be eager to get penning letters.

But for starters, watch this short video they’ve produced where women seeking asylum can tell you of their experiences, of the disparities in care, and lack of sensitivity meted out to over 7,000 women in the UK.

Every single woman from Asylum Aid on Vimeo.

As part of the review a special work group has been set up to look at sexual disorders. This is relevant because the DSM is used in law enforcement both in USA and the UK as a guide to mental disorders that can prove reduced capacity, or merit hospitalisation on conviction rather than imprisonment.

Coercive Paraphilic Disorder is a mental ‘disorder’ being considered for DSM-V, used to describe a disorder some think is connected with propensity to rape.

Karen Franklin, Ph.D., of the forensic science blog In the News explains:

“Currently, the propensity to rape is not considered a mental illness. Proponents of adding a rapist diagnosis to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) claim it was only excluded the last time around due to pesky feminists’ objections that it would excuse rapists from criminal consequences. However, that turns out to be something of a myth. The main reason it was excluded, says psychologist and lawyer Thomas Zander, who conducted primary research into the history, was because it was not scientifically supportable. And, according to [Raymond] Knight’s* article, it is even less supportable now than it was back then.”

Feminists have long claimed that men who rape are not ‘different’ or mentally ill but normal men (friends, partners, fathers, colleagues) who do bad things – and evidence supports this. In her blog post Franklin refers to Knight’s review of evidence from a long line of research that suggests “there is not a separate category of men with a propensity to rape. Rather than being a distinct “taxon,” rape propensity exists along a continuum.”

I’m with Karen in hoping that good science defeats these pseudoscientific categories, which she describes as “weak at best”; and this ‘rape mental illness’ is kept out of DSM-V in this review, as it was last time around.

*Knight is considered to be a premiere researcher into the etiology of rape. His article ‘Is a diagnostic category for Paraphilic Coercive Disorder defensible?’ Archives of Sexual Behavior is available online, but requires a subscription. You can view the abstract here.

Hat tip to Karen Franklin Ph.D. and her blog, In the News

HollaBack is something I’ve long known as a US phenomenon so I’m extremely excited to see it develop an UK branch. HollaBack UK is a new blog and hub for women to share the sexual harrassment they’ve suffered on the streets – something which can be a threatening and upsetting experience.

Street harassment is a form of sexual harassment that takes place in public spaces. At its core is a power dynamic that constantly reminds historically subordinated groups (women and LGBTQ folks, for example) of their vulnerability to assault in public spaces. Further, it reinforces the ubiquitous sexual objectification of these groups in everyday life.

At HollaBackUK, we believe that what specifically counts as street harassment is determined by those who experience it. While there is always the classic, “Hey baby, nice tits” there are so many other forms that go unnoted. If you feel like you have been harassed, holla back!

So, get’a'hollerin’ people.

“We are campaigning for the Welsh Assembly Government to improve their policies to tackle violence against women in Wales. 2 women a week are still dying of domestic abuse alone in Wales, and the rape conviction rate remains a shocking 8% in Wales.

Please visit our Facebook group – lots more info there: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=162717965118&ref=mf

Most importantly – PLEASE email the following letter to the Social Justice Minister, Brian Gibbons AM.

Spread the word! Thanks so much!”
______________

SEND LETTER TO: brian.gibbons@wales.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Minister

RE: INTEGRATED STRATEGY TO TACKLE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

The level of violence against women in Wales still remains very high, with one in four women suffering some from violence during their lifetime.

Though the Welsh Assembly Government has made good progress on tackling some elements of violence against women, there is no integrated, cross-governmental strategy to protect women from violence.

I am calling on you to redouble your efforts to tackle violence against women in all its forms, and ensure that the women in Wales are not less protected than women in other parts of the UK.

Only a strategy and action plan led by the Welsh Assembly Government will be able to bring together the disparate strands of public services and investment will tackle violence against women and fulfil the UN CEDAW obligations.

Violence against women blights thousands of lives in Wales each year, and its time for a whole-government approach to protect women.

Yours sincerely

[NAME]

Onto Harman’s initiative and the body of the article itself…I can immediately see benefits and problems to this. When TDM reports that

Pupils as young as five will be taught about the evils of ‘wife beating’ and the need to form healthy relationships. The lessons are part of a controversial drive, unveiled today, to reduce violence against women and young girls. They will include teaching boys that they must not beat their partners or any other female.

I think hey! This doesn’t sound so bad! What is there not to like about a) teaching children about forming healthy relationships and b) reducing violence against women and young girls. Slightly off-putting the way it is deemed a controversial drive (because the notion of combating violence against women/young girls is way out there with, I don’t know, outlawing McDonald’s…) but so far looking good.

Last night, critics warned that ministers are cramming the already over-stuffed National Curriculum with lessons that should be taught in the home or in the community.

This has been an ongoing battle with PSHE. A colleague of mine, when speaking of the subject, would call it “PSHE…or things your parents should be teaching you”. In all honesty, yes it is things you should be taught at home/in the community as an important part of your growing-up but the argument is that this isn’t always being done. PSHE evolved from the early notions that education should be producing ‘good’ citizens socialized into the shared norms and values of our society (so New Right) and so of course when it was deemed that the family was not doing their part (government would cite rising statistics of single mothers/offenders as their proof for this) then the education system should pick up where the parents left off (or even out). I acknowledge that, yes, PSHE is largely what you should be taught at home/in the community (and which a number of us still are taught there) but that until we can ensure this is being done, the education system does appear the only means of attempting to ensure such teaching.

Putting it into practice further, the idea becomes less appealing:

The lessons will be part of the National Curriculum and are likely to be taught in Personal, Social and Health Education classes, which are attended by children from the age of five. Teachers will also be given new guidance on tackling ‘gender bullying’.

Now I am not particularly convinced that firstly this would work in practice and secondly that it would have the desired effect. My first concern comes from my experience of teaching PSHE in Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14 approximately) which has demonstrated that the learners, on the whole, dislike the subject. It is not deemed academic; it is not an option which they pick for GCSE; it is not formally assessed as such – all these things contribute to learners not seeing any potential value to the subject (again, on the whole, as there are always a handful who put in the effort/work regardless). So my concern is that this may work in practice for a small minority, but not for the larger majority. Factor into this the impact the introduction of such lessons/curriculum has on teachers, and the education establishment as a whole. An added concern here is how such a sensitive issue would be approached. A year or so ago OCR removed the topic of Child Abuse from their AS-level Sociology course because of the implications of teaching such a sensitive topic and possible impact on learners. Wouldn’t this warrant similar concerns?

The most eye-catching proposal in the document is the one to force schools to introduce statutory lessons in ‘educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships’.

I love the idea of children and young people learning about healthy, nonviolent relationships but here we come to how I don’t think such lessons would have the desired effect. Making children and young people aware of violence against women may have positive aspects but as these lessons will not cover violence against men then I believe such lessons will run the risk of further instilling gender differences in young girls and boys. By acknowledging only violence against women and valuing this above violence against men, I believe we would only be purporting that violence against women is justified. If as young children we are brought into a discourse of violence against women I think this could potentially be internalized and acknowledged as we grow older that such violence happens against women, and not men, because of something fundamentally different in them. And though I am not saying this will mean the next generation committing violence against women as a result, I think this will result in further justification of women’s inferior position and treatment.

They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men, who are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime. This is despite evidence showing that boys and young men are more than twice as likely to fall victim to violence, and that young women are becoming increasingly aggressive.

I do agree with the criticism of the initiative not covering violence against men. Not because they are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime but firstly because of the argument I have expressed above and secondly because I think the commonly held assumption of, say, domestic violence as violence against women by men needs to be addressed. This is not going to be addressed by navigating away from discussion of violence against men in lessons focusing on healthy, nonviolent relationships. This then suggests that such violence is not important. Not only is domestic violence underreported by women, it is underreported by men who have been victims. Surely keeping the discussion of violence against men behind closed doors is not helping to correct such misrepresentation?

Laura

End Note: I am aware that I have focused my line of thought predominantly on domestic violence and it is slightly presumptuous (and hypocritical) of myself to have done so when talking about an initiative combating ‘violence against women’ (which was not expressed as merely
domestic violence) and criticizing others for their assumptions on the same issue.

Rebecca Whisnant, prolific anti porn activist and author, lead an Object organised ‘Stop Porn Culture’ workshop on Saturday.

Rebecca flew all the way from the USA to lend us the combined experiences and information gathered over time working against the ever pervasive porn culture in main stream society. It was an excellent session with activists, students, those working against porn for almost forever and those new to the concept that it might not be the most fun industry in the world, there were even men in attendance.

Amongst the conversations we looked at the new Stop Porn Culture slideshow – It’s Easy Out Here for a Pimp: How a Porn Culture Grooms Kids for Sexual Exploitation – which can be used by any anti porn activists, with friends and family to a whole rooms of interested strangers. We also looked at the semantics of patriarchy, opression, porn and choice and role played putting our best thoughts forward in a Q&A session – which sounds awful, but is really always awfully fun.

Interested but didn’t make it? Check out the following materials

StopPornCulture.org
London Feminist Network
Anti-Porn Activist Network

Drop your own links in the comments.

Charlotte