Patrick Stewart for Amnesty International - Violence Against Women

“I was not a violent child. But if my mother had, at any point during the ages of 5 and 12, picked up a knife or any other weapon against my father, I would have held her hand as she did it. I would have locked the door while she carried it out. That’s how bad it was to be growing up inside a violent household.”

theredpanda replied:

For those that don’t want to watch this video (for whatever reason) here’s a very similar article I starred a while back from The Guardian, guardian.co.uk/society…
**Trigger warning** for rape and child abuse victms, obviously. I should be doing more trigger warnings, as should the original programme. There are also *spoilers* for anyone who hasn’t seen the programme. I finally saw the conclusion of This is England ‘86 today. In the aftermath of Mick’s rape, Lol’s friend finally has the courage to tell her what happened. In what seems to be the style of the series, she mouths the word RAPE in slow motion as music plays. The impact of the word on Lol is one of familiarity, one of disgust at her father that eventually turns into revenge. In my posts on that rape scene, which are all tagged to be read in order, I discussed how the character of Mick was something of a typical rapist. Some viewers found him to be an ordinary, quiet man, and were shocked to find that he would rape someone. But when Lol accuses him of child molestation, I took the allegation seriously because it would not be made lightly. He did appear quite controlling, but mostly kind to his other daughter. Child molestation turned into adult rape. It’s important to remember what this shows. Sex crimes are committed by career rapists, not by ordinary people. The victim was raped by her friend’s dad, not by anyone she knows. 77% of rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Therefore, the likelihood of being raped by an anonymous career rapist (and all-round unsavoury character) is slim. What the scenes didn’t depict is that anyone can be a rapist, no matter how young or charming or familiar they are. Rape is seen as something that cannot be done by friends or by boyfriends, it is seen as something disgusting old men do. However, one of the most important aspects of this scene is that it shows how entitled he feels to her body, to sex from her, without thought of her comfort or needs. This seems a very real and damaging aspect of modern abusive relationships. This comment from me on that rape scene can more readily be applied to the second scene, an attempted rape of his own daughter. Unlike the first time, where the motive appeared to be pleasure, Mick then raped his daughter to punish her for her insubordination. There are a string of child abuse issues, as he brutally tells her how much he hated her from the moment she was born, how much she ruined his life. He raped her when he found she had come to kill her, because he had to show his dominance over her. He had to show he could control her, that he owned her and that she was nothing to him. A multitude of elements of domestic abuse were at play with severe psychological consequences to the victim. She eventually kills him before he manages to rape her. This series has been an education in rape for those not familiar with the issue. I do however stress the importance of realising rapists are not necessarily abusive to all women in their lives. Rapists are not necessarily former child abusers. Rapists are people who think they can take what is not theirs without consent. The issue is not one of individual choice, nor is it one of evil people. It’s one of ordinary people taking away the freedom, comfort and security of another person. It’s inexcusable, it’s unconscionable, but it IS preventable. The answer is to start with our young men, to teach them the damage of these actions, and the IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT. Click for more Lighthouse Feminism.
Pop-upView Separately

**Trigger warning** for rape and child abuse victms, obviously. I should be doing more trigger warnings, as should the original programme. There are also *spoilers* for anyone who hasn’t seen the programme.

I finally saw the conclusion of This is England ‘86 today. In the aftermath of Mick’s rape, Lol’s friend finally has the courage to tell her what happened. In what seems to be the style of the series, she mouths the word RAPE in slow motion as music plays. The impact of the word on Lol is one of familiarity, one of disgust at her father that eventually turns into revenge.

In my posts on that rape scene, which are all tagged to be read in order, I discussed how the character of Mick was something of a typical rapist. Some viewers found him to be an ordinary, quiet man, and were shocked to find that he would rape someone. But when Lol accuses him of child molestation, I took the allegation seriously because it would not be made lightly. He did appear quite controlling, but mostly kind to his other daughter.

Child molestation turned into adult rape. It’s important to remember what this shows. Sex crimes are committed by career rapists, not by ordinary people. The victim was raped by her friend’s dad, not by anyone she knows.

77% of rapes are perpetrated by someone known to the victim. Therefore, the likelihood of being raped by an anonymous career rapist (and all-round unsavoury character) is slim. What the scenes didn’t depict is that anyone can be a rapist, no matter how young or charming or familiar they are.

Rape is seen as something that cannot be done by friends or by boyfriends, it is seen as something disgusting old men do. However, one of the most important aspects of this scene is that it shows how entitled he feels to her body, to sex from her, without thought of her comfort or needs. This seems a very real and damaging aspect of modern abusive relationships.

This comment from me on that rape scene can more readily be applied to the second scene, an attempted rape of his own daughter. Unlike the first time, where the motive appeared to be pleasure, Mick then raped his daughter to punish her for her insubordination. There are a string of child abuse issues, as he brutally tells her how much he hated her from the moment she was born, how much she ruined his life. He raped her when he found she had come to kill her, because he had to show his dominance over her.

He had to show he could control her, that he owned her and that she was nothing to him. A multitude of elements of domestic abuse were at play with severe psychological consequences to the victim. She eventually kills him before he manages to rape her.

This series has been an education in rape for those not familiar with the issue. I do however stress the importance of realising rapists are not necessarily abusive to all women in their lives. Rapists are not necessarily former child abusers.

Rapists are people who think they can take what is not theirs without consent.

The issue is not one of individual choice, nor is it one of evil people.

It’s one of ordinary people taking away the freedom, comfort and security of another person. It’s inexcusable, it’s unconscionable, but it IS preventable. The answer is to start with our young men, to teach them the damage of these actions, and the IMPORTANCE OF CONSENT.

Click for more Lighthouse Feminism.

Have you ever seen any of these programmes? ‘Living in a White-Hating Black Supremacy’‘Living in a Straight-Hating Gay Empire’‘Living in an Aristocrat-Hating Proletarian State’‘Living in a Cisphobic Trans-topia’ No, I shouldn’t think that you have. Why? Because they don’t exist, and anyone suggesting them would immediately be cast off as a privileged bigot. To suggest that these oppressed and discriminated-against peoples have now taken over and become the establishment is ridiculous and extremely removed from reality. But journalist Michael Buerk made a documentary. And its Youtube uploader called it: LIVING IN A FEMINIST, MAN-HATING MATRIARCHY. So what is it about misogyny that makes it more acceptable than other forms of prejudice? What is it about male privilege that makes it so much more acceptable than white privilege? It could be said that the pendulum of equality has swung too far, to the point that men are being oppressed. But we know that this is not true. “What does an apple and a black man have in common? They both look better hung from a tree!” Most of us cringe at this remark. It contains very little humour, and primarily serves to make the joker seem horrible and to trivialise centuries of racial abuse. “What do you do when your dishwasher breaks? You hit her.” Fewer people cringe at this, and may even find it funny. But again, it contains very little humour, and primarily serves to make the joker seem horrible and to trivialise centuries of domestic violence. Perhaps unlike mass lynchings of black people, domestic violence persists to this day. That is not to say that racism no longer exists, but that even when the most horrific period in race history is behind us, we still cringe at the joke. Yet sexism is ongoing. 1 in 4 women in the UK will suffer violence at the hands of a current or former partner. 75% of mothers have primary responsibility for childcare, meaning that many women feel a duty to their traditional roles. Even today, when the genders are supposedly equal, many women still find themselves bearing the responsibility of childcare, washing, cooking and cleaning in the household. Almost all rape victims are women. One study found that 50% of new mothers in management positions in shops and restaurants resigned their positions to take up lower-paid part-time work instead. And 75% of people with eating disorders are women. So this leaves me to ask: when did sexism stop being serious? Why do we laugh at sexism, when it shown to still be a huge issue? The fact of the matter is, this is far from a matriarchy. Women make up 22% of UK Parliament, and even fewer in US politics. 12% of FTSE 100’s index of leading shares have female CEOs on their boards. According to the World Economic Forum’s reliable Gender Gap Report, the UK is less gender equal than 14 countries, the US less than 30. On political empowerment both countries fare considerably worse. “I met a black man recently,” said David Cameron in the first televised debate before the election, “and he said there really is a problem.” Cameron was using this as evidence that immigration was wildly out of control. The expected of effect of the statement was to show that even immigrants hate immigration! And if they say it, it must be true. “You’ve really helped me in growing a notable dislike for feminists - i’m female.” said a cowardly questioner in Attack of the Anonymous. What’s this? A woman doesn’t like feminists? This throws my whole world upside down. Women are the main benefactors of feminism. And if they say it, it must be true. The use of oppressed testimony to justify oppression is not new. In Michael Buerk’s offensive documentary, most of the interviewed experts are women. They are empowered women saying that the family unit has been destroyed by feminism, that women should never have gone out to work as they have, and that men are left as formless shapes unable to make any impact on society. But their testimony is not made more poignant by their gender. Once again, women are used as political weapons to justify a cause. Just like PETA’s use of women as objects to encourage vegetarianism, or Time magazine’s deplorable use of Afghan woman Aisha’s experience with Taliban violence to justify our war efforts. The BNP have recently aquired a Sikh member, who believes immigration to be out of control. A group of EDL protesters shouted “HOW ARE WE RACIST” while brandishing their only black member. Again, bigots justify their discrimination by the chorus of recently oppressed people standing beside them. Recently empowered women turn around to Michael Buerk and tell him “you’re right. We have got out of control. We never deserved this.” The difference between the BNP, EDL and the documentary is that the latter was funded by a mainstream TV channel and shown to a national audience with no remorse.  Sexism is given more credence than any other prejudice. We find ourselves forgetting one of society’s key inequalities, while statistics show it to still exist. While we would never watch a programme about black people taking control of our country, our family values and taking away our freedom, many watch ‘Man-Hating Matriarchy’ with fervent agreement. WHY? BECAUSE SEXISM HAS BECOME HIDDEN AND SUBTLE. While feminists fight for all the causes they did in the 70s which have not yet been reached, the general public believes feminists have damaged society. They believe that women have ‘feminised’ men, to the point that they have abandoned their traditionally noble roles. THIS IS NOT TRUE. SEXISM IS VERY MUCH ALIVE. DO NOT BELIEVE THE MISOGYNISTS. THIS IS A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, AND WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO. Click for more Lighthouse Feminism. NEW! Click for The Lighthouse Book! kypri replied: Just gotta interject and say that I love the word “trans-topia”. I liked it when I wrote it haha
Pop-upView Separately

Have you ever seen any of these programmes?

‘Living in a White-Hating Black Supremacy’
‘Living in a Straight-Hating Gay Empire’
‘Living in an Aristocrat-Hating Proletarian State’
‘Living in a Cisphobic Trans-topia’

No, I shouldn’t think that you have. Why? Because they don’t exist, and anyone suggesting them would immediately be cast off as a privileged bigot. To suggest that these oppressed and discriminated-against peoples have now taken over and become the establishment is ridiculous and extremely removed from reality.

But journalist Michael Buerk made a documentary. And its Youtube uploader called it:

LIVING IN A FEMINIST, MAN-HATING MATRIARCHY.

So what is it about misogyny that makes it more acceptable than other forms of prejudice? What is it about male privilege that makes it so much more acceptable than white privilege? It could be said that the pendulum of equality has swung too far, to the point that men are being oppressed. But we know that this is not true.

“What does an apple and a black man have in common? They both look better hung from a tree!”

Most of us cringe at this remark. It contains very little humour, and primarily serves to make the joker seem horrible and to trivialise centuries of racial abuse.

“What do you do when your dishwasher breaks? You hit her.”

Fewer people cringe at this, and may even find it funny. But again, it contains very little humour, and primarily serves to make the joker seem horrible and to trivialise centuries of domestic violence.

Perhaps unlike mass lynchings of black people, domestic violence persists to this day. That is not to say that racism no longer exists, but that even when the most horrific period in race history is behind us, we still cringe at the joke. Yet sexism is ongoing.

1 in 4 women in the UK will suffer violence at the hands of a current or former partner. 75% of mothers have primary responsibility for childcare, meaning that many women feel a duty to their traditional roles. Even today, when the genders are supposedly equal, many women still find themselves bearing the responsibility of childcare, washing, cooking and cleaning in the household. Almost all rape victims are women. One study found that 50% of new mothers in management positions in shops and restaurants resigned their positions to take up lower-paid part-time work instead. And 75% of people with eating disorders are women.

So this leaves me to ask: when did sexism stop being serious?

Why do we laugh at sexism, when it shown to still be a huge issue?

The fact of the matter is, this is far from a matriarchy. Women make up 22% of UK Parliament, and even fewer in US politics. 12% of FTSE 100’s index of leading shares have female CEOs on their boards. According to the World Economic Forum’s reliable Gender Gap Report, the UK is less gender equal than 14 countries, the US less than 30.

On political empowerment both countries fare considerably worse.

“I met a black man recently,” said David Cameron in the first televised debate before the election, “and he said there really is a problem.” Cameron was using this as evidence that immigration was wildly out of control. The expected of effect of the statement was to show that even immigrants hate immigration!

And if they say it, it must be true.

“You’ve really helped me in growing a notable dislike for feminists - i’m female.” said a cowardly questioner in Attack of the Anonymous. What’s this? A woman doesn’t like feminists? This throws my whole world upside down. Women are the main benefactors of feminism.

And if they say it, it must be true.

The use of oppressed testimony to justify oppression is not new. In Michael Buerk’s offensive documentary, most of the interviewed experts are women. They are empowered women saying that the family unit has been destroyed by feminism, that women should never have gone out to work as they have, and that men are left as formless shapes unable to make any impact on society. But their testimony is not made more poignant by their gender. Once again, women are used as political weapons to justify a cause. Just like PETA’s use of women as objects to encourage vegetarianism, or Time magazine’s deplorable use of Afghan woman Aisha’s experience with Taliban violence to justify our war efforts.

The BNP have recently aquired a Sikh member, who believes immigration to be out of control. A group of EDL protesters shouted “HOW ARE WE RACIST” while brandishing their only black member. Again, bigots justify their discrimination by the chorus of recently oppressed people standing beside them.

Recently empowered women turn around to Michael Buerk and tell him “you’re right. We have got out of control. We never deserved this.”

The difference between the BNP, EDL and the documentary is that the latter was funded by a mainstream TV channel and shown to a national audience with no remorse. 

Sexism is given more credence than any other prejudice. We find ourselves forgetting one of society’s key inequalities, while statistics show it to still exist. While we would never watch a programme about black people taking control of our country, our family values and taking away our freedom, many watch ‘Man-Hating Matriarchy’ with fervent agreement.

WHY? BECAUSE SEXISM HAS BECOME HIDDEN AND SUBTLE.

While feminists fight for all the causes they did in the 70s which have not yet been reached, the general public believes feminists have damaged society. They believe that women have ‘feminised’ men, to the point that they have abandoned their traditionally noble roles.

THIS IS NOT TRUE. SEXISM IS VERY MUCH ALIVE.

DO NOT BELIEVE THE MISOGYNISTS.

THIS IS A PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, AND WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO.

Click for more Lighthouse Feminism. NEW! Click for The Lighthouse Book!

kypri replied:

Just gotta interject and say that I love the word “trans-topia”.

I liked it when I wrote it haha

Southall Black Sisters appeal for survivors of acid (honour-)attacks: Donate to justgiving

Submitted by femblr:

The following is a letter sent out to supporters of the UK-based women’s group Southall Black Sisters regarding acid honour-attacks on women in India.

Dear Friends,

I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to donate generously to finance the medical costs and rehabilitation of Samar (31) and Juwariya (25) Atique whose young lives and hopes were brutally crushed in October 2009 by two men who threw a jug of acid on their faces as the women were returning home from a day’s work in a rickshaw.

Their crime – Juwariya had turned down a marriage proposal from one of the men!

My first ever feminist post was an exploration of this topic. It includes a link to a number of pictures of victims, which is thought-provoking to say the least. Violence against women is a problem the world over. The case of Katie Piper demonstrates how acid attacks have also reached our own shores, because the way the world believes in destroying women is through destruction of their appearance.

It shows how much emphasis we place on physical attraction.

When someone can burn off the face of another person because they asked for the right to be autonomous, we should know that gender is still a hugely divisive issue for the world.

These women are just two victims of a pervasive crime. Hopefully they can be helped but more importantly, they can draw attention to the root causes of their suffering: misogyny.

Ignorance is highly-resistant to reasoned argument. It is the best defence against it, and the best way to protect bigoted and illogical ideas. If you don’t know anything about a subject, how about making up your views from subjective experience and gross over-generalisations that are just as offensive as they are ridiculous? There is no proof that those statistics are even correct. My views are based on what is logical and what I know to be true, unlike yours. Here is a typical example of what I mean. Someone actually said this to me. When I use facts to back up my argument, this ignorant anonymous somehow disregarded the facts and replaced them with his or her own logic. What they ‘know to be true’ is based on their subjective experience in a balanced household, whereas I was quoting statistics that 75% of mothers have primary responsibility for childcare. This is proof that outdated gender roles are still very much a problem. But still, they argue. Right now I’m under fire again, because of a feminist infographic I put out months ago highlighting a few of the facts involved in my arguments (including the one above). I accumulated this knowledge from research, and bearing in mind I haven’t been a feminist blogger for very long, I would say I’ve done well to substantiate my arguments. Anti-feminists, however, do not need to do research. Anti-feminists believe they can disprove your arguments just by unlinking inequality from culture, by claiming that individual women (such as the 1 in 4 women who fall victim to domestic abuse who whale-nut called ‘door-mats’) are to blame, rather than society. Unsurprisingly, this victim-blaming approach does not appear to be reducing problems. As a society, we suffer more incidents of rape than other countries. The USA, for instance, is the 9th highest country for rape in the world. This is within the top ten hotspots for a crime the victims of which are 91% female. The UK trails on 13th, but is still ahead of Spain, France, Norway, Netherlands, Mexico, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Hong Kong, Japan, and India. To dispel claims that some countries have lower rates of rape reportage, I’ve included many highly mechanised Western European countries, which will of course have similar rates of reportage to us. The World Economic Forum, and we’re not talking about some fringe organisation, calculates an annual Global Gender Gap Index which is definitely worth looking at. In 2009, the top 10 countries were: Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, N. Zealand, S. Africa, Denmark, Ireland, Philippines, and Lesotho. Yes you read right: the UK and US are nowhere to be seen. This index represents political power, business power, and gender equality over the entire spectrum of modern life. Not only are our two countries not first, our two countries are not even in the top 10. If you don’t understand how we can change these inequalities, I suppose you could read up about it. But the feminists already know. The feminists have been doing their homework, and instead of trying to argue theoretically with a civil rights movement based on facts like the above, the feminists are thinking about how we can change it. It’s gonna take a lot more than appeals to nature to disprove the disastrous and factual basis of our arguments. You want facts? LEARN.
Pop-upView Separately

Ignorance is highly-resistant to reasoned argument. It is the best defence against it, and the best way to protect bigoted and illogical ideas. If you don’t know anything about a subject, how about making up your views from subjective experience and gross over-generalisations that are just as offensive as they are ridiculous?

There is no proof that those statistics are even correct. My views are based on what is logical and what I know to be true, unlike yours.

Here is a typical example of what I mean. Someone actually said this to me. When I use facts to back up my argument, this ignorant anonymous somehow disregarded the facts and replaced them with his or her own logic. What they ‘know to be true’ is based on their subjective experience in a balanced household, whereas I was quoting statistics that 75% of mothers have primary responsibility for childcare. This is proof that outdated gender roles are still very much a problem.

But still, they argue.

Right now I’m under fire again, because of a feminist infographic I put out months ago highlighting a few of the facts involved in my arguments (including the one above). I accumulated this knowledge from research, and bearing in mind I haven’t been a feminist blogger for very long, I would say I’ve done well to substantiate my arguments.

Anti-feminists, however, do not need to do research. Anti-feminists believe they can disprove your arguments just by unlinking inequality from culture, by claiming that individual women (such as the 1 in 4 women who fall victim to domestic abuse who whale-nut called ‘door-mats’) are to blame, rather than society.

Unsurprisingly, this victim-blaming approach does not appear to be reducing problems.

As a society, we suffer more incidents of rape than other countries. The USA, for instance, is the 9th highest country for rape in the world. This is within the top ten hotspots for a crime the victims of which are 91% female. The UK trails on 13th, but is still ahead of Spain, France, Norway, Netherlands, Mexico, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Hong Kong, Japan, and India. To dispel claims that some countries have lower rates of rape reportage, I’ve included many highly mechanised Western European countries, which will of course have similar rates of reportage to us.

The World Economic Forum, and we’re not talking about some fringe organisation, calculates an annual Global Gender Gap Index which is definitely worth looking at. In 2009, the top 10 countries were: Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, N. Zealand, S. Africa, Denmark, Ireland, Philippines, and Lesotho.

Yes you read right: the UK and US are nowhere to be seen. This index represents political power, business power, and gender equality over the entire spectrum of modern life. Not only are our two countries not first, our two countries are not even in the top 10.

If you don’t understand how we can change these inequalities, I suppose you could read up about it. But the feminists already know. The feminists have been doing their homework, and instead of trying to argue theoretically with a civil rights movement based on facts like the above, the feminists are thinking about how we can change it.

It’s gonna take a lot more than appeals to nature to disprove the disastrous and factual basis of our arguments.

You want facts?

LEARN.

Women Thrive Worldwide contacted me, and probably a lot of other people, to mention their 31 Days of Action campaign. This is for promotion of The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA). One in three of the world’s women will be violated or sexually abused during her lifetime, according to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. In some countries, women face a 71% likelihood of violence across a lifetime. Studies show that reducing violence against women can help reduce poverty. IVAWA, reintroduced to Congress in February 2010 with bipartisan support, seeks to empower women in effective, sustainable ways by focusing on local solutions. To help get IVAWA passed, Thrive has teamed up with Amnesty International USA and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, but the bill still lacks crucial support in both the House and Senate. By signing up for the campaign, you’ll receive a few brief emails giving you a list of actions, the longest of which takes about three minutes to complete, intended to support IVAWA. By the end of the month, Thrive hopes to raise $3,100. But even if you can’t donate money, you can help by donating your time, your voice, and your mind. I shouldn’t really endorse things on request, but it’s for a good cause. Violence against women and poverty are serious issues today.
Pop-upView Separately

Women Thrive Worldwide contacted me, and probably a lot of other people, to mention their 31 Days of Action campaign. This is for promotion of The International Violence Against Women Act (IVAWA).

One in three of the world’s women will be violated or sexually abused during her lifetime, according to the UN Commission on the Status of Women. In some countries, women face a 71% likelihood of violence across a lifetime. Studies show that reducing violence against women can help reduce poverty. IVAWA, reintroduced to Congress in February 2010 with bipartisan support, seeks to empower women in effective, sustainable ways by focusing on local solutions.

To help get IVAWA passed, Thrive has teamed up with Amnesty International USA and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, but the bill still lacks crucial support in both the House and Senate.

By signing up for the campaign, you’ll receive a few brief emails giving you a list of actions, the longest of which takes about three minutes to complete, intended to support IVAWA.

By the end of the month, Thrive hopes to raise $3,100. But even if you can’t donate money, you can help by donating your time, your voice, and your mind.

I shouldn’t really endorse things on request, but it’s for a good cause. Violence against women and poverty are serious issues today.

In April, I defined Lighthouse Brand Feminism, and now I’m here to update that definition. Hopefully I’ll also show why feminism is still of vital importance to the world. Here are my core issues: 1) THE SEX INDUSTRY In my posts about prostitution I have two main objections to it. On the one hand, there is the amount that women are coerced into prostitution, and the intrinsic link between legalised prostitution and human trafficking as is shown in Australia. There is evidence to suggest that, while illegal prostitution is far from ideal for those involved, there is less demand than there would be otherwise, and that legalised prostitution also increases the amount of prostitution. This objection is that 50% of indoor prostitutes are subjected to huge violence, that psychological damage is similar to victims of rape and that a majority would stop working if they could quit their drug habits. The other objection is this. Even if prostitution could be made 100% safe and populated by willing and healthy prostitutes, which I don’t believe it can, I still have a moral objection. Sex should not be a commodity to be sold. Women should not degrade themselves to the level of sex objects, and men should not be willing to exploit women for their own pleasure. This applies to the other wing of the sex industry, pornography. Even though those in the porn industry are ten times more likely to contract sexually transmitted infections, and although 94.4% of violence in pornography is aimed at women, there could be an ideal of safety. But, again, I would object because I don’t believe in buying sex. I don’t believe that while being naked in public is a criminal offence, filming sex acts and distributing them across the world is not. 2) REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS I wrote Why Be Pro-Choice to show why women must be allowed abortions. A recent story from Pennsylvania said a 13-year-old girl performed a DIY abortion with a pencil as a result of restrictive abortion laws. Abortions do not occur at a lower rate when the procedure is illegal, but they do become much more dangerous. Regardless of any individual’s moral views on the subject, it is necessary that women have access to safe abortions. Another important point about reproductive rights is the amount of control men have over women’s sexuality. In AIDS-infected regions of Africa, women think it improper to ask their boyfriend to use a condom. 50% of adolescent and young women find it inappropriate to tell a man he is being too rough or to say they ‘want to make love differently’. Men also implement what they have learnt from pornography, such as anal sex, which many women do not enjoy. 3) THE BEAUTY MYTH I admit to never having read Naomi Wolf’s classic book of the same name. I probably should. What I mean by the beauty myth is that I’m rebelling against the gender binary. The iron laws of femininity and masculinity that polarise humans, making men believe women are impossible to understand and vice versa. What I would prefer is for people to reject the reductionist stereotypes of gender and become the people we want to be, without being guys who play sports or girls who go shopping. Neither stereotype works for me. Also included here are the disgusting beauty standards of western society, under which physical appearance is a huge part of women’s routine and insecurities. Our emphasis on feminine beauty is the cause of millions of eating disorders across the western world. And it has to stop. Read the latest Lighthouse Feminism posts right here: http://i-am-the-lighthouse.tumblr.com/tagged/feminism The ‘Lighthouse Brand’ posts, which define my other views, can be found here: http://i-am-the-lighthouse.tumblr.com/tagged/lighthouse+brand
Pop-upView Separately

In April, I defined Lighthouse Brand Feminism, and now I’m here to update that definition. Hopefully I’ll also show why feminism is still of vital importance to the world. Here are my core issues:

1) THE SEX INDUSTRY

In my posts about prostitution I have two main objections to it.

On the one hand, there is the amount that women are coerced into prostitution, and the intrinsic link between legalised prostitution and human trafficking as is shown in Australia. There is evidence to suggest that, while illegal prostitution is far from ideal for those involved, there is less demand than there would be otherwise, and that legalised prostitution also increases the amount of prostitution.

This objection is that 50% of indoor prostitutes are subjected to huge violence, that psychological damage is similar to victims of rape and that a majority would stop working if they could quit their drug habits.

The other objection is this. Even if prostitution could be made 100% safe and populated by willing and healthy prostitutes, which I don’t believe it can, I still have a moral objection. Sex should not be a commodity to be sold. Women should not degrade themselves to the level of sex objects, and men should not be willing to exploit women for their own pleasure.

This applies to the other wing of the sex industry, pornography. Even though those in the porn industry are ten times more likely to contract sexually transmitted infections, and although 94.4% of violence in pornography is aimed at women, there could be an ideal of safety. But, again, I would object because I don’t believe in buying sex. I don’t believe that while being naked in public is a criminal offence, filming sex acts and distributing them across the world is not.

2) REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

I wrote Why Be Pro-Choice to show why women must be allowed abortions. A recent story from Pennsylvania said a 13-year-old girl performed a DIY abortion with a pencil as a result of restrictive abortion laws. Abortions do not occur at a lower rate when the procedure is illegal, but they do become much more dangerous. Regardless of any individual’s moral views on the subject, it is necessary that women have access to safe abortions.

Another important point about reproductive rights is the amount of control men have over women’s sexuality. In AIDS-infected regions of Africa, women think it improper to ask their boyfriend to use a condom. 50% of adolescent and young women find it inappropriate to tell a man he is being too rough or to say they ‘want to make love differently’. Men also implement what they have learnt from pornography, such as anal sex, which many women do not enjoy.

3) THE BEAUTY MYTH

I admit to never having read Naomi Wolf’s classic book of the same name. I probably should. What I mean by the beauty myth is that I’m rebelling against the gender binary. The iron laws of femininity and masculinity that polarise humans, making men believe women are impossible to understand and vice versa. What I would prefer is for people to reject the reductionist stereotypes of gender and become the people we want to be, without being guys who play sports or girls who go shopping. Neither stereotype works for me.

Also included here are the disgusting beauty standards of western society, under which physical appearance is a huge part of women’s routine and insecurities. Our emphasis on feminine beauty is the cause of millions of eating disorders across the western world. And it has to stop.

Read the latest Lighthouse Feminism posts right here:

http://i-am-the-lighthouse.tumblr.com/tagged/feminism

The ‘Lighthouse Brand’ posts, which define my other views, can be found here:

http://i-am-the-lighthouse.tumblr.com/tagged/lighthouse+brand